Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run?

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Interresting poll but doesnt it leave out if the possibilities of whether there is actually a choice. It seems to be forgotten that some test games vs done of high quality players where the russian stayed. It was a blow out.

Blow out you mean an easy victory?

That is, staying and fighting is not a viable playing option for the Soviet player?

Yes it as in an easy german victory or rather the russian gave up around turn 11.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[fbs]

So let me see if I'm getting this right.

Part of the folks are saying that it would un-historical if the Soviets didn't stand and fight as they did in 1941, and there was no political/practical/etc... way that they could have run.

But, if they stand and fight in game, then they loose (at least against a knowledgeable German player).

Also, if they run in game, then they win, as there's no way for the German player to capitalize against that strategy.

Is that right?

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: fbs

So let me see if I'm getting this right.

Part of the folks are saying that it would un-historical if the Soviets didn't stand and fight as they did in 1941, and there was no political/practical/etc... way that they could have run.

But, if they stand and fight in game, then they loose (at least against a knowledgeable German player).

Yes. One has to know and im not out not change it in the current set up as it would unbalance the current setup.
The number of both units and manpower/mobilization that the russian sides gets is far below the historic mobilization numbers in 1941. So in essense in that above mentione game the russian ran out of units.
If one is to have a game limiting the russians to stay and fight hard by some VC or what ever, with no change to the current set up. Not giving more units/manpower i would say ur correct in case of a knowledgeable German player, there isnt much of a game.
This also becomes a problem when trying to compare russian losses in game to more historic figurs. If u dont get the historic Manpower but is "required" to take historic losses it leaves a very low strength closer to non excisting russian army ingame. ill say by now most of these cries have subsided and the dicussed figurs on how much teh russians are required to take is more in line with what the games gives the russian side.
It will work to some extend with unexperience or below average german skilled players tho. If ppl dont have the skills to create pockets arent using HQBUs and so on. Sure it will be seen that a russian player can stop a german player in the current set up. note that with the moral issue of teh last 3-4 months that has ofc worsend but that is now fixed and we will see how that fix affects the results. All things given u should see genrreally speaking see lower russian moral in 41 easing it on the german player, as compared to since 1.07.06 was released.

This is also partly why russians run, if in essense not the overwrittenly reason to do so. One is much more accutly aware of the need to preserve an army to be able to come back. As u dont get it from mobilization to the extend u can just friter away units more or less indescriminatly as done historic. If u play a as u say knowledgeable German player, this IMO is ur biggest concern as a russian player. How to preserve ur army while evacing as much as possible but the former usually take presedence over the latter. See in case MT / Kamils game where running was more importand to save an army than saving industry. Leaving him per MT posts with 262 arm factories, well below per scn 43 335 historic number. Again here with the causality. What creates what?

ORIGINAL: fbs
Also, if they run in game, then they win, as there's no way for the German player to capitalize against that strategy.

Is that right?

That is the saying. I dont think its correct but thats the saying, if it comes to a full run strategy no stops. There are also when u look at AARs a number of AARs going either way.
One has to know that ppl dont necesarrily mean the same when they say run away. As u can see in posts written by different ppl in the last few days. One says u ofc have to do a checkerboard retreat to slow down the russian advance, othes talk of a run right of the bat to Moscow / Rostov.
This is both refered to as a run strategy but well IMO they're 2 different things.

There is the run away that in essense referes to the ability of the russian to freely move his units as he pleases. Fighting a fighting withdrawl trying to stay out of range for pockets withdrawing a set number of hexes every turn dependning on the german advance, while not giving more ground that necesarry. This refered to as running cuz they german opponents feels they cant create pockets. The natural counter in that mindset is to tie teh russian down some how while leaving the axis with free hands. I would say teh russian does this effectively and it can happen against a below average german player u can save historic if not more than so industry. The skill of the russian player ofc also playing its part.

Then there is ill run as fast as i can to Moscow/Rostov. In that strategy which IMO is markedly different than the above but both are refered to as running, IMO a average too above german player should be able to capture more than the historic evacuated industry, if playing a equally skill russian player. So the saying is that its free to do this, but i question that. As a german player in this case u hafta recogniese this and go for a full capture industry strategy as early as possible. Not that u shouldnt create pockets if u have the chance but if the chances isnt there u shouldnt waste time/MP on chasing some thing that isnt there. If ppl stay in the "I need to capture troops mindset" in these cases they giving them selfs an disadvanatge. Capture as many industry and cities as fast as u can reduce the manopwer that the russian gets from then on. Off setting to some degree the non losses, in lower Manpower production.

And then there is every thing inbetween those.

It ofc doesnt help that every thing is refered too as running, while that actually covers different approches to a fairly large degree.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[morvael]

The problem is Soviets didn't run, because they percieved themselves strong enough (if not stronger) than the Germans, so they launched their own counterattacks in the early days of the invasion. A player starts the game with units already rated according to their real capabilities and what choice is there with all those ants? Run!

[Gabriel B.]

Off topic:

Rasmus , why on earth 54,000 sicknes casses in june (9 days ) and only 17,000 for july (whole month )?

It is something that i had not found reasonable explanation without resorting to speculation .

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: morvael

The problem is Soviets didn't run, because they percieved themselves strong enough (if not stronger) than the Germans, so they launched their own counterattacks in the early days of the invasion. A player starts the game with units already rated according to their real capabilities and what choice is there with all those ants? Run!

True to a large extend, adding that these counter attacks in cases costed the german days of advancing and men and materiel. Thats hardly the case if u counter attack in game in turns 1-2-3 as russian. U dont gain those benefits.
I've never seen a case as of the battle of Brody ever happening in any AAR or any thing compareble. In history they might have been in vain and foolish but they had an effect and wasnt costless on the german side, that isnt shown in game.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Off topic:

Rasmus , why on earth 54,000 sicknes casses in june (9 days ) and only 17,000 for july (whole month )?

It is something that i had not found reasonable explanation without resorting to speculation .

Not that know of no. Other than its not 9 days. Its for the full month of june. The counting didnt start on the 22th of june, but on the first of june. Ppl can ofc have gotten sick pre the 22th june and is then part of the 54000. Unlike, they're much less likely to have gotten wounded or died before the 22th june. Some accidents proberbly happend but one has to assume its very low numbers.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Gabriel B.]

That makes sense , however the july losses are fairly low due to sickness compared to the other months .

[Gabriel B.]

ORIGINAL: fbs

So let me see if I'm getting this right.

Part of the folks are saying that it would un-historical if the Soviets didn't stand and fight as they did in 1941, and there was no political/practical/etc... way that they could have run.

But, if they stand and fight in game, then they loose (at least against a knowledgeable German player).

Also, if they run in game, then they win, as there's no way for the German player to capitalize against that strategy.

Is that right?

Do not underextimate the speed which the axis can move , you need to put up a better show than the AI , otherwise the axis is at the gates of Moskow in july.

[mmarquo]

The logistics system is so broken that the Soviet player has no choice but to run as the Axis units are rarely impeded by low supply; here is a screen shot from my experience with MTours. By mid-September the railroad net extends from Germany to Rzhev and even further northeast...this coupled with complete fantasy flying fuel birds makes logistics in WITE1 the single most impediment to any semblance of a competitive game against a precise mathematician such as MT or MTours.

So the problem with running is that the Soviet simply can't run fast enough if playing against a mathematical exploiter (no disrespect meant) because with MPs of 40 -50 there is nowhere to go. And by leapfrogging it makes no difference if the stack of panzers is cutoff or not. Stacked with a HQ which has been air-fueled by 13 runs of bombers, there is no real logistical penalty so the stack simply fights out like a knife through butter.



By the way, would somebody explain to me how it is even possible for the RR net to move far forward in 14 moves; its not like there was no resistance at all [:)]

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

The logistics system is so broken that the Soviet player has no choice but to run as the Axis units are rarely impeded by low supply; here is a screen shot from my experience with MTours. By mid-September the railroad net extends from Germany to Rzhev and even further northeast...this coupled with complete fantasy flying fuel birds makes logistics in WITE1 the single most impediment to any semblance of a competitive game against a precise mathematician such as MT or MTours.

So the problem with running is that the Soviet simply can't run fast enough if playing against a mathematical exploiter (no disrespect meant) because with MPs of 40 -50 there is nowhere to go. And by leapfrogging it makes no difference if the stack of panzers is cutoff or not. Stacked with a HQ which has been air-fueled by 13 runs of bombers, there is no real logistical penalty so the stack simply fights out like a knife through butter.



By the way, would somebody explain to me how it is even possible for the RR net to move far forward in 14 moves; its not like there was no resistance at all [:)]

THIS - one of the main reasons I have been reluctant to pick the game back up is the ability of players (perfectly legally, of course) to do this kind of stuff, which leads to panzers warping all over the place out of any proportion to reality. That in turn leads to the run aways and checkerboards, which aren't fun for anyone. I suppose the very best optimizers can in turn do some (legal) tricks with the Soviets, but I am not one of those.

Hoping to start a new game shortly with some good rules to bring things back to earth for both sides, so we'll see what is possible.

[loki100]

there is a solution - reset the default logistics into the 70-80 range and agree a house rule about bombers as flying garages.

Not perfect, but it starts to end this sort of nonsense and gives any offensive a more realistic stop-start feel to it

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: loki100

there is a solution - reset the default logistics into the 70-80 range and agree a house rule about bombers as flying garages.

Not perfect, but it starts to end this sort of nonsense and gives any offensive a more realistic stop-start feel to it

I'm afraid this just opens up new problems, on the Soviet end rather than the Axis. We're at the stage where simple tweaks in the game no longer do much. It's pretty much like punching a pillow.

We need a whole new pillow.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have no idea why anyone who wants to game at war would decide to move all units away from the enemy as fast as possible from the get go. I have better things to do with my time.

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VV1PrbkK3E

[darbycmcd]

Flavuisx, I am interested in what you see are going to be problems for the Soviets. I am starting a small test with the revisted logistics settings, but have just started and haven't gotten far enough to make any conclusions. What do you think I should be looking forward to?

[Flaviusx]

The problem, of course, is the people who run away and refuse to fight any kind of forward defense will continue to do so even if the logistics are tamed and make it possible to stand your ground and make the Axis work for it. So Axis advances will stall out early. It's not enough in the end to get the logistics right and bring down the op tempo.

Then that takes us into further issues: the Soviet replacement system doesn't really support a strong forward defense in 1941, as it considerably understates the Soviet ability to take a hit in the chin. So even if you somehow contrive to get the Soviet to stand his ground, he can't recover from historical level losses in 1941. And you can go down further iterations here.

I just don't see any easy fixes. The entire design needs a fresh look from the ground up, things are so interrelated that you cannot just cherry pick one single thing, tweak it, and call it a day, every tweak just leads on to the next issue. Only a comprehensive makeover can hope to resolve this.

[carlkay58]

I will do a better detailed explanation of the Logistics settings tomorrow when I have some more time. But this is most likely NOT the fix you think it is for the supply situation.

[darbycmcd]

Ah, I see what you mean Flaviusx.... I think you are ultimately right, but I am a little less pessimistic that the game CAN deliver a good experience given the right the treatment

Thanks for taking the time Carl.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Then that takes us into further issues: the Soviet replacement system doesn't really support a strong forward defense in 1941, as it considerably understates the Soviet ability to take a hit in the chin. So even if you somehow contrive to get the Soviet to stand his ground, he can't recover from historical level losses in 1941.

Interesting. Long ago I tried to convince the Devs that the auto-rebuilt Russian Divisions that are supposed to come back as unready shells, in fact arrive on map in ready status and pretty much at full strength. Seems it hinged on a technicality that they arrive before the replacements phase as unready shells but get filled up right away and the player only sees them as full strength ready units, although at minimal morale.

The point being that there are a lot replacements skimmed off by this process that historically I think should more than likely be going directly to the front, rather than getting siphoned off to rebuild destroyed units.

[Aurelian]

The whole situation makes it increasingly plain that we have underestimated the Russian colossus...At the outset of war, we reckoned with about 200 enemy divisions. Now we have already counted 360. But there they are, and if we smash a dozen of them, the Russians simply put up another dozen.”
From the diary of General Franz Halder, August 11, 1941

I don't think the game conveys that well.