Any news from 1.07.14.?

[Tarhunnas]

Oh, I see, I never did get around to buying Lost Battles, I never play the scenarios anyway. I am a GC type. But I should, if nothing else 2B3 deserves the money for their excellent support of the game.

[Shiva the Destroyer]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

One really important change I would like to see but which I probably never will is a limitation in how many armies can attack at the same time

This is what I really like about Schwerpunkts advanced supply system. You can only put so many units in to attack supply. It limits the offensive capability for both sides. I works really well.

As for Sudden death it does not solve the problems of a Soviet run away in early 41. It needs a check in August/Sept to do that. I asked for it but it did not happen. The SD rules work to prevent a German run in winter 41 and for both sides from that point on. So other means are neccesary to prevent the Soviets running in summer 41. Hence the rail limit. That reduces the factory evac thus forcing the Soviets to fight further forward. Otherwise you could put a HR SD rule in for the Soviets in 41 and leave the rail alone.

A game rail capacity limit (if not a selectable OPTION) would be just as artificial as the 1v1=2v1 and would seriously impair the 'What if' exploration of game play.
The reason for the active forward (offensive) actions of the Red Army in the first few days was because of 3 disastrous Russian High Command Directives issued the first day

To wit:

First Directive: (ref: The Road to Stalingrad, The Sunday Blow: 22 June 1941 pg. 110)

To Military Soviets Leningrad MD, Baltic MD, Western MD, Kiev MD, Odessa MD.

Copy People's Commissar for the Navy

1. During the course of 22-23.6.41 a surprise attack by the Germans on the fronts of the Leningrad,
Baltic Special, Western Special, Kiev Special and Odessa Military Districts is possible.

2. The assignment of our forces – not to give way to provocative actions of any kind which might
produce major complications. At the same time troops of the Leningrad, Baltic Special, Western
Special, Kiev Special and Odessa Military Districts to be at full combat readiness, to meet a possible
surprise blow by the Germans and their allies.
3, I thereby order:
(a) during the night of 22.6.41 secretly to man the fire-points of the fortified districts (URS) on the
state frontiers;
(b) before dawn on 22.6.41 to disperse all aircraft including military planes among field aerodromes
and thoroughly camouflage the machines;
(c) all units to be brought to a state of readiness. Troops to be held in dispersed form and kept
camouflaged;
(d) air defence forces to be brought to combat readiness without drawing on reservists personnel.
Preparation of all measures to black out cities and installations;
(e) no other measures to be taken without special authorizations

Timoshenko Zhukov



(ref: The Road to Stalingrad, The Sunday Blow: 22 June 1941 pg. 124)

Directive No. 2
22 June 1941 at 04.00 hours in the morning German aircraft without any cause whatsoever carried out flights over aerodromes and towns along the length of the frontier and proceeded to bomb them. Simultaneously in a number of places German troops opened fire with artillery and penetrated the frontier,
In connection with the unprecedented attack by Germany on the Soviet Union, I issue these orders:

1. Troops in full strength and with all means at their disposal will attack the enemy and destroy him in
those places where he has violated the Soviet frontier.
In the absence of special authorization, ground troops will not cross the frontier line.

2. Reconnaissance and attack aircraft will locate the concentration areas of enemy aircraft and the
deployment of his ground forces. Bomber and ground-attack aircraft will destroy with powerful
blows the aircraft on enemy aerodromes and will bomb the main concentrations of his ground
forces. Aviation strikes will be mounted to a depth of 100-150 kilometres in German territory.
Konigsberg and Memel will be bombed.
No flights over Finland and Rumania to take place without special authorization.



(ref: The Road to Stalingrad, The Sunday Blow: 22 June 1941 pg. 132)

Of the nature and extent of this catastrophe 'the centre' seemed to know little or nothing. The Defense Commissariat and the General Staff were painstakenly trying to piece together some of the details. Nevertheless, towards the end of this ghastly day, at 21.15 hours on 22 June 1941 Timoshenko issued the last of the blundering directives,

Directive No. 3, which prescribed nothing less than all three Soviet Fronts taking the offensive. The object was to hurl the German Army back in one massive attack, ending it all with a single blow. The North-Western and Western Fronts, each employing their rifle divisions plus two mechanized corps, were to mount coordinated operations from Kaunas and Grodno, thus carrying the war on to enemy territory and by the evening of 24 June – having encircled and destroyed the enemy – would occupy the Suwalki area. Front operations would be supported by the long-range bomber force (ADD), The South-Western Front was ordered to use 5th and 6th Armies supported by 'several' mechanized corps to destroy with 'concentric blows' those enemy forces operating on the Vladimir-Volynsk/Krystonopol front and by the evening of 24 June the Soviet force would invest the area of Lublin, having also 'secured itself' from the direction of Cracow and simultaneously defending the state frontier with Hungary. On the flanks of the Soviet-German front Red Army troops were restricted to 'defensive assignments', covering the state frontier and preventing enemy penetrations.

What is really needed is OPTIONAL Command/Control movement limitations for those units originally attached to the Northern Front, Northwestern Front, Southern Front, and Southwestern Front commands. This might include NO rail move capability for those specifically attached units for the first turn or so.

[Michael T]

I bought Lost Battles just for the SD campaign game and to support the devs.

There is no reason why players could not agree to a HR SD check in mid summer 41.

You just need to come up with the number of VP that will trigger it. The key would be to force the Soviet in to defending the South, west of the Dniepr. Then the wholesale movement of troops to the north would be curbed and the brick wall we see would have less bricks.

[jwolf]

What is really needed is OPTIONAL Command/Control movement limitations for those units originally attached to the Northern Front, Northwestern Front, Southern Front, and Southwestern Front commands. This might include NO rail move capability for those specifically attached units for the first turn or so.

(from Gray Lensman above)

Rather than code these temporary restrictions into the game, IMHO it would make a lot more sense to have a separate campaign scenario starting at the historical positions of, say, July 1 1941.  Frankly, the first move (or possibly the first two) are so unusual it is no surprise that they are causing such controversy within the WITE community.

[Shiva the Destroyer]

ORIGINAL: jwolf
...
Rather than code these temporary restrictions into the game, IMHO it would make a lot more sense to have a separate campaign scenario starting at the historical positions of, say, July 1 1941.  Frankly, the first move (or possibly the first two) are so unusual it is no surprise that they are causing such controversy within the WITE community.

I would argue that it would be far easier to code temporary restrictions into the game than to try to find a valid OOB and unit location of Soviet and German units just 2 to 3 weeks into the war, considering the chaotic/fluid situation that existed at that time.

[1jasonoz]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

A VP system that discourages Soviet runaways!

I'd previously made the suggestion that if the Soviets simply run away as soon as they are attacked, why not invoke the supposed Soviet overtures made to the Germans prior to the commencement of Operation Typhoon but these were re-jected by Hitler who wanted un-conditional surrender whilst the Soviets wanted the ceasation of hostilities along the line of the then front line?

Why shouldn't the German player be able to achieve a sudden death victory if the Soviets simply run away and they can attain something similar to the historical German invasion conditions when this peace overture was made prior to operation Typhoon; i.e. count land captured (cities etc) and soviet casualties suffered (and similar German casualties). Maybe give certain cities double their VP value if captured by the Germans in 1941, say Moscow, Leningrad, Kursk, Rostov etc to discourage the Soviets from just falling back? Or simply give all cities double their VP value if they captured earlier in 1941 by the Germans than they were historically?

This would have the affect of stopping Soviet players from simply retreating in the face of German advances and actually having to put up some resistance, whilst also requiring the Germans to manage their attacks for fear of breaching the historical German casualties and not meeting this sudden death victory condition (and faced with a longer war than they were prepared for?)

[swkuh]

For H2H play, think SD conditions such as suggested could be negotiated, but coded terms would nice. Vs. AI, coded solutions would be very nice.

There are a few map changes for rivers & swamps, around the Neva and just in front of AGS (others?) would be cool.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: 1jasonoz

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

A VP system that discourages Soviet runaways!

I'd previously made the suggestion that if the Soviets simply run away as soon as they are attacked, why not invoke the supposed Soviet overtures made to the Germans prior to the commencement of Operation Typhoon but these were re-jected by Hitler who wanted un-conditional surrender whilst the Soviets wanted the ceasation of hostilities along the line of the then front line?

Why shouldn't the German player be able to achieve a sudden death victory if the Soviets simply run away and they can attain something similar to the historical German invasion conditions when this peace overture was made prior to operation Typhoon; i.e. count land captured (cities etc) and soviet casualties suffered (and similar German casualties). Maybe give certain cities double their VP value if captured by the Germans in 1941, say Moscow, Leningrad, Kursk, Rostov etc to discourage the Soviets from just falling back? Or simply give all cities double their VP value if they captured earlier in 1941 by the Germans than they were historically?

This would have the affect of stopping Soviet players from simply retreating in the face of German advances and actually having to put up some resistance, whilst also requiring the Germans to manage their attacks for fear of breaching the historical German casualties and not meeting this sudden death victory condition (and faced with a longer war than they were prepared for?)

I think you just need to pick three mid-sized to major cities, one in the North, one in the Center and one in the South and require the Soviet to hold at least one of them past Turn 7 or 8 (or whatever). Pskov, Smolensk and Kiev make good options...most of the "retreat" strategies would generally give up each of these prior to this point. Like you, I think it would make for a better game and some really frenetic fighting as the German players gambled to score the early victory.

[Flaviusx]

Hfarrish, those aren't good choices. A good German player is bound to take at least one of those 3 by turn 7 and I'm betting two out of those three. This is practically an autowin.

Get rid of the Lvov opener and then we can talk. That has to be a precondition for any sort of front wide stand early on. Here's the thing, as things presently stand, the Soviet can build a wall on about a third of the front, rely on terrain on another third (the Pripyet and the rivers just east of it) and has very little to defend with on the southern third as a result of the opener.

Force a premature stand along the whole front along with the usual opener, and the Red Army will just be wrecked. You're essentially piling on a second Kiev pocket on top of the Kiev pocket equivalent that occurs on turn one (the near destruction of SW Front.)

You cannot muck around with the VPs until the surprise turn is adjusted. Has to be a package deal.

I get there is a problem here. This solution is even worse.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Hfarrish, those aren't good choices. A good German player is bound to take at least one of those 3 by turn 7 and I'm betting two out of those three. This is practically an autowin.

Get rid of the Lvov opener and then we can talk. That has to be a precondition for any sort of front wide stand early on. Here's the thing, as things presently stand, the Soviet can build a wall on about a third of the front, rely on terrain on another third (the Pripyet and the rivers just east of it) and has very little to defend with on the southern third as a result of the opener.

Force a premature stand along the whole front along with the usual opener, and the Red Army will just be wrecked. You're essentially piling on a second Kiev pocket on top of the Kiev pocket equivalent that occurs on turn one (the near destruction of SW Front.)

You cannot muck around with the VPs until the surprise turn is adjusted. Has to be a package deal.

I get there is a problem here. This solution is even worse.

I'm not so sure (and this is from a player who only plays as the Soviets in the 41GC). Kiev can be held past Turn 7 in most games...maybe not if it becomes a target for the Germans but there are big tradeoffs for them in doing so (rather than flanking further South). Pskov almost certainly a lost cause, Smolensk maybe. Maybe it's not Pskov then but Novgorod. I would be willing to take someone on with this rule since I have been trying to play my games accordingly anyway.

Point is, I know for a fact the Soviets can still hang on and fight with a reasonable forward defense that would prevent all the "wall of steel" stuff we've been hearing about. I think this framework (and as you point out, a robust debate can be had over this city or that and timing) is workable without the wholesale overhaul to the game that ending Lvov would require (and I am assuming no "extended Lvov" here).

I agree, Lvov should go, but that fundamentally changes so many things that adding a few victory conditions wouldn't be enough.

[Flaviusx]

If you just add VPs all you are doing is creating a snowball that will be difficult if not impossible to recover from.

It's all about managing the momentum of the campaign. Right now it is grossly accelerated at the beginning and then stalls out. The solution to this isn't to accelerate it some more. It is to smooth it out. Slow it down at the beginning, create the conditions for the Red Army to offer a forward defense, but force them to make that forward defense.

We've seen this time and again that a forward Soviet defense along the whole of the front in this game is simply not possible. The Red Army gets gobbled up, falls behind the curve and is nibbled to death. The replacement mechanics don't support these kind of losses.

Smooth the son of a bitch out. And that means a package deal, not just throwing in an early sudden death check and calling it a day.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you just add VPs all you are doing is creating a snowball that will be difficult if not impossible to recover from.

It's all about managing the momentum of the campaign. Right now it is grossly accelerated at the beginning and then stalls out. The solution to this isn't to accelerate it some more. It is to smooth it out. Slow it down at the beginning, create the conditions for the Red Army to offer a forward defense, but force them to make that forward defense.

We've seen this time and again that a forward Soviet defense along the whole of the front in this game is simply not possible. The Red Army gets gobbled up, falls behind the curve and is nibbled to death. The replacement mechanics don't support these kind of losses.

Smooth the son of a bitch out. And that means a package deal, not just throwing in an early sudden death check and calling it a day.

I think that used to be true, but with the logistics nerfs, particularly the end of the magic flying gas can, I don't think it holds. I'm not talking about suicide here or throwing every unit onto the Berezina, but about a system that avoids what we saw in the Callistrid v. SmokinDave match (which had been a pretty standard Soviet approach, including for me)...flee to the wall of steel from Leningrad to Vyzama and then blast the Germans with refitted units.

Playing a game against Marquo (who is not a slouch) along these lines and it has been a lot of fun. We are in 42 and it will be touch and go for both sides, as it should be. I lost a lot of divisions in pockets, there was lots of counterattacking (ultimately burning myself out in spots...since I didn't have units refitting in the rear morale was not that high), and both armies entered the blizzard weak and beaten up.

[gingerbread]

Thing is, if the Soviets are made to take 500k extra losses until Nov '41, those 500k are not there during the '42 summer campaign either.

There are very few AAR from '42 with a recent build and at least one of them shows the Soviet not being able to form the wall leading to an Axis win.

I don't think that the mild winter and min(NM,50) as training limit has not been tested for balance enough.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

Thing is, if the Soviets are made to take 500k extra losses until Nov '41, those 500k are not there during the '42 summer campaign either.

There are very few AAR from '42 with a recent build and at least one of them shows the Soviet not being able to form the wall leading to an Axis win.

I don't think that the mild winter and min(NM,50) as training limit has not been tested for balance enough.

In the AAR in question the Soviet clearly took way too much damage in '41. If you lose that much you should seriously struggle in '42, one would think.

[Michael T]

FWIW I think the game is so far out of whack now and with so many different opinions on what is the best solution that no general consensus will ever be reached. It will be up to individual players to negotiate various options and HR to suit themselves to get the game they want. As for myself I will list a set of conditions that I think are fair and simply offer to play either side.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It's all about managing the momentum of the campaign. Right now it is grossly accelerated at the beginning and then stalls out. The solution to this isn't to accelerate it some more. It is to smooth it out. Slow it down at the beginning, create the conditions for the Red Army to offer a forward defense, but force them to make that forward defense.

Smooth the son of a bitch out. And that means a package deal, not just throwing in an early sudden death check and calling it a day.

Hear, hear!

[1jasonoz]

I'd be more than happy as a German player to get rid of the opening Lvov pocket to make the game more historical. In return the Soviets where penalised if they didn't respond like the Soviets did during the first few months and instead simply ran away as per the standard WITE Soviet player and wait for General Commissioner Winter to stop the Germans.

If Soviet players want to run away then they should suffer something in return; major cities being worth twice their VP if they are captured say a month before they where historically.

[Tarhunnas]

The supply system has a lot to do with the tempo of operations being too high. In the real Campaign, the Germans could not pursue offensives on all fronts at the same time even in 1941. They had to chose, attack in the Ukraine and a pause on the central front, concentrate on Moscow and pause in front of Leningrad. In the game, you can happily attack on all fronts at the same time as the German (and as the Soviet in the later part of the war).

It is really almost a tragedy that we have an extremely detailed and very good game that keeps track of every single tank and Sdkfz whatever and even rifle squad on the entire Eastern Front, but the supply system is wildly unrealistic, and the VP system seems thrown in as an afterthought.

A better supply system would have made it a better simualtion, and a better VP system would make it a better game from a playability standpoint.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you just add VPs all you are doing is creating a snowball that will be difficult if not impossible to recover from.

It's all about managing the momentum of the campaign. Right now it is grossly accelerated at the beginning and then stalls out. The solution to this isn't to accelerate it some more. It is to smooth it out. Slow it down at the beginning, create the conditions for the Red Army to offer a forward defense, but force them to make that forward defense.

We've seen this time and again that a forward Soviet defense along the whole of the front in this game is simply not possible. The Red Army gets gobbled up, falls behind the curve and is nibbled to death. The replacement mechanics don't support these kind of losses.

Smooth the son of a bitch out. And that means a package deal, not just throwing in an early sudden death check and calling it a day.

+1
Complete agree with Flaviusx here. Couldn't have summed it up better. In all my experience with WitE, this is always largest looming factor. Of course the combat engine, I've never really care for either [:'(]. But know Gary historically never want to tweak it much. Glad that stance has since changed...

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you just add VPs all you are doing is creating a snowball that will be difficult if not impossible to recover from.

It's all about managing the momentum of the campaign. Right now it is grossly accelerated at the beginning and then stalls out. The solution to this isn't to accelerate it some more. It is to smooth it out. Slow it down at the beginning, create the conditions for the Red Army to offer a forward defense, but force them to make that forward defense.

We've seen this time and again that a forward Soviet defense along the whole of the front in this game is simply not possible. The Red Army gets gobbled up, falls behind the curve and is nibbled to death. The replacement mechanics don't support these kind of losses.

Smooth the son of a bitch out. And that means a package deal, not just throwing in an early sudden death check and calling it a day.

+1
Complete agree with Flaviusx here. Couldn't have summed it up better. In all my experience with WitE, this is always largest looming factor. Of course the combat engine, I've never really care for either [:'(]. But know Gary historically never want to tweak it much. Glad that stance has since changed...

I don't think anyone disagrees with any of this...but none of it is likely to happen in the near to intermediate future. As such, I wish people would focus on the fact that there is a very playable, fun game to be had with a couple of easy to enforce house rules. That's been my experience post-12 patch anyway.