Eastern Front 1941-1945 V8.1 for TOAWIV 12/2023

[fulcrum28]

sounds very nice, thank you for your efforts.
Actually, I am playing as German against AI, and it is Turn 34. I am experiencing grave and intense attacks by the Soviet AI, but it sends entire armies(one counter each) running to the west when they make a breakthrough so it is relatively easy to isolate them and destroy them. The blizzard effect was devastating but i am recomposing the situation. I also noted that it is difficult to make a continuous like ala D21,FITE or WITE. Here the AGN, AGC, AGS, tend to be more separated each other, instead of forming continuous line. Did you experience that too? is it because low density of counters?

[governato]

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

sounds very nice, thank you for your efforts.
Actually, I am playing as German against AI, and it is Turn 34. I am experiencing grave and intense attacks by the Soviet AI, but it sends entire armies(one counter each) running to the west when they make a breakthrough so it is relatively easy to isolate them and destroy them. The blizzard effect was devastating but i am recomposing the situation. I also noted that it is difficult to make a continuous like ala D21,FITE or WITE. Here the AGN, AGC, AGS, tend to be more separated each other, instead of forming continuous line. Did you experience that too? is it because low density of counters?

Hey Fulcrum, here is a way too long answer to your questions

- The AI: tx for the feedback! for this version I toned down the Programmed Opponent aggression and revised some of the formation tracks, but you should not expect miracles, this is not really a reactive AI and the scripted actions are geared towards attacking.


- continuous front: both sides should split their units when necessary. In 1941 this is needed

- for the Axis to close pockets and to cover open flanks
- for the Red Army to cover the front, allow some reserves and avoid pockets. Many Red Army units come already split.

Having to split units is a design choice to give the players the flexibility of force concentration (when units are unsplit) and to model how the Red Army improves with time. Remember that split units suffer a proficiency penalty? So when the Red Army eventually manages a stable front and reforms Armies it will also get a nice proficiency bonus.

This is the opposite of what some other scenarios and GWITE do but allows the players to get historical density at the front during offensives (something GWITE really struggles with the Red Army), and keeping the number of units manageable.


Also, the German very often advanced with very open flanks in 1941 and 1942, so having a continuous line is more of a choice than an historical necessity ...be bold!

I am starting an AAR of a PBEM game using V5 and hopefully some of these ideas will come up :0

[governato]

Here is an example of Axis unit split on turn 1 to help close a pocket.

[governato]

9/2/2021 The scenario has been upgraded to Version 6! Grab the new version and the Scenario description from the top post of this thread.

12. Changes in Version 6.

MAJOR CHANGES

- Cut Axis Truck production. The Axis should now suffer some truck shortages starting from late Summer 1941 to at least 1943. This will make the Panzers units slower starting in Fall 1941. Note that one can use the option to dump trucks from units in static parts of the front into the replacement pool. Open the unit report and click 'Dismount'. Leave the option selected if you do not want replacement trucks to come back in.
- Mud will dry faster. Mud & Snow parameter. Increased from 100 to 1000 as mud was drying up too slow at the end of each Winter. Value has been chosen so that ground is dry in the Ukraine by mid May and by mid June further North in Bielorussia to match the Kharkov and Barbarossa offensives start dates.

- AXIS Resurgent Summer 1945 Theater Option. If Berlin is NOT captured by Turn 203 (the historical date) the Axis player gets a Theater Option to continue the game until Turn August 1945 AND to receive significant reinforcements. If NOT selected the game ends on turn 205 with a normal VP count. (See section 3.2 for details).

- PO scripts have been updated. The PO and should provide a better challenge by forming better front lines and being less insanely aggressive. Remember it’s not a true AI but just a smart script.

MINOR CHANGES

- Rumanian and Italian units have better proficiency as supported by recent historical studies less linked to post war german memoirs .
- Wehrmacht Supply dumps: Garrisons in Minks, Rostov and Kiev have a secondary icon as supply depot. Units resting within 3 hexes from these cities will receive a supply bonus.
- Map Changes: Thanks to Russian materials and the work done by the 'War in the East 2' team the railway/road network has been corrected in places. It will be easier to supply units in the Valdai hills (Operation Mars anyone?) for both sides and harder for the Wehrmacht to go South from Smolensk, unless Kiev has been captured. (Btw at the scale of EF roads really represents minor railways.)
- playing hexes behind Berlin and Budapest have been added (these cities were surrounded after all so the extra space was needed.
- a few marsh hexes added East of the Pripyat marshes
- Several locations across the map up/downgraded to/from dense urban based on new population data from the time.
a few cities now show the date they were captured by the Nazis during Barbarossa.
more neat but minor stuff I forgot.


A few game playing suggestions for the Red Army:

- save your HQs at all cost
- you have plenty of space to trade for time
- it's OK to have holes in your frontlines
- split your Armies into three Corps
- your C&C is really bad for the first few turns, some unit will go into reorganization with no warning
- breaking contact will be hard
- the Luftwaffe will intercept your rail movements so let your reinforcements get some equipment before you move them.
- counterattack with your Mech Corps and then retreat
- read the pdf .

A few game playing suggestions for the Axis:

- be bold and aggressive!
- Use your HQs to support attacks but sparingly to avoid Support Squads losses
- better use the HQs to cross major rivers
- split units when necessary to cover your flanks and close pockets
- but who cares about open flanks anyway
- use air units to bomb the VVS airfields on Turn 1 and then on combat support.
- pick a line of advance for your Rail repair units and stick to it.
- rest your Panzers when you can
- read the pdf

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: governato


MINOR CHANGES

- Rumanian and Italian units have better proficiency as supported by recent historical studies less linked to post war german memoirs .

So the Italians are up to 15% instead of 10%?

Here's how the Italian cavalry performed in 1942:

Corporal Lolli, unable to draw, as his saber was stuck in its sheath, charged holding high a hand grenade; Trumpeter Carenzi, having to handle both trumpet and pistol, unintentionally shot his own horse in the head....

[governato]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: governato


MINOR CHANGES

- Rumanian and Italian units have better proficiency as supported by recent historical studies less linked to post war german memoirs .

So the Italians are up to 15% instead of 10%?

Here's how the Italian cavalry performed in 1942:

Corporal Lolli, unable to draw, as his saber was stuck in its sheath, charged holding high a hand grenade; Trumpeter Carenzi, having to handle both trumpet and pistol, unintentionally shot his own horse in the head....

GD thanks for quoting random lines from wikipedia, is it useful for scenario design?
If people are interested in history told by modern historians I recommend a couple of recent books about the Axis allies which highlight a rather fair performance with the limitations of poor equipment.

`Regio Esercito' and `Three Kings' by Patrick Cloutier. I find them fairly balanced and instructive.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: governato


GD thanks for quoting random lines from wikipedia, is it useful for scenario design?
If people are interested in history told by modern historians I recommend a couple of recent books about the Axis allies which highlight a rather fair performance with the limitations of poor equipment.

I find it's a concise way of making a point. There are plenty of reasons which one can debate endlessly for the performance of the Italian armed forces during the war, and historians like to make a name by digging out instances where Italians soldiery can claim some share of glory, but at the macro level the consistent poor performance of the Italian military is quite striking. It seems designers always find setting low proficiencies somehow offensive, as if it diminishes the manhood of the personnel to do so: in fact, if a unit is poorly trained, poorly led, poorly organised, it says nothing of the moral character of the soldiers if it performs poorly in action.

Anyway, in TOAW you'll frequently find Italian troops with a proficiency set at, for example, 60%, but at this level units tend to perform really very well even in bad condition. Units with a much lower proficiency will still be useful- provided they're fighting in static positions in good supply conditions. Remember, supply and readiness are just as important for unit quality as proficiency.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: governato


GD thanks for quoting random lines from wikipedia, is it useful for scenario design?
If people are interested in history told by modern historians I recommend a couple of recent books about the Axis allies which highlight a rather fair performance with the limitations of poor equipment.

I find it's a concise way of making a point. There are plenty of reasons which one can debate endlessly for the performance of the Italian armed forces during the war, and historians like to make a name by digging out instances where Italians soldiery can claim some share of glory, but at the macro level the consistent poor performance of the Italian military is quite striking. It seems designers always find setting low proficiencies somehow offensive, as if it diminishes the manhood of the personnel to do so: in fact, if a unit is poorly trained, poorly led, poorly organised, it says nothing of the moral character of the soldiers if it performs poorly in action.

Anyway, in TOAW you'll frequently find Italian troops with a proficiency set at, for example, 60%, but at this level units tend to perform really very well even in bad condition. Units with a much lower proficiency will still be useful- provided they're fighting in static positions in good supply conditions. Remember, supply and readiness are just as important for unit quality as proficiency.

It's your opinion based on your sources (which I flat out consider outdated and biased). That and you imagining my feelings and projecting them on my scenario I find it rather preposterous and a waste of my time. But honestly if you find the energy of questioning a 5% increase in proficiency for about 10 units and using some fun anecdote to bolster your rather snarky opinion..I think you need more hobbies and your own thread.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: governato


It's your opinion based on your sources (which I flat out consider outdated and biased). That and you imagining my feelings and projecting them on my scenario

I'm not imagining your feelings, you PM'd me and said my remarks were racist so that made your feelings fairly clear.

If we analyse the little vignette above it actually tells us quite a few things about the unit:
1) They're obviously brave enough- otherwise there would be no cavalry charge in the first place
2) Doctrine is seriously lacking. Someone should have told them "cavalry don't charge in 1942"
3) The equipment is clearly defective. Not only does our brave Corporal have a sabre that won't draw, he also apparently doesn't have a pistol to use instead- so it's just the hand grenade and hope for the best
4) Training must have been totally absent, too- otherwise the Trumpeter would have been given direction on how to handle his pistol (I would suggest not at the same time as handling the trumpet- not if you're actually mounted at the time)

None of this says much about the Italians as a people- apart from point 1. It says a lot about the quality of Italian combat units.

As to how I spend my time- well, I enjoy discussing military history and wargames. Isn't that why we're here?

[Lobster]

During Operation Little Saturn the Italian Ravenna and Cosseria divisions were attacked by 100 Soviet tanks and 15 Soviet divisions. At 9-1 odds they held out from 11 December to 19 December. By mid December the Hungarians to the left of the Italians and the Rumanians to the right of the Italians were defeated leaving the Italians surrounded. Cut off with no hope of relief and greatly outnumbered the 298 German and Torino, Sforzesca, Pasubio, Prince Amedeo Duke of Aosta divisions held off the Soviets for 11 days. The Italians sent their best to Russia and this was proved during Little Saturn even though poorly equipped and greatly outnumbered. Do what you want with your opinions. [:)]

[governato]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: governato


It's your opinion based on your sources (which I flat out consider outdated and biased). That and you imagining my feelings and projecting them on my scenario

I'm not imagining your feelings, you PM'd me and said my remarks were racist so that made your feelings fairly clear.

If we analyse the little vignette above it actually tells us quite a few things about the unit:
1) They're obviously brave enough- otherwise there would be no cavalry charge in the first place
2) Doctrine is seriously lacking. Someone should have told them "cavalry don't charge in 1942"
3) The equipment is clearly defective. Not only does our brave Corporal have a sabre that won't draw, he also apparently doesn't have a pistol to use instead- so it's just the hand grenade and hope for the best
4) Training must have been totally absent, too- otherwise the Trumpeter would have been given direction on how to handle his pistol (I would suggest not at the same time as handling the trumpet- not if you're actually mounted at the time)

None of this says much about the Italians as a people- apart from point 1. It says a lot about the quality of Italian combat units.

As to how I spend my time- well, I enjoy discussing military history and wargames. Isn't that why we're here?

I don't design scenarios based on anecdotes they tend to have poor statistical value. But keep your opinions!

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

During Operation Little Saturn the Italian Ravenna and Cosseria divisions were attacked by 100 Soviet tanks and 15 Soviet divisions. At 9-1 odds they held out from 11 December to 19 December. By mid December the Hungarians to the left of the Italians and the Rumanians to the right of the Italians were defeated leaving the Italians surrounded. Cut off with no hope of relief and greatly outnumbered the 298 German and Torino, Sforzesca, Pasubio, Prince Amedeo Duke of Aosta divisions held off the Soviets for 11 days. The Italians sent their best to Russia and this was proved during Little Saturn even though poorly equipped and greatly outnumbered. Do what you want with your opinions. [:)]

It looks like we're reading the same Wikipedia articles. My reading is that the Italian expeditionary force both ceased to exist as an effective fighting force and failed to stop the Soviets from crossing the Don and reaching into the deep Axis rear, all within the space of about two weeks. Your "9-1 odds" were local only; otherwise this would imply the Soviets had about two million men.

There's also this reference to the assessment from the Italian participants themselves:
"The survivors said they both had acted irresponsibly by sending a poorly prepared, ill-equipped, and inadequately armed military force to the Russian Front. According to veterans, weapons in Italian service were awful: hand grenades rarely went off and rifles and machine guns had to be kept for a long time on a fire to work properly in extreme climatic conditions, thus often not capable of firing in the midst of battle."

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: governato

I don't design scenarios based on anecdotes they tend to have poor statistical value.

Naturally- but I find referring to them can be instructive. Anyway, your designs (and your opinions) are of course your own, personally I'm suspicious of revisionism and dismissing perspective simply because they're older.

[Lobster]

That would make you wrong but that's ok. No one is perfect. I've read basically the same thing in other articles.

It's common knowledge they had poor equipment. Old news.

But they were Italy's best and they did hold off overwhelming forces when the Hungarians and Romanians were more easily overrun. 9-1 odds are 9-1 odds regardless of how expansive they are.

Better redo your math. 2 million men would give the two Italian divisions 444,444 men. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/ ... talingrad/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... eath-18497
https://pictureshistory.blogspot.com/20 ... d-war.html

It's a mixed bag. Only thing anyone can agree on is how effed up the equipment was.

[governato]

A couple of notes to bring the thread to the original topic of the East Front scenario and away from personal opinions. Today we have learned that cavalry charges by invading armies in southern Russia are a terrible idea and make for dubious patriotic poetry since at least...1851? Maybe it's time to take that timeless discussion on its own thread? Thanks. Lobster, I appreciate your factual support tho .


SO... how did I make choices for various units such as proficiency and supply levels? And is there some broad quantitative info worth sharing with players and scenario developers?

There has been a recent abundance of studies on the East Front based on new material from both sides. The general consensus has been to shift the emphasis on logistics and Command & Control as they main drivers of events and away from the performance and recollection of individual generals and soldiers, which, for a number of reasons, are often later found to be biased or flawed. Eastern Front 41-45 has gone through several revisions over the past..8 years? The recent changes have been inspired by some new books and also by other games, Great War in The East 1&2, especially. I respect their development team and they did a professional job at collecting information and resources, I have often checked my choices vs theirs. So when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?


I had in fact checked the Morale and Experience of Axis allies (Hungarians, Rumanian and Italians) as modeled in 'Great War in The East 2', finding it on average equal or better than the 42/43 Soviet infantry divisions, with the Alpine Corps having a fighting quality comparable to Russian Guards units. This is broadly consistent with the revised Proficiency I have assigned to the Axis allies in this version of EF-41-45. I am rather happy with my choices.

Here is a short list of recent history books on these topics that shaped my thinking and that are very readable

Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East by David Stahel

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941 by Patrick Cloutier

Stalin Keys to Victory by W.Dunn

Sacrifice on the Steppe: The Italian Alpine Corps in the Stalingrad Campaign, 1942-1943 by H.Hamilton

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

That would make you wrong but that's ok. No one is perfect. I've read basically the same thing in other articles.

It's common knowledge they had poor equipment. Old news.

But they were Italy's best and they did hold off overwhelming forces when the Hungarians and Romanians were more easily overrun. 9-1 odds are 9-1 odds regardless of how expansive they are.

Better redo your math. 2 million men would give the two Italian divisions 444,444 men.

I'm referring to 8th Army, which had a nominal strength of 235,000.

As to the comparison with the Romanians- if you take a look at the results of Little Saturn the Soviets on each front advanced more or less at the same pace.

It's a mixed bag. Only thing anyone can agree on is how effed up the equipment was.

I'd say the Italians did not achieve a mixed bag. One can dig around and get individual cases where some Alpini unit performed alright- but the overall picture is a disaster. A rich tapestry of factors, from Italian political divisions, the shortcomings of the Fascist state, the state of Italian industrialisation to the misguided military adventures of the 1930s, all conspired to produce a long string of defeats.

Look: it can happen to anybody. The BEF sent three Territorial divisions to France to serve as labour troops, with little of their equipment and less training. When the situation deteriorated, they were thrown into the line- and they more or less disintegrated immediately. The same thing happened to the Luftwaffe Feld division and numerous other forces throughout history.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: governato

So when the facts change, I change my mind.

The facts haven't changed. Someone has simply published a new interpretation of them. I tend to take this as of a piece with the broader modern trend to pretend that there are no differences between cultures whatsoever.

I had in fact checked the Morale and Experience of Axis allies (Hungarians, Rumanian and Italians) as modeled in 'Great War in The East 2', finding it on average equal or better than the 42/43 Soviet infantry divisions,

That's interesting. Certainly the quality of Italian units in the Summer of 1942 seems to have been fairly comparable or better than the units fielded by the Red Army in Case Blue- note that the recipients of that cavalry charge were Mongolian conscripts who (after inflicting heavy casualties) largely surrendered. However, the effectiveness of the Soviets markedly increased over the course of the period you mention as their confidence and experience grew. The quality of the Italians did not increase in the same time period.

I'd want both sets of units to start 1942 with really abysmal proficiency, but for the Soviets to gradually improve over the course of the campaign.

I've had a chance to open the scenario now and I see the Italians range from 50 to 65%, with the Germans ranging from 75 to 90% (I didn't look at every unit of course)

I'd consider both ranges too high, actually. The Waffen SS in particular were not necessarily particularly skilful- just tended to be better equipped. Again it's your scenario, and I appreciate you don't want to rebalance the whole thing, but I'd have the Germans at more like 70-80 and the Italians at more like 20-30. This holds with the above: your starting Soviet baseline seems to be 40%; this feels about right for the regulars of the Red Army (bearing in mind that they have various other disadvantages for Barbarossa), with the quality of the Soviets actually dropping off as regulars are replaced with new conscripts which have the rifle shoved in their hands just before they go over the top.

It might seem like shifting everyone down by a certain number of points achieves effectively nothing, but it will mean that units will lose that much more of their effectiveness as they run out of supply- which I think is important in this scenario above all.

[governato]

Golden Delicious, this is getting annoying and a waste of everybody's time.

As mentioned in the previous thread this is NOT the place for individual opinions or beef with other users.

This is a thread about the design of a specific scenario. The proficiency of units has been chosen in line with well know scenarios and games on the same topic.

If you have specific, pertinent data or information that is fact based and with clear sources, that is certainly welcome, otherwise move somewhere else.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


Look: it can happen to anybody. The BEF sent three Territorial divisions to France to serve as labour troops, with little of their equipment and less training. When the situation deteriorated, they were thrown into the line- and they more or less disintegrated immediately. The same thing happened to the Luftwaffe Feld division and numerous other forces throughout history.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: governato

Golden Delicious, this is getting annoying and a waste of everybody's time.

As mentioned in the previous thread this is NOT the place for individual opinions or beef with other users.

Where would I have obtained a "beef" with you? I've seen your name a few times- overall I had a broadly positive view of you as someone who's taking scenario design fairly seriously, but hadn't much of a strong opinion one way or the other.

This is a thread about the design of a specific scenario. The proficiency of units has been chosen in line with well know scenarios and games on the same topic.

If you have specific, pertinent data or information that is fact based and with clear sources, that is certainly welcome, otherwise move somewhere else.

Well, here's the difficulty: unit proficiency isn't really a matter of data- or rather the data is such a mess that it's more or less impossible to come up with a scientific answer.

Anyway, I'd like you have a look at the last three paragraphs of my previous post. I find that too high proficiencies across the board make units do unreasonable things (like keep attacking when they shouldn't), and they also mean that units can pretty much keep fighting with minimal supply. Yes, this is my opinion. However, I think it's a really important point in scenario design.

[sPzAbt653]

I think the recent 'revisited' opinions as to the fighting value of the Axis Minors has to do with the generalization among the ill-informed that they all sucked. This reflected unfairly on those in their military's. In Seaton's 'Russo-German War' he states 'There is no reason why, given the officers and equipment, the Rumanians, Hungarians and Italians should not have made very good soldiers, since the men themselves had stamina enough'.

Seaton touches on another aspect - that the Minors were not interested in fighting Germany's battles. We can all agree that each of the Minor's had reason to jump onto the German ride of victories, but once it was obvious Germany would not win they lost their heart for the fighting.

Add that to poor leadership and equipment, and you probably have a pretty low proficiency when compared to German units and late war Soviet units.