Boring Opening Moves?

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
In my opinion, the real joy and challenge of gaming is not so much to formulate the "perfect plan" as it is to frustrate it, and undo it.

But you can't. Its got almost nothing to do with what the Soviet players does, its about the Axis player executing his first turn moves properly. Perhaps even the first couple turns.

Maybe you can't, but other players seem to manage to throw some sand in the gears of the mighty Axis war machine. Some of them may manage it due to skill, some to luck, some to a combination. It's NOT all about the Axis.

Even "chess-like" moves have counters. It's up to the players to show the ingenuity in figuring them out, to the extent that the engine allows. I'm not fool enough to suggest that the Soviet players have it easy in the first few turns, but they do have tools at hand to frustrate and undo those "perfect plans".

I dunno; I think its an overstatement to say that there's nothing at all the soviet player can do on the soviet turn 1, but its still very generally true that the soviets, in the first few turns, are purely reactive. A good axis player who runs his first few turns perfectly can so dramatically reduce the number of viable options for the soviets as to render their move kind of academic.

As the soviets, you're basically waiting until one of two things happens:

1) The axis make a mistake
2) You fall back far enough fast enough to prepare some positions outside the axis line of sight

Mind you I'm not advocating doing away with the first few turns of the game; rather I'd like to find ways to keep them interesting for both side.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Even "chess-like" moves have counters. It's up to the players to show the ingenuity in figuring them out, to the extent that the engine allows. I'm not fool enough to suggest that the Soviet players have it easy in the first few turns, but they do have tools at hand to frustrate and undo those "perfect plans".

You actually don't do any favours for the argument by saying that. It means the deck is even more stacked against the Axis player than it should be - the Soviets had very little capability to impede the Axis in the first few weeks of the war (as evidenced by the tremendous advances of the Axis, and that is despite what the Soviets did to slow the Axis - a lot of Soviet soldiers were killed and captured for those attempts which had at best moderate success), so if the Soviet player can mess with the Axis advance enough in the first few turns to throw the whole thing off the rails, then the balance is just a tad screwed up.

Incidentally, when we refer to the 'perfect plan', there are two things to remember.

1. Its mostly about the first turn move, before the Soviet player has had a chance to do anything. How exactly can the Soviet player foil anything when he can't even act?

2. The perfect plan, isn't. Its the idea of "do this in exactly this way in order to at least have a chance of winning", but it still isn't guaranteed. And if it gets borked then it seems many Axis players quit after a dozen or two turns rather than spend the next couple hundred or so turns being a punching bag for the Soviet player.



The desired way for a East Front game to play is the Germans pushing forward in 1941 while the Soviet player tries to keep as much of his army intact as he can. This isn't a lot of fun for the Soviets, but it ends soon enough, and the balance shifts for a counter strike which should be painful, but not devastating. 1942 should be the deciding year, that is when the Germans should be making big offensives but the Soviets can fight back now, if things go well then the German player may be able to exceed the historical high water mark (it is rare for anyone to ever think the Germans could actually win the war, its more about doing better than they did historically and holding on). 1943 is traditionally when it flips around, the Germans start to go on the defensive while the Soviets go on the offensive - although a good '42 for the Germans might affect that. And then '44 and '45 is a long slow tedious fighting withdrawal for the Germans.

At least with most board games the turns go fast enough that as long as the Germans aren't getting slaughtered, '44 and '45 isn't too bad. The problem here is that late '43 to '45 is a pretty long haul for any Axis player to want to sit through (over 100 turns getting your butt kicked - fun).

But what some people have said is that in GG WitE the Germans are screwed from day one, they don't have a realistic chance against a reasonably skilled Soviet player to win, and will likely be doing very little in 1942 which is not the way it should be, and which means the game becomes a drag for the Axis player after only a couple dozen turns. Out of 200 some... whee.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: henri51
It has to do with the German player knowing in advance what will happen to him when the mud and cold strike, and having to plan accordingly using the aforementioned boring moves.

Yep, in every East Front game that is in the mind of the players. Do what you can before the mud hits, because then the Germans are in trouble!

What would happen if the Soviets were forced to apply Stalin's "not one step back" order thus preventing the best Soviet strategy in the game of preventing encirclements by retreating?

That's a good point. That order was made, and the blocking brigades ordered as well, and yet they were often ignored (although not always) and after a few months the blocking brigades were quietly dissolved (although they weren't officially removed from the orders until '44).

In Barbarossa to Berlin the players would periodically get 'No Retreat' markers, you applied these to the enemy when in contact with your forces. It was a pretty handy way of keeping the other guy in place so you could surround and kill them, or simply so they couldn't redeploy to block elsewhere. You could ignore the marker, but it cost you a VP (seeing as our best game came down to an allied victory by only having 1 VP more than the Axis, that could be significant - I was pretty happy with that game even though I had lost, I had kept the allies out of Germany, although had been kicked out of everywhere else).

It may be another pie in the sky idea here, but some sort of random no retreat order for the Soviets in '41 and '42 and the same for the Axis in '44 and '45 (and maybe both in '43) where periodically Stalin or Hitler orders a few corps, or even an entire army to "HOLD FAST!" meaning they simply cannot move closer to their own side of the board without a significant penalty (big AP cost? VP loss? Something)

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

1. Its mostly about the first turn move, before the Soviet player has had a chance to do anything. How exactly can the Soviet player foil anything when he can't even act?

I am VERY active on my first 2 turns... [:)] IF I want to slow the enemy down I MUST be next to them. Therefore I MUST bring units forward. And here appears FACT number ONE: per definition on the first 3 turns the German Panzers are sort of ISOLATED... Their infantry is way behind: 10, 15 or 20 hexes... [;)] That's an opportunity you CAN exploit. This has nothing to do with a good or bad German player. It's an objective fact. If the Germans keep advancing, there will be a big gap between them and their infantry... If you bring lots of units you can harass these very few units (Panzers) big time... The very few German armored units will be overwhelmed and will hardly stop you from cutting them off... If they blindly advance that is...

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
1. Its mostly about the first turn move, before the Soviet player has had a chance to do anything. How exactly can the Soviet player foil anything when he can't even act?

I am VERY active on my first 2 turns... [:)] IF I want to slow the enemy down I MUST be next to them. Therefore I MUST bring units forward. And here appears FACT number ONE: per definition on the first 3 turns the German Panzers are sort of ISOLATED... Their infantry is way behind: 10, 15 or 20 hexes... [;)] That's an opportunity you CAN exploit. This has nothing to do with a good or bad German player. It's an objective fact. If the Germans keep advancing, there will be a big gap between them and their infantry... If you bring lots of units you can harass these very few units (Panzers) big time... The very few German armored units will be overwhelmed and will hardly stop you from cutting them off... If they blindly advance that is...

And you are doing that even before Soviet Turn 1? Sounds like cheating to me...

I know that isn't what you mean, but I had primarily been talking about turn 1.

But you have instead led into what this has been morphing into, that the play balance is way too much in the favour of the Soviets. Once again the Axis player is being punished for what he has to do and what was done historically - if he doesn't use his panzers to blitz, then what the heck is the point? - and the Soviet player is able to do things that the Red Army was simply not capable of in that period!

The Soviets actually tried to do that, they saw the same thing, these mobile divisions zipping off dozens of miles away from their support. Panzer Group 4 ended up sitting for 3 weeks waiting for 18th army to catch up. Guderian had Panzer Group 3 staring at Moscow waiting to attack without 4th or 9th army anywhere in sight (of course, panzer corps were not a good choice for attacking a heavily defended city like Moscow, but that is another matter). Back in 1940 Guderian had so outdistanced the rest of the army that he was most of the way to Spain before France surrendered!

Surrounding and cutting off the highly mobile panzer corps in open terrain was simply not viable without a large amount of mobile forces of your own. And what the Soviets discovered - much to their annoyance - is that even if the panzer corps drove into the middle of a group of Rifle Divisions, their forces were simply too cumbersome and poorly led and thus did not have the speed or coordination in the summer of 1941 to even mount a credible attack against the panzers, let alone surround and isolate them! Even the mechanized corps couldn't coordinate actions well enough between them to pull that off.

[Michael T]

I honestly think the game, at 1.04.24 is firmly balanced in the favour of the Soviets. So much so I doubt I will play German again until something is done to rebalance it. Like Overuns and no zoc's for ants. Neutering HQ Build Up was the last straw.

[neuromancer]

I'm still having fun with the AI, but wouldn't consider a PBEM game at this point.
 

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

Soviet player is able to do things that the Red Army was simply not capable of in that period!

Are you sure? Did you know that the Red Army inflicted 900.000 losses to the Wehrmacht between june and december 1941 (before the Blizzard Massacres that is)? [;)]

Guess what... on my current PBEM game I inflicted this same NUMBER of losses [X(] Coincidence or the designers got it right?

The Red Army suffered massive losses but resisted in MANY places (a stubborn defence). This alone a) inflicted losses and b) necessarily slowed the enemy down.

I'm no expert in the Great Patriotic War but I've got a car and motorcycle. I do know that if they run out of gas they will stop... Sooo, I suspect fuel must be delivered to tanks as well... Sort of complicated if there are enemy units between your tanks and depots...

[Lieste]

Actually I was under the impression that German per-month losses were highest in July, dipping quite low in August/September/October and then rising to moderate levels during the Winter 'disasters'. I think it was around 60-70% of the peak summer losses (mostly caused by the limited scope of the attacks - the losses of units overrun where likely to be higher, but not as catastrophic as the hype commonly attributes to this first winter... and combat reports indicate that Russian units sometimes found the conditions intolerably hostile too - German units 'breaking-out' by just walking between or over shivering 'defenders' in some accounts.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
Soviet player is able to do things that the Red Army was simply not capable of in that period!

Are you sure?

As sure as I can be. I wasn't there, so I have to work with what I've read.

Did you know that the Red Army inflicted 900.000 losses to the Wehrmacht between june and december 1941 (before the Blizzard Massacres that is)? [;)]

Yes, I did know that. Casualties started to mount later in the year after the Soviets managed to reform some form of defence (later in August) - or where they hunkered down and fought for their lives. Casualties for the Axis in the first few weeks were relatively light.

The Minsk pocket for example didn't give in easily, and inflicted relatively heavy casualties on the Germans while they were reducing it.

[/quote]
Guess what... on my current PBEM game I inflicted this same NUMBER of losses [X(] Coincidence or the designers got it right?
[/quote]

Depends. The Soviets lost 4.1 Million men in the same period, did you take the same number of casualties? Also, are the Germans where they are supposed to be?

The Red Army suffered massive losses but resisted in MANY places (a stubborn defence). This alone a) inflicted losses and b) necessarily slowed the enemy down.

Yes they did, and you hit the nail on the head - DEFENSE. Mostly the Red Army in 1941 was only capable of fierce defences, but didn't mount a credible offense until later in the year. Early counter-attacks were disasters - there is where that poor coordination came in. That isn't to say that the Germans got off for free - 1st Panzer group was attacked i late July by 5 mechanized corps, with over 1000 tanks (the Germans certainly had less than 1000 tanks in Pz Gr 1), and after a four day battle 1st Panzer Group won, but as is usual in war, they got bloodied for it. But if the Soviet tanks had been properly coordinated they should have been able to overwhelm the Germans, but they didn't.

The most effective things the Soviets did in the summer is to hunker done and hold on, they did attack, but they were the ones who were mauled for their efforts. The Germans were damaged to be sure - and in that war of attrition, the Germans would lose - but that was pretty cold comfort to the Soviets, and not likely something they knew at the time.

I'm no expert in the Great Patriotic War but I've got a car and motorcycle. I do know that if they run out of gas they will stop... Sooo, I suspect fuel must be delivered to tanks as well... Sort of complicated if there are enemy units between your tanks and depots...

And yet those extremely long range advances occurred where there was no depot rear by. Those are accepted historical facts.

It has already been established that the game massively over-estimates the effects of being cut off, this is probably the case here. On both sides there were units that survived isolation and combat for months without outright surrender. Panzer blitzes occurred without the panzers having to go find a gas station every few hours - I would assume that they prepared for these blitzes by bringing a lot of fuel and supply with them. Of course it took them a while to hoard that kind of fuel (the Germans never had adequate fuel supplies) which is why they didn't do it very often.

[Mynok]

I would be careful about the isolation issue, because if you tweak it down, you will affect the Axis even more since their primary means of destroying Soviets is isolation.

[Michael T]

Allowing HQ Build Up to go beyond 100% might help, maybe 150% like they start on turn one.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
Depends. The Soviets lost 4.1 Million men in the same period, did you take the same number of casualties? Also, are the Germans where they are supposed to be?

These are different things, I think. If you are active you CAN inflict real life losses. On the other hand this does not mean you are going to follow Stalin's clownish orders and let the Germans surround your many hordes near Kiev...

And yet those extremely long range advances occurred where there was no depot rear by. Those are accepted historical facts.

Sure they did... and then they ran out of fuel... I too can drive like 600km or 700km non stop with my car. But I better find a gas station after that... Kessels (Germans surrounded and stuck with no fuel) were VERY common, another fact. So? You cannot avoid logistics. No gas, no movement. Unless you have horses.

[TulliusDetritus]

And above all, if the Soviets should not be able to do ANYTHING, then my conclusion is that the map of the game is utterly wrong. It should include Irkutsk and Bloodiv... er Vladivostok. Given that "nothing" can be done to cut the Panzers off the game should be some sort of Euro-Asiatic Rally. The first German Tank that gets to Vladivostok wins [8D]

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
I would be careful about the isolation issue, because if you tweak it down, you will affect the Axis even more since their primary means of destroying Soviets is isolation.

Its a tremendous mess to be honest.

I suspect what the Panzer Groups did at the beginning of the invasion is bring a lot of fuel and supplies with them, and as long as those supplies held out they were fine. IIIRC - when Panzer Group 4 stopped they were running low on supply and needed 18th army to catch up so they could resupply.

Rommel was at the extreme end of his supply chain when he attacked El Amarien, and was repulsed by Monty having three times the forces Rommel brought with him. But Rommel went on the defensive and held off Monty for a month despite his own ill health, lack of supply, and Monty's numerical superiority.

If Goring could have actually kept 6th army supplied by air they could have held out longer, but he couldn't so they eventually had to surrender.

Simply I think a unit that HAS supply shouldn't really be subject to isolation rules.

Of course I really don't like the teleporting rout rules. If a unit is forced to retreat but has no where to retreat to, it should surrender (that isn't to say everyone is captured, just that someone yells "every man for himself!" and the unit disintegrates as men run off in every direction - the state of the unit when it tries to retreat, and how badly it lost the fight by, would indicate how many escape and how many surrender. The unit can reform later if desired, trying to rebuild from the survivors).

Also, at the beginning of the war the HQ units should be a lot more prepared than just at 100% supply. Of course once the war starts rolling, neither side is in a position to replicate that, only the Western Allies (mostly the U.S.) had enough resources to build up for those kind of offensives, and even then it took time and effort to martial that kind of stuff together.

The AH game Anzio had an interesting way of handling Retreat when isolated. You would have to retreat a number of hexes, so first you would take any step loses, and then roll a die if there was no clear way to try to retreat. If you retreated towards an enemy unit, you would take a step loss, and the number of hexes you had to retreat would be reduced by 1, and if you had any hexes left to retreat, you'd roll again. If you managed to survive attempting to retreat, good for you. Large units could usually take a couple attempts without dying, and if not completely surrounded you might be able to slip out the gap, or even end up back where you started!

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

And above all, if the Soviets should not be able to do ANYTHING, then my conclusion is that the map of the game is utterly wrong. It should include Irkutsk and Bloodiv... er Vladivostok. Given that "nothing" can be done to cut the Panzers off the game should be some sort of Euro-Asiatic Rally. The first German Tank that gets to Vladivostok wins [8D]

In can be argued that the game in its current form allows the Soviet to do to much. This is not a Axis or Soviet fan issue but a WITE long term playability issue.

It was your AARs that prompted me to really give the Soviet side a hard look. I was actually amazed at what I was able to do with the Soviets even before the blizzard once I realized a few basics.

Another AAR that convinced me there were some underlying issues was Pelton vrs Fulkerson. Fulkerson lost a ton of troops, cities and Industry. It was an Axis wet dream what Pelton was able to do yet Larry was able to bounce back. Larry went on to lose because he was unable to grasp what to do against Peltons Panzers and the deep penetrations but he certainly had the building blocks for a decent defence in 1942.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

ORIGINAL: Mynok
I would be careful about the isolation issue, because if you tweak it down, you will affect the Axis even more since their primary means of destroying Soviets is isolation.

Its a tremendous mess to be honest.

I suspect what the Panzer Groups did at the beginning of the invasion is bring a lot of fuel and supplies with them, and as long as those supplies held out they were fine. IIIRC - when Panzer Group 4 stopped they were running low on supply and needed 18th army to catch up so they could resupply.

Rommel was at the extreme end of his supply chain when he attacked El Amarien, and was repulsed by Monty having three times the forces Rommel brought with him. But Rommel went on the defensive and held off Monty for a month despite his own ill health, lack of supply, and Monty's numerical superiority.

If Goring could have actually kept 6th army supplied by air they could have held out longer, but he couldn't so they eventually had to surrender.

Simply I think a unit that HAS supply shouldn't really be subject to isolation rules.

Of course I really don't like the teleporting rout rules. If a unit is forced to retreat but has no where to retreat to, it should surrender (that isn't to say everyone is captured, just that someone yells "every man for himself!" and the unit disintegrates as men run off in every direction - the state of the unit when it tries to retreat, and how badly it lost the fight by, would indicate how many escape and how many surrender. The unit can reform later if desired, trying to rebuild from the survivors).

Also, at the beginning of the war the HQ units should be a lot more prepared than just at 100% supply. Of course once the war starts rolling, neither side is in a position to replicate that, only the Western Allies (mostly the U.S.) had enough resources to build up for those kind of offensives, and even then it took time and effort to martial that kind of stuff together.

The AH game Anzio had an interesting way of handling Retreat when isolated. You would have to retreat a number of hexes, so first you would take any step loses, and then roll a die if there was no clear way to try to retreat. If you retreated towards an enemy unit, you would take a step loss, and the number of hexes you had to retreat would be reduced by 1, and if you had any hexes left to retreat, you'd roll again. If you managed to survive attempting to retreat, good for you. Large units could usually take a couple attempts without dying, and if not completely surrounded you might be able to slip out the gap, or even end up back where you started!

The thing that makes me scratch my head in WITE about retreats and routs is a German unit that retreats will often suffer more casualties then a Soviet unit that routs several times in a turn. Also it seems that for both sides a routed unit does not take serious casualties if it is routed a second or third time. Thats sort of perplexing to me.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

It was your AARs that prompted me to really give the Soviet side a hard look. I was actually amazed at what I was able to do with the Soviets even before the blizzard once I realized a few basics.

Ketza, not sure this is 100% true [:)] From what the real experts say (the testers that is), losing for example Leningrad is inevitable IF the Germans really want it. I would have said you always can try to prevent that BUT their opinion PREVAILS to me (I trust their experience, as opposed to mine, a mere noob). So maybe my AARs are not normal after all. Well, the first was truly surreal, this I know [:D]

[heliodorus04]

I thought one of the most interesting points between Neuro and Tulius is the point/counterpoint:
Tulius may have gotten the same number of casualties against the Germans, but I'd bet the German is nowhere near EITHER the distance that the Axis managed NOR the casualties that the Axis inflicted on the Soviets.  It's just not possible for a good Soviet player to lose that many men, because they're going to do the right combination of protecting himself from being pocketed, minimizing Axis movement (Brigades are the major abusive factor in game design here, and perfect C&C for Soviet movement is the minor one), and getting virtually all of his industry out of harm's way.

The game is losing its luster fast for me.  I won't be starting any more games, PBEM or otherwise.  The game just can't make 1942/1943 compelling.

I know we can't change a lot with the engine, but over-matched units should shatter far more than they do, and shattered units should start reducing General's competency values in command (and get them relieved more).  Routed units that are displaced again should simply shatter.  Right now, routed units are oblivious to further harm after they route.

And shattering should result in some elements going to the pool, some to partisans, and the rest wiped off the face of the Earth.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

In can be argued that the game in its current form allows the Soviet to do to much.

Hmm, most of the AARs tend to prove the opposite: the Germans grab places NEVER grabbed in the real thing. We don't know what's going on on the games being played by anonymous players. Possibly the same, I suspect.