The problems of 1942 – possible causes and solutions – The Red Army

[hfarrish]

I think if the focus is on making 42 playable and interesting, just make forts decay faster and eliminate the ability of brigades to build past level 1. This doesn't require any radical changes and pretty much eliminates a lot of the carpeting. Another thought is to limit the fort building of field units but then reduce the cost and increase the fort building ability of FZs, particularly for the Soviets (and maybe only allow level 3-4 forts where an FZ is present). This could add that element of a conscious decision around building forts in addition to actually making this concept useful for the Soviet player.

Another thought (going back to the Finns and Leningrad) - does anyone else find the Finns to be seriously overpowered (at least initially before attrition and lack of replacements take hold)? Unleashing the Finns is the equivalent of letting out 15 prime German divisions in terms of CV value...and while the Finns are good I don't think there is a lot of evidence that they would have been an offensive juggernaut of the likes they are in the game.

[Mehring]

Making 1942 playable and interresting might be the immediate focus, but to avoid any untoward consequences elsewhere any changes need to integrate into the entire game. Increasing fort decay and relating fort regions to fort building past a certain level, makes/might make sense respectively, but reducing brigades' digging power will impact badly upon 1941 Russians for starters. Neither does it make sense in relation to the digging power you're proposing for the significantly smaller fortified region/zone, an idea worth running with in my view.

[hfarrish]

I'm not sure how reducing brigade digging really hurts the Sovs in 41 - the vast majority of their units prior to the winter are divisions only.

[ComradeP]

does anyone else find the Finns to be seriously overpowered (at least initially before attrition and lack of replacements take hold)?

No, I don't think they're overpowered. They need reasonable CV's to remove the Soviets from their defensive positions at the Winter War border, and their offensive potential quickly plummets as soon as they cross the no attack line.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

I'm not sure how reducing brigade digging really hurts the Sovs in 41 - the vast majority of their units prior to the winter are divisions only.

Vast majority, maybe, but not all, and those that are in play are often used for... digging, or prevention of fort degrading. Russian capability prior to the blizzard won't support much more cutting back. I'd say it's a one sided and unrealistic solution to a many sided issue.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Russian capability prior to the blizzard won't support much more cutting back.

I totally agree with you on this...I guess limiting brigade digs to me just seemed like a less bad (and more realistic) tweak than a lot of what is being proposed.

[Q-Ball]

RE: Brigades, I definitely would not make them SUs. I personally hate them, and combine at first opportunity. They have negligible combat value, even at full-strength. Even in Blizzard, Tank Brigades are dead-meat to German counterattacks.

The only issue re: Brigades is that combat losses are not punishing enough for defenders when there are overwhelming odds. On the other hand, these units would probably run quickly. It's tough.

There are alot of ideas here, but in order not to screw up something else, I think changes have to minimal and simple, at least initially.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
There are alot of ideas here, but in order not to screw up something else, I think changes have to minimal and simple, at least initially.

This needs to be kept in mind, continuously. There has been a lot of screaming from day 1 about stuff, often in all caps and bold, but the hystrionics are not what is important.

I do not think much of the problems are that large at all. I never have.

[kvolk]

+1

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
There are alot of ideas here, but in order not to screw up something else, I think changes have to minimal and simple, at least initially.

This needs to be kept in mind, continuously. There has been a lot of screaming from day 1 about stuff, often in all caps and bold, but the hystrionics are not what is important.

I do not think much of the problems are that large at all. I never have.

Hope it's not me that comes across screaming hystronics...[X(] I tried to be reasonable and start a discussion.

[randallw]

We just need that "I win" button for the Axis and most of the histrionics will end. [:'(]

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
There are alot of ideas here, but in order not to screw up something else, I think changes have to minimal and simple, at least initially.

This needs to be kept in mind, continuously. There has been a lot of screaming from day 1 about stuff, often in all caps and bold, but the hystrionics are not what is important.

I do not think much of the problems are that large at all. I never have.

Hope it's not me that comes across screaming hystronics...[X(] I tried to be reasonable and start a discussion.

Reason? This is a forum man!!! Get a grip. Reason is not allowed nor suffered for long.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: randallw

We just need that "I win" button for the Axis and most of the histrionics will end. [:'(]

I think when the Axis are on the Caspian, have captured Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, are marching into Georgia (kind of like Sherman, eh?), are approaching the southern Urals, are almost two hundred kilometers east of Moscow.... For this there is a need for a win button.

[wac29]

I don't blame Pelton for doing the bee line for industry. It's what the game allows. The question I have is that with FOW on is it realistic to have perfect intelligence on the industry in a city? His strategy would be very different if he didn't have perfect information on industry in cities in some cases hundreds of miles behind the front.

[Wheat]

I'm very happy to see Tarhunnas and others discuss the 1942 issue. When I talk about a game being "historical", I would like the opportunity for a generally historical result to be possible, but not necessarily desirable. That's part of the fun, and a well designed game imo gives the players options to try other than historical courses of action. However, the game should be able to roughly create what did happen historically, given similar choices by players.

From reading AAR's by Tarhunnas and PDH (abbreviated for well, brevity, hope you dont mind sir), and others, it seems that a fluid 1942 will be the exception rather than the rule. That's something that needs some adjustment and I applaud the efforts in this direction.


The Germans don't seem to have the punch to rout stuff by 42. Perhaps Russian morale is too high. But whatever, a fluid 42 is fun, and trench warfare in that year is not.

[Jakerson]

In most of the human vs. human 1941 games Leningrad falls. After Leningrad is fallen it is no sense Soviet Player to deploy many troops on the northern front. Reason for this is that there is plenty of heavy woods and some swamps at north giving good defensive positions even smaller force. There are no more important targets to defend in north when Leningrad is gone Soviet can afford to lose ground in north. When Leningrad is gone Soviets could defend northern sector just a token force what was historically deployed there.

Fact that Leningrad falls almost every game derive game from historical course after it is fallen Soviet player could direct all troops and reinforcements to defend central and south sector and can have much stronger forces in there than what was historically at south.

In my campaign game 41 against my friend I have a lot more troops deployed in the south than what Soviet historically deploy there at 42. I have over 1 million men and 10 times more tanks and 3 times more airplanes in south than what was there historically when Operation Blue started. On the other hand on the northern sector since Leningrad is gone I only have 25% of the ground troops there what there was historically deployed and virtually no tanks, no air force other than few fighter squadrons.

If Soviet would have deployed in the South Historically as strong as many Soviet players do operation Blue would have been remembered same kind of battle as Kursk and there would be less nitpicking about game not going Historical route. If you want totally Historical 41 there is chance to play the game from 42 campaigns.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Hope it's not me that comes across screaming hystronics...[X(] I tried to be reasonable and start a discussion.

Well, seeing as how I couldn't even spell histrionics correctly... [:)]

In truth, this has been a mostly calm debate, however there are at times over the top sentiments from folks (no, not you!) that do not really add to the debate. If we wish reasonable change, we need to simply be reasonable ourselves.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: randallw

We just need that "I win" button for the Axis and most of the histrionics will end. [:'(]

I have been calling for this from day 1, and till now Joel STILL refuses to put this in. TRAVESTY!

[Zonso]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: randallw

We just need that "I win" button for the Axis and most of the histrionics will end. [:'(]

I have been calling for this from day 1, and till now Joel STILL refuses to put this in. TRAVESTY!

Quite the opposite. This has not been what the thread is about at all. The fact you seem quite intent on reducing it to this says more about you and your bias than the posters attempting to have a discussion.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Well, the question is probably what you want to have, a balanced Game or a historically exact Game. All the East Front Board Games i Know have some balancing built into them sacrifycing historical Reality for playability to make the german side interesting to play. Of course, people play Japan in witp-ae although they will most certainly lose. Historically there was no auto-victory. In the game it exists to give the japanese player a reward for performing well.

I think this is a very good point. I don't know the answer to its implementation in WitE, but for me its at the heart of issue.

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

The germans never really stood a chance of winning the war in the east.

To be honest, I've never really subscribed to this view. Hitler and his Generals came from a generation that had seen victory in the East culminating in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk during WWI. They'd done it once and they knew they could do it again.

Unfortunately for them they never realised that the Soviets were at least the equal to them in ruthlessness, brutality and resourcefulness, a completely different animal from the Czar's Army and Government of 1914.

Hindsight, as always is a wonderful thing, but the defeat of the Soviet Union was achieveable through a culmination of victory in the military, economic, and political spheres. This is what is not reflected in the game. For instance, with the capture of Moshaysk in 1941, panic gripped Moscow, people were fleeing the city and the population expected the German Army to waltz in at any moment. Law and order was on the verge of collapse as morale wavered, everyone panicing about a paratroop drop in Red Square etc

If Moscow had fallen, the blow to the body politic of the Soviet Union would have been at least severe, and could have possibly been fatal to the government.
But in events like this, ( if the Axis player was able to outwit his opponent and capture this prize), any real hurt to the Soviets, is simply not reflected in the game.

The Axis needs these type of 'encouragements' to push them along, and to push the Soviets also.

SPI's War in the East, had a simple but elegant way for example to stop the wholesale falling back of Soviet troops during Barbarossa, ( which in my opinion leads to many of the problems we are encountering in 42 ).

It had a table that stated that the Soviet player had to hold onto certain towns and cities for so many gameturns, ie ( and this is off the top of my head now as it was quite a while ago since I played SPI's WitE, so don't quote me, or use these figures as Gospel ) that Minsk had to be held until the end of gameturn 2, Smolensk turn 5, Kiev turn 8 etc. etc. or something like this to stop wholesale evacution by the Red Army Otherwise something dire would happen, like German auto victory, substantial loss of Victory Points etc.

This somewhat simulated the the paralysis of command at the top of the Stavka, and also the colossus with feet of clay feel of the Red Army, still recovering from the shock of the purges, plus the all pervasive fear of Stalin and Beria's displeasure.

In the case of our beloved GG's WitE a system of morale hits could possibly be implemented??

Lets face it, wholesale evacuation of the Red Army is political suicide, and was not an option open to the Soviets in 1941, otherwise there would be a knock on the door at 2am and some nice gentlemen from one of those sinister NKVD units would ask you to accompany them, and then you'd never be heard of again.

( I must put in a caveat here about a conflict of interest:- I'm playing Sveint at the moment and the falling back of the Soviets has caused frequent bouts of rug chewing, high blood pressure and infrequent screams of frustration in my own 'Wolf's Lair'... damm, damm, damm ). [:D]


Because, if we are going to debate whether the game is going to follow a historical or ahistorical route, the Axis is already at a disadvantage from turn one, ie he cannot alter the physical makeup of his forces one iota, whereas the Soviet player can build certain units with no reference to the 'historical' timeline, with, I might add, almost complete abandon. This is just one example of imbalance.

ORIGINAL: sven6345789
Guess 1942 the Way it is now represents that. I think it is ok. Fall blau was a flawed offensive anyhow.
Either you Kick the russian off balance in 1941, or you loose. And that should Be very difficult to achieve.

Of course this should be very difficult to achieve, but not completely impossible. In 1941, the Germans came close to victory,... but no cigar.

In 42, they came close to securing the oilfields but then Hitler decided that VIth Army had to imolate itself at Stalingrad for no real Strategic gain....definately no cigar.

1943 and Kursk....don't even go there.