Why was German ratio gimped from 2.5 to 1 , to 1.25 to 1 42-45?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I see things the opposite way, TD.

There's a morale problem starting to emerge in the game, as I see it.
Germany desperately needs as many 86-morale (or more) infantry divisions as it can make. They need this because if they can't catch the Soviets on foot, they can't launch deliberate attacks.

But the game permanently tries to draw 86-morale infantry units back down to 70-ish. If they lose a fight it's almost a certainty that morale will drop. If they don't fight, they will regress to the mean (over time) and re-enter/remain below the 85-morale mediocrity threshold(if I understand the national morale function right, and I may not). So German infantry needs to fight and win just so it can pursue the Soviet at a reasonable speed eastward.

While I applaud the roleplayers of WitE who attach priorities based on the actual history, I still have to prepare for the typical American gamer, who is ruthlessly focused on exploiting mechanics to achieve unanticipated strategies until the game is broken.

And I think Soviets can now break the game by running east faster than Germans can get to you, pausing only to fight only at key points (which seem to fall along the axis of Valdai/Moscow/Voronezh/Rostov) and when armaments need more time to evacuate.

The advantages to running east are too high to ignore: preserve Soviet equipment, preserve Soviet unit morale, Preserve Soviet manpower. I can see no down-side, because the manpower of the cities isn't necessary over the long-game, and you're also preserving bodies by not fighting.

While running away, you're also simultaneously making Germany weaker because all of those non-fighting 86-morale divisions are seeing that advantage erode steadily over the first 11-14 turns of the game (the runaway phase, which might impact Germany's advance into Russia by as much as 20-30 hexes). The reality is losing all that land is meaningless to the Soviet production macro-game in 1941.

A VP system, or an insta-lose if Leningrad/Moscow/Rostov/Voronezh fall to Germany, etc., could go a long way here.

I don't envy the Soviet the loss of the forts. But even with Germany doing as well as it is, we're not seeing, I don't think (maybe you differ) Germany scoring insta-wins or games where we can clearly see that the Fort rules are THE determinant in causing the Soviet to be doomed in the long-game.

I think you're being way too harsh with your countrymen (and yourself). And anyway, this has nothing to do with a particular culture. It's a typical human trait: some people really want to win, at all cost... that's all. That is not a bad thing, not even close. I only play for fun, yes, but once I play I will do my best to smash (I never leave aside fair play though) my opponent.

I personally will never blame for example Pelton (his buildup spam that is). After all, he is only using (or abusing) a tool which IS in the game [;)] He is guilty of that, yes. As I see it, he simply is an ultra-competitive person who will try to find anything that will lead him to victory. The tactics he uses might be wrong or right, that's totally irrelevant.

I insist, with the current few Soviet losses (ergo the Soviets have MUCH more forces to defend) the Germans are basically doing better than their counterparts... Leningrad in their bag. So what else do you want? If the Soviet hordes don't retreat (as you want) the Germans might bag these 3 million soldiers AND get to Gorky and Stalingrad itself by november 1941... who knows... Would that be coherent? NOT on my book.

[heliodorus04]

I don't want to make the Soviet stand and fight until he wants to stand and fight. 

I do think that designers might take a look at the distance that FBDs can move over the 17 turns and release a little pressure on the Germans by somehow making it a little easier to get an extra hex on each line each turn.
 
What I have found in my game vs. Cannonfodder compared to all my other games before is that  HQ buildup is required about each turn in the south and center just so you can advance a path of friendly hexes for the infantry to move across (it's like 1941 is a big game of curling, with armor sweeping smooth ice-paths ahead of the infantry rocks).  To ensure the availability of HQ buildup, you have to double-down the 2 FBDs in the south, starting instantly, and you have to double-down the center around the time the land bridge is cleared.  To me, these are now the sine-quo-non of Axis operations.  Otherwise you'll get to Moscow and the Donbas regions right as the Soviets are finishing their first real line of fortifications, and you're reaching the very end of your supply line.

Where I think this is problematic is that the Soviet, as far as I can tell, really doesn't suffer any down-side in the choice of an orderly withdrawal strategy.  If the German tries to catch him using the double-down rail conversion, he's putting his entire army group supply into one line, with a random partisan attack having the opportunity to neuter an entire army group.  In my game vs. CF, I'm devoting lots of regiments on that rail line's security, but when one gets through, I'm going to lose a whole army group for a whole turn, which doesn't seem exactly well-balanced.  Don't get me wrong, it's not like I think this rail conversion approach  should come without risk, but there's a problem in that when that risk does catch me, a whole AG is out of action. 

There's quite a difference in sacrifices made for optimization in this game, where the Soviet (at least in my opinion) rarely has to make any difficult strategic tradeoffs, whereas the Axis are making them each and every turn.

As I think about the double-FBD issue, it's a horrible inefficiency, but it's the only way to ensure you can be doing HQ buildup in the Moscow and Donbas regions in the latter half of the summer (turns 12 through 17).  Generally the extra-FBD only converts 1 more hex than otherwise, but sometimes with river, or swamp to cross, it's 2. 

I think basically Germany should be able to convert 1 more hex away from the railhead in 1941 than they can right now. 

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I do think that designers might take a look at the distance that FBDs can move over the 17 turns and release a little pressure on the Germans by somehow making it a little easier to get an extra hex on each line each turn.

...

I think basically Germany should be able to convert 1 more hex away from the railhead in 1941 than they can right now. 

I actually argued the opposite and suggested to the devs that they make the rail repair rate slower. The Axis are just not hitting any logistical walls during the Summer campaign. They should.

[Flaviusx]

Indeed, the rails can be pushed very far as is. Which in of itself isn't the problem -- the real issue is the carrying capacity of said rails, which is treated as essentially infinite by the game engine.

The Germans can attack Moscow all summer long as a result. No need for a pause as per the historical post Smolensk breather.

[heliodorus04]

Why should they have to pause if the enemy is retreating ahead of him?  Why wouldn't rail repair be faster/more secure when the Soviet Union is continuously picking up camp and moving east?

Yes, the supply system is simplistic: the tantamount supply game is HQ buildup + railhead distance = German ability to do stuff.  We're a long way, I think, from having any kind of change to the infinite rail line/infinite throughput stuff.

Meantime, what seems to be missing from the 1941 game battles compared to the real battles are Soviet operations that can surprise the Germans with tenacity and determination. 

I really don't know where the design team should press at the moment.

[Q-Ball]

If it's much slower, though, the Donbas might be out of reach.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Why should they have to pause if the enemy is retreating ahead of him?  Why wouldn't rail repair be faster/more secure when the Soviet Union is continuously picking up camp and moving east?

The soviets are retreating because it is very VERY hard to effectively defend or counterattack. The risk of encirclement (due to HQ buildup and one week turns) is always present. You caught me ofguard in our game Helio and the result is around 600.000 men in a pocket (I'll admit I made it worse then it should have been).

Still, if the Soviets actually had a decent fighting chance it would be easier to at least try to stand and fight. Now your best chance is to checkerboard and retreat...

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Why should they have to pause if the enemy is retreating ahead of him?  Why wouldn't rail repair be faster/more secure when the Soviet Union is continuously picking up camp and moving east?

The soviets are retreating because it is very VERY hard to effectively defend or counterattack. The risk of encirclement (due to HQ buildup and one week turns) is always present. You caught me ofguard in our game Helio and the result is around 600.000 men in a pocket (I'll admit I made it worse then it should have been).

Still, if the Soviets actually had a decent fighting chance it would be easier to at least try to stand and fight. Now your best chance is to checkerboard and retreat...

Damn, down to 600K already? I thought it was a million. I'm doomed.

But I agree with you that the uniform feeble status of the Red Army throughout the first 10 turns is something that ought to be looked into from a playability standpoint (which is to say, favoring that over realism). Without a backbone, CF's right: there's never a tactical reason to stand and fight (sometimes there are strategic reasons that compel you to do so anyway).

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


The soviets are retreating because it is very VERY hard to effectively defend or counterattack. The risk of encirclement (due to HQ buildup and one week turns) is always present. You caught me ofguard in our game Helio and the result is around 600.000 men in a pocket (I'll admit I made it worse then it should have been).

Still, if the Soviets actually had a decent fighting chance it would be easier to at least try to stand and fight. Now your best chance is to checkerboard and retreat...

Damn, down to 600K already? I thought it was a million. I'm doomed.

But I agree with you that the uniform feeble status of the Red Army throughout the first 10 turns is something that ought to be looked into from a playability standpoint (which is to say, favoring that over realism). Without a backbone, CF's right: there's never a tactical reason to stand and fight (sometimes there are strategic reasons that compel you to do so anyway).

I disagree with this, to a certain degree. In 1.05.xx, I think the Soviets need, more than they have since the pre-1.03.xx versions, to stand and fight whenever practical. Further, I think that many Soviet players are misjudging what is practical. With 1.05.xx versions, Axis attacks are regularly causing at least 5:1 average loss ratios. I've found that in my Soviet games, Soviet attacks during the 1941 season are regularly averaging 1:1.5 loss ratios. This is a huge differential. Especially since some of the more recent changes have dialed down the amount of frontline attritional losses, it is important to start causing some direct damage back to the Axis, to keep his replacements (manpower and armaments) from accumulating. By engaging his forces more often, you also put a strain on his supply state, which can cause further morale degradation, and unrepaired equipment loss, beyond that which the lost battles might themselves cause.

Now, that said, if the Soviet player is not making the "good" attacks, and is not mindful of being able to return to his fortified positions, favorable terrain, or simply withdrawing out of reach of the Landsers, then he may overcommit himself to attacks that cause more harm than good. However, to simply run away, or hunker down and wait for the Axis to attack each turn will lend the initiative wholly to the opponent, and reduce the number of victories that your units need to overcome their loss totals and qualify for Guards status.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


The soviets are retreating because it is very VERY hard to effectively defend or counterattack. The risk of encirclement (due to HQ buildup and one week turns) is always present. You caught me ofguard in our game Helio and the result is around 600.000 men in a pocket (I'll admit I made it worse then it should have been).

Still, if the Soviets actually had a decent fighting chance it would be easier to at least try to stand and fight. Now your best chance is to checkerboard and retreat...

Damn, down to 600K already? I thought it was a million. I'm doomed.

But I agree with you that the uniform feeble status of the Red Army throughout the first 10 turns is something that ought to be looked into from a playability standpoint (which is to say, favoring that over realism). Without a backbone, CF's right: there's never a tactical reason to stand and fight (sometimes there are strategic reasons that compel you to do so anyway).

I disagree with this, to a certain degree. In 1.05.xx, I think the Soviets need, more than they have since the pre-1.03.xx versions, to stand and fight whenever practical. Further, I think that many Soviet players are misjudging what is practical. With 1.05.xx versions, Axis attacks are regularly causing at least 5:1 average loss ratios. I've found that in my Soviet games, Soviet attacks during the 1941 season are regularly averaging 1:1.5 loss ratios. This is a huge differential. Especially since some of the more recent changes have dialed down the amount of frontline attritional losses, it is important to start causing some direct damage back to the Axis, to keep his replacements (manpower and armaments) from accumulating. By engaging his forces more often, you also put a strain on his supply state, which can cause further morale degradation, and unrepaired equipment loss, beyond that which the lost battles might themselves cause.

Now, that said, if the Soviet player is not making the "good" attacks, and is not mindful of being able to return to his fortified positions, favorable terrain, or simply withdrawing out of reach of the Landsers, then he may overcommit himself to attacks that cause more harm than good. However, to simply run away, or hunker down and wait for the Axis to attack each turn will lend the initiative wholly to the opponent, and reduce the number of victories that your units need to overcome their loss totals and qualify for Guards status.

Helio is doing a great job of denying me these possibilities. There are always a couple of attacks I can make, and I make them, but nothing that slows his advance..

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I disagree with this, to a certain degree. In 1.05.xx, I think the Soviets need, more than they have since the pre-1.03.xx versions, to stand and fight whenever practical. Further, I think that many Soviet players are misjudging what is practical. With 1.05.xx versions, Axis attacks are regularly causing at least 5:1 average loss ratios. I've found that in my Soviet games, Soviet attacks during the 1941 season are regularly averaging 1:1.5 loss ratios. This is a huge differential. Especially since some of the more recent changes have dialed down the amount of frontline attritional losses, it is important to start causing some direct damage back to the Axis, to keep his replacements (manpower and armaments) from accumulating. By engaging his forces more often, you also put a strain on his supply state, which can cause further morale degradation, and unrepaired equipment loss, beyond that which the lost battles might themselves cause.

Now, that said, if the Soviet player is not making the "good" attacks, and is not mindful of being able to return to his fortified positions, favorable terrain, or simply withdrawing out of reach of the Landsers, then he may overcommit himself to attacks that cause more harm than good. However, to simply run away, or hunker down and wait for the Axis to attack each turn will lend the initiative wholly to the opponent, and reduce the number of victories that your units need to overcome their loss totals and qualify for Guards status.

I'm on James camp. I tried to do this against Q-Ball, but I think I chose a few of my battles poorly. In any case, I only felt the need to really break contact by early to mid September. At that point, the Red Army was just falling apart. Fortunately, Q-Ball's Wehrmacht reached the limit of their supply range, especially in the South.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

I'm on James camp. I tried to do this against Q-Ball, but I think I chose a few of my battles poorly. In any case, I only felt the need to really break contact by early to mid September. At that point, the Red Army was just falling apart. Fortunately, Q-Ball's Wehrmacht reached the limit of their supply range, especially in the South.

There is no such thing as a supply range limit for the axis in summer of 1941 if you play your cards right (like helio)

[Flaviusx]

Cannonfodder, it really depends on where the doubled up FBDs are, and in the south especially the Axis does run into problems by the time they get to the Donbas/Rostov. The trick down south is holding on until you get the factories out. Then you can fade away into the interior.

Elsewhere, however, supply is a non factor. A drive to (and even past) Moscow can be supplied with ease, and coupled with HQ buildups, makes Moscow a more than viable target. Only when mud hits does this fall apart. But hanging on until the mud is tough if the German wants to get Moscow.

This possibly makes it even more important to hold on to Leningrad as long as possible, if only to delay transfer of PG4 to the center. It will fall. (Leningrad cannot be defended, period, against a German who knows what he is doing.) But if you can hang on to it until turn 16 or so, then that may be good enough.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Elsewhere, however, supply is a non factor.

Disagree. Supply on offense is always the single-most important consideration of every move I will make in a turn. What I discovered when I really started paying attention to optimizing my army performance as Axis was that unless you double-up on FBDs (for a basic gain on the single line of 1 or 2 rail hexes per turn, sacrificing 2 or 3 gross hexes between the two FBDs) Germans receive such small and inconsistent levels of supply for their armor that you might as well not move every other turn with every panzer corps.

Realistic as that may be to how the Wehrmacht conducted operations, the fact was that without a double-FBD line the German ends up on the end of a yo-yo where the Soviets crept eastward just fast enough to stay out of range of deliberate infantry attacks, so you were quite typically having to abandon 3-5 MPs per infantry division per turn, while giving the Soviet more rest and time. When you weren't reaching Kaluga until Turn 14 with supply, the game had a derth of both tactical and strategic options.

However, with the double-FBD in the south starting on Turn 1, and starting around Vitebsk on Turn 6 or 7-ish, you can actually drive right down the throat of the best avenues of approach to Moscow (Daugava->Vitebsk->Kaluga), and Rostov (where there are more paths available depending on how you handle the Dnepr).

A railhead at Kaluga gives Germany tremendous leverage from Kalinin in the north to Ryazan in the east, to Tula (a real armaments jackpot if you're lucky). Just as Leningrad is a city that usually falls because it's the only city with a true incentive to take (and a limited ability to be defended based on geography), I would perhaps assert that the best course of action that AGC can pursue is to drive to Kaluga with a double-FBD rail supply line as fast as earthly possible. Now that Germans CAN fight for Moscow, one could argue that there is a trend that German players ARE fighting for Moscow. I thought that was a good thing.

[Flaviusx]

Helio, all you are doing here is confirming what I said: logistics just isn't an issue for the Germans outside the south.

Here's my problem with the Moscow business -- not logistically doable in real life. The capacity of the rail lines converted couldn't properly support AGC. This as much as anything else mandated a pause in operations and was a large reason the panzers got temporarily diverted north and south.

That kind of logistical bottleneck isn't really reflected in the game. You just need to push the railheads forward as fast as possible, and throw in some buildups for good measure. This makes a Moscow (and past Moscow) drive in the high summer feasible in a way that really shouldn't be.

The problem will come back and haunt the Germans later on, too: when the Soviets are on the offensive, they too aren't terribly restrained by logistics. (They are however hamstrung by a crippling truck shortage.) The game logistics, imo, are really incredibly forgiving for the offensive. I don't pretend to know what to do about this, but there it is. Pavel is working on stuff, but any kind of overhaul of the logistical system is going to be a long haul project.

[Klydon]

Interesting here with the situation about advancing on Moscow.

Historically, the Germans had all sorts of issues with supplying AGC not only with gas, but ammunition as well, etc. The Germans had to not only beat off the Russian counter attacks, but then work on building up enough supplies for a thrust against Moscow. According to one book I have, it took them about a month to get enough supplies built up. (This was done while PG 2 and 3 went on other missions and took longer because the Russians were far more active than the Germans had thought they would be). It wasn't until the end of September that forces and supplies were in place. The Russians were caught off guard because they thought the Germans would stand where they were so late in the year.

Now, while I agree that logistics issues are a bit too easy for the attacker, I would also point out that the vast majority of games do not have nearly the heavy fighting (and ammunition/supply expenditure) that the Germans had historically simply because the Russians typically are running and the Germans are advancing, doing very little actual fighting.

I would say this is yet another reason for the Russians to look at standing and fighting more (run the German supplies down), but the way the game is right now, I don't think it will make any difference.

Ideally, we would get to the point that due to logistics issues, the Germans would have to give more thought before reaching for the deliberate attack button (Deliberate attack uses a lot of ammo/supply) and that the Russians getting more in the face of the Germans; even attacking more, would be a strategy itself to drain the German supplies. Unfortunately, I did some tests on this awhile ago and even attacked by a pile of Russians, German units don't burn much supplies defending themselves. The big one is doing deliberate attacks.

[heliodorus04]

I definitely agree that the supply system fosters unrealistic pace of operations, and because of that, WitE currently doesn't reflect Barbarossa particularly accurately.  I'm UNsure whether the game balance is okay from a competitive standpoint. 

One of the reasons I switched from an operational tempo where I rested panzer divisions for a turn or two when they reached a supply bottleneck was that waiting a turn or two often produced no meaningful recovery in movement points.  Were the bonus for sitting idle for a turn meaningful, buildup wouldn't be such a more meaningful tool.  I still rest panzers, but because the railhead is closer to begin with, the recovery is much more impactful.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I definitely agree that the supply system fosters unrealistic pace of operations,

This was the biggest issue in WitP. By march 1942 you could have 200 B-17s in Port Moresby [:D] Still, maximum a Japanese player could grab New Caledonia and then New Zealand (South Pacific); north Australia and the whole New Guinea (Southwest Pacific); and some really bold guys could even capture Pearl Harbor (Central Pacific) and even India (Southeast Asia Command). But the West Coast was still IMPOSSIBLE. And that's where the CVs (carriers, no "combat value") grew. Your doom.

In fact this weird logistical thing was finally fixed in 2009 (the Admiral's Edition). But most of us, if not all, kept playing the same WitP from 2004 to that date. That forum was (and still is) the most active -and by far- Matrix forum. This should tell you something. Patience is the word.

WitE is just a baby: a tender 11 months old. It will be VASTLY improved, I bet my Buzz Light Year toy on that one.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Here's my problem with the Moscow business -- not logistically doable in real life. The capacity of the rail lines converted couldn't properly support AGC. This as much as anything else mandated a pause in operations and was a large reason the panzers got temporarily diverted north and south.

That kind of logistical bottleneck isn't really reflected in the game. You just need to push the railheads forward as fast as possible, and throw in some buildups for good measure. This makes a Moscow (and past Moscow) drive in the high summer feasible in a way that really shouldn't be.

The problem will come back and haunt the Germans later on, too: when the Soviets are on the offensive, they too aren't terribly restrained by logistics. (They are however hamstrung by a crippling truck shortage.) The game logistics, imo, are really incredibly forgiving for the offensive. I don't pretend to know what to do about this, but there it is. Pavel is working on stuff, but any kind of overhaul of the logistical system is going to be a long haul project.

+1...hit the nail on the head. This -- IMHO -- is one of the main issues with the game in it's curent form.

[mmarquo]

Micheal T took Moscow from me on turn 9 and Stalino/Tula on turn 10 because he has found a way to keep essentially all of his motorized units maximally supplied every turn; defense in depth is virtually meaningless even checkerboards 3 - 4 lines deep. There is nothing to be done about it - it is like universal acid eating through everything. It is really cool to watch - every turn his forces have cut through everything and advanced almost as if nothing was in their way. In the context of playing a fantasy game, it is great fun.

But, in terms of playing a simulation with an modicum of logistical constraint, no way, not even close. The supply aspect of the game needs a serious objective analysis and overhaul. I would like Micheal T to get what he wants: a way to funnel logistics and use them as in a discretionary manner. What he has now is the ability to attack full throttle with no restraint for over 2 straight months.

Marquo [:)]