Next qualitative leap for WitE

[Aurelian]

What Hitler rule is built into the game? Where in the manual can I find it?

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: glvaca


I'm going to repeat the question here so it doesn't get overlooked; Vic, have you ever played the Soviets?
I'd appreciate a response as I'm really curious about this. Thanks!

Yep.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

What Hitler rule is built into the game? Where in the manual can I find it?

LOL. You won't find it. It's the fact that there's no choice over Hitler's decision to not send winter clothes and better prepare for winter in spite of the advice of his generals. There's no way to mitigate the first blizzard rules.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

ORIGINAL: glvaca


I'm going to repeat the question here so it doesn't get overlooked; Vic, have you ever played the Soviets?
I'd appreciate a response as I'm really curious about this. Thanks!

Yep.

Would you care to expand on this a bit? Did you play against the AI or was it a PBEM? How far did you get? What was the result?

[kg_1007]

@Klydon above..
"Winter supply" does not mean "just a few coats"..it implies all of the above things you mentioned. ALL of the generals I mentioned, had insisted, first, on being sent sufficient supplies for the winter, to which request OKW (Hitler) replied that the war would be over before winter..once winter came, these generals again implored the high command, to allow them to at least now, with no winter supplies, pull back into cities and more defensible winter quarters, with shortened LOC back to Germany, etc..again, Hitler refused. It was THIS refusal, even more than not sending "coats", that hurt the Wehrmacht that winter,as you had, as you said, unseasoned troops for the most part out in the open, having to use artillery rounds for example to break the ground enough to set up sleeping areas, etc. While a smart"staff" answer to the problem, would have been to do as those generals asked(and as vic said above) once they saw they would not wrap up Barbarossa in the autumn, to pull back, shorten their lines, dig in, and prepare to start it again in spring....now, in this game, the German player, even if he makes that smarter decision, in the game as it stands, he will suffer the penalty for the dumber decision of standing his ground. My mod is working a little around that by primarily not simply assuming in the TOE etc, that the Germans will lose so many men..if they do, they do...but I do not assume they will, the Russian side has to earn it.

[kg_1007]

@vicberg above..I am actually trying out your strategy against the AI, regarding pulling back. will let you know how it goes. My idea was to use '41 to shatter as much as possible the Soviet forces, then pull back..not all the way to Germany, but more along the lines of the advice of the generals in reality..I did not quite get Leningrad before winter hit, so I pulled back to Pskov and the lake, there, defending the old Baltic Republics still, and in the center, I am pulling back to the nearer side of the Pripet Marshes, minus a weak picket line in front whose mission is more to leave a zoc "speedbump" than to fight..I will withdraw them immediately when they come under attack. In the south, I am holding my gains with infantry, and pulling motorized and panzer units back for refit/rest.

[kg_1007]

My idea for pulling back in the middle, I hope, will suck a heavy attack in there, and in the spring, AGS and AGN will shed some of their strength to close a pincher movement around the center of the Soviet front, and hopefully begin '42 with a large pocket like '41.

[glvaca]

KG, what you describe is the most common strategy followed by many German players for the first blizzard.
Usually, most Germans will push hard till the last moment to gain as much space to the East as possible, then on the last turn of Snow or the first turn of Blizzard start a gradual pull back of 2-3 hexes per turn. Some prefer using breakdowns to form a cohesive front, others prefer 2-3 division stacks to deny hasty attacks by Cav or other units which have good die rolls and a lot of movement.

In combination to this, a well fortified line to the rear (lvl2-3) is build so that is occupied around the start of January. This is important as defensive values improve substantially in January and this line could prove beyond the capabilities of the Soviets to overcome. If not, further fallbacks are usually unavoidable but don't have to be dramatic. It all depends on how strong the Soviet is really.

Where it usually goes wrong is that Axis players want to defend important cities or terrain (like Moscow) and refuse to fall back. Depending on the state of the Soviet/German armies, this can prove a costly mistake.

To repeat what I said earlier, the German player must addapt his blizzard strategy to the state of his opponents army. If the Soviets are strong, do not attempt to hold unless you really know what your doing. Retreat and don't get hungup on geographical locations is, IMO, the best strategy. Just like the Sovs in 1941, force and morale preservation is the most important thing. You need to make sure you are in good fighting condition come 1942. 1942 is the crutial year and fighting in the first blizzard when all the odds are against you makes no sense.

The key here is capturing enough terrain to fall back without ending up close to the German border. If your Rissian opponent makes a run for it, you're going to be very far East, and will have alot of space to trade without to much consequence.

[kg_1007]

glvaca..that reasoning was probably Hitler's reason as well..and I can even a little understand it..you fight so hard for a city , and if you are able to take Moscow for example..that little voice in your head is SCREAMING"don't leave this city"...but you are correct.. no terrain is worth the destruction of the army.

[randallw]

My readings on the war include a conclusion that the German supply network in the winter was straining to move forward whatever they could, and even if harsh weather clothing was available it could not have been sent forward without the sacrifice of moving less of something else ( food, med supplies, ammo, etc. ).

[Aurelian]

http://www.warandgame.info/2009/09/prou ... paign.html

Especially the "Winter was too harsh" part.

[kg_1007]

Note that this actually agrees with my argument, especially the critique immediately below the "winter was too harsh" argument, where it critiques Hitler's stand fast orders.
My great grandfather served on the Barbarossa campaign as an Oberst, before promotion, returning to Germany, and then serving in Blau the next year. I heard many times the stories of using field guns and artillery to crack the ground to allow a place to sleep, as well as lighting fires under the panzers and vehicles, to get their oils and machinery warmed up.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: randallw

My readings on the war include a conclusion that the German supply network in the winter was straining to move forward whatever they could, and even if harsh weather clothing was available it could not have been sent forward without the sacrifice of moving less of something else ( food, med supplies, ammo, etc. ).

In general, the officers in command of rear areas often pulled items off of trains that their unit needed, so by the time the train reached the front, it was missing some of what the front needed. Nevertheless, a few things made winter catch up to the wehrmacht, one being the delay of some weeks caused by the Balkan campaign. Still, the Germans had the ability(and as mentioned, the field commanders were asking for it) to ensure they would have winter capability. The German army did fine in nearly as poor conditions in the west in '44, primarily in the Ardennes.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

glvaca..that reasoning was probably Hitler's reason as well..and I can even a little understand it..you fight so hard for a city , and if you are able to take Moscow for example..that little voice in your head is SCREAMING"don't leave this city"...but you are correct.. no terrain is worth the destruction of the army.

Exactly. Now you can react in 2 ways to this uncomfortable truth. You can say the system is off-balance because you cannot hold that terrain OR you can see that your playing style needs adjustment to fit into the system as designed, by giving up terrain. If anything, the system is probably to forgiving in allowing the German to give terrain so easily. But personally, I think this is what we gamers want. We have a chance to make our own history here, the system is not forcing you to do a forward defence in Blizzard, yet many players can't get themselves to give up hardfought gains and end up in the historical situation [:)]

Very often, players will blame the system because it does not allow them to do what they want (for example German limitations in Blizzard), instead of adapting to the system and as such achieve what they want.

[vicberg]

Well Glav,

The 1-1 becomes 2-1 rules makes holding territory difficult. I hate that rule. Let the normal combat system work. The germans are already halved or thirded.

Per your request.

This is first game as Soviets. I didn't even know what to do with all the Stavka units until turn 4 or 5 and I started down the path of assigning them to Corp HQs not realizing they go bye bye mid summer. I also didn't know you can create your own SUs. LOL. So, I assigned Zhukov to Stavka and started moving north to south assigning high initiative leaders to the armies and SUs.

Here's Leningrad. It will fall, but for every turn I tie up PZG4, that's another turn it's not being used against Moscow. Since he's starting turn 13, it's doubtful at this point that PZG4 will be much of a factor at all against Moscow. All secondary and tertiary lines are set to Reserve.

Glav, Michaelt has pointed all this out. The reserve mode, the ability for Soviets to stop Germans cold by using Checkerboards or Carpets, this is why mules are needed or an incredible German opening. It fairly easy, if you avoid encirclements, to stop the Germans. They'll push where they want, but it can't be everywhere. Of course, the Soviet fanboys are up in arms about MichaelTs opening in the south and mules. If the devs are dumb enough to listen and remove those, you won't be able to find a German player.

[vicberg]

Here's the center. I checkerboarded until I had enough troops for solid lines. I retreated until I had enough troops and good terrain to stand ground. Note the white line is all triple stacked. Everything behind is double or triple stacked and set to Reserve. Defenses are purposely weaker north and south. Each turn the panzers are shifting is another turn that they aren't moving towards Moscow. I have at least 2 armies in reserve that I can commit to this front if needed. That's another 20+ counters and more coming.

His panzers are on the north part of the triple stacked line. I'm trying to lure him into the north, rivers and forests, which will guarentee Moscow holds or south of Smolensk, which will take another turn to shift the panzers and I can put at least 2 more armies in his way.

[vicberg]

Here's the south. More of the same. Lighter defenses where there's open terrain I could care less about. Heavier defenses along his main axis of attacks.

Note, I pulled back too fast. My last game as Germans, my Soviet opponent used brigades in a checkerboard within a few hexes of the Denpr. That was very effective as hasty attacks becames too unreliable and I had to deliberate. I couldn't make much progress. I didn't do that down south, but I should have. I gave up too much terrain unnecessarily.

[vicberg]

Summary

Soviets are forgiving. Germans are not.

My losses are at 1.7 million. Very light.

I avoided any encirclements after first turn and was able to put huge numbers of troops in front of him by doing a checkerboard in the north and south. If I had maintained the checkerboard in the south, he would be at least 6 hexes further west. Oh well.

First game.

My games have mirrored this playing the Germans. So have many others. Because losses are light, he'll be facing huge number of reds in 42 and it will be game over. Have a mediocre 41 as the Germans and you'll get slammed in 42and it's easy to have a mediocre 41 as Germans against even mediocre play on my part as Soviets.

[kg_1007]

I agree with vic, glvaca...I have no problem withdrawing, myself..my problem is that the game assumes I dont withdraw, assumes I make the same errors historically made, withdraws divisions lost at Stalingrad, for example, even if I dont lose them there, hits my TOE assuming I lost heavily in the first winter, even if I avoided that, etc. I say let the ongoing game decide the future game..if I am being hammered, I am being hammered, the game will punish me for it..but if I am winning, I should not still be punished for choices that I avoided doing, just because the historic command made them.

[vicberg]

LOL, I didn't even know that. Don't do Stalingrad and you still lose the troops. OMG.

Glav, this game is so weighted it's absurd. The secret for Soviets is simple. Don't get encircled, which can happen as long as you aren't against mules and double/triple stack in ZOC and good terrain until there's enough troops to form solid lines. Preserving the Red Army is far more important than losing industry. Once again, I took Moscow and Leningrad in another game and still faced a 8 million man Soviet army in 42. Industry had little to no effect.

From what I saw in your game with SJ80, you lost somewhere around 3 armies to encirclements. My hats off to you for fighting forward. Makes for a much more exciting game and a fun AAR to read. However, if I had lost 3 armies, the above defense would be entirely different and a lot more tenuous. It's a snowball affect. Lose troops, have less to form defenses, then you are vulnerable to losing more troops or production, rinse, repeat.

The Soviets aren't forced to fight forward. They can ignore Stalin's historical directives. The Germans are stuck with Hitler, no winter clothers and losing Stalingrad even if there's no Stalingrad. Amazing.

There's no what if. What if Hitler had listened to his generals? What if the Germans were better prepared for the winter?