Strat movement & game balance

[Reconvet]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Reconvet, you haven't seen our ace German testers play.

Is there an AAR around, played with a reasonably new game version, against a Soviet player alternating checkerboard delays with line defense?

[Flaviusx]

I think you are conflating several things here. Namely, checkerboards and rails. If checkerboards are a problem, then all this theorycrafting about railroads won't really do a whole lot to resolve that problem.

(I'm not saying that I have a problem with checkerboards. But this entire thread has a fairly major post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy going on.)

[alfonso]

A little off-topic, Reconvet

It seems to me that you have chosen a rather convoluted way of arguing about the Soviet use of the rail mechanics. The only wargame I have played before this is WIR, by Gary Grigsby. 20 years ago the cost for transporting a unit by train was the same irrespective of distance, so it is not a design oversight, it is a well thought feature. But then you had only 5000 railpoints, and to evacuate a factory was 3000 points. The cost for transporting a tank division was around 800. For me, therefore, it has come as a surprise that I can move now 30 divisions and some factories. But as someone said, I trust the designers, because I have no idea of the rail capacity in 1941 Russia.

But I also see more or less clearly why the movement between points in a railnetwork is not very much affected by distance, because if I recall correctly this discussion appeared already at WIR forums, and I thought about it for a while. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I appreciate the beauty of the simple design we have now. I see your point, that distance has to count, but I sincerely believe the real effect is minimal.

Edit: while I was writing this, Flaviusx has made a similar point in a much more elegant way.

[Reconvet]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think you are conflating several things here. Namely, checkerboards and rails. If checkerboards are a problem, then all this theorycrafting about railroads won't really do a whole lot to resolve that problem.

(I'm not saying that I have a problem with checkerboards. But this entire thread has a fairly major post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy going on.)

Of course these things are correllated. Overblown Soviet strat movement capability directly results in overproportionned capability to

a) Place and spread out delaying checkerboard defense units
b) Place plenty of reserve units further back to dig in, be it in line, in depth or in a stronger checkerboard
c) Shifting sizable reserves as blocking forces ahead of Axis spearheads.

You are a master in this, please don't pretend you have encountered any Axis player with working tactics that could beat the shift speed of Soviet reserves...

[Reconvet]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

A little off-topic, Reconvet

It seems to me that you have chosen a rather convoluted way of arguing about the Soviet use of the rail mechanics. The only wargame I have played before this is WIR, by Gary Grigsby. 20 years ago the cost for transporting a unit by train was the same irrespective of distance, so it is not a design oversight, it is a well thought feature. But then you had only 5000 railpoints, and to evacuate a factory was 3000 points. The cost for transporting a tank division was around 800. For me, therefore, it has come as a surprise that I can move now 30 divisions and some factories. But as someone said, I trust the designers, because I have no idea of the rail capacity in 1941 Russia.

But I also see more or less clearly why the movement between points in a railnetwork is not very much affected by distance, because if I recall correctly this discussion appeared already at WIR forums, and I thought about it for a while. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I appreciaty the beauty of the simple design we have now. I see your point, that distance has to count, but I sincerely believe the real effect is minimal.

Oh please, compare WiR with WitE. Come on....

Go on believing today's strat movement is well thought through. I'll go on believing they took a coding shortcut here which will feel ugly as long as transport distance is not factored into strat movement cost.

[Flaviusx]

You could reduce the Soviet rail capacity by half, and I could still do what I want to do by and large, Reconvet. You are exaggerating the amount of units that get redeployed strategically by rail. Also, many Soviet units arrive as shells and necessarily are easy to move around before they get built up.

Factory evacuation is a different story, and rail capacity acts as a constraint for that in practice. If you reduced that cap, then yeah, we'd see more industry get captured, and if that's your main purpose, then fine.

If there is a problem here, it's not with the rails.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

ORIGINAL: alfonso

A little off-topic, Reconvet

It seems to me that you have chosen a rather convoluted way of arguing about the Soviet use of the rail mechanics. The only wargame I have played before this is WIR, by Gary Grigsby. 20 years ago the cost for transporting a unit by train was the same irrespective of distance, so it is not a design oversight, it is a well thought feature. But then you had only 5000 railpoints, and to evacuate a factory was 3000 points. The cost for transporting a tank division was around 800. For me, therefore, it has come as a surprise that I can move now 30 divisions and some factories. But as someone said, I trust the designers, because I have no idea of the rail capacity in 1941 Russia.

But I also see more or less clearly why the movement between points in a railnetwork is not very much affected by distance, because if I recall correctly this discussion appeared already at WIR forums, and I thought about it for a while. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I appreciaty the beauty of the simple design we have now. I see your point, that distance has to count, but I sincerely believe the real effect is minimal.

Oh please, compare WiR with WitE. Come on....

Go on believing today's strat movement is well thought through. I'll go on believing they took a coding shortcut here which will feel ugly as long as transport distance is not factored into strat movement cost.

No, I could believe that distance matters much, when you show that to me. For instace, with your (sadly now retired) suggestion we could make some advances. Perhaps the system seems well thought to me because I have not seen another, so I will wait for your ideas.

[Reconvet]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

You could reduce the Soviet rail capacity by half, and I could still do what I want to do by and large, Reconvet. You are exaggerating the amount of units that get redeployed strategically by rail. Also, many Soviet units arrive as shells and necessarily are easy to move around before they get built up.

Factory evacuation is a different story, and rail capacity acts as a constraint for that in practice. If you reduced that cap, then yeah, we'd see more industry get captured, and if that's your main purpose, then fine.

If there is a problem here, it's not with the rails.

I don't say it doesn't need planning skills (where to place and fill up the shells), but in the last days I've seen posts of Soviet players claiming to be able to easily to shift several full sized armies via rail every turn. Even a mediocre Soviet player should be able to hold his own with these tools, while I see experienced Axis players despair in their pbems...

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

ORIGINAL: alfonso

Reconvet: oooh, your contrastable number-based proposal does not exist any more?

Ok, we are at the beginning. What is your proposal?. Same example, please, Moscow-Leningrad-Orel. Because perhaps what is negligible for me is very important for you, and we are talking about the same 5%, and we do not realize we are of the same opinion.

As you began your thread by stating that rail movement might need additional programming, please do not feel constricted by the 30MP points needed to embark...Are you going to make the calculations without loading and unloading? Rail cost will be a direct function of distance?

Do you really think that the loss of mobility of the units is the way the game simulates logistics of the rail-network?

You just don't get it, do you, that loading time (30 SMP) is time during which a train is absorbed and can't do anything else? This number has to go into the calculation of strat movement pool cost, plus the time the train in underway to the destination plus eventual unloading time (15 SMP). If you fail to see the concept, I'm sorry.

The bottleneck is not a Division loading in a station (multiple railways), but the line connecting the points. And yes, I fail to see your concept.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Reconvet, you haven't seen our ace German testers play.

Is there an AAR around, played with a reasonably new game version, against a Soviet player alternating checkerboard delays with line defense?

Yes, I believe that ComradeP and notename have an AAR. This is a good example of a novice sov player vs a vet axis player, even notenome acknowledged this at the start of the game. According to ConradeP notenome is using 'Sir Robin/Robinovich' strategy and just withdrawing his line back east and avoiding any large traps. As I already know from my human vs human game, if the sov are able to start the winter offensive with these troops it means big trouble for the axis. I had removed about 4 mil of the sov army before winter bliz in my game and still got smacked around by sov units for 12 turns blizzard.

IMO, essentially what you'll see as the 'norm' will be a low exp sov player with a single strategy to just pull back east will give even the most vet axis player a hard time. I know some people don't want believe the game is in an unbalanced state, but I have real data from at least one game know. Starting March 1942 the sov player already has 2x soldier's and 4x planes than the axis. Yes, some of those may be inferior of course. But all these units are now in a line that is already 4-5 hexes deep almost everywhere but extreme North. With some guards and shock army units back as reserves. I not sure what kind of summer offensive is possible in 42 for the axis player even if he has a decent 41. Also, the sov player still has 2 months of snow/mud to dig in more.

I'm not bringing this up because I'm some axis 'fanbon'. No, I just want the possibility for the axis player to do better than historical if he outplays his opponent. Currently, with the harsh blizzard mechanics any advantage the axis player may have gained in 41 if he did well is nullified. Even if the axis players is smarter than Hitler (not hard to do) and stops offensive operation in Autumn and attempts to dig in and rest his units. You'll still suffer as badly as did historically if when all the historic factors that cause the disasters of that winter don't exist.

It might take some time as these games progress and more people have similar experiences and real data, but I do believe some future changes will happen to balance the game a bit more. BTW, playing an AI sov opponent will not give you any insight into the axis problems I've just conveyed. It's a great AI, don't get me wrong, but still no substitute for a decent human player which is fine.

[Flaviusx]

Pieter is a good guy, but he's not one of our ace German testers. This might even be his first GC as the Axis. He mostly tested things as a Soviet, like myself.

It's a pity Andy is swamped right now (he's working on Important Game Stuff) because that's the guy you want to play against to really see what's possible from the Axis end.

[JAMiAM]

The Axis *do* have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout.

I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have *the other* wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D]

That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players.

[Reconvet]

You know the Soviet side as well as any other guy around here, weaknesses and strenghts. As Axis you definitly would do a good job too against a rather inexperienced Soviet player like me (only played AI yet, got bored before mud).

Come on, take my gauntlet, and let me document the Soviet strat movement capabilities in the process. Or are you afraid that Soviets might get nerved as a result of it? [8D]

I release you again at the start of the first Blizzard season if you wish. I'm principally interested if my theory that a mediocre Soviet player can hold his own with the current tools gets confirmed or not.

[Reconvet]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The Axis *do* have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout.

I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have *the other* wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D]

That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players.

As I already said: I'm looking for the major cause for the failing of experienced Axis players before the first Blizzard season. After both sides have built up their railways, both fight with the same weapon, logistic-wise.

I'm definetly not Axis biased, I'd just like to be able to get a really challenging and nerv-wrecking pbem-experience as Soviet. [:)]

[Flaviusx]

My dance card is quite full, thanks.

But I am presently playing the Axis in one of my games if that makes you happy. (Playtesting a new scenario called Decision on the Dnper, the battles of the Ukraine during the 43-44 winter.)

[Reconvet]

What a shame.

Axis in '43 is not the same as in '41. '41 is is when the decision is made if Axis can achieve a draw (if having the opportunity to perform well enough) or will face an early defeat (if the Soviets go into the first Blizzard season too strong).

[Jakerson]

1) Soviet Union can strategic transfers about 30 infantry divisions per week / one turn assuming that there are no factory transfers. This is about 300 000 men. I do not know how much cargo and passenger’s soviet rail system at 1941 could handle in one week but this doesn’t sound horrible high number of passengers and cargo for whole week.
2) Most of rifle divisions that soviet gets at start as shell units that takes 2-5 turn to have them toe filled up from the point they arrive. Soviet units also start very low experience and morale. This means that these shell units almost always lose every combat agent German units.
3) Fact number three is that even Hitler was stunned Soviet ability to bring more troops to the front. Germans destroyed 34000 tank, million men and tens of thousands soviet artillery just in one year of war still 1942 Soviet had ability bring up more men, tanks and artillery to the front that they had at start of the war.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Jalla

Now, I think that there are some misconceptions about how railroads operate that are the reason for some of the argument going on here. Being a professional railroader myself, I will try to give you some insight into railroad operation.

First, the strategic movement cost is really not a factor of time. The cost of doing a railmove in the game comes from the needs to marshal the necessary rolling stock required to move an entire unit. For an infantry division, this would be about 500 railroad cars of different types and at least 20 engines. This rolling stock would have to be brought together and used to build at least 15 trains of differing length. Then the trains have to move to where they're needed for entraining. After completing the strat-move of the unit, the trains have to be moved back to where they're needed next, rebuilt, engines changed etc. All this consumes a lot of time. I guess the game assumes that this rolling stock cannot be used for other purpose in the limited timeframe of a week (excluding ad-hoc moves of supplies, personnel along the line), which I feel is probably right.

Second, the real limiting factor on strategic railmoves which currently is not simulated is the capacity limits of a single line. If you wanted to move a lot of troops up a single-track line, the limiting factor is the length of, and distance between, the passing-loops. If we assume that it takes 20 minutes to move from a passing loop to the next, the maximum number of trains that can be moved along such a line (in any direction) is 3 per hour, 72 per day, and 504 per week. Now this is of course in practice impossible to achieve, so let's cut the practical capacity by 33%, to about 330 trains/week. Now, to move an infantry division using 20 trains one way would consume a capacity of 40 trains (the trains have to get back as well). That gives us a total capacity of said single line of about 8 infantry divisions per week.

So, if you wanted a more realistic railmove-model to be implemented, I guess every piece of track had to be rated for capacity, with every move across the line being deducted from the total capacity. This would probably be a bit too much to ask for, and I think the current model is working well enough.

As for the argument that the the soviets have too many railmove-points in the game, you have to consider that the soviet union had a very efficient railway system in place by 1941. Unless someone comes up with some raw data to suggest the railmove capacity is too much, I say we leave it as it is. [:)]

Jalla, thanks for your info. Maybe the most valuable post in this thread.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The Axis *do* have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout.

I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have *the other* wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D]

That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players.

Yea that's what happened to me constantly losing huge chunks of territory in a single turn. Then with isolation system you can't break out ever you have to try to break in. And the thing with the "history only" critics is fine. I mean people want to play their way. The only way to solve the issue will be preference checkboxs (like in witp) so the history only people can play their game that you'll always follow history. And people like me and ara can start out with history and then play our way and see what happens.

That would make both sides happy. I can understand people (including myself) giving their view points. They want the game they want. Only way you can do both is to have a preference checkbox at the beginning of the game.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Reconvet

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The Axis *do* have some incredible tools at their disposal to make things happen in a historical fashion. In a single turn, I've been able to punch through enemy lines and cut a swath 5 hexes wide, 20+ hexes deep against players. On turn 10. All the while, shoring up the base of the breakthrough, and maintaining mass at the tip of the schwepunkt, so that followup turns can continue pounding the hastily railed, or moved, Soviet troops trying to contain the breakout.

I'm an experienced gamer, but not a tester, so I'm still learning the tricks of the trade. After a few more PBEM's perhaps my 'strokes of brilliance' will be a little more commonplace, and I'll actually have *the other* wing of the double encirclement timed to coincide with the first...[:D]

That said, I think that the basis for what reconvet is asking is solid. His primary mistake (besides offering any criticism amongst a horde of fanboys [;)]) was to approach this in terms of being an issue of game balance, where one side is getting some debatable 'advantage', rather than an unnecessarily coarse abstraction that affects both players.

As I already said: I'm looking for the major cause for the failing of experienced Axis players before the first Blizzard season. After both sides have built up their railways, both fight with the same weapon, logistic-wise.

I'm definetly not Axis biased, I'd just like to be able to get a really challenging and nerv-wrecking pbem-experience as Soviet. [:)]

Play a game with ara he'll give you a run for your money.