Boring Opening Moves?

[Lieste]

I found some figures for German casualties, and they were roughly as I recalled them.

Daily* average losses for Combat casualties (KIA/MIA/WIA) and Disease and Non Battle Injury: *To account for short 'June' and the minor variation in months length.
Jun 4106, 1700 - the original source's 54000 gave a Very high DNBI of 5400 per day - swapping Jun/Jul gives more reasonable values:
July 5322, 1740 - original source 548
Aug 6132, 1097
Sep 4390, 1893
Oct 3670, 2129
Nov 2802, 2436
Dec 2487, 2932
Jan 2812, 4120
Feb 3143, 3039
Mar 3388, 2028

The single highest month for total losses from units is August followed by July, and only then January. March is the second lightest of all months of Barbarossa, after November, with December only very slightly worse than March 42.
Average Daily losses for Jun-Dec 6156, Jan-Mar 6177 - this includes both combat and DNBI losses. Dec was not a particularly bad month either, if you move the break point to Jun-Nov and Dec-Mar the losses become an average of 6296 and 5983 resp.

(edit Swapped Jun/Jul DNBI figures).

[James Ward]

Would there be a way to add Turn 0? If so you could have all but 10 (or however many) units frozen on each side for that turn. They could be be moved to add a bit of randomness to turn 1. You'd need house rules to prevent attacks from happening tho.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: 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...

So... if the Axis suffer the same number of casualties, and the Soviets don't, then the 'designers got it right'? Are you going to claim that if Zhukov had been 'active' and not following Stalin's orders he would have been as successful too?

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

Ah yes, twist my argument to say something I didn't and then pretend I'm being unreasonable. That's like #2 in the internet argument handbook.

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...
[/quote]

Unless you brought trucks loaded with tanks or barrels of gasoline along with you. Like the Panzer Groups did.

Kessels (Germans surrounded and stuck with no fuel) were VERY common, another fact.

Certainly, and completely unrelated to what I am talking about. Were there a bunch of these reported in the summer of 1941? I suspect not.

Once their excess supplies ran out that would certainly become an issue, and that may well become an issue when the panzers reach the ends of their blitz line. But until they run out of gas, so what?

"Hey look, there's a Soviet Rifle Division behind us!"
"Can the catch us?"
"Of course not!"
"Then who cares?"

So? You cannot avoid logistics. No gas, no movement. Unless you have horses.

Can't even then.

Okay, question - Do you seriously think there was a string of truck convoys running all the way from the other side of Pskov hundreds of klicks back to 18th army? Unescorted, moving through what was in reality enemy territory (tanks don't take ground, you need infantry for that).

I am not attempting to avoid logistics, I am attempting to point out that the way the game handles logistics is flawed. The way the game depicts it, the panzer groups run out of supply after one week, and thus need immediate resupply. This may be true under normal conditions - although its a bit of an over statement even then, it depends upon what you did for that week. The first problem is that practically as soon as that supply line is cut your unit immediately collapses into uselessness. They didn't have the notion of 'just in time' support in those days, they would get a load of supply, and if they got temporarily cut off from supply before the supplies ran out, so what?

But if you are going to be driving hard and fighting for a while, yeah, you're going to burn through your supplies fast. So if you are planning on operating away from your depots as you go chasing across the landscape to seize objectives, they would bring a large amount of supply with them. Having that line of trucks stretching across the landscape behind them is absurd - not to mention vulnerable.

While they are operating on their own supplies, you can't cut their supply line because they don't have one! That supply is not infinite, obviously, and will eventually be exhausted and need resupply. And as I stated, with an active war on, very difficult for anyone but the Western Allies (and not that easy even for them) to replicate. For the most part you will only have your standard supply, maybe less, but for this kind of operation you would bring your own.

Still holds true today. In 2003 the US advanced rapidly in Iraq, quickly outdistancing their supply lines. The idiots on TV of course were having a bird, "OMG! They advanced too far too fast!" No they didn't, they brought supply with them, drove hard and punched through the Iraqi forces, and then when supply started to run low - but not where they were starving or unable to fight - they stopped for a week to let the supply lines catch up, secure the territory they crossed, resupply, and then renewed the push.

Fourth Panzer had to wait three weeks for that. I suspect they were somewhat vulnerable at that time, but I imagine retained enough supply to fight if someone had tried something.


The supply line as depicted in the game is a board game mechanic that is being used straight in a computer game, and shouldn't. Yes, when you need resupply you need that line, but if you have supply, or get it another way (captured, air dropped, whatever) then you don't. In a board game you don't bother to track a lot of little details like that*, it would be a PITA to keep track of. But a computer can and does, and yet it is still acting like there is some sort of magical connection that has to trace its way all the way back to your capital at all times.

Actually, IIRC, the second edition of War in Russia had mobile supply units to do what I'm talking about here, you used them to temporarily extend your supply lines.

* Although many board games do take into account air supply and don't treat you as completely isolated if you get it, but in GG WitE even if you have been resupplied by air, until that line is opened to friendly territory the unit is screwed, and even after the line is reopened they don't get increased MPs until next week.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Ketza
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.

Ugh, wondered about that. I figured a routed unit forced to rout again would lose more troops - captures, desertion, killed in skirmishes, etc. And hardware should be strung across the landscape as it is abandoned.

But apparently not.

[TulliusDetritus]

Neuromancer, in a nutshell, you are basically saying that N O T H I N G can be done to isolate or harass the panzers. Ok, let's have a map with Vladivostok in it... [;)] Oh, and obviously no need of Soviet counters. What for? Apparently panzers are untouchable [8|]

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
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]

They could have taken it historically too, but Hitler didn't want to bother. He specifically ordered to let them starve, not to attack. The opportunitty was gone by November when the Soviets managed to push the Germans back some in the North and establish a limited supply line to the city - although it was some time before the siege was completely broken, and until then life in the city was (to put it mildly) rather difficult.

It is known as 'The 900 Days'.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: 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.

How many AARs have gone to 1942 with an exciting German 1942 summer offensive?

In my many games as A Soviet not one of my games has gone past turn 18. Even the game I started an AAR on because I felt the Axis player was doing "ok" has fizzled.

I am not saying Germany needs to be holding a line from Rostov to Leningrad in 1944 but clearly what we have now is not sitting well with potential Axis players.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Neuromancer, in a nutshell, you are basically saying that N O T H I N G can be done to isolate or harass the panzers. Ok, let's have a map with Vladivostok in it... [;)] Oh, and obviously no need of Soviet counters. What for? Apparently panzers are untouchable [8|]

Sigh. That is not what I am saying. But as you are clearly not interested in what I am actually trying to say, then I won't bother trying any more.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

While they are operating on their own supplies, you can't cut their supply line because they don't have one! That supply is not infinite, obviously, and will eventually be exhausted and need resupply.

Whatever. This is not the Gengis Khan's horde or the armies of the past: food = the cattle that was following the armies [;)]

You need to be supplied. You need lines of communications. Logistics.

EDIT: Goering disagrees though [:D]

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Lieste
I found some figures for German casualties, and they were roughly as I recalled them.

<snip>

Interesting numbers. Thanks for finding them (I had been looking myself, without success).

Higher casualties for July than I would have expected as I didn't think the Soviets had firmed up the defense by then. Although they did try some offenses which did certainly cause casualties to the Germans (and more to the Soviets). Also the pockets didn't go quietly, and in fact appear to have caused a lot of casualties in their own right.

[Lieste]

I have the '10 day' figures for KIA/WIA/MIA to 10th Jan '42 as well, but they don't include matching DNBI values - they also must be reduced to per-day figures for meaningful comparison, as a 10 day return can be for between 8 and 11 days. 1-10th, 11-20th, 21st to month end.

They support the heavy fighting in July/August, with Dec/Jan figures lower than those in June. Some scatter of values depending on activity, and of course the scale of the fighting - whole front light combat is 'heavier casualties' than very intense combat for a few corps, but those troops may disagree

Return rates given as 56% of WIA return within an average of 98 days, 93% of DNBI in "roughly a month". A proportion of the remainder would also be fit to return to light duties including garrison (thus potentially freeing the person they replace...)

It is noted that winter 'returns' are lower than earlier in the war - more WIA died from infection/disease, and the return rates for the Eastern Front are generally worse than other theatres.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Neuromancer, in a nutshell, you are basically saying that N O T H I N G can be done to isolate or harass the panzers. Ok, let's have a map with Vladivostok in it... [;)] Oh, and obviously no need of Soviet counters. What for? Apparently panzers are untouchable [8|]

Sigh. That is not what I am saying. But as you are clearly not interested in what I am actually trying to say, then I won't bother trying any more.

Basically it's what you said...

You said why you can't cut them off (they have their own supplies). This we know.

Could you tell me when will we be able to cut them off? In theory:

1) soon or late they will run out of gas
2) gas should arrive (trucks). This is yes or yes.

Conclusion, can we cut these line of communications off? Yes or no? When exactly? [;)]

I would say the game is abstract on this one. To simulate 2) you M U S T isolate an enemy unit...

[Lieste]

You do not need to have a continuous supply line open, merely escort the supply column and/or ensure that it is (relatively) unmolested as it passes through.

A temporary interruption of supply is an inconvenience, but it takes a fair while to distribute and use all the supplies that a major formation carries in it's intrinsic transport.
Given a 1 week turn, the isolation of a unit in the enemy turn, relieved in your own, is really only equivalent to 3-4 days of isolation, which may be the interval between major supply arrivals anyway... - could be a problem if it coincides with a delayed supply column from a previous week, but otherwise you mightn't even notice... the organic supply should be enough for 2-3 weeks, more if a supply shortage can be predicted ahead of time and early rationing imposed.

[Mynok]

One thing that seems to be missing from the discussion of supply mechanics is the ability of the Germans to resupply their panzers by air. This is very effective, more so if you can keep the HQ unstacked and accepting all the dropped supply. Maybe there is something that could be done here in conjunction with the isolation issue to alleviate the penalties somewhat...for both sides.

My perspective is that it is definitely harder to play the Axis well (and that's all I've played, so maybe that's an ignorant opinion). But I do think they can be played well and we've seen some fine examples in AARs. I'm not convinced the Soviets are all that overstated in 41. I think giving the players the option to do better than the Soviets did in 41 is good for game play.

Neuro has IMO definitely pointed out real issues in the isolation model, I'm just not sure I know how to tweak it without utterly denuding the Axis ability to encircle and eliminate Soviets. This is a critical weapon in their toolbox in 41 and cannot be overestimated. Without it, they simply cannot cause enough casualties to survive 42 and beyond. Cannot.

I'm leaning hard towards morale being a factor in the equation. And air supply of course, with some limitations as we all know how the Stalingrad air supply plan failed. But that was certainly an order of magnitude more vast than the Demyansk pocket (were there others?). So some limitations should be there. I just don't have a clue what those should be.

And panzers should be able to be isolated and should suffer from it if they can't be adequately resupplied by air. But I don't think they should just turn into wimps because their supply lines are cut off if they are in comm with their corps HQ and it has plenty of ammo and fuel for them. How this would work with the Soviets I simply don't know. It's a complex problem and I will in no way denigrate the current model for giving a decent shot at it. It can be worked with even if it isn't "ideal".

Bottom line is I still find this game amazing enjoyable.

[Michael T]

I enjoy the game too. It's a very good game no doubt. I think we all (the objective types) just want to improve it.

[neuromancer]

I said I wasn't going to bother with this any more, but I did something weird, which seems to be unpopular, I did research.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Basically it's what you said...

Did I...? This should be interesting.

You said why you can't cut them off (they have their own supplies). This we know.

Yes, historically about 4 weeks from the beginning of the campaign.

Could you tell me when will we be able to cut them off? In theory:

Sure, that's easy, when they run out of supply and need resupply.

I'll use 4th Panzer Group as my example (by the way - a correction, they only needed to wait a week for the infantry to catch up, not sure where I got the three weeks from).

Barbarossa, 22 June to 5 August

On 22nd June, von Manstein pierced the Soviet 8th Army’s northern flank by Riga and advanced rapidly to the Dubissa River, where it seized a crossing on the Airogola viaduct. 56th Panzer Corps’ immediate objective was to secure a crossing on the Dvina River. 56 Panzer then advanced advanced towards Daugavpils which they reached on 25-26th June. In a coup de main the 8th Panzer Division (56th Panzer Corps) seized the vital road bridge across the Dvina River at Daugavpils and rapidly established a bridgehead. The bridge at Daugavpils is also well known because it became a prime target for VVS bombers attempting to disrupt the 4th Panzer Group’s advance. Many bombers were lost in daylight raids attempting to attack this target which the Germans naturally defended with heavy Flak and fighter cover. The Soviets naturally attempted to dislodge the Germans from their bridgehead and conducted a series of counter-attacks by committing 27th Army, but to no avail. 56th Panzer Corps then advanced through Ostrov and was planning a deep flanking attack towards Novgorod and Lake Ilmen (the map had them do a little loop on the way, no idea why).

Stavka was (naturally) alarmed by the rapid progress in the north and order an immediate counter-attack by a reinforced Northwestern Front. This major attack (known as the Sol’tsy-Dno Offensive Operation) was mounted by 7 rifle divisions, and the 10th Mechanised Corps (dispatched from the Northern Front). It commenced on 14th July and struck 4th Panzer Group’s 56th Panzer Corps (Manstein) advancing on Novgorod. The panzer corps was struck in the flank and rear, and 8th Panzer Division was encircled. Threatened with destruction, 8th Panzer Division broke out westwards (loosing or damaging around 70 tanks in the process) and the situation was stabilised by 18th July. This attack represented the first significant success by Soviet forces in this sector, and delayed any further advance by a week. It was around this point that Panzer Group IV delayed for a week or so for the infantry to catch up.

Its worth noting at this point that one of the reasons the Soviets couldn't do anything useful before this point (and this was a limited success) was not just that their C2 was a mess, not just that their forces were cumbersome and unwieldy, not just that a great many units didn't actually have the equipment they were supposed to have, but all the front line units had their supply dumps bombed to heck in the first few days. Most of the army was low on fuel and ammunition. Something the game doesn't appear to reflect at all.

Or to put it in the terms of this 'discussion', the Germans had stockpiled a bunch of supply (more on that later) while the Soviets had lost much of their stockpile.

Riga itself wasn't captured by 18th army until the 1st of July, they didn't fully catch up to the panzer spearheads until July 31st.

From the very first day of the offensive, 56 panzer - Probably most of Panzer Group IV - was operating behind enemy lines; cut off from direct supply. Unless the Soviet 8th Army packed it up and went home immediately, which I doubt, I imagine after the panzers raced off into the sunrise (east) they ended up (along with the other forward armies in the Baltic Military District) fighting 16th and 18th army. On July 14th - a little over 3 weeks in - the 56th was flanked and fully isolated, they fought their way out of the pocket, stabilized the situation, and advanced a bit more before finally taking a strategic pause.

In the game they would have been SCREWED.

So then, until the panzer groups run out of supply, it isn't really feasible to isolate them. This is how it was. I'm sure the Soviets would have liked to do it, but it wasn't possible.

They could be attacked, but for the most part this was only of limited success, if that. Often the Soviets took far worse than they gave. The Red Army wasn't really up to offensive operations yet (although as was illustrated, they could occasionally pull something off).

As another example from Pz.Gr. IV, the Soviet 12th Mechanized Corps and 2nd Tank Division attacked 41st Panzer Corps on 23rd June, in a series of running tank battles that went on until about the 29th, 2nd Tank Div was destroyed, and the 12th Mech Corps withdraw at about 50% strength, this was despite having T-34s and KV-1s (around 50 of each) and an overall 2 to 1 numerical superiority over 41 Panzer. 41 Panzer wouldn't have come off unscathed of course, but it remained a potent combat force and continued to take several objectives.

I suppose the next question is "are you saying that the panzers only need to resupply once a month?"

No. Like I said before, the initial buildup couldn't be repeated in an active war. This was especially true for the Germans, and was quite possibly the biggest mistake (of several) of Barbarossa.

Hitler was an idiot, as were his chief advisers (historically a good thing, but not so good for the Wehrmacht). Germany hadn't gone to a total war footing yet, and when they finally did, it was too late.

They only planned on a short summer campaign, and really only had enough supply for a month. They quickly burned through the stockpiled supplies, and by early August shortages of ammunition, food, and fuel began to be felt. The limitations of the Germans to move supply inside Russia became apparent, and they weren't making enough supplies to keep an operation of this size going at full speed anyway.

1) soon or late they will run out of gas
2) gas should arrive (trucks). This is yes or yes.

Its not a binary question, let alone a monodecimal one. As I have shown, they started out with significant supply. After that is gone they would need resupply, and at that point the standard rules should apply (sort of, if they get cut off but still have enough supply to move and fight because they had been mostly static before getting cut off, they shouldn't suffer too many ill effects until they burn through their reserve - this should be true for ALL units in the game).

Conclusion, can we cut these line of communications off? Yes or no? When exactly? [;)]

I would say the game is abstract on this one. To simulate 2) you M U S T isolate an enemy unit...

So... you want what is possibly the single biggest tactical development of WW2, and a crucial element in seeking any kind of success in a East Front campaign to be eliminated from the game because it doesn't jibe with how you imagine supply and communication to work - despite historical evidence to the contrary? What would be the point?

"Hi, I'm Fritz, your Axis beat toy for this game. I won't actually play as there is no point, you can just beat on my units for your personal enjoyment."

(turn about is fair play)

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I enjoy the game too. It's a very good game no doubt. I think we all (the objective types) just want to improve it.

I'm enjoying the AI game, and I think I might want to try PBEM, but it needs to have some things ironed out.

I suppose it could be argued that trying to faithfully restore the circumstances of the East Front is futile, because A. We all have too much to make that possible, and B. if you push too far on that scale you make the game a moot point, all you do is reproduce the historical situation with minor variances in detail, and what is the fun in that?

I think perhaps certain assumptions need to be declared about the game by the Devs, and declare the entire thing a What If from the first turn. I don't feel like exploring what those are - or perhaps should be - right now.

Some of the historical stuff could become options, like the first week tedium, the crazy winter of '41-42, maybe even a bunch of political rules to represent the wackiness of the respective leaders (apparently several Soviet generals were made scapegoats for the initial failures and relieved of command - sometimes of their life - and then of course in late 41 Hitler did the same thing with the Wehrmacht).

Its got a lot of potential, it just needs to be adjusted until it can be reasonably fun for both sides through much of the game. Which may end up requiring the game to be ahistorical over all.

[Michael T]

Its got a lot of potential, it just needs to be adjusted until it can be reasonably fun for both sides through much of the game. Which may end up requiring the game to be ahistorical over all.

Yes its a balance between fun, playability and historical accuracy for me. And throw in an equal chance for 'player victory' for both sides.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Lieste
You do not need to have a continuous supply line open, merely escort the supply column and/or ensure that it is (relatively) unmolested as it passes through.

And of course the Soviets can't do anything to block this movement. It is prohibited [8|] Aim at Vladivosotck, I say [:D]

Neuromancer
Its not a binary question, let alone a monodecimal one. As I have shown, they started out with significant supply. After that is gone they would need resupply, and at that point the standard rules should apply (sort of, if they get cut off but still have enough supply to move and fight because they had been mostly static before getting cut off, they shouldn't suffer too many ill effects until they burn through their reserve - this should be true for ALL units in the game).

If I well understood you are basically saying that perhaps we should give them perhaps 3 or 4 turns (until they run out of fuel, etc.). I take it that the same applies to the surrounded SOVIET forces in the Frontier Districts [:D] So what would we have? Panzers advancing let's say towards Leningrad. Their infantry is of course VERY busy reducing the pocketed Soviet forces in the border. But VERY WELL supplied, of course: if the Germans can have this, the Soviets too... I mean, the Soviets would not resist one turn (week) but 2, 3 or 4... Why not?

I can see the picture... The panzers would finally run out of fuel, deep, really deep in the Soviet Union (they were unmolested gods during let's say 4 turns)... their infantry would be 30 or 40 hexes behind (remember, the pocketed Soviets WITH supply would slow them down big time). And then, somehow... the bears appear and hug your armored units... Good luck! You will need it to avoid the total annihilation of a LOT of German armored forces

[LiquidSky]

The problem is the CV is a contrived number. It is created at the whim of the developer, and they have decided that a unit isolated should take a dive in value.

The isolated unit will still fight the same, it has ammo/supply still, intrinsic to the unit. All the pieces will fire in combat. Problem is, it's ability to 'force a retreat' has been removed, by lowering it's CV.

As well, it is an I go U go system. Your units get isolated while they just sit there, and then you get to respond. Many games will not impose a penalty until some time has gone by, perhaps, there should be no CV penalty the first turn after, and then apply the game penalty.

If the enemy can keep isolation up, then a unit should be eliminated. What I hate seeing is weak units in the rear of my panzers, unable to be dislodged because I have an arbitrary drop in retreat power. And then my elimination on his turn, because I am much easier to retreat.

Of course, I dont allow that to happen, instead, I fight with my panzers and infantry close together. The infantry always at least a turn behind my tanks, so they can 'rescue' my panzer divisions. And in my PBEM game, have had to do it on multiple occasions.