FITE opinions

[philturco]

Hey all FITE afficiandos listen up. I would like your opinions as to the balance issue of the game Once we get into early 42, I'm finding that with a good Soviet player, the game is over. Is this the case in general and if so what can be done about it. Seems a real shame...there has been no wargame and no scenerio I've enjoyed as much as TOAW III and FITE.

[larryfulkerson]

Buzz was putting together a mod to address the Soviet imbalance and he got through version 7.0  before he burned out.  You can find version 7.0 at this url:

http://www.filedropper.com/buzzsfitemod20091228

It's got no PO as far as I know, but it does tone down the Soviet side somewhat.  I haven't playtested it for over a year now and I don't remember what bugs, or other anomolies it may have.  There was a report of Finnish units reconstituting in Berlin.  But I'm sure a multi-talented player / scenario editor can fix that lickety split.

[sPzAbt653]

... with a good Soviet player, the game is over.

Is it a good Soviet player, or maybe a not so good Axis player? I think Karri has demonstrated that a good Axis player can beat any Soviet strategy.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

... with a good Soviet player, the game is over.

Is it a good Soviet player, or maybe a not so good Axis player? I think Karri has demonstrated that a good Axis player can beat any Soviet strategy.

Whaat...I think quite the opposite: good Soviet player can't be beaten no matter how good Axis player. Well, good...try excellent. It did take quite a few games to perfect the strategy, but still...

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Bibbo

Hey all FITE afficiandos listen up. I would like your opinions as to the balance issue of the game Once we get into early 42, I'm finding that with a good Soviet player, the game is over. Is this the case in general and if so what can be done about it. Seems a real shame...there has been no wargame and no scenerio I've enjoyed as much as TOAW III and FITE.

Egads. Where can I begin.

Soviet divisions are at full strength when it was rare to see one achieve that.
Average division sizes on 1 June 1941:

Leningrad Military District: 11,985
Baltic Special Military District: 8,712
Western Special Military District: 9,327
Kiev Special Military District: 8,792
Odessa Military District: 8,400

It was even worse for divisions in the interior and STAVKA reserves. Many or most divisions spent the entire war understrenght.

Equipment shortages, especially 37mm AA and 45mm AT guns. The 37mm AA guns were complicated to make and it took a long time to produce them.

Trucks, trucks, trucks. Many of the Mech corp that start the game simply did not have any trucks. The infantry had to walk and so early on the tank elements went into battle unsupported because the infantry couldn't get to the battle in time. No trucks. Same for most of the other divisions in the entire army. The Soviet mobilization plan called for many of the trucks to come from the civilian side. Of course that was quite impossible in the beginning. Simply determine which divisions were crippled this way and take away their trucks.

Do not fortify the border guards in the Western and Baltic MD.

Each infantry division was missing 1/3 to 2/3 of it's horses and 25% to 80% of it's motor vehicles before things got mobilized after 22 June. This made the infantry less mobile against even the German infantry divisions. Against the panzer divisions they could hardly manuever at all. Needless to say the frontier divisions lost most of their heavy equipment in a few days.

The Soviets ended up using horses to pull the majority of the artillery during the war, not trucks.

The 76mm artillery that was attached to the division was a direct fire weapon because there was no technical support for indirect fire. Divisional light artillery shouldn't get to be indirect fire through the entire war. Don't know how you could model that.

Allow all Soviet units to manuever. Don't cripple their ability to respond. If you do the above it really is not necessary.

Do not give the Axis ownership of any Soviet hexes. If players can't do the same thing the Germans did that's fine. They can't win the battle either so I guess you don't really want them to achieve the same results historically, eh? [:D]

Divisions reconstitute far too fast. And they evaporate far too easily. Read unit histories for the Soviet infantry divisions. About the only time the were destroyed was when caught in a pocket. Rarely otherwise. This was true of all armies of major combatants. Even if the division had no more men than a regiment it still was there, not 'evaporated'.

Do not force Soviet divisions to Army support. They moved from army to army as much as the Germans did.

Make Soviet supply range less than Germans for the entire war to model their worse logistical problems. This should make up for Force support somewhat.

Remove the airstrikes that occur before each and every combat round. Totally unrealistic. Pathetic really.

Tie cities lost to victory conditions. Force the Soviet player to sacrifice units for time. If a city falls before a certain time the Soviets lose so many points. Lose too many and the Soviet player loses the game. Don't time victory conditions to an all or nothing level.

Want to make it really fun? Set all recon for both sides to zero. Now that would be fun. Never know what the other side is really doing. Actually be able to make feints and then strike someplace else with the main force. Wheeee. [8D]

That's all I can do off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

BTW, did you know most lend lease ( at least 75%? ) came through the Pacific Ocean to Vladivistok on Soviet ships from the US West Coast. No war with Japan. So maybe not even bother with the Arctic Front. [;)]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Bibbo

Hey all FITE afficiandos listen up. I would like your opinions as to the balance issue of the game Once we get into early 42, I'm finding that with a good Soviet player, the game is over. Is this the case in general and if so what can be done about it. Seems a real shame...there has been no wargame and no scenerio I've enjoyed as much as TOAW III and FITE.

Egads. Where can I begin.

Soviet divisions are at full strength when it was rare to see one achieve that.
Average division sizes on 1 June 1941:

Leningrad Military District: 11,985
Baltic Special Military District: 8,712
Western Special Military District: 9,327
Kiev Special Military District: 8,792
Odessa Military District: 8,400

It was even worse for divisions in the interior and STAVKA reserves. Many or most divisions spent the entire war understrenght.

Equipment shortages, especially 37mm AA and 45mm AT guns. The 37mm AA guns were complicated to make and it took a long time to produce them.

Trucks, trucks, trucks. Many of the Mech corp that start the game simply did not have any trucks. The infantry had to walk and so early on the tank elements went into battle unsupported because the infantry couldn't get to the battle in time. No trucks. Same for most of the other divisions in the entire army. The Soviet mobilization plan called for many of the trucks to come from the civilian side. Of course that was quite impossible in the beginning. Simply determine which divisions were crippled this way and take away their trucks.

Do not fortify the border guards in the Western and Baltic MD.

Each infantry division was missing 1/3 to 2/3 of it's horses and 25% to 80% of it's motor vehicles before things got mobilized after 22 June. This made the infantry less mobile against even the German infantry divisions. Against the panzer divisions they could hardly manuever at all. Needless to say the frontier divisions lost most of their heavy equipment in a few days.

Even more importantly, a great deal of artillery was completely useless because there was no way of moving it.

The Soviets ended up using horses to pull the majority of the artillery during the war, not trucks.

The 76mm artillery that was attached to the division was a direct fire weapon because there was no technical support for indirect fire. Divisional light artillery shouldn't get to be indirect fire through the entire war. Don't know how you could model that.

Put it in units that lack an artillery icon.

Allow all Soviet units to manuever. Don't cripple their ability to respond. If you do the above it really is not necessary.

Do not give the Axis ownership of any Soviet hexes. If players can't do the same thing the Germans did that's fine. They can't win the battle either so I guess you don't really want them to achieve the same results historically, eh? [:D]

...

In reality, forces often achieved higher rates of advance than TOAW's hex conversion rules will permit.

Divisions reconstitute far too fast. And they evaporate far too easily. Read unit histories for the Soviet infantry divisions. About the only time the were destroyed was when caught in a pocket. Rarely otherwise. This was true of all armies of major combatants. Even if the division had no more men than a regiment it still was there, not 'evaporated'.

'There' in what sense? An evaporated unit in TOAW hasn't been wiped out -- it's merely been reduced to a condition where it cannot be militarily effective.

Do not force Soviet divisions to Army support. They moved from army to army as much as the Germans did.

Make Soviet supply range less than Germans for the entire war to model their worse logistical problems. This should make up for Force support somewhat.

You might even want to create an article of static equipment so that Soviet units could build up power as they sit -- but lose it once they start to move. Just a thought...

Remove the airstrikes that occur before each and every combat round. Totally unrealistic. Pathetic really.

Wrong thread, and you know it.

Tie cities lost to victory conditions. Force the Soviet player to sacrifice units for time. If a city falls before a certain time the Soviets lose so many points. Lose too many and the Soviet player loses the game. Don't time victory conditions to an all or nothing level.

Yeah. It's my opinion that the Soviet Union was on the verge of falling apart in October 1941. She could have handled losing Moscow in 1942 -- not in 1941.

Want to make it really fun? Set all recon for both sides to zero. Now that would be fun. Never know what the other side is really doing. Actually be able to make feints and then strike someplace else with the main force. Wheeee. [8D]

That's all I can do off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

BTW, did you know most lend lease ( at least 75%? ) came through the Pacific Ocean to Vladivistok on Soviet ships from the US West Coast. No war with Japan. So maybe not even bother with the Arctic Front. [;)]

I don't think it was 75%. It was a lot, though. However, when? I wouldn't be surprised if the Murmansk route was disproportionately important in 1942-43.

There was also Persia, by the way. However, that definitely took a while to get off the ground.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

... with a good Soviet player, the game is over.

Is it a good Soviet player, or maybe a not so good Axis player? I think Karri has demonstrated that a good Axis player can beat any Soviet strategy.

Whaat...I think quite the opposite: good Soviet player can't be beaten no matter how good Axis player. Well, good...try excellent. It did take quite a few games to perfect the strategy, but still...

Ok, my mistake. I was remembering several AAR's where you didn't have trouble with the Soviets. Sorry about that.

I guess the thing to be looked at would be the Soviet strategy. In FitE, how does the Soviet player stop the Axis in 1941, and was this historically possible (opinions, opinions), and what might be done about it?

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
In FitE, how does the Soviet player stop the Axis in 1941, and was this historically possible (opinions, opinions), and what might be done about it?

Um.....Karri used the 'fall back' defense when he was the Soviets and I was the Axis. It was quite effective as I recall. But then he's a superior player also. I've heard others complain about the 'fall back' defense when Soviet doctrine at the time was attack at all odds. Plus, it enables the Soviet player to form defensive lines further to the east than the Axis supply lines can reach effectively. Well, eventually the supply lines get there but only after a protracted period of some turns. By that time the Soviet rail system is up and running day and night and units are being brought forward by the boat load. I'm hoping Dave isn't reading this. D'oh.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653




I guess the thing to be looked at would be the Soviet strategy. In FitE, how does the Soviet player stop the Axis in 1941, and was this historically possible (opinions, opinions), and what might be done about it?

The Russians did stop the Germans in 1941. I assume you mean would it have been possible for the Russians to have done so without such colossal losses. It would certainly have been possible -- in a sense.

However, it would have involved two psychological impossibilities. First, recognizing that the Red Army of 1941 was not remotely ready to meet the German army of 1941 on anything like equal terms, and secondly, accepting massive losses of territory without making any serious attempt to defend them.

Sure -- had the Red Army reacted by immediately withdrawing all its combat-worthy formations five hundred miles eastwards it could have hammered the Germans. The war could have been won by 1943. But that wasn't about to happen.

[sPzAbt653]

Tonnage dispatches of Western material aid to the USSR, 6-21-41 to 9-20-45:

Persian Gulf - 23.8%

Pacific - 47.1%

North Atlantic - 22.7%

Black Sea - 3.9%

Arctic - 2.5%

Albert Seaton

[sPzAbt653]

The Russians did stop the Germans in 1941.

But I was referring to the Soviet FitE strategy that stops the Germans forever, causing the players to end the game without giving 1942 a chance.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The Russians did stop the Germans in 1941.

But I was referring to the Soviet FitE strategy that stops the Germans forever, causing the players to end the game without giving 1942 a chance.

I suppose that could have happened as well. After all, the historical Russian moves were extremely expensive. They tried to fight the German army on the frontier and got chewed up. They hurled their reservists into the fray half-formed and unequipped. They fed the Germans their troops up to a half-million at a time in colossal encirclements that occurred primarily because they were unwilling to abandon various cities.

By the fall, they were fighting with what would have been regarded as home guard units anywhere else. Had they been able to conduct their operations with hindsight, they would have had an army several times stronger than the one they in fact fielded by that point -- and it seems to me that such an army would have stopped the Germans cold.

I tend to see the problem as one of forcing the Russians to fight as if the force they have isn't what it is. A TOAW player can see that the unit he is moving up is a 1-2 and that the unit he is proposing to attack is a 14-20 or whatever -- even with 0% recon, he'll know perfectly well that the odds are something like that.

Now, how to make him attack anyway? After all, if you want a campaign that resembles history, that's what you need to make him do. What's more, next round you'll need to make him try to repeat the attack.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The Russians did stop the Germans in 1941.

But I was referring to the Soviet FitE strategy that stops the Germans forever, causing the players to end the game without giving 1942 a chance.

I suppose that could have happened as well. After all, the historical Russian moves were extremely expensive. They tried to fight the German army on the frontier and got chewed up. They hurled their reservists into the fray half-formed and unequipped. They fed the Germans their troops up to a half-million at a time in colossal encirclements that occurred primarily because they were unwilling to abandon various cities.

By the fall, they were fighting with what would have been regarded as home guard units anywhere else. Had they been able to conduct their operations with hindsight, they would have had an army several times stronger than the one they in fact fielded by that point -- and it seems to me that such an army would have stopped the Germans cold.

I tend to see the problem as one of forcing the Russians to fight as if the force they have isn't what it is. A TOAW player can see that the unit he is moving up is a 1-2 and that the unit he is proposing to attack is a 14-20 or whatever -- even with 0% recon, he'll know perfectly well that the odds are something like that.

Now, how to make him attack anyway? After all, if you want a campaign that resembles history, that's what you need to make him do. What's more, next round you'll need to make him try to repeat the attack.

If you want to 'repeat history' why bother playing at all? The idea is to NOT repeat history if it will result in defeat. [;)]

One of the problems the Soviet had early on was one of training. That is to say, they had drilled offensive operations into their army. Very little attention was paid to defensive operations. So you ended up with things like AT guns placed at even intervals by the book with no regard to terrain or avenues of advance. The first period of the war (22 June 1941 to November 1942) was one of on the job training.

This offensive doctrine was evident in their strategic planning. They had intended to go on a general offensive upon being invaded. This was played out time and again with the results being what we have seen in the history books.

I don't see any way to force the Soviet player to attack. You can force him to defend areas or face defeat by losing too much turf too early. And if the Soviet units are deployed in the sorry state they were actually in then the outcome 'should' be different than what you see in FiTE. HOWEVER, big however, at the same time you have to do something about the Axis running rampant with no supply. Tanks should run out of gas in the red. Artillery should run out of ammo in the red. Trucks should roll to a halt. Unless you can model both sides in the way things would actually happen all will be for naught.

[LLv34_Snefens]

Much of your objections has to do with TOAW mechanisms, but you also make a valid point especially about the relative small cost it is for the USSR player to just abandon all of Ukraine and Belorussia. With 500 additional events available, some sort of variable cost could be incorporated, either much more noticable production loss or like you say sudden death loss if the western area is just given up.
Also one thing I have found that needs to be changed is the VVS. It grows too strong too fast I think, dominating in early 1942. A lower proficiency or even a constant negative air shock could be considered.

PS: Like you say, the soviet divisions were never at full strength, but if you look into it, you will see that the authorized ammount of rifle squads given to the divisions in game should be around 324 or so, depending on way of calculating, so a full strength rifle division in game is really only at about 66%.

[Karri]

Well,  I have a game going with following changes:


Axis minors now reconstruct, with the exception of fleets, forts and air force.
-Finns reconstruct in Helsinki
-Hungarians reconstruct at Budapest
-Slovakians reconstruct at Bratislava
-Italians reconstruct at Triest
-Romanians reconstruct at Bucharest

- German air shock 105 in 1943, instead of 100(event 10)
-Russian first winter shock 105(event 11)
-Russian shock of 95 after winter offensive(event 14)
-turn 178 russian air shock 100(event 26)
-Russian shock until mud set to 95(event 361)
-turn 4 air shock to 80(event 362)
-turn 11 russian air shock to 85(event 363)
-turn 32 russian air shock 90(event 501)
-turn 57 russian air shock 95(event 502)



-Some changes to territory in Finland. Shallow water to deep water
in order to decrease frontage
-Max rounds per battle set to 2


Object is to make the game playable beyond 1941.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: LLv34_Snefens

PS: Like you say, the soviet divisions were never at full strength, but if you look into it, you will see that the authorized ammount of rifle squads given to the divisions in game should be around 324 or so, depending on way of calculating, so a full strength rifle division in game is really only at about 66%.

It's not only rifle squads. Everything is at full strength. But yes, the Shtat for Soviet rifle divisions was much different from what is portrayed in FiTE. But then how do you model the divisions when their make up changed twice. You would have to have three pieces for each division for 1941 alone. [:D]

In any event, personally I think you need to take one step at a time and should deviate from historical fact as little as possible. I'd start with events concerning production and the moving of factories. Penalties for losing cities and turf too early and go from there.

Perhaps take a look at DNO and use some of what Daniel McBride has done. In fact, I would use his deployment as well since it is much more accurate.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Karri

Well,  I have a game going with following changes:


-Russian shock of 95 after winter offensive(event 14)
-turn 178 russian air shock 100(event 26)
-Russian shock until mud set to 95(event 361)
-turn 4 air shock to 80(event 362)
-turn 11 russian air shock to 85(event 363)
-turn 32 russian air shock 90(event 501)
-turn 57 russian air shock 95(event 502)

Object is to make the game playable beyond 1941.

This is one of the things that bothers me when trying to make this scenario playable. Units are made immobile and unable to react to even local circumstances. If Soviet infantry divisions are made less mobile in 1941 the result will be somewhat the same. Divisions had no problem acting on their own initiative. It was generaly when you got below division level initiative might become a problem. Instead, entire armies are made static by lowering shock. In my opinion I see nothing in unit histories that would justify this. Has no one tried to force the Soviet to stand and defend instead?

Will the unit max be increased in 3.4? This scenario sorely needs that.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653



But I was referring to the Soviet FitE strategy that stops the Germans forever, causing the players to end the game without giving 1942 a chance.

I suppose that could have happened as well. After all, the historical Russian moves were extremely expensive. They tried to fight the German army on the frontier and got chewed up. They hurled their reservists into the fray half-formed and unequipped. They fed the Germans their troops up to a half-million at a time in colossal encirclements that occurred primarily because they were unwilling to abandon various cities.

By the fall, they were fighting with what would have been regarded as home guard units anywhere else. Had they been able to conduct their operations with hindsight, they would have had an army several times stronger than the one they in fact fielded by that point -- and it seems to me that such an army would have stopped the Germans cold.

I tend to see the problem as one of forcing the Russians to fight as if the force they have isn't what it is. A TOAW player can see that the unit he is moving up is a 1-2 and that the unit he is proposing to attack is a 14-20 or whatever -- even with 0% recon, he'll know perfectly well that the odds are something like that.

Now, how to make him attack anyway? After all, if you want a campaign that resembles history, that's what you need to make him do. What's more, next round you'll need to make him try to repeat the attack.

If you want to 'repeat history' why bother playing at all? The idea is to NOT repeat history if it will result in defeat. [;)]

Okay...but then a Russian regime that recognizes its true state of preparedness and is willing to accept huge losses of territory from the start behaves rationally, falls back, and conclusively gains the upper hand by the end of 1941. By the end of 1942, the German position is on the verge of collapse, and the Reds are liberating Warsaw by 1943.

No problem -- but it won't look much like the historical campaign in the East.

While you're right that people shouldn't want to merely 'repeat history,' when they go to play a France 1940 scenario, they don't want to see the Germans still fighting along the Belgian frontier in September, and when they head to the Eastern Front, they don't want to see a triumphant Red Army surging westward in 1942. They want something that resembles the historical campaign -- where the historical course of events at least could happen.

And in campaigns like that in France in 1940 and Russia in 1941, that presents a problem. It presents a problem because TOAW cannot model the military misapprehensions and political failings that did so much to dictate the course of these campaigns. Any scenario that restricts itself to faithfully modeling the strictly military potential of the units -- as any decent TOAW scenario pretty much has to -- is highly unlikely to yield anything like the historical outcome unless the result is literally rammed down the player's throat with artificial shock events and 'drop dead' event mechanisms.

These campaigns can't be perfectly simulated -- or rather, simulating them would require some serious additions to TOAW's toolbox. I'm not saying this is a reason not to try -- but that the outcome won't be completely satisfactory has to be accepted.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Okay...but then a Russian regime that recognizes its true state of preparedness and is willing to accept huge losses of territory from the start behaves rationally, falls back, and conclusively gains the upper hand by the end of 1941. By the end of 1942, the German position is on the verge of collapse, and the Reds are liberating Warsaw by 1943.

No problem -- but it won't look much like the historical campaign in the East.

While you're right that people shouldn't want to merely 'repeat history,' when they go to play a France 1940 scenario, they don't want to see the Germans still fighting along the Belgian frontier in September, and when they head to the Eastern Front, they don't want to see a triumphant Red Army surging westward in 1942. They want something that resembles the historical campaign -- where the historical course of events at least could happen.

And in campaigns like that in France in 1940 and Russia in 1941, that presents a problem. It presents a problem because TOAW cannot model the military misapprehensions and political failings that did so much to dictate the course of these campaigns. Any scenario that restricts itself to faithfully modeling the strictly military potential of the units -- as any decent TOAW scenario pretty much has to -- is highly unlikely to yield anything like the historical outcome unless the result is literally rammed down the player's throat with artificial shock events and 'drop dead' event mechanisms.

These campaigns can't be perfectly simulated -- or rather, simulating them would require some serious additions to TOAW's toolbox. I'm not saying this is a reason not to try -- but that the outcome won't be completely satisfactory has to be accepted.

Because the state of the Soviet forces is incorrect when the game begins and because it becomes even more incorrect as the game progresses things will go awry.

For instance the Soviet mechanized formations. They should be withdrawn or disbanded early in the campaign and the Soviet should get armored brigades in their place. Instead the Soviet player keeps the mechanized formations AND receives the brigades!!

The mech infantry divisions which should hardly be mechanized at all should be disbanded or withdrawn and become regular rifle divisions. Instead they remain AND the Soviet receives the rifle divisions!!

Guards divisions are created and the divisions they were created FROM remain! They should be withdrawn and reappear many turns later as their numbers were reassigned for the most part.

Well, you get the idea. The Soviets in FiTE become much stronger than they should get much earlier.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Okay...but then a Russian regime that recognizes its true state of preparedness and is willing to accept huge losses of territory from the start behaves rationally, falls back, and conclusively gains the upper hand by the end of 1941. By the end of 1942, the German position is on the verge of collapse, and the Reds are liberating Warsaw by 1943.

No problem -- but it won't look much like the historical campaign in the East.

While you're right that people shouldn't want to merely 'repeat history,' when they go to play a France 1940 scenario, they don't want to see the Germans still fighting along the Belgian frontier in September, and when they head to the Eastern Front, they don't want to see a triumphant Red Army surging westward in 1942. They want something that resembles the historical campaign -- where the historical course of events at least could happen.

And in campaigns like that in France in 1940 and Russia in 1941, that presents a problem. It presents a problem because TOAW cannot model the military misapprehensions and political failings that did so much to dictate the course of these campaigns. Any scenario that restricts itself to faithfully modeling the strictly military potential of the units -- as any decent TOAW scenario pretty much has to -- is highly unlikely to yield anything like the historical outcome unless the result is literally rammed down the player's throat with artificial shock events and 'drop dead' event mechanisms.

These campaigns can't be perfectly simulated -- or rather, simulating them would require some serious additions to TOAW's toolbox. I'm not saying this is a reason not to try -- but that the outcome won't be completely satisfactory has to be accepted.

Because the state of the Soviet forces is incorrect when the game begins and because it becomes even more incorrect as the game progresses things will go awry.

For instance the Soviet mechanized formations. They should be withdrawn or disbanded early in the campaign and the Soviet should get armored brigades in their place. Instead the Soviet player keeps the mechanized formations AND receives the brigades!!

But there you are. Historically, wasn't it a matter of the Soviet mechanized formations all being destroyed and the Russians cobbling together what armored formations they could?

Shouldn't the mechanized formations remain if the Germans haven't destroyed them in combat? Did the Russians ever choose to disband an intact mechanized formation -- or were they all simply destroyed and then the Russians replaced them with what they could?

While I am sure that FitE could be improved, I also think that one has to realize there are limits on what can be achieved. One also has to be clear in one's own mind what one wants -- accurate portrayal of the forces or a historical outcome.

I don't think you can have both at once -- not unless one has a programme of artificial shock effects and such. You certainly can't have the historical Russian behavior of mindlessly immolating half their army in futile counter-attacks (although I suppose there could be a house rule...) The possibilities are limited.