Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

[matt.buttsworth]

Hello Everyone,

I am playing my first PBEM against my esteemed opponent William using tactics developed and mofidifed from Wir.
My esteemed opponent William attacked well, conquering southern Russia nearly to Dneprovosk although he got nowhere near Moscow or Leningrad.
Russian losses were heavy but the Russians survived - kill ratio about 1-2.5
It is now January 15 the Russians are attacking heavily in the North, Centre and South and the German forces are out of reserves - 1.5 million casualities, 2.6 million left standing against 6.6 million Russians.
By my assessment Germany has lost and, as with Wir, the blizzard turns allow a good Russian opponent to destroy them.
Any thought?
Has anyone won the game as German?
Has anyone else won the game by January 42 as Russian?
Do the Germans have any hope of a recovery when snow and eventually mud return?
Is the game balanced enough - within historical parameters of course - to give the Germans a chance to win?
Where did William go wrong (he attacked until one turn before blizzards only digging in with fortifications in 5 squares in the North but they are now lost?

All comments, discussion welcome.

Matthew Buttsworth

[randallw]

By victory points there is a decent chance that the Axis can get a tie.  

[Encircled]

Early days so far, so most of us will be guessing

Against the AI, yes

Against a human? Not so sure, especially if the '41 offensive isn't a roaring success

Be fun finding out though!

[2ndACR]

He did not prepare for the brutal winter he knew was coming. That was his biggest mistake. He should have prepared big time. You only have a prayer if you sitting behind level 3+ forts across your entire front. Anything less and you get butchered by the Russians.

I halt most offensive ops around the mud turns hit and fall back to defensive posture. I try to create a buffer zone that will force the Russian player to advance to my lines and burn a turn or 2 of Blizzard. If he gets next to my line before the blizzard I will deliberate attack to crush that stack/unit. Until he keeps his distance. That is the theory anyway. LOL

But that is what happens when you are kind of locked into a pattern. I know there will be blizzard from this date to this date, so I stop well in advance and prepare. What I would like to see is random winters, will it be as bad as the real 41 winter or will it be a mild winter.

[randallw]

You can always add some randomness by having random weather on.  Random weather gives a 2/15 chance of mud in a turn, 3/15 snow chance for December.

[2ndACR]

I play with random, and let me say that mud across 90% of your front on turn 3 or 4 really is a pain in the butt as the Germans. And then again on turn 8 or 9. You will not make historical lines with random weather, no way.

[karonagames]

Has anyone won the game as German?
Has anyone else won the game by January 42 as Russian?

It really depends what your definition of " win" is. If you look at the Campaign Victory conditions, then the Axis achieves a minor Victory by holding the line they start at on turn 1 at turn 225, and as I noted in the Axis strategic principles thread, I believe this can be achieved.

For the Soviets to achieve better than a minor victory they Need Berlin and a bunch of Cities south of Berlin by May 1945. No matter how bad the Blizzard may seem, they have no chance of getting to Berlin by 1942.

Every AAR published to date has shown the Axis to recover from the Blizzard to start with more than the 3million they had at the start of the 1942 campaign. But most AARs have shown the 1942 start line to be behind the 1942, which obviously makes things a bit tougher.

Everyone's first First winter is a shock to the system for an Axis Player, but once you learn to survive it in reasonable shape you can be counter attacking from Marh 1942 onwards.

[loveman2]

March oh March for where art thou March[&o]

[*Lava*]

Personally....

I don't think it is a question of balance. Balance implies that both the Germans and the Soviets have the same capability of "winning" the game.

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

This isn't that kinda game.

My own opinion is the Axis player must realize that with this game, if he plays as good as the Germans did during the actual war... he will lose.

Now given all the "hindsight" we have concerning the conflict, the German player should be able to do better. In this game the question is... how much better?

That is the challenge that is presented for the Axis player. And that is why IMO, it is one super game.

[;)]

[raizer]

I think both sides, when playing a person of equal skill, in the grand campaign, should have the opportunity,when they play their butts of to get a minor victory.  We dont know if thats possible yet.  Now you might play russian punching bag at the start, stalemate in the middle, then german punching bag in the end, but as long as the vps are balanced and you have fun-who cares!
One of the worst  punching bag games ive ever played and still play, is Tillers Minsk 44-basically operation bagration down to company level.  The game is HUGE...180 turns or so, turns taking 4 hours to do at the start and the germans get crushed.  But its bagration so what to you expect but the victory points work out that if you get crushed right, and smack the soviets down (relative speaking) at the limit of their suppply lines, you can get a minor victory or a draw and believe me, that feels good.  (Plus there are great mods that throw up to 4 topped off SS panzer/moto division into the mix) This game will probably play out the same way.  You fight like crazy, have fun and look at VP levels and adjustments will be made

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: Lava

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

[;)]

I keep on seeing this kind of partisanship but it only clouds the true issues. The balance is attempting to model what historically happened not some 'German' magic formula. Playing in '42 and being able to mass hundreds of artillery and planes as the Russian to smash PzCorps wholesale while initially exciting does make me pause. I don't think I should be able to do that in early '42, '44 sure, so yeah I think the balance is off somewhere, whether the combat algorithms that over emphasize massed arty/air, or manpower or certain design effects. I would think all of us here are trying to make a better game historically.

[Klydon]

Part of the issue is to look at what Axis players define as "victory" and what the game defines as "victory" for the Axis.

Most Axis players define victory as an outright "sudden death" win. Between players of equal skill, etc I don't think it is happening or only very rarely.

I think most games will wind up with a minor victory for one side or the other and that is sort of the balance you aim for, not the Germans winning on a sudden death win half the time. 

[Mrtyphoon]

Klydon I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Axis players best chance of a sudden death win is 1941 and that in my opinion should with players of equal skill be next to impossible to achieve which from reading and looking at the forums seems the way they have set it up. The problem seems to be that gambling for the win in 1941 the German player is then hit by the blizzard and very quickly looses the will to continue the fight. It may indeed be impossible and the blizzard may need to be tonned down a notch or two I think it's still too early to tell. Games when they reach the spring and summer of 42 will probably provide the best answers to where the balance lies. After all when on the Eastern front was there ever balance. Before Kursk maybe or before Stalingrad that debate alone could fill a book. My own experience playing is limited to two camapigns as german both of which are yet to reach the Blizzard. I'm not very good and admit as such I tend to just strike out with the Panzers all the time but even playing like that I'm having a great deal of fun that will change no doubt when the Blizzards arrive. For me balance is less of an issue at the moment than certain fixes that need putting in place minor fixes for sure but things that would make the game even better. The air war needs looking at some more and the Soviet swamp defence also needs some attention.

[G Felzien]

Perfect +1

ORIGINAL: Lava

Personally....

I don't think it is a question of balance. Balance implies that both the Germans and the Soviets have the same capability of "winning" the game.

I think a lot of folks who play the Axis side are looking for some sort of magic formula or hoping the developers will give them some sort of edge that will allow them to triumphantly smash the Soviets to pieces... ala HOI, for example.

This isn't that kinda game.

My own opinion is the Axis player must realize that with this game, if he plays as good as the Germans did during the actual war... he will lose.

Now given all the "hindsight" we have concerning the conflict, the German player should be able to do better. In this game the question is... how much better?

That is the challenge that is presented for the Axis player. And that is why IMO, it is one super game.

[;)]

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Has anyone won the game as German?
Has anyone else won the game by January 42 as Russian?

It really depends what your definition of " win" is. If you look at the Campaign Victory conditions, then the Axis achieves a minor Victory by holding the line they start at on turn 1 at turn 225, and as I noted in the Axis strategic principles thread, I believe this can be achieved.

For the Soviets to achieve better than a minor victory they Need Berlin and a bunch of Cities south of Berlin by May 1945. No matter how bad the Blizzard may seem, they have no chance of getting to Berlin by 1942.

Every AAR published to date has shown the Axis to recover from the Blizzard to start with more than the 3million they had at the start of the 1942 campaign. But most AARs have shown the 1942 start line to be behind the 1942, which obviously makes things a bit tougher.

Everyone's first First winter is a shock to the system for an Axis Player, but once you learn to survive it in reasonable shape you can be counter attacking from Marh 1942 onwards.

+1 to BigA's post. Realistically I doubt Germany could have "won" by wiping out the massive USSR. In the game a Soviet minor victory should probably be considered by PBEM players as a draw. A draw should be considered a German victory.

If you want to play Germany and drive your panzers into the Urals then you probably want a fantasy game, not a real east front game. If you want to play German and hang on in 1943/44 in bitter defense, then you probably want a realistic east front game. The massiveness of the USSR, the difficulty of controlling such a huge territory, supplying an army there, and the manpower disadvantage along w/ massive lend lease from allies and Soviet industry built in the Urals pre-war then moved there during war as well.....all meant Germany was foolish to seek war with USSR and foolish to declare war on the US in the middle of that war.

Of course the Germans made mistakes that can be corrected but so did the Soviets. It was a long crazy war on the east front and both sides had mistakes, ups, downs. But in the end the USSR was just too much for Germany to swallow, in particular while engaged vs the western allies, and in bitter partisan warfare in other theaters like Yugoslavia, Greece, France, etc. The manpower and the industry (when combined with Lend Lease) favored the Soviets. Heavily. The logistics and the weather disadvantaged the Germans. Heavily.

So no you won't drive your panzers into the Urals and you shouldn't expect to. But if you can hang on for a draw then you've won in my book. I don't think we've seen enough PBEM's go far enough to determine what the likelihood of this is or isn't.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Part of the issue is to look at what Axis players define as "victory" and what the game defines as "victory" for the Axis.

Most Axis players define victory as an outright "sudden death" win. Between players of equal skill, etc I don't think it is happening or only very rarely.

I think most games will wind up with a minor victory for one side or the other and that is sort of the balance you aim for, not the Germans winning on a sudden death win half the time. 

For me playing Russians in PBEM or vs AI winning means doing better than historically so Gemans 'win' if I don't get Berlin until June 45.
If we use game definitions then it is hard to see any German ever 'winning'. Hence many calls to make it easier for them as people tend to want an equal chance of winning whichever side they play: although I do support some of them.

[matt.buttsworth]

Historically,
except for the turn south to Kiev, key German generals such as Mainstein in Lost Victories argue the Wehrmacht had a chance in 1941 except for Hitler's orders.
This also, if one agrees with Suvorov, was also due to Stalin placing the Soviet armies in the wrong posiitons in 1941 as he prepared to attack Germany, allowing them to be surrounded and destroyed by the Germans.
I therefore believe two things:
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.

In my game I could stop the Germans approacing Leningrad, them stop them approaching Moscow, allowing them only to advance in the South which could not be held, but could be retaken in the blizzards.
For me, this was too easy, and was not the historical reality.
Thoughts?
How close have people got to Leningrad?
Who has reached the suburbs of Moscow by the 10th of December 1941 as the Germans did?
Again balance.

2 - if this is not accepted in the standard scenario a survorov scenario should be created placing the Soviet forces in an extremely dangerous position, to give the germans a chance in the GC. If anyone is interested I would be willing to cooperate iwth someone to help them create this.

3 - If someone is willing, it would be fun as a historical possible variant that never happened, to create the suvorov variant, as one in which on June 15th, the Soviets attacked first.

Anyone interested in helpng create these?

Do other players believe Mainstein that the Germans did ever have a chance of winning in 1941?

All comments will be eagerly read.

Dr Matthew Buttsworth

[randallw]

Even though either side can mass airplanes to a battle the ground casualties from air attacks, as displayed on screen, are actually very very modest.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.

Sorry, but the Russians refused to surrender to the French when they took Moscow and the chances of them surrendering to the Nazis were the same... nil.

In case folks haven't noticed in their studies of history, the Russians didn't use the same rules of warfare.

If Mainstein believed he could have "conquered" Russia by capturing Moscow, he was just as delusional as Napoleon.

So let's not reinforce that little bit of silliness. [;)]

[Klydon]

The issue with the German generals and the turn south for Kiev is they believed that if the Germans took Moscow, the Russians would quit. There is no evidence to suggest this would have happen at all. The Germans had already underestimated how much the Russians could scrape together in terms of reforming armies, how much manpower they could call up, etc. They were very much of the opinion (like Hitler) "kick the door in and the whole house will come down". It didn't happen and short of the capture of the Russian government/Stalin, it likely wasn't going to happen unless the Red Army absolutely collapsed.

In this game, there is no potential for a Russian collapse (rightfully so). However, I would love to see them work into the system moral penalties for the loss of key locations (Moscow and Leningrad). It doesn't need to be huge (-5 probably would be good for each), but I think there is no question at all Russia would have been affected by the loss of those centers.