Winter too weak now?

[PeeDeeAitch]

So I am playing a GC, started under 1.03 and now in 1.04.15...and it seems that winter effects are far lighter. December was rough, as it should be, but January came and now the units are springing back. It seems as if the changes have made January like February before, February should be better still.

My question is that it seems too easy in some places. I have stopped the Soviets (or at least reduced them to a crawl) in places. My "big empty" middle is always a problem, and of course here it is too, but even Panzers coming out of the cities are not hit as bad.

The feeling of a "near run thing" seems gone. I will survive this winter and come out strong. This is not a whine, and maybe I just kind of figured out winter before, but now I feel I have til the end of January to survive then I can feel far safer. I had at least 5 successful counter assaults on January 8th...imagine what I can do in a month with lower attrition?

[Farfarer61]

Give the rest of us mortals a chance to screw it up - I am in my first human v human game

[bdtj1815]

Sounds almost right!

[76mm]

I mentioned when the patch was announced that to me the changes to the effects on combat sounded right, but that the reduction in attrition sounded like too much. Too early to say of course, but it sounds like at least PDH's experience bears this out...

[Skanvak]

Let's remind that the German survive the first winter. So it seem fair to me.

[jjdenver]

I think things got a little easier for Germany as the winter of 41-42 wore on right? They managed to stop the Sovs and even make some counterattacks after that first initial shock when they didn't know at all how to deal with winter. I am not 100% sure this is true but is the impression I get from reading books like Raus' memoir.

[pompack]

Well, I usually add about 1.1 million to the disabled pool during the winter ending at around 1.22 million. In a GC begun under 1.04 I ended at about 1.1 million but I also had an exceptionally good summer inflicting over five million casualties resulting in a MUCH reduced Russian winter offensive. My attrition was less but I think that it was mostly because I was not being pushed out of towns and forts by the Russian steamroller.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

I think things got a little easier for Germany as the winter of 41-42 wore on right? They managed to stop the Sovs and even make some counterattacks after that first initial shock when they didn't know at all how to deal with winter. I am not 100% sure this is true but is the impression I get from reading books like Raus' memoir.

They did definitely do better as winter progressed. Part of that was experience I'm sure, but part of it was actually falling back on their railheads and digging in.

When the blizzard counterattack started in '41, the germans were strung out in open ground in offensive deployments and the soviets hit them hard, took ground, and caused casualties. Once the germans established defensive lines though, the soviets didn't make much progress in the latter phases of the winter.

In game terms I think we're getting closer to modeling this properly. A fort 0 german unit in poor supply in the blizzard should get spanked. A Fort 4 unit in good supply should hold with minimal casualties.

[saygame]

I don't envy you designer/developer guys in sorting all this out. Between the obvious prejudices that creeps in from playing a preferred player's side and then rendering advice, and the need to keep it a game (meaning some sort of balance at least in allowing a victory) and the need to keep us historical authenticates at bay, you have alot of competing interests to sway your call. Not to mention, players rendering advice who are playing head to head and not evenly matched in their play.

In addition, just the other nite after fully digesting the fact that most AARs report Leningrad falling in '41, it came to me that in real life, the German High Command, buoyed by overwhelming Barbarossa successes may have very well contented themselves in Sept-Oct '41 to starve Leningrad out rather than endure the rather enormous casualties expected of a direct assault. Especially when they could see from the heights right into the city from the heights of Schlisselburg. Given that the Germans at that point had rather convincing campaign evidence thus far to be exuberant and confident of taking whatever they intended. So it could be that Leningrad was indeed historically fairly certain to fall and quite vulnerable to a concerted offense that most players now practice. if assaulted earlier and aggressively. Only after Tikhvin (which we players and historicals get the Monday Morning Quarterback advantage from) did the shock emerge that maybe Leningrad COULD hold as it ultimately did.

So, getting this one right, (the winter balance, I mean) is going to come down to someone's arbitrary best historical guess after alot of reports roll in. My experience of PDH, from reading his posts here, is that his opinion will probably represent a most unbiased, even handed and best first guess. Yet time will tell. Good luck Joel, Pavel and company! With all the time, effort and energy you all have put in to craft the most accurate historical conjecture, I have great advance faith in whatever your calls are on this.

[Panama]

Winter too weak now?

[:D] I'm sure most saw this coming. [:D]

[Sabre21]

It is a tough balancing act, especially trying to make changes after the game has been released. Most testers move on and the few that remain are hard pressed. When testing 1.04, there were several ai vs ai tests run and only 1 game made it thru the blizzard. It was from these that some final adjustments were made which included increasing armament production by 50%. A few more tests were ran once 1.04.10 was released that indicated the armament increase was too much. That's why I asked some of you guys that started new games with 1.04 if you could post the production page showing the manpower and armament pools as part of your aar's. Based on the tests and many of your aar's, armament points have been taken down a notch to 250 per factory rather than 300 and I am currently testing that.

[PeeDeeAitch]

Just for the record, I am not attacking nor blaming. I realize that it is a tough high-wire act to get it right. I just noted that things got far easier for me once January hit, and that had not been the case before.

[Panama]

Since no two people are alike you will never find a balance that would be considered good. Maybe close is the best you could get. However, if some elements could be made adjustable those playing the game could put settings where they like and find their own best balance.

[Slarty]

Is release 1.04 available for general download? If not does anyone have an idea when it might?

[carnifex]

Instead of all this balancing and shmalancing why not just put in a slider in the options menu - Severe Winter, Hard Winter, Regular Winter, Mild Winter and let the players adjust their winter effect preference. Otherwise you'll be getting these winter is unbalanced again threads all to the end of time.

[Q-Ball]

I tend to believe it's about right now. And I would prefer to play the Soviets.

Historically, the Soviets DID run out of gas in the Winter, starting in January. So what you are experiencing PDH is about right.

Historically, where the Germans did have a crisis, and did experience big problems, was in AGC sector. The reason for this was partly Blizzard, but it had as much to do, IMO, with the fact that AGC was dangerously overextended and very depleted heading into the Blizzard.

I would bet anything, PDH, that you were NOT overextended and overdepleted heading into the Blizzard. The fact that you didn't experience those issues is a reward for prudence. Stick your neck out, and you can expect greater problems. This is similar to the fact that the Soviets usually enter the Winter with more guys than historical. Why? Because they don't allow millions to get surrounded in stupid pockets, and ALSO reap the rewards of good play (and hindsight).

It could be argued that the Germans have too easy a time in Summer '41 now. That is a separate debate. This is a considerable work in progress, and Blizzard was just one lever. There are several other schools out there who are thinking that:

1. Germans are too powerful in Summer '41
2. 1942 isn't fluid enough; too many trenches. A "Case Blue"-type breakout is just about impossible for the Germans
3. In 43/44, Soviets have too easy a time smashing german formations, until the Wehrmacht collapses

I don't 100% agree with all of these, but I think they have some merit, and we need further play to parse all of these out.

[PeeDeeAitch]

Heh, you know me. I was way overextended. I had no real fortifications, and I paid for that in December. Those places where I had depth, I am Ok (still losing ground but no shattering fronts) in January. The combination of units recovering, wooded terrain, and level 1 forts (at least) make the "2-4 hexes being opened up and exploited" not so easy now.

Of course, I have a too long stretch that was too lightly held in the south, but I sort of deserve to be hurting there!

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I tend to believe it's about right now. And I would prefer to play the Soviets.

Historically, the Soviets DID run out of gas in the Winter, starting in January. So what you are experiencing PDH is about right.

Historically, where the Germans did have a crisis, and did experience big problems, was in AGC sector. The reason for this was partly Blizzard, but it had as much to do, IMO, with the fact that AGC was dangerously overextended and very depleted heading into the Blizzard.

I would bet anything, PDH, that you were NOT overextended and overdepleted heading into the Blizzard. The fact that you didn't experience those issues is a reward for prudence. Stick your neck out, and you can expect greater problems. This is similar to the fact that the Soviets usually enter the Winter with more guys than historical. Why? Because they don't allow millions to get surrounded in stupid pockets, and ALSO reap the rewards of good play (and hindsight).

It could be argued that the Germans have too easy a time in Summer '41 now. That is a separate debate. This is a considerable work in progress, and Blizzard was just one lever. There are several other schools out there who are thinking that:

1. Germans are too powerful in Summer '41
2. 1942 isn't fluid enough; too many trenches. A "Case Blue"-type breakout is just about impossible for the Germans
3. In 43/44, Soviets have too easy a time smashing german formations, until the Wehrmacht collapses

I don't 100% agree with all of these, but I think they have some merit, and we need further play to parse all of these out.

Nice post Q-Ball [:)] I tend to agree with you about First Winter. Perhaps I will de-rail the thread but the points you brought out here merit some comment:

1. Germans are too powerful in Summer '41

I think they're OK, especially after the buff the Soviet player received with the Armaments stockpile. That really helps getting the masses formed into combat units. Soviet players that are able to defend in depth and are able to foresee German spearheads penetrations will get to Winter '41 OK (i.e. fighting for their lives at the gates of Moscow and on the banks of the Donets). I can't say much yet about the "Leningrad question". I'm currently on two GC's against human german players and I have managed to entertain them enough on the Pskov - Ostrov region to avoid the kind of rough rides one can see on fiva55 game and elsewhere. Again, defense in depth and not underestimating the amount of ground german motorized units can cover in one turn is key.

2. 1942 isn't fluid enough; too many trenches. A "Case Blue"-type breakout is just about impossible for the Germans

I just don't agree with this. The breakout into the Caucasus and Stalingrad is possible, but most players will find it's not a wise course of action. Demjansk can become an early little Stalingrad. The situation of 9. Armee and 3. PzArmee on the Rzhev salient is less rosy than it seems, a massive assault on this salient from east and west can be successful if the German player commits to heavily to the south.

The mystery of the 42-45 GC is to obtain strategic surprise against your opponent as the German player. No surprise and then the campaign will degenerate into a horrible meat-grinder with only one possible victor.

3. In 43/44, Soviets have too easy a time smashing german formations, until the Wehrmacht collapses

Can't say much about #3, I haven't played it much myself. But if in '42 the Wehrmacht is in a very delicate position - it's just not obvious at first sight - in '43 the situation is much worse. Once the german infantry is dislodged from its level 3/4 forts the name of the game is to run to a prepared defense line further west.

I think that our perceptions of 1942 and 1943 campaigns would be very different if the starting dates were other (say April 1942 and April 1943). Players wouldn't be constrained by several painful -- and very historical -- dilemmas...

[Panama]

1) You want an historical Axis advance.
2) You want an historical Axis advance.
3) You want an historical Soviet advance.

[&:]

Why not just read the book? Any game is better served by the ability to make things different. The slider thing is the best idea for any of it.

[Q-Ball]

Bletcheley Geek: I am actually referring not to the 42/43/44 scenarios, but rather GCs that continue into those years.

We haven't seen any GC make it past mid-1942; the ones that have made it to 1942 see more trench warfare than breakouts at the moment. (see Idaho v Scar as an example; Idaho played very well in 1941, but is basically halting offensive ops in 1942). Small sample size, but a trend that bears watching IMO.

What happens in 1943/44 is even more speculative. Certainly, we can expect that good Soviet players will form Artillery Divisions, and kill 1000s of Germans. I personally think the Wehrmacht will collapse in 1944 in most GCs, because the Soviets can inflict way more casualties than the Germans can replace once Artillery Divisions are in play, but I don't know for sure. It's a guess at this point, but also bears watching.

PANAMA: It is a game, so not looking for historical outcomes. I am looking for historical possibilities. Right now, it is very possible for the Soviets to build the kind of fortified belts that didn't exist in 1942. That is an a-historical capability. That might be OK, but it's not as much fun as a more fluid environment.