Scorched Earth in the East front

[Taifun]

The armies of the Ostheer received their supplies from depots behind the front by means of road or rail (and, infrequently, by air). Prior to the start of the campaign, German logistical planners had concluded that the Army’s supply system could sustain an advance of up to 500 kilometers beyond the frontier, to the line of the Werstern Dvina and Dnepr Rivers: beyond that point, however, requirements could not be projected. Because it would take time to bring rail line inside Soviet territory into working order, the delivery of supplies during this first, decisive phase of operations was to depend mostly on motor (truck) transport across Russia’s thin road net. Upon reaching the Dvina-Dnepr line at the latest, the Ostheer would be dependent on the smooth functioning of the railroads for resupply. The assumptions made by German planners proved hopelessly optimistic, in this case, that they would capture intact extensive chunks of the rail infrastructure in Europen Russia, thus enabling the Germans to operate them unaltered with captured locomotives and rolling stock, while reducing to a minimum conversion efforts from the Russian broad gauge to the narrower German gauge.
Damage to the infrastructure, either by deliberate Russian action or as a result of ground combat or Luftwaffe bombardment, was greater than anticipated, while the Russians managed to evacuate most of their locomotives and rolling stock, compelling the Germans to commit massive resources of their own in an effort to restore the rail system to a functioning state.
All told 35000 km of the Soviet railway would be converted to the narrower German gauge, at a rate of 10-12 km a day by a company of German railway troops. While the railroadtroops labored feverishly to convert the rail lines and, thus, move the railheads forward, their efforts sufferer from critical shortages of manpower and materials, rendering rapid progress impossible.

In my current game against crispy131313 I captured 80% of the towns and cities in the USSR at level 5-6, and I was able to operate, in the same turn that those localities were captured, new troops forward. I always found this odd and utterly unrealistic!! The scorched earth policy of previous versions was better. I suggest to damage at least to level 2-3 all localities captured to simulate this destruction to rail lines and infrastructure. How can I operate troops deep in the Caucasus in 1941 ? Thousands of km from the initial German border IN THE SAME TURN THAT THE TOWN WAS CAPTURED?
You can follow our game in the AAR section of this forum...

[Rannug61]

I agree..

[PvtBenjamin]

also agree

[Elessar2]

Yeah, I noticed that in my last game as Allies. Penalty there used to be much steeper, not sure when it got changed. A lot depends on the turn lengths of course, they're shorter in the Euro map than World (but, again, distances are shorter in the latter). Me, I'd knock it all the way down to zero, thereby forcing HQ chains to be used (and thus allowing advances only on certain fronts). My Euro 20 km map will certainly drop newly captured towns (in Russia at least) at zero.

[crispy131313]

I also agree that scorched earth needs to be strengthened. While my referenced match with Taifun is not the best example as the Soviets did not honor the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in all my recent PBEM matches when I've played the Axis the Soviets never stood a chance. With the ability to operate consistently to every front line town every turn none of my opponents were able to hold any of the Major Soviet cities through the winter of 41'. In some extreme cases I was attacking Gorky, Grozny and Saratov before the end of 41' despite May-June Barbarossa!

It's also nice to have finally started playing the base game in this recent tournament. Finally can chime in about game balance!!!

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the feedback everyone and we are looking into this for the next update.

For some background we had made a number of supply rule improvements/changes, e.g. more realistic difficulty for low supply units etc., but it unfortunately had a side effect which made things more difficult for the Axis along the Eastern front under the previous scorched earth settings the deeper they pushed. We made some adjustments in order to compensate but if it has gone too far then we will re-examine and re-test for ideally just the right numbers in the next build.

[nnason]

In a game, I am playing that was started in March or April I am the Axis. Captured cities in Russia definitely go way down. At least to 1 or 2.

Hubert,
Please be careful with any and all changes to the game balance. Last time I checked with over 100 games then the balance of Axis to Allied wins only slightly favored the Axis.

[crispy131313]

The issue is without a siege the town/city is often a full occupational strength 5-6 which allows for the Axis to operate forward every turn. At maximum towns should be at 4 supply when captured, which will not allow to operate into the same turn they were captured, but could be used as an adequate supply resources the following turn. Maybe just adjusting towns and leaving cities as is would still allow the Axis some decent supply sources.

[Sugar]

Reduce the town to 1 supply after occupying, and the Axis has to wait 4 turns to use this town. I haven`t counted the towns but there seem to be one or another, and also some relevant to continue the advance.

Hasn`t there been a Blitzkrieg during the early stages of the campaign? Wonder how ze Germans managed to do that.

This not an issue of historical realism, but the new supply rules; in the predecessor there was a very harsh "Scorched Earth" effect, but all you needed to provide 8 supply was a production of 1. Now you`re gonna need two HQs in chaining to keep up some speed, which aren`t available nor affordable.

[Taifun]

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

The issue is without a siege the town/city is often a full occupational strength 5-6 which allows for the Axis to operate forward every turn. At maximum towns should be at 4 supply when captured, which will not allow to operate into the same turn they were captured, but could be used as an adequate supply resources the following turn.

I think this is the best solution. I agree with crispy to cap at max level 4 for towns-cities.

[Taifun]

ORIGINAL: nnason


Hubert,
Please be cafeful with any and all changes to game balance. Last time I checked with over 100 games then balance of Axis to Allied wins only slightly favored the Axis.

The problem for the developers, as I far as I understand, is one of balance. Should this game be more of a chess game (with equal chances/forces), or should it be a more historically accurate game (The Axis looses more often than not). Since the late 80's that I played Avalon's THE THIRD REICH and WORLD IN FLAMES the issue was the same: to keep a balanced game is more fun, but we need a certain degree of historical accuracy (the more the better). This game is the greatest's and it will keep evolving... i suggest to tilt towards greater historical accuracy.

[The Land]

Does Scorched Earth get affected by the level of resistance on the resource?

Of course if the resource is sieged then its supply value decreases but I can't recall otherwise.

[crispy131313]

Scorched earth is a relative supply reduction based on the value of the supply source when captured, there are no other considerations that i'm aware of.

[Sugar]

In my perception ressources take more damage after heavy fighting, but that may be mislead or biased. Actually the possibility to take up to 5 damage to cities or 4 to towns is fact, and the opposite was promised after the previous (not recent) changes to the supply rules.

You can either wait 4 turns to regain the necessary supply, drive into the unknown and lose entire army groups on low supply, or use chaining with its own limitations like already mentioned.

i suggest to tilt towards greater historical accuracy.

... and end like AGEOD`s Civil War 2 in the orcus of history. AGEOD is done, and we don`t want to end our favourite game like that, do we? Read elder AARs of CW2 and ask yourself why most of them end abruptly in 1862.

And for the records: I don`t agree with the presentation of the historical facts in this case. Afaik the german Quartermaster calculated the supply to be sufficient for 700 kms for an army of 2 million, enough to reach Smolensk, but not any further.

The Germans started with 3 million + allies, knew therefore they couldn`t provide enough own supply and had to plunder their way into the land using russian food sources to feed men and 600,000 horses (and leaving millions of PoWs and civilians to starvation). They could mostly concentrate on fuel, spareparts and ammunition. They expected to beat the Red Army in 6 - 8 weaks, didn`t plan any further and were kept off guard by the counterattack, leaving their limited options to deliver either food and ammunition or winter clothing (which is correctly represented in game). They also knew russian winters could be cold from hundreds of years of xp.

[crispy131313]

Sugar not all towns would be at 1 supply that would only be for towns that were cut-off/entirely destroyed, it's simply that towns captured via scorched earth is not strong enough an effect, at minimum they should be at 4 supply so the rail line can not be used to operate by rail an Army Group the turn it was cut off. Now if every single town was entirely destroyed in fierce fighting and encirclement sure it's a possibility that every town would be at 1 supply but that's not my experience during Barbarossa many towns are captured without being encircled at turn end and captured the following turn. As for cities I would suggest leaving them alone, so that yes there are adequate supply sources guaranteed.

[nnason]

The old balance vs. historical accuracy issue. How many times has this been a subject of discussion in various threads in this forum? In my opinion, a historically accurate game isn't. It is a simulation. Now a simulation, such as we use in the military, is great to try what-ifs. WiE has some what-ifs built-in but not enough to simulate what we are talking about in this thread. We could have worse scorched earth and/or better German supply prep. How about better winter preparation? The what-ifs are endless.
I think the developers have done a pretty decent job of balancing gaming and what-ifs. If you make this "game" more historically accurate then the Germans should always win if they do better than history.

Anyway, I don't think a simulation would sell that well, except maybe to the military. The game is well balanced, as it is, so small tweaks must be very very carefully applied.

As to the general supply issue in this thread, an undefended city/port should be captured whole with perhaps a knockdown to 4 back to 5 the next turn. This encourages at least a token defense. I am unsure how a vigorously defended city should be knocked down.

And then the are the English cities which are never more than 3 supply.

[Rannug61]

I think that towns and settlements in Russia could have a "Scorched Earth" effect that are a bit unpredictable. Give it 20% chance of no "Scorched Earth", 60% down to 4 in supply and 20% chance of worse than 4 in supply. This will make things a bit uncertain for both the Axis and Allied player. This way players can't make "waterproof" plans as Axis or Allies never could in RL. Cities should be left as now as Crispy said. Towns and settlements in the Baltics should also be left as it is now. My 5 cents...

[PJL1973]

ORIGINAL: Taifun

ORIGINAL: nnason


Hubert,
Please be cafeful with any and all changes to game balance. Last time I checked with over 100 games then balance of Axis to Allied wins only slightly favored the Axis.

The problem for the developers, as I far as I understand, is one of balance. Should this game be more of a chess game (with equal chances/forces), or should it be a more historically accurate game (The Axis looses more often than not). Since the late 80's that I played Avalon's THE THIRD REICH and WORLD IN FLAMES the issue was the same: to keep a balanced game is more fun, but we need a certain degree of historical accuracy (the more the better). This game is the greatest's and it will keep evolving... i suggest to tilt towards greater historical accuracy.

I concur with historical accuracy however I suggest the Soviets be made more brittle with regards to victory conditions. Specifically, if Leningrad, Moscow,Stalingrad & Baku are taken, they automatically surrender.

[PJL1973]

ORIGINAL: nnason

The old balance vs. historical accuracy issue. How many times has this been a subject of discussion in various threads in this forum? In my opinion, a historically accurate game isn't. It is a simulation. Now a simulation, such as we use in the military, is great to try what-ifs. WiE has some what-ifs built-in but not enough to simulate what we are talking about in this thread. We could have worse scorched earth and/or better German supply prep. How about better winter preparation? The what-ifs are endless.
I think the developers have done a pretty decent job of balancing gaming and what-ifs. If you make this "game" more historically accurate then the Germans should always win if they do better than history.

Anyway, I don't think a simulation would sell that well, except maybe to the military. The game is well balanced, as it is, so small tweaks must be very very carefully applied.

As to the general supply issue in this thread, an undefended city/port should be captured whole with perhaps a knockdown to 4 back to 5 the next turn. This encourages at least a token defense. I am unsure how a vigorously defended city should be knocked down.

And then the are the English cities which are never more than 3 supply.

Balance vs historical accuracy is actually a bogus dilemma. Ideally, you always aim for historical accuracy and then design the balance around it. In my opinion, if the Germans are still around late May 1945, that's an auto victory for them, even if it's marginal.

[Elessar2]

[dupe post]