Are the Germans too strong defensively?

[MButtsworth]

In my games against the AI and in some very good AAR campaigns to 1944 the Russians have found the Germans very, very difficult to push back leading to the game being abandoned in1944 with the Russians close to Odessa and Leningrad in the North. Game events in Italy and France do not seem to weaken German forces and units are created and oil never runs short.
Does the game - excellent in 1941 - need recalibrating from 1942 onwards so that German forces are weaker (with other theatres demands being higher or demobilisation occurring on the east) so that a Russian advance against a good Axis opponent to Berlin by 1945 is possible and deep breakthroughs like Bagration can occur?

Matt Buttsworth

[MButtsworth]

Meant to say against a good German opponent a Russian advance to Berlin and Romania by 1945 is impossible as things are in the existing game. All comments welcome.

[Stamb]

50% CPP lose in attack against any unit plays a huge role.
For an Axis when it is trying to advance.
And then for the Soviets when they try to advance.

Imho, it is not Germans who are too strong on defense. It is any side that are on a defense are too strong.
And Soviets benefits here even more, as they have more units to throw and drain CPP, which is shown in this beautiful AAR (remember to read first post there to understand what is going on)
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=379102

[Stamb]

Also i feel that it is wrong that units are always routing when they have no hexes where to retreat. And loki used that mechanic very well in his game vs Steve.

This is turn based game. And player that has current turn can do that weird thing of attacking units that are nearby of a main target, to isolate it, and then attack main target that will route in 100% situation (if odds are >=2). Which lead to a huge losses, especially for an AFVs.

If it was a real time game, then opposite side could go back with a units that are in a threat of encirclement.
I think that if unit is isolated and has no hexes where to go and lost a battle then it should retreat, with bigger losses than a typical 1 hex retreat, but not route.

Just my 2c.

[loki100]

Meant to say against a good German opponent a Russian advance to Berlin and Romania by 1945 is impossible as things are in the existing game. All comments welcome.

well we don't know, is the simple answer. In StB, it seems a lot of German players bail out in 1943 and the situation at the start of StB is probably harder than most GC will generate.

I've really no time for the endless whinging which passes for opinion on the forums at the moment, not least that is all about axis gains or not in the first 15 turns. I hold to my view that the axis was on the strategic defensive for about 60% of the war and not many axis players have the ability or mindset to play to that background.

In my game with Steven, yeah he was going to get Rumania out of the war in Summer 44, I might have denied him the time pts for Ploesti and Bucherest. Given where the game was, no idea if he could have reached Berlin - I think so simply as steadily denying me the NSS would have finally collapsed the German economy.

But if you accept that by mid-43 the German infantry are essentially a defensive tool, that you need to make sure the Pzrs only fight on your terms, then its feasible to stall the Soviets and make them reliant on small gains.

Also i feel that it is wrong that units are always routing when they have no hexes where to retreat. And loki used that mechanic very well in his game vs Steve.
..

this is, in my view, a pretty ridiculous complaint. The Germans throughout 1944 and into 1945 generated small scale pockets that trapped and seriously damaged Soviet formations. So the game mechanism recreates that, its not outright destruction but its heavy losses off a tactical scale.

In the end, complaining about every aspect of the game simply obscures where there are genuine points to be made

[Stamb]

...
In the end, complaining about every aspect of the game simply obscures where there are genuine points to be made

I understand that in your eyes i complain about every aspect of the game, while in reality i write only about broken things.
But if you think that i am moaning as well as many other axis players...
Well, it's your choice.
My only goal is to bring attention to a problems so they can be fixed/rebalanced. If this is not allowed any more, please let me know and i will shut up

P. S

Also i feel that it is wrong that units are always routing when they have no hexes where to retreat.

It was not complain, where i requested to fix it immediately. I just described what i feel.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Really have to laugh that the pattern repeats, just new victims.

[Gordonshq]

I don't know about the campaign I haven't got that far yet.
However, I played the Germans in the Vistula to Berlin scenario and the Germans are really very weak.
There are many ghost units in that scenario with only a few men representing divisions.
I think this is a great scenario and teaches what it was like for them at this stage of the war.
Those invincible Panzer Divisions of 41 are long gone.
Of course, many German only players will never play this scenario for this very reason.


Cheers,

Gordon

[Zebtucker12]

Vistula to Berlin is my favorit senario.
Just put on some wagner and enjoy!

[loki100]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
...

isn't this the sort of thread where you can share your experience of taking a 1941 GC into 1944. Very relevant to the discussion?

[RedLancer]

@HLYA and Loki100

Can't you two stop bickering?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

@HLYA and Loki100

Can't you two stop bickering?

I LOVE Loki to death. I want to be friends like I have said many many many many times in email to you Red Lance, to Joel Billings, and even to Eric Rutkins. I am at a loss how to have him be friends with me

[Rosencrantus]

Meant to say against a good German opponent a Russian advance to Berlin and Romania by 1945 is impossible as things are in the existing game. All comments welcome.

well we don't know, is the simple answer. In StB, it seems a lot of German players bail out in 1943 and the situation at the start of StB is probably harder than most GC will generate.

I've really no time for the endless whinging which passes for opinion on the forums at the moment, not least that is all about axis gains or not in the first 15 turns. I hold to my view that the axis was on the strategic defensive for about 60% of the war and not many axis players have the ability or mindset to play to that background.

In my game with Steven, yeah he was going to get Rumania out of the war in Summer 44, I might have denied him the time pts for Ploesti and Bucherest. Given where the game was, no idea if he could have reached Berlin - I think so simply as steadily denying me the NSS would have finally collapsed the German economy.

But if you accept that by mid-43 the German infantry are essentially a defensive tool, that you need to make sure the Pzrs only fight on your terms, then its feasible to stall the Soviets and make them reliant on small gains.

Been awhile since I played and posted on the forums as I needed a break from it. But from what I can see in my StB game with Tyronec (if you guys still are interested in our AARs, you should see it resume shortly) is that it is possible for Soviets to perform breakthroughs, though it is much easier to do so on the StB scenario as its 100% impossible to refit the entire German army in that scenario. Playing to 43-44 from a GC41 is much different as both opponents take care of their armies much better with historical hindsight than IRL.

Also agree with the fact that many Axis players do not want to play strategic defensive in the game and give up too easily after a single massive encirclement against them (Germans IRL took so many Ls from massive encirclements between 43-44 and still held to mid 1945). Axis players need to do more than just eat their food!

[jubjub]

Y'all are complaining about Germans being OP on defense while i'm getting pounded into the ground.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p4974554

[tyronec]

Based on multiple games of StB and VtB I would take the opposite view, it is perfectly possible for the Soviets to do serious damage and break through an Axis defensive line from mid to late war. However it does require an effective approach, repeated frontal attacks against defensive positions is not going to do it. The Soviets need to find or to make a weak spot and then take advantage.
It is easier for the Soviets to get a win in StB or VtB than it is for either side starting in '41 (though no doubt some players will disagree with this). So if you do start in '41 as Axis, I would deduce that to get a win in a long war Axis need to be ahead of historical in '41/'42.

[loki100]

....So if you do start in '41 as Axis, I would deduce that to get a win in a long war Axis need to be ahead of historical in '41/'42.

well behind historical in 1941, win in Feb 44

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=365813

[tyronec]

well behind historical in 1941, win in Feb 44

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=365813

I thought in your game the Soviets were behind in terms of the OOB balance when they started their counter attack mid war.
Am not arguing that the game is heavily unbalanced, I think it is fairly close with a small bias one way or the other for different periods of the war.

[loki100]

Key is I made a mess of the second phase of 1941 (say T10+), was essentially blocked all 1942, still got a win. So you don't need to be ahead at that stage to win - despite the assertions.

I'm sure there are lots of specific factors at play but at the core quite often when I got behind on one dynamic I compensated elsewhere. Thats the key bit of the game design that is getting missed with all the claims of bias in the T1-18 phase.

Add on, in my vs AI game, my mindset in 1943 was what do I need to do to win vs HWM, by 1944 it was how far into the Reich does the AI need to gain (and it was on 120).

So on the very limited sample of 2 games (one HtH, one vs AI) that went into 1944, I think its quite feasible for a German player to stall the Soviets. What isn't clear is if you can keep them stalled as 1944 develops with the very good late war Soviet TOE etc.

What I am trying to say, is till I see more games into 1943 with the Germans collapsing, well I am under-convinced at all the claims of bias etc.

[jubjub]

Why is it always, 'bias this, bias that'. There's no reason to use such a loaded word, and no one knows what it actually means, since it means different things to different people.

Why not use words like 'balance', 'favored', or just fully articulate your point.

[tyronec]

Why is it always, 'bias this, bias that'. There's no reason to use such a loaded word, and no one knows what it actually means, since it means different things to different people.

Why not use words like 'balance', 'favored', or just fully articulate your point.

It is not a loaded word in my world, all I am saying is that the game has a small advantage to one side or the other at some periods of the war. Call it favored if you prefer.