Matrix Games Forums

I was wondering if the Russians were not a bit more successful in Winter 1941 then what would be considered historical. I am not saying the game is not good, it just seems they inflict a hell of a lot more damage on the German units then what would be considered historical. The Russians were somewhat successful in the Winter 41 but they took heavy loses to push the germans back from moscow. In the game they cause high loses to the German armies to a somewhat insignificant lose to themselves. I started a game yesterday and took Moscow and Lenningrad before the snows started falling and was going to rest and dig in for the winter. However, the Russians put up such a hard offensive that put major damage into my forces all along the front. I expected to be pushed back to Kiev in the south since I had over extended my lines in advancing on the Rail Junction that is west of Stalingrad and north of Rostov. I had token forces there to hold the Russian winter movements. Anyway the Russians are inflicting a 5 german loses to 1 Russian. Seems a bit strange. But besides the heavy loses I expect to take Gorki and stalingrad as soon as the rains stop. At least thats the plan.

I don't know about the historical ratio of losses, but the Soviet DID inflict major damage on the Germans during the 1941 winter offensive. In fact, the Wehrmacht come close to complete disaster, which was only prevented by Hitlers "stand and die" order.

According to Alan Clarke's "Barbarossa", the Germans suffered A MILLION casualties from December to May (rough data, I don't have the book in front of me). Many of those were not combat but frostbite casualties, but for game purposes, a casualty is a casualty. In the same book, Clarke says the the Wehrmacht never fully recovered from this defeat and would carry the scars to its grave.

So the Germans casualties look about right, but I would agree that the Soviet ones look small. I guess around 1:1 would be more accurate, but I don't have the data. Anyone does?

Well according to the book Russia's war 133,000 Germans had frostbite, from losing feet to fingers to just sores and such. The offensives in February and March cost the Russians 444,000 loses to the Germans 88,000. This was the offensive according to the book to relieve Leningrad and Ukraine.

It does not state loses for the battles around Moscow but between June and December Russia lost 2.6 million dead 3.35 million missing or prisoners. 20 Russians died for every 1 german.

Humans must be mad.....

Originally posted by tsbond:
Well according to the book Russia's war 133,000 Germans had frostbite, from losing feet to fingers to just sores and such. The offensives in February and March cost the Russians 444,000 loses to the Germans 88,000. This was the offensive according to the book to relieve Leningrad and Ukraine.

It does not state loses for the battles around Moscow but between June and December Russia lost 2.6 million dead 3.35 million missing or prisoners. 20 Russians died for every 1 german.

Humans must be mad.....

The spring battles of Leningrad and Kharkov were unmitigated Russian disasters, whith the Russians getting cut off by German counterattacks, so it is no wonder they suffered much higher casualties than the Germans. Not so in december, but still, my numbers are clearly wrong.

I must be remembering the period of time in which the Germans suffered a million casualties wrong. Perhaps it was the whole first year of the war?

The problem must be in WIRs game mechanics. I don't know how losses are defined, but my guess is that the game assigns absolute losses (as opposed to a percentage of existing numbers) based on the odds.

Does anyone know how losses are assigned? Arnaud?

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
The spring battles of Leningrad and Kharkov were unmitigated Russian disasters, whith the Russians getting cut off by German counterattacks, so it is no wonder they suffered much higher casualties than the Germans. Not so in december, but still, my numbers are clearly wrong.

I must be remembering the period of time in which the Germans suffered a million casualties wrong. Perhaps it was the whole first year of the war?

The problem must be in WIRs game mechanics. I don't know how losses are defined, but my guess is that the game assigns absolute losses (as opposed to a percentage of existing numbers) based on the odds.

Does anyone know how losses are assigned? Arnaud?

I don't know if Arnaud reads these boards regularly or not - he has to pay telephone costs in France per minute and does as much as possible off line. I do think that the losses are related back to how much manpower and equipment is in a unit, rather than the fighting men after readiness and experience are factored in.

I have a site bookmarked at home with lots of detail on the Axis side, including Germans dead by month in the East (and many other statistics). It showed the Germans losing just over 200k dead from Jan 1 - May 31, 1942, which with a higher estimate of frostbite losses of 350k that I have seen, means total losses could have reached the 1 million mark, with other wounded. Many of the wounded and frost bite caualties returned to the battle, though. I will try to get the link to this site.

The game does not replicate historical losses very well. The Soviet losses are too low, even using the 50 men per squad number. However, it seems to work in game terms, with the Soviets maintaining a reserve of men while the Axis are always low, the initial Soviet experience level climbing while the Axis drops, etc. Tanks losses are much better than the last version, and airpower seems to be more historical than the initial game where it could slaughter an entire corps, or the last version, where it was nearly worthless.

In testing this last version into the first winter, I wasn't able to inflict quite such high losses on the Axis, but then my opponent was fairly well dug in. His units were fairly weak by spring, but I don't know how much of it was low readiness versus low manpower. I think the key to analyzing the first winter is how well the front lines are maintained - did the Axis hold fairly well, or were they thrown back a large distance? Historically, the Axis were thrown back large distances along about two thirds of the front, and they did lose manpower that they couldn't replace, whereas in the game they can recover from the first winter losses.
This is one of the issues that Arnaud will take a look at in a few months based on everyone's experience, especially against another human, and make adjustments for if needs this spring/summer. I am currently in a game against another tester just before the blizzards - Leningrad has fallen but Moscow is unreachable. The next few turns will tell a lot, but lots of play will really tell the tale of how it plays out.

------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

I have just fought through most of the 1941-42 winter as German and my experience is very different from tsbond's.

I captured Leningrad but not Moscow, otherwise reached roughly the historical limit of German advance of 1941 (but never took Rostov) by the time the Rasputsa had begun. During most of the rasputsa I just sat tight (except some local unopposed advances to form a solid line) and used the snow turns to kill off some encircled Soviet units.

The Soviet winter offensive began in december with the blizzards, but was extremely timid, two turns of blizzard passed without any attacks at all. Then followed a series of minor attacks in the areas west and northwest of Moscow, throwing back a corps here and there, but hardly pushing back my line at all. Losses were insignificant totally although quite bad for the affected Korps.

I can't remember ever seeing such a lame winter offensive, but I had destroyed a LOT of russian units during the blitzkrieg and the battles of Leningrad and Kiev (I did it historical style, sending Guderian south to link up with Kleist west of Kharkov).
Is this as it should be do you think?

[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited February 22, 2001).]

I never took rostov and used almost every Panzer Korps I had to take Moscow after Leningrad Keiv, I never use Hitlers order to link up with the Southern Front.I did make it to the rail junction north of Rostov with little trouble. When they Hit me in the Winter Offensive they hit hard to the south and somewhat in the center and a small amount in the North (the northern Russian army was almost destroyed by this time). I lost something like 5-1 for every attack they made on me with many shatters and retreats.

Did anyone used no-stupid-turn-to-south strategy against human oponent and captured Moscow in 1941? I believe it would fail miserably, because of an open southern flank of AGC.

Actually, in WIR the Kiev encirclement is not so stupid since the slow rail buildup means you can't march on Moscow all that quickly anyway.

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
Actually, in WIR the Kiev encirclement is not so stupid since the slow rail buildup means you can't march on Moscow all that quickly anyway.

yes, slow rail repair in WiR hurts more than russian resistance in 1941. But I think it reflects reality very good. Germans could not advance too far from their supplies as well as leave supply lines vulnerable to russian counterattacks. That's why in 1941 offensive on Moscow always fails when fought against against average human opponent. Am I right?

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
The Soviet winter offensive began in december with the blizzards, but was extremely timid, two turns of blizzard passed without any attacks at all.

As far as I know, Arnaud did not do any major work on the AI. So, the timid reaction is probably because the Soviets are still weak after what you did to them.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

As far as I know, Arnaud did not do any major work on the AI. So, the timid reaction is probably because the Soviets are still weak after what you did to them.

Sounds reasonable to me. So, since we have one case of the Soviets being more sucessfull than history and one with them being far less so, I guess the balance would be about right. Also, I guess the main difference between tsbond's and my case is that he was on the move and overextended when Ivan hit him, while I was heavily dug-in and waiting at max supply.
That should make a difference too.

The slower rail conversion realy makes a big difference. I am at 14/8/41 at the moment and the 3rd Pz Armee is in an enforced halt as it has essentially outrun its supply lines. Its HQ now has 4 OPs.

I realy must applaud the change to the 0 supply rule. I had a few units overrun their supplies due to the change from base supply 10 to base supply 8 and they were not decimated by the situation.

Also tank losses seem far more reasonable. I have lost something like 300 tanks as the germans and the soviets 4000 or so. Hammering the airfields also seemed to work well. The air combat seems to be working very well!

I have also seen many shatter results, far more than I can remmber seeing. That is a good thing though. I suspect.

What is the effect of the "leader organises a good defence" as compared to "leader organises a poor defence"? It hasn't made much difference that I have seen but then with odds of 60:1 I don't expect it to

That makes a lot of sense Yogi. I guess loses were my own fault. If I had not won I do believe I would have had russians in Berlin in 44 considering my heavy loses . That makes the game even better.

Originally posted by tsbond:
That makes a lot of sense Yogi. I guess loses were my own fault. If I had not won I do believe I would have had russians in Berlin in 44 considering my heavy loses . That makes the game even better.

Actually, your tactic might have been the better one, cauz now I'm in summer of 1942 trying to breach the front and reach Moscow and having a hell of a time. Tank losses are appalling and the Landser are dying in droves, but Moscow must fall... the Führer demands it!