Winter Idea......Comment

[keystone70]

I have to agree with 2ACR and Oleg on most of thier suggestions. Historically where the Axis were dug in already the Soviets had a hard time dislodging them. The units that suffered the most were still on the attack or caught in the open trying to withdrawal. The offensive power of the Axis was greatly diminished but they were still able to conduct local counterattacks to restore the line even with rear-echelon troops. But ingame you cannot stop a total collapse no matter how much prep is done. The Sovs should still be able to punch through with a well-coordinated attack, but historically they were not stopped by AGC but by logistics even with a much shorter supply line. What I would like to see happen are gamey, but this is a game and not a simulation.

-VP exchange for better winter preperations(there was only so much that could be done for motorized vehicles, but if troops had better clothing they would have suffred less attrition
-Loss of Moscow(Stalin knew that this would be disatrous) effects on morale, supply and manpower(due to lack of ability to recruit)
-Russian shock for Winter Counter-Offensive, this can be accomplished through revised blizzard effects that others have suggested.

Changes need to be made to at least make it through the winter in 41/42 with the Axis able to attack in 42 or get rid of of the long scenarios.

[G Felzien]

Note: This is versus the AI.

I did an AAR Germany vs the AI some time back. I kept a solid line and withdrew a hex or two throughout the blizzard months. Yes, the Germans were mauled as expected.

I just finished another Germany vs AI blizzard season use the Beta 6. This time around I did not attempt to maintain any line.

Airforce - National Resever first turn of blizzard.
Airbases - All moved into Poland and the Baltics States' towns.
Reinforcements - All units coming into play after the start of the game stayed in German(y) cities. I was just going to have to make due with what I had.
Armor Corp - All moved into cities. Some near the weakest points of the frontline others in Poland and western Ukraine.
Infantry - This is what was very different for me. I withdrew west beginning on the last winter turn (I guessed and got it right). Each corp withdrew covering the front as best it could but most importantly from town to town. This meant alot of leap frogging of divisions. If a unit was unable to get to a town, it spent the week in the cold. There were alot of towns with zero population. I used them anyway. The entire front did this. There was on average two(2) Soviet attacks per turn. They would get close enough to mount an attack next turn but I would have withdrawn by then.

I averaged 45-50k losses per turn. It was as low as 30k and as high as 75k if there were attacks.

In doing this type of defence I lost less ground than I thought I would. I beleive ComradeP already listed the number of hexes historically lost. I gave up just a little more. However, because I was not maintaining a solid line I was able to remove two (2) armies off the fronline. 12 frontline infantry divisions rested in Germany.

My strategy to survive the blizzard season began on turn one. My goal was to remove as many Soviet units from play as possible. The tempo of the advance was slightly less than "normal". I pocketed everything including routed units. If routed units continued to exist inside the pocket, I waited a reasonable length for them to rally then captured them. I continued this for all of '41. The net result was the ability to gain alot of ground; Leningrad, Vyshnyvolochek, Kalinin, 1 hex of Mosow, Ryazan, Tula, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Boguchar, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov. The blizzard season saw a much reduced Soviet army number wise. The lines withdrew to the rough terrain in the north, Smolensk, Bryansk, Sumy, Belgorod, Kharkov, Stalino (the other two cities fell). I used all the mountain troops to shore up the Romanians.

All troops resting the winter were full strength and excellent moral including airbases.

This was versus the AI therefore some aspects of this approach will vary in a pbem. However, compared to the AAR, this was a brilliant success. I have still to play the '42 summer offensive but I am very hopeful for a good offensive season.

Bottom line, for me, I will never attempt to maintain a solid front during blizzard. I will gladly trade land for time (a la the Soviets in '41). I will use all the towns I can. I will remove as many infantry corp off the frontlines for the winter as possible.

Ed. I should point out that those divisions that were not attack throughout the blizzard and managed to make it from town to town had between 5-7CV values once the blizzard was over.

[Klydon]

What settings were you using for the AI?

[Mynok]

I'm playing a similar test against the AI with beta6 right now as GFelz. I'm not as far along however. I'll do a postmortem AAR.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Instead of whinning and bitching, I will try and be apart of the solution. I will voluteer for this test, as I know it would greatly increase my knowledge of the operational maneuver that took place, but sadly I don't have the time right now. But by Mid April I will have the time, I would just need an opponent or play both sides, but prefer an opponent. We should keep a fairly detailed joint ARR, take FOW off, so we can better match historical events. Post casualties, and types and as much information as possible. I have a pretty extensive library on the Eastern Front, so I should be able to replicate most of the operational moves fairly close, suggest the opponent have the access to some good sources. I prefer David Glantz, but there are others as well.

I guess my whole point in doing this is to clearly show the game does not replicate historical casualties, but without the test we will not really know. OR if this has been done by one the testers please chime in.

That would certainly be an interesting exercise. It would also require some detailed research. I'm curious how you are thinking of dealing with the almost inevitable operational variance that is going to occur?

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4


Excellent Idea! I would support this method.

But this does not solve the German Army going into winter having suffered relativly light casualties, when compared to what they were really at just prior to the Blizzard.

I would classify this one under "two wrongs do not make a right".

The fact that German summer casualties are too low is a problem.
The fact that German winter casualties are too high is also a problem.

The fact that the two problems point in opposite directions doesn't make them problems, they just cancel out some of the effects (although I'd clearly argue that winter is a worse problem).

Personally I'd like to fix both.

Well, if the german summer casualties are to low with heavy fighting, you are right.
If - and reading the aar´s gives me this opinion - the german losses are low because the russian player avoids heavy combats (he will loose), the german losses seems to be okay.
They are based on combat - the german winter casulties are based on hardcoded decisions.... and you can do nothing about it.
That ist the real problem in this game in the moment

[G Felzien]

Both games had the same settings... normal. I wanted to compare the blizzard update so everything else was the same.

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: GFelz

Note: This is versus the AI.

I did an AAR Germany vs the AI some time back. I kept a solid line and withdrew a hex or two throughout the blizzard months. Yes, the Germans were mauled as expected.

I just finished another Germany vs AI blizzard season use the Beta 6. This time around I did not attempt to maintain any line.

Airforce - National Resever first turn of blizzard.
Airbases - All moved into Poland and the Baltics States' towns.
Reinforcements - All units coming into play after the start of the game stayed in German(y) cities. I was just going to have to make due with what I had.
Armor Corp - All moved into cities. Some near the weakest points of the frontline others in Poland and western Ukraine.
Infantry - This is what was very different for me. I withdrew west beginning on the last winter turn (I guessed and got it right). Each corp withdrew covering the front as best it could but most importantly from town to town. This meant alot of leap frogging of divisions. If a unit was unable to get to a town, it spent the week in the cold. There were alot of towns with zero population. I used them anyway. The entire front did this. There was on average two(2) Soviet attacks per turn. They would get close enough to mount an attack next turn but I would have withdrawn by then.

I averaged 45-50k losses per turn. It was as low as 30k and as high as 75k if there were attacks.

In doing this type of defence I lost less ground than I thought I would. I beleive ComradeP already listed the number of hexes historically lost. I gave up just a little more. However, because I was not maintaining a solid line I was able to remove two (2) armies off the fronline. 12 frontline infantry divisions rested in Germany.

My strategy to survive the blizzard season began on turn one. My goal was to remove as many Soviet units from play as possible. The tempo of the advance was slightly less than "normal". I pocketed everything including routed units. If routed units continued to exist inside the pocket, I waited a reasonable length for them to rally then captured them. I continued this for all of '41. The net result was the ability to gain alot of ground; Leningrad, Vyshnyvolochek, Kalinin, 1 hex of Mosow, Ryazan, Tula, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Boguchar, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov. The blizzard season saw a much reduced Soviet army number wise. The lines withdrew to the rough terrain in the north, Smolensk, Bryansk, Sumy, Belgorod, Kharkov, Stalino (the other two cities fell). I used all the mountain troops to shore up the Romanians.

All troops resting the winter were full strength and excellent moral including airbases.

This was versus the AI therefore some aspects of this approach will vary in a pbem. However, compared to the AAR, this was a brilliant success. I have still to play the '42 summer offensive but I am very hopeful for a good offensive season.

Bottom line, for me, I will never attempt to maintain a solid front during blizzard. I will gladly trade land for time (a la the Soviets in '41). I will use all the towns I can. I will remove as many infantry corp off the frontlines for the winter as possible.

Ed. I should point out that those divisions that were not attack throughout the blizzard and managed to make it from town to town had between 5-7CV values once the blizzard was over.

You may be on to something. Like to see how that works in a HvH GC.

Oh, Heer General you will be shot tomorrow for even suggesting such a defeatest plan [:'(]

[Skanvak]

That mean that the huge ability to the soviet to counter attack might be linked to the fact that the German did not destroy enough of the russian units. Same way, the german supermen ability to end with a lot of fresh unit at strat of weather can be link to the soviet not fighting.

This is why we need a validation test based on actual strategy, not alternative strategy, as Zemke and I suggested. Otherwise we cannot know which part is from the player and which part is from the system. A good simulation must be able to replicate the historical result.

[FredSanford3]

IMO they could go a long way towards 'fixing' winter by just letting fortifications provide protection the same as towns/cities.  Maybe this wouldn't correct all of the issues, but it would help immensely.  Also, it seems reasonable to me that entrenchments would be a better place to endure winter than out in the open.  Especially higher levels- 3+, would imply to me that there's covered bunkers/dugouts that IRL would provide excellent protection from the elements.
 
Fortified units should also retain CV better since their equipment would be better protected from the elements as well.

[cookie monster]

There must have been a First Winter Attrition Rate which is easy to research. X Million Men, X Thousand Casualties.

If this attriton rate was worked out on a month by month basis then at the end of the winter, the ''Winter Casualties'' would be appropriate.

[Skanvak]

Cookie, do you think this is the good way to do?

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

IMO they could go a long way towards 'fixing' winter by just letting fortifications provide protection the same as towns/cities.  Maybe this wouldn't correct all of the issues, but it would help immensely.  Also, it seems reasonable to me that entrenchments would be a better place to endure winter than out in the open.  Especially higher levels- 3+, would imply to me that there's covered bunkers/dugouts that IRL would provide excellent protection from the elements.

Fortified units should also retain CV better since their equipment would be better protected from the elements as well.

The issue with making forts the outright limiter is we'd be turning the game into WW1 in the east. The Axis player would turtle up early all of the time, neither side would ultimately attack a lot and then when it came to 1942 the SU would be heavily entrenched in level 4/5 forts due to the 'free time' they'd have had to create the defenses in depth.

[Aussiematto]

Reporting on blizzard experience vs AI in two grand campaigns (normal setting).

I have had no real problems with the blizzard vs the computer. Terrible losses, yes, but the Soviet computer was already badly weakened by my summer onslaught and then further weakened by the casualties it takes in attacking. Defensive strategy did not involve anything particularly fancy and involved use of towns and cities, of course, and fortifications. I found a real difference between fort 3 and fort 2. Fort 2s almost always failed; Fort 3s tended to hold. I only lost fort 3s because they were going to be isolated so had to retreat. Astute use of Rumanian Mtn troops helps around Rostov, of course I had captured Leningrad which meant the Finns held in the north, and I tended to hold ground rather than retreat, counterattacking judiciously with panzers to hold the line. In particular, a good fort 3 should be protected, if possible, against encirclement by pushing back units which are attempting to surround it.

[karonagames]

V1.03 Blizzard survival guide published in the War Room.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4


Excellent Idea! I would support this method.

But this does not solve the German Army going into winter having suffered relativly light casualties, when compared to what they were really at just prior to the Blizzard.

I would classify this one under "two wrongs do not make a right".

The fact that German summer casualties are too low is a problem.
The fact that German winter casualties are too high is also a problem.

The fact that the two problems point in opposite directions doesn't make them problems, they just cancel out some of the effects (although I'd clearly argue that winter is a worse problem).

Personally I'd like to fix both.

I was thinking that the Russian variation in combat performance is probably too low in the game. Let us say for the sake of argument that a German division is typically at 10 in value. If this unit can consistently defeat a Russian division, the latter would have to be about 2 to 3. If the German unit is to consistently defeat 3 Russian division, each would be about a 1, which the game seems to have. Why not have each Russian division range from 0 to 3 on the average in 1941, with good leadership. This allows the possibility that the 3 Russian divisions could have some success in attacking, but also a much better possiblity that the attack would be a complete disaster with high losses. Another possibility would be to give each Russian division an average value of 3, but a high probability only 1 division would be included in the defense. The other defensive divisions would not take losses but would also not contribute to attacker losses. They would retreat if the other division retreats, and still perhaps rout. The latter technique seems to be better suited to represent the power of fortresses. As the Russian Army gains experience, better coordination in attacking/defending would result. The German player could not be completely overly aggressive because of the possibility of some successfull Russian counter-attack capability. I do not think the Russian +1 modification to combat odds is realistic.

[Zebedee]

Playing with the logistic level gives some interesting results. Think there may be a case to gradually increase this over time for the Soviets from a relatively low level. (

[larryfulkerson]

I was thinking that maybe instead of arguing for or against "balance" in the game that I'd collect some real data.  So I've been letting the computer play itself for about three days now to see if there's an unbalance in the game or not.  It's already up to the blizzard ( 1-1-1942 ) and now I need your opinions:  should I (1) play the entire freeking GC to the end to see who wins OR (2) stop it in mid-April to see where the front line is OR (3) stop it somewhere else ( like in February 1942 ) ?

Maybe if more dudes would play the computer against itself we could pool our data to get a better sample size so we could say with statistical certanty that the game is or is not "unbalanced".

[Klydon]

I believe they have done several "computer vs computer" sims. More is better I suppose, but IMO, the AI is better on defense as the Russians than on offense as the Germans. Being balanced in computer vs computer games is far different from being balanced in player vs player games. 

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Being balanced in computer vs computer games is far different from being balanced in player vs player games. 

I agree. I guess we'll just have to wait until the more experienced players publish their AAR(s).