Immediate Fix Required

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

As far as what Zhukov says: the same people quoting Soviets are quick to point out that Germans exaggerate. I'm not interested in history. I'm interested in gameplay.

The facts are the Soviets out right lied about figures, because they did not want to get shot by Stalin. Stalin killed more of his own poeple then Hitler did while in power.

Pelton, 1) Stalin's regime was denounced in 1953 (after his death). 2) Zhukov wrote his book after Stalin death... ergo, he could not care less about what Stalin (or his admirers) might say. Hell, slandering Stalin became a Soviet National Sport. Ergo what you say is a gross historical amateurish aberration [:)]

Still, he [Zhukov] was the Boss-in-Chief. He is supposed to know what he is talking about. Exagerations, ok (what historical personages don't exagerate when they mention the important events in which they were involved?), but outright lies? He had achieved a really nice victory, why would he want to tarnish it with ridiculous lies that sooner or later will be unmasked? [;)]

If you want outright lies just read Cesar's Commentarii de Bello Civili, a pure pamphlet (not really a historical book) which was supposed to convince Cesar's countrymen his cause was the right one.

And of course the western side did not puke outright lies, eh? You might ignore that during the Cold War the Eastern Front was deliberately and systematically minimized by western propag... er so-called historians. And looks like you drink from these sources...

[Flaviusx]

Finger froth sounds mildly pornographic...a point in its favor, possibly.

Tullius, I'm wary of reading too much into Zhukov's memoirs. He left a lot of stuff out. He was also subject to censorship -- not Stalin's but his successors. (A post Soviet unexpurgated version of Rokossovsky's memoirs came out recently, btw. Very different from the sanitized original.)

Memoirs in general have to be read with caution. They're about settling scores as much as anything else. I'd be equally skeptical of anybody citing Manstein or Guderian as gospel. Or Eisenhower, or Caesar or even Grant. (Although I'm very fond of Grant's memoirs. For my money probably the best written by a general.)

[krieger]

This is a game project that started in 2000 or so (from the rulesbook) thus it's imposible that the issue in question (as well as many others) has not been thoroughly studied before game release and further after that with the tests/patches. For that reason it would seem very unrealistic for me trying to find a better game tweak/rule in 5 mins (or a couple of scns played). I've only played the game completely once as axis vs ai (playing my 2nd atm) and all the rules pertaining rail conversion/partisan attacks and stuff seems pretty well placed imo. The effect is that supply stops the germans at some point b4 the mud or their panzer divisions will end up in very bad shape (under 2/3 strength). Basically most Axis losses are due to attrittion and lack of good replacement rates and supplies due to being far from railheads. It's very important to keep and eye on maintaining proper garrison at key places (shift+K helps in this regard). Those places are mainly the cities/urban that need garrisons to deny partisan recruitment in partisan cadres. In my experience it's enough with that and when partisans arise a nearby unit will eliminate the partisan (even from the garrison but trying to be back in town in the same turn). The partisan unit disappears upon contact with axis forces, no need of a normal attack. And the secondary rail convertion units quickly repair the damage (sometimes even in the same turn).

[mmarquo]

The myth of unending manpower was a myth created by Stalin and beleived by the world.
If not for the western allies Germany would have won the war in the east.

Pelton,

Here is the deal: you are either misinformed and/or frankly distort facts to support your biased view of this game.

1. In fact Stalin puposely underrated and minimized Soviet manpower/capabilities in an effort to get the western allies to committ and fight more. He was a master at crying wolf; some opine that the Cold War started at the beginning of Operation Uranus when 1,000,000 plus previously unaccounted for Soviet troops appeared out of the mist from the east. This as Stalin was berating the Allies for their idleness.

2. The truth is opposite from what you wrote: if not for the Soviets, Germany would have stymied the Western Allies who would have never had the stomach to fight the total war needed to defeat the Axis.

This is history, get over it; no matter how many books and account you read, the outcome is always the same: Germany lost, Russia won; deal with it.

Marquo [;)]

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

The myth of unending manpower was a myth created by Stalin and beleived by the world.
If not for the western allies Germany would have won the war in the east.

Pelton,

Here is the deal: you are either misinformed and/or frankly distort facts to support your biased view of this game.

1. In fact Stalin puposely underrated and minimized Soviet manpower/capabilities in an effort to get the western allies to committ and fight more. He was a master at crying wolf; some opine that the Cold War started at the beginning of Operation Uranus when 1,000,000 plus previously unaccounted for Soviet troops appeared out of the mist from the east. This as Stalin was berating the Allies for their idleness.

2. The truth is opposite from what you wrote: if not for the Soviets, Germany would have stymied the Western Allies who would have never had the stomach to fight the total war needed to defeat the Axis.

This is history, get over it; no matter how many books and account you read, the outcome is always the same: Germany lost, Russia won; deal with it.

Marquo [;)]

It's true, by 44-45, Russia was suffering critical manpower shortages... like the Germans. A few years back, a Russian, highly educated in history, educated me on the subject.

But here is where the use of raw statistics unmediated to other considerations becomes the worst lie of all. While the doctrine which accounted for Germany's early successes had been neutered, Russian command and combat techniques had advanced, making any comparison of populations and losses, even correct ones, worthless at best, deceitful at worst.

Russia won, the nazis failed. Loooooooooooooooosers.

[Peltonx]

I know who won.

Stay on topic kiddies, heheh

Germany was winning the war of atrition is what is clearly a fact, based 100% on data and not Stalin myths.

The western allies saved Russia's ass.

No flying pig fairytales from Mother Russia can change the data. Stalins dead guys you will not get shot for saying the truth hehehhee, lol hard to beleive there are so many hard core Reds still around.

Fact #1 German population 85 million.
Fact #2 Russian population 170 million.
fact #3 ratio 2 to 1
Fact #4 German KIA 2.4 million 41 to 44
Fact #5 Russian KIA 9 to 11 million 41 to 44
Fact #6 ratio 3.5 to 1 atleast.
Fact #7 based on the first 6 facts that can't be refuted based on data and not old Stalin myth's. Germany was winning the war of arttiton vs Russia. The only thing that saved Russia was England and USA pulling over a million men from the eastern front.

1+1=2 this can't be refuted.

You guys can try changing subject, but you can't change the facts.

DOH Germany lost war. I guess your 5 year old told you that?

Germany was winning the war of atrition vs Russia based 100% on facts.

Western allies saved Russia ass.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The western allies saved Russia's ass.

Prove it.

[alfonso]

Pelton, you are assuming that the number of men able to be recruited only depends of the total population, but you ignore some conditionals in your maths. For instance:

a) age distribution
b) women contribution
c) previous training: due to the Versailles Treaty military formation was scarce among Germans above certain age. The pool of trained reservists was much higher in the Soviet Union, and this gave the Red Army an incredible depth and resiliency.

Nobody denies here the help provided by the Western Allies, but imagine the fate of Eisenhower's armies with no Red Army fighting in Russia. Would you tell that Russia saved USA's ass?.

In 1941, when the Western help was minimal, the Germans were stopped at Moscow and Leningrad. It could be argued that without Western help a stalemate had been reached by 1942-43, and in game terms that would imply a German victory. But this is far from saying that Germany was winning the war of attrition.

By the way, it was not Stalin's fault that Germany was in war with England when attacked the Soviet Union, and that Hitler declared war on the USA in December 1941. Hitler fought against a Grand Alliance, and he lost.

My condolences.

[Flaviusx]

The Soviet Union saved the western allies' ass, particularly Britain's. Nazi Germany in 1941 vs. solo UK isn't a good matchup. To be sure, Stalin's diplomatic stupidity helped create a situation where Germany dominated the continent going into 1941, but that's a topic for another rant.

It was always the nightmare of British and American planners at the top level that the Soviets would fold. They knew full well the Red Army was doing the bulk of the fighting. If it went under...I really don't see what they could have done short of waiting for nukes to come online and plaster Nazi occupied Europe with atomics. Yay?

They certainly weren't going to get ashore anywhere against a Wehrmacht not otherwise occupied on the Eastern Front.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The Soviet Union saved the western allies' ass, particularly Britain's. Nazi Germany in 1941 vs. solo UK isn't a good matchup. To be sure, Stalin's diplomatic stupidity helped create a situation where Germany dominated the continent going into 1941, but that's a topic for another rant.

It was always the nightmare of British and American planners at the top level that the Soviets would fold. They knew full well the Red Army was doing the bulk of the fighting. If it went under...I really don't see what they could have done short of waiting for nukes to come online and plaster Nazi occupied Europe with atomics. Yay?

They certainly weren't going to get ashore anywhere against a Wehrmacht not otherwise occupied on the Eastern Front.

One of my favorite little useless hypothetical history books is something called "How Hitler Could Have Won World War 2" or something equally direct. In it, it reviews Kriegsmarine strategy suggestions given to Hitler in 1940/1941, in which they advocated the summer of 41 should be devoted to:

Malta
Closing the Suez
Gibraltar
The Canary Islands (off the coast of Spain/Morocco)

Doing so would have kept resources flowing from the Soviet Union and, without having to invade Britain directly, could stretch its convoy system to the point that a political settlement might be negotiated.

The idea was that the U-boats could use the Mediterrenean as a hiding area, and all british resources would have to pass within range of U-boats between western Africa and the home islands.

Strategically, it's really one of the best cards the Germans could have played after June 1940.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

By the way, it was not Stalin's fault that Germany was in war with England when attacked the Soviet Union, and that Hitler declared war on the USA in December 1941. Hitler fought against a Grand Alliance, and he lost.

In a way it was, imo. Stalin could have thrown his lot in with the Western allies in 1939. He instead chose to sit it out, get some easy loot in eastern europe, and bet on a replay of WWI western front.

It didn't quite work out that way. Germany got a lot more out of the pact than the Sovs did, and would become infinitely more dangerous in 1941 than it was in 39.

[Aurelian]

Through out the war, the bulk of the German forces from a high of 80%, (at the start.), to 60% (at the end), were in the East.

The bulk of their losses were in the East.

Even during the period June-Nov 1944 62% of the irrevocable losses were in, wait for it..................... the East.

[Schattensand]

In this game, as it is now, germans have a partisan problem in the beginning of the war, mostly from august to december 41. After that the rrlines are linked and single partisans actions are only a little flavour to the game, if one guards his towns decently.
In WW2 it was just the other way around. Almost no problem in 41, but later a pest.
Playing the german side I totally agree that partisan attacks in summer 41 are nuts.
If the game would implement some sort of partisan problem in the later gameplay I would agree to that.
But how to do - I know not.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

As far as what Zhukov says: the same people quoting Soviets are quick to point out that Germans exaggerate. I'm not interested in history. I'm interested in gameplay.

I know you're not interested in history, but in the actual event, the Germans were advancing rail heads considerably faster than the current in-game ability of FBD units. There have been several postings on other threads on this forum that delve into documentation related to the rapidity with which the Germans were repairing and converting track. The in-game rate at which FBD units convert\repair tracks is purely fictional and presumably related to "game balancing". An artificial means of dealing with the current in-game logistics model. If the game didnt reign in track repair\conversion rates relative to the historical rates, axis ingame rates of advance in 1941 would be far too accelerated.

Currently we have a system in which an almost unlimited amount of supplies\material\ammunition flows to rail heads + convoluted truck rules and distance from railheads to combat units is relied upon to slow the axis 1941 advance rates.

I wont argue whether or not FBD repairing 4-hexes per turn is right or wrong, or 5-hexes per turn is right or wrong. The current repair\conversion rates and the past repair rates are both artifical and seem to be based upon how rapidly the 2by3 design group thinks the Axis should be able to advance in 1941. The rates of repair are actually sort of archaic and feels like a hold over from the old SPI game War in the East. So I guess in that sense your particular take that we should go back to the FBD rules of 1.04 or early 1.05 are just as legit as someone that's arguing that the current repair\conversion rates are "correct".

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Schattensand

In this game, as it is now, germans have a partisan problem in the beginning of the war, mostly from august to december 41. After that the rrlines are linked and single partisans actions are only a little flavour to the game, if one guards his towns decently.
In WW2 it was just the other way around. Almost no problem in 41, but later a pest.
Playing the german side I totally agree that partisan attacks in summer 41 are nuts.
If the game would implement some sort of partisan problem in the later gameplay I would agree to that.
But how to do - I know not.

While this is true, the partisan attacks in 1941 do actually make the game more "realistic" in terms of the effect on the Axis supply net. It's just a shame that (what I feel to be) the desired net effect of a shaky Axis logistical network in 1941, is created by something that in 1941 was not really the cause.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
fact #3 ratio 2 to 1
Fact #4 German KIA 2.4 million 41 to 44
Fact #5 Russian KIA 9 to 11 million 41 to 44
Fact #6 ratio 3.5 to 1 atleast.
Fact #7 based on the first 6 facts that can't be refuted based on data and not old Stalin myth's. Germany was winning the war of arttiton vs Russia. The only thing that saved Russia was England and USA pulling over a million men from the eastern front.

Just to correct your fact four German lost 4 million Soldiers at eastern front as KIA.

Just to correct your fact five Soviet lost 6.8 million as KIA to get fair comparsion you have to deduct about 1 million Soviet casulties wich was killed Axis allies (Finland, Hungary, Romanians, Italians) not by Germany. So German army killed about 5.8 million Soviet soldiers in combat action.

Rest of Soviet casulties were not killed in action they were prisoners of war killed in German POW camps you cannot calculate them killed in action casulties. Killing unarmed men inside prison camps had nothing to do with military skill.

So in actual combat German lost 4 million and Soviet lost 5.8 million at eastern front.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Fr ... Casualties

[Bearcat2]

I am not sure about the partisans having minimal effect in 41'. In " Manstein Hitler's greatest General" it states that Manstein lost the 8th Pz div to anti- partisan duty[interesting that he got the SS Police div as a replacement] near the end of july 41', 8th Pz had not rejoined his corp when Manstein left to take over 11th Army in mid september.