First Reported Allied Victoy

[SMK-at-work]

Yawn..yeah...every Fresh Soviet formation was Siberian.......and every German AT gun was an 88, and every tank a Tiger.......

[firepowerjohan]

IMO I do not think this should matter much to gameplay. USSR have their production points and can buy any units they want. Locking Siberians to arrive at certain date, certain strength and certain tech does not fit with the random research and random weather. Same argument could be that when Barbarossa start USSR and Germany should have this or that tank available or that the mud or winter should start at a certain date in 1941. We have random factors in game to avoid such predictability [:)]

It was a design decision to put as much of the Economy into the players hands and that is also why we allow neutral major countries to conduct research and purchase/place units all the way from 1939, to provide variation.

[Hard Sarge]

I been saying that from the begining, that is why the Russians have a large Manpower edge and production edge, they can buy the reinforcements

now, I am not so sure of the starting OOB for the different sides, but that is for another post, but the player can build any reinforcements they want to have

at times it is what the player is buying that may be the weakness, it is Nov and you got 300 PP, do you buy a Commander, a plane and a tank, or do you buy 10 Inf Corps ?

[Dave Ferguson]

OK, i just did some checking.
 
according to Glantz' 'Stumbling Colossus' there were approx 25 rifle divisions in Siberia, Central Asia and Trans-Biakal on 22 June 1941.
 
a large number of new divisions were mobilised in those areas.
 
From a russian website via babelfish to aid translation.
 
It appears that 5 of those divisions were transferred to active armies by the 1st of October.
 
At this time the soviets had over 100 divisions in reserve, non active fronts etc.
 
the same site still shows over 100 divisions in reserve for 1 Jan 42, including a lot of the original divisions still in siberia.
 
Glantz says over 190 divisions were transferred west by December 1941.
 
So the germans did see lots of 'Siberian' divisions in the Moscow camapaign but they were mostly new formations and not the original June 41 veterans.. They were not full establishment divisions but compared with the soviet formations already in the line were rested and had relatively well trained as they had a few months between mobilization and commitment.
 
They did not arrive in one big mass though, rather as a steady stream plus numbers went into reserve armies which the germans either ran into or were committed in the counter offensive.
 
i could spend a day or so tracking every division !!!!!!!!
 
Hope this muddies the water [:)]

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

IMO I do not think this should matter much to gameplay. USSR have their production points and can buy any units they want. Locking Siberians to arrive at certain date, certain strength and certain tech does not fit with the random research and random weather. Same argument could be that when Barbarossa start USSR and Germany should have this or that tank available or that the mud or winter should start at a certain date in 1941. We have random factors in game to avoid such predictability [:)]

It was a design decision to put as much of the Economy into the players hands and that is also why we allow neutral major countries to conduct research and purchase/place units all the way from 1939, to provide variation.

This may be the best way to handle things [:)]

The USSR should have a large pool of manpower and PPs. Or at the very least receive a "production/manpower" boost via events randomly sometime between Nov/41 and Jan/42 to account for a transfer of reserves.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

OK, i just did some checking.

according to Glantz' 'Stumbling Colossus' there were approx 25 rifle divisions in Siberia, Central Asia and Trans-Biakal on 22 June 1941.

a large number of new divisions were mobilised in those areas.

From a russian website via babelfish to aid translation.

It appears that 5 of those divisions were transferred to active armies by the 1st of October.

At this time the soviets had over 100 divisions in reserve, non active fronts etc.

the same site still shows over 100 divisions in reserve for 1 Jan 42, including a lot of the original divisions still in siberia.

Glantz says over 190 divisions were transferred west by December 1941.

So the germans did see lots of 'Siberian' divisions in the Moscow camapaign but they were mostly new formations and not the original June 41 veterans.. They were not full establishment divisions but compared with the soviet formations already in the line were rested and had relatively well trained as they had a few months between mobilization and commitment.

They did not arrive in one big mass though, rather as a steady stream plus numbers went into reserve armies which the germans either ran into or were committed in the counter offensive.

i could spend a day or so tracking every division !!!!!!!!

Hope this muddies the water [:)]

Hi Dave [:)]

Some of those numbers just seem out of whack.

I will refer to Alan Clark's book "Barbarossa" for my facts, since websites, etc can contain all sorts of incomplete information.

Here is what Clark says about the Siberians [page 170]:

"The total brought from the Far East in the winter of 1941 included seventeen hundred tanks and fifteen hundred aircraft, and was made up as follows:

Transbaikalia: seven rifle, two cavalry divisions, two tank brigades

Outer Mongolia: one rifle division, two tank brigades

Amur: two rifle divisions, one tank brigade

Ussuri: five rifle divisions, one cavalry division, three tank brigades"

So here we have 17 rifle divisions and 8 tank brigades that were transferred west to the Moscow area from Siberia. Many of these divisions were at full strength and were experienced

Almost 20 reserve rifle divisions were left in Siberia as a precaution in case Japan made a move into Siberia.

In addition to the 17 fresh Siberian divisions, almost 80 under-strength, worn out Soviet divisions were transferred from other Soviet fronts to Moscow.

Anthony Beever, in his book "Stalingrad" mentions that "The Siberian divisions, including many ski-troop battalions, formed only part of the counter-attack force.... (page 40-41)".

[LitFuel]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

IMO I do not think this should matter much to gameplay. USSR have their production points and can buy any units they want. Locking Siberians to arrive at certain date, certain strength and certain tech does not fit with the random research and random weather. Same argument could be that when Barbarossa start USSR and Germany should have this or that tank available or that the mud or winter should start at a certain date in 1941. We have random factors in game to avoid such predictability [:)]

It was a design decision to put as much of the Economy into the players hands and that is also why we allow neutral major countries to conduct research and purchase/place units all the way from 1939, to provide variation.

And a good design decision it was...don't listen to a few guys who want history(or depending on what book you read) recreated. All they want is history replayed instead of playing a game that can change. I came to play a game that is not always predictable. If you want things to happen every time on a certain date and trigger this or that play HOI. Some forget how to have fun.

[Vypuero]

I read Alan's book and it is very good, BUT he wrote it before he had access to all of the Soviet archives.  This means an over-reliance on German sources.  The book I mentioned says nothing at all about Siberians.  I am sure that, indeed, there were some.  However, it was simply the fresh reserve armies when the Germans kept expecting to think "They must be wiped out by NOW, surely!" but they were NOT!  What better way to explain a failure than to exaggerate the "extra forces from Siberia" that they speak of?  Point is - they existed, but their true impact was exaggerated.
 
Also - in our game, the Russians get a mobilization boost in October of 1941!  This gives them more points.  PLUS by then the first of your convoys may have arrived (that extra lend-lease) and is sometimes 100+ points.  That is enough, alone, for 3 corps, plus the boost for a few more.

[Warfare1]

The following are facts regarding several Soviet Armies that were formed in the Far East:


The Soviet First Army (also called First Red Banner Army) was a Soviet field army of World War II that served in the Russian Far East.

The First Army was created in July 1938 under the name of the First Coastal Army. Its first commander was the later Marshal of the Soviet Union, Andrei Yeremenko. It was immediately allocated to the far east, where it was a key element of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. Several border skirmishes between the Red Army and the Imperial Japanese Army, such as the Battle of Halhin Gol took place until, in July 1940, two years after its formation, the First Coastal Army was transformed into the First Independent Red Banner Army in the far east.


The Soviet Second Army (also called Second Red Banner Army) was a Soviet field army of World War II that served in the Far East as part of the Soviet Far East Front.

The Second Army was created in July 1938 on the far eastern frontiers of the Soviet Union. In September 1940, two months after its formation, the Second Army was transformed into the Second Independent Red Banner Army in the far east. In July 1940, the Second Army was once again allocated to the far east, this time under the name of the Second Red Banner Army.

Composition July 22, 1941

* Headquarters
* 3rd Rifle Division
* 12th Rifle Division
* 59th Tank Division
* 69th Mechanized Division



The 15th Army was active in the Far East Military District before Operation Barbarossa began. It was probably formed between September 1939 and December 1940.


The 25th Army - began war in Far East Military District. In June 1941 it comprised the 39th Rifle Corps with 32nd Rifle Division, 40th, and 92nd Rifle Divisions, plus 105th Rifle Division as Army troops.


The 35th Army - formed in June-July 1941, joined Far Eastern Front. Within Far Eastern Front comprised 35th, 66th, 78th Rifle Divisions and 109th Fortified Region.


The 36th Army - HQ formed between 22 June 1941 and August 1941 in the Transbaikal Military District.


The 53rd Army - was involved in the crushing defeat of Japan in 1939.


Here is an example of the Order of Battle for a Soviet Army:

17th Army:

* 209th Rifle Division
* 278th Rifle Division
* 284th Rifle Division
* 70th Separate Tank Battalion
* 82nd Separate Tank Battalion
* 56th Tank Destroyer Artillery Brigade
* 185th Gun Artillery Regiment
* 413th Howitzer Artillery Regiment
* 1910th Tank Destroyer Regiment
* 178th Mortar Regiment
* 39th Guards Mortar Regiment
* 1916th Antiaircraft Artillery Regiment
* 66th Separate Antiaircraft Artillery Battalion
* 282nd Separate Antiaircraft Artillery Battalion
* 67th Mortar Brigade

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

I read Alan's book and it is very good, BUT he wrote it before he had access to all of the Soviet archives. This means an over-reliance on German sources. The book I mentioned says nothing at all about Siberians. I am sure that, indeed, there were some. However, it was simply the fresh reserve armies when the Germans kept expecting to think "They must be wiped out by NOW, surely!" but they were NOT! What better way to explain a failure than to exaggerate the "extra forces from Siberia" that they speak of? Point is - they existed, but their true impact was exaggerated.

Also - in our game, the Russians get a mobilization boost in October of 1941! This gives them more points. PLUS by then the first of your convoys may have arrived (that extra lend-lease) and is sometimes 100+ points. That is enough, alone, for 3 corps, plus the boost for a few more.

Hi

Clark's book was first written in 1965. It was then revised in 1995.

Please read Clark's Introduction and Preface to the new edition (1995). Here he states after examining the newly released Soviet material, that he found nothing that would cause him to alter anything substantial in his book.

In fact, I have read nothing that would alter his findings, and his book still remains a classic work on the German-Soviet struggle.

[Dave Ferguson]

OK Glantz says that there were 25 'original' siberian divisions in june 41
5 were transferred before October
another 8-10 were transferred during Nov/Dec
units transferred were replaced by freshly raised troops, keeping the total facing Japan roughly the same.
 
In Eriksons 'Road to Stalingrad' it says that the russians had at the beginning of December 9 uncommited armies with 59 rifle divisions and 17 cavalry divisions. These were the substantial reserves which the germans did not think the russians had. They were gathered together by systematically starving the frontline armies of reinforcements, even the soviet army command was not really aware that they existed. They were lacking in manpower and equipment but came as a shock to the germans. These were the 'Siberians' that gave rise to the myth.
 
So if the game allows the russian player to build a several corps reserve by December it should be OK with no need for changes.
 
Dave

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

I read through the section on the W41 battles around Moscow in the book "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler" - which uses a lot of Soviet archive information. There is no particular mention of the Siberians, BUT in general the focus is on how the Soviets had a remarkable ability to marshall large reserves and reserve armies.

Hi

I won't go into detail regarding Glantz's book, but Glantz has been criticized for going into detail on some areas while giving other areas only a cursory examination.

In particular, in the above book, Glantz uses ONLY Soviet material. So it is one-sided. He also gives an over reliance to Stalin's involvement, and neglects some areas entirely.

Glantz is a fine historian but some of his work is not without some criticism.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

OK Glantz says that there were 25 'original' siberian divisions in june 41
5 were transferred before October
another 8-10 were transferred during Nov/Dec
units transferred were replaced by freshly raised troops, keeping the total facing Japan roughly the same.

In Eriksons 'Road to Stalingrad' it says that the russians had at the beginning of December 9 uncommited armies with 59 rifle divisions and 17 cavalry divisions. These were the substantial reserves which the germans did not think the russians had. They were gathered together by systematically starving the frontline armies of reinforcements, even the soviet army command was not really aware that they existed. They were lacking in manpower and equipment but came as a shock to the germans. These were the 'Siberians' that gave rise to the myth.

So if the game allows the russian player to build a several corps reserve by December it should be OK with no need for changes.

Dave

Hi Dave

This seems to be pretty close to my sources as well [:)]

So in the above book Glantz does look at the Siberian troops.

And I agree that if the game allows the Soviet player to build more reserves then that should help account for the reinforcements.

[Dave Ferguson]

Yes, Glantz 'Stumbling Colossus' is a revealing insight into the Soviet forces at the start of the war. He has written a companion volume 'Colossus Reborn'? which covers the rebuilding of the soviet war machine through 1942 etc. These are not histories of the war but include lots of soviet material previously unavailable.
 
If you like operational level accounts his Atlases are excellent if expensive. eg if you want to know the location of every german unit on 11 August 1941, the atlas will show you.
 
for the Western Front try the Library of Congress where you will find a daily situation map for the allied armies from June 44 to May 45, again divisional level.
 
Dave

[Vypuero]

I used these materials in the scenarios, but remember that the scale the game builder's wanted was much fewer units, so I had to revise all of my OOBs down to get to the smaller numbers they wanted (i.e. the scale went up).  That is another reason why the Russians have Garrisons on the front and Corps in reserve.  This way, the Axis can get the effect of the blast of Barbarossa at the start, followed by rapid advance and then they will run into increasingly strong Russian resistance.  At least, that is what I am trying to achieve!  Since the game takes very long to play with humans, and the AI is not quite the same, it is very difficult to get the right balance.  Also, keep in mind the starting Russian forces on the map are supplemented by roughly 1,000 PP up until the point where the war starts.  Also, the closer objectives have as low a value as I could assign, with the rear cities having high values to reflect the movement of production and factories there.
 
Interesting note - if you look at GDP for Russia and Germany, you will see that Russia has a LOT moe PP relative to their GDP than does Germany.  I have GDP figures for every country on the map during the WW II timeframe.  The reason is, that Russia used a vast portion of that GDP on war expenditures vs Germany or the US.  That was because simple necessities the West had were pretty much non-existant in much of Russia, and it just got worse as the war went on.  Somewhere I read an interesting analysis of the economy and its potential collapse.  It got very close to that point.  That is why it is a reasonable argument the Russians may have collapsed with the loss of more territory, for instance if Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad had fallen, there is a good chance it would have been a true point of no return.
 
 

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

Yes, Glantz 'Stumbling Colossus' is a revealing insight into the Soviet forces at the start of the war. He has written a companion volume 'Colossus Reborn'? which covers the rebuilding of the soviet war machine through 1942 etc. These are not histories of the war but include lots of soviet material previously unavailable.

If you like operational level accounts his Atlases are excellent if expensive. eg if you want to know the location of every german unit on 11 August 1941, the atlas will show you.

for the Western Front try the Library of Congress where you will find a daily situation map for the allied armies from June 44 to May 45, again divisional level.

Dave

Thanks for the recommendations.

One thing Glantz does well is crunch numbers and go into detail on all units involved in a battle/campaign... His research is invaluable in that regard. [:)]

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

I used these materials in the scenarios, but remember that the scale the game builder's wanted was much fewer units, so I had to revise all of my OOBs down to get to the smaller numbers they wanted (i.e. the scale went up). That is another reason why the Russians have Garrisons on the front and Corps in reserve. This way, the Axis can get the effect of the blast of Barbarossa at the start, followed by rapid advance and then they will run into increasingly strong Russian resistance. At least, that is what I am trying to achieve! Since the game takes very long to play with humans, and the AI is not quite the same, it is very difficult to get the right balance. Also, keep in mind the starting Russian forces on the map are supplemented by roughly 1,000 PP up until the point where the war starts. Also, the closer objectives have as low a value as I could assign, with the rear cities having high values to reflect the movement of production and factories there.

Interesting note - if you look at GDP for Russia and Germany, you will see that Russia has a LOT moe PP relative to their GDP than does Germany. I have GDP figures for every country on the map during the WW II timeframe. The reason is, that Russia used a vast portion of that GDP on war expenditures vs Germany or the US. That was because simple necessities the West had were pretty much non-existant in much of Russia, and it just got worse as the war went on. Somewhere I read an interesting analysis of the economy and its potential collapse. It got very close to that point. That is why it is a reasonable argument the Russians may have collapsed with the loss of more territory, for instance if Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad had fallen, there is a good chance it would have been a true point of no return.

Hi Vypuero:

You do have a difficult job

As I understand it you are trying to balance the game as per the developers request. Must be fun

Possibly one way to help account for Soviet reinforcements would be to have it as a toggle option. The player could be given the option of having Soviet reinforcements enter randomly sometime between Oct/41 to Jan/42. These reinforcements should not happen automatically, since they were contingent on what the Japanese were going to do in late 1941.

This "reinforcement option" could take the form of more Production Points.

The Axis player should always be faced with hordes of Soviet armies, and it should be very difficult to knock the USSR out of the war. In addition, perhaps make it so that the Axis player would have to capture and hold Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad before the USSR surrenders.

There is some debate (and not without merit) that had Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad fallen into German hands, the Soviets would have been hard-pressed to continue the war.

[targul]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

IMO I do not think this should matter much to gameplay. USSR have their production points and can buy any units they want. Locking Siberians to arrive at certain date, certain strength and certain tech does not fit with the random research and random weather. Same argument could be that when Barbarossa start USSR and Germany should have this or that tank available or that the mud or winter should start at a certain date in 1941. We have random factors in game to avoid such predictability [:)]

It was a design decision to put as much of the Economy into the players hands and that is also why we allow neutral major countries to conduct research and purchase/place units all the way from 1939, to provide variation.

No one said Siberians must arrive at a certain time or in a certain quantitiy and I do not understand people keeping saying that. I just want a game that reflects some history, providing adequate Russian forces at there most critical time to be reflected in this game.

Your point system at this point has not worked. I believe in Human play there are now enough examples that people are just not winning as the Allies. We have two reported wins whille the Axis is having a gay time romping around the world.

Also some of us wish to play historical games and some not so why not make one of your scenarios historical while others can then play the fantasy WWII.

This idea that games will not be fun if they reflect history is one most gaming companies have used and have been unsuccessful with. Yes there definitely needs to be a fun factor in the games but most people do not want a fudge (cheat) factor to accomplish this. As far as I can tell there are only two companies attempting to do historical correct fun WWII games so that market is fairly open while the fantasy market is huge but crowded.

I am sincerly hoping I see improvement in the techincal and game problems. Your patch list appears good and some of the remarks I have seen on the boards makes me also think it will but I remain concerned that you will ignore history to accomplish anything hoping to gain in the fantasy market.

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: targul

Also some of us wish to play historical games and some not so why not make one of your scenarios historical while others can then play the fantasy WWII.

I'm with targul on this. In fact I have tried to argue this myself on a number of game company forums. I never try to tell others that they can't enjoy their "fantasy" or unrealistic games. With scenarios there is no reason we can't all have what we want.

I have to admit that I do get tired of hearing that historical games always turn out the same, mean there can be no challenge and/or shouldn't be made.

Being part of recreating history can be a sort of "fantasy" in itself. The challenge is to take a situation ( battlefield - same units - power -etc.) and see how well you can do. Some of us just look at these things as a game loosely based on history. Others of us want it to be a simulation strongly based on history. Can't we all just get along? [:-]

[LitFuel]

Just read these forums and you'll see ten different versions of what happened or what units were actually involved in supposed "History"...so who's version do you use and to what extent(hell, new books come out every year giving the new history with supposed new information)?

Everyone has their own agenda that's plain to see. it doesn't always make your "history' accurate or even realistic so in that case your right you are also playing a fantasy in some ways.

I think the main thing is to give us the tools to work with in a fun system that's playable and as close to history without holding our hands through it. I think they did a pretty good job already with that. Major changes are really not needed.