OK, so deep penetrations with destoying the rail and then pull back when the blizzards hit might work vs. a human, too, since it will take long to repair the damage and get the railhead(s) close to the new frontline.
Respectfully, this isn't a valid tactic; remember, this is after the Reds have had 3 turns to dig in and rest. Then, you have to punch a hole in the line, get a thin spearhead several hexes deep, pull those guys back, AND get them into a city if you don't want them to start the first turn outside, all in 3 turns. No half-decent player is going to allow all of that.
Von Beanie is right: Not valid against an experienced Soviet player. In my game I did roll him back about 5-6 hexes in a couple places, but that bought maybe 1 turn, and didn't hurt his supplies at all.
I have yet to see anyone post screenshots and examples of a reasonably successful Axis winter defense.
I am holding my own as the Germans through the blizzard in PBEM. I put this down to:
I was conservative with my attacks in 41
Didnt over extend my frontage
Dug in really early in key areas
Slow attritional area defence
Pulling back without encirclement
Maintained good supply
Use Pz and Mot Divs to maintain a mobile defence
Only counter attacked with overwhelming odds
I think too many people race east after some historical time line and geographical objectives and simply grind their own army down. I had one objective. Destruction of the Soviets units.
Shadow Empire beta tester
valor and victory beta tester
DW2 DLC beta tester
I am holding my own as the Germans through the blizzard in PBEM. I put this down to:
I was conservative with my attacks in 41
Didnt over extend my frontage
Dug in really early in key areas
Slow attritional area defence
Pulling back without encirclement
Maintained good supply
Use Pz and Mot Divs to maintain a mobile defence
Only counter attacked with overwhelming odds
I think too many people race east after some historical time line and geographical objectives and simply grind their own army down. I had one objective. Destruction of the Soviets units.
Those are all good, but quality of opponent matters ALOT. I think others have done all those and still gotten killed.
Again, we need someone to post screenshots and AAR showing a successful defense, because unless we can see it, it could be because your opponent did a very poor job during the offensive. I bet you didn't face 70+ attacks each turn.
And I realize I am speaking to myself here, but what the hell - I lecture 3 times a week to a class of bored freshmen.
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
If the answer is that the Soviets won't make the same mistakes vs. history in the Winter Offensive, AND won't make the same mistakes in the Summer of 1941 for that matter, maybe the answer is simply that the Germans cannot reasonably expect to make Historical progress.
If that's the case, then the adjustment needs to be to Victory Conditions, because the only realistic prospect is for the German player to play "not to lose"
Perhaps the mindset here needs a change. The Germans do not have to be locked in to historic mistakes.
I tried a fort building strategy, used them as solid lines against a human player. Did not work got my ass handed to me.
But... maybe building a lot more forts and in a checkerboard maybe... did read somewhere that forts would be changing again so maybe not [8|]
With all respect to those who have contributed a lot to these forums, I am concerned that there seems to a small number of people who appear to have strong views about the blizzard and appear to want the Germans to exit the winter of 41/42 in decent shape and ready to resume the offensive - no matter the circumstances. In this regard can I point out the following:
* Only a poor Soviet human player will have a force in worst shape then the soviets had historically. I would dearly hope that human players, knowing the facts about what they have to work with in the summer of '41, will do everything possible to prevent large numbers of their troops being encircled and surrendering and thus avoid the catastrophic losses that the Soviets had historically.
* Only a poor Soviet human player will fail to concentrate their attacks come the blizzard turns and instead attempt a broad front offensive, dispersing their troops and then trying to overreach their advances without first mopping up resistance - as the Soviets did historically.
To me at present it appears that people forget that the game is based around a handful of historical parameters, however, the game itself will play out based on the direct actions of both players. To those arguing in favour of buffing the Germans, can I politely point out that no one in these forums has spoken about how totally historically inaccurate it is for the German player in turn one to totally encircle all of the southern Russian armies to the northern border of Rumania. I also hear no one talking about how the Russians may have significantly held back AGN by holding the defences of the Stalin Line in that sector (the Russians were unable to man those positions due to the speed of the advance). What about making the Russians alert to the possibility of attack by the Germans and toning down the surprise factor at the start of the game. Of course, none of these things will be introduced, nor should they, because the parameters of the game state that the Russians at the start of the game are surprised and over-whelmed early. The list of buffs one could give the Russians in the summer of 41 is endless - no one argues this point because everyone expects the Germans to kill Russians.
I think people in playing this game need to remember what happened to the Germans historically - at the commencement of the blizzard they had no winter clothing, no lubricants to permit the working parts of their weapons to function, their sights for tanks froze up because there was no correct paste to apply, the entire supply system broke down to the point that entire supply units because of the cold simply parked themselves into the nearest village to stay warm, locomotives could not function to the point that less than one fifth of rail movement occurred, the entire German air force was exposed to unheated airfields that were often makeshift in nature and thus their aircraft could not operate, German commanders complained that they were losing more men due to significant frost bite then to enemy action (and in many cases almost all front-line troops had some degree of frostbite to their toes, fingers, ears and noses), wounded men froze to death, divisions had less than four working pieces of artillery.............this list just goes on. In a nutshell, every advantage that the Germans had was wiped away - it became a battle for villages and main supply routes where the Germans hung grimly onto the villages for sheer survival. Anyone who knows the history of that battle further knows that the 9th Army, 4 & 3 Pz Groups along with parts of the 4th Army only survived because of their tenacity combined with Stalin's foolish insistence to enter an exploitation phase of the offensive and broaden it rather than secure the encirclement of those armies and take out centres of resistance.
I could go on and on in this thread. But can I put this to those that complain about the blizzard - what are your force numbers for the Germans before the blizzard - I generally have 3.6 to 3.8 million German soldiers plus allies. I bet my bottom dollar that all of you have around this same amount. Remember, that the Germans before the blizzard historically were down to 2.7 million men and after the blizzard, despite all the reinforcements from Germany and France, had only 2.5 million men. Indeed, at the time of the German summer offensive in 42, the only panzer divisions brought back to full strength were those in AGS. Those in the other sectors were at about 30% strength in regards to armour and in regards to infantry all divisions in AGN and AGC were at 50% with AGS being on average about 70% strength. I ask you, those that are complaining, have you placed your max troop levels for divisions for AGN and AGC at 50% ! so as to boost the allocation of troops to AGS.
To buff the Germans significantly for the Blizzard turns would make a farce of the game. As others have correctly pointed out, people have to get out of their heads that they are going to wipe out the Soviets and accept that the game is all about the Soviets pushing the Germans back out of the SU and perhaps to Berlin itself. The point of the game for the Germans is to survive.
By the way - I say all of the above being a WW2 history buff who loves reading about the heroics of the German Army in the East.
What you say is true, though it is still debated. The problems of supply were most critical - some sectors the rail supply was so bad that just the basic food, fuel, ammunition was tight and the hope of any more supply reaching the troops (say any sort of winter gear, mythical or otherwise) was impossible.
The debate, though, does not seem to be the historical facts of the Blizzard, but rather the fun and playability of the game. The historical vs fun if you will, seems to be the point.
My issues, and the reason I started this thread is that we still don't know enough. The bluster and comments about the game being broken, or no fun, or what have you, are based on less than 3 months of play and I dare say just a few head to head games per player. We do not even really understand the changes in the latter betas, and how they change things. More data and more learning are needed.
However, this is the internet, opinions are strong, opponants are simple, unread, or morons. Putting those aside might help us to learn.
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."
We all know what happened in history. And as you stated no human player will allow encirclements if they can. But it happened in history.
So why can't we have the option to "winterize" select German div, or get rid of the auto CV slashing during blizzard, or tie attrition losses to fort levels?
It is not a matter of buffing up the German army. It is about a A and B scenario, if I push as historical and not plan ahead, I should pay the price per history. If I stop short in say Oct and dig in hard and tight, why should my army still get decimated even if not attacked?
I have about the same force numbers as you upon winter. Yes, I have lowered mt TOE % numbers to boost my offensive power where I decide to attack. But again, why should I have to? I can read a book about what really happened, I prefer the options to change what happened. Heck, I am already forced to accept withdraws per history, accept the lowering of my TOE numbers per history (even if I don't suffer the historical losses) where in 45 my panzer div will have a whopping 60 or so tanks, even if I have 600 sitting in my pools. History is fine, but you have to understand, not my fault Hitler was an idiot militarily. If I pull up short and dig in hard, I should be allowed to "save" my army. All about options.
The Russian can spam units all day long. Not us poor Germans. Russians can tailor make their army, not us German players. Russians have options, we German have very few.
I know I have commented alot on Winter, but let me go on the record as saying I don't know if, or how, anything should be changed. That is for others to decide. I will share my observations.
I have no issue with the severe German attrition losses, and I don't think many people do. This was a fact of life for the Wehrmacht in winter. The Germans should suffer in game, and have to make difficult choices in Spring of 1942 when it comes to rebuilding. The Soviets should be rewarded for making attacks, and should have some success doing so.
My observation, though, is that the Soviets ARE able to make successful attacks all up and down the front. Logistics are nota problem. These attacks will also push the Germans back much further than historical.
Historically, the Germans lost alot of ground in December in front of Moscow, but it should be pointed out that the Germans were very dangerously overextended at the beginning of that attack. After initial runaway disasters, including the complete destruction of several German Divisions, the line stabilized in Janauary. When the Soviets attempted an attack all along the front, in every sector, it failed. What's more, Soviet generals knew it would fail, because they knew they didn't have the logistical or troops strength to pull it off.
That's my observation: The Reds have no logistical problems in the Blizzard, and can easily attack successfully all up and down the line.
Most Soviet players will start the Winter Offensive with more troops than historical, partly because the Soviet players won't make the same dumb mistakes that the Real Soviets made. That's OK. If the German player doesn't make the dumb mistake of way overextending in front of Moscow, is there a reward vs. history, or are you pretty much screwed anyway?
I know I have commented alot on Winter, but let me go on the record as saying I don't know if, or how, anything should be changed. That is for others to decide. I will share my observations.
I have no issue with the severe German attrition losses, and I don't think many people do. This was a fact of life for the Wehrmacht in winter. The Germans should suffer in game, and have to make difficult choices in Spring of 1942 when it comes to rebuilding. The Soviets should be rewarded for making attacks, and should have some success doing so.
My observation, though, is that the Soviets ARE able to make successful attacks all up and down the front. Logistics are nota problem. These attacks will also push the Germans back much further than historical.
Historically, the Germans lost alot of ground in December in front of Moscow, but it should be pointed out that the Germans were very dangerously overextended at the beginning of that attack. After initial runaway disasters, including the complete destruction of several German Divisions, the line stabilized in Janauary. When the Soviets attempted an attack all along the front, in every sector, it failed. What's more, Soviet generals knew it would fail, because they knew they didn't have the logistical or troops strength to pull it off.
That's my observation: The Reds have no logistical problems in the Blizzard, and can easily attack successfully all up and down the line.
Most Soviet players will start the Winter Offensive with more troops than historical, partly because the Soviet players won't make the same dumb mistakes that the Real Soviets made. That's OK. If the German player doesn't make the dumb mistake of way overextending in front of Moscow, is there a reward vs. history, or are you pretty much screwed anyway?
This sums it up nicely. I agree completely. And the fighing in the winter of 1941-42 will simply not play out right at all in the game. The salients and pockets that charachterized the fighing will never occur in the game. I would very much like to se an AAR in march 1942 with something remotely like the Rzhev bulge and the Demyansk pocket.
That has been my point as well. I do not mind the CV hits, nor the atrrition - I am not in a hysterical mode about such things. Rather, it is the large scale and coordinated attacks of the Soviets which strike me most. Smaller, army (or armies) attacks were the norm. In fact, thinks went wrong when the offensive was broadened to the entire front.
It is not the effects which cause the problems, it is the other side of the coin and the atmosphere in which the Soviets can coordinate. I do still think there is mitigation which can happen, once we learn better how to face the Blizzard as German players.
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."
With all respect to those who have contributed a lot to these forums, I am concerned that there seems to a small number of people who appear to have strong views about the blizzard and appear to want the Germans to exit the winter of 41/42 in decent shape and ready to resume the offensive - no matter the circumstances. In this regard can I point out the following:
* Only a poor Soviet human player will have a force in worst shape then the soviets had historically. I would dearly hope that human players, knowing the facts about what they have to work with in the summer of '41, will do everything possible to prevent large numbers of their troops being encircled and surrendering and thus avoid the catastrophic losses that the Soviets had historically.
* Only a poor Soviet human player will fail to concentrate their attacks come the blizzard turns and instead attempt a broad front offensive, dispersing their troops and then trying to overreach their advances without first mopping up resistance - as the Soviets did historically.
To buff the Germans significantly for the Blizzard turns would make a farce of the game. As others have correctly pointed out, people have to get out of their heads that they are going to wipe out the Soviets and accept that the game is all about the Soviets pushing the Germans back out of the SU and perhaps to Berlin itself. The point of the game for the Germans is to survive.
By the way - I say all of the above being a WW2 history buff who loves reading about the heroics of the German Army in the East.
can you agree that this is what is usually happening in the game in human vs human games?
most experienced Soviet players will play unhistorically from day 1.
The Soviets will pull back to a point where it they can launch a blizzard offensive, they know is coming and at the same time husband thier airforce while just providing ground forces zoc blocking as they retreat to a fortified line. The Soviet player also will be aware of the stop-lines in the north and realize that front is static.When winter comes Russia will concentrate attacks to isolate german forces that are suffering from the blizzard penalty. After that russian offensive the German forces will be a shell of its formal self unable to launch a sustained attack in spring/summer 42. By fall 42 it will be obvious that defence is the only strategy left for the Germans and that by late 44 Russians should be in Berlin.
if you can agree then where is the challenge?
Without full information on the latest patch I see a predictable outcome based on a set-piece opening that almost all the time will end in a German defeat in early 42 and with only a close to perfect opening will give a victory to the Germans in 41. the skill factor is limited in the game and it comes down to memorizing
with this you might just get to a point where you have surrenders on turn 4 .You also might have a hard time finding a good German oppenent to play against as most who are learning will either give up or switch to the soviet side. take note that this in most cases is not based on intelligence but on knowing a set opening move..
I do not want a instant victory by either side but a simple war that can go either way in 42 and truly bring out many strategies that both players can use. That is where the game is, as disposition of forces are set by the player and not forced by a historic start line and obvious lines of advance.
just my opinion.
“We are limited only by our imagination and our will to act.”
– Ron Garan
ORIGINAL: pipewrench
can you agree to this is what is usually happening in the game in human vs human games?
most experienced Soviet players will play unhistorically from day 1.
The Soviets will pull back to a point where it they can launch a blizzard offensive, they know is coming and at the same time husband thier airforce while just providing ground forces zoc blocking as they retreat to a fortified line. The Soviet player also will be aware of the stop-lines in the north and realize that front is static.When winter comes Russia will concentrate attacks to isolate german forces that are suffering from the blizzard penalty. After that russian offensive the German forces will be a shell of its formal self unable to launch a sustained attack in spring/summer 42. By fall 42 it will be obvious that defence is the only strategy left for the Germans and that by late 44 Russians should be in Berlin.
if you can agree then where is the challenge?
Without full information on the latest patch I see a predictable outcome based on a set-piece opening that almost all the time will end in a German defeat in early 42 and with only a close to perfect opening will give a victory to the Germans in 41. the skill factor is limited in the game and it comes down to memorizing
with this you might just get to a point where you have surrenders on turn 4 .You also might have a hard time finding a good German oppenent to play against as most who are learning will either give up or switch to the soviet side. take note that this in most cases is not based on intelligence but on knowing a set opening move..
I do not want a instant victory by either side but a simple war that can go either way in 42 and truly bring out many strategies that both players can use. That is where the game is, as disposition of forces are set by the player and not forced by a historic start line and obvious lines of advance.
just my opinion.
+ EXPLETIVE 1!
At present, this game is headed toward a Pac-man style series of memorization steps in 1941 for German and Soviet alike.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
The first winter ensures that the German player cannot win a decisive victory against a competent opponent. The TOEs in the later years pretty well ensure that the German will lose. I do not expect that the German will be able to go over to a full offensive in '42 but historically they were able to counterattack very strongly in the late winter then shattered the Soviet Fronts protecting the Don and drove far east and south. If anything, the early weeks of this offensive were easier than they had been in '41. The offensive then lost focus (or became too focused on a single strategically unimportant objective - not many oil fields around Stalingrad). We all know what happened then.
Neither the German nor SU players will make the mistakes that they did in'41 - but the German players need to be able to make a strong offensive in '42 in order not to be doomed by their late war nerfed TOEs. So far all the AARs we are all watching with interest indicate that the Germans will be well west of their historic '42 starting lines and with a much weaker army against a much stronger SU. So yes, there is some whinging from the German side but it is hard to see that it is not justified to some extent. No, I do not expect to be able to take Leningrad, Moscow, Saratov and Baku in '42 - but I should have a real shot at one of them and the ability to threaten at least one more - if I have played a competent first 10 months of the game.
Q-B agreed, mine is pretty experienced. What I was suggesting is that part of the problem is some players making unrealistic demands on their troops. This undoubtedly contributes to their failure. Good tactics and strategy combined with intelligent play can have a more favorable outcome. I am not suggesting that their is some golden rules - it is after all the art of war. I think that's where most are missing the point with their line backer or line tactics. They miss the point entirely.
To be honest in a pbem why would we measure the outcome against what happened for real? I truely expect to be pushed back to Germany and Berlin by any competent player. The Soviets have, rightly, a huge numerical advantage. I know how well I play the final computer generated result is academic.
Shadow Empire beta tester
valor and victory beta tester
DW2 DLC beta tester
I'm not expecting to come out of the winter of '41 in any great shape at all, and I'm searching for ways to give me a chance.
Its all part of the fun of the game for me.
One thing that I will agree with is that the Russian player can fortify quickly far too easily, and that really affects any German counter attack. That certainly needs looking at
I agree to Pee in regards to his response to my post - it is early days still - lets all have calm heads and continue to test the game before making any significant changes.
It wouldn't surprise me down the road if FORTS get looked at closely. If the Germans turtle in 1942, they can build a pretty impressive defense line. I bet we'll see some Soviet players get very frustrated beating their heads against Lvl-4 Forts everywhere. Hard to tell since 1943 wasn't very fluid in alot of ways until well after Citadel, but I'm just saying.
I think there is more interest in the winter results simply because it does not appear the Axis get much of any benefit by trying to "prepare" and avoid the mistake of being overextended when the blizzard comes. The other issue I have with the blizzard right now is the Russian rate of attack success is way too high with a ton of attacks going off. The Germans fiercely resisted and were able to counter attack. I don't see that in the AAR's. I just see the Germans getting absolutely hammered no matter what they try.
I don't think most reasonable people expect the Germans to skate through that first winter. They expect to be brutalized, but there should be a better difference between what happens when you get attacked overextended with low supplied and tired troops and when you have troops that are rested, have a fair amount of supplies and are sitting in prepared positions and right now there does not appear to be that big of a difference.
The other issue with all this is playability of the game. If I was playing a campaign as the Axis right now, I would be on offense in 1941. After that, I would be on defense just about no matter how well I would do. The Russians will be well dug in. Any place I would start attacking would see massive Russian re-enforcements railed in to put an end to a major attack so why bother wearing my troops out in a Kursk type operation in 1942 when I can sit on defense, dig in like no tomorrow and with fresh panzers, wait for a Russian to walk across no mans land and have a go at him in the open instead of in his level 3-4 forts? I don't think that is what anyone wants at all, but it is really being forced on the Axis at this point.
I am not a supporter of either side. I will play both and I like playing both. I want a good challenging game no matter what side I play that has the correct "feel" to it.
