Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by *Lava* »

I still don't think the average German players have had enough time to really have the experience to be able to get the most out of their forces.

I've started at least a dozen games so far and still haven't experienced the first blizzard. I'm still not happy with my play... against the AI. I wouldn't dare go against a person until I could slap around the AI.

I think I have made a lot of progress though, but it's a massive game which will require lots of practice.
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by randallw »

I keep seeing a type of worry that the Sovs have too much going for them, and they can win by 1943; yes, I believe it did happen for Andy in testing, but that was before the current patches, and maybe he's better than most of us.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

Historically,
except for the turn south to Kiev, key German generals such as Mainstein in Lost Victories argue the Wehrmacht had a chance in 1941 except for Hitler's orders.
This also, if one agrees with Suvorov, was also due to Stalin placing the Soviet armies in the wrong posiitons in 1941 as he prepared to attack Germany, allowing them to be surrounded and destroyed by the Germans.
I therefore believe two things:
1 - for the sake of the Game and historical accuracy, a good German player should have the chance of reaching Moscow in 1941 and winning the war.

In my game I could stop the Germans approacing Leningrad, them stop them approaching Moscow, allowing them only to advance in the South which could not be held, but could be retaken in the blizzards.
For me, this was too easy, and was not the historical reality.
Thoughts?
How close have people got to Leningrad?
Who has reached the suburbs of Moscow by the 10th of December 1941 as the Germans did?
Again balance.

2 - if this is not accepted in the standard scenario a survorov scenario should be created placing the Soviet forces in an extremely dangerous position, to give the germans a chance in the GC. If anyone is interested I would be willing to cooperate iwth someone to help them create this.

3 - If someone is willing, it would be fun as a historical possible variant that never happened, to create the suvorov variant, as one in which on June 15th, the Soviets attacked first.

Anyone interested in helpng create these?

Do other players believe Mainstein that the Germans did ever have a chance of winning in 1941?

All comments will be eagerly read.

Dr Matthew Buttsworth

The problem with reading books such as Mainstein's is that they take all the credit for what worked, ans blame Hitler for each and every failure. They all say "If we did this, then this would happen." What they fail to realize, or gloss over, is that since they did A, and the Russians did B, and it failed, if they did C, it would of worked. Because they think the Russians would still do B.

To quote from "August storm: The Soviet strategic offensive in Manchuria":
Our view of the war in the east derives from the German experiences of 1941 and 1942, when blitzkrieg exploited the benefits of surprise against a desperate and crudely fashioned Soviet defense. It is the view of a Guderian, a Mellenthin, a Balck, and a Manstein, all heroes of Western military history, but heroes whose operational and tactical successes partially blinded them to strategic realities. By 1943-44, their “glorious” experiences had ceased. As their operational feats dried up after 1942, the Germans had to settle for tactical victories set against a background of strategic disasters. Yet the views of the 1941 conquerors, their early impressions generalized to characterize the nature of the entire war in the east, remain the accepted views. The successors to these men, the Schoeners, the Heinricis, the defenders of 1944 and 1945, those who presided over impending disaster, wrote no memoirs of widespread notoriety, for their experiences were neither memorable nor glorious. Their impressions and those of countless field grade officers who faced the realities of 1944-45 are all but lost.

This imbalanced view of German operations in the east imparts a reassuring, though inaccurate, image of the Soviets. We have gazed in awe at the exploits of those Germans who later wrote their personal apologies, and in doing so we have forgotten the larger truth: their nation lost the war-and lost it primarily in the east against what they portrayed as the “artless” Soviets.

As for the fall of Moscow giving Germany the win, well, it wasn't going to happen. Stalin had no plans to quit the war. To do so would of in all likelyhood led to his overthrow and execution.

Perhaps Axis players should spend some time here: tm.asp?m=2705668

This is worth the read as well: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/e-front.htm


"This German period of war historiography embraced two genre of works. The first included memoirs written during those years when it was both necessary and sensible to dissociate oneself from Hitler or Hitler's policies. Justifiable or not, the writers of these memoirs did just that and essentially laid blame on Hitler for most strategic, operational, and often tactical failures. Thus, an apologetic tone permeated these works. Officers who shared in the success of Hitler's armies refused to shoulder responsibility for the failures of the same armies. Only further research will judge the correctness of their views."

Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
bevans
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:22 pm

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by bevans »

I strongly agree with the forced step weakening of the German TOEs being a really bad design decision. However, that is one of the things that is really easy to change with the editor (i.e. I can do it). I have modded all the German divisional TOEs so they get STRONGER every year. If I do worse than historically, all my divisions will be horribly understrength; if I do better, then my divisions will be stronger than historical. That strikes me as a much better approach than the forced approach by Reichsfuhrer Grigsby 'Achtung, ve make der rules and you vill suffer as ve haf suffered'. Fair enough, they haven't exactly disguised their agenda. My issue is that one is forced to live with the German mistakes but the Soviet defense in '41 bears no resemblance to the actual Soviet doctrine in '41. I go weeks without a single Soviet attack whereas Stalin was forever wasting units in fruitless attacks (and some locally successful counterattacks). At least the Wehrmacht should be allowed to pack some sweaters to compensate for this.

The Germans can definitely 'win', as stacked as the deck is against them. Unless by win you mean actually forcing a Soviet surrender. That might be possible on easy, you won't even get to the historical lines in '41 on hard (unless you are a much better player than me) plus the first winter is devastating and you will be in real trouble against a good human oponent unless you start the game with the intent of stalemating. Keeping the German army intact will make Soviet victory impossible. But many of consider retreating to the original start line (read the rules, Winter starts jsut the other side of the start line; historically accurate I am sure. Right.) in Oct '41 to be, let's go with, ahistorical. Plus it will be a very boring game.
bevans
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:22 pm

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by bevans »

Sorry, missed one comment re June 15 Soviet attack. I do not believe it is possible without a major rewrite of the AI and the underlying scripts. I wanted to do a '42 start, which is beyond my capability to mod, given the absence of an sditor manual (yes, there is a manual; read it very closely, then read it again. Bad news, you will know no more about the editor, good news: you will only have lost 15 mins of your life). So I kinda hoped that if I didn't attack first turn, the war wouldn't start. Wrong, the Soviets make a desultory attack on Turn 1 with the airforce and a few land attacks (including vs frozen Rumanian units, who, interestingly, remain frozen) and flee with most of their units to the normal Pskov-Mogilev-Zhitomir-Vinnitsa-Odessa line.

So if you just changed the start date and gave the first turn to the SU, both easy to do, they will sum up the odds and head for a major river line to the east. They correctly conclude that an offensive will hand the game/war to the Axis. So it would take an awful lot of work to get this to work, probably including a major increase to Soviet strength.
User avatar
Pipewrench
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:38 am

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by Pipewrench »

Aurelian,

love your comments and I understand and partially agree with what you are saying but if the soviets would always win then what is the purpose of the game?

human vs human should always try to be balanced otherwise it becomes a simple simulation

with that in mind, count the hours you took to realize that as a German player in this simulation, you could not win.

try and also count the hours invested by the soviet player by simply pulling back and fortifying until production takes over and manpower becomes a 3000lb gorilla that cannot be stopped.

this is from the aars I have read and if I am wrong then I humbly apologize.





“We are limited only by our imagination and our will to act.”
– Ron Garan
ceyan
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:06 am

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by ceyan »

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?

The problem is that gaming the system on the Soviet side results in ridiculous situations because the actual (mostly side/unintended) benefits to playing historically aren't modeled in the game, and thus the Soviet Union player doesn't have to deal with all those other factors that would have been an issue had they come to pass in history. For example, in history the stand and fight/counter-attack meant more time was allowed for supplies/materials/future recruits to be extracted.

In game terms you just don't see that because of the scale, but if you translate between the game and real life, the Soviet Union gets all the benefits of having delayed the German's (by retreating) while also keeping their troops because they weren't fighting, because the time span of a few days is rolled together in-game, but god awful powerful (relatively speaking) in real life. Sure it also means the Germans have a bit more freedom and cover more ground, but the disparity in advantage to the Soviet Union is tremendous.

Just take a few minutes to think of all the little things that the historical counterparts would have had to deal with, that you just don't worry about in-game.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by Aurelian »

In my experience, pulling back without putting up a fight doesn't work.

But the impression I'm getting is that German players want to win the game in 41. It's a 200+ turn game. Why not plan for that?

They want to keep putting shackles on the Sovs to make it happen. (Stalin et al)

But the silence is deafening when it comes to putting the same on the German.

I see suggestions like changing the TOE for the Germans, making them stronger. With no historical or even rational arguements to favor that. As if Russia was the only front the Germans fought on.

I see what complaints that the Russian rail network is overpowered. What looks like attempts to add Railroad Tycoon to the game. What I don't see is any historical justification for it. (This isn't the Russia of 1914 afterall.)

Already, no railing industry on the first turn. And doubling some of the industry RR costs. (I don't really have a problem with that.)

I see desires such as Soviet "command paralysis" because Stalin was "out of it." Which I think has been shown to be inaccurate. To say nothing of the fact that they didn't sit on their hands the first 11 days.

The Germans don't even have to take Moscow/Leningrad/Stalingrad to win. But the Russians have to take Berlin. In theory, the Axis player could just sit there and fortify up to his eyeballs. As Flav pointed out in another thread, tm.asp?m=2718580

(Wonder if the blizzard effect would take effect in that case.)

A very boring game that would be. Like playing BTR with the Allies only bombing targets on the Channel coast til the Mustangs show up. Or playing SPI's War in Europe with a very conservative Axis player.

I suppose we need some AARs that go the full length before we talk about balance.


Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: ceyan

ORIGINAL: randallw

There is a tendency to be upset that if the Axis cannot reach pre-rain territory and Russian division kill results similar to history, then the game is pooked; but the comparison should only apply if the Soviet has a strategy similar to history.  The AI, nor a human, will do that, so then people complain if the Soviet side does not play like history then there should be some penalty.....but how do we gauge if these penalties would have happened?

And if we say that someone is doing something too odd and should be penalized, how much wierdness is allowed without penalty?  If the Axis player wants to shove massive amounts of armor to one AG, swapping infantry to the other, do we say "yeah, go ahead, it's not gamey"?

The problem is that gaming the system on the Soviet side results in ridiculous situations because the actual (mostly side/unintended) benefits to playing historically aren't modeled in the game, and thus the Soviet Union player doesn't have to deal with all those other factors that would have been an issue had they come to pass in history. For example, in history the stand and fight/counter-attack meant more time was allowed for supplies/materials/future recruits to be extracted.

In game terms you just don't see that because of the scale, but if you translate between the game and real life, the Soviet Union gets all the benefits of having delayed the German's (by retreating) while also keeping their troops because they weren't fighting, because the time span of a few days is rolled together in-game, but god awful powerful (relatively speaking) in real life. Sure it also means the Germans have a bit more freedom and cover more ground, but the disparity in advantage to the Soviet Union is tremendous.

Just take a few minutes to think of all the little things that the historical counterparts would have had to deal with, that you just don't worry about in-game.

The Germans also get the benefit of deciding where they want to advance. The benefit of not being forced to stand in place. Not being forced to attack that Kursk bulge. Of attacking the Russians near Berlin rather than Lake Balaton. Of not over extending themselves. All those factors that they don't have to deal with.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
cookie monster
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Birmingham,England

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by cookie monster »

All good points Mister!

Germany had about as much chance as Japan.
User avatar
jomni
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:31 am
Contact:

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by jomni »

If you ask me. I think the balancing is in the points system, it is not about who won the war.
Axis will lose the war 90% of the time but they may still get a victory or a draw based on the points system 50% of the time.
This way, you keep things in historical perspective but also make the game (not the war) winnable when playing Axis.

If you want to have a non-historical game where the Axis really had the chance to win the war then make a separate scenario like the ones in WITP (where the Japanese are better prepared).
User avatar
PeeDeeAitch
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:31 am
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by PeeDeeAitch »

I think the problem is that players want to "win" Barbarossa, and that should not be possible. The size of the country, the willingness of the Soviets to sacrifice men and space and still mobilize a huge army, the ability to relocate massive amounts of manufacturing, all add up to what seems obvious - the Germans should not be able to win in 1941.
 
I, for one, was raised on Panzer Leader, Lost Victories, Panzer Battles, and some of that seeped into my soul. However, I am also an amateur historian of World War 2 (professionally, I am a medievalist) and I have learned that a one-sided view is myopic oftentimes.  We here have heard about german tank troops being "super human" in their abilities, and such thinking shows a clouded view of the history.
 
This is a LONG game, as pointed out above, and it is won by the Axis side in avoiding total defeat at the time of the historical fall of Berlin - it can be won by simply holding the German frontiers.  However, players want to "win" in conquering, and in that I feel they may be unfulfilled.
 
Sure the game needs attention to some areas, but some of the squawking is that sort which reminds me of players who always wanted to play the side with the black counters with white printing, who wanted the Panthers in Squad Leader, and who got very mad when the Russians could win a scenario.  Not equivalent, mind you, but similar.  The German side is the harder side to play, and I also suspect beyond hearing when a full game is played what happens, we need to hear more from the German side when players have 6 months of play under they belts...
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester
ceyan
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:06 am

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by ceyan »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The Germans also get the benefit of deciding where they want to advance. The benefit of not being forced to stand in place. Not being forced to attack that Kursk bulge. Of attacking the Russians near Berlin rather than Lake Balaton. Of not over extending themselves. All those factors that they don't have to deal with.

All of which is modeled in game for both sides, like (I imagine) most people on the subject you're stuck on Strategic level thinking rather than the small stuff. As the Soviet Player you just don't have to worry about everything that comes with losing half your agricultural base. You don't have to factor in the huge impact of having a unit facing a large force in front of it and no other friendlies in sight to their left and/or right (such as with the Checkerboard strategy). You don't face any repercussions for blatantly giving up huge swaths of territory without a fight. All of which adds up over time to a significant strategic problem, but each is relatively minor or covered by larger rules which don't scale when you game the system.

Edit:
I'm not for giving the Germans a way to win, but I am all for not allowing the Soviets (and the Germans too if it comes down to that) to ignore the realities of the situation when they exploit the fact that the game doesn't have penalties for actions which would have been a pretty big deal in real life.
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by 2ndACR »

Not looking for a way to win. Bit I had better be competetive in 1942. Right now, the German army is neutered in Jan 42. I have met the strategy that can stop the German cold, in his tracks, and bleed him dry. Hopefully the new patch will correct a lot of things, but right now, the 42 German has no prayer of even getting started again if the Russian plays his cards right.
User avatar
PeeDeeAitch
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:31 am
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by PeeDeeAitch »

THAT is a problem, unlike the ideas that Germans should be able to win in 1941 (or that they are super-human...)
 
The winter itself is not the killer, it is the TOE upgrades (which hopefully will be fixed) and the fact that returning soldiers somehow have forgotten all their training and thus make the infantry so much weaker in 1942...the German recovery in the Spring of that year is well known, and the re-fleshing out of divisions should not mean that they suddenly are Romanian-like in their power...
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by Mynok »


As it is now, the Soviets have no penalties for scurrying back to defensible locations during 41, ignoring any losses in vital territories for their economy. The factories can be moved and the population (manpower) migrate automatically. Once the winter of 41 is done, no matter how many or few attacks they make, the German infantry is powerless to make any progress to freeing up their panzers for exploitation. All the Soviets have to do is hunker down and wait until they can build a 43-quality army to drive back the Axis. It's not even a contest.


"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by randallw »

There are some repercussions for the Soviet player in giving up lots of ground; some of that population base is taken away, decreasing replacements, and the industry is either lost ( overrun ) or damaged ( moved out by rail ).
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by 2ndACR »

And that is how it should be. But are the penalties harsh enough? I want as free wheeling a game as I can get, but right now, every unit on the map has a full compliment of trains just sitting there waiting to be used if needed. I think one of the biggest things we need is a delay when using trains.

1 turn you load and move
2nd turn you can unload but your unit has 0 movement and 1/2 to 1/3 CV
3rd turn they have 100% CV and movement

Sure they could still be railed right up to the front, and they might even be semi useful. But right now, I can load a Panzer Corp in Germany, and by turn 3 I have them east of Kiev and on the attack? Not in the real world. Not with any chance of being really combat effective.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by Aurelian »

I gave up large swaths of territory in a PBEM with CarnageINC without a fight. I lost.

No I don't have to face this "no units in sight to the left or right". Neither does anyone else who knows what the purpose of a ZOC is.

Or worry about anything else that is beyond the scope of the game. This isn't Imperialism I or II.

Axis players want to shackle the Soviet one so they can achive what can't be done in H2H play. Unless the Soviet is an idiot.

You know what happens when you give up large swaths of territory w/o a fight? The Germans get a free advance. They get to overrun manpower centers. Possibly keeping factories of various types from leaving. Overrunning railyards.

All of that w/o a fight. But we don't really see the ramifications in a long game due to the lack of long games.

Neither side has to worry about the "small stuff." And rightfully so.

Penalties for actions which would of been a big deal? What penalty will you give for the Germans for retreating during the first Soviet winter offensive? How about you lose because you get relieved by Hitler.

The Russians fought, and they still lost a great deal of agriculture, mines, the entire Donbas. Not only that, but about their entire peacetime strength. And they still won.

The reality of the situation is that if you run as the Soviet, it's a bad move. You'll give up a great deal of territory for free. You won't have time to build a second or third echelon. You units certainly will not gain experience.



Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

RE: Balance of Game - Does Germany have a chance?

Post by 2ndACR »

Nope, I don't want the Russians shackled. But there are limits as to what CAN and COULD be done.

And railing units is one of the things that needs tweaking. I think my idea will limit the effect it currently has.

Right now, every one of my units has a complete compliment of trains to move it with just sitting on the tracks ready to go. I can load a Panzer Div in Kiev and have it in combat in Vella Luki on the same turn with full combat power, not movement though. There is no way that happens is the real world.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”