Gamesaurus Rex plays the Germans!

[governato]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

...if it were harder to build forts, I would have no objections to the ones that were built being stronger.

I think this is a great idea.

...some of these ideas are in v1.08.

[Champagne]

The fort hexes in the game that represent field and earthworks, such as trenches, should not feature all-around defense.

Also, it might be thoughtful to keep in mind that, during the War in the East, trenches were not as effective as they were in World War I. Tanks, better infantry tactics, better artillery and better artillery ammo combined to reduce the effectiveness of trenches on the Eastern front during World War II.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Champagne

....

Also, it might be thoughtful to keep in mind that, during the War in the East, trenches were not as effective as they were in World War I. Tanks, better infantry tactics, better artillery and better artillery ammo combined to reduce the effectiveness of trenches on the Eastern front during World War II.

Well, not quite. Look at the various offensives by Western Front on the Orsha-Mogilev axis from late 42 till early 44. Massive losses (incl the Mars foul up), some can be put down to less than stellar Soviet leadership and planning but mostly the German defensive lines were just too good,

It wasn't till Rokossovsky cleared Gomel, using much more astute tactics, and flanked this line to the south that they made any progress. So in sectors, fortifications did turn specific campaigns into a WW1 re-enactment.

What I think is the problem in game, is that FZs are relatively cheap, esp for the axis who often build up a large pool of admin points, so you can extend the fortification belts much more widely than they were historically deployed.

On the other hand, esp in the Ukraine, the Germans didn't accept they were on the strategic defensive till after Kursk, a mistake that no competent German player is going to make. Its another of those issues where game design and player hindsight, lead to a different pattern to what really happened - but not necessarily a pattern that was impossible. In reality if the Germans had started to dig a serious defense line on the Dniepr after their victory at Kharkov .... ?

[GamesaurusRex]

UPDATE FROM OKH - LENINGRAD FRONT:

The Fuhrer has demanded that Leningrad be isolated at all costs.

Despite blizzard weather conditions, the Wehrmacht has pressed the attack regardless of the consequences.
Latest reports from the front assure the Fuhrer that every means available is being used to attack the enemy !
Leading elements of the XXXX Panzer Korp are 20 miles (2 hexes) from Sviritsa... the last port supplying Leningrad.

(Turn 25 - 12/04/41)

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Just an update for those interested. Germans have managed to take Moskow and right hook around Leningrad has cut the rail supply and is 50 miles (5 hexes) from the Finish Troops at the no-attack-line. Maybe two moves until Blizzard... Who knows ? We'll probably all die of frostbite... LOL. (I love this game.)

Taking Moscow but not necessarily Leningrad is quite unusual - I've lost Leningrad in almost every game I've played but never lost Moscow. How did the South end up looking?

Wehrmacht occupies the Crimea, but Sevastopol is still standing behind high walls.
Turn 25, the line runs from Zaporozhye - Dnepopetrovsk - Karkhov - Kursk - Orel - Kaluga - Moskow - Kalinin - to a point 50 miles east of Vyshny Volochek then NNW to two hexes from Sviritsa... (so close to closing the noose on Leningrad... but it's soooo cold... No winter boots !)

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Would have loved to see an AAR on him taking Moscow.

It wasn't actually "taken"... it was "given".

The Wehrmacht flanked the city with two spearheads and the Russkis wisely withdrew the 9 divisions before they were eaten by isolation.

[Oshawott]

Next turn is #25, first of Dec 41 and still blizzard I hope even with random weather.

You can relax. Random weather has no effect on the first blizzard.

[Champagne]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Champagne

....

Also, it might be thoughtful to keep in mind that, during the War in the East, trenches were not as effective as they were in World War I. Tanks, better infantry tactics, better artillery and better artillery ammo combined to reduce the effectiveness of trenches on the Eastern front during World War II.

Well, not quite. Look at the various offensives by Western Front on the Orsha-Mogilev axis from late 42 till early 44. Massive losses (incl the Mars foul up), some can be put down to less than stellar Soviet leadership and planning but mostly the German defensive lines were just too good,

It wasn't till Rokossovsky cleared Gomel, using much more astute tactics, and flanked this line to the south that they made any progress. So in sectors, fortifications did turn specific campaigns into a WW1 re-enactment.

What I think is the problem in game, is that FZs are relatively cheap, esp for the axis who often build up a large pool of admin points, so you can extend the fortification belts much more widely than they were historically deployed.

On the other hand, esp in the Ukraine, the Germans didn't accept they were on the strategic defensive till after Kursk, a mistake that no competent German player is going to make. Its another of those issues where game design and player hindsight, lead to a different pattern to what really happened - but not necessarily a pattern that was impossible. In reality if the Germans had started to dig a serious defense line on the Dniepr after their victory at Kharkov .... ?

Good points, but, I'm not sure that my points about better tactics and artillery ammo are refuted. I will certainly agree that these improvements did not render field fortifications weak or useless.

The fighting in this sector was dominated by the defense, as you say. Certainly the German fortified villages, trenches and obstacles played a huge role. Also, the forested terrain in this area helped the defense.

None of what I add to the conversation diminishes or challenges any of your points, I hasten to add. Indeed, the fighting in the sector that you mention is an absolutely essential part of the conversation on the topic of how the game should handle Fortifications.

Clearly, on the Eastern Front during WW2, trenches, earthworks, obstacles and fortified towns were very important and could dominate the battlefield at times.

[loki100]

aye, as with you, I'm not disagreeing in a fundamental manner.

Where WW2 differed from WW1 was if you got a breakthrough, every army (limited by their operational competence and equipment) had the means to escalate it.

Cambrai in 1917 is a good eg. The British and Canadian forces managed the holy grail of a clean breakthrough (with tanks), described in despatches as reaching 'to the green fields beyond', but couldn't exploit as partly the High Command didn't expect to win so reinforcements weren't in sector, but mainly that everything that moved up had to cross the wasteland of the old front. And of course the last thing you did in a 1917 tank was go on a blitzkrieg.

Bagration is usually put down as a stunning Soviet success. But there losses in the first week were horrendous and shocked even their own commanders. Now once the German line broke, the Soviets had the means (& numbers) to amplify that victory. Tactically it led the Soviets to grasp the value of the APC as used by the Germans or Western Allies to move the infantry rather than sticking a rifle squad on a tank (even if this only was really introduced post war).

So to me, in sectors, a well prepared defense should be a major barrier.

Its a problem I think were reasonable simulation meets gamers using hindsight and looking for slightly implausible advantages. The permissive logistics in WiTE make it hard to check an offensive, so both sides dig in more substantially than they could have in reality. In my current game with SigUp I have defensive belts around Moscow-Tula that would put those of Kursk to shame. Its way beyond capability, but its a means to deny him operational freedom which is over-valued (due to the lack of logistics restraints). German players in the mid game do the same in reverse, when in reality the Germans built a series of localised lines (some more formidable in their notional title than in reality) that covered most of AGN-AGC and never really prepared for being on the strategic defense in the south.

I do think slowing digging speed is good (ie the settings), esp if tied to reducing the logistics settings. And hfarrish's idea of being harder to build, but more effective is a means to simulate the type of defense constructed by AGC, but also to mean that if it is breached (as in Bagration), they are then in deep trouble.

[Wheat]

Ok, before this thread goes completely off topic (it's ok guys), here are some promised screen shots. Some reminders as to why some of this stuff.

GR (first game as Germans FINALLY)
Wheat (first game as Russians, but many as Germans which helps IMMENSELY)
Patch 7.15
Turn 25 Russian, first of blizzard.

GR has issued the Hitler directive to not surrender ground. Sigh.....history repeating itself. (He won't do that next game hehe [:-])

Losses this turn seem great to me, awful for him.

[Wheat]

Air losses: The russian air force is doing nicely I think.

[Wheat]

OOB

[Wheat]

Lastly two screen shots of the north and central. After all, this is not an AAR.

The North:

[Wheat]

And the Moscow area. Btw, GR took it the correct way, not with a frontal assault, but he threatened to encircle it both north and south. I chose the better part of valor.

[Wheat]

Oh, and no guards yet. Hmmmmmm. One division has 5 victories! I tried to attack earlier whenever I thought it prudent.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: Wheat

Oh, and no guards yet. Hmmmmmm. One division has 5 victories! I tried to attack earlier whenever I thought it prudent.

Yes... isn't the lack of Guards interesting ? And that is exactly why I have continued the attack in the North way beyond any rational point... specifically to give you every chance during this blizzard to counter attack and achieve whatever you can to create Guards units via "blizzard wins".

If you recall, one of the reasons for continuing this game through the first blizzard even when patch 1.08 comes out is to see if you can see the same problem that I have with the Guards awarding system. To repeat the problem... I think something was broken in the game when Movrvael patched the bug that was giving the Russians "double crediting of wins". I think what Morvael did was the right thing to do, because it fixed the "win" counting mechanism in the game, but I believe that the number of wins needed to award Guard status to units was initially programmed at levels determined by playtesting that was done when the game was bugged and the win credits were doubled.

When Morvael fixed the double credit bug, he did not adjust the number of wins needed... so the effect of the patch was to cut the rate of Guards formation in half. The mild blizzard option magnifies this even more. I'm not sure of what the correct rate of Guards formation should be, but in the last game with Wheat under patch 1.07.11, we played to 1944 and as the Russians, I had not created even one Guard unit.

In this game with Wheat playing the Russians under 1.07.15, it is turn 25 and I believe Wheat has not yet seen any Guards units appear either.

There is another oddity I have noticed about the "win" record of individual units... and that is that it seems to get erased sometimes if the wrong units are merged into corps. I have not been able to figure out exactly how the game is calculating the "win" values of the merged units. I would think that it would use some averaging process, but I'm not sure it does... and sometimes it looks like wins are getting erased. Maybe it just seemed that way, because I generally was merging units with the same morale levels in order to avoid losing morale levels... the morale calculations upon merging is also a bit iffy. Then again, maybe Gary G. intended it to be random ?

[Oshawott]

Oh, and no guards yet. Hmmmmmm. One division has 5 victories! I tried to attack earlier whenever I thought it prudent.

Wheat, as far as I can tell the system works just fine. This info is just for infantry:

Condition One:
 For non-motorized units, the unit's number of wins plus the year modifier must be greater or equal to 8 plus random(8).(see glossary for definition of random(x))

Condition Two:
 For all units, the unit's number of wins plus the year modifier must be greater than 9

Condition Three:
 For all units, the unit's number of wins plus the year modifier must be greater than 2 plus the unit's number of losses

Random(x): The computer generates a random number from 0 to x-1.

Condition 1: # of wins + modifier = or > 8 to 15. For 1941 this means you technically need a minimum of 5 wins depending on dice.

Condition 2: # of wins + modifier > 9. For 1941 this means you need a minimum of 7 wins.

Condition 3: # of wins + modifier - # of losses > 2

So nothing happens until you get at least 7 wins. Then it depends on the dice and on the number of losses. If you attack during blizzard you will be rewarded with many guards.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

Oh, and no guards yet. Hmmmmmm. One division has 5 victories! I tried to attack earlier whenever I thought it prudent.

Wheat, as far as I can tell the system works just fine. This info is just for infantry:

Sorry to do this Wheat, but I'll run the risk of diverting this thread again.

I think the issue here is its become another rich get richer mechanism. If you enter the blizzard behind your opponent overall (& I think that is where I am with SigUp), then you struggle for Gds. I'll ignore the various reasons why this outcome can happen, but the result is, esp with the mild blizzard a much more even tussle with German counterattacks and so on. This means you probably get in less wins, but more importantly rule #3 takes on some value. I have rifle divisions in the armies I've most relied on with 7-9 wins and 6-10 defeats as a result.

If a Soviet player goes into the blizzard ahead then three things combine. Almost by definition you'll have wins already stacked up (& yours vs Stef is a masterclass), equally more or the front will be in play, so you can stretch the Germans (= hit their allies and have sport with weaker infantry divisions) and in turn they will be able to hit back less (= rule #3 becomes less important).

The solution if you are on the first track is real micro management. Find the divisions with the potential to convert and put them into places where they may get easier wins. I hunted over my entire OOB for 5-6 candidates, moved them to where they had a chance and have nurtured them along the way. This is pretty tedious but ...

So its another of those rules that has no right or wrong interpretation. Its almost as likely to have a Soviet player bumping up against the capacity cap as it is to see one with few or none. What doesn't seem to happen is a happy medium.

[Champagne]

aye, as with you, I'm not disagreeing in a fundamental manner.

Where WW2 differed from WW1 was if you got a breakthrough, every army (limited by their operational competence and equipment) had the means to escalate it.

Cambrai in 1917 is a good eg. The British and Canadian forces managed the holy grail of a clean breakthrough (with tanks), described in despatches as reaching 'to the green fields beyond', but couldn't exploit as partly the High Command didn't expect to win so reinforcements weren't in sector, but mainly that everything that moved up had to cross the wasteland of the old front. And of course the last thing you did in a 1917 tank was go on a blitzkrieg.

Bagration is usually put down as a stunning Soviet success. But there losses in the first week were horrendous and shocked even their own commanders. Now once the German line broke, the Soviets had the means (& numbers) to amplify that victory. Tactically it led the Soviets to grasp the value of the APC as used by the Germans or Western Allies to move the infantry rather than sticking a rifle squad on a tank (even if this only was really introduced post war).

So to me, in sectors, a well prepared defense should be a major barrier.

Its a problem I think were reasonable simulation meets gamers using hindsight and looking for slightly implausible advantages. The permissive logistics in WiTE make it hard to check an offensive, so both sides dig in more substantially than they could have in reality. In my current game with SigUp I have defensive belts around Moscow-Tula that would put those of Kursk to shame. Its way beyond capability, but its a means to deny him operational freedom which is over-valued (due to the lack of logistics restraints). German players in the mid game do the same in reverse, when in reality the Germans built a series of localised lines (some more formidable in their notional title than in reality) that covered most of AGN-AGC and never really prepared for being on the strategic defense in the south.

I do think slowing digging speed is good (ie the settings), esp if tied to reducing the logistics settings. And hfarrish's idea of being harder to build, but more effective is a means to simulate the type of defense constructed by AGC, but also to mean that if it is breached (as in Bagration), they are then in deep trouble.

Great points, loki. You do complete the picture with insight and accuracy.

I wish the game developers the best of luck in tackling this fortification issue. It will be a very difficult task.

[GamesaurusRex]

UPDATE FROM OKH - LENINGRAD FRONT:

Leningrad falls !

Despite blizzard weather conditions, the Wehrmacht has pressed the attack, broken through, taken Osinovets, and isolated Leningrad, which will be reduced.

In other news, Russian counter attacks have succeeded in recapturing Moskow, but German forces have generally held the line and thwarted major Russian counterthrusts in several areas by "fire brigade" style counter attacks to break the Soviet spears. The Front Soldaten are holding by will alone and at great cost...

and in anticipation of the fall of Leningrad and the availability of troops from this area for use at the front, the Fuhrer has ordered the OKH not wait for spring to recommence the assault to retake Moskow ! Unbelievable !

(Turn 34 - 2/05/42)