OOB size

[Bob12]

I've noticed after reading a few of the longer AAR's from previous patches that the German OOB seems to go up in total manpower numbers as the years go by, getting to about 4 million men by 43/44. This is not the case in the yearly scenarios where the german oob seems to decline in total by .5 million men each year from the initial 3.5 million.

What is the cause of this? not enough casualties, too many replacements for the germans or a combination of both? Does 1.08 make any changes in this regard?

[Denniss]

The yearly campaigns represent historical start with all the errors and bad decisions/orders made until the starting point.

[chaos45]

Well I typed a long response on historical losses and the server timed out.....

Anyway to sum it up the game is to low on historical losses probably both for attrition and for attacking/defending.

Maybe thats what it takes to make the game work and be balanced but inherently that is the issue.

[Bob12]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Well I typed a long response on historical losses and the server timed out.....

Anyway to sum it up the game is to low on historical losses probably both for attrition and for attacking/defending.

Maybe thats what it takes to make the game work and be balanced but inherently that is the issue.

Looking at your aar vs pelton he had around 500K at the start of december, of those I'm guessing mabye 400K were german.

The figures for real losses from Glantz are around 750K although this is from the end of december so it includes the worst month of the blizzard.

I'm guessing when blizzard losses are added in for your game the casualties would be around 100K-200K under which isn't too bad.

Mabye the worse logistics in .05 will force the germans to fight a bit harder to get to the historical centre and south, and combined with the increased casualties from big battles will bump up the total.

[Bob12]

I think the 1943 scenario is a bit off though, I looked up some figures and apparently the german oob rose to a slightly higher number than the initial invasion by the time of kursk from its low in 42.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Bob12

I think the 1943 scenario is a bit off though, I looked up some figures and apparently the german oob rose to a slightly higher number than the initial invasion by the time of kursk from its low in 42.

This is not a movie or a book, but a game.

I personally don't have Stalingrads happening.

You takeaway me not being stupid like Hitler in 42 and the numbers match up just right.

Again the german player is not Hitler and the Russian player is not Stalin.

You can read all the stats you want, but after the GAME starts you can throw them out.

[MattFL]

Agree with Pelton on this one. Once the game starts, everything that happened historically is being rewritten. I'm sure it's also possible for the Germans to take much higher casualties than historical given completely incompetent play. Germany takes 750000 casualties in Stalingrad campaign alone, not many GHC players here take that kind of beating in '42....

Further, looking at Pelton/Chaos game, Pelton doesn't stand fast in blizzard, but retreats a lot. Germany stood fast historically. So Pelton should have lower than historical casualties.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: mattp

Agree with Pelton on this one. Once the game starts, everything that happened historically is being rewritten. I'm sure it's also possible for the Germans to take much higher casualties than historical given completely incompetent play. Germany takes 750000 casualties in Stalingrad campaign alone, not many GHC players here take that kind of beating in '42....

Further, looking at Pelton/Chaos game, Pelton doesn't stand fast in blizzard, but retreats a lot. Germany stood fast historically. So Pelton should have lower than historical casualties.

There is hope for those that learn from history and NONE for those that don't.


mattp

[Bob12]

I was talking about the pre done 1943 scenario in this case (forgot the quote button) where the number is a fair bit lower than expected..

[chaos45]

Retreat in Blizzard isnt realistic.....not a matter of historical or not it was impossible based on the German infantry division support structure almost entirely relying on european horses to pull equipment/heavy weapons.

Reason being almost all German heavy equipment and supplies for the Infantry were horse drawn...most the horses died over the first winter, thus the reason the Germans lost lots tons of heavy equipment historically.

European horses didnt fair well in the Soviet winter and its why after 1941 the Germans switched to using lots of Soviet horses as the smaller horses in Russia could take the climate.

Im fine with a german retreat as long as they leave behind all their heavy equipment as that would be the case [8D]

As I have said the German player really should have the option to push hard right up till blizzard but then take it hard when the soviets counterattack or go with a more restrained advance and start digging dugouts and wintering quarters for both men and animals well before blizzard hits...which basically means at the start of November they would need to start digging in for winter quarters.

Yes we dont have to play as the historical generals did but we should have the same realistic constraints based on the equipment/organizations of the armies involved.

[MattFL]

I think this simplifies things too much. The Germans were perfectly capable of retreating to consolidate their lines in late November/Early December when Typhoon failed and probably throughout the winter. At this same time, only about 1/3rd of the motorized vehicles were working as well as compared to initial start and they still managed to launch Typhoon, so it's too simplistic to say they couldn't retreat because of a lack of horses. At this same time Guderian and other generals (Bock, Hoepner, etc...) were all arguing for a withdrawal and were overruled by Hitler. Certainly they weren't arguing for something that couldn't be done.

To me, the Soviet counteroffensive is really less about the "blizzard" (i.e. weather) and much more about the fact that the German army had completely exhausted it's offensive momentum and as such was extremely vulnerable to counterattack. I believe it's this more than anything else that the game is trying to model with the first "Blizzard" rules. Further, the game engine already factors in tons of attrition, lower CV values, etc... for the GHC and in theory these types of things are factoring in things like lack of horses or other transport etc...

Doesn't Pelton attach all his SU's to Berlin just before Blizzard? Now THAT isn't realistic....forget about horses, he just magically picks them up and transports them to Berlin.... [:)]

[chaos45]

Ehh so far aside from prolly alittle bit to generous of a supply system for the Germans which is getting a slight nerf next patch the game is coming out close to historical in the match me and pelton have going.

I managed to hold about an extra 2 hexes over historical in the leningrad sector, but he got all the Valdai hills which will be a pain for me to ever retake. His losses are significantly under historical but thats just how the game works from what ive noticed. Soviet losses are also under historical as well IMO as my OOB has topped 6.1M now and we are at the end of January.

Some things are just done to make a game system work. So far it appears its working for the most part. A slight upward tweak to attacker/defender losses rumored to be in next patch might just fix the slightly low loss numbers for sides. an uptick of about 10% or so is about all thats needed.

[MattFL]

I agree Chaos, I think you and Pelton's game is playing out much more historically than most. I know people say that they want to tweak the losses and such in .05 but I get concerned about unintended effects of that. To me, other than the possible abuse of air supply, the game (with common house rules) is about as historical as it's going to be. Pelton said in one thread I can't recall the other day that it's much harder to learn to play the Germans well than it is the Soviets. I agree with this as most Germans seem to eventually get bogged down and can't keep up the momentum. So I hope that they don't nerf the Germans too much in .05 as the game in it's current state is definitely pro-soviet and that's how it should be, they won the war after all. But it's already challenging enough on the Germans even with a better than historical supply situation. Tread lightly with changes I say....

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: mattp

..

To me, the Soviet counteroffensive is really less about the "blizzard" (i.e. weather) and much more about the fact that the German army had completely exhausted it's offensive momentum and as such was extremely vulnerable to counterattack. I believe it's this more than anything else that the game is trying to model with the first "Blizzard" rules. Further, the game engine already factors in tons of attrition, lower CV values, etc... for the GHC and in theory these types of things are factoring in things like lack of horses or other transport etc...

..

would fully agree with this, one reason why the opening phase of Typhoon was so successful was that the Soviets really did not expect it. Earlier the Germans had either attacked faster than they could cope with, or where they didn't expect it (turning south after the Smolensk battles), but this they simply did not anticipate as, to them it made no sense.

so the Germans traded one last round of major pockets (for which Koniev came very close to being dismissed) for near total disaster when the Soviet offensive struck.

as to the flying carpet SUs, ... thing is the rules allow it (or probably to be precise don't forbid it) and Pelton plays by the rule book.

[Bob12]

ORIGINAL: mattp

I agree Chaos, I think you and Pelton's game is playing out much more historically than most. I know people say that they want to tweak the losses and such in .05 but I get concerned about unintended effects of that. To me, other than the possible abuse of air supply, the game (with common house rules) is about as historical as it's going to be. Pelton said in one thread I can't recall the other day that it's much harder to learn to play the Germans well than it is the Soviets. I agree with this as most Germans seem to eventually get bogged down and can't keep up the momentum. So I hope that they don't nerf the Germans too much in .05 as the game in it's current state is definitely pro-soviet and that's how it should be, they won the war after all. But it's already challenging enough on the Germans even with a better than historical supply situation. Tread lightly with changes I say....

I can agree on that, it's one of the best games I've seen, in general I think in 1.08 the game is in the best state it's ever been. I don't necessarily think the .05 casualties will play out all against the germans, since it'll also increase the casualties sustained by a massed attacker, so failed soviet attacks should be more painful.

[Bob12]

I'm not talking about 42 but 41.
There were no Stalingrads in 1941 for the germans, all their casualties were purely from attrition from fighting. If you look at the (pre blizzard) casualties for the germans in game vs real life they are consistently allot lower then they should be (same for sovs), which is why the german OOB is able to stay steady in 1941 rather than shrinking like it should.

The Germans didn't expect the casualty rates they got in 41 and as a result it was a real problem to maintain the fighting strength of their forces, this is alleviated in game due to the too low losses from fighting.