Squatter and I are in February '43 of our 1941-45 campaign PBEM. Here are my thoughts and experiences so far playing the Soviets. Please note that this is the first PBEM that reached this far, that we started under patch 1.02 and now we're using 1.04, so Squatter was hit with the old blizzard rules and the new attrition rules. Squatter is also a far better player than myself, who has neither played a particularly clever nor imaginative game. He managed to take Leningrad, threaten Moscow and grab much of the South in 1941, as well as a brilliant late '42 offensive that in the Caucuses. Nonethless, the Soviets are winning, I suspect, and here is why:
1. This game was not playtested in the mid-game. I am virtually certain that 70 percent of the testing focused on the first six months, and another 20 percent on 1942. That left 10 percent for 1943-45, and that's where I think the game is going to fall apart. The problem is that subtracting 1941-42 leaves about 160 turns (maybe 140 if you take away the mud) for an growing Red Army to beat up a weakening Wehrmacht. Every turn, the Soviets will attack and win most of their battles, which leaves the Germans weaker the next turn, and so on, and so on...
2. The Soviets do not need to play brilliantly after the summer of 1942. I certainly haven't. What I am doing is grinding the Germans down. I attack up and down the line. I don't need need to strongly outnumber the defender. I'm finding that maybe a 15 Soviet attack strength is enough to retreat a 10-strength German defense in a Level 3 fort. Casualties tend to be fairly close between attacker and defender, except the Germans lose a lot more artillery when they retreat. In February 1943, I am inflicting 15,000 to 25,000 German KIA per turn. I doubt the Germans can sustain that. My own casualties are somewhat worse, but not substantially so. I don't care because I have the manpower to afford it, and I can afford to refit units behind the lines.
3. The Soviet steamroller begins at a specific point: June 1942. That's when rifle corps can be formed. Once you have a rifle corps, you attach one or two sapper regiments to it. I discovered during the winter 1941 counteroffensive that without sapper support, Soviet attacks foundered against an entrenched line. After June '42, no more having to pray that army HQ commits sappers when you're assaulting the ubiquitous German forts. With guaranteed sapper support, a single rifle corps + attached sappers, plus a few rifle divisions to bring up the combat odds, can retreated one or two fortified German divisions and especially regiments. Other than some artillery divisions, I have not built any artillery support units. Just spending my APs on rifle corps and sappers. I can make 10 or 15 attacks per turn - almost always successful - in a grinding offensive. This may not be an optimum strategy. It is certainly not an elegant one. But it works.
4. It is very difficult for the Soviets to force German surrenders in 1942-43. The only Soviets with enough MPs to get behind and surround a German hex are the tank corps, and they are too weak to withstand the inevitably successful counterattack. But I discovered that I didn't need to. Instead I just surrounded and routed German hexes, including stacks of two or three panzer divisions. Even if I didn't force a surrender, the defenders lost most of their tanks and artillery, and would be out of action for several turns. Considering how stretched the Germans are, this is significant. Note that only recently were the defensive reserve routines fixed, so this may change, but I doubt it.
5. Soviet tank corps stink in 1942-43. They are pathetically easy to counterattack. They are just good enough to form a temporary encirclement for a rout.
6. WITE is not as fun after late 1942. After the dramatic tension of summer 1941-summer 1942, it seems to become more of a grind. The Soviets advance slowly. The Germans counterattack. Rinse and repeat. If this is how bad it is for the Germans in the blizzard of '43, summer of '43 and '44 should be interesting.
These are my observations of the game as of February 1943. My opinion may change as we play further. Your opinion may vary with your own experiences.
PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3
-
Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
ORIGINAL: DicedT
1. This game was not playtested in the mid-game.
I cannot link this with the rest of your post.
What you describe in the rest of your post is pretty much WW2 textbook on realism. You describe Soviets slowly grinding German defences etc (which IMO, is how 42+ should play out, if Soviets survive that long).
So how do you conclude the game wasn't tested, if based on your description it works realistically, exactly as it should?
I guess the game wasn't playtested between humans start to end, but it was, and is tested/played using various mid-war and late-war stating points (ie 42, 43, 44 GC).
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
Interesting observations. As you say, not many campaigns have gotten as far as yours, and it is good of you to share your experiences and conclusions.
I would tend to agree that playtesting seems to have has focussed on the 1941 part, with the later part of the war being simulated by AI vs AI, which is not the same as human vs human. Some issues were discovered during my 1942-45 GC that basically led to the campaign being impossible to continue.
As Oleg points out though, the later part of the war should be a grind for the Germans.
I expect much of the later war issues will be found and rectified, and 2by3 are providing excellent support and fixes. To some extent though, we are all guinea pigs. I have no problem with that, I am happy to be able to contribute to making this great game better.
I would tend to agree that playtesting seems to have has focussed on the 1941 part, with the later part of the war being simulated by AI vs AI, which is not the same as human vs human. Some issues were discovered during my 1942-45 GC that basically led to the campaign being impossible to continue.
As Oleg points out though, the later part of the war should be a grind for the Germans.
I expect much of the later war issues will be found and rectified, and 2by3 are providing excellent support and fixes. To some extent though, we are all guinea pigs. I have no problem with that, I am happy to be able to contribute to making this great game better.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
RTW3 Designer
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
Good observations, especially that stuff about a 'brilliant' offensive in the caucuses. I cant put my finger on it, but I thought that was a superb piece of analysis, absolutely spot-on.
Got to agree with most what DicedT says. Here's what I'd add:
Whoever said that the Sov 1-1 modifier doesnt matter in 43 is completely wrong (mentioning no names, *cough*Oleg*cough*). And whoever said that the game should degenerate into a WWI-esque trench battle because that's what actually happened is wrong (mentioning no names, *cough*Oleg*cough*).
In fact, the 1-1 modifier is the chief architect of why the game starts to feel like WWI by late 42. The 1-1 modifier means that from around mid 42 onwards, even the strongest axis units are basically sitting ducks in anything less than a level 2 fort. This means offensive action that involves trying to cut off enemy spearheads is next to impossible. By winter 42 latest, the german player becomes a digging player. Fort levels are all you care about. Construction units become a priority. From a game experience point of view, the tempo drops through the floor, and it becomes trench warfare (if you're lucky!). The problem with this is that as Axis you quickly realise that this is how it's going to be for the next two and a half years of gameplay (again, if you're lucky). If you took away the 1-1 modifier, the game would feel very different during the phase of soviet ascendancy. I agree the German should be on the receiving end, but ideally in a way that doesnt feel like WWI for two-and-a-half years.
Talking of tempo, what feeds into this is the weather system. Once the trench grind begins, there's practically no difference to the tempo of the game whether its blizzard, snow or clear.
There is no difference to combat whatsoever in blizzard or clear. No modifiers. Okay, movement is restricted, but from a game point of view, the tempo doesnt change. The soviet player can launch successful attacks up and down the line in blizzard, snow or clear with the same effectiveness. Even a majority of air support arrive in blizzard. This has been discussed before, but why the attacker should suffer such a huge penalty attackiing in mud (ie its impossible to attack in mud, which I agree is correct), but has absolutely no penalty for attacking in blizzard, is beyond me. None, other than he cant exploit the gaps he blows as much. In fact, the attacker receives HUGE benefits for attacking in blizzard: the rivers are frozen!
Which brings me to my next point: As Axis, you can forget holding the soviet at those major river lines.
As the rivers freeze, the soviet player can peel you off any major river line during blizzard with impunity. Not just making a bridgehead for the spring, but peeling you off the entire river. I agree rivers should freeze, but I dont agree that attacking in blizzard should be the same as attacking in high summer, and I dont agree that even when frozen, a major river wouldnt present a serious obstacle to the attacker. These rivers have high banks - cliff-like in parts, and an attacker wouldnt simply be able to stream his armour across willy-nilly as the ice wasnt thick enough for tanks everywhere. As it is, these rivers disappear from the earth entirely during blizzard (and most of the snow turns as well, for that matter).
The new refit rules have screwed the opportunity to use reserve units in the defense as germans. In fact they've screwed the germans in general in the later game.
The way the combat engine works emphasises artillery. This may be accurate in one sense, but in game terms it means the Soviet can actually expect to win at LESS than 1-1 odds in most cases: what happens is that during the shooting phase of combat, the sheer weight of sov guns inevitably greatly reduces German CV below its starting value, and, say, 10CV of Soviets can defeat, and retreat 15CV of Germans.
This has been discussed before, but German retreats result in huge losses of artillery, no matter the circumstances. Retreating Germans seem to lose more equipment than routed Soviets in 41!
What DicedT says about tank corps is true (as it is of sov tank divisions before them), they are incredibly weak in defence. But even more pathetic are soviet mech corps - these guys are like shooting fish in a barrel. The WITE combat engine starts to fall apart when soviet tank/mech corps are on the defensive. I've no idea what's going on here. We're not talking 'oh infantry are better in defense, this is WAD', we are talking 'mech inf corps are a complete waste of anyone's time, you'd be better with a Romanian infantry division'
The air model obeys its own rules. There seems little a player can do to affect the growth of an obscenely large sov airforce.
What's the point of busting a gut to take the Caucuses? This is being discussed elsewhere.
The fact the soviet plays second immensely favours him whenever the weather changes to mud (he can exploit this by making encirclements that under usual circumstances would fail). I should point out DicedT doesnt do this. But the option is there. Especially the mud-clear-mud sequence in april, this is a death trap of a period for the Axis, perhaps the most dangerous time of year. I dont recall this being so IRL. Dont know how to circumvent this, other than implementing a better random weather system.
Final point: DicedT have spent god knows how many hours playing this, and earlier, campaigns. It's been great, it's a great game, and we all know we're guinea pigs in a project this scale, hence posting here with observations. I'd say certainly for 1941-42 at least, this is one of the best strategy games ever. I'll see how I feel about 43-44 in a while.
Got to agree with most what DicedT says. Here's what I'd add:
Whoever said that the Sov 1-1 modifier doesnt matter in 43 is completely wrong (mentioning no names, *cough*Oleg*cough*). And whoever said that the game should degenerate into a WWI-esque trench battle because that's what actually happened is wrong (mentioning no names, *cough*Oleg*cough*).
In fact, the 1-1 modifier is the chief architect of why the game starts to feel like WWI by late 42. The 1-1 modifier means that from around mid 42 onwards, even the strongest axis units are basically sitting ducks in anything less than a level 2 fort. This means offensive action that involves trying to cut off enemy spearheads is next to impossible. By winter 42 latest, the german player becomes a digging player. Fort levels are all you care about. Construction units become a priority. From a game experience point of view, the tempo drops through the floor, and it becomes trench warfare (if you're lucky!). The problem with this is that as Axis you quickly realise that this is how it's going to be for the next two and a half years of gameplay (again, if you're lucky). If you took away the 1-1 modifier, the game would feel very different during the phase of soviet ascendancy. I agree the German should be on the receiving end, but ideally in a way that doesnt feel like WWI for two-and-a-half years.
Talking of tempo, what feeds into this is the weather system. Once the trench grind begins, there's practically no difference to the tempo of the game whether its blizzard, snow or clear.
There is no difference to combat whatsoever in blizzard or clear. No modifiers. Okay, movement is restricted, but from a game point of view, the tempo doesnt change. The soviet player can launch successful attacks up and down the line in blizzard, snow or clear with the same effectiveness. Even a majority of air support arrive in blizzard. This has been discussed before, but why the attacker should suffer such a huge penalty attackiing in mud (ie its impossible to attack in mud, which I agree is correct), but has absolutely no penalty for attacking in blizzard, is beyond me. None, other than he cant exploit the gaps he blows as much. In fact, the attacker receives HUGE benefits for attacking in blizzard: the rivers are frozen!
Which brings me to my next point: As Axis, you can forget holding the soviet at those major river lines.
As the rivers freeze, the soviet player can peel you off any major river line during blizzard with impunity. Not just making a bridgehead for the spring, but peeling you off the entire river. I agree rivers should freeze, but I dont agree that attacking in blizzard should be the same as attacking in high summer, and I dont agree that even when frozen, a major river wouldnt present a serious obstacle to the attacker. These rivers have high banks - cliff-like in parts, and an attacker wouldnt simply be able to stream his armour across willy-nilly as the ice wasnt thick enough for tanks everywhere. As it is, these rivers disappear from the earth entirely during blizzard (and most of the snow turns as well, for that matter).
The new refit rules have screwed the opportunity to use reserve units in the defense as germans. In fact they've screwed the germans in general in the later game.
The way the combat engine works emphasises artillery. This may be accurate in one sense, but in game terms it means the Soviet can actually expect to win at LESS than 1-1 odds in most cases: what happens is that during the shooting phase of combat, the sheer weight of sov guns inevitably greatly reduces German CV below its starting value, and, say, 10CV of Soviets can defeat, and retreat 15CV of Germans.
This has been discussed before, but German retreats result in huge losses of artillery, no matter the circumstances. Retreating Germans seem to lose more equipment than routed Soviets in 41!
What DicedT says about tank corps is true (as it is of sov tank divisions before them), they are incredibly weak in defence. But even more pathetic are soviet mech corps - these guys are like shooting fish in a barrel. The WITE combat engine starts to fall apart when soviet tank/mech corps are on the defensive. I've no idea what's going on here. We're not talking 'oh infantry are better in defense, this is WAD', we are talking 'mech inf corps are a complete waste of anyone's time, you'd be better with a Romanian infantry division'
The air model obeys its own rules. There seems little a player can do to affect the growth of an obscenely large sov airforce.
What's the point of busting a gut to take the Caucuses? This is being discussed elsewhere.
The fact the soviet plays second immensely favours him whenever the weather changes to mud (he can exploit this by making encirclements that under usual circumstances would fail). I should point out DicedT doesnt do this. But the option is there. Especially the mud-clear-mud sequence in april, this is a death trap of a period for the Axis, perhaps the most dangerous time of year. I dont recall this being so IRL. Dont know how to circumvent this, other than implementing a better random weather system.
Final point: DicedT have spent god knows how many hours playing this, and earlier, campaigns. It's been great, it's a great game, and we all know we're guinea pigs in a project this scale, hence posting here with observations. I'd say certainly for 1941-42 at least, this is one of the best strategy games ever. I'll see how I feel about 43-44 in a while.
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
I'm just gradually creeping up on this game, so I have no real idea of how it plays in a large scenario--my knowledge is historical. Per what Dick Simpkin told me, the Soviets found that a quantum jump in tempo was a quantum jump in combat power. Tank armies were about equivalent to fronts in offensive capability. This was also the German experience, so that a Panzerkorps operated on about the same front as an infantry Armee. In particular, the Soviet mech corps was about as effective as an infantry corps despite its smaller personnel strength, and so in the post-war reorganisation, the Soviet infantry division was organised on the model of the mech corps, not the wartime infantry division. So I find the comment about the ineffectuality of the mech corps interesting--it was a motorised infantry division *reinforced* with armour. It was designed to take key points in the depth of the Axis defence and hold them against everything the Axis could through at them for a week or so. It built the strong point the tank corps could dance around. Look at Glantz's publications for what I mean.
In fact, look at Simpkin and Glantz for an understanding of how the Soviet offensives were supposed to work. In Baltic Gap (OCS), the Soviet player is given the assets he needs to unhinge the Axis line using historical operational concepts--how he does in the game depends on his skill and the skill of his opponent. It was *not* WWI.
In fact, look at Simpkin and Glantz for an understanding of how the Soviet offensives were supposed to work. In Baltic Gap (OCS), the Soviet player is given the assets he needs to unhinge the Axis line using historical operational concepts--how he does in the game depends on his skill and the skill of his opponent. It was *not* WWI.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
I'd say the currently, in my opinion, too high losses for high experience units are currently the main factor reducing Axis survivability in the mid-game. We're trying to find a solution, but there's no easy one and it will take time. It's also not entirely clear how losses suddenly skyrocket, but it might simply be a matter of statistics: more ground elements firing=more damage to the enemy, even with 50 experience units.
As such, the Soviets can currently win a war of attrition by 1943 instead of 1945 in terms of wrecking Axis manpower. If many attacks cause 3000-4000 losses to the Axis, it will break the back of their armies in less than a year. You then get the odd situation that the Wehrmacht is not worth much, but the Soviets are still so slow that they may or may not actually get to Berlin before 1945 and reduce the Axis to a number of (city control) points below what is needed for a Soviet victory (which is their decisive victory criterium).
The mid-late war casualties are what currently surprised us, as we didn't really notice them pre-release. There were problems with high casualties in 1942, but those were due to overwhelming Soviet air support. At first we thought the high mid-late war casualties were due to artillery, but even 1:1>2:1 attacks with no artillery cause significant losses, sometimes even in 1941, when good Soviet attacks can also quite easily cause 1000-1500 Axis losses.
As such, the Soviets can currently win a war of attrition by 1943 instead of 1945 in terms of wrecking Axis manpower. If many attacks cause 3000-4000 losses to the Axis, it will break the back of their armies in less than a year. You then get the odd situation that the Wehrmacht is not worth much, but the Soviets are still so slow that they may or may not actually get to Berlin before 1945 and reduce the Axis to a number of (city control) points below what is needed for a Soviet victory (which is their decisive victory criterium).
The mid-late war casualties are what currently surprised us, as we didn't really notice them pre-release. There were problems with high casualties in 1942, but those were due to overwhelming Soviet air support. At first we thought the high mid-late war casualties were due to artillery, but even 1:1>2:1 attacks with no artillery cause significant losses, sometimes even in 1941, when good Soviet attacks can also quite easily cause 1000-1500 Axis losses.
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
-
Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
ORIGINAL: squatter
Whoever said that the Sov 1-1 modifier doesnt matter in 43 is completely wrong (mentioning no names, *cough*Oleg*cough*).
Flavio was the first to say something along those lines, and I accepted his school of thought so to say. I am open to arguments though.
And whoever said that the game should degenerate into a WWI-esque trench battle because that's what actually happened is wrong (mentioning no names, *cough*Oleg*cough*).
Germans slowly being attrited does not equal WW1-esque trench battle. This is operational level game so we can't see what happens on the tactical level. Looking at my 44 battles I don't imagine them to be WW1, I just imagine them to be hard fought battles of attrition in WW2 style. I would prefer magnificent Soviet mechanised breakthroughs, Korsun pockets and Bagrations and Hitler festungs all around, but with experienced German player and "slow" Soviets (even Comrade said they're slow) it's nigh on impossible. So, Soviet players have to settle for attritional warfare, in as much as Germans must settle for something in 41, as Soviet players refuse to repeat historic mistakes.
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
Sorry Oleg, I cant resist trying to get a rise out of you, but you're far to reasonable these days!
What you say about the mid game is fair point.
I guess what I'm talkiing about when I mention WWI is the 'feel' of the game.
41 really captures the feeling of blitzkreig (whatever that does actually feel like!), with high mobility and high stakes. 42 I think captures the feel of this, only now on a single army group scale. The stakes still feel high, the game is mobile, the possibilities are many.
But so far, late 42 into 43 has a 'feel' of trench warfare: the only thing you're thinking about is fort levels, no unit can be left outside of a fort as the German, everyturn the Russians are making blungeoning attacks up and down the front, everything is static: you know, perhaps this is in some way realistic, but the resulting 'feel' is one of WWI to me. Perhaps come the summer DicedT will breakout somewhere and the game will become mobile again (god forbid), but for the past, I dunno, 16 turns, its been a non-stop meatgrinder.
What you say about the mid game is fair point.
I guess what I'm talkiing about when I mention WWI is the 'feel' of the game.
41 really captures the feeling of blitzkreig (whatever that does actually feel like!), with high mobility and high stakes. 42 I think captures the feel of this, only now on a single army group scale. The stakes still feel high, the game is mobile, the possibilities are many.
But so far, late 42 into 43 has a 'feel' of trench warfare: the only thing you're thinking about is fort levels, no unit can be left outside of a fort as the German, everyturn the Russians are making blungeoning attacks up and down the front, everything is static: you know, perhaps this is in some way realistic, but the resulting 'feel' is one of WWI to me. Perhaps come the summer DicedT will breakout somewhere and the game will become mobile again (god forbid), but for the past, I dunno, 16 turns, its been a non-stop meatgrinder.
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
Great post DicedT. It's nice to hear from a PBEM game that's reached so far.
In particular I don't like the Soviet auto-win if they reach 1:1 odds in an attack. That's just goofy really. It's a terrible mechanic that drastically affects the game. The rest of your points generally make sense also.
In particular I don't like the Soviet auto-win if they reach 1:1 odds in an attack. That's just goofy really. It's a terrible mechanic that drastically affects the game. The rest of your points generally make sense also.
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
"The mid-late war casualties are what currently surprised us, as we didn't really notice them pre-release. There were problems with high casualties in 1942, but those were due to overwhelming Soviet air support. At first we thought the high mid-late war casualties were due to artillery, but even 1:1>2:1 attacks with no artillery cause significant losses, sometimes even in 1941, when good Soviet attacks can also quite easily cause 1000-1500 Axis losses."
In the majority of battles in 43, I see the following happening, more or less.
Soviet player attacks at around equal CV.
Soviet air and artillery superiority results in drastically reduced German CV. Leadership doesnt seem to offset this, nor do defensive SUs.
Soviet final CV enhanced even higher by leader rolls.
Soviet forces retreat, whether at 1-1 or higher.
Retreat causes high Axis casualties.
Two quick ways of doing something about this:
1. Remove Soviet +1 odds modifier by winter 42.
2. Reduce retreat casualties for high exp/morale units.
3. Actually publish the combat algorythms so the community can dissect and perhaps help find anomalies. (spelling!) But this is probably as likely as Scientology publishing the full story of Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy.
Simples.
In the majority of battles in 43, I see the following happening, more or less.
Soviet player attacks at around equal CV.
Soviet air and artillery superiority results in drastically reduced German CV. Leadership doesnt seem to offset this, nor do defensive SUs.
Soviet final CV enhanced even higher by leader rolls.
Soviet forces retreat, whether at 1-1 or higher.
Retreat causes high Axis casualties.
Two quick ways of doing something about this:
1. Remove Soviet +1 odds modifier by winter 42.
2. Reduce retreat casualties for high exp/morale units.
3. Actually publish the combat algorythms so the community can dissect and perhaps help find anomalies. (spelling!) But this is probably as likely as Scientology publishing the full story of Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy.
Simples.
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
ORIGINAL: squatter
Whoever said that the Sov 1-1 modifier doesnt matter in 43 is completely wrong (mentioning no names, *cough*Oleg*cough*). And whoever said that the game should degenerate into a WWI-esque trench battle because that's what actually happened is wrong (mentioning no names, *cough*Oleg*cough*).
Hehe, that was funny, though no offense meant Oleg.
I think the 1-1 modifier should be looked at. I am not sure it is completely wrong, but maybe it should be random or fade out with time? Say it kicks in in x percent of cases or someting? I must say it sometimes feels a little too easy to make counterattacks as the Soviets in 1941. As soon as I can get equal CVs to bear, its Urrah! and a good tolshok for the jerries! It works 90% of the time, and it's always fun to retreat a panzer division.
ORIGINAL: squatter
Talking of tempo, what feeds into this is the weather system. Once the trench grind begins, there's practically no difference to the tempo of the game whether its blizzard, snow or clear.
There is no difference to combat whatsoever in blizzard or clear. No modifiers. Okay, movement is restricted, but from a game point of view, the tempo doesnt change. The soviet player can launch successful attacks up and down the line in blizzard, snow or clear with the same effectiveness. Even a majority of air support arrive in blizzard. This has been discussed before, but why the attacker should suffer such a huge penalty attackiing in mud (ie its impossible to attack in mud, which I agree is correct), but has absolutely no penalty for attacking in blizzard, is beyond me. None, other than he cant exploit the gaps he blows as much. In fact, the attacker receives HUGE benefits for attacking in blizzard: the rivers are frozen!
I would agree here, this fits my own experiences from my 42-45 campaign.
ORIGINAL: squatter
What DicedT says about tank corps is true (as it is of sov tank divisions before them), they are incredibly weak in defence. But even more pathetic are soviet mech corps - these guys are like shooting fish in a barrel. The WITE combat engine starts to fall apart when soviet tank/mech corps are on the defensive. I've no idea what's going on here. We're not talking 'oh infantry are better in defense, this is WAD', we are talking 'mech inf corps are a complete waste of anyone's time, you'd be better with a Romanian infantry division'
Also fits with my experience. However, I think Soviet Tank corps should be fragile; as far as I know that fits with historical reality. Mech corps should be more resilent though.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
RTW3 Designer
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
The problem is not that the Soviets are slowly grinding down the Germans. The problem is that they are doing it every single turn except mud, from June 1942 on. High fatigue, low fatigue, I don't even pay attention to fatigue. If I can get 1:1 raw odds, I attack and I almost always win. That's not attrition. That's fighting the Battle of Kursk every single week of the war (except mud) along the whole Eastern Front.
Remember that all of this started in June '42. Not '43. At a time when the Germans were supposed to be at their zenith, I could easily crack their fortified lines. Squatter pulled off some devastating counteroffensives (as seen in the partisan cadres all over the map). But the panzers can't be everywhere.
Historical wargaming has always suffered from hyperactivity. The pace of operations is always far higher than real life. That's especially true of Gary Grigsby games, where the short time scales (daily turns in the Pacific or the European air war??) create combat on steroids. I would say that a single weekly turn in WITE equals an entire month's combat operations on the real Eastern Front.
Remember that all of this started in June '42. Not '43. At a time when the Germans were supposed to be at their zenith, I could easily crack their fortified lines. Squatter pulled off some devastating counteroffensives (as seen in the partisan cadres all over the map). But the panzers can't be everywhere.
Historical wargaming has always suffered from hyperactivity. The pace of operations is always far higher than real life. That's especially true of Gary Grigsby games, where the short time scales (daily turns in the Pacific or the European air war??) create combat on steroids. I would say that a single weekly turn in WITE equals an entire month's combat operations on the real Eastern Front.
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
The toughest part is to model the logistical and organizational buildup to a major offensive. That was the real break on operations; the Red Army was not capable of sustained offensive operations at any point in the war, not even at the very end, for logistical reasons. Even in 1944/45, they were forced to halt for strategic pauses.
Maybe that's the real problem, and I don't blame the designers, it's just VERY difficult to model this.
The Germans were able to launch a full-front offensive in 1941 for 4 months, but only after months of preparation, with no combat for most units, and this using a Wehrmacht that in June 1941 was probably at the height of it's operational efficiency.
Maybe that's the real problem, and I don't blame the designers, it's just VERY difficult to model this.
The Germans were able to launch a full-front offensive in 1941 for 4 months, but only after months of preparation, with no combat for most units, and this using a Wehrmacht that in June 1941 was probably at the height of it's operational efficiency.
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
I don't need the +1 mod to pound the German to a pulp in 1943. I've never liked it and consider that it ought to be removed. But it's not a magic bullet. Losses in the late war are probably too high now for reasons unrelated to this modifier. The combat engine may have scaling issues.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
You may have hit the nail on the head there Qball. If there was a way to restrict the amount of weeks per year that the Sovs are capable of unlimited offensive operations through the supply system, then perhaps many of the other issues relating to the non-stop grind would fade away.
Alternatively, are the following factors playing a significant enough role in the game? As DicedT says, its hardly worth paying attention to fatigue for all the difference it seems to make. I never let my thinking be affected by fatigue levels either.
Fatigue
Trucks
Command penalties for attacking with different formations (now even less harsh in v104)
ammunition expenditure by sov artillery
Alternatively, are the following factors playing a significant enough role in the game? As DicedT says, its hardly worth paying attention to fatigue for all the difference it seems to make. I never let my thinking be affected by fatigue levels either.
Fatigue
Trucks
Command penalties for attacking with different formations (now even less harsh in v104)
ammunition expenditure by sov artillery
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
Q-ball, I don't entirely agree with what you are saying here about Soviet logistics, btw.
It's difficult to separate in the 1944-5 period between pauses that were necessary for logistic reasons...and those done for political ones. Very plainly the prolonged pause by the Vistula was political. They certainly didn't need to stop for 6 months there. Basically in the last year of the war the push to the center kept getting slowed down in favor of political objectives elsewhere, Stalin didn't want to end the war prematurely with an early capture of Berlin. I believe and have always believe that the Red Army could've knocked out Germany far sooner than it did, provided that was its primary objective. But that wasn't Stalin's game. He was playing for the whole thing, a German surrender and as much real estate in Central and Eastern Europe as he could get.
It's difficult to separate in the 1944-5 period between pauses that were necessary for logistic reasons...and those done for political ones. Very plainly the prolonged pause by the Vistula was political. They certainly didn't need to stop for 6 months there. Basically in the last year of the war the push to the center kept getting slowed down in favor of political objectives elsewhere, Stalin didn't want to end the war prematurely with an early capture of Berlin. I believe and have always believe that the Red Army could've knocked out Germany far sooner than it did, provided that was its primary objective. But that wasn't Stalin's game. He was playing for the whole thing, a German surrender and as much real estate in Central and Eastern Europe as he could get.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
ORIGINAL: jjdenver
Great post DicedT. It's nice to hear from a PBEM game that's reached so far.
In particular I don't like the Soviet auto-win if they reach 1:1 odds in an attack. That's just goofy really. It's a terrible mechanic that drastically affects the game. The rest of your points generally make sense also.
I'm just learning the game, but I know something historical about the effect of odds--as of Friday, btw, when I completed the Bayesian analysis. Rather than calculating the odds in the traditional way, define a 1-1 attack as one the attacker has a 50-50 chance of a breakthrough with the defence being forced out of its position. So the combat power ratio corresponding to a 1-1 attack would be about 100% for an encounter battle, 200% for a hasty attack on a hasty defence, 300% for a deliberate attack on a positional defence, and 400% for a set-piece assault on a fortified line. The casualty percentage in a 1-1 attack averages about 15%, with the winner averaging about 10% and the loser averaging about 20%. The standard deviation of the casualty percentage is about a factor of 2. Now you say you want a 95% chance of a breakthrough? You have to increase your combat power by a factor of four. That doubles the casualty percentage on both sides. As a defender, you want to reduce the chance of a breakthrough to 5%? Again, you have to quadruple your combat power. National differences, tactical expertise, morale, and asymmetric warfare act as multipliers on the combat power needed for 1-1. And there ain't no such thing as auto-win. Well, there is, but it requires an 8-1 battle--a 3200% combat power ratio for an attack on a fortified line.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
The real issue is imo a scaling one. The defender's losses are too high on the low end. This encourages many relatively low odds attacks. Removing the +1 mod won't resolve this problem, it will mitigate it somewhat, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Soviet will merely contrive to launch as many 2:1 odds attacks as possible in order to grind the Wehrmacht to powder. High odds attacks are actually not economical from an attritional standpoint -- the defender's losses don't really increase with odds. Therefore the point is simply to make as many attacks that work as possible. 5 2:1 attacks will cause more losses on the defender than one 10:1 attack.
Artillery losses in particular are extraordinarily high in retreats. You can destroy the German artillery in a few months of sustained attritional combat at which point their infantry becomes more or less helpless. My own view is this needs to be drastically cut back or scaled to size.
Artillery losses in particular are extraordinarily high in retreats. You can destroy the German artillery in a few months of sustained attritional combat at which point their infantry becomes more or less helpless. My own view is this needs to be drastically cut back or scaled to size.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
ORIGINAL: DicedT
Historical wargaming has always suffered from hyperactivity. The pace of operations is always far higher than real life. That's especially true of Gary Grigsby games, where the short time scales (daily turns in the Pacific or the European air war??) create combat on steroids. I would say that a single weekly turn in WITE equals an entire month's combat operations on the real Eastern Front.
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
The toughest part is to model the logistical and organizational buildup to a major offensive. That was the real break on operations; the Red Army was not capable of sustained offensive operations at any point in the war, not even at the very end, for logistical reasons. Even in 1944/45, they were forced to halt for strategic pauses.
Maybe that's the real problem, and I don't blame the designers, it's just VERY difficult to model this.
The Germans were able to launch a full-front offensive in 1941 for 4 months, but only after months of preparation, with no combat for most units, and this using a Wehrmacht that in June 1941 was probably at the height of it's operational efficiency.
Very true both posts! I think that is a big part of the problem, that the pace of operations is too high, from the Soviet winter offensive 1941 and onwards. I think the players ought to have to chose which armies/frots or similar to put in "attack supply" and be restricted to a limited number. Other fronts/armies should only have supply for limited attacks.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
RTW3 Designer
RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game
Tarhunnas, the pace of operations during the winter of 1941 in real life for the Soviets was to launch a counteroffensive more or less on the entire length of the front.
Anyways it seems to me the real problem with the blizzard offensive was the old blizzard rules, not the logistics. The first winter has been considerably tamed. It's working pretty well now.
Nor do I believe that logistics are the heart of the problem in the mid to late war period. It's the combat engine that's the real issue.
Anyways it seems to me the real problem with the blizzard offensive was the old blizzard rules, not the logistics. The first winter has been considerably tamed. It's working pretty well now.
Nor do I believe that logistics are the heart of the problem in the mid to late war period. It's the combat engine that's the real issue.
WitE Alpha Tester