Matrix Games Forums

A new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question - 10/25/2011 12:43:10 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2158
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
I am giving some preliminary consideration to a project I may or may not undertake at some point. (Time is limited right now unfortunately).

With the hindsight of history in WITE terms, which side does the community think can exceed historical performance? (Meaning, will the Germans generally be able to advance further and/or can the Russians both hold the Germans to less than historical gains and make it into Berlin before historical?).

Obviously, any game is going to be one way or the other, which it likely should be since after the start of the game, we are not following history anymore.

Thanks.
Post #: 1
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 1:32:51 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
I am giving some preliminary consideration to a project I may or may not undertake at some point. (Time is limited right now unfortunately).

With the hindsight of history in WITE terms, which side does the community think can exceed historical performance? (Meaning, will the Germans generally be able to advance further and/or can the Russians both hold the Germans to less than historical gains and make it into Berlin before historical?).

Obviously, any game is going to be one way or the other, which it likely should be since after the start of the game, we are not following history anymore.


I don't have myself a definite answer to your question, since there's a big problem with the GC victory conditions only considering the final outcome of the campaign when rating performance, and basically ignoring everything that has gone in the middle (such as losses).

I'd say the German side is the one with the best bet for that, though this I think might seem controversial. The reasons for me answering this way are the ongoing AARs featuring Axis players holding their ground deep in Russia well into 1944. Games, I'd like to note, which were started way before 1.05 changes - with all the problems it entailed to the Axis. I can only wonder what would be possible in 1944 for an Axis player who started with 1.05. The Axis players on these AARs need to be commended by all of us: they show us how willpower is a major factor when fighting such a defensive, frustrating and depressing struggle.

Axis auto victory seems to be out of reach, but MichaelT showed us that it was well within reach (and Pelton might one of these days).

I've yet to see any Soviet AAR here against a human player reaching Berlin well before 1945 (or at any time). Axis players tend to forgo the games when extraordinary events such as the Soviets crossing the lower Dnepr in Summer 1942 (or before). Crossing the Dnepr in 1942 is not, by far, anything like crossing the Oder in April 1945. There at least two examples of Axis players who didn't lose faith, and inflicted devastating defeats on Soviets who overextended during Summer 1942 (one of them right in front of the Carpathian mountains). Surprisingly, Soviet players quit after that.

Regarding the Soviets, unless the Axis player loses faith well before summer of 1945, they have ahead a painful slog towards the west. We don't ever know whether it's possible that the Soviet Union exhausts its seemingly endless manpower after two years of WW1-style assaults and Axis timely operational retreats.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 2
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 1:41:39 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I've yet to see any Soviet AAR here against a human player reaching Berlin well before 1945 (or at any time).


QFT. Quoted for truth.

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 3
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 2:40:11 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
It may take a while for a consensus to form on 1.05, but I think it has moved the game slightly in favour of the Axis, not in terms of achieving an Axis Decisive Victory, but in preventing the SU from achieving an historical or better than historical result.

The main point of contention has been and remains the 1942 campaign; prior to 1.05 the Axis could rarely make any headway in gaining territory or damaging the Red Army. With 1.05, and the knowledge that the Axis can survive well into 1944, the Axis player may decide to use all the benefits given in 1.05 to turtle up and put the pressure on the SU player to build an Army capable of out-attritioning the Axis and then advancing quickly enough once the Dam breaks.

I think Axis players need to make the most of 1.05, as they will never have a better set of tools to prevent the SU from "winning".

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 4
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 2:50:47 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1785
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Ah yes, 1.05 - those were the days...

Whats the latest tactic for turtle-busting?

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 5
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 3:47:37 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

Whats the latest tactic for turtle-busting?


Encourage the turtle to stick it's head out then cut it off.

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 6
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 3:49:44 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2246
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
Even before WITE I considered a strategic defensive doctrine with mobile reserves to be the best Axis choice on the eastern front if the knock out blow could not be delivered in 1941.

WITE victory conditions support that type of Axis choice when 2 players of simular caliber are playing. (in my opinion).


(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 7
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 3:55:24 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2133
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Encourage the turtle to stick it's head out then cut it off.

Easier said than done when there is really nothing for the Germans to gain by going on the offensive...

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 8
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 4:12:32 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
I wonder if an "instant win" if capturing 2 out of Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku would be enough incentive to attack in 1942?

Those kinds of victory conditions could be agreed as house rules, and might make for more interesting 1942 campaign seasons.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 9
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 4:31:50 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I wonder if an "instant win" if capturing 2 out of Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku would be enough incentive to attack in 1942?

Those kinds of victory conditions could be agreed as house rules, and might make for more interesting 1942 campaign seasons.


I'm currently looking at something similar by tweaking VP points in the GC, increasing VP's for cities within the 1939 Reich frontiers and to allow for an Auto Victory encompassing all four cities. If I get that working, making variants for Auto victory at two or three of those four cities would be peanuts.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 10
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 4:37:13 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Encourage the turtle to stick it's head out then cut it off.

Easier said than done when there is really nothing for the Germans to gain by going on the offensive...


LOL I think the turtle that should be encouraged to stick its head here is the Soviets, not the Germans

Anyway I agree with Big here, 1.05 seems to be Axis friendly, but not overly so, perhaps just enough to make the game more interesting in the long run.

Of course, there will be some players (*khm* Axis fanbois *khm*) that will find something anti-Axis even in 1.05....

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 11
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 5:03:18 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

We don't ever know whether it's possible that the Soviet Union exhausts its seemingly endless manpower after two years of WW1-style assaults and Axis timely operational retreats.


The Axis have to capture 3m+ over 1941/1942 and/or capture the cities south of Rostov and up to Gorky to put the SU under any kind of manpower pressure (based on my 1942 tests under 1.05). They do have to manage their arm. points more under 1.05 to give the available manpower rifles. I doubt very much if you will see a Red Army smaller than 7-7.5m come summer 1943.

The hindsight factor and the ability of the SU players to avoid being pocketed in summer 1941 is giving the Red Army roughly 1m "extra" troops in most of the recent AARs, but this may be skewed by a lot of the AARs being from Pelton, who has ignored pockets to go on his Long-Range-Desert-Group-type raids on armament factories.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 12
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 5:07:45 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
The hindsight factor and the ability of the SU players to avoid being pocketed in summer 1941 is giving the Red Army roughly 1m "extra" troops in most of the recent AARs,


I agreed with you in the previous post but this is utterly ridicolous calculation.

How much more troops do you reckon the hindsight and avoiding of Stalingrad, Zitadelle, and festung lunacy gives to Axis players in 43-44 timeframe?


(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 13
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 5:21:39 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5557
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
It should be noted that the couple 1944 AARs I can think of share a couple characteristics. (I am thinking of Tarhunnas/Gids, and Idaho/Scar). It is very true that they started under more favorable Russian rules, but they can't be held up as an example, because in both cases I think the Germans won the early game handily.

I give Gids and Scar alot of credit for hanging in, but I think they were both out-generaled early-on, and both Soviet players missed a number of key principals to building the Red Army.

On the other hands, there are scores of AARs between EVENLY matched opponents that ended early, mostly because the trajectory was very much in the Soviet Army favor. I think my game vs. Tarhunnas is a good example; Tarhunnas is a very good player, but I was going to make Berlin without breaking a sweat. We didn't play it out, because the Soviets were too strong frankly. This wasn't due to generalship, it's because the game was clearly skewed.

Unfortunately, I just don't think we can draw alot of conclusions on play balance until several AARs, between evenly matched opponents, reach certain dates.

I also think the Trajectory of both 1944 AARs is that the Axis is fighting forward in trenches until being close to collapse. We haven't seen the complete collapse yet, but once the Wehrmacht is at 15K Rifle squads or less, I can't foresee how you would stabilize a defense line somewhere back of the front, as was done IRL.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 14
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 5:49:03 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1785
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
There is still at least one game mechanic that dis-favours the Soviets, the automatic routing if retreating to what would become an overstacked hex.
If it is needed in the beginning to recreate some dysfunctional chaos that occured, fine. But it should go away at the same time that the +1 odds goes away, and be replaced with that the units keep retreating with ½ normal retreat loss for each additional hex, + ZOC & X-river loss, if applicable.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 15
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 6:11:03 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

I agreed with you in the previous post but this is utterly ridicolous calculation.


You are correct, and I should have shown the other side of the coin: prior to 1.05 the Axis were getting to 1943 at least 300-500k short of the July 1943 benchmark figures.

With 1.05 and the introduction of hiwis, we are seeing Axis numbers getting closer to the historical 3.5m peak. I have yet to see the " no-Stalingrad dividend" that adds about 200k to these numbers. The rule we still need more evidence for is the new static mode/attrition rules. There is some evidence from IdahoNY's AAR that Static mode could be the missing link that gives the Axis the "extra" troops.

edit: It should also be noted that the axis are going into the blizzard at least 300K stronger than historical, and the Blizzard is still be used as the corrector for this,but the Axis are usually starting 1942 summer campaign 200-300k stronger than the 1942 benchmark, this may well increase under 1.05 with the arrival of Hiwis.

< Message edited by BigAnorak -- 10/25/2011 6:17:38 PM >

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 16
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 6:21:37 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Big, to put it VERY short: just don't go overboard with pro-Axis changes.

I think 1.05 is as close to Axis wet dream - as evidenced by Pelton's posts and my own experience - as we Soviet players are ready to tolerate.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 17
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 6:31:55 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
As noted above there is very little "pure" 1.05 data, as the AARs that have got into 1943/44 have 1.03 and 1.04 mixed in.

I agree that Soviet players have to work much harder in 1941, but we have yet to see if they are put under the same pressure in 1942.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 18
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 8:13:41 PM   
Richard III


Posts: 604
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
In regard to the Sovs. " fighting harder" in early `41 wnen you do, as in trying to fight from a Lev. 2 fort on a major river line, the CRT generates these results. I can post about 10 more similiar screenies. Note the odds, where do the Ger. get those numbers with a few SU`s attached ?

BTE: why does a 'ready" Fort give a 0 value to the battle ?

Why did I lose 15 Ftrs & 3 Bmrs . to one Flak Company unit ??

These results are what we get from all attacks. No matter what, or where, anywhere from 5:1 to 250: 1

Probably I`m just a really bad Sov. player VS myself ( H to H ) in 5 games and the AI in about 7, so I`ll refrain from saying "the Ger. unit Exp/Morale and MP`s are waaaay to high and the Sovs. are way to low so one gets there hopeless combat results. ooooh ! sorry, I couldn`t help myself.

How would I "Fight Smarter or harder " ???? I`m really interested in fighting " forward" and for the cities ( like in the Real War, but when we do we get toasted and a wrecked army going into the winter.

BTw, why was there a need to nerf the ` 41 Sovs in 1.5...and mayber in `42 as well ?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Richard III -- 10/25/2011 8:23:16 PM >

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 19
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 8:57:58 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Why did I lose 15 Ftrs & 3 Bmrs . to one Flak Company unit ??


I guess you didn't notice the 139 Fighters and 104 Bombers that showed up for the Germans, or the large number of SU in the battle, or the fact that you were outnumbered nearly 2:1 by units whose experience and morale probably is some 40 points higher? Those would contribute greatly to your results in this very typical battle for the Summer of 1941.

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 20
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 9:07:50 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
There is also a complete flak bn that showed up.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 21
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 9:20:14 PM   
OTZ

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Even before WITE I considered a strategic defensive doctrine with mobile reserves to be the best Axis choice on the eastern front if the knock out blow could not be delivered in 1941.



Oddly enough, this is the exact strategy that would have probably lead to the Germans "winning" the war in the East. Had they not gambled on Kursk, the attrition rate would have bled the Russians far quicker than the Germans.

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 22
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 9:21:32 PM   
juret

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 10/17/2011
Status: offline
and flak comp

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 23
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 9:42:25 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5557
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Suppose the RL Germans cancelled Fall Blau, and immeidately went into fort-building mode in 1942. No Stalingrad, no Citadel, just digging and training. Do the Russians reach Berlin in April 1945?

If the answer is no, they don't, then the game could be absolutely perfect in simulating history, and still produce an a-historical, stalemated outcome. Because the real problem at that point isn't the simulation, but the fact that there is no political imperative to attack.

IRL, no way the Germans sit on their hands in 1942


(in reply to juret)
Post #: 24
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 10:06:12 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 11941
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Suppose the RL Germans cancelled Fall Blau, and immeidately went into fort-building mode in 1942. No Stalingrad, no Citadel, just digging and training. Do the Russians reach Berlin in April 1945?

If the answer is no..


Correct, the answer is no, they could reach it even earlier in such a case..

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 25
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 10:18:39 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1226
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless
Correct, the answer is no, they could reach it even earlier in such a case..


What makes you think that? Would more strict force conservation in 42 and 43 allow the Germans to have more reserves for delaying the Russians? Seems somehow counter-intuitive to me.

< Message edited by janh -- 10/25/2011 10:22:23 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 26
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 11:28:16 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2158
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard III

In regard to the Sovs. " fighting harder" in early `41 wnen you do, as in trying to fight from a Lev. 2 fort on a major river line, the CRT generates these results. I can post about 10 more similiar screenies. Note the odds, where do the Ger. get those numbers with a few SU`s attached ?

BTE: why does a 'ready" Fort give a 0 value to the battle ?

Why did I lose 15 Ftrs & 3 Bmrs . to one Flak Company unit ??

These results are what we get from all attacks. No matter what, or where, anywhere from 5:1 to 250: 1

Probably I`m just a really bad Sov. player VS myself ( H to H ) in 5 games and the AI in about 7, so I`ll refrain from saying "the Ger. unit Exp/Morale and MP`s are waaaay to high and the Sovs. are way to low so one gets there hopeless combat results. ooooh ! sorry, I couldn`t help myself.

How would I "Fight Smarter or harder " ???? I`m really interested in fighting " forward" and for the cities ( like in the Real War, but when we do we get toasted and a wrecked army going into the winter.

BTw, why was there a need to nerf the ` 41 Sovs in 1.5...and mayber in `42 as well ?



Not trying to be mean here, but this is a discussion for another thread.

Mostly a good discussion so far.

An add on question if I may.

Lets say we have a victory point system in place. How much different from historical should someone have to get to in order for it to be considered a marginal victory or should there even be a concept of a "draw" in place? Example: 100 points might be a draw. Should 101 or 99 be considered a marginal or should maybe 110 or 90 be the threshold to declare a "winner"?

(in reply to Richard III)
Post #: 27
RE: Question - 10/25/2011 11:56:34 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1404
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

An add on question if I may.

Lets say we have a victory point system in place. How much different from historical should someone have to get to in order for it to be considered a marginal victory or should there even be a concept of a "draw" in place? Example: 100 points might be a draw. Should 101 or 99 be considered a marginal or should maybe 110 or 90 be the threshold to declare a "winner"?


I would start by asking what one considers the USSR's May'45 "win" to be, decisive, minor, draw?

If you ask me, May 1945 was a "draw" or "Minor Victory" for the Soviet Union because they did not occupy all of Germany and suffered enormous casualties, whereas had they done so the 2nd half of the 20th Century might have been very different.

I also feel that VPs for a grand campaign should incorporate Losses as a VP contributor.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 28
RE: Question - 10/26/2011 12:22:22 AM   
OTZ

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless
Correct, the answer is no, they could reach it even earlier in such a case..


What makes you think that? Would more strict force conservation in 42 and 43 allow the Germans to have more reserves for delaying the Russians? Seems somehow counter-intuitive to me.


Nic Zetterling would also agree (unless his opinion has changed xince he wrote his book on Kursk).

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 29
RE: Question - 10/26/2011 4:14:25 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2158
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

An add on question if I may.

Lets say we have a victory point system in place. How much different from historical should someone have to get to in order for it to be considered a marginal victory or should there even be a concept of a "draw" in place? Example: 100 points might be a draw. Should 101 or 99 be considered a marginal or should maybe 110 or 90 be the threshold to declare a "winner"?


I would start by asking what one considers the USSR's May'45 "win" to be, decisive, minor, draw?

If you ask me, May 1945 was a "draw" or "Minor Victory" for the Soviet Union because they did not occupy all of Germany and suffered enormous casualties, whereas had they done so the 2nd half of the 20th Century might have been very different.

I also feel that VPs for a grand campaign should incorporate Losses as a VP contributor.


Interesting point on losses. How do others feel about this topic and how much weight should casualties carry compared to geographical objectives?

I do think the Russians should have a rather heavy "penalty" for not knocking off Berlin by close to historical time. While we can't have any assumption/effect on the advance of the Western Allies in this particular game, we do have to somewhat assume historical advancement. I don't see how Nazi Germany would not have pulled additional troops from the east to defend against western advances and there is nothing we can do with the game as it is at the moment about this. Among the Allies, there was discussion on who was going to take Berlin. If the Russians were far enough behind schedule, I would think the Western Allies would have captured Eastern Germany, including Berlin, to end the European war, so from that perspective, I think the Russians would have made every effort to beat the Western Allies into Berlin.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.118