Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

So you attribute the highest losses of any month until Stalingrad to German successes? And the red army was most definitively not in general retreat all across the map. They had managed to stall the Germans at Kiev and stalled the southern pincer at Smolensk. Before the panzers had even begun to set off for Minsk the Soviets had begun strong counterattacks that stopped the German advance east of Smolensk and created several local crises for von Bock's AGC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

These dates are wildly off, Kg. Leningrad was cut off in September. And, of course, didn't fall.

Orel didn't fall until October. AGC was stalled just east of Smolensk and stayed put there until Typhoon. This of course never happens in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

For this poiThe WitE playerbase has many players who subscribe to both theories, which means there is always bound to be controversy. To a large degree the question becomes whether you think the historical Germans over performed or not. Many players regard it as the base standard, the floor per say, and so think it perfectly plausible that the Germans could advance to even greater lengths than they historically did 'if they don't make the same mistakes'. Personally I disagree with this view, as do many others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

True, but the other side of the question is that if the Soviets do what they historically did (aggressively defend and counterattack), the Germans still have a better than historical advance to the point where many players who once defended aggressively now advocate large scale pullbacks as the only viable option.

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I do think that the historical Russian aggressive forward defense needs to be hard-coded into the game to some extent.The problem is that if it isn't then the Russians simply make a strategic withdrawal, as they should have done, and it's game over.The aggressive forward defense was such a big strategic error that the game becomes unbalanced as soon as you allow the Soviets the freedom to pull back and save themselves.
Once you get this right, you can hobble the Germans logistically to give the game a roughly historical feel throughout the summer of 41.

The other problem of course is that no Axis player in their right mind is going to keep pushing right up til the eve of the blizzard which kind of spoils the game for both sides.This is a problem of too much hard-coding in my opinion.Possibly less predictable weather is the key, including that sacred cow of Eastern front war games, "the first winter".Obviously the Soviet side would have to be compensated in some way for mild winter turns, possibly in VPs .Also there would have to be a weather condition between snow and blizzard which would limit offensive actions and would be the normal winter weather.The upside is that the Axis would have to take advantage of good winter weather or lose out, all the while running the risk of overextending themselves just as a blizzard hits.Ideally you'd have a first winter which could be anything from historical to relatively mild with no first winter penalties.

This sounds like bad news for the Soviet player but it's actually not.The unpredictability of the weather will give opportunities for both sides.An uncautious German player could soon become toast in a way that is very unlikely with predictable weather and overly cautious Germans will miss the opportunity to gain ground whilst at the same time losing VPs.Also first winter penalties could be extended to subsequent winters until the Germans 'get it', say until they've experienced a certain number of blizzard turns for example.

quote:

course is that no Axis player in their right mind is going to keep pushing right up til the eve of the blizzard which kind of spoils the game for both sides.This is a problem of too much hard-coding in my opinion.Possibly less predictable weather is the key, including that sacred cow of Eastern front war games, "the first winter".Obviously the Soviet side would have to be compensated in some way for mild winter turns, possibly in VPs .Also there would have to be a weather condition between snow and blizzard which would limit offensive actions and would be the normal winter weather.The upside is that the Axis would have to take advantage of good winter weather or lose out, all the while running the risk of overextending themselves just as a blizzard hits.Ideally you'd have a first winter which could be anything from historical to relatively mild with no first winter penalties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

To return to the OP, I run some tests a week or so ago because I had also noticed that overuns were harder to do as the Axis in 1941. With the last formal release (1.06.06?) I set up an overrun test in AGC on turn 2. 93.8% of the first hasty attack attempts for the entire AGC front were successful for the Axis - note I did only a single hasty attack for each Axis unit against a Soviet unit that it started the turn adjacent to. Upgraded to the latest BETA release, loaded the same save file, and did the exact same series of hasty attacks - 78.3% were successful. I did not repeat the test multiple times, but a drop of roughly 15% is fairly significant for the random distribution in my book.

Something has definitely changed in the hasty attack calculations. Note that since everyone started the turn adjacent to each other, there should not have been any effect from FOW, so there is something else triggering the difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Timmyab, here's the thing: would AGC be able to do what it did in that instance?

The Lvov pocket is a no brainer in game terms because nothing is sacrificed. It's a total freebie move. The Minsk pocket can be done at the same time as the Lvov pocket.

This is a bit too good to be true. It is very plainly a product of game design that allows the Axis to do pretty much whatever it wants to do on the surprise turn. End result: all 3 border Fronts get destroyed.

If you don't find this self evidently ridiculous, well, not much left to say.