I hate the Lvov opening but eliminating it without changing the VC to encourage/force the Sovs to fight forward would be a disaster (for the Germans).
I hate that if I suffer historical losses as the Sov player, I'm complete toast, because the Sovs don't get historical replacements/units, but fixing that would also be a disaster (for the Germans).
I hate that all of my Sov units in 1941 are completely helpless, when in fact the Sovs could put up a stiff fight on occassion, but could not cope with the Germans maneuvering around and encircling them.
I hate that a couple of German units can create in impenetrable "encirclement" simply by flipping hex control and relying on low Sov movement rates, and that the combat value of encircled units immediately falls to virtually zero.
I also don't like the opaque, convoluted combat system, the weak supply system. or the pointless Sov evac/production system.
While I don't want to force players to repeat historical mistakes, players need to recognize that if these mistakes are not repeated, their games may bear very little resemblance to historical reality; in particular, the Red Army will be much much bigger if the encirclements don't happen.
The two main things which must be fixed are that the Sovs must be incentivized/forced to fight forward, and they must receive something closer to historical replacements.
There is a very tricky balance here. I wonder what the ultimate conclusion would be, if both sides had had perfect hindsight -- would the campaign have folded quicker for Axis, i.e. has the Soviet greater potential to improve, or would Axis have gained proportionally more by avoiding its huge mistakes and have saved it in the short or long run?
It would be interesting to figure out where the result would end under such "optimized" conditions.
Dialing up Soviet fighting power (or national morale) in 41, tuning up the manpower factor and adding more empty shells (or making buying them cheaper), upping Soviet movement to counter hex flipping versus its slowness required for pocketing ... I would guess that giving the Soviets more historical capacities without requiring them to repeat bone-head mistakes such as wasting its units doing bloody counter assaults or allowing them to be pocketed easily etc. would leave the Axis player in a dire position. Although the Axis side can also overcome some of that by putting focuses better than their historical counterparts (as seen with Leningrad routinely falling first, then Moscow usually falling). Axis, especially in the later part of the GC, seems to be able to outgrow its expectations as well, so does this mean it must be required to repeat mistakes like "feste Plätze" orders as well? Or does this lead back to leaving everything open, not requiring any forward fighting, or withdrawals or other mistakes at all?
< Message edited by janh -- 10/4/2012 9:57:33 AM >