Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run?

 
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 >> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/27/2013 11:10:06 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I floated a leader loss type HR as deterent to running (for both sides) in my game with Tarhunnas. It started off low level but ramped up if the running got too severe. I might revisit this. I liked concept.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 31
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/27/2013 11:29:25 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The problem Walloc and Flaviusx knows this and I am sure 2by3 does also.

IF there is no Lvov pocket the game is over turn 1.

SHC will simply run.


Says whom? and even if so why?
Actually we have some fact into what happens when the russians can gain any thing from staying. During the increased moral, not that this didnt cause other problem u actually have several example of ppl and staying to fight. Did they fight too good sure but if ppl have any thing to gain from staying they stay. If not, if they are just throwing troops away gaining nada, they run. Its clear if u have nothing to gain sure they will run as in if Lvov has happened or with current engine where u gain no time by sacrificing troops. Several have even mentioned these games during the increased moral periode to be their most intense fights.

Not only that , you ur self has shown what can happen to guy that runs to far. As in ur game vs Hugh. Problem is ppl have no other choice than to run as is.
U gain nada for staying, no german losses, no time is gained if against any one with the slighest ability as german.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
As I have stated at least 85% of the games end by March 42 as both players know based on past AAR's that SHC will be in Berlin in Dec 44 or Jan 45, EVEN if GHC does better then historical by taking Leningrad.


Problem is because u state it it doesnt make it so. Not that many games do go for the long run, sure. Non the less we have some examples of them. 1 from a gamer that him self says he isnt eaxctly top of the line. Terje had a disaterous 41 far from doing better than historical and not to good a 42 non the less even with the semi collapses as of late the advances of the russians arent particular more than the historic time line. I doubt but i guess we will see if the germans are in Berlin in dec 44 this by a self admoted average player having a clearly subpar 41 and 42. Problem is that ppl is being told less they do magnicificantly they cant win and some of them abandon the game never actaully learn some basics of german defences.

Have we seen game that theoritically could be over by 43 with germans in Berlin. Well ppl tend to abandon the game before but clearly a game as sappers vs smokingdave it would have been a possibility. Cant really supprise any one that sapper is doing better tho as he wins all his game as german side too. So this happen/could possibly happen in the case of a top player playing the russian side just as when they play the german side they migth win a AV aka major victory too.
I do think its to hard to get a draw by current victory conditions as they arent tailor suited to history, sure. Being in Berlin in may 45 or how much before or after should be the yard stick. That said the community gotten the VC altered once before so it obviously can happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
WitE is right now as good as it will be under the current engine.


Agreed as we all know nothing major is gona happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
A handful of GHC players can win or draw because they know the fuel or morale systems better then anyone.


Thats an increasing handfull and if ppl stop the game in march 42 then they never get the skills to defend and see how long they can actually prolong the game trying to get a draw. Im pretty sure Terje wouldnt say that he is in that handfull and still with a subpar both 41 and 42 the game will go into 45.
One can only speculate if he had done better in 41 and 42 how much longer he couldnt hold, but if ppl are being told they are dead in 42 if they dont do better than historic they arent gona try. There never know if they can do better and never gets any experince and skill in defending as german.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
95% or more of the people playing this game have no chance of drawing or winning as Germany vs a below average SHC player.


I agree that the VC should be changed so u get a better meassurement against history. Do the russian reach Berlin in may 45 or before/after and they arent currently.
Terje did not do better than history and lets see if the russian is in Berlin come feb 45.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Walloc my statement is a fact, for most people the game is broken for GHC players. They can do far better then historical and lose by February 45.


Prove it. Show me the AARs from the year and a half after 1.04 where any german player has done far better than historical and lost by feb 45 as in being in Berlin.
The only i can think of is Farfarers and he purposely wanetd to test out mobile defenses and tried to make 41 like pockets in 43/44 instead of trying to defend. A bad idea and it didnt work. So let me rephase. Show me the AARs where the germans has done far better than historical and lost by feb 45 where they actually tries and defends?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Germany went from Kiev to Rostov in a few weeks and were 100's and 100's of miles past railheads.


Sighs, no they didnt. The drive started from the lower Dneiper. 24'ish hexes in game from Rostov. After taking a 3 week break from arriving there, while the encirclement of Kiev pocket is underway. Then they start the drive again 12th September and cross the Mius at the 17th Oct and arriving at Rostov 15-17th Nov and taking Rostov on the 21st Nov. Thats 24 hexes in 2 months 9 days or 9-10 turns tho these include mud seasons for an average of 2.67-2.4 hexes per turn. Even rail can keep up in mud with that.

Not only did they have to stop a 3 weeks to resupply/wait for the Kiev pocket form and they didnt advance from Kiev, but from Dnieper to Rostov at an average of 2.67-2.4 hexes per turn. Not to say the troops involved at Kiev wasnt any where near. it was the 11th army and rumenians that did the drive to Rostov.
Inclosed map added to post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The HUGE problem for 2by3 is Germany could and did require far less troops, equipment, ammo and supplies to do what Russia/America/England could do.


Isnst that why the germans consistantly have much higher exp and moral. With all that includes for example paying down to 2 MP extra for entering enemy hexes where u at 49 moral pays 2ス times that?
Isnt that why the axis side tho lower in men actually advances to the brink of Moscow and at times beyond in game?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Its almost like there would have to be 2 logistic system for both sides.


Yes that is why the germans historicly stopped at several times during 41 for supply reasons to catch up, which is rarely teh case if ever in game. Cuz their supply system was infinitely better than for example the American army's one, and it wasnt notorisouly known for being teh achilles heal of the german army.........

Not that game isnt know from its logistic issues that affects both sides so both sides have a much to high ops tempo.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
覧覧覧German覧覧覧-Russian覧覧Ratio



1941

3rd覧覧551,000覧覧覧2,795,000覧-5 to 1

4th覧覧280,000覧覧覧1,598,000覧-5.7to 1

1942

1st覧覧280,000覧覧覧1,686,000覧-6 to 1

2nd覧覧220,000覧覧覧1,395,000覧-6.3 to 1

3rd覧覧383,000覧覧覧2,371,000覧-6 to 1

4th覧覧177,000覧覧覧1,281,000覧-7.2 to 1

1943

1st覧覧498,000覧覧覧1,908,000覧3.8 to 1

2nd覧覧110,000覧覧覧444,000覧-4 to 1

3rd覧覧533,000覧覧覧2,633,000覧-5 to 1

4th覧覧381,000覧覧覧1,939,000覧-5 to 1

1944

1st覧覧423,000覧覧覧1,859,000覧-4.4 to 1

2nd覧覧352,000覧覧覧1,021,000覧-3 to 1

3rd覧覧879,000覧覧覧1,771,000覧-2 to 1

4th覧覧297,000覧覧覧1,086,000覧-3.6 to 1


Where wite falls horribly short is the combat ratios in 42 and 43. I have bitched about this from day one.


Currently wite in 42 and 43 the combat ratio is 2.5 to 1. That's not even close to historical. There were very few pockets in 42+43.
This is the core issue that's screwing wite.

IF IF IF the engine was reflective of historical combat ratio's then you could dump the Lvov pocket, the Middle Earth Blizzard and "fix" the logistics system.

My issue with WitW is the current engine will work fine because the lose ratio in the west was 2.5 to 1 (throwing out surrenders), but will do nothing to fix wite 2.0. Nerfing logistic will simply make for WW1 on the Eastern Front.


Not that we havent been over this before. First off those numbers arent paricular right, they are decidedly misleading.
First its only the heer losses, so with out LW and SS. The russian numbers includes all. Navy, army, border troops, partisan and so on.
Then u leave out the axxis minors that the russians fought too and killled russians too.
lLst but not the least u fergot to mention as always that the russian side doesnt recive the historic replacement/Manpower mobilization. If they are to take historic losses and only recieves 50-60% of the historic manpower there is no game as there are no russian army left.

Why arent u quite right about the numbers. Cuz of the way the germans calculate losses, not that u could necesarrily know that. For example frost bites arent included in the "blutige verlste" which becomes a big factor and why for example the 3rd quater losses in ur numbers seems so low.

This means if u look at what the Ostheer actually losses/leaves it is much higher. Example u cite the 4th quater 41 to 280k where as the real nunber is 438,905 more than 1ス times higher.
Ur number by end of 1st quater 42 is 1.111.000 where as the ostheer alone had lost 1.650.151, add axis minors and so on and ur odds are off by a margin.

When u look at the russian numbers such are included. So the numbers ur using are not directly compareble.


In the next post is included a chart of losses including all.

Kind regards,

Rasmus




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/28/2013 12:05:40 AM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 32
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/27/2013 11:44:55 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

I wish I could run a poll in this forum.

Let's use this as a poll, with three questions:

1 - Do you believe that it was realistic for the USSR could have run East in 1941 as fast as players do in WITE?
(a) Yes, it was realistic that the USSR should have run East in 1941
(b) Maybe
(c) No, it was unrealistic that the USSR should have run East in 1941

2 - If realistic and the USSR had run East in 1941, what would be the bad consequence (real life) for the Soviet HQ? (multiple choice)
(a) Immediate surrender/lose the war
(b) Reduced production / logistics / reinforcements / ammo / fuel
(c) Reduced political / lose leaders / reduce morale
(d) Lose forces (desertion, lose Fronts/Armies, etc..., reduced command capacity)
(e) Tactical or strategic constraints (cannot command, reduced movement, etc...)

3 - If realistic and the USSR had run East in 1941, what would be the good consequences (real life) for the German HQ? (multiple choices)
(a) Increased production / logistics / reinforcements / ammo / fuel
(b) Increased political / gain new leaders / increase morale
(c) Increased forces (gain Army Groups/Armies, etc...)
(d) Tactical or strategic benefits (increased command, increased movement, etc...)


Hi fbs,

Interresting poll but doesnt it leave out if the possibilities of whether there is actually a choice. It seems to be forgotten that some test games vs done of high quality players where the russian stayed. It was a blow out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Since the Soviets had no real idea what was happening initially, and were confident in their war machine, why would they have run? Running would have crippled their industrial capacity, and this game needs to punish running more severely in this regard while simultaneously reigning in the absurd logistical abuses.

Running is a great idea only in hindsight.

My 2 cents FWIW.


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs
I think that's because running away is probably one of the best options for the Soviet player in 1941, there are very little negative effects, and there is nothing the German player can do (currently) to counter that?



Well looking at MT latest game and then damage he done to the russian industry. MT as i recall captured twice the historic numbers of Arm factories. Time will tell if it makes a difference. Unlike what Pelton might think, I think it does matter and it sounds like teh assumption is that it doesnt hurt the evac plan to run. This was one instance of showing how runnign to fast has a cost in industry.
Apparently u had a game judging by ur post as a few days ago with run and evac, but u didnt respond with more details. All things given if u just run capturing industry is all the easier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have no idea why anyone who wants to game at war would decide to move all units away from the enemy as fast as possible from the get go. I have better things to do with my time.


I dont think any1 wants to run for the sake of running but if they dont have a real choice in the matter. IIRC had a test game of a no run strategy and the game was over by turn was it 9 or 11 and I dont recall u staying too fight in AGS area after a Lvov has been done too u.

No one is willing to look at causality. Just see Pelton above post. Suggest some thing is done about Lvov and is no game. How can one start to look at the logistics and toning Down the blizzard effects if there is no willingness to look at the arbsudity that happens before that and the automatic answer is then there is no game. You cant start to make a rebalance under those conditions.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/28/2013 2:16:05 AM >

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 33
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/27/2013 11:48:23 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Losses and replacement Chart June 1941 to march 1942 for the OstHeer.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/27/2013 11:49:02 PM >

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 34
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 12:10:12 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Rasmus, I am not talking a bit of running here and there to stabilze the front. I am talking massive running across the front turn after turn, not stopping till enemy is at Moscow and Rostov. Or if Axis back in Poland.



< Message edited by Michael T -- 8/28/2013 12:12:44 AM >


_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 35
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 1:20:33 AM   
Dangun

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 7/8/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs
Let's use this as a poll, with three questions:


1) A
B) C
C) A

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 36
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 2:14:13 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Rasmus, I am not talking a bit of running here and there to stabilze the front. I am talking massive running across the front turn after turn, not stopping till enemy is at Moscow and Rostov. Or if Axis back in Poland.


I understand that MT. I dont particular like it either, nordo i think they wise, but the assumptiom seems to be that this is done freely. If u run to Rostov with no stopping. All things given with no units to stop the axis can we agree that there at leased potentially is a cost in lost industry?


Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 37
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 2:27:50 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have no idea why anyone who wants to game at war would decide to move all units away from the enemy as fast as possible from the get go. I have better things to do with my time.


Its not about your time its everyones time.

Running away can = a very simple check board as we all know railing out all but 30 arm pts is very very easy to do.

Game has some short comings of which under the current engine will not and can not be addressed.

As for the numbers Wallac they are every changing. One book says 5 to 1 the next 8 to 1.

The posted numbers are for eastern front ONLY and include all minors ect so your pt is mute.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 38
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 5:29:25 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1047
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Interresting poll but doesnt it leave out if the possibilities of whether there is actually a choice. It seems to be forgotten that some test games vs done of high quality players where the russian stayed. It was a blow out.



Blow out you mean an easy victory?

That is, staying and fighting is not a viable playing option for the Soviet player?

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 39
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 7:15:27 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

As for the numbers Wallac they are every changing. One book says 5 to 1 the next 8 to 1.

The posted numbers are for eastern front ONLY and include all minors ect so your pt is mute.


No the numbers arent changing. As too figurs changing, by the books u read, maybe u should cosider the source aka the books u read. There are a alot books written with bad or old research.

My figurs come from OKH published figurs in "Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - 5/2 Organisation und Mobilisierung des deutschen Machtbereichs". It's part of the 13 volume edition published by the MGFA of the German Bundeswehr (so it can be called the official history of the Second World War from the German perspective). In English it would be "Germany and the Second World War - Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources 1942-1944/5".

Courtesy of Sigup.

U can see other charts at: http://ww2stats.com/

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 40
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 7:18:17 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Interresting poll but doesnt it leave out if the possibilities of whether there is actually a choice. It seems to be forgotten that some test games vs done of high quality players where the russian stayed. It was a blow out.



Blow out you mean an easy victory?

That is, staying and fighting is not a viable playing option for the Soviet player?


Yes it as in an easy german victory or rather the russian gave up around turn 11.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/28/2013 7:28:08 AM >

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 41
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 7:48:22 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1047
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
So let me see if I'm getting this right.

Part of the folks are saying that it would un-historical if the Soviets didn't stand and fight as they did in 1941, and there was no political/practical/etc... way that they could have run.

But, if they stand and fight in game, then they loose (at least against a knowledgeable German player).

Also, if they run in game, then they win, as there's no way for the German player to capitalize against that strategy.

Is that right?

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 42
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 8:56:11 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

So let me see if I'm getting this right.

Part of the folks are saying that it would un-historical if the Soviets didn't stand and fight as they did in 1941, and there was no political/practical/etc... way that they could have run.

But, if they stand and fight in game, then they loose (at least against a knowledgeable German player).


Yes. One has to know and im not out not change it in the current set up as it would unbalance the current setup.
The number of both units and manpower/mobilization that the russian sides gets is far below the historic mobilization numbers in 1941. So in essense in that above mentione game the russian ran out of units.
If one is to have a game limiting the russians to stay and fight hard by some VC or what ever, with no change to the current set up. Not giving more units/manpower i would say ur correct in case of a knowledgeable German player, there isnt much of a game.
This also becomes a problem when trying to compare russian losses in game to more historic figurs. If u dont get the historic Manpower but is "required" to take historic losses it leaves a very low strength closer to non excisting russian army ingame. ill say by now most of these cries have subsided and the dicussed figurs on how much teh russians are required to take is more in line with what the games gives the russian side.
It will work to some extend with unexperience or below average german skilled players tho. If ppl dont have the skills to create pockets arent using HQBUs and so on. Sure it will be seen that a russian player can stop a german player in the current set up. note that with the moral issue of teh last 3-4 months that has ofc worsend but that is now fixed and we will see how that fix affects the results. All things given u should see genrreally speaking see lower russian moral in 41 easing it on the german player, as compared to since 1.07.06 was released.

This is also partly why russians run, if in essense not the overwrittenly reason to do so. One is much more accutly aware of the need to preserve an army to be able to come back. As u dont get it from mobilization to the extend u can just friter away units more or less indescriminatly as done historic. If u play a as u say knowledgeable German player, this IMO is ur biggest concern as a russian player. How to preserve ur army while evacing as much as possible but the former usually take presedence over the latter. See in case MT / Kamils game where running was more importand to save an army than saving industry. Leaving him per MT posts with 262 arm factories, well below per scn 43 335 historic number. Again here with the causality. What creates what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs
Also, if they run in game, then they win, as there's no way for the German player to capitalize against that strategy.

Is that right?



That is the saying. I dont think its correct but thats the saying, if it comes to a full run strategy no stops. There are also when u look at AARs a number of AARs going either way.
One has to know that ppl dont necesarrily mean the same when they say run away. As u can see in posts written by different ppl in the last few days. One says u ofc have to do a checkerboard retreat to slow down the russian advance, othes talk of a run right of the bat to Moscow / Rostov.
This is both refered to as a run strategy but well IMO they're 2 different things.

There is the run away that in essense referes to the ability of the russian to freely move his units as he pleases. Fighting a fighting withdrawl trying to stay out of range for pockets withdrawing a set number of hexes every turn dependning on the german advance, while not giving more ground that necesarry. This refered to as running cuz they german opponents feels they cant create pockets. The natural counter in that mindset is to tie teh russian down some how while leaving the axis with free hands. I would say teh russian does this effectively and it can happen against a below average german player u can save historic if not more than so industry. The skill of the russian player ofc also playing its part.

Then there is ill run as fast as i can to Moscow/Rostov. In that strategy which IMO is markedly different than the above but both are refered to as running, IMO a average too above german player should be able to capture more than the historic evacuated industry, if playing a equally skill russian player. So the saying is that its free to do this, but i question that. As a german player in this case u hafta recogniese this and go for a full capture industry strategy as early as possible. Not that u shouldnt create pockets if u have the chance but if the chances isnt there u shouldnt waste time/MP on chasing some thing that isnt there. If ppl stay in the "I need to capture troops mindset" in these cases they giving them selfs an disadvanatge. Capture as many industry and cities as fast as u can reduce the manopwer that the russian gets from then on. Off setting to some degree the non losses, in lower Manpower production.

And then there is every thing inbetween those.

It ofc doesnt help that every thing is refered too as running, while that actually covers different approches to a fairly large degree.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/28/2013 9:35:43 AM >

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 43
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 9:10:54 AM   
morvael


Posts: 3923
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
The problem is Soviets didn't run, because they percieved themselves strong enough (if not stronger) than the Germans, so they launched their own counterattacks in the early days of the invasion. A player starts the game with units already rated according to their real capabilities and what choice is there with all those ants? Run!

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 44
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 9:19:31 AM   
Gabriel B.

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline
Off topic:

Rasmus , why on earth 54,000 sicknes casses in june (9 days ) and only 17,000 for july (whole month )?

It is something that i had not found reasonable explanation without resorting to speculation .




(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 45
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 9:23:42 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

The problem is Soviets didn't run, because they percieved themselves strong enough (if not stronger) than the Germans, so they launched their own counterattacks in the early days of the invasion. A player starts the game with units already rated according to their real capabilities and what choice is there with all those ants? Run!


True to a large extend, adding that these counter attacks in cases costed the german days of advancing and men and materiel. Thats hardly the case if u counter attack in game in turns 1-2-3 as russian. U dont gain those benefits.
I've never seen a case as of the battle of Brody ever happening in any AAR or any thing compareble. In history they might have been in vain and foolish but they had an effect and wasnt costless on the german side, that isnt shown in game.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 46
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 9:30:54 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3034
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Off topic:

Rasmus , why on earth 54,000 sicknes casses in june (9 days ) and only 17,000 for july (whole month )?

It is something that i had not found reasonable explanation without resorting to speculation .



Not that know of no. Other than its not 9 days. Its for the full month of june. The counting didnt start on the 22th of june, but on the first of june. Ppl can ofc have gotten sick pre the 22th june and is then part of the 54000. Unlike, they're much less likely to have gotten wounded or died before the 22th june. Some accidents proberbly happend but one has to assume its very low numbers.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/28/2013 9:31:42 AM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)
Post #: 47
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 10:16:31 AM   
Gabriel B.

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline
That makes sense , however the july losses are fairly low due to sickness compared to the other months .

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 48
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 12:06:58 PM   
Gabriel B.

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

So let me see if I'm getting this right.

Part of the folks are saying that it would un-historical if the Soviets didn't stand and fight as they did in 1941, and there was no political/practical/etc... way that they could have run.

But, if they stand and fight in game, then they loose (at least against a knowledgeable German player).

Also, if they run in game, then they win, as there's no way for the German player to capitalize against that strategy.

Is that right?



Do not underextimate the speed which the axis can move , you need to put up a better show than the AI , otherwise the axis is at the gates of Moskow in july.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 49
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 2:29:36 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
The logistics system is so broken that the Soviet player has no choice but to run as the Axis units are rarely impeded by low supply; here is a screen shot from my experience with MTours. By mid-September the railroad net extends from Germany to Rzhev and even further northeast...this coupled with complete fantasy flying fuel birds makes logistics in WITE1 the single most impediment to any semblance of a competitive game against a precise mathematician such as MT or MTours.

So the problem with running is that the Soviet simply can't run fast enough if playing against a mathematical exploiter (no disrespect meant) because with MPs of 40 -50 there is nowhere to go. And by leapfrogging it makes no difference if the stack of panzers is cutoff or not. Stacked with a HQ which has been air-fueled by 13 runs of bombers, there is no real logistical penalty so the stack simply fights out like a knife through butter.




By the way, would somebody explain to me how it is even possible for the RR net to move far forward in 14 moves; its not like there was no resistance at all

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marquo -- 8/28/2013 2:34:36 PM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)
Post #: 50
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 4:11:01 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 718
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

The logistics system is so broken that the Soviet player has no choice but to run as the Axis units are rarely impeded by low supply; here is a screen shot from my experience with MTours. By mid-September the railroad net extends from Germany to Rzhev and even further northeast...this coupled with complete fantasy flying fuel birds makes logistics in WITE1 the single most impediment to any semblance of a competitive game against a precise mathematician such as MT or MTours.

So the problem with running is that the Soviet simply can't run fast enough if playing against a mathematical exploiter (no disrespect meant) because with MPs of 40 -50 there is nowhere to go. And by leapfrogging it makes no difference if the stack of panzers is cutoff or not. Stacked with a HQ which has been air-fueled by 13 runs of bombers, there is no real logistical penalty so the stack simply fights out like a knife through butter.




By the way, would somebody explain to me how it is even possible for the RR net to move far forward in 14 moves; its not like there was no resistance at all


THIS - one of the main reasons I have been reluctant to pick the game back up is the ability of players (perfectly legally, of course) to do this kind of stuff, which leads to panzers warping all over the place out of any proportion to reality. That in turn leads to the run aways and checkerboards, which aren't fun for anyone. I suppose the very best optimizers can in turn do some (legal) tricks with the Soviets, but I am not one of those.

Hoping to start a new game shortly with some good rules to bring things back to earth for both sides, so we'll see what is possible.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 51
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 4:49:59 PM   
loki100


Posts: 801
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline
there is a solution - reset the default logistics into the 70-80 range and agree a house rule about bombers as flying garages.

Not perfect, but it starts to end this sort of nonsense and gives any offensive a more realistic stop-start feel to it

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 52
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 5:02:41 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

there is a solution - reset the default logistics into the 70-80 range and agree a house rule about bombers as flying garages.

Not perfect, but it starts to end this sort of nonsense and gives any offensive a more realistic stop-start feel to it


I'm afraid this just opens up new problems, on the Soviet end rather than the Axis. We're at the stage where simple tweaks in the game no longer do much. It's pretty much like punching a pillow.

We need a whole new pillow.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 53
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 5:41:22 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have no idea why anyone who wants to game at war would decide to move all units away from the enemy as fast as possible from the get go. I have better things to do with my time.



Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VV1PrbkK3E

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 54
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 7:30:54 PM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Flavuisx, I am interested in what you see are going to be problems for the Soviets. I am starting a small test with the revisted logistics settings, but have just started and haven't gotten far enough to make any conclusions. What do you think I should be looking forward to?

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 55
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 9:01:39 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The problem, of course, is the people who run away and refuse to fight any kind of forward defense will continue to do so even if the logistics are tamed and make it possible to stand your ground and make the Axis work for it. So Axis advances will stall out early. It's not enough in the end to get the logistics right and bring down the op tempo.

Then that takes us into further issues: the Soviet replacement system doesn't really support a strong forward defense in 1941, as it considerably understates the Soviet ability to take a hit in the chin. So even if you somehow contrive to get the Soviet to stand his ground, he can't recover from historical level losses in 1941. And you can go down further iterations here.

I just don't see any easy fixes. The entire design needs a fresh look from the ground up, things are so interrelated that you cannot just cherry pick one single thing, tweak it, and call it a day, every tweak just leads on to the next issue. Only a comprehensive makeover can hope to resolve this.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to darbymcd)
Post #: 56
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 10:45:44 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2150
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
I will do a better detailed explanation of the Logistics settings tomorrow when I have some more time. But this is most likely NOT the fix you think it is for the supply situation.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 57
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/28/2013 11:04:38 PM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Ah, I see what you mean Flaviusx.... I think you are ultimately right, but I am a little less pessimistic that the game CAN deliver a good experience given the right the treatment :)

Thanks for taking the time Carl.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 58
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/29/2013 2:53:46 AM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Then that takes us into further issues: the Soviet replacement system doesn't really support a strong forward defense in 1941, as it considerably understates the Soviet ability to take a hit in the chin. So even if you somehow contrive to get the Soviet to stand his ground, he can't recover from historical level losses in 1941.


Interesting. Long ago I tried to convince the Devs that the auto-rebuilt Russian Divisions that are supposed to come back as unready shells, in fact arrive on map in ready status and pretty much at full strength. Seems it hinged on a technicality that they arrive before the replacements phase as unready shells but get filled up right away and the player only sees them as full strength ready units, although at minimal morale.

The point being that there are a lot replacements skimmed off by this process that historically I think should more than likely be going directly to the front, rather than getting siphoned off to rebuild destroyed units.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 59
RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could hav... - 8/29/2013 10:32:03 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2140
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
The whole situation makes it increasingly plain that we have underestimated the Russian colossus...At the outset of war, we reckoned with about 200 enemy divisions. Now we have already counted 360. But there they are, and if we smash a dozen of them, the Russians simply put up another dozen.
From the diary of General Franz Halder, August 11, 1941

I don't think the game conveys that well.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Why is it non-historical that the Soviets could have run? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.129