Soviet C&C difficulties June/July/August 1941. WITE 2.0

[Michael T]

Soviet C&C difficulties June/July/August 1941. WITE 2.0


I would like to try and have some kind of meaningful and sensible discussion of how WITE 2.0 might best implement the Soviet C&C shambles that existed in early/mid 1941.

For contributors please stay on topic.

From my reading Soviet C&C in this period was atrocious (for various reasons) and in no small way contributed to the many disasters that befell the Red Army in this period.

I have some ideas that could be fleshed out to simulate this mess. Other relevant and constructive comments/ideas are welcome.

Some ideas:

A certain number of random (front area zone) units are fixed for that turn.
Some units Movement Points are reduced by random amounts down to zero. But this is not apparent to the player until he tries to move the unit.
A Random number of HQ’s are not allowed to change attachments.
When making an attack a random chance that some units won’t attack at all, but not apparent to the player until the attack is resolved.
A chance that after an attack extra Movement Points will be expended.
A chance that some hexes will not allow the entry of Soviet units that turn. Again unknown till the player tries to move a unit in to it.


The idea is that the Soviet player should have much less certainty of action or plans actually taking place than the current model. This is a failing in WITE 1.0. The Soviet knows exactly where his units will end up, he can co-ordinate attacks perfectly, he can build perfect lines etc. All this is contrary to the reality of the period. We must surely want something better for WITE 2.0

@John. Is there any push or desire for something like this in the engine room? If not I would like to know why. It would be great improvement. And something we see in other contemporary designs/games on this subject.

[Icier]

I would like to see on both sides some sort of moral penalty for 2 retreats in a row & a continuous
penalty until the unit stands for 2 turns. I also like the idea if a unit is outside its HQ zone of control for than 1 move it either freezes or retreats, until back in control. The exception being
a veteran/elite unit.

[SigUp]

I think it's sufficient to just increase the range of MP and supply rolls. So that you get a greater variety of MPs throughout the front, making it harder to coordinate attacks and retreat and a higher chance of failed supply rolls. I'm not a friend of a bruteforce approach of outright forbidding attacks or movement. Especially the idea of freezing entire parts of the front is not a good one in my eyes. It may be an idea for a game with daily turns, but freezing units here means freezing them for an entire week. That's far too much.

[Michael T]

But a known MP value means the Soviet can co-ordinate perfectly. How would you suggest modelling orders that never made it thru to an army or orders ignored? Resulting in units that did not move as ordered or to where intended? Or do you think that such things should not be simulated?

As it stands the Soviet player knows exactly where his units will end up. In reality units often did not move at all or were delayed so much by C&C problems by the the time they did move it was too late. The current system, and what you suggest does not result in any chaos at all. Which is what is really needed. A sense of chaos and dysfunction.

[RedLancer]

Michael

The simple answer is that at the moment there isn't. There may be but I don't know. At the moment we have a huge number of other things to do to create a game, that at the moment is not playable beyond Dec 41. We are still very much in alpha.

That said here is my opinion for what it is worth:

- I agree that the Soviets did have C2 problems in 1941 that are not specifically modelled at present in the game.
- In a game that is IGOUGO with the Axis starting first the Soviets are already at a significant disadvantage in C2 terms as they are always reactive against a good Axis player. (On the other side of the coin there have been countless requests for a Soviet free setup. We looked at this and it is not a feasible solution.)
- I dislike games where counters suddenly don't do what they are told.
- Additional blanket penalties based on rolls as SigUP suggests might be a solution.
- Whatever is adopted, or not, the game is still balanced to history.
- WitE2 is not WitE. It plays quite differently on a number of levels. WitE issues are not neccesarily immediately in WitE2.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

But a known MP value means the Soviet can co-ordinate perfectly. How would you suggest modelling orders that never made it thru to an army or orders ignored?

Simple solution - available MPs should be hidden
The more you move the more you risk hitting the hidden limit, and ending up in an undesirable location.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

But a known MP value means the Soviet can co-ordinate perfectly. How would you suggest modelling orders that never made it thru to an army or orders ignored? Resulting in units that did not move as ordered or to where intended? Or do you think that such things should not be simulated?

As it stands the Soviet player knows exactly where his units will end up. In reality units often did not move at all or were delayed so much by C&C problems by the the time they did move it was too late. The current system, and what you suggest does not result in any chaos at all. Which is what is really needed. A sense of chaos and dysfunction.

Well, if let's say one unit has 3 MP, the one next to it 11, yeah, as long as you know the value you can coordinate, but it's more of a duct-taping type of coordination since you can't put the whole formation in line.

What you touch here is the general issue of a IGOUGO system with weekly turns. You can't freeze units for one side without giving the other side too much of an advantage. So the German player starts, tears a big hole in the Soviet lines then the Soviet player opens his turn and he can't move his for the entire turn? Highly problematic.

Variable (soft) penalties based on dice rolls is worth considering to highlight the confusion on the Soviet side in the early months of Barbarossa (another possibility could be to let army HQs make a dice roll to determine whether all units under that HQ have to expend 2x the MP than usual, a penalty not seen until you move the first unit of that formation). But outright freezes are not the way to go in my opinion. Also, despite all the confusion, I doubt that whole Soviet divisions were unable to move for seven full days.

[morvael]

Then there is the issue of divisions moving somewhere else you wanted them to move... Basically as you move the counter there should be a chance that it moves to some other hex to the left and right of the target hex (possibly even attacking enemy units there, of course with a smaller chance), wasting precious MPs (which you shouldn't know beforehand how many are left) and perfect battleplans. That would perfectly recreate the utter chaos of war in the game

Face-to-face boardgames often limit the problem inherent to IGOYOUGO games (even though they have shorter turns and movement ranges than in WitE, so inaction for a while is not a great problem) by allowing reaction moves in some cases. Unfortunately that wouldn't work in a PBEM game... unless the AI would decide for the absent player.

[Michael T]

Well my idea's are only suggestions. I am open to anything that simulates the chaos. I have certainly read where communications was lost between all levels of command for many days, maybe even over a week in the cases of some armies and fronts/stavka.

WITE would be easily be the most lenient on Soviet C&C problems I have played in recent times. I just know when I play as Soviet I have no sense whatsoever of any C&C chaos. Everything in the system works perfectly and predictably.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have certainly read where communications was lost between all levels of command for many days, maybe even over a week in the cases of some armies and fronts/stavka.

That may very well be the case but it does not mean that the Armies did nothing. In this system you are simultaneously commanding at each and every level, albeit with a number of command rolls thrown in. Whhich leads me to suggest that instead of immediately conducting a leader roll further up the chain of command if the first roll fails there is an additional check which considers whether any further checks are conducted at all.

[Aditia]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Well my idea's are only suggestions. I am open to anything that simulates the chaos. I have certainly read where communications was lost between all levels of command for many days, maybe even over a week in the cases of some armies and fronts/stavka.

WITE would be easily be the most lenient on Soviet C&C problems I have played in recent times. I just know when I play as Soviet I have no sense whatsoever of any C&C chaos. Everything in the system works perfectly and predictably.

It is simulated by low leadership rolls, low morale and low movement points... Remember these are week long turns; So e.g. the low movement points are simulating difficulties in C2, in the end the orders get there, but movement is not so efficient. Or do you think German vehicles are more adaptable to Russian roads than Soviet ones, or do you think Germans march more efficiently than Soviets? No, if anything the majority of German transportation was wholly unsuited for Russian roads.

I'll try and give a historic perspective later in a separate thread, but the sacrifices to reality for the benefit of game play that the designers made for the Soviets in the early game, are at best equal to the sacrifices to reality for the benefit of game play made for the Germans. Most importantly on supply, vehicle and AFV attrition due to movement and the binary way pockets are handled, while in effect German pockets were very 'leaky' resulting in roaming bands of Soviet troops wreaking havoc in the rear.

I am mostly getting this from Stahel. I cannot recommend David Stahel's groundbreaking work on Barbarossa (2009!!!) strongly enough to anyone with interested in the subject. Stahel found out that no decent historical work, complying with the rigors of Western historical science, on Barbarossa existed, and he decided to learn German and dive into the wealth of German documents in existence. This research was never done by German historians as military history is apparently frowned upon in the BundesRepublik

[Farfarer61]

What about a large or random reduction in Initiative and Admin ratings? Is it difficult to reduce the command radii and supply distances for June 1941, then have them increase to 'normal' later in the year ? Similarly could the "trucks lost due to resupply" be set high/higher for the Soviets, as an indirect approach to your aim, with the attrition reducing to 'normal'. Just trying to think of possible simple changes to emulate the end effect sought. I also do not support randomly "frozen" units or formations. Frozen Corps and Army HQs may be an option. This might lead to units staying near the HQ (to protect it or in order to rally) or lead to more forced relocations and consequent inconvenience.
Finally, you could allow frozen HQ to voluntarily relocate (as their only form of movement) as a depiction of bugging out in a chaotic environment. Hard core would be making this the ONLY form of movement for Soviet Corps and Army HQs until Turn X.

[morvael]

In the early turns their trucks are overloaded, thus more are lost. Also, due to parts of ammo being lost on delivery, there is increased need of supplies every turn, which again increases truck losses. So this is already in, but of course there can be a debate whether the increase is historical/realistic/significant from gameplay perspective.

[Aditia]

ORIGINAL: morvael

In the early turns their trucks are overloaded, thus more are lost. Also, due to parts of ammo being lost on delivery, there is increased need of supplies every turn, which again increases truck losses. So this is already in, but of course there can be a debate whether the increase is historical/realistic/significant from gameplay perspective.

Not sure if the formulas are unrealistic, it is mostly that I hardly see Soviet players fight and attack in WITE in July/August 1941, so the formulas are probably inconsequential. I never played Soviets, but in reality Soviets counter attacked fanatically during July and August. Yes, this destroyed the attacking forces, but it also damaged German units to a point that their 'attack readiness' was severely reduced.
Can the soviet player in WITE do enough damage to German units by attacking them? Either in elements or supply/ammo usage, that there is a benefit from spending units that way? I would love to try and use that tactic as Soviet, but usually losses on German formations are so low when they are defeated early game... Let alone if they are not defeated.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Aditia

Can the soviet player in WITE do enough damage to German units by attacking them? Either in elements or supply/ammo usage, that there is a benefit from spending units that way? I would love to try and use that tactic as Soviet, but usually losses on German formations are so low when they are defeated early game... Let alone if they are not defeated.

No you can't. In WitE something like that is suicidal. But I hear it's different in WitE2

[Cavalry Corp]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: Michael T

But a known MP value means the Soviet can co-ordinate perfectly. How would you suggest modelling orders that never made it thru to an army or orders ignored?

Simple solution - available MPs should be hidden
The more you move the more you risk hitting the hidden limit, and ending up in an undesirable location.

This is an excellent idea.

[morvael]

You can't blame players for not doing something that would (in their eyes) only hurt them in game terms to no gain. Victory conditions fail to give incentive to make suicidical attacks, and the attacks themselves do little damage to the Germans to be a worthwile tradeoff. From what I know in WitE2 the second part will change, it will be good to actually sap the Germans of their strength (by removing combat preparation points) and by forcing them to expend more ammo and lose some troops (which will be constrained thanks to more realistics supply system).

[Aditia]

ORIGINAL: morvael

You can't blame players for not doing something that would (in their eyes) only hurt them in game terms to no gain. Victory conditions fail to give incentive to make suicidical attacks, and the attacks themselves do little damage to the Germans to be a worthwile tradeoff. From what I know in WitE2 the second part will change, it will be good to actually sap the Germans of their strength (by removing combat preparation points) and by forcing them to expend more ammo and lose some troops (which will be constrained thanks to more realistics supply system).

A great change for realism. Now, will more realism make for a better game? We'll see [8|]

[HMSWarspite]

You have to be really careful not to put things in that in reality just increase player workload. So, only finding out what a units MP are only when you try an move it would be instantly got around by moving each relevant unit one hex, then the next etc. to maximise the coordination without surprises. You thus lose most of the intended benefit of the rule but give much increased player work load (which is just annoying).

IMHO, attempting to physically change the way the game is played for the first few months is a big mistake. Later on, we are (as Red Lancer says) playing all command levels. You shouldn't take that away in special rules for the first turns. To really have the mechanism Michael T asked for you need a game where you give orders to HQs, and don't move units at all (or some really wicked MultiPlayer, with players moving their sub commands in response to emails but no knowledge of other moves! You then give the Russian side only 20 character dot matrix printouts for player comms for 4 months and the Germans get Live chat and photo messages!). Nice game but not this one I suspect.

Within the mechanics of the game, the existing stats should be used or modified. So, make AP costs of changing unit HQ allocation a function of leader admin and unit readiness. Ditto unit attachments. Poor admin leaders at start would then mean you cant do much of it. Introduce a MP debit based on unit readiness and not just as a function of supply (or make MP costs a Fn of readiness).

Then test the effect late war, and make sure the same rules give a good effect (i.e. little to none) then.

The more special rules there are the start or end on specific turns, hexes or for odd cases like in certain turns if there is an R in your user name, the more players will find ways to exploit the discontinuity in them and get around them (or at least use them to get some benefit)

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

...

The more special rules there are the start or end on specific turns, hexes or for odd cases like in certain turns if there is an R in your user name, the more players will find ways to exploit the discontinuity in them and get around them (or at least use them to get some benefit)

I think this statement should be stickied [8D].

The second you use special rules you create discontinuity in play and you can bet that the more creative members of the community will make it work. Remember the days when no self-respecting German player would actually destroy a pocket until after the date when auto-returns ceased to happen? And we have all seen massive German run aways once the winter rules shift. Or the frustration (for both sides) at the impact of the arbitrary NM shifts etc etc.

At a risk of upsetting him, I find myself in agreement with MichaelT that you want some way to capture Soviet problems in the early phase [;)].

Where I don't agree is his solution. I'm not sure but the new rules on supply, rail and road capacity are going to produce some interesting challenges (different ones) for each side. As an eg, I suspect the Germans can live without railing too many actual units around (in the first summer) so most of their (limited) cap can go on moving up freight (ie replacements/supply/fuel and ammo). Nothing maxes out a rail hex capacity like a couple of divisions being moved through it and the Soviets will need to do this (and cope with factory evacs). So they seem to have a global supply shortage and will have a substantive problem in delivering that supply.

So where might that leave us? Well all this is guesswork and supposition but odds on Soviet players will find themselves trying to cope with a fast degrading army (as drawing down reinforcements - even if they exist - is going to be hard) and really struggle to move up reserves and/or to shift forces by rail. Edit - by this I mean a lot of units will only be able to cope with one (maybe two) rounds of combat before falling apart ... certainly seeing more low morale/exp units collapse due to shattering than in WiTE. Its a bit akin to playing on the harder settings when they were on a log not a linear scale. I remember constantly having to cope with unready units that took time to recover from combat (vs the AI this gave a great game).

So that may well produce a dynamic where both sides need to leave gaps - covered by non-combat ready formations. The constraint on the axis side is that yes you can exploit a weakly held area but if it takes you into a supply desert (like the Valdai) it may be a false move.

What you get (maybe) is a situation where the Soviet player is constantly off balance - but its a slower process of decline than in WiTE. As Red Lancer put it above - its not that good an idea simply to read across from how WiTE plays to how WiTE2 is going to work out.