Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Reread Glantz

 
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 >> The War Room >> Reread Glantz Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 2:30:49 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
3 months of playing WITE has caused me to reinvigoate my long historical interest in the WITE. I have perhaps 20 some odd books on the subject, and have read each 2 or 3 times in the last 30 years. I am currently rereading Glanz's, "When Titans Clashed," in the context playing WITE, and of the discussions on the forum about the 1941- 42 timelines and the blizzard. I can't help but get the feeling that the Axis was incredibly lucky, took chances that a human gamer will never do in a game, and was constrained by higher C & C structure that was inflexibly paralyzed by fear and distrust of the Hitler. The Soviet C & C was also inflexibly paralyzed by fear, inexperience and adherence to doctrines which made little sense; the Soviet line commanders did things which a human gamer will never do.

1. Gamers complain about the Soviet RR capability, however: "During 1918 and 1919, V.I. Lenin and and his commissar for military affairs, L.D. Trotsky, used the railroad lines to shuttle their limited reserves from place to place, staving off defeat time after time. This became known as echelon war, in which large forces were shifted by railroad (echelon) to reinforce successivley threatened fronts." The use of strategic reserves, echelon and railroad mvt was integral to Soviet strategy; the game is realistic in this regard.

2. In reference to the Minsk Pocket: "Even in this first fantastic encirclement, where the Germans destroyed or swallowed up over 417,000 Soviet soldiers, there were flaws in the German victory. As usual, they found it very difficult to assemble sufficient forces to actually seal off the encircled Soviets, and thus large numbers of soldiers escaped, leaving their heavy equipment behind." The game accuralety portrays these flaws.

3. By mid October after Kalini and Kaluga fell, "In retrospect the German forces had gone as far as possible for 1941 and needed to go into winter quarters." And consider these facts:

"Only one third of all motor vehicles were still operational, and divisions were at one-third to one-half strength."

"In late October, Guederian had concentrated most of his remaining tanks into one brigade, commanded by Colonel Eberbach, commander of the weakened 4th Panzer Division. By mid-November, this brigade had only 50 tanks left, but it was the spearhead for the XXIV Panzer Corps and, in effect, for the entire army."

So even before the Soviet conteroffensive the TOE was at 1/3 -1/2 and AGC had 50 tanks....only Hilter's threats stopped a rout all the way back to Germany; and standing fast in these blizzard circumstances should cause grievous losses. I am not convinced that the blizzard is unrealistic: gamers are mesmerized and attempt to geographically overexploit the summer and fall offensives, they fail to bag and destroy enough Soviet forces, and often end the fall offensive at low TOE. It is correct that the Axis player often finishes the fall with a TOE which is high - but that is because most Axis players would not push their forces to the extent that OKH did. To mitigate losses, the Axis should really fall back and give up much territory - any thing else should cause the huge losses we see.

Enjoy the weekend.

Marquo



< Message edited by Marquo -- 3/26/2011 3:04:52 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 6:57:50 PM   
Commanderski


Posts: 890
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
I agree that overall (with the exception of a few minor known bugs they are working on) the game is more accurate than most people realize. I read Glantz's Barbarossa Derailed and it was like reading an AAR on the game.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 2
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 7:08:12 PM   
Infanteer

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 3/19/2011
Status: offline
I agree with you Marquo. As an Canadian Infantry Officer, we routinely work in "the blizzard" - conditions of -30 to -40 degree (celcius) weather. It is harsh and 80% of your effort is just staying alive; if you are not prepared (as the Germans weren't at first) the results will be devastating as the quotations you put up show. The effects of the winter seem fair for this game.

You speak of political decisions - this is perhaps one thing the game could "add" for more of an experience. In the first weeks of the German offensive, Stalin ordered counterattacks along the entire front. Hitler's "No Step Back" policy is another one. Perhaps some addtional rules which impose certain conditions/factors on each force would be useful. These could be turned on/off like the random-weather. IE: German units cannot move west during the blizzard.

Finally, the old Norm Kroger OOW News Ticker at the start of every turn was nice - if only to show you that the military game of moving little boxes with numbers around is related to real political situations (Clausewitz 101). Something like that in this game would be handy - "Russian Winter hits - worst weather in 100 years! (First winter rules in effect!)" or "Leningrad falls" or "Zhukov is shot".

(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 3
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 7:42:39 PM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline
I think gamers have a big misconception regarding the blizzard and the famous 'no fall back' order of Hitler. In fact the Germans didn't attempt to hold fast at all, and in many places fell back maybe 150 miles between December and April. I suspect gamers should be attempting the same thing.

(in reply to Infanteer)
Post #: 4
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 8:10:58 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Interesting point: Hilter forbade further "major withdrawals" in mid-December (3rd blizzard turn) and gave the "Standfast Order" early January (5th or 6th blizzard turn). They did crowd into cities to try to hold out; this stupidity almost caused an enormous pocket at Rzhev - Stalin could have bagged AGC but decided to bypass surrounded units and go on a general offensive...

I think that if the developers lessen the blizzard effects then there is a good chance of an enormous, antihistorical advantage; hey, the proof is historical: despite all the apparent clumbsiness and "irrational" military behavior on every level, the Soviets decimated the Wehrmacht - somebody knew what he/she was doing 


Marquo 

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 5
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 8:11:10 PM   
Zort

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline
I love this argument.  I don't disagree that the germans should be falling back but not 150 miles across the whole front.  Just look at Moscow in game terms I think the germans fell back about 4 hexes in real life.  Leningrad they fell back what 1 hex in game terms. So the germans shouldn't have to fall back 15 hexes across the entire front.  In my current game the soviets don't have the capability to attack across the entire front so the previous patch seemed to help.  What needs to be to be addressed is the ability for the germans to recover in 42 to be able to launch an offensive, being a limited one, at all in 42.  Presently the soviet has ample time to construct 4-5 hex deep lvl 3+ forts before the germans can assault.  So will see what the next patch does to mitigate the rows of forts.

< Message edited by Zort -- 3/26/2011 8:12:50 PM >

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 6
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 8:57:35 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 4076
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
For a great many, if it isn't what is usually a self serving memoir by some German general, it isn't right.


(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 7
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 9:04:49 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 4076
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Interesting point: Hilter forbade further "major withdrawals" in mid-December (3rd blizzard turn) and gave the "Standfast Order" early January (5th or 6th blizzard turn). They did crowd into cities to try to hold out; this stupidity almost caused an enormous pocket at Rzhev - Stalin could have bagged AGC but decided to bypass surrounded units and go on a general offensive...

I think that if the developers lessen the blizzard effects then there is a good chance of an enormous, antihistorical advantage; hey, the proof is historical: despite all the apparent clumbsiness and "irrational" military behavior on every level, the Soviets decimated the Wehrmacht - somebody knew what he/she was doing 


Marquo 


I'm sure the Army Group Center generals screamed "This is broken!!!"

They probably wished somebody told the Sovs that they couldn't do what they did. Not realistic.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 8
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 9:16:19 PM   
Zort

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline
Well this is a game.  How to make the game playable by both sides is the trick.  So within some historical realistic parameters the game needs to be "balanced" so both sides have fun.  If one side can win in the first 30 turns of a 200+ turn game then why make it.  

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 9
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 9:28:17 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
"Just look at Moscow in game terms I think the germans fell back about 4 hexes in real life."



Zort,



a. The 27 Army advanced from in front of Ostashkov to Demidov which is 12 game hexes

b. The Western Front advanced from Narofominsk to Vyazma which is 9 game hexes

c. The 38th Army advanced from hex 95,40 NW of Rzhev to jusy NE of Durova which is 9 hexes.



No, the Axis got it's ass kicked backwards 120 + miles in some sectors (10 miles to the hex).



Marquo


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marquo -- 3/26/2011 9:32:44 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 10
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 9:30:38 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Here is map so you can count hexes if you want.

Marquo




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 11
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 9:31:04 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4603
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
This is slightly off-topic - since it's not really about Barbarossa - but I pretty much felt like the OP. I've been re-reading both Glantz's Stumbling Colossus/Colossus Reborn twin works and E. Mawdsley's "Thunder In The East" and I must say that WiTE is indeed a incredibly faithful simulation to the works of those two authors. Western historiography, especially during the Cold War, took at face value German perspectives conveyed by all the memories published after the war. It's almost proven that there was a conspiracy, under the direction of Manstein - the great tactician - to "sell" to the Western victors a much more positive image of the conduct of the war. It also provided with a nice tale, which fit too well the attitudes and outlooks of Western countries towards the Soviet Union and its satellites.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 12
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 9:52:17 PM   
Zort

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline
I am not saying the axis didn't get their butts kicked.  And I agreed with you that they were pushed back far in SOME sectors but not the entire front.  I will say it again, the germans even after getting kicked should be able to launch an offensive in 42, per last patch no way that was going to be done.  In front of leningrad the axis didn't retreat 100 miles but it will happen now.  I think the last patch has improved the game a lot.  Like I said my opponent couldn't attack everywhere so has to limit his offense to the area he has strong enough troops.  Like it should be.

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 13
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 9:56:26 PM   
Zort

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline
And since you like pictures here is the 42 scenario start at moscow. I have ended up there in the CG41 scenario and pushed back to Smolensk. But didn't happen in real life, again this is game.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 14
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 10:21:36 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
I do not understand your post - in the picture you are 5 hexes east of Vyazma, but the April 1942 line on the map is much further to the west - what you have psoted from your game is much better for the Axis than historical.

(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 15
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 10:33:12 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:


a. The 27 Army advanced from in front of Ostashkov to Demidov which is 12 game hexes

b. The Western Front advanced from Narofominsk to Vyazma which is 9 game hexes

c. The 38th Army advanced from hex 95,40 NW of Rzhev to jusy NE of Durova which is 9 hexes.


Let's be careful to understand that where the Soviets started from was not necessarily where the Germans had gotten to. German "control" of their farthest advances was minimal at best.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 16
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/26/2011 10:48:46 PM   
Zort

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline
Marquo, that is the start of the gc 42 scenario, thought I said that.  The germans weren't pushed 120 miles from the gates of moscow.  So I say again, I agree with you, the germans were pushed back, some places really far, some places not as far, and some places not much at all.  So saying that the game (I am assuming you meant pre 1.03 patch) blizzard was working correctly and would result in a german 42 offensive doesn't make sense.  So once again I reiterate the game needs to be balanced so both sides can have fun. 

So just to be clear, I agree the germans suffered in the winter of 41/42.  In the game the germans need to trade space so they don't die.  The designers are working on game balancing so both sides can have fun.  So what are we discussing?  None of us want either side to win in the first 30 turns. 

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 17
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 12:42:32 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6894
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
V. 1.04 which is being tested is going to fix several balance issues on both sides.

The Blizzard is currently as harsh as a it is, because the Germans need to be knocked back in terms of strength; they were entering the Blizzard much stronger than historical. The Blizzard knocks them back in that regard.

The problem is that the Soviets were also entering Blizzard much too strong, but there wasn't an equivalent correction. As a result, PBEM after PBEM was showing a total lack of ability of the Germans to launch a credible offensive in 1942.

We have yet to see an AAR in 1.03 where the Germans have launched a credible 1942 offensive.

Glantz's book "When Titans Clahsed" is excellent, and does a good job painting the 1941 Winter Offensive Picture. There were intial big advances against AGC, an AGC that was dangerously overextended entering Winter. Starting on pg 91, Glantz gives an excellent account of the frustrations elsehwere, and lack of progress when the offensive was widened to the entire front. Ideally, the engine would model this by limiting Soviet supplies in the Winter Offensive, because historically they were NOT able to push the Germans back all along the line. The Germans launched several successful counterattacks, including the isolation of 2nd Shock Army. None of this is currently possible in current winter rules.

The Germans did get kicked back 120-150 in some sectors... but not all. In many sectors, they didn't get kicked back at all. That's the problem. The Wehrmacht is too easy in 1.03 to push around in ALL sectors. This is not historical, and the Soviets should only be able to make that progress by concentrating force, or if the Germans are grossly overextended.


< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 3/27/2011 12:45:06 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 18
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 12:42:59 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
"Let's be careful to understand that where the Soviets started from was not necessarily where the Germans had gotten to. German "control" of their farthest advances was minimal at best"

I calculated the distances from the map I uploaded; the point is that Germans were punted backwards for quite some distance.

Marquo

(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 19
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 12:58:55 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Well, maps are maps, and reality is reality. The Germans may have pushed spearheads that far but claiming control of that territory is debatable. That's really my only point.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 20
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 2:55:09 AM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
My beef with the historical winter is not that it is too harsh, or not harsh enough, or that the Germans get pushed back too far, or not far enough.

It is that everyone KNOWS there is going to be this unusually brutal winter. The winter of '41-42 was the coldest of the entire war. That means that a sane German player is not going to push too hard, because he knows what is coming. That is a huge advantage for the Germans, since if the winter was not incredibly cold, it would be foolish to act as if it was going to be - and there is a similar advantage for the Soviet player. He KNOWS that the winter is going to come and save him, which allows him to take risks he cannot otherwise take.

I think people really underestimate the importance of risk evaluation. Everyone commonly derides the Germans for being fools for not preparing better for winter. I don't buy it - spending resource to prepare for a unlikely occurrence rather than dealing with the likely occurence is foolish. Just because you roll the dice and get snake-eyes doesn't mean that you made a mistake. It's not like the Germans had plenty of supplies to go around, and didn't prepare just because they didn't think it mattered.

Indeed, once it was clear that the USSR was not going to collapse like the predicted house of cards, I think the German High Command had a very clear idea how much trouble they were in, and knew that they HAD to try to end the war, and end it soon. That meant prioritizing short term gains over long term risk.

It didn't work out so great for them, of course...

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 21
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 3:11:23 AM   
Commanderski


Posts: 890
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
The Germans, at least OKH, did have an idea that their campaign would be going into the Winter months. As early as August they were starting to stock up on Winter clothes. They were sort of prepared for Winter but not to the extreme that the cold and snow turned out to be.

And I think you're right about the risk taking. I'm playing a campaign against the AI in normal and I'm thinking how far I should try to go before Winter. I'm in early Sept and may just change my attitude about that and just see how far I can go.

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 22
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 3:13:18 AM   
kswanson1

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 3/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

So even before the Soviet conteroffensive the TOE was at 1/3 -1/2 and AGC had 50 tanks....only Hilter's threats stopped a rout all the way back to Germany; and standing fast in these blizzard circumstances should cause grievous losses. I am not convinced that the blizzard is unrealistic: gamers are mesmerized and attempt to geographically overexploit the summer and fall offensives, they fail to bag and destroy enough Soviet forces, and often end the fall offensive at low TOE. It is correct that the Axis player often finishes the fall with a TOE which is high - but that is because most Axis players would not push their forces to the extent that OKH did. To mitigate losses, the Axis should really fall back and give up much territory - any thing else should cause the huge losses we see.


I don't disagree.  But you switch from historical justifications of various Soviet approaches to game management -- than switch to "German players aren’t pocketing enough Reds in 1941".  Why aren’t the Germans pocketing more Soviet units in 1941?  Is there something systematic that requires tweaking within the game to allow the Axis player to do what they were historically doing in 1941 -- i.e. bagging large pockets of Soviet units?  You cite the Minsk pocket and the inability of the Germans to properly cordon off the pocket.  However they still bagged close to a half million soldiers and presumably captured equipment and weapons that could have equipped what -- another 1/2 million men.  A 1/2 million man pocket even in game terms is not insignificant by any stretch.

How many more were bagged at Kiev?  650,000 to 700,000 or some such thing?  How many were bagged in front of Moscow in the Bryansk and Vyazma Pockets – another 600,000?  I agree that what’s at issue is that the German aren't bagging large pockets of Soviets in-game – the reality of sieve like cordons ala Minsk or not. 

I agree that perhaps over emphasis within the forum is focused upon the 1941 blizzard effects.  The true focus should be upon Germans being unable to pocket and destroy large numbers of Soviet troops during the summer and Fall campaign.  Some of this will invariably be player related – lack of aggressiveness or too much aggressiveness.  

From my own head-to-head game observations I'd attribute some if not all of the in-game “Pocket Problems” to the following factors:  

1) Soviet Operational Mobility even after being pocketed.  The Russian player will inevitably launch a very concerted and well coordinated effort by just about the entire encircled mass toward breakout and/or cordon ooze.  Granted there is a simultaneity aspect to reactionary movements that can’t be effectively addressed.  However the initiative is clearly in the hands of the Germans at this early stage of the war.   I therefore don’t view formation of pockets as something that requires a non-turn based approach to allow one or the other player to be able to react to closing pincers. 

2)  As a result of the way in which "hex control" and supply is calculated within the current game model, a pocket formed by the  Axis player usually result in no ill effects upon the bagged Soviet units for at least one to two turns (or even more) following the pocket creation.  This ties into #1 above in that it allows the Soviet Player to rapidly and very coherently collapse pockets toward the cordon of Axis Mechanized units.  Soviet units then begin to ooze through gaps or conduct low odds counterattacks. And the Russian (+1) “thingy” on the CRT invariably means an Axis Retreat and the opening of the cordon.  This exacerbates hex control issues for the Axis as the Pocketed Russians can easily keep supply routes open to themselves while at the same time instantly closing supply to the Axis cordon units (i.e. the Axis units suffer the supply effects from lack of "hex control", in their next phase).  The only way around this is to create "solid" cordon pockets where every hex within the cordon is occupied by an Axis unit.  Unfortunately the latter approach can usually only be conducted against limited sized pockets -- at least from my in-game experiences.  There are never enough Axis Mechanized units to go around, and regimental breakdown is somewhat ineffective as they do not the influence oh so very critical hex control in adjacent hexes. Regiments are not typically robust enough in defense to fend off the inevitable low odds pocket opening counterattacks.  Hex-to-hex cordons mean the Axis player is having to satisfy himself with constantly nibbling away at Soviet defenses and creating smaller tactical or operational level pockets (division and corps sized encirclements) rather than large strategic level pockets in which Armies or multiple armies can be successfully bagged and subsequently destroyed.

3) In the Axis phase following creation of a larger pocket, many of the units forming the cordon are typically in an isolated status do to hex control and pending hex control issues and limited rail net\rail heads for tracing Axis supply.  Units forming a cordon will typically have both very-very limited C.V. and very-very limited movement rates the turn after they have created a pocket.   Yet the Soviet units within the pocket -- because of the extensive friendly rail net and close proximity of rail heads and their ability to trace supply through contested hexes and zones of control are typically not faced with the same issues with CV or movement rates as long as they can continue some form of cordon oozing or low odds pocket opening counterattacks.  Effectively closing such pockets can take weeks of very precious good weather turns.  So while I am perfectly in tune with the supply effects on Axis cordon units, I have to ask should Soviet units within freshly formed pockets always have the ability to instantly rush for the encircling cordon the moment a pocket is formed?  Moreover, should there be an instantaneous command and control issue associated with loss of a valid line of communications?  Should pocketed Soviet Units be able to react in the sort of coherent manner we see in-game?  Does the current hex control and hex contestment model require refinement -- at least for 1941.   

I keep hearing it said that players wont make the same mistakes as their historical counterparts and therefore wont allow themselves to be pocketd.  Well perhaps there historical counterparts were not provided the level of operational freedom we currently see from pocketed units.  One might also look at it from the perspective of: “If you give players unrealistic command and control capability than they will not repeat the mistakes of their historical counterparts.   

I can only speak from my own gaming experiences, but what I am seeing is the Soviet side of the coin is given the sort of operational and strategic flexibility I would associate with the Red Army of mid to late 1942 to early 1943 – rather than early 1941.  On the other hand, the WiTE designers have (IMHO) done a wonderful job of replicating the realistic constraints in terms of supply limitations & logistical\administrative halts of large mechanized thrusts.  I feel like a very concerted effort was put into properly modeling all the potential pitfalls of big mechanized pushes across large expanses of ground in a country with a very primitive road net.  Where I think the model falls short is in the Soviets command & control issues associated with pocketed units -- particularly in 1941.   Put Soviet command and control constraints for the 1941 Campaign on track and I think you begin to see formation large pockets like Minsk pocket, Kiev pocket, Bryansk pocket, Vyazma pocket, Izyum etc etc. 

Or you can just blame the blizzard…

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 23
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 4:11:56 AM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
There are way too many subtle features; I have only just scratched the surface of comprehension. Much of the C/C issues you allude to are dealt with by hundreds of die rolls going on under the hood - I think the Soviets are probably pretty much screwed by these rolls in 1941.


For me there is a huge learning curve; in my second campaign against the AI I pushed as far east as possible in the south to decimate units and population centers and pretty much left Moscow and Leningrad alone. At the start of the blizzard there was a 1:1 ratio of Axis/Soviets - about 2,800,000 to each side - and this blizzard is really without much teeth at all. The Soviet AI is so depleted that it can't effectively really attack - it loses about 1/3 of it's attacks and I can even counter attack. So I am hopeful.

Marquo

(in reply to kswanson1)
Post #: 24
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 7:26:49 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
quote:

On the other hand, the WiTE designers have (IMHO) done a wonderful job of replicating the realistic constraints in terms of supply limitations & logistical\administrative halts of large mechanized thrusts.


I would say yes and no. I think the model in the game works well for the Germans in 1941. On the other hand, in my experience, I don't think Soviet mechanised thrusts in 1942 are sufficiently hampered by supply difficulties.

(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 25
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 3:14:34 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline
quote:

1. Gamers complain about the Soviet RR capability, however: "During 1918 and 1919, V.I. Lenin and and his commissar for military affairs, L.D. Trotsky, used the railroad lines to shuttle their limited reserves from place to place, staving off defeat time after time. This became known as echelon war, in which large forces were shifted by railroad (echelon) to reinforce successivley threatened fronts." The use of strategic reserves, echelon and railroad mvt was integral to Soviet strategy; the game is realistic in this regard.


I must admit it's been sometime since I have done any reading on the Russian Civil War, but my recollection is that the Reds were moving around a handful of Naval Brigades or handful of Infantry divisions by rail and using them to plug gaps or conduct localized counterattacks. Railing around multiple Armies as in what occurs in WiTE is an entirely different order of magnitude. What I am seeing in WiTE in terms of Soviet strategic movement is entire armies being winged around Russia by rail. These are than plugging holes created in the Soviet lines that are hundreds of kilometers wide at what feels like lightening speeds. It is not unusual for me when playing the Axis to create a large penetration in a Soviet line, only to see a new 200-kilometer wide hole plugged with completely new armies with reserve positions created during the Soviet Movement phase. This is being done exclusively via strategic rail movement. At the end of my turn there is nothing but ether in front of me. Following the Soviet turn there are now 20 to 30 new divisions in front of me -- along with reserve positions. And this isn't a single or atypical game occurrence. It's a routine Soviet Player approach to their operational planning.

Is this ability accurate? I can only say that it doesn’t "feel" accurate -- certainly not at the magnitudes of troop movement and redployments I am routinely seeing. This isn’t a couple of Naval Brigades being winged around on one of Trotsky's armored trains. I would like to see a few historical examples of the Soviets railing multiple armies about and re-establishing entire fronts over the course of days. If there is indeed historical references to these sorts of events and the speed with which such rapid shifting of armies was occuring from Glantz or Erickson or whomever, then I'd gladly accept that this as being very "realistic".

I personally think the movement costs for entraining and detraining are excessively light. And I am willing to bet that developing accurate assessments of time required to entrain and detrain large formations is easily researched. I suspect we can eaily point to some example of a division or regiment being wisked into a battle front and rapidly detraining and marching right to the front -- but did it have its heavy equipment? And can we point to multiple examples of 20 or 30 divisions doing the like? In the past, wargame designs have typically (or traditionally) applied significant movement penalties to units entraining and detraining. ANd maybe these past designers had it all wrong. But than again maybe there was a method to their madness. Some of this old school approach to strategic movement was doubtless abstraction, but in retrospect, and considering what I am seeing being routinely done in WiTE with strategic movement, I wonder if perhaps these past game designs via play testing realized the potential impact rail movement had on game flow and tweaked rail movement accordingly. I'm not for castrating the Soviets ability to employ rail movement as part of strategic planning and strategic reshuffling. But I am also not for strategic rail movement being provided to Soviet players as a crutch for weak operational planning. The current system -- at least in regards to rail movement is mish-mashing a strategic level asset into an operational level asset (i.e. what am I doing over the entire front over the next month or two months vs. what am I doing this turn). I would vote for increasing entraining and detraining movement costs -- or don't allow units to employ both rail movement and normal movement in the same turn -- Or; don't allow units to use rail movement and normal movement in the same turn unless the player (German or Soviet) expend some number of admin points -- or something along these lines.



< Message edited by marty_01 -- 3/27/2011 3:52:50 PM >

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 26
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 4:09:01 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline
quote:

I would say yes and no. I think the model in the game works well for the Germans in 1941. On the other hand, in my experience, I don't think Soviet mechanised thrusts in 1942 are sufficiently hampered by supply difficulties.


Good point. But I'd extrapolate even further to Offensive action in general and the historical challenges associated with maintaining momentum as a function of supply issues (german or soviet). Presumably the Soviet players would face similar supply issues with deep thrusts as they push well beyond their rail heads -- ala a historical example of post Stalingrad and Mainstein's backhand blow. But not having gone so deep into the GC I'm only speculating on this latter bit.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 27
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 4:23:41 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1373
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
"isolation of 2nd Shock Army"

The one mechanic in the game which I beleive really needs attention is that isolated unit are eliminated too quickly. The 2nd Shock Army held out for months IIRC before surrendering; the 6th army held out for over 2 months...this is an issue for the blizzard because many German units held out in cities for quite some time and survived.

Marquo 

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 28
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 5:22:54 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01

quote:

I would say yes and no. I think the model in the game works well for the Germans in 1941. On the other hand, in my experience, I don't think Soviet mechanised thrusts in 1942 are sufficiently hampered by supply difficulties.


Good point. But I'd extrapolate even further to Offensive action in general and the historical challenges associated with maintaining momentum as a function of supply issues (german or soviet). Presumably the Soviet players would face similar supply issues with deep thrusts as they push well beyond their rail heads -- ala a historical example of post Stalingrad and Mainstein's backhand blow. But not having gone so deep into the GC I'm only speculating on this latter bit.


I agree. From my experience, it is possible to sustain offensive operations for far longer in the game than was the case historically. Both sides can literally bleed their units white and both can still continue to attack. This is the case in many wargames, but in one with a complex supply and fatigue model as this game, I would have expected mechanisms to force pauses in operations. For example, fatigue could have a larger negative effect on attack strength, thus necessitating breathing spells.

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 29
RE: Reread Glantz - 3/27/2011 7:20:41 PM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline
Versus the historical result, the Germans have no edge in this game. On the Russian side, they have the material, industrial and manpower edge. Historically, they managed the war very badly for at least 18 months, and yet still could not be defeated. In addition to this, the Soviet wargamer has the additional advantage of hindsight. And against this, what does the German player have? Sure, their units are superior for quite a while, but that is easily offset by the fact that there is far too much for them to do.

As I see it, this makes wargaming the thing problematic. I think this is something that is going to take a lot of post-release time and many new patch versions to address and get to a game that is wide open for both sides.

In my estimation, probably command and control for the early war Soviets should be even more disadvantageous than it already is. Unless the Red Army is paralyzed to some degree, there is no way the war is going to last four years in this game.

< Message edited by runyan99 -- 3/27/2011 7:23:03 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Reread Glantz Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.189