Morris vs Joe Rock

[GPT55]

It seems to me that the problem with having supply level 3 in Russia is that the Axis infantry corps have their movement reduced to one hex in winter, and thus become easy prey for the Russians, since they cannot escape. This can lead to wholesale massacres of Axis infantry that is just too severe. Would it make sense to combine supply level 3 with Infantry corps being able to move two hexes instead of one (in winter)?

[Morris]

It seems to me that the problem with having supply level 3 in Russia is that the Axis infantry corps have their movement reduced to one hex in winter, and thus become easy prey for the Russians, since they cannot escape. This can lead to wholesale massacres of Axis infantry that is just too severe. Would it make sense to combine supply level 3 with Infantry corps being able to move two hexes instead of one (in winter)?

you did not get Borger's point , he wanted to weak Axis not enhance them

[BuddyGrant]

... one game is hardly a representative sample...

+1

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We don't see this in just one game. We have other examples (not AAR games) where the same happens.

What we see is that more and more Axis players start Barbarossa in May 1941 (or April if weather permits). That means the Axis have more time to catch the Russians before bad weather hits. So the Russians will have to withdraw further east than they intended to save their army. That means the Germans get way past Rostov and Moscow.

My point is that the rail conversion need for the Germans would limit them regardless of where the Russians decided to defend. There is a limit you can supply your troops with trucks. Germany would never have been able to get all the way to the Urals in 1941 even if they had launched Barbarossa as they intended. Moscow would probably have fallen and the Germans could have got across the Don.

If you look at some other wargames like War In Europe or Russian front then you see that they have rail conversion rules. You can convert a specific amount of rail hexes per turn and that means the standard gauge rail hubs will be left behind the Axis front line in 1941. Trucks will supply the units the last distance so you can have a distance to a rail hub and still be in supply.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Ideally we should have a rule like the following.
Germany would only have supply level 3 in core Russian hexes, but supply increases with 10 hexes (truck range) + 2 * number of turns since Barbarossa started. So 10 turns after Barbarossa you would reach 30 hexes into Russia from the border with rail supply.

The problem with such a solution is that it's complex and the players won't easily know where the rail hubs are.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think we should instead look into WHY it's possible for the Axis units to blitz so fast eastwards in 1941. The mobile forces can move fast, but the supporting infantry units are railed eastwards, thus saving a lot of time.

You only need to capture a city and then you can suddenly the turn after rail as many units as you want to that city from the rear lines. THAT is probably the main reason you can get the bulk of the German army so far east as Morris does.

This is not historical because the Germans could e. g. not rail units to cities that had not yet been linked to the German standard gauge rail net.

I think a possible solution is to have a different rule regarding when you can use captured cities in Russia for rail purposes. This would only apply to core Russian cities because the Baltic states and eastern Poland had standard rail gauge.

A simple solution could be to let captured cities in core Russian hexes need 3 turns to be used as rail hubs in 1941, 2 turns in 1942 and 1 turn in 1943 and beyond.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

A little more accurate solution could be to let the # turns needed to use a captured city be dependent upon the hex column.

It could be 1 turn for the westernmost cities like Minsk, Vinnitsa etc. 2 turns for cities like Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Vitebsk, Smolensk etc. 3 turns for Rostov, Kursk, Moscow etc. 4 turns for Stalingrad etc.

Then we can count a number of hexes from the border to find a hex column and increase the turn until you can use the city by a fixed number of columns (like 10). We could make it so the number is decreased by 1 per year after 1941 (but not lower than 1). That would simulate bigger rail conversion capacity for the Germans later in the war.

This would only be used for Axis advance into core Russian territory. Could be called rail conversion rule.

By doing this we could keep the supply rules as is.

[Cybvep]

A little more accurate solution could be to let the # turns needed to use a captured city be dependent upon the hex column. It could be 1 turn for the westernmost cities like Minsk, Vinnitsa etc. 2 turns for cities like Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Vitebsk, Smolensk etc. 3 turns for Rostov, Kursk, Moscow etc. 4 turns for Stalingrad etc.

I really like this idea. It could limit the German movement, but not their offensive capabilities - sth which we need, I think.

[Diplomaticus]

Stauffenberg's proposals here look like a really creative solution to me. It would seem to address both the game balance and the realism issues, without badly crippling the German war effort.

I *am* very curious, though, about this sea change in the game play. Am I hallucinating, or wasn't it just a few weeks back that we were hearing complaints to the effect of "What's the point of Barbarossa, anyway?" I wonder if a bunch of people didn't just take that as a challenge and say, "Well, I'll show you what a kick-ass Barbarossa can do!" I think it says something good about this game that it has room for the Fortress Europa approach, as well as the early Barbarossa gambit. The essential question is, has the game tipped too far in Axis favor? An earlier poster on this thread suggested that if it has, it's only for the top-tier players (i.e. more average players are still finding Axis the tougher side to play). Opinions?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

People complained when we had the reduced the supply range in 1941 because it became quite hard to take Moscow and the Russians really punished them hard during the winter offensive.

We remedied that by first delaying the Siberian reserves and later by removing the reduced supply range. That changed the war so much so Axis players feel confident to make an early Barbarossa (May 1941) and go for broke. That means most Russian players would be really hard pressed in 1941 and can lose most of their territory.

Joerock is actually not an average person. He's the only person who has beaten me in GS and when he's pushed back to the Urals in 1941 then it shows that he felt it was not possible to hold the line further west. It proves that the Germans can go full steam in 1941 and get away with it.

I've seen other games where it becomes the norm to lose either Leningrad or Moscow in 1941 or even both of them. That even happens between great players. The key is to start in May 1941 and not June. I tried to start in June 1941 in one of my games and could have got to Maikop and Stalingrad if it hadn't been for the fact I god mud in October 1941 (50% chance for fair weather). So I feel that it's easier for the Germans now than before to just rush eastwards because players don't fear the Russian counter attack as much as before.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

So if we don't want to reduce the supply range we need to do something else. The main reason we should be careful about reducing the supply range is the detrimental effect it has for the Germans once the severe winter begins. Having supply level 3 when the defense line is west of the historical line meant many Axis players retreated before the severe winter and should not happen. It's ok to retreat to a river line, but going all the way back to supply level 4 seems wrong.

So what we need is to make an incentive for the Germans to dig in when the bad weather begins instead of just pushing. Remember that if you manage to break the Russian line you don't need to be scared of counter attacks and can just move eastwards despite being in supply level 3 when you're near the Urals. You will use 1942 to get to Omsk and win the war.

So one remedy could be to again look at the time the Siberian reserves come. Maybe they should come one turn earlier than now?

[Cybvep]

Russian winter counter-offensive shouldn't be the game-ender for the Axis, so I think that no changes should be made here. Things are properly balanced ATM, because the Axis loses some units, but that's it.

The point is to reduce the German mobility in order to prevent them from advancing too far in 1941 without reducing the German power too much. This will give the Soviets more time to prepare their defences and they will lose PP at a slightly lower rate. That's why I think that the idea of implementing the dynamic rail guage rules makes sense gameplay-wise, too.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think one reason the Germans can rush as fast eastwards as they do now is because they can use the spearheads to capture cities deep into Russia and use the cities next turn to rail the infantry units there. That means you can rush must faster eastwards than you otherwise would have.

One example is that the German armor reached Smolensk in the middle of July 1941, but it was not until September the Germans moved on from there. The infantry spent weeks to catch up with the front line units.

I think the Axis player would be more careful if he can only rely upon armor as front line units deep into Russia. He has only a few of them so the flanks are vulnerable. Mechs can help to some degree, but that means the Axis will burn a lot of oil to capture rear cities.

If the Russians know the German infantry won't show up for some time then it's maybe smarter to put corps units in cities and protect them better. If the Germans have to take armor losses to capture those cities it's probably worth it.

So I therefore think the main culprit to the problem is that the Germans can rail infantry to the front line very fast and use these units to take most of the damage so the armor can move on. I use this strategy myself a lot and it surely helps. You capture a city like Gomel with armor and rail lots of infantry there the next turn to use the infantry to take Bryansk, Kursk etc. Then you repeat the process and get your infantry teleported deep into Russia.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

That is wrong because there is no way the Germans could rail e. g. to Kharkov in August 1941 when the standard gauge rail heads hadn't even reached Kiev.

So if we add the proposed change we actually force the Germans to rail the infantry slightly to the rear and let the units move up to the front line. That will even help with forming the main winter line because you can't rail units directly from Germany to Rostov in November 1941. You either need to withdraw or form the defense line with armor and mech until the infantry catch up. I think that's a good thing because the Germans will feel vulnerable having their valuable armor units exposed to counter attacks. That's an argument for not making the Siberian reserves arrive earlier.

Germany will now spend more time forming their line if they try to get the last extra cities before the winter. So you might have to give up some of the cities. This is what happened to Rostov. Here is info from wikipedia:

Much of the city was reduced to rubble by the German forces who occupied it twice during World War II (known locally as the Great Patriotic War) - in 1941 and 1942. The city was first occupied on 21 November 1941 for seven days. Hitler's generals regarded Rostov as a city of special importance, a strategic railway junction and a river port, the gateway to the Caucasus, and rich in minerals, especially in oil. The city was badly damaged by bombing. The German 1st Panzer Army was driven out of Rostov on 27 November. But on 24 July 1942 the Germans re-occupied the city for the second time. The second occupation lasted seven months (until 14 February 1943). It took ten years to raise the city from the ruins and restore it even further.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Here we see that German panzers (not infantry) captured Rostov, but had to give it up after just 7 days. In GS it's standard procedure to withdraw the panzers and rail corps units to the front line in Rostov. That won't be possible now unless you take the city so early so you can use it when the winter starts. Rostov would probably be in a 3 turn before use zone. So if you capture Rostov in October you need to keep the panzer there until December until you can rail infantry to the city.

So the more I think of the change the more I like it.

We can't have equal time for all cities because the westernmost Russian cities were linked up quite fast to the German rail network (Minsk, Vinnitsa etc.). These cities should still have 1 turn before use. Kiev and Smolensk should have 2 turn before use and so on.

I can easily program this change and have it ready for release candidate 9 this weekend. I will post a poll thread where you can vote on possible solutions.

[Kragdob]

Maybe not forbid but increase the cost of such rail. E.g. for closest cities it will be +1 when captured. For far cities it could be +4/+5 when captured. Cost would diminish by 1 each turn.

This way you could send an INF corps 'by priority' but probably not be able to rail anything this turn (unless paying for overuse).

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You can't pay to use a rail network you don't have? The problem was not the capacity, but that the Germans couldn't use the rail lines they captured. To make it even worse the Russian destroyed their rail lines when they withdrew so it took time to rebuild them.

Therefore it's not a solution to allow players to pay for use deep into Russia. It just wasn't possible regardless of how many trains the Germans had to use for this purpose.

[Morris]

Here we see that German panzers (not infantry) captured Rostov, but had to give it up after just 7 days. In GS it's standard procedure to withdraw the panzers and rail corps units to the front line in Rostov. That won't be possible now unless you take the city so early so you can use it when the winter starts. Rostov would probably be in a 3 turn before use zone. So if you capture Rostov in October you need to keep the panzer there until December until you can rail infantry to the city.

So the more I think of the change the more I like it.

We can't have equal time for all cities because the westernmost Russian cities were linked up quite fast to the German rail network (Minsk, Vinnitsa etc.). These cities should still have 1 turn before use. Kiev and Smolensk should have 2 turn before use and so on.

I can easily program this change and have it ready for release candidate 9 this weekend. I will post a poll thread where you can vote on possible solutions.

yes ,sir .you can easily program this change and have it ready for release candidate 9 this weekend ,Do you realize that although it seems a little bit balance the Russia situation in 1941 & not harm Axis , Axis would lose the chance to make enough progress which would be quite useful to balance the growing Russia's pp after 1942 .Without this opportunity , Axis will have less chance to win the game when he face a Allies player who knows when & how to launch counter attack in Russia .

Anyway , the idea of rail trasportation problem had been discussed several times before , Is it necessary to make it before the 2.1release ?( it is said by the end of this month). Since this change has to be tested by some pbems to see how does it work ,we do not have time . Even if without this change , the present game engine especially regarding to Babarosa is almost perfect !

So ,it is better to keep as it is .

[gerones]

To increase supply range to 20 hexes in october-november 1941 seem to me the easiest way.

[Cybvep]

To increase supply range to 20 hexes in october-november 1941 seem to me the easiest way.

Again, it makes no sense to use fixed dates.