Brutal Winter

[patton]

Two years in a row ('42-'43 and then '43-'44) I had "severw winter" last from October through March. I gather the weather is partly randomized and this was just bad luck? Made it impossible to move or do any real operations for half the year.

[massina_nz]

The start of Severe Winter each year is randomised, the GS user guide has a table in it with the probabilities. Regardless Severe Winter will always starts in January, if it hasn't started earlier, and it always lasts 6 turns, throw in some winter and mud turns and the only real campaigning months for the Axis is May to September.

In PBEM games, I've found that an early Severe Winter start can help the Axis as it catches the Russians off-guard, and they don't have enough time to launch an effective counter-attack when the Axis are weakest. That's assuming the Axis stopped campaigning in September. Otherwise they are in trouble.

[patton]

Good God, this game is so imbalanced against the Axis.

If you haven't taken Moscow before severe winter hits in '41-'42, you lose. Period. That is, you have no chance of actually defeating the Russians. The winter just stops the Germans dead and destroys them. Or you pull back to save steps but you will NEVER regain that ground. The Russians have a million PPs a turn and you will shortly be facing dozens of corps. Meanwhile you have to spend all your own PPs repairing and reinforcing. And the Americans send an armada of transports. Even though the AI is incredibly stupid about tactics, the sheer number of them is just overwhelming.

I know the victory conditions define "not losing" (i.e., not losing Berlin) as a "win" but really that is just semantic. Really, you lost. By any reasonable measure, the war is lost. I was just wiped out in a game in which I took Paris in December '39 (!), Leningrad in Nov. '41, and most of the ME oilfields. But once winter hits, it's over. Russian infantry as far as the eye can see, all my units were useless, and I could not repair even 1/3 of the losses every turn.

The point, I have read many times, is to make the game as "historical" as possible. Well, that is definitely true. The problem is, it plays out pretty much the same way every time. Quick German gains. Easy early Barbarossa. Winter '41-'42 slams Germans. Allies overwhelm with wealth and numbers. Axis loses. Period. It's historical. But it's not balanced. And for me at least, it's not that fun.

Don't get me wrong. The ENGINE is great. The rules are great. The map is great. The dymanics are great. But the balance is off. "Fun" has been sacrificed on the altar of "history."

/rant.

[richardsd]

I take it you are playing with a large Allied advantage?

Otherwise you should be able to defeat the Allies comfortably.

[richardsd]

and of course there is no winter in the Med!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

There is very little difference between severe winter and regular winter except in the first turn. The first turn the Axis will take an efficiency loss. First year -35, then -25, -15 and -5. The other severe winter turns are exactly like regular winter turns except the vehicle movement penalty is 1 in severe winter. It means armor units can move 2 hexes instead of 3.

Since the Russian units are winterized it means they attack at full strength during the winter. This simulates the winter offensives the Russians started each year.

If your German units take heavy hits during the winter then it means you attacked for too long while you had good weather and didn't rest to recover efficiency. I've found out that a good Axis strategy is to have a strategic goal for the year and think about which defense line you would want to keep during the winter. Then you move to that line and DIG IN. River lines are great. You also need to have a straight double defense line if possible. This means you can slow down the Russian winter offensive in 1941-1942. When the 1943 and 1944 winter offensives begin you need to start making a general retreat. If you stay 2 hexes away from the Russian line with a contiguousl defense line then the Russians can't even move adjacent to your units to attack due to ZOC from 2 units adding movement cost.

So I believe that most Axis players who get into trouble do it because they attack for too long and didn't think about how and when to switch from the offense to the defense. That's the hard part. I've told you before that I can play the Axis against you to show that it's definitely possible to keep you from winning as the Allies.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You certainly don't have to take Moscow in 1941 to win the game as the Axis. In 1941 you usually take only one of Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov. In 1942 you get a chance to take another of the strategic objectives. If you go for Rostov you can then swing towards the Russian oilfields or Stalingrad. Moscow is often heavily defended so you need to attack in forest terrain and take heavy losses to get there. A good alternative to taking Moscow is to use strategic bombardment to keep Moscow at 0 production. You can even use strategic bombers against Leningrad (unless you take it) and Stalingrad.

I think most players underestimate the power of strategic bombing. It's very important for both the Axis and Allies. I like to bombard Britain in 1940-1941 if I don't start Sealion. Having London, Birmingham and Liverpool pushed down to almost 0 production will hamper British production a lot. OK, you lose steps on the strategic bomber and the escorting fighters, but PP's are not the problem for the Axis in 1941. The key to Axis success is to delay the Allied build-up. That can be done in several ways. One is to build many subs to destroy convoys. Another is strategic bombing and yet another is to engage the Allies in military offensives like in Egypt. If you fail to do this properly then the Allies will come with a vengeance in 1942 when USA is ready for military operations. That means the German offensive in Russia will be hampered and that creates a Russian steamroller in 1943.

So all actions are in a way linked. You need to perform at a certain level as the Axis early in the war to have chance later.

I would also repeat that GS is balanced towards HUMAN PBEM play and NOT AI play. The AI cheats, especially at higher difficulty levels. It's not easy to balance against such cheating and at the same time keep the game balanced for human play. Our priority was to make a balanced game for PBEM play. So I propose you try to play against human opponents instead of the AI.

I would also propose you reconsider your playing style as the Axis if you lose. There might be other strategies that will give you better results. Read AAR's and try to learn from the veterans like Supermax, Ronnie and other.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

How you describe the German situation in 1941-1942 is exactly how the real German generals felt. They became overwhelmed from the speed the Russians recovered from the losses. A German general in OKW (Halder?) said something like this late fall 1941 "Our intelligence identified 200 Russian divisions on the east front. Now we've destroyed more than 250 divisions and still the Russians don't show any sign of collapsing. God help us. We're sure going to need that to survive".

The Russian capability to recover from losses was the main reason they got the upper hand in the east and could push the Germans back to Berlin so fast. So in order to win the game as the Axis player you have to defend as brilliantly as Manstein did in 1943-1944.

People tend to forget that GS actually tests both players offensive AND defensive capability. You won't win unless you excel in BOTH. Many Axis players think they can win if their offensive is strong enough, but most of the time you will fail to achieve a Russian or British surrender. That means you have to plan how to defend and switching the thinking mentality from attacking into defending is not easy. But if you do it right then you can certainly win the game. It's frustrating for Axis players to not sweep the board, but that's intended design. The game balance would be seriously flawed if the Axis could regularly get to Omsk. They certainly were far from doing that in the real war despite having great generals like Guderian and Manstein.

What would have happened if we had had the same victory conditions as the vanilla game? Then most Axis players would throw in the towel once their offensive is halted for good. That means most Allied players would never have the fun of taking Italy, starting Overlord etc. With GS people will play to the bitter end because the Axis haven't lost until Berlin and Hamburg fall. So both players get the same chance to be on the offense and defense. That's one of the things I like the most about GS.

[patton]

First, sorry for my cranky post. I had suffered a crushing defeat and was very bitter. I also spilled hot peppermint tea on my foot.

Second, your last post sort of supports my main point, I think. I am not arguing that Germany ought to make an easy march to Omsk every time. I'm saying that in the game as it is, it's close to impossible. So the fun of "outdoing" history is lost. You can't do it. The game must and will play out very close to the way history actually happened. The victory conditions can be however you, as designer, want to designate them, but the war which the game simulates is lost whether the Axis "wins" or not. And it's only a semantic or technical win because in real life, the war would not have an end date. You may still have a single one-step German corps in Berlin in May 1945 and you "win." But in a real war, the fighting would go on. There would be another "turn." And you would lose.

I don't want to sound crankier than I really am. I really do love the game and love the mod. The concept and game mechanics are great, as is all the extra detail you put into the map as well as the new rules. Just for me personally, a big part of the attraction of games like this is to succeed where history failed, to play out "what ifs". This game is so perfectly tuned to a historical outcome that doing so is very hard, if not impossible.

As to playing a human, if I can't beat the AI, how could I beat a human?

Actually, I have beaten the AI, but it's a grind. Playing as the Allies, however, I can slaughter the AI. I can prevent the Germans from ever taking Paris and have the Russians in Berlin in '42. Now, that's not so historical. OK, it's against the AI. I am sure a good human would not allow it. But it suggests that I am on to something about the game being balanced in favor of the Allies.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The AI is way too poor on the offensive to be a real challenge. You need to know the game well to take out France before July. The AI certainly can't and that means they will not be strong enough for Barbarossa.

It's certainly possible to win as the Axis without getting to Omsk. I won against Ronnie and held Berlin, Rome and Paris at the game end.

Many wargames are made to simulate a battle where the outcome is given (one side will eventually win), but the reason for playing is to SIMULATE the actual battle and see if you can do better than the real commanders. E. g. if you play the battle of the Bulge game the fun of the game is to see if the Axis can get to Antwerp or at least Liege or if their offensive will stall like in the real battle. The war is lost for the Axis regardless of the outcome, but at least they can get a tactical victory in the battle.

GS is meant to be a simulation of the real war and with equal players you should see the fall of Berlin in May 1945. I agree that you lose the war even if you can keep Berlin longer, but you did BETTER than the real Germans and that's a victory.

What's the fun in playing a game that's so ahistorical that the Axis can crush the Russians or British regularly. Then it's a fantasy game and not a wargame simulation. It's hard to do this in GS, but not impossible. Several players have managed to get to Omsk and win an Axis ultimate victory. If you look at the real war then they Axis would have lost regardless of the outcome of the war against Russia. If the Germans had managed to get to the Urals then they would have been brought to surrender from US atomic bombs taking out city after city in Germany. The only way for Germany to have a chance to win the war long term would be to get atomic bombs FIRST and use them to force an Allied surrender. But they were very far from achieving that.

Should we make wargames that would give the Germans a 50% chance to win the war? That's very ahistorical similar to playing the game SS America where Germany and Japan fight for the spoils in conquered USA. The truth is that starting WW2 was ta HUGE mistake by Hitler and the chance of victory was very low indeed. They could have won a temporary victory, but holding the conquered territory would have been impossible. They didn't have he manpower to suppress partisans all over Europe. In order to win permanently they would have had to conquer USA too and that's not exactly easy.

[gchristie]

Time to take the PBEM plunge. AI is only for learning the game mechanics, especially in GS.

I can attest to the danger of not halting offensive operations in September on the eastern front. Three times I've failed to do so, three times I got my head handed to me by superior allied players.

So I'm thinking there must be something wrong with my strategy, not the game, because there are many players that do much better as axis.

Give PBEM a try, the AI isn't going to get any better. And you can work out with your partner whether axis gets some advantages or not in order to improve play balance. I'm playing a game as allies with my opponent taking a minor advantage to see how it works out.

I'm happy to play a game with you but not until August.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't agree that you almost can't outdo history. In my game against Ronnie I had control of most of Italy and France by the game end. The Russians were stonewalled in Russia and I held a line from Leningrad to Moscow and Rostov (without having the cities). I could have kept the line for quite some time more. So I had great fun outdoing history. I did what Hitler hoped Manstein could do in 1943 and beyond.

Seeing the German line collapsing is not fun, but there is a lot of challenge dealing with such a situation. Just look at how well Manstein performed an aggressive defense in 1943. The Germans could easily have collapsed much faster after the tragedy around Stalingrad.

Not being able to outdo history means the Germans will be crushed before May 1945 in most games. I often manage to get further in GS as the Germans than the real Germans. I often take Leningrad and sometimes Stalingrad and Moscow. I can get to Port Said if I like to etc. So there are many chances to do better than the real Germans.

You were able to get to the Middle East with your Germans before you were crushed by the Russians. So you did better in some areas at least. Maybe you lost the way you did because you put too much effort into the side show (Middle East). Balancing the Axis forces properly is the key to doing well. You can't lose control in the east or you will be crushed in no time. But having enough units in Russia and at the same time be offensive elsewhere is not easy. But that's part of the charm with GS. You can always improve your playing style and hope for better results. Everybody makes mistakes, even people like me. That's one reason it's fun to play again and again. If I had found the ultimate strategy then GS would have become boring.

[_Augustus_]

You should definitely try the game versus human. Humans make human mistakes and blunders in addition to giving you a different challenge through their successful decisions. A game versus another person should provide you a refressing change from the grinding games versus the cheating AI.

Just my 2 eurocents,

_Augustus_

[rkr1958]

I won against Ronnie and held Berlin, Rome and Paris at the game end.

Ouch ...

I just completed two games and the axis won both. The first was a loss as the allies against Supermax as the axis who held Berlin, Rome, Paris and Moscow (an ultimate victory for Max and an ultimate defeat for me). Another Ouch ...

The second was a victory by me as the axis against another player. I held Berlin and Rome and almost kept Paris; but lost it with two turns to go. This was a major victory.

So here are three games in which the axis player achieved and ultimate, strategic and major victories against very capable human allied opponents. Well, I like to think of myself as a capable opponent anyway ...