Slitherine

Good finding Leridano and one reason we need to playtest quite a bit before trying out some changes. Have you tried to play e. g. the 1941 scenario to check how the Germans perform during the first Russian winter? Will the slightly higher values mean they can prolong the offensive?

Stauffenberg wrote:Good finding Leridano and one reason we need to playtest quite a bit before trying out some changes. Have you tried to play e. g. the 1941 scenario to check how the Germans perform during the first Russian winter? Will the slightly higher values mean they can prolong the offensive?

I will give a try to this with 60 air units effectiveness reduction for german air units.

Stauffenberg wrote: Winterization is not something you can research easily. It's actually part of growing up in such a country. E. g. the only winterized countries are Russia and the Scandinavian ones because people there are used to cold weather and lots of snow. It means the soldiers can ski to get forward. The equipment you build is designed to sustain the cold weather and so on.

So Russian troops are better acclimated to German winters than German troops? I think there is a pretty strong historical case to be made that the problems the Axis faced with winter were a function of severe Russian winters, not winter in general, and that they were a function of equipment/clothing deficiencies. The pictures we see and stories we hear about the Axis having problems in winter are essentially from 1941 and 1942 when they were deep inside Russia--nothing about Polish/French/German winters. That they suffered more than the Russians was not because the Russians were somehow innately more resistant to winter but because of a lack of adequate clothing and winterized equipment. (see Russian experience in Finnish War when the shoe was on the other foot)

There seems to be consensus that the rules for the North/East zone are right...Axis suffer effectiveness loss along with combat operational capabilities in terms of Ground Attack/Air/Shock/Strategic (GASS) to reflect equipment/clothing deficiencies. It is in the meta-area comprising all other zones with winter that Russian/Nordic immunity to the winter GASS penalties do not make sense. (as has been pointed out in this thread winter was indiscriminate in complicating operations)

Suggest therefore imposing the winter GASS penalties to all nationalities. Without any other modifications however, this will have the effect of leveling the playing field somewhat for the Axis during Severe Winter in that the Russians will now have the GASS penalties. This is where the suggestion for winter tech makes so much sense in that the Russians and other Nordic nationalities could be given an initial advantage over the Axis to reflect their experience regarding the need to winterize equipment and soldiers. Winter tech advances would have the effect of reducing the GASS penalties and the effectiveness penalties for the Axis and would REPLACE the lowering of the Axis effectiveness penalty for winters after 1941. An Axis investment in winter tech is now the only mechanism for reducing (or even negating) the winter advantage enjoyed by the Russians. Players can now choose how much to let winter penalties affect their forces while preserving play balance through initial Russian/Nordic winter tech advances.

Each level would cost ~25 with the following benefits*:

Level 1: Axis +10 effectiveness
Level 2: Axis +5 effectiveness, Armor Ground Attack +1
Level 3: Axis +5 effectiveness, no non-Armor Ground Attack penalty, Air/Shock/Strategic +1 (initial Russian/Nordic level**)
Level 4: Axis +5 effectiveness, no Armor Ground Attack penalty
Level 5: Axis no effectiveness penalty
Level 6: no Air/Shock/Strategic penalty

*In all cases the "benefits" are merely reductions to penalties, ie there is no way Effectiveness or GASS factors could exceed Fair weather levels.
**Russian/Nordic infantry and mechanized would start with no GASS penalties which should help preserve Russian winter operational edge.

In closing I feel compelled to make the observation that in all of the discussions re play balance there is little to no recognition that CEAW has always possessed a handicap function. Letting the handicap function address non-severe play balance issues makes a more sense than trying to achieve a perfectly balanced game--a goal which I suspect may be unachievable. (I used to play a lot of Advanced Squad Leader and the scenarios included three levels of handicap for each side which 99% of the time addressed any play balance issues) This is my long-winded way of saying maybe the advantage a change gives to one side doesn't automatically require a code change.

Celeborn--very good points.

I think winterization is more to do with equipment, then with men themselves.
For example entire division of this guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panfilov%2 ... _Guardsmen were formed in southern desert part of USSR (Kazakhstan), so they are not like northern people at all.
And still they fought exceptionally well in battle for Moscow.

Many other USSR army formations had nothing to do with "people grown up in cold regions" aswell, since country was large and multi-national.

Also weather in european part of russia (where action often takes place in CEAW) is not really so harsh, as in Syberia. (Not sure about WW II times, but now its only couple of weeks, when temperature is ~ -20 C, often its pretty comfortabe and closer to -10 C.) And winter in western areas like Ukraine/Belorussia/Baltic states can be even warmer.

I think in winter 1941 soviet troops suffered all same problems, as germans did, thanks to outstanding cold winter, but they didn't have to move so many heavy equipment for so lond distances, since they were on defence. Also soviet tanks/planes/trucks had better generic level of performance at cold weather (not ideal ofcource, but better then most german)

In winter 1942-43 in Stalingrad battle german troops were first of all out of supplies, so influence of winter was not so great. They would suffer from lack of food/ammo/medicaments any way. And Romanian/Italian troops (who's poor performance was the reason of Stalingrad pocket) could be easily defeated by soviets at good weather aswell.

Winter 1943-44 was rather warm, but german army was already in terrible fighting shape, after lost battle for Dnepr.

Severe winter (and other things, repeating in german general's memoirs, like stupid Hitler who always ruined their brilliant plans) is only partly reality, but partly a myth created by themselves to justify their erorrs.

Yes german troops were totally unprepaired for winter in 1941, but who's failure is it? Didn't their leaders had common climate map, which every schoolboy can look at? Didn't they know that it may be cold, if you stuck in Moscow outskirts in December/January? Didn't they know, that fanatic soviet people will keep on fighting, even if germans enter Moscow?

So I think role of cold winters is a bit overestimated, when overlooking war on the east, but in game current concept going well, allowing soviets to mount effecient winter offencives. I think its some abstract concept, and its working OK as it is.

Plaid wrote: Didn't they know that it may be cold, if you stuck in Moscow outskirts in December/January? Didn't they know, that fanatic soviet people will keep on fighting, even if germans enter Moscow?

I think they thought the war would be over by the fall. As I understand it this was a function of the poor Soviet performance against little Finland as well as the decimation of the Soviet officer corps during Stalin's purges in the 1930s. Had Germany not gotten entangled in the Balkans/Greece in the spring of 1941 the invasion likely would have started a couple weeks earlier (at least) and Moscow may well have been taken before the harsh winter hit. This wouldn't have meant the end of the USSR but it probably would have complicated the reallocation of the Siberian reserves sufficiently enough to give the Germans time to go into winter quarters and fight from more defensible/prepared positions.

There are actually several reasons why the Germans lost so heavily during the winter of 41-42. Yes they lacked simple lubricants which would've allowed them to start their engines and fire their guns. And yes, their clothing was so bad they were losing more men to frostbite than combat. But also, they failed to dig-in and establish defensive lines before the ground froze and hardened, so they had to retreat to towns and villages for cover. Their units were already well below strength due to a long campaign season where very few replacements were sent to the front. Finally, the Germans' first winter in Russia was historically bad weather, even by normal averages for the region. This is described pretty well in Carell's book.

But slowly they learned from Soviet POWs how to operate in Winter. For instance, they would lite fires under their engines to warm up the oil in the morning. Similarly, the Africa Corps had to figure out how to operate in the dessert. They learned that engines had to overhauled more frequently and needed additional air filters and troops needed to carry alot more water. So they adapted and the dessert wasn't any more of a disadvantage to them than the British.

Instead of Winter tech, why not say that units that have a certain Level or higher have been given the additional training and equipment to better handle extreme weather and climates? Players would have to spend more to upgrade their units if they want to avoid penalties..