GS 2.10 Realism and Play Balance Discussion

[Clark]

It may be semantics and my closeness to GS; but I disagree with your characterization that GS is not wargame. In the 41-years since I've been playing wargames (started at age 12 in 1971) GS fits that gene. I also disagree with your the statement that GS isn't a simulation. I personally feel that at the corps level GS certainly is. It may not be at the level of fidelity of WiF ( who is); but it's certainly a much better simulation (in my opinion) than Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich or, more recently, Strategic Command 2. My experience playing GS is that the alternate strategies and results possible are alternate realities consistent with the historical record.

As you say, it may be semantics, I see a necessary condition for a game to be called a wargame to have an historical OOB, and certainly GS doesn´t have one, and don´t get me wrong, I love the game, but we should stop discussing modifications with the argument of historical reality, because the game is not a simulation in that respect, or we wouldn´t have a French army with no Armour units and an Italian army that does have one, for instance.

Well, the French didn't use their tanks as the Germans did. They had a lot of tanks, but they didn't concentrate them, preferring instead to spread them out in infantry support. The French had a number of other problems with their tanks, too - they didn't have radios, their tank commanders had little flexibility to take the initiative when the opportunity presented itself, and their fuel trucks were easily recognizable and targeted by the enemy.

And really, of all the countries' forces, I have the least problems with France being weakened a little bit initially. The unexpectedly swift Fall of France made the war what it was and makes the game what it is. A player isn't going to make the same mistakes that doomed France to a swift defeat, and if you have a slugfest in northern France/the Low Countries for several more months or years, none of the other elements that are fun for the Axis player (possible Sealion, possible Close the Med strategy, strong Barbarossa) will be possible.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Just for the record. Mech units are actually units with some armor attached to them. So in France we changed one tank unit into 2 mech units. So the French armor is there, but spread over 2 mech units. This is more accurate because the French and British actually spread their tanks in infantry formations instead of concentrating them into panzer divisions as Germany did.

Some people comment that Russia seems to have no tanks. It's the same story there. Russia had more tanks than Germany, but the tanks were spread into mech corps. Therefore you see lots of mech corps in Russia and no tank units. It was only after the reorganization of the Russian tank forces in 1942 that they formed tank brigades used as the basis to create tank armies.

Mech corps are actually very good on the offensive compared to infantry corps. Early in the war they don't perform well against tank corps, but later they will perform very well due to having a good antitank value. So mech units are the key to each country when you want offensive firepower besides tanks. Mechs are better than tanks against cities for example.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't buy the statement that a game is not a wargame because it doesn't have a historical OOB.

When you play a strategic war game then you are supposed to decide what to use your resources on and therefore decide your own OOB. So almost all strategic wargames will not have a historical OOB. World in Flames certainly doesn't have it. But that is what people love about playing a strategic wargame. They want to improve the historical plans hoping to perform better. The only strategic game I can think of with almost historical OOB is MasterFront by Columbia Games. There you don't build new units. You get them from a force pool with certain units arriving at specific months. All you build is repairing step losses and reforming eliminated units.

In tactical wargames you have a historical OOB, but in those games the objectives are limited. You're supposed to capture or hold a particular city (or cities). Then victory is determined compared to how well you did compared to the real general. June 6th by GMT Games is such a game.

What is a wargame? I claim that a wargame is something you play where you try to simulate a conflict from a particular historical era. GS v2.1 is a WW2 in Europe wargame because it simulates the conflict in Europe from September 1939 to May 1945. Even Axis and Allies is a wargame. I put emphasis on the word GAME in wargame. That means it's NOT a simulation of the historical events, but a game where you can try your own ideas to do better. In most wargames you decide which units to move and where to move them. So the end result will most likely differ from the historical result.

So I claim that GS v2.1 is a strategic WW2 warGAME just like most other wargames in the same genre.

I even claim that no games have a true historical OOB. You can take a snapshot at a particular date and try to put the strengths of each side into numbers to simulate the firepower of the unit. In the real war units were moved all the time, reformed, split up etc. If you look at the record of each combat unit (corps, division etc.) you see that most of them have been engaged in many theaters. That will certainly not happen in wargames. It's not effective to rail units back and forth. In the real war you sent units back to Germany for rest and recuperation and maybe reformed it with another unit to build it back to full strength. Then something had happened that meant the unit got a new assignment.

So historical OOB is an illusion in my opinion. Instead we should try to have an OOB at the start of each scenario that can create almost historical results if used properly.

If you look at the OOB in the 1939 scenario you see that Germany can take out Poland in 2 turns almost every time. France falls in June 1940 etc. That means the OOB's we are using manage to achieve rather historical results. That's quite an achievement. I still remember some versions of World In Flames where elite players managed to take Paris in September/October 1939. In those games it became standard procedure for the Axis to attack Spain and take Gibraltar. So WIF was modifed numerous times to overcome such flaws and the end result was a rule book several hundred pages big.

I think we should focus on that GS v2.1 actually works pretty well to recreate WW2 in Europe giving both sides a fair chance to win the GAME. E. g. being the Allies now in a German 1941 Barbarossa is not easy. Some Allied players panic as the real Russians did when the panzers storm eastwards. So even Barbarossa is starting to work pretty well now. It's not a given that the Russians will be able to push the Germans back in the winter of 1941 unless they defend well and build for it. So both sides are challenged hard in GS v2.1 and that's one reason it's fun to play.

[supermax]

I don't buy the statement that a game is not a wargame because it doesn't have a historical OOB.

When you play a strategic war game then you are supposed to decide what to use your resources on and therefore decide your own OOB. So almost all strategic wargames will not have a historical OOB. World in Flames certainly doesn't have it. But that is what people love about playing a strategic wargame. They want to improve the historical plans hoping to perform better. The only strategic game I can think of with almost historical OOB is MasterFront by Columbia Games. There you don't build new units. You get them from a force pool with certain units arriving at specific months. All you build is repairing step losses and reforming eliminated units.

In tactical wargames you have a historical OOB, but in those games the objectives are limited. You're supposed to capture or hold a particular city (or cities). Then victory is determined compared to how well you did compared to the real general. June 6th by GMT Games is such a game.

What is a wargame? I claim that a wargame is something you play where you try to simulate a conflict from a particular historical era. GS v2.1 is a WW2 in Europe wargame because it simulates the conflict in Europe from September 1939 to May 1945. Even Axis and Allies is a wargame. I put emphasis on the word GAME in wargame. That means it's NOT a simulation of the historical events, but a game where you can try your own ideas to do better. In most wargames you decide which units to move and where to move them. So the end result will most likely differ from the historical result.

So I claim that GS v2.1 is a strategic WW2 warGAME just like most other wargames in the same genre.

I even claim that no games have a true historical OOB. You can take a snapshot at a particular date and try to put the strengths of each side into numbers to simulate the firepower of the unit. In the real war units were moved all the time, reformed, split up etc. If you look at the record of each combat unit (corps, division etc.) you see that most of them have been engaged in many theaters. That will certainly not happen in wargames. It's not effective to rail units back and forth. In the real war you sent units back to Germany for rest and recuperation and maybe reformed it with another unit to build it back to full strength. Then something had happened that meant the unit got a new assignment.

So historical OOB is an illusion in my opinion. Instead we should try to have an OOB at the start of each scenario that can create almost historical results if used properly.

If you look at the OOB in the 1939 scenario you see that Germany can take out Poland in 2 turns almost every time. France falls in June 1940 etc. That means the OOB's we are using manage to achieve rather historical results. That's quite an achievement. I still remember some versions of World In Flames where elite players managed to take Paris in September/October 1939. In those games it became standard procedure for the Axis to attack Spain and take Gibraltar. So WIF was modifed numerous times to overcome such flaws and the end result was a rule book several hundred pages big.

I think we should focus on that GS v2.1 actually works pretty well to recreate WW2 in Europe giving both sides a fair chance to win the GAME. E. g. being the Allies now in a German 1941 Barbarossa is not easy. Some Allied players panic as the real Russians did when the panzers storm eastwards. So even Barbarossa is starting to work pretty well now. It's not a given that the Russians will be able to push the Germans back in the winter of 1941 unless they defend well and build for it. So both sides are challenged hard in GS v2.1 and that's one reason it's fun to play.

Well said Borger.

I say a warganme is a game where you play/recreate a battle, war etc.

It doesnt matter what it is, but even if not historical or else, its still a wargame...

OOB doesnty even count for deciding if its a wargame or not. I used to play Pafic War, and oh my this wargame had an incredible OOB. World in Flames not so much... But who cares? Whatever it is, if you play it its because its fun, like our beloved CEAW MOD

[Cybvep]

The problem is that there are some basic problems with the way various events play out in CEAW. I think that Fall Gelb, the Eastern Front in 1941 and the North African Theatre in 1940-1941 are the worst cases. I'm talking about things like no encirclements (Blitzkrieg without encirclements suxx), WWI attrition battle (esp. evident in case of Fall Gelb), the running show in the East (boring and unhistorical), no Axis offensive in Africa etc. If these were sporadic cases, I would be absolutely fine with them, but the problem is that they happen in most games and they give the game a very non-WWII, gamey atmosphere. That's why the 1940-1941 period often feels simply "wrong". Obviously, it's not 2.1 material, but these are the things that make the game less plausible and less historical than many players would like IMO.

On the other hand, many aspects of the game work fine. I'm especially happy with the Battle of the Atlantic. Given how simplistic the system is, one would expect that the results would be nonsensical and as far from historical reality as possible, but in fact, the system works quite well. It's much better than in HOI2 or HOI3, for example, which are generally more complex games.

The Eastern Front in 1942-1944 also works rather well. The Italian Campaign is almost perfect. Overlord is ok.

[Clark]

The problem is that there are some basic problems with the way various events play out in CEAW. I think that Fall Gelb, the Eastern Front in 1941 and the North African Theatre in 1940-1941 are the worst cases. I'm talking about things like no encirclements (Blitzkrieg without encirclements suxx), WWI attrition battle (esp. evident in case of Fall Gelb), the running show in the East (boring and unhistorical), no Axis offensive in Africa etc. If these were sporadic cases, I would be absolutely fine with them, but the problem is that they happen in most games and they give the game a very non-WWII, gamey atmosphere. That's why the 1940-1941 period often feels simply "wrong". Obviously, it's not 2.1 material, but these are the things that make the game less plausible and less historical than many players would like IMO.

On the other hand, many aspects of the game work fine. I'm especially happy with the Battle of the Atlantic. Given how simplistic the system is, one would expect that the results would be nonsensical and as far from historical reality as possible, but in fact, the system works quite well. It's much better than in HOI2 or HOI3, for example, which are generally more complex games.

The Eastern Front in 1942-1944 also works rather well. The Italian Campaign is almost perfect. Overlord is ok.

If the Allies had to do it all over again from the beginning with the foreknowledge of how their original strategy would play out, they would alter their strategy and we would see something "unhistorical". So you would probably see a stiffer more grinding defense in France, and the Soviets trading land for time in the East. Same goes for the Axis in North Africa.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

France 1940 is particularly difficult for all games to recreate. France had a force larger than the German force and still the French crumbled in just a few weeks. You simply can't force the Allied player to place the French units making a big gap in the Ardennes, thus allowing for an encirclement. You can't force the Allied player to rush into Belgium and recreate Dunkirk.

The same about 1941 Barbarossa. Stalin made a mistake in the early months of 1941 by defending far to the west, thus allowing for big encirclements.

We can look back at the real war and avoid the biggest mistakes made by the real commanders. Therefore Case Yellow ends up more like a war of attrition than a mobile warfare with encirclements. You have the same situation in most strategic WW2 games. What is important is that the game engine allows for France to fall as fast as they did historically.

In Russia you can certainly make big encirclements. It's normal to encircle a lot of the front line units on turn 1 of Barbarossa. Elite players like Supermax and Morris regularly encircle Russian units even later in Barbarossa. Just look at their AAR's. What you will rarely see is the huge encirclement happening just west of Kiev where almost 1 million Russian soldiers were captured. The reason is that no same Allied player will keep such a big force there when the Germans get to the Dnepr north of the Pripet marshes.

A game engine is made to work in a certain way and it can never be able to simulate every aspect of the real war. It will have strengths and weaknesses. Most game engines have a weakness with mobile warfare.

I think it's hard to simulate mobile warfare with a corps based game using the map scale ala GS. On a division based game like War In Europe then mobile warfare is easier to simulate because you have much more hexes to play with and units are smaller in size.

[Cybvep]

I can say that starting the war in 1939 was a mistake and that the game forces me to start it in 1939, so "we cannot force the players to make historical mistakes" is a poor argument IMO. I agree that hindsight is a problem in WWII games, but you can mitigate the effect with good game mechanics and nonlinear gameplay. Obviously, I'm not saying that there a strike through Ardennes and Dunkirk should happen in every game.

Please, don't say that there are encirclements in the East because in each game the Axis encircles some unimportant garrison troops, because this is a ridiculous argument. Also, there were good reasons for fighting instead of running - factories had to be transferred, the Germans needed to be delayed etc. It wouldn't be possible if the Soviets simply retreated to the Moscow-Leningrad line, which happens in 99% of CEAW games. Of course, the Soviets made tons of mistakes in the process, because the Red Army was clearly unprepared for war in 1941 and the Soviet leadership was desperately trying to stall the Germans at any cost. The SU lost most of its army in 1941 and managed to rebuild it even in 1941! Historical Barbarossa is not even possible in CEAW.

In France it's a bit similar, as making a historical mistake is not possible in most games, because Belgium and Holand fall in one turn, before the Allied player gets the option of moving French troops there, lol. In some ways it's simpler - you don't have to worry about the political fallout of potentially leaving your allies alone

All this is quite funny, because CEAW is clearly NOT a sandbox game and the game is trying to represent the historical conflict.

EDIT: Just to clarify sth - I like CEAW and I really appreciate the work the team has done so far. I just think that there are many things that could be improved and that CEAW is not a simulation ATM.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Well, if the Germans don't start the war in September 1939 then we don't have a conflict at all so why play? I agree that the biggest mistake Hitler did was to start the war in the first place. If he had just kept what he had after Czechoslovakia then it's possible we would not have seen WW2 at all.

The German generals meant 1942 was the perfect time to go to war if Germany really wanted that. Then the Kriegsmarine would have time to get enough warships to challenge Britain etc. We could certainly make a game where it's optional for Germany to DoW and let each country just build up their forces, but is that fun to play?

The truth is that Germany didn't have the production to keep up with the Allies if they had waited till 1942 before going to war. The Germans had limited resources within Germany and the Allies hadn't geared up their war production yet. So if Germany waits too long then they would not be able to even take France.

I see encirclements in several games I play. They are not as big as in the real war, but units are cut-off from supply and dealt with by corps units. I'm speaking of corps / mech units being surrounded and not the initial garrisons. It's up to the player how he decides to make his attack.

I've also seen Allied players losing Leningrad and Moscow in 1941 if they run away too fast. So you really have to figure out how much you're supposed to use for defense in front of the main line. You need some kind of defense or the Axis will progress too fast.

In GS v1.xx it was standard procedure for Russian to defend behind the Dnepr and Axis players complained there was no chance for them to get to the historical 1941 winter line. So the Russians were made a bit weaker. Then they were crushed if they decided to defend along the Dnepr, just as the real Russians were. So I can understand why players don't want to repeat that mistake.

You won't see a complete historical flow in Barbarossa because players don't want to repeat the mistakes Hitler and Stalin did in 1941. Still we get to a pretty historical line by the end of 1941 in most games and from then on you see the front lines shift in a more normal fashion.

This is just a game and it's not possible to simulate the real war properly. There are too many aspects of the war not incorporated in the game. We can just hope we manage to simulate it well enough for us to have fun playing. Typical aspects not properly incorporated are industry and the need for resources. We have some kind for oil, but not for the other resources like iron, nickel, tungsten etc. We don't have factories that produce materials etc. It's outside the scope of GS v2.1 to have this. I'm not sure most players even want it. That means more micromanaging. So it's abstracted out and simplified.

[Cybvep]

Abstract systems are ok, as long as they work properly.

Anyway, I want to stress the fact that the game IS forcing me to do X or Y (or doesn't even give any options), it is just doing it very selectively. For example, there is no Saar Offensive in CEAW and the Siegfried Line is as strong as the Maginot Line. You cannot try to annex Finland in 1940 - you must accept the historical outcome of the Winter War. You cannot cut off the Murmansk Line and even after capturing Archangel the Arctic Convoy is still functioning. Half of the point of the invasion of Norway was Narvik, but it's not even on map and historical battles never happen there... etc. etc.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The events are scripted for offmap activities and for countries not yet at war. E. g. Russia is not at war yet when the winter war begins. We could certainly have activated Russian in September 1939 and let them do all the actions manually, but then they can also remove units from the front line and form a double defense line behind the Dvina / Dnepr instead. That means Germany will have problems getting anywhere.

The alternative is to have a lot of garrison restrictions, e. g. forcing Russia to keep a ZOC presence in all hexes bordering any Axis country. This is what many games do.

We have inherited CeaW with some game engine limitations and have built around that. CeaW lacks the diplomatic aspect and that's maybe the main weakness of the game. That is, however, not easy to implement under the current engine.

[rkr1958]

Two points, or perspectives, I would like to make on this.

1. Based on the historical interviews that I've seen from series such at, "The World at War", I'm convinced that Hitler believed that Britain and France wouldn't go to war with Germany over Poland based on their non-military responses to his other moves prior. I believe his plan was to wrap up the conquest of Poland quickly (which he did) and then start building up for a war with the Soviet Union. Unfortunately for him, Britain and France didn't back down this time and declared war on him (or Germany).

2. With respect to being force to do something ... the way I view this is that your are in command of the arm forces of a given side; but you are not their head of government. We all know that politicians made decisions that not all military leaders agree with; but it's up to the military leaders to do the best they can with what they're given and asked to do.

[supermax]

Abstract systems are ok, as long as they work properly.

Anyway, I want to stress the fact that the game IS forcing me to do X or Y (or doesn't even give any options), it is just doing it very selectively. For example, there is no Saar Offensive in CEAW and the Siegfried Line is as strong as the Maginot Line. You cannot try to annex Finland in 1940 - you must accept the historical outcome of the Winter War. You cannot cut off the Murmansk Line and even after capturing Archangel the Arctic Convoy is still functioning. Half of the point of the invasion of Norway was Narvik, but it's not even on map and historical battles never happen there... etc. etc.

Well maybee you should start programming your own version of the game?

Just kidding, i just dont understand your insistence on minor items in the game.

[Aryaman]

Well, the French didn't use their tanks as the Germans did. They had a lot of tanks, but they didn't concentrate them, preferring instead to spread them out in infantry support. The French had a number of other problems with their tanks, too - they didn't have radios, their tank commanders had little flexibility to take the initiative when the opportunity presented itself, and their fuel trucks were easily recognizable and targeted by the enemy.

And really, of all the countries' forces, I have the least problems with France being weakened a little bit initially. The unexpectedly swift Fall of France made the war what it was and makes the game what it is. A player isn't going to make the same mistakes that doomed France to a swift defeat, and if you have a slugfest in northern France/the Low Countries for several more months or years, none of the other elements that are fun for the Axis player (possible Sealion, possible Close the Med strategy, strong Barbarossa) will be possible.

Yes, all true, but that was not my point, I was comparing France with Italy, that built less tanks along the whole war than France had in 1940. Nothing opf that appliable to Germany is to Italy, that have a tank force of 600 tankettes and about 100 M-11 in 1940, in all a very misserable tank force, yet it gets a tank unit.
And for once I will be interested in playing a game in which France doesn´t fall so easily, of course it will involve many different options, may be in GS 4.0?

[Aryaman]

I don't buy the statement that a game is not a wargame because it doesn't have a historical OOB.

When you play a strategic war game then you are supposed to decide what to use your resources on and therefore decide your own OOB. So almost all strategic wargames will not have a historical OOB. World in Flames certainly doesn't have it. But that is what people love about playing a strategic wargame. They want to improve the historical plans hoping to perform better. The only strategic game I can think of with almost historical OOB is MasterFront by Columbia Games. There you don't build new units. You get them from a force pool with certain units arriving at specific months. All you build is repairing step losses and reforming eliminated units.

In tactical wargames you have a historical OOB, but in those games the objectives are limited. You're supposed to capture or hold a particular city (or cities). Then victory is determined compared to how well you did compared to the real general. June 6th by GMT Games is such a game.

What is a wargame? I claim that a wargame is something you play where you try to simulate a conflict from a particular historical era. GS v2.1 is a WW2 in Europe wargame because it simulates the conflict in Europe from September 1939 to May 1945. Even Axis and Allies is a wargame. I put emphasis on the word GAME in wargame. That means it's NOT a simulation of the historical events, but a game where you can try your own ideas to do better. In most wargames you decide which units to move and where to move them. So the end result will most likely differ from the historical result.

So I claim that GS v2.1 is a strategic WW2 warGAME just like most other wargames in the same genre.


I even claim that no games have a true historical OOB. You can take a snapshot at a particular date and try to put the strengths of each side into numbers to simulate the firepower of the unit. In the real war units were moved all the time, reformed, split up etc. If you look at the record of each combat unit (corps, division etc.) you see that most of them have been engaged in many theaters. That will certainly not happen in wargames. It's not effective to rail units back and forth. In the real war you sent units back to Germany for rest and recuperation and maybe reformed it with another unit to build it back to full strength. Then something had happened that meant the unit got a new assignment.

So historical OOB is an illusion in my opinion. Instead we should try to have an OOB at the start of each scenario that can create almost historical results if used properly.

If you look at the OOB in the 1939 scenario you see that Germany can take out Poland in 2 turns almost every time. France falls in June 1940 etc. That means the OOB's we are using manage to achieve rather historical results. That's quite an achievement. I still remember some versions of World In Flames where elite players managed to take Paris in September/October 1939. In those games it became standard procedure for the Axis to attack Spain and take Gibraltar. So WIF was modifed numerous times to overcome such flaws and the end result was a rule book several hundred pages big.

I think we should focus on that GS v2.1 actually works pretty well to recreate WW2 in Europe giving both sides a fair chance to win the GAME. E. g. being the Allies now in a German 1941 Barbarossa is not easy. Some Allied players panic as the real Russians did when the panzers storm eastwards. So even Barbarossa is starting to work pretty well now. It's not a given that the Russians will be able to push the Germans back in the winter of 1941 unless they defend well and build for it. So both sides are challenged hard in GS v2.1 and that's one reason it's fun to play.

Again, maybe semantics, but as you yourself recognize, the OOB has been twisted to allow for historical results, and it is not that the player change it while playing, which is true, it is twisted from the start. The problem is in the game mechanics, that doesn´t allow for historical results with historical OOB. I myself have been said when suggesting changes in order to be more historically accurate that it wasn´t possible because of game balance and mechanics.
So, in the end my point is, you either have a game that goes for historical accuracy otr for well play balance. In GS you go for the second, and I am fine with that, but don´t claim at the same time that the game is historically accurate, or make decissions on that argument.

[Clark]

Well, the French didn't use their tanks as the Germans did. They had a lot of tanks, but they didn't concentrate them, preferring instead to spread them out in infantry support. The French had a number of other problems with their tanks, too - they didn't have radios, their tank commanders had little flexibility to take the initiative when the opportunity presented itself, and their fuel trucks were easily recognizable and targeted by the enemy.

And really, of all the countries' forces, I have the least problems with France being weakened a little bit initially. The unexpectedly swift Fall of France made the war what it was and makes the game what it is. A player isn't going to make the same mistakes that doomed France to a swift defeat, and if you have a slugfest in northern France/the Low Countries for several more months or years, none of the other elements that are fun for the Axis player (possible Sealion, possible Close the Med strategy, strong Barbarossa) will be possible.

Yes, all true, but that was not my point, I was comparing France with Italy, that built less tanks along the whole war than France had in 1940. Nothing opf that appliable to Germany is to Italy, that have a tank force of 600 tankettes and about 100 M-11 in 1940, in all a very misserable tank force, yet it gets a tank unit.
And for once I will be interested in playing a game in which France doesn´t fall so easily, of course it will involve many different options, may be in GS 4.0?

Right, but didn't Italy organize their tank force in more coherent units, more along the lines of the Germans than the French and Soviets?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

No game is historically accurate because you change real firepower into counters you move on a board. All games try to simulate the battle it's made for and are measured against how well you manage to simulate the events happening in the real war. We certainly don't claim GS is historically accurate. All we said is that it's MORE accurate than the vanilla CeaW.

In tactical games you can have the correct number of regiments, but the strength of each unit is determined by the game designer and not from the real war. It's a subjective assessment of how well the unit performed in the real war.

Map scaling in GS and the limitation of 1 unit per hex means we can't have all corps units in the real war in the GS OOB. If so then you would have way too many units on the map. The solution could have been to increase the number of hexes, but we're not allowed to do that. Or you make some kind of abstraction so you get a contiguous front line with corps units. Therefore you see the most important units from the real scenario on the map, but not all.

[supermax]

All valid points, but all the same. Again, you guys want to change stuff because 1 players dones something successefully. It almost look like you guys dont like creativity and always want the games to be the same. I agree its comforting for some players (i.e. strategically average players), but do you really think you will really changes the players that create the "need" for those changes? I will, no we will simply find something else.

I really dont get that.

And from Diplomaticus own words, its the CEAW game where hes had the most fun. Did you consider that??? Maybee you should ask him.

My strategy is a direct consequences of the developper making the Russians invincible.

Maybee you should reconsider the Russians as a whole, since even if not historical, at least it would be some fun for the germans if at least they believed that they could actually "win the war" for a change.

Also, most claims that i am playing defensively. Well, so far ive been pretty offensive. We are 1942 after all, and i am still on the offensive. I am also soon to be launching an offensive toward suez and there is nothing that says that i wont use my fleet when its ready... I did burn 600+ oil in Barbarossa 1942...

Point taken on the defense in russia 42 and on, but what is the difference from a normal game... 1942 is the time the germans switch on the defensive... So all this argument about axis defense is moot. The whole mod was centered around germany and axis having to be on the defensive from 1942. My strategy is an attempt to get around that purpose. So far, its going well.

Have you forgot the other Fortress Europa where i tried a landing in North America? That was in 1943 and that not what i call being on the defense. I am not stupid. I will ALWAYS be offensive when its worth it... Russia just isnt, since its very easy for the germans to conquer the map and keep the allies at a distance... However, if i could reach Omsk like before, i would never do the Fortress Europa strategy. Ive always loved beating up the Russians. But now, they simply retreat to the hinterland and wait for winter... BORING, and distressing for the germans that have to burn most of their oil to kill garrisons.

Thre is simply no gain for the germans right now to go into a full on barbarossa from 41. It only drains your manpower and oil. I believe this is the first thing you should adress before doing anything else to modify the game "balance". Make it worthwhile for the germans to win the war in the east or get some victory concitions out of it (example giving points for objectives cities in Russia to the germans). moscow held for 5 turns give you that many points, 10 turns that many nore, etc...

I know what you all think of the Vanilla game and i share this with all of you. But at least in the Vanilla ganme most of the time the outcome wasnt decided until late 1944, even later. you could also get more completed games... Recently i was playing against someone and he abandonned simply because i sent too much stuff to Norway and he felt that the game was lost, and he may have been right, since the balance between a good barbarossa and a bad one is very slim.

The axis margin for error as become too thight following all the modification applied after moriss brilliant strategies.

PROPOSAL:
I propose the following modfification when doing the new version: Make the Russians PAY dearly for not defending their home territory. Politically by having the americans entering the war later, by Turkey joining the axis side if the germans advance too rapidly in Russia, etc. Then, if the germans can actually kill some RELEVANT russians units in 1941, it will by far help them have a good time in Russia. You dont even have to weaken the russians, it will only make them think of better ways not to retreat too far but not get their army destroyed. It would create a very interesting "war of manoeuver" and change the Barbarossa campaign significantly. It would even make it interesting for the russians, since they would have to find creative ways to manoeuver themselves to safety. It would also make any "moriss type offensive" i.e. concentrating only on 1 area of the front non-doable. this would render Barbarossa more historical, since the germans would have to advance on a broad front (like historically) in order to catch the russian army.
My last argument is that the game (1941 Barbarossa) would be closer to historical reality.
What do you think of that proposition?

[supermax]

All valid points, but all the same. Again, you guys want to change stuff because 1 players dones something successefully. It almost look like you guys dont like creativity and always want the games to be the same. I agree its comforting for some players (i.e. strategically average players), but do you really think you will really changes the players that create the "need" for those changes? I will, no we will simply find something else.

I really dont get that.

And from Diplomaticus own words, its the CEAW game where hes had the most fun. Did you consider that??? Maybee you should ask him.

My strategy is a direct consequences of the developper making the Russians invincible.

Maybee you should reconsider the Russians as a whole, since even if not historical, at least it would be some fun for the germans if at least they believed that they could actually "win the war" for a change.

Also, most claims that i am playing defensively. Well, so far ive been pretty offensive. We are 1942 after all, and i am still on the offensive. I am also soon to be launching an offensive toward suez and there is nothing that says that i wont use my fleet when its ready... I did burn 600+ oil in Barbarossa 1942...

Point taken on the defense in russia 42 and on, but what is the difference from a normal game... 1942 is the time the germans switch on the defensive... So all this argument about axis defense is moot. The whole mod was centered around germany and axis having to be on the defensive from 1942. My strategy is an attempt to get around that purpose. So far, its going well.

Have you forgot the other Fortress Europa where i tried a landing in North America? That was in 1943 and that not what i call being on the defense. I am not stupid. I will ALWAYS be offensive when its worth it... Russia just isnt, since its very easy for the germans to conquer the map and keep the allies at a distance... However, if i could reach Omsk like before, i would never do the Fortress Europa strategy. Ive always loved beating up the Russians. But now, they simply retreat to the hinterland and wait for winter... BORING, and distressing for the germans that have to burn most of their oil to kill garrisons.

Thre is simply no gain for the germans right now to go into a full on barbarossa from 41. It only drains your manpower and oil. I believe this is the first thing you should adress before doing anything else to modify the game "balance". Make it worthwhile for the germans to win the war in the east or get some victory conditions out of it (example giving points for objectives cities in Russia to the germans). moscow held for 5 turns give you that many points, 10 turns that many nore, etc...

I know what you all think of the Vanilla game and i share this with all of you. But at least in the Vanilla ganme most of the time the outcome wasnt decided until late 1944, even later. you could also get more completed games... Recently i was playing against someone and he abandonned simply because i sent too much stuff to Norway and he felt that the game was lost, and he may have been right, since the balance between a good barbarossa and a bad one is very slim.

The axis margin for error as become too thight following all the modification applied after moriss brilliant strategies.

PROPOSAL:
I propose the following modfification when doing the new version: Make the Russians PAY dearly for not defending their home territory. Politically by having the americans entering the war later, by Turkey joining the axis side if the germans advance too rapidly in Russia, etc. Then, if the germans can actually kill some RELEVANT russians units in 1941, it will by far help them have a good time in Russia. You dont even have to weaken the russians, it will only make them think of better ways not to retreat too far but not get their army destroyed. It would create a very interesting "war of manoeuver" and change the Barbarossa campaign significantly. It would even make it interesting for the russians, since they would have to find creative ways to manoeuver themselves to safety. It would also make any "moriss type offensive" i.e. concentrating only on 1 area of the front non-doable. this would render Barbarossa more historical, since the germans would have to advance on a broad front (like historically) in order to catch the russian army.
My last argument is that the game (1941 Barbarossa) would be closer to historical reality.

Borger, what do you think of that proposition?

[rkr1958]

Max,

Ok, I'm intrigued. Why did you quote yourself in that last post?