Barbarossa still...

[Amnesia]

Hello,

can you tell me your opinion about : what scenario simulate the most realisticaly Barbarossa from June 1941 until the end...

Right now I am trying for the second time a not bad one :
Directive 21 1941 - 1945 (computer strong)
For my first attempt I stoped in January 1943, the pressure was getting to hard everywhere and I had reached the conclusion that it was hopeless...

  east front -.jpg (Size: 187.27 KB / Downloads: 16)

Lot of years ago, on TOWN I, with a much lower experience than today I designed this one but I never tried it myself !! So if someone already tried it, I would be interested to know how it goes..

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenari...y-Amnesia)

Also, I wonder if I am the only one who hate : the scenarios with some events which are here ONLY to force the scenario to follow the real facts, like some shock event at 120% or 80% just at the right moment because the designer absolutly want that the player feel the same defeat in the same way that it was historicaly...These event can have a meaning sometimes : giving a 120% shock and air shock to Germans in Barbarossa for the 2 first turns, it is ok, but then placing accurately some negative shocks to force germans to struggle and get robbed at the same historical dates, why ?

[burroughs]

As far as I know "Barbarossa" was derailed at Smolensk, starting in July '41 , and it definitely didn't last past December the same year so dunno what You were doing in Jan 1943, but that wasn't "Barbarossa". Having said that, I am afraid I cannot point to anything based on my own experience as I simply don't have any with "Barbarossa" as such, but for Army Group South in "The Waters of Dneper" by Pavel Volyov and crossing the border in the centre.

Certain limitations need to be imposed to simulate certain objective facts like the harsh winter '39 - '40 in Europe Aflame. Once my opponent for "Indochina 1951 - 54" lamented that he is not allowed to use all of the units and subunits which are on garrison duties, another that I objected his paradrops on supply entry points - there are certain simplifications and sometimes even oversimplifications or ,on the other hand, something that seems a mere and unnecessary complication, but in the long run it is often fully justified, especially in scenarios that attempt to reenact historic circumstances. Are You going to object the appearance of mud and the general German unpreparedness for that? How would You simulate the lack of winter grease and other paraphernalia in the game once the winter comes and it comes early and jerry is still away from Moscow?

[Amnesia]

As far as I know "Barbarossa" was derailed at Smolensk, starting in July '41 , and it definitely didn't last past December the same year so dunno what You were doing in Jan 1943, but that wasn't "Barbarossa".

hmmm.....Ok Sir ! replace my word "Barbarossa" by --> Nazi campaign in East....If you like accuracy of terms..

I was not really accurate in my words so I understand your reaction...
I will try to give you 2 opposited examples to express my view..

On the turn 1 of my current game (Directive 21 1941 - 1945)
There are shock event for air and ground axis forces at 120 if my memory is fine..Then quickly it decreases to 110 then 105, 100..In the meanwhile soviet forces have a negative air shock in the begining..
I consider these event realistics if we consider that the attack was launched by surprise especialy when there was a pact of non agression.

But from spring 43, here I have the possibility to launch Citadel (the big Kursk armored battle)
So when I activate the event in the theater option list, there is a 120% boost shock for Germans (which is a first mistakes because historically this offensive was not a surprise at all for soviets...), and soon after it decreases to 80% to simulate the failure at Koursk, with a message saying : "Germans forces are too extended !"

So it means that if before I had improved the war in avoiding big mistakes at Moscow and Stalingrad, the scenario doesn't give a shit and fuck me with a 80% on the whole front line, from Finland to Caucase and I just get robbed even if my forces was fine and well defended.

Another example I saw was for the war between Italian and greeks...Your start with a shock at 70% for greek which will suddenly goes to 100...So from one turn to another the greek potential is multiplied by 1,43 ! Whatever if I manage much better than italian commanders or not, I get destroyed stupidely here.

I have an opinion about this...I have a great great respect for scenario designers, but I think that sometimes shock events are used and abused to force the scenario into the historical issue to compensate the lack of accuracy in the global design...A perfect scenario, with ALL the option available in the scenario editor, should be made in using NO shock effect at all and still reproduices the same balance than it was historicaly.

[burroughs]

Yes, the shock effect in the game are unfortunately applied throughout the entire theatre covered by the scenario map and there is no way to make it work discriminately. The shock bonus for the OKH in operation "Citadel" is IMHO completely justified as it is not supposed to represent the surprise effect - as we both know the surprise it was not for Stavka and the Soviets even managed to launch a pre-emptive attack and organize a counteroffensive in effect - but the amassed war materiel and forces reorganized along the lines of the plan for the forthcoming operation, sometimes extensive briefings and / or even a specific training and rehearsals - so naturally they are better prepared for what is going to happen and that does not imply anything else. If the Soviets were frozen in place, subjected to reorganization event or just inactive - that would be something terribly wrong and that would mean they're surprised and paralyzed by inertia to respond adequately to a fast developing crisis.
This is often a problem with historic scenarios - players want or expect or object their sticking to history or deviating from that on the other hand.