Moscow '42 balance opinions thus far?

[Volcano Man]

I find the discussions about historical casualties to be, well, quite silly. The main problem with casualties is that it depends on who is controlling both sides. If one side refuses the budge, and the other side MUST push them back to win, then both sides may hurl themselves at each other with much greater intensity than it was in reality. And this is really the problem in any wargame, mainly because the "commander" doesn't have to take into account long term repercussions. Why should I care about preserving my forces for the rest of the war when all I have to worry about is *winning* by turn 201? Again, who you play against usually determines how "fun" and "historical" the experience will be. As for F14 in particular though (since it was called out by name), I made some improvements there -- by taking VPs from losses into greater account so that should help, and I will likely make further improvements in that area in the coming updates. That said, "losses" in the game must be taken with a pound of salt. Historical losses usually only tally KIA, where as losses in the games can be KIA, MIA and WIA (any type of loss). Many of these losses could be returned to service (ie. wounded or knocked out vehicles that are recovered) and then KIA or WIA again, we just don't know that (hence the difference between "recovery" and "replacements"). The point is, I don't think the total losses are really important, rather it is the difference in the final total in losses that matters (that actually might be historically comparable in these games).

As for movement rates in winter campaigns, this is usually something very difficult to deal with, especially if some of the movement can be done through road networks. Having been in deep snow myself, moving TACTICALLY 1000m in two hours is not a stretch if the snow is three feet deep or more (which was pretty typical in the harsh winters on the eastern front IIRC). If you disagree, then I suggest that you clearly haven't tried moving through deep snow carrying full gear -- it is a terribly fatiguing experience so this is not unreasonable to me. The problem however (and I am guilty of this myself) is determining what level of weather conditions should be for a given day. I have come to realize that, for the sake of mobility, the weather condition should only reflect the absolute WORST condition, so in reality maybe there should be more MUD and SOFT conditions (in general) to represent occasional warmer days mixed in. Or then again, determining actual ground snow thickness by day is what you would need to do to be "accurate" and I don't know anyone that has information like that.

Just my two cents.

Oh, and "Sounds like another shoddily put together campaign" isn't quite a helpful opinion. ;)

I suggest to you guys to make your own mod -- do some tweaks until you feel like you have achieved your vision of what the campaign should play like. Everyone knows that you won't find two people in agreement.

[Strela]

Well where do we start....

As the designer of Moscow '42 all criticism for 'shoddy' work should be directed at me, not the series in general.

Firstly, let's be clear with some caveats. The campaign games have been very clearly called out as player vs. player. The AI is not capable of doing anything useful over a longer period of time. It is great for the shorter scenario but not anything exceeding 50 turns. Secondly as Volcano Man calls out you can only compare results to the historical situation if you play as the commanders did historically. The moment a player deviates from what actually happened results will change.

When setting up a Panzer Campaigns game I focus as a designer on a couple of key criteria. The first is getting the forces right. Who was present, where were they and how strong where they? The second was what was the 'focal' point i.e. what was being fought for at that particular time, was it to cross a river, capture a town, destroy pocketed enemy etc. The third was environmental factors. The winter movement, frozen penalties etc were included specifically for this reason. The environmental factors are probably the biggest variable to 'feel' in the game. Just go and play a Fall Kreml scenario after playing a winter game and you will notice the marked difference. The proof point for environmental changes in the winter was advance rates. Without the slower movement units were able to move much further than they could historically. Road nets became less important and the reason for fighting became simpler - just kill the enemy. As mentioned in the player notes the play test team spent a number of months tweaking the initial factors to get the 'feel' right for the winter of 1941. Let's be clear the crude offensive the Soviets used against burned out Germans was neither elegant nor efficient and players will find starting positions are not optimised. Why, because the counter attack was never intended to be a strategic counteroffensive, but a local operation that was expanded after the surprising initial success.

Now a few comments regarding ComradeP's strategy. 2nd Panzergruppe did exactly what you suggested. They retreated very quickly (90 hexes) back to the Oka/Neruch River at Msensk where they had prepared a winter defensive line. The short break they got by retreating allowed a few of their Panzer Divisions to rest and ultimately used in the counter attacks at Sukhinichi. To reflect this rapid retreat, there are no objectives until this line. It is different in other parts of the front where the Germans did hold forward and abandoning the forward positions will cost points.

My main criticism of the retreat at all costs will result in what Hitler was most worried about - a fragmented line resulting in a rout. The suggested retreat while disengaging the Panzer Divisions ignores the fact that the Panzers and Motorised Infantry are actually holding large parts of the front. The length of front line covered in retreat does not lessen as you pull back to the west. Any Soviet player that suspected the Panzers being pulled out of the line would find gaps in the line and drive travel mode Cavalry & ski troops through those gaps to isolate the retreating German infantry. The second fallacy in this argument is the rate of recovery. All the German troops begin weak and get weaker in the later campaigns. By using the replacement flag in the OB the recovery rate is very nominal at best and need to be in an area with 50% or higher local supply. This actually forces the Axis player to consider the conundrum of retreating quickly to try and recover strength while abandoning a lot of victory points and NOT attrition the attacking Soviets.

This brings me to the next point, the relative strength of both sides. The Soviets have a large positive in manpower. Any German that stands still will be assaulted. This by nature forces the Germans to consider retreating and picking where to make a stand. This is further helped by the placement of the objectives and their intrinsic supply sources. These conflicting values of victory points, strength, supply and length of front will require a fine balance during play. The German strength of firepower is impacted severely in the winter scenarios by both the frozen penalty and the weakness of their starting forces. Continual movement will not see any unit recover and that has to be taken into consideration also.

Let me address the Panzer Division question. These are not the units you have seen in Smolensk '41 or Kharkov '42. With very low (obsolescent) tank strengths and a small number of Panzer Grenadiers available they are shells of their former self. To get a feel of their ability on the attack, go and read the AAR that Dog Soldier and I have been posting on the Sukhinichi battle. The major mobile formation there is 18th Panzer Division and it has an operational life of exactly two days before it would have to be pulled back and rested. To highlight this fact even more, the Sukhinichi battle is at the far extent of the Soviet advance and the German's have good supply while the Soviets the opposite, yet the frailty of the Panzers is obvious.

Finally, let's say these issues that ComradeP called out are real. As the designer I could put more objectives forward (or increase the value of existing ones) to force the German's to hold. I could also set the replacement flag for the Panzer Divisions to 0% so they burned out over time. In some respects with the specialist equipment and manpower a Panzer Division requires, this could almost be justified. But these changes would be to prevent players doing something that was not quite ahistorical. The Germans did retreat some units in the hope of refitting them (just look at the setup in the January 6th & 22nd campaigns to see where this has been done) but they couldn't do it with all as the whole front would become fragmented (as it did) allowing the ski and cavalry backed up by the paratroop drops to penetrate into the depths of the German defences.

So in summary, as the designer I have given the player the historical forces in the historical condition in the appropriate meteorological environment. How it plays out from there is ultimately up to the player, but the player is guided by where victory points are, where chock points are (think Klin and supplying Panzergruppes 3 & 4) and how he can keep his troops alive and in supply while not losing the game. There are a myriad of strategies players can try but all will have trade-offs and I suggest you go and try your proposed methodology against an experienced player and see what happens - we did this and more during play testing....

David

[Strela]

I haven't played the winter scenarios, but have played one of the hypothetical Fall Kreml summer scenarios. Unfortunately, in order to presumably make it more of a "game" e.g. increase the Germans chances of taking Moscow, the Germans have been seriously overpowered and/or the Soviets under-powered. The main issues are unit quality disparities. Unit quality on the German side, per usual, is all A or B except for the minor Allies and some Cossacks. But most of the Soviet army is D quality, with a sprinkling of C. Added to this is a massive disparity in infantry firepower which, again, to me seems a bit overdone. The result is more akin to France 1940, where the terrain and time are the main German obstacles.

I also thought it was important to address this comment. There has been no 'artificial' balancing. For historical context, this is Fall Blau, just directed at Moscow. In the real Fall Blau the Germans advanced all the way to Stalingrad and significantly beyond in to the Caucasus. In game terms that would get you to Moscow in a canter.

The Soviets will have trouble standing up to the Germans in a one on one fight. This is historical. I am in the middle of a campaign game of Fall Kreml where the Germans have smashed the Soviet front line and are able to pour through the gap. Their problem is how far to advance? They have to wait for the infantry to come forward and either broaden the breach or line the flanks as the Panzers move forward. If they don't the Panzer Divisions get spread over a broad area and are then vulnerable to counterattack by the more numerous Soviets. In one spot on the front the German broke through with an unsupported Panzer Division and found that after a day of extended flanks they were forced to retreat due to heavy losses in Panzer Grenadiers due to artillery and air attacks. Panzer can take ground but not hold it and that forces a slower tempo on the game.

The other big difference to other summer Eastern Front Panzer Campaigns is the number of Soviet mobile forces. There is a large number of Soviet Tank Brigades & Corps and these will threaten and harass any extended Axis forces. The Soviets just need to hold the flanks as the Germans have to do all the attacking and are ultimately forced to spread out what initially looks like an unstoppable force.

Finally, the comment of terrain & time being the major German obstacles is exactly right. That is what the whole Eastern front in the first eighteen months was about. Both sides have this conundrum and the Soviets used it to wear down the superior German attackers.

My German opponents may want to add their commentary regarding Fall Kreml so you understand that there are more than just firepower values involved...

David

[Strela]

Finally one last comment. As Ed reviews his released games (1914 & Squad Battles) and provides updates, so do I.

The Variant 1 scenarios for Kharkov '43 were introduced (ironically with a lot of the items learned from Moscow '42) to stop the ahistorical early counterattack by the German Panzers. The community are the best play testers we have and if items are found that unbalance games or provide forces that were not available then they will be corrected.

As an example of unbalancing a game it was found that blowing bridges on rivers was all the German player had to do stop the Soviets advancing on Kharkov. This resulted in wired bridges being introduced. The early counterattacks by the Panzer was mitigated by reducing their starting strengths so that they were compelled to hold rather than launching premature attacks - this again moved the game closer to the historical record.

So with this in mind, please do provide your feedback, but make certain you have played out your strategy versus a human player and you can demonstrate why this solution was not historically possible. You might be surprised how many ways your opponent finds to take advantages in the flaws in your 'clever' strategy!!

David

[Dog Soldier]

Fall Kreml scenarios are far more subtle than one would suspect from a cursory review of the forces involved. As Strela mentions, there are a lot of different ways to approach these battles from both sides. All the approaches will have trade offs. There is no clear advantage at the start that can be easily maintained as the game progresses.

When the other side perceives the weakness, and there will be one, in your strategy, then things will get out of hand pretty quickly. As long as you are playing with the recommended set of optional rules, nothing will be certain, as it is in a real war, except for the artificial time limit of the game scenario.

The Germans have strong forces. But these are offset by a Soviet hard bunker positions, in depth, in most cases. These lines backed by powerful artillery, and air strikes from bases in and around Moscow. The Soviet air force called to defend the capital in M42 summer scenarios is not the meager force in S41 or K42.
The Soviets will not stop the German on the front lines. At least not everywhere. And where the Germans break the initial at start lines of the Russians, they will have paid a price to do so.

In several Fall Kreml scenarios I have been involved in, German pioneers are lifting mines under stressful situations where a company is nearly completely vaporized in a single day. ( 60% - 80% losses are possible with over 250 fatigue.) Leaving the engineers in battalions would seem a solution, except only 1/3 of the mines you need to remove in a day are now done. That alone slows your advance leaving you exposed to more artillery bombardments for a longer period of time. One does not want to stay mired in a Soviet bunker line for too long. You will need buckets to catch all the lead.
The engineer battalions can remove mine no faster than companies. They can still be very battle fatigued and lose 40% of their strength in a single day's action. These are very expensive troops in terms of VP.
Storming your infantry into the mines is not such a good idea either. Some bunkers can take several assaults to finally disrupt the Russian defenders. And a crafty Russian player can reinforce his bunker you have been pounding on all day at just the wrong time for you.
Meanwhile your infantry is being hammered mercilessly by artillery where fatigue of of over 100 points is easily reached dropping those A & B quality troops to B & C. Red fatigue before finally breaking through the initial bunker lines is not unusual. Think about plowing deep into the Russian rear with half your division units in red fatigue. Think very carefully.

Cumulative losses on the Germans do hurt. The Soviets have many units. Every time you have to pull a unit out of the line for rest and refit, allows the Soviets time to reform the defenses and harass your extended flanks. A good Soviet tactic is to attack in force when the Germans have thinned the lines to rest those units needing to recover battle fatigue. Now as the German do you rush back into action those units that were resting? Or end up with part of your division rested while the other part is now in need of rest repelling the Soviet hordes? Decisions, decisions.

Handling the Soviet forces in front of Moscow in the summer of 1942 a very different proposition than other PzC. These defenses around Moscow are in depth. Cracking bunkers open in the second and third lines can become a very tiresome job for the Germans. While there are times the Soviet player feels like a pinata, tenacity can lead to defeating the Germans by a death of a thousand cuts when they arrive at the last lines in front of Moscow, worn but ready to finish the job. And if the Soviets have been busy building additional bunkers, laying more mines, carefully hoarding a reserve like they did in Fall Blau, an exhausted German force may just be in for a repeat of Operation Typhoon. Out of strength on Moscow's door step.

BTW. Extend a panzer division at your own peril. PzII & PzIII tanks do not fair well against massed KV (Cave Trolls) and T-34 tanks.

I would not think the Germans have an easy time in any of the Fall Kreml scenarios. Not in my experience over the last two years of testing and playing M42.

Dog Soldier

PS
I look forward to goomohn posting his variant to the M42 CGs.

[ComradeP]

Thanks for the responses.

To be clear: I like the campaign's setup a lot, but just feel there are some balance issues. I don't think the work on it is "shoddy" at all.

Unless I missed it, no comment has yet been made on the motorized infantry being twice as fast as Soviet infantry even though they're operating in (deep) snow conditions.

I'm aware 2. Panzergruppe retreated a substantial distance, but eventually its line was torn apart, as can be seen at the start of the January campaign. The line will only be torn apart if the Soviets can assault the Germans or pin them.

As to German replacement rates: they're low, but the crucial thing to keep in mind is that you have time to refit them. A lower replacement rates just means it takes the Germans longer to recover strength, it doesn't stop them from actually recovering a substantial amount of strength. Take a look at 4. Armee, for example. If you'd run a campaign game until the point where it activates, you'll discover that many of its units are in fairly good shape after 7-8 days of refitting. Similarly, the Soviets in that sector are no longer depleted either. By the time Kalinin Front starts to get serious, 9. Armee will also have refitted to a significant extent, because the Soviet reinforcements only arrive after 2.5 weeks.

As to the Panzer divisions having obsolete tanks: most Soviet infantry units can't fire at them from 1 hex away and these are also the same tanks that made all those huge pockets earlier in the campaign. Mobility has a strength all of its own, and in this case that's more obvious than ever because if the Germans break through, their Panzer units can move several hexes per turn whilst the Soviet infantry can retreat only 1 hex per turn.

As to the Sukhinichi situation: it can't really be compared to the strategy I call into question, because in the case of the scenario, you're responding to a Soviet attack and have to rescue your troops from encirclement with a single understrength Panzer division.

The problem with a backhand blow is that the Germans decide when to launch it. The Soviets suddenly have to respond to the Germans, not the other way around, and they don't have a lot of means to do so.

[raizer]

I would be very hesitant to make any judgements on play balance and game design based on games played against an AI. The AI is simply a way to learn the intricacies of the game and how its played in preparation for playing people. I am finding the balance in m42 to be pretty good. To me, the scenarios feel right. I have completed the following scenarios (against people and a few with more than one play thru); Kaluga, which is about 80 turns and a medium sized game. The germans cannot back up forever, and about half way through the game, they have to make a stand somewhere, or lose it, and this is where the russians will presumably assault them. Valsov heads W. Same thing. This game also feels right to me, and again, the germans have to make a stand about halfway through the game or lose it. Solnechnogorsk, again you have germans forced to figure out where to stand fast or lose the game if they back up.
One of my draws against Sgt. Fury was decided on the last turn of the game. I had a minor victory as the germans, but Dave took a key VP hex on the last turn with an assault. We had a great time, the game felt right and we got a draw, I am not sure what more we could want in terms of balance.
I would suggest you play humans in some smaller games, which are, for the most part, pieces of the campaign game and then go big.

[ComradeP]

Again: I'm not talking about the smaller scenarios, which seem to work well, but about the balance of the campaign.

[goomohn]

To defend my 'shoddily put together campaign' statement; I don't own this title. According to ComradeP the Germans could retreat 150km (I assumed this meant the Rzhev salient) and their loss wouldn't be assured. The Germans withdrew 200km + at the north/south flanks, but with Rzhev fortified in their hands the attack on Moscow was probably always the major threat to Stavka. Thus, why the Germans drove virtually unmolested to the Caucasus.

I've read up on your game material Strela. Sounds like you've done a good job. I noticed you flavored your Soviet rifle divisions which no one else bothered to do. Fall Kremli is a great campaign idea. So I officially retract my shoddy statement ;].

[Dog Soldier]

Again: I'm not talking about the smaller scenarios, which seem to work well, but about the balance of the campaign.

Based on what? Have you played these games against a human opponent as they were intended to be played with the recommended optional rules? Or are you just looking at the map and making judgements based on opinion and conjecture?

Want to put your theory to the test? Contact me.

Dog Soldier