Moscow '42 balance opinions thus far?

[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