Barbarossa: The War in the East 1941-1945

[Rocoteh]

Albert Einstain points out that one can produce much more tanks
(for example) in Barbarossa than was possible in reality.

This is correct. The reason:

The Civ3 game-engine in most cases gives the result that
the attacker or defender are completely destroyed.
A much more realistic game-engine like "The Operational Art
of Warfare" give losses in number of tanks, artillery pieces and men.
Losses in most cases differ from 1 to 20%.

Thus production have to be adjusted to the above fact.
Otherwise armies fast will be reduced to a very unrealistic low level

Civ3-Conquests also lacks rules for supply and command and control
which means that you can fight with 100% of your army all the time.
That is not realistic.

Firaxis-officials statements before the release of Civ 4 is not
positive news for hard-core Civ players that like the wargame-aspects
of Civ. ( I count myself as one of them)
The message is clear:

Conquests was zenith for simulation of war in Civ.
We will not see anymore realism with regard to that in Civ 4.
Its bad news, but its hard to interprete what have been said in other way.

Rocoteh

 

[oVerboost]

My engrish ish no thats good .

Someone said there should be more defence near Leningrad,...yes I think so, too. When you play Axis it is to easy to get through the lines of defence,...I dont know much about the CIV engine perhabs there is a way to get some units staying in that area (maybe fortify them).

oVerboost

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think that the immobile city garrison units in Leningrad, Moscova, Stalingrad and Svestapool need a really high defense value, at current they have 8, I think it should be something more like 16

 

[ComradeDavo]

I wa sthinking, maybe it would be good to give Leningrad (and other cities)some more 'fortress guns' to help counter the fact that the Germans will have many, many tank units?

 

[ed1977]

great scenario, but the first turn takes long waiting

and i been kicked out by the game if i klik on info about the aa mobile ... something. the game exits after that and i can start al over again

but i think what i have seen is kewl !!!! good job

 

[Albert Einstain]

Albert Einstain points out that one can produce much more tanks
(for example) in Barbarossa than was possible in reality.

This is correct. The reason:

The Civ3 game-engine in most cases gives the result that
the attacker or defender are completely destroyed.
A much more realistic game-engine like "The Operational Art
of Warfare" give losses in number of tanks, artillery pieces and men.
Losses in most cases differ from 1 to 20%.

Thus production have to be adjusted to the above fact.
Otherwise armies fast will be reduced to a very unrealistic low level

Civ3-Conquests also lacks rules for supply and command and control
which means that you can fight with 100% of your army all the time.
That is not realistic.

Firaxis-officials statements before the release of Civ 4 is not
positive news for hard-core Civ players that like the wargame-aspects
of Civ. ( I count myself as one of them)
The message is clear:

Conquests was zenith for simulation of war in Civ.
We will not see anymore realism with regard to that in Civ 4.
Its bad news, but its hard to interprete what have been said in other way.

Rocoteh

I agree about the difference in the losses model between reality and Civ3. However... In 1941 it is _really_ was the case - the whole divisions and even Corps and Armies are just disapeared by complete ellimination as fighting units. For Soviet Union in couple of month of 1941 losses came to 8.6 million people overall, between them 3.6 killed! Think about it - it is about 360 divisions just killed! more then 1.2 million people became PoW. It is 120 divisions more! So it will be very reallistic for 1941-1942. Another thing - Tank divisions in reality are usual fighting infantry. Civ3 model is good in this case - Tanks can retreat. After having some losses, sure. Therefore I see no real problem with realism as far as we are concerning 1941-1942 from Axis point of view. The same Could be said about Soviet attacks 1944 - Bagration operation. Actually the whole group of armies "Center" was completely destroyed, captured more then 80000 PoW. So my vote is drastically reduce the production of units, especially Tank units. Even in man-to-man game it will be OK, since each side could understand that those divisions are _very_ high priced and they will save them.

 

[saulosi]

So my vote is drastically reduce the production of units, especially Tank units. Even in man-to-man game it will be OK, since each side could understand that those divisions are _very_ high priced and they will save them.

Yes, but that would make for a boring game. I like the idea of massive tank battles following massive air and artillery bombardments.

There's a difference between realism and game play. I think if all scenarios were focused on making it as realistic as possible and the outcome was always predictable because of how closely it mirrored history, then they wouldn't be any fun to play.


Ricoteh, I like some of the other ideas about stronger defenses in and near Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. Maybe it could be done with a super garrison unit. (Immobile, very high defense (~50?), lots of hit points, and even good AA ability, maybe even some bombardment ability). That could interesting

 

[Serutan]

There's a difference between realism and game play. I think if all scenarios were focused on making it as realistic as possible and the outcome was always predictable because of how closely it mirrored history, then they wouldn't be any fun to play.

Agreed. For scenarios based on historical events, I
think that they should be set up so that the starting
position for all the civs is as historically realsitic as
possible. Which I think this scenario does very well.
From that point, the player should be given the
opportunity to play in a way that diverges as much or
as little from what actually happened as he desires.

 

[Albert Einstain]

Yes, but that would make for a boring game. I like the idea of massive tank battles following massive air and artillery bombardments.

There's a difference between realism and game play. I think if all scenarios were focused on making it as realistic as possible and the outcome was always predictable because of how closely it mirrored history, then they wouldn't be any fun to play.


Ricoteh, I like some of the other ideas about stronger defenses in and near Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. Maybe it could be done with a super garrison unit. (Immobile, very high defense (~50?), lots of hit points, and even good AA ability, maybe even some bombardment ability). That could interesting

I disagree completely.
Someone could say that chess is very boring game. But some other could disagree. If one like a lot of fire and explosions, probably strategic games are not for him. When something is high priced you will _think_ before doing something with it. And to _think_ is that all strategic games about...
Realistic and history copied - two different things. That is the main reason of the historical scenarious: put the player in the real historical start situation and give him possibility to change the history. Being realistic does not mean the same historical outcome. Givig one or both of historical sides abilities that they could not have (for example 20 divisions per month production for Germany) does not make the game more interesting. All the point is to try to take different decisions that was taken historically (but having the same abilities and limitations) and try to change the historical outcome. Give Napoleon 3-4 Tank divisions during 100 days, he will probably win the Waterloo, but I don't believe that this will be kind of interesting.

As for me I am finished as Axis in 42 turns (end of March 1942, 9 month after the war was started), last 15 turns was _very_ boring. Probably something is wrong with win criteria. After capture of Moskva, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kiev, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Murmansk, actually the game is over - after that it is just boring.
BTW, the most stupid thing: in this scenario there is no any reason to capture nither Sevastopol nor Stalingrad. Hitler wanted to capture Sevastopol to avoid Soviet ships/planes to bomb Romanian Oil fields. But there is no ships in the scenario and the range of the Soviet planes is not enough to bomb it! So no any reason to try and capture it. The same thing is about Stalingrad. Capturing it should cut the Soviets from the oil _completely_ and block any production of the tanks/planes. Without that there is no reason whatsoever to capture Stalingrad.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Albert Einstain]

Rocoteh,

thinking little bit more about the losses model. We have it in Civ3 actually. That is bombing/fatal bombing. Any unit with bombing ability could fire number of times according to its fire rate .If you will add fatal bombing - it could even kill. So we do have solution for loss modeling. What we need to do is to ask Firaxis to add possibility for mod author to apply the same schema for the regular attacks.
Another possible solution is somehow give to any unit possibility to retreat, even from more mobile unit. It could make things both more interesting and realistic

 

[saulosi]

I'm just trying to point out that there's a balance between as much realism (and historical accuracy) as possible and enjoyability. I think of Advanced Squad Leader as a prime example. Tons of rules, very historical, but I always found myself digging around the rule book too much. But I digress .

IMO, it sounds like you're playing on too easy of a difficulty level. Bump it up to General or Field Marshall, and it will be more challenging. I do agree with you that the Russians are too weak.

By the way, I like the tactic you mentioned earlier about how to use your aircraft. I've tried a game like that and it worked pretty well. I didn't eliminate the Soviet air force, but I've been able to keep enough fighters around to get air superiority for the bombers.

Cheers

 

[Albert Einstain]

I didn't know that Soviets are so weak. Till the point I captured Stalingrad I was under impression that I could be unpleasantly supprised, like Germans was in 1943. But that didn't happend. That as the reason that I played Gen Maj, and not more challenging levels. In regular games my level is Emperor, so I understand that that Gen Maj should be like it.
Balance is good thing. But this scenario lacks strategic balance, while has the tactical balance. The greatest German problem in reality was lack of fuel and reinfrocements. This was the main strategic reason of their collapse. In this scenario I had plenty of reinforcements and fuel was not in question. Therefore no reason whatsoever to lose. But I guessed that to late...

 

[Serutan]

@Albert - There was a discussion along these lines previously.
The consesus seemed to be that to make playing each side
equally challenging for the human player, there would have
to be a German version and a Soviet version due to the
limitations of the AI. I would have to agree.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Ok...

From my experiance in a human VS human game (me as USSR), Leningrad at least needs it's defenses seriously beefed up. The problem I found was that I just couldn't unit's into the city effectively enough, because of German air superiority meaning my oppenent destroyed all the roads leading into it.

Of course historically Leningrad was a seige, and I think it would be good to re-create that in the secenario, so I do think that it needs more immobile garrisson units added, and maybe a new immobile garrison created with a defense of at least 16, to basically force the Germans into seiging it. More fortress guns maybe, but defitnely alot more immobile garrsion units

- Cheers, Davo

 

[M60A3TTS]

Of course historically Leningrad was a seige, and I think it would be good to re-create that in the secenario, so I do think that it needs more immobile garrisson units added, and maybe a new immobile garrison created with a defense of at least 16, to basically force the Germans into seiging it. More fortress guns maybe, but defitnely alot more immobile garrsion units

- Cheers, Davo

I really disagree with that. This scenario shouldn't have to mirror history. Hitler's directive was that the Germans should lay siege to the city. It was a choice; they weren't forced to.

 

[SaepesGenistae]

I downloaded this scenario, and the first word that came to mind was "epic"!!

The unit and tech graphics are amazing, and I was very pleased by the fast loading time, especially since there are so many units and cities!

I chose the Soviets, at an easy difficulty for the first play, but was trashed by Germany!

Maybe you made the Germans too strong... I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what other people think (I'm quite new to civ, so don't be too worried if I garble on! ), but I would weaken the Germans a bit.

 

[Klyden]

It has been my experience with most games of this scale (around divisional in level) that as the Soviet, you need to immediately move a pile of units from your areas in the south to the north, especially around Leningrad or face losing them. While this may appear to leave the southern area weak, the Soviets produce far more units there than elsewhere and new production will hopefully arrive in time to save the day. This pretty much true for this scenario and also for a board game called Fire in the East-Scorched Earth (Part of the Europa series if you have ever heard of it). On top of that, it only makes sense as well. Most of the pop centers are in the south.

If you get units moving right away, I think you will see a difference.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I really disagree with that. This scenario shouldn't have to mirror history. Hitler's directive was that the Germans should lay siege to the city. It was a choice; they weren't forced to.

I have read your PBEM thread and see you captured it very early, way to early in fact. Capturing it that early is way to unfair on the Soviet player, and historically the city gave very fierce restitence which isn't reflected at curret in the scenario.

If you get units moving right away, I think you will see a difference.

As I said, against human the German player can (will!) bombard roads and make it very difficult to actually move the units there.

 

[M60A3TTS]

I have read your PBEM thread and see you captured it very early, way to early in fact. Capturing it that early is way to unfair on the Soviet player, and historically the city gave very fierce restitence which isn't reflected at curret in the scenario.

As far as it being fair to the Soviet player, it's certainly true that based on all the production that the designers gave the city, losing it has to hurt. I don't happen to think it's fair to give Germany Tiger tanks in '41 either. But as in any game, this PBEM game came down to choices. As of week 49, I still have not taken Kiev or Smolensk as the elite panzers headed north from the beginning, so it's a matter of a where my priorities are. Had the Germans placed an emphasis on capturing Leningrad from the beginning, who's to say it would not have fallen in Fall '41?

 

[Rocoteh]

I think that the immobile city garrison units in Leningrad, Moscova, Stalingrad and Svestapool need a really high defense value, at current they have 8, I think it should be something more like 16

"I was thinking, maybe it would be good to give Leningrad (and other cities)some more 'fortress guns' to help counter the fact that the Germans will have many, many tank units?"ComradeDavo

ComradeDavo,

Yes, I think this is very good ideas that should be implemented
in the next version of Barbarossa.

Rocoteh