Grisha

Balance in gameplay while certainly is sought after should not be confused with historical gameplay. In war, balance is something the defender seeks and the attacker tries to deny. When balance occurs in war one has a stalmate, a slugging match, a stagnant situation. When a scenario is designed from an historical perspective the intent is mainly one of investigation, followed by education. It's a learning experience. This was the origin of wargames, a teaching aid in the art of war. Like Andreas, I prefer to create wargame scenarios from an historical perspective, because if done correctly it can illuminate the conditions those commanders were placed in long ago and therefore bring a proper appreciation of the situation, both physically as well as psychologically. Before the advent of the personal computer back around the late 1970s and early 1980s, wargames were complicated affairs, requiring extensive rulebooks and long hours of participation. Units were either miniatures or small 1/2" counters one pushed across a map, slowly resolving issues of movement and combat as they arose. This sort of activity was not for the average person, but required someone with an intense interest in both history and military art or science. Because of this, players who would meet in simulated battle were looking for historical simulations that while balanced to a degree would enlighten or offer insight into the conditions of the battles or campaigns of those times. And this was not merely 'flavor,' but a deeply thought out consideration and attempt to simulate the conflict represented. When computer gaming arrived, the wargame went through a quantum leap in terms of time and commitment. The ability of the computer to discern all ruling judgements lifted the player from having to thoroughly read pages of rules, often with complex wording that approached law school technicality. Now, anyone could play a wargame, if they were so inclined, without the 'hassle' of spending so much time with rules or game preparation. Unfortunately, this created another problem: as wargames became more accessible to the average person, that average person started to make demands or suggestions that while valid in a strictly gaming sense, really had no place in wargaming. Which is where we are today, game balance vs. historical accuracy. At this point in time it would be foolish to deny each their own, since it's been over two decades since the emergence of computer gaming. Each side, the Gamer and the Wargamer (Grognard or "Grog," is, in fact, an old wargamer term [edit: well, it's a Napoleonic term, but you get my drift ]), have valid concerns and they should be respected. However, one should not mistake one from the other, and because of that scenario design will always diverge in two main directions. Gamers see the game (or in this case, the wargame) as the vehicle they must ultimately attempt to perfect. Wargamers see the game as a vehicle to better understanding the military art of the time. We all like to win, Gamers and Wargamers alike. But how we go about that and what we learn from it differ between the two groups. I'm a wargamer, and my scenario designs will reflect that. A Gamer may not appreciate that, but that's fine, because my focus is the wargame and the wargamer. [ November 15, 2002, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

Use the shift key and click to get the other sides (top of page 162 of the manual, US version).

pavlov, the site is back up, but I don't see your mods...

Good stuff, Paul! Thanks for the research.

pavlov, Bolshoe spasibo I particularly like the top one.

I was in Moscow last June, and the only thing stopping me from getting to Kubinka was getting one of my Russian friends to take me there. I saw the VVS museum at Monino - a working VVS base - and had no trouble at all. The problem is Kubinka is about 60kms west of Moscow - a drive out of the city for sure, and one that usually requires more planning than just jumping in one of the buses or taxis. Monino is only 10km away from Moscow, if memory serves me. I'll see what my friends in Moscow can tell me, and get back to you if they have anything worth passing on.

Sorry to be so late in the thread, but this is an interesting thought. The Soviets must've believed in the relative innate abilities of units, because they tended to send replacements according to their combat record and abilities. Thus, the best performing rifle divisions received the most replacements and the worst rifle divisions, the fewest.

I'm still collecting after starting back in 1972. However, what games I do play are with utilities like ADC2, or Cyberboard (better of the two IMHO and free).

Well, the Soviet tankers had their own names for the T-26, BT-7, and the like in 1941. One was "sparrow shooter" and another one was "knights in plywood."

There was a thread on this very thing wrt the VVS, or Soviet air force. You'll be surprised to know that by 1944 there was quite a bit of ground-air cooperation in the Red Army, going down as far as brigade, if not regiment. This includes, of course, an air liaison officer colocated with ground units for the purpose of directing air support. During the Vistula-Oder operation Soviet air units were even directing forward detachments as to the location of enemy forces and the best routes to takes.

I see what you're saying, Michael, and agree to some extent. However, you do run into historical issues, since air-ground cooperation varied from nation to nation. On the other hand, maybe if the demarcation zone for air targets was made in the scenario design, rather than by the player, it might be a way around this. And, if the scenario designer could create air target zones, then it would be the scenario designer's job to inform the player with air support in the briefing just where they can expect air strikes.

Nice work, Foxbat. Otlichno

I agree. It seemed strange that the only field gun for Soviets was the 76.2mm especially when the Soviet relied on direct fire much more than the Germans.

If I'm just idly walking down the road, and suddenly come under fire - even if at 500m - I'm going to be more than a little cautious. However, if my commander has told me that we might come under enemy fire, and to advance accordingly, then when bullets start flying I may be more prepared. On the other end, if I'm in a foxhole and all's calm and quiet and I see a bunch of SS walking idly down the way, you can bet my fire will be well aimed. But put some suppressive fire in my area with maybe even come cannon/mortar fire, and my aim may be off and fire more sporadic.

Hmm, good question. The Red Army received about 650 US T-48s (Soviets called them SU-57), and about 300 UK Churchills. We see the Churchills in the game, but no T-48s as far as I can tell.

Good stuff, Foxbat! Blagodaryu vas!

A bump so that everyone caught it.

Thanks, kump! That's what I've been looking for

Sorry for the long wait. I spent this morning putting two new chapters on the site, chapters six and seven. If you've been reading this Soviet novel, then let me assure you, the mission has started. Enjoy! >>Zvezda<<

Geez, sorry for my thickheadedness. Finally, sank in what your post was saying, Kip. You're on the money on that. I was amazed to see how much AP quality moved up, and down. The 45mm L/46 goes up in 1942, then down a bit in 1943. Wow. That is pretty neat! Thanks, BTS [ October 24, 2002, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

This caught my eye the other night: That jump in the penetration value in the red boxed area, is that a typo?

Soviet troops did a lot of crawling in WWII. Approaches to their advance line were to be unobserved, so if that's what it took to remain unobserved, then they crawled. They would crawl when making for the assault line during advance if terrain and intensity of enemy fire warranted/required it. They also were trained that if hit by artillery they were to 'creep' toward the front of the barrage. Granted, rushing in bounds was much preferred, but you did what was necessary to remain in one piece and reach your lines/objectives.

It's possible they burst outside the crew compartment, such as the hood. But, three misses into the crew compartment - that's rough. I just can't believe that a coke bottle full of flammable liquid and a flame, bursting in an HT crew compartment would be anything other than catastrophic to those in the compartment. Here's hoping they all hit the hood.

The only other thing I'll say is, I wouldn't want to be the rear gunner in an Il-2. No way.

Actually, they did use a fuel aerosol dispenser system, called a VAP - something or rather. Il-2s had two special attachments on each wing to dispense the stuff, and it was quite nasty. A large, long stream of fire. . . . . . . oh, wait, that's what you meant (I have Oleg's game, Shturmovik, too). Yeah, that would be cool along with PTABs. As for quad 20mm's, they can't be everywhere. Besides, that's why you fly in groups, some go after the AAA while the rest lay waste. [ October 23, 2002, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]