The Initial Russian front line is bad for the game.

[JerseyJohn]

NonSuch

Short of an actual weather system your idea sounds like a good alternative. Being closer to cities would have helped. When Hitler's generals wanted to retreat that first winter he told them, with more than a little good sense, "Retreat to what, more snow!"

Unfortunately this wisdom came after the folly of ordering them to advance beyond their supply capabilities.

[Liam]

Yes, pointing that there is a line between Soviet and Wermacht supply after taking down the initial cities and approaching Leningrad & Moscow. Ever play Eastern Front by SSI? I appreciated their severe Winter, as 1941 was a harsh one. Didn't the Russians keep most of their offensives to the Winter until 1943? For that is when the more mechanized Germans would be weakest and they would be a bit more in their natural element. Also being in a foreign country so deep! Not like Germany in France, so close to home lines... and resupply... In reality I doubt you could assemble units anywhere but Germany and her Minors and ship them out from there to the Front...Lots of things to consider but again more detail, more depth and thus SC Complete Strategic Warfare with all the great minds here to add and complete it... My want for this game

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by Liam:

I appreciated their severe Winter, as 1941 was a harsh one. Didn't the Russians keep most of their offensives to the Winter until 1943?

Actually it was the worst winter in 100 years. It effected a lot of soviet units also. In the book War in the East there is an account of German soldiers retreating from village where they had been encircled by the russian forces. They drove right past the red army units that had frozen in the open fields during the night.

The soviets attempted several offensives in spring 1942. First was to take Kharkov, and that ran right into the 6th Army which had been building up for the drive that would take it to stalingrad and it's doom (60 years ago this past Feb 2). Those russian forces promptly were encircled and destroyed, including a large bulk of Armour.

Stalin also ordered the relief of Leningrad which resulted in Vlasov's 2nd Shock Army becoming encircled and destroyed in May 1942. Vlasov went on to lead anti-communist russian forces against his former commanders. He was executed after the war.

The major failures of those two offensives and loss of manpower and equipment ended the hope of any further soviets offensives that summer. Then of course Blue opened up in June and put the russians back on the defensive.

Kursk of course was a decision by the Red Army to stay on the defensive and wait for the Germans to show their hand.

There were several attempts during the German invasion in Summer/Autumn 1941 by the soviets to go on the offensive. These failed.

So the Red Army was not strictly a winter only offensive beast in the early part of the war. Of course those winters offensives of 1941 and 1942 where massive in scope.

Weather is definately a much needed factor in SC.

[JerseyJohn]

Konstantin

Great Post. Excellent info. It isn't mentioned often enough that Stalin, after using his Siberian Armies to push the Germans back from Moscow, proceeded to grind his own reserves to death in scattered doomed offensives. Soviet losses had been so high that by the summer of '42 Hitler, along with many of his generals, thought the Russians were already bled white.

Also good to hear Russian soldiers freezing to death was a factor. Too often they're portrayed as snowmen impervious to the cold. The Czar's poorly equipped armies were particularly prone to weather casualties during WW I.

[ February 10, 2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Whats wrong with the loss of the units on the border? Russia has more than enough MPP's to buy replacement Corps. Isn't that kinda the point? Even if you line units up one on top of another, all the Germans have to do is pick a unit to hit with air, eliminate that unit, then pour panzers/corps thru to encircle the other units.

Shaka, the wrong thing is the BIG difference between a successful first axis move and a bad one. The stakes and rewards are just too high. The Russian wars should not be decided already in that first axis attack on a well known russian position.

Having more corps+placing them slightly further back would prevent a total Russian disaster.

[ February 12, 2003, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Zappsweden

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Whats wrong with the loss of the units on the border? Russia has more than enough MPP's to buy replacement Corps. Isn't that kinda the point? Even if you line units up one on top of another, all the Germans have to do is pick a unit to hit with air, eliminate that unit, then pour panzers/corps thru to encircle the other units.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shaka, the wrong thing is the BIG difference between a successful first axis move and a bad one. The stakes and rewards are just too high. The Russian wars should not be decided already in that first axis attack on a well known russian position.

Having more corps+placing them slightly further back would prevent a total Russian disaster

So in your opinion, if the Russians lose thier entire first line units, the war is over? Any representation of the Eastern War assumes that Russia will lose its initial army. Just like the fact that Poland will always fall to Germany. Russia is provided with more than enough MPP's to build itself a new army. The key is where to place the new defensive line.

Even if Germany makes it back all the way to Moscow in the first few turns, Axis now have serious supply problems.

Just as a fluke, why don't you try this. When Russia is invaded, buy Corps and place them by Moscow. Move the Armor and Air units back to Mosow. Don't bother to defend anything, other than leaving a Corp in the cities. Keep buying Corps. Once they reach Moscow, count the number of units you have.

[Shaka of Carthage]

While it would be nice to have the combat effects of weather, lets not get confused about what those effects are.

The Russians where not any better at fighting in bad weather than anyone else. They were just willing to accept the manpower losses those conditions meant. Attrition warfare.

[KDG]

Shaka, the problem is that a good axis player can take out both armors with the first turn. This means no armor to move back to Moscow.

I think adding two corps, one each in front of one of the armors, would do the trick to balancing out the game and keeping the first turn from being as devastating.

[zappsweden]

Shaka, I do not mean that Russia will lose if their first line is devastated. The risk is if axis should fail in the first move i.e letting russian armies escape then Russia suddenly has a great advantage. Especially when playing ladder games and roughly 200 MPP cash bonus for Russia then Axis are FORCED to destroy the first russian line or else!

Stanley cup games are played best of 7 games not best of 1, and there is a reason for it.

Do you get my point now?

[ February 12, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

the problem is that a good axis player can take out both armors with the first turn.

Interesting. So its not so much the loss of the first line, but rather the loss of these armor units in addition to the first line?

Zappsweden

The risk is if axis should fail in the first move i.e letting russian armies escape then Russia suddenly has a great advantage.

Isn't that suppossed to be the point? When the Axis invade Russia, they either have to kill the Russian units faster than the Russians can build them, or they have to remove the ability of the Russians to build the units (ie reduce Russian MPPs).

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

The Russians where not any better at fighting in bad weather than anyone else.

This I must disagree with. Let's look at a couple examples.

The T-34. This tank was purposely designed with wide treads which helped distribute the ground pressure more evenly. Kept the tank going on the muddy roads. The german early panzers had narrow tracks and tended to bog down. The Germans then invented the Ostketten which was an attachable piece to the tracks which helped a little. When the Tiger 1 and Panthers came out they employed the wider track. The russians knew about the mud, the germans had to learn, and they did.

American/British tanks were considered not very reliable in the Russian mud.

Secondly winter uniforms. That first winter of 41/42, the worst in 100 years. The german uniforms were primarily HBT, a very thin material great in the summer. I own one and wouldn't wear it in the winter unless I had a death wish. These uniforms were thread bare, had been worn all summer and autumn. Remember the Germans thought the campaign would be over in 4 months.

A book "In Deadly Combat" describes how bad the uniforms were. The writer was stationed in the Crimea a milder climate.

Russian winter uniforms were the padded jacket and trousers with Ushankas the fish fur caps, and velenki the felt boots. The Russians had learned their lessons from the Winter War well, when Hobnailed leather boots and greatcoats caused many cases of frostbite and death.

In that first winter not all russian units were that well supplied with winter clothing. But those that were had a decided advantage over the germans. The germans were forced to urinate on their own hands to keep them from splitting open from frostbite. You can read that in "Forgotten Soldier". And any German soldier feared having to go out into the open to use the restroom, it could mean death.

How did they survive? Well hitler ordered no retreat, so they hedgehogged in villages and towns. Historians agreed this saved AG Center from collapse.

The Germans learned their lessons too and designed better winter clothing, but it still had to deal with the long supply lines in partisan infested russia.

So in conclusion yes the Russians at first were superior in fighting in the Mud and Snow. They knew their climate, and designed their gear for it and they used lessons they learned in the winter war.

The Germans had many problems, but true to form they improved. These improvements took time but they arrived, too late for quite a few German Soldiers.

So when taking weather into fact in the context of the game. That first winter in Russia should have a decided advantage for the soviet union. After that the Germans learned their lesson and any further disadvantage they have in winter should be based on supply.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KVK

Actually, the examples you gave kinda prove my point. Russian soldier was not any better at fighting in winter than the German soldier. Germans sufferred because of the lack of proper equipment for winter. Yes. But they did try to fix the mistake. We can't penalize the Germans every winter assuming they never got the proper winter equipment.

So, what combat effect do the Russians receive because of winter? Remember, whatever advantage they receive will occur every winter. I think that if during winter, your supply levels dropped by half, that would be sufficient for both sides.

And then how do we recreate the advantage the Russians had because of that first winter? This is the hard one, since its almost impossible to reflect this without getting specific ... something like ... "first winter the Germans fight the Russians they will ..." .

Then one day, some player will wonder why the Germans, who have invaded Finland (or Sweden) in 6/41, don't suffer the same effects of the "first winter" that they do when the fight the Russians.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Konstatin V Kotelnikov:

So when taking weather into fact in the context of the game. That first winter in Russia should have a decided advantage for the soviet union. After that the Germans learned their lesson and any further disadvantage they have in winter should be based on supply.

Interesting and informative post... I would agree with your assessment and would therefore favor the idea of having a ONE-TIME VARIANT for the first winter effect.

This could be random (... but, a HIGH chance of occuring; and, more likely in historically wintry months... or not, after all weather is extremely variable) and would create all kinds of mayhem for the Germans, in terms of lost organization & supply, and perhaps certain penalties on attack and defense. Maybe even have some of the HQs randomly reduced, say from 7 to 4, which would cause even more problems. :eek:

Otherwise, the ice & snow & sleet & mud & rain might be iconically portrayed ON THE MAP (... loved the way some games would indicate seasonal changes with NON-INTRUSIVE and appropriate shading & cross-hatching) so that the weather would affect ALL arrayed forces.

Also, good point about the partisans... I would like to see them appear ANYWHERE. When you KNOW that they will ONLY erupt in the swamp areas, then you can easily anticipate and neutralize them. How about -- they would appear LESS OFTEN, but MORE RANDOMLY throughout all of occupied Russia?

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

KVK

Actually, the examples you gave kinda prove my point.

I don't see it that way.

Your point, as I read it, is that the weather effected each soldier on each side the same way. Thus the Russian soldiers fought no better than the others.

Am I correct, or did you mean something different?

That premise would be correct if all things were equal. On the Eastern front all things were never equal.

That First Winter the Russians fought far better than the germans as they were better clothed. Their tanks had wider treads so they handled snow and ice better. Russian tank engines are diesel. The lubricants in their weapons didn't freeze. The Germans used petrol engines having to start fires under them to keep them from freezing up and had to keep their bolts in there pockets so their weapons would fire.

A definately decisive fighting advantage for the Russian. All things are never equal. The only real advantage the Germans had was they fell back into towns and villages and thus they could stay warm inside the houses.

The easiest way I have ever seen this handled in a wargame was in that awesome TSR/SPI World War II ETO game. It's revised edition was far better than any wargame of that level, yes even better than A3R (I owned both).

The rule was simple. If the Russians fought the winter war against Finland in Winter 1939/1940, they then gained a +1 to their roll in the first winter against the germans.

An extremely simple rule, so simple it works. As it gives the Russian player an incentitive to fight the Winter War. Which some players would ignore as you didn't have much to gain from it.

That's something that could easily be implemented in SC. That combined with the stretched german supply lines would help recreate that awful first winter for the germans.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KVK

Maybe you didn't get to read the rest of my post?

"Germans suffered because of the lack of proper equipment for winter."

All I am saying is that if we want to include the combat effects of winter in SC, we need to handle two issues.

The effects of winter on both sides (ie cuts supply by half).

How to recreate that one time effect that the Germans sufferred.

Your example, that if the Russians conduct the winter war against Finland, then they get a combat bonus against the Russians does have merit.

But what happens if the Germans invade Finland? It is possible for this to happen in SC, and then Russia would lose its "one time" combat bonus.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

While it would be nice to have the combat effects of weather, lets not get confused about what those effects are.

The Russians where not any better at fighting in bad weather than anyone else. They were just willing to accept the manpower losses those conditions meant. Attrition warfare.

This is the post I am responding to.

Yes, Germany can invade Finland in SC. But why?

First off the winter war was fought in 1939/40, a time that Germany was not capable of launching a large scale invasion in the Baltic.

Secondly it would violate the protocal of the secret portion of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty.

Thirdly Finland is a potential Ally for Germany.

So translated into game terms. If Germany declares war on Finland before winter 1939/40 have Russia get upset just like what happens when germany attacks the baltic before the annexation date.

And of course the Russians would lose any combat bonus. They would have not fought the Winter War and learned extremely important lessons on cold weather fighting.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KVK

I made another post that responded to your response, after the one that you wrote.

I was trying to make the point that the Russians were no better than anyone else when it came to combat in winter. They were equipped to handle it, but the Germans, after the initial winter, did adapt and equip themselves. And with or without the proper equipement, winter losses are higher than more "normal" weather.

I also prefer general rules that cover the circumstances, as oppossed to special rules that address the occurance.

Hence, regarding combat effects of winter, I would like to see something like this:

* Winter turns, supply is reduced by 50%.

* The first time a nation conducts combat during the winter turns, their supply levels are reduced an additional 50%. Norway, Finland and Sweden are exempt from this.

Obviously, certain areas would not have "winter" turns (like North Africa, Southern Italy, etc). And if you wanted to address "mud", just change the percentage for that season (ie 25%?).

This would recreate the effects of the winter for the German / Russian conflict; would give Russia an additional reason to invade Finland; and make us plan based on the seasons if we were to conduct operations in the northern extremes (Sweden, Norway and Finland).

[JerseyJohn]

Great thread.

The Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact seems to have a hidden agenda for Germany of forcing Finland and Romania into the Axis camp. Hitler didn't necessarily want to cede Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania but, as mentioned he couldn't have defended them in any case. Part of the reasoning was perfectly correct; knowing they'd ultimately go to war with the USSR it was felt the Baltic States would welcome their German liberators. Which they did.

As I understand it, and I may be wrong on several counts, the main German concern with Finland was it's Nickel deposits, Germany's only non-Soviet source! After the Winter War Stalin did his best to manipulate Finland's production but it was really just another essential item he kept sending Hitler as part of their agreement. In any case, once Barbarossa got underway Finland resumed shipping it's nickel to Germany.

Konstantin knows more about the Russo-German subject than I do so hopefully if I'm wrong he'll have the correct information.

Also from what I've read, though I'm not certain where, Nazi Germany had more oil when it was working with the Soviets than it did at any other time. And even then it's oil supplies were lower than those used by peacetime Britain!

--- *

As previously stated by me to the point of tedium, I feel the major element missing regarding that first Russian Winter is the fact German petro-products ceased working in the extreme cold. In addition to a large number of their troops freezing to death or being made useless due to frostbite, artillery, tanks, aircraft and even machine guns ceased working at least part of the time due to the weather. To me this game, at present, does not reflect this.

I'm glad to see an increasing amount of discussion going toward this issue. All the ideas I've seen above posted primarily by Shaka and Konstantin combined with Immer's posting look very promising.

[ February 13, 2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Jersey,

Your posts are always well founded, you have a good depth of knowledge on all aspects of the 2nd World War.

I tend to narrow my focus to the Eastern Front. For example the book I finished yesterday was "Stumbling Collossus - The Red Army on the Eve of World War" and today I started "Stalins Reluctant Soldiers - The Social History of the Red Army 1925-1941."

That's why I take special interest in Eastern Front discussions.

Here is the secret protocal of the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact:

Secret Additional Protocol.

On the occasion of the signature of the Non-Aggression Pact between the German Reich and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics the undersigned plenipotentiaries of each of the two parties discussed in strictly confidential conversations the question of the boundary of their respective spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. These conversations led to the following conclusions:

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish State, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish State and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinterest in these areas.

Article IV. This Protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

Germany basically sold out Finland for Poland. I wonder if the Finns would have allied themselves with the Germans if they knew this.

Hmmmm, one wonders.

[JerseyJohn]

Konstantin

Appreciate it and a great posting, as always. Thanks for listing those books; they've been added to the list.

That is some piece of nice wording! Wondering about the same thing regarding Finland. I doubt they knew about it till long after the war.

One of the few sound recordings of Hitler speaking at an HQ conference has him confiding to Mannerheim about how amazed he was at Soviet Russia's ability to manufacture weapons, especially tanks, and it's capacity to replace losses. He goes so far as to say if he had he'd have done things differently.

I think it was aired in a History Channel -- yes, it was series of documentaries, five or so, on Hitler that aired last year (Hitler the Private Citizen, Hitler the Leader, etc.). Though the documentary itself was made in Germany so it had a worldwide audience.

Unfortunately they don't speculate as to what he meant about doing things differently.

[ February 13, 2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Also from what I've read, though I'm not certain where, Nazi Germany had more oil when it was working with the Soviets than it did at any other time. And even then it's oil supplies were lower than those used by peacetime Britain!

Thats true. Germany got a huge amount of raw materials and oil from Russia. Oil wise, it was two or three times what they imported from South America. Probably one of the reasons Stalin had a hard time believeing the Germans were preparing to attack Russia, since with the loss of the South American Imports, and the needs of the military, it would not be economically sound for Germany to cut off its oil and raw material sources from Russia.

[SeaWolf_48]

Great subject guys. That cold 1941 winter.

Everyone is adding good arguments for having some kind of penalty for winter in Nothern Europe. We have all read of the problems that the Germans had, but the Ruskies had their problems too. Actually the mud was worse than the snow for moving supplies. Trucks and tanks got stuck in the mud, and welcomed when the ground would freeze so they could move again.

Oct mud, Nov snow, Dec more snow Frozen ground, Jan even more snow, Feb less snow, Mar less snow, Apr mud, May maybe no mud but could still be muddy. June campaign time again until Oct mud. That's four good months to kill eachother. General Mud was the worst for movement. Also during muddy months the casulities went up because men would not dive to the ground when mortar or artillary rounds came in, because they didn't like lying in mud!

This is what I've read about Russia, some of you who live near there, or have been there during these months could comment about the Russia winter.

Do you know that Germany had more troops in Finland than No. Africa. They had three corps near Manmursk (9 divisions), and one Mtn division in the south, plus several tank destroyer Battalions. This area of battle is never recreated in war games. One reason is because it make the map so big, but with the computer games that shouldn't be a ptoblem. There are no limitations on making a map in computer games, only how much storage will you limit yourself too. Adding the Lapland is not that much more!

[nonsuch]

One of the few sound recordings of Hitler speaking at an HQ conference has him confiding to Mannerheim about how amazed he was at Soviet Russia's ability to manufacture weapons, especially tanks, and it's capacity to replace losses. He goes so far as to say if he had he'd have done things differently.

Actually John I think the German High Command had a good idea of what the Russians could do in terms of manufacturing arms. Hitler just didn't listen. Guderian took a delegation around an armaments factory in the late 30's and they expressed disbelief that the Panzer mk 2 was the Germans best tank - they already had the T34 prototype and had used it in Manchuria.

The analysis of Soviet production capacity that was made by the general staff was ridiculed by Hitler. It still fell far short of what was actually achieved but OKW didn't take account (understandably) of the Soviets ability to dismantle and reconstruct factories.

Personally, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the way the Russian campaign plays in this game. I don't think it is necessarily the German Blitzkrieg or even the abscence of weather but the fact that the only response the Soviets seem to have is to produce masses of corps units which makes the game resemble WW1. This is not so much a question of historicy but one of approach. This is a strategic game - the bulk of the Soviet force should be armies surely and they should be outproducing the Germans for most of the duration. They should lack the strength, mobility, experience and cohesion of the German units BUT should be churning out armour, artillery and large infantry units at a much higher capacity. Hubert may well contend that the end result is the same - survive with the Soviets for a couple of years and they should prevail but it just doesn't feel right. I want somethig with more movement and risk.

In fairness to him I don't think that this arena has been cracked by anyone else, even companies with a heap of designers and guys writing the code or even for that matter by the board wargamers (for me Hitler's War was the closest). It's a tough one to do. Nevertheless, everyone seems to agree that this is the crucial battle and I would rather that any future development concentrates on getting this bit right than (for instance) sorting out the Western Desert.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Stalin had good reason to be puzzled at Hitler's intentions -- good point. I think the Germans came into a lot of stored oil when they conquered France and that, initially got them through Barbarossa. Naturally, he assumed the Soviets would be through before winter set in.

Something of a pattern: Hitler gambles on Russia using captured oil stocks from France and Rommel gambles on reaching Alexandria before the Brits regroup, using oil stocks he captured in Libya.

Nonsuch

You're right. I remember reading that also but I don't recall where. Hitler had a blind contempt for everything Slavic and gave the Russians credit for nothing. In his mind they were mindless workhorses fit for slavery and to be kept in line with the whip and vodka.

Agreed about the feel of the Russian campaign here. In COS the Soviets also extended long lines of infantry to hold the front, although they tended to counter-attack more often. Interesting observation, haven't quite heard it put the way you did. Also agreed that the end doesn't justify the means; the feel should be there as well.

SeaWolf

Didn't realize the Germans had that many troops in Finland. Even in history books the maps usually depict the Lapland campaigns as just vague arrows going east and west, never affecting anything, least of all Archangel or Murmansk. There must have been more to it than that, unless the troops were there primarily to protect those nickel mines?

In the realm of wild speculation, I don't think additional troops would have done much good in North Africa unless, with all those nine German divisions early enough he'd have been able to completly destroy the Eighth Army in Libya before it could withdraw to the Egyptian bottleneck. Failing that it would probably have been nothing more than too many troops adding to Rommel's existing supply problems. What a logistical mess when tripleing your striking force only increases your problems!

[ February 13, 2003, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

nonsuch

You're right, Hitler would not believe General Staff when they told him what they believed the Russians were capable of producing. He thought they were out of there minds.

This is a strategic game - the bulk of the Soviet force should be armies surely and they should be outproducing the Germans for most of the duration. They should lack the strength, mobility, experience and cohesion of the German units BUT should be churning out armour, artillery and large infantry units at a much higher capacity.

Problem is in the definition of the words.

A Russian infantry division per to&e is only 9500 men. A German infantry division per to&e is 17,000 men. Without trying to figure out the equivlent combat power (something I am trying to do for the Manpower issue), when you read about a Russian Army, it is equivalent to a "western" Corp. Italians and Hungarians make it worse, because there infantry divisions (approx 12,000 men) only have six (6) inf battalions, but are still larger than the Russian infantry division.

The Russian Tank "Corp", which never had more than 12,000 men, is more equivalent to a western armored division (10,000 to 15,000).

Again, this does not try to equate the combat powers, or what are known as "division equivalents". Simply a rough comparison of manpower numbers.

Since our "Germans" and "Russians" have identical weapons and organizations at the same tech levels, it is not incorrect for the Russians to be only building Corps. About the only time you should be building a Army is when you are creating a "Shock" Group.

The part about them being able to produce units faster I would like to address below.

Personally, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the way the Russian campaign plays in this game. I don't think it is necessarily the German Blitzkrieg or even the abscence of weather but the fact that the only response the Soviets seem to have is to produce masses of corps units which makes the game resemble WW1

The big problem, is that our "Germans" and "Russians" do not represent the Germans and Russians of WWII. Germans units, when they were created from scratch, took time. The Russians cranked them out much faster. Since our "Greys" and "Reds" are both producing the same identical units, there is no difference like there was historically.

Then there is the manpower. The Germans could not afford the losses at the same level that the Russians could. Germany had a military manpower pool of about 10,000,000. Russian numbers are more difficult to get, but were suppossed to be around twice that of the Germans. So lets say 20,000,000. So for every 1,000,000 men the Germans loss, it would take time to replace them, six (6) to twelve (12) months, even if they were forming infantry corps or armies. So you either waited for them to arrive and fought with less troops, or you pulled units from other places (ie one of the reasons reserves were kept... which I don't believe anyone probably does in SC). If the Russians lost 1,000,000 men, they could replace them with new units within two (2) months or less. So as long as the Russians kept a loss ratio of 2:1, it was great for them, since the Germans at some point, need time to plug those holes, while the Russians have fresh units to pour into the holes.

Instead, what we have are Grey and Red units that we either replace the losses by reinforcing, or we buy new units to replace those that fell. As long as the MPP's are relativly even, you now have WWI. Hence, it will eventually be from coast to coast, a long line of units facing each other.

Luckily for us (excluding the manpower and how to handle that) getting the nationality traits and the other items that can realistically portray this won't be too difficult.

[ February 13, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]