CMBB is quite "gamey" and Ruskies are way too good

[nevermind]

Originally posted by Keke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ares_the_Great:

[QB] Could it have been the germans were fighting a war on two fronts(yes i know that was mainly at the very end of the war,but contributed none the les)

How come only "mainly at the very end of the war"? </font>

[Keke]

Originally posted by Ares_the_Great:

You were also probably speaking of N.Africa.Which i see your point,but i hope you see mine from above.

Yep, I thought you were ignoring N.Africa, Italy and occupying forces all over Europe.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Ares_the_Great:

I dont consider a "blitzgrieg"(?) against and unexpecting oponnent a war.

So Britain and France were expecting nothing from Germany in 1940?

[Sergeant Pepper]

I read about that in an account of a Soviet general descriping the last 24 hours of the war. I don't understand why CMBB doesn't reflect this absolute German inferiority when I'm playing summer of 1941. WTF!!!

sorry mate didn t have long just scanned it quick lol :eek:

Stand corrected AGAIN ! lol

Regards

J Lad

[nevermind]

Originally posted by Keke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ares_the_Great:

I dont consider a "blitzgrieg"(?) against and unexpecting oponnent a war.

So Britain and France were expecting nothing from Germany in 1940? </font>

[ParaBellum]

Ares, I disagree with you, too. The problem wasn't that the Allies didn't expect a german offensive, but rather that they expected a repeat of the Schlieffenplan of 1914.

[nevermind]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

Ares, I disagree with you, too. The problem wasn't that the Allies didn't expect a german offensive, but rather that they expected a repeat of the Schlieffenplan of 1914.

Fair enough.Seeing as how i know very little about the pre war state of Frances' military.You are saying that aside from the Maginot line,they were beefing up their military?If they expected a repeat of the Schlieffenplan of 1914,then wouldnt that leave them unexpecting,or unsuspecting(i realize that my poor grammar may have caused some confusion)of the truth?Not that i know anything about all this mind you,im just a poor underedumacated CM addict

PS,

I would think,atleast with the brits,that they suspected something,not expected(again see the above ommision about grammar).I know that some in the britsh parliment(?) refused to believe Churchill about(and if nothing else)engines that germany purchased that could,or were intended for use in airplanes(not sure which).

[ February 17, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Ares_the_Great ]

[Keke]

Originally posted by Grisha:

WWI had already proven the ineffectiveness of tactical success translating into strategic success. War had taken on such huge dimensions and developed such destructive firepower that any sort of tactically-based offensive was doomed to only fleeting success. Because of this, Soviet military thought in the 1920s and 1930s consciously emphasized the operational level as the means of attaining victory in modern war, and subsequently saw innovation at the tactical level as less important.

And that´s why the operation "Kick Finns out of Finland" 1939-40 was such a success.

[manchildstein (ii)]

while it might be impossible in cmbb to duplicate certain outcomes - such as 29 men killing 19 tanks or whatever - it is possible to create an 'immersive' atmosphere where it feels like you're 'there'

for instance i'm working on an axis attack scenario in 1941 where the casualties are about 1 axis for every 2 soviets.... and the soviets start out with more than twice the number of soldiers...

it would seem to me that using the scenario editor you could set the parameters for just about any desired outcome, short of the historically extreme heroics you read about in certain random battles; i think that such heroics could occur in cmbb... but it would have to be by at least partly by 'accident' (just as in 'real life') and not so much by 'design.'

trying to recreate 'actual battles' and make them come out 'exactly as they did in real life' is probably outside of the scope of cmbb

as someone summed it up on another thread... the usual ending for a hero is 'and then i died'... the stories of the war which speak to us - of overcoming overwhelming odds - stand out because they are the exception rather than the norm...

if you want to get a massive kill ratio then set up something in 1941 with conscript t-26 and bt tanks, and then if there are t34s or kvs around give them just 1 or 2 rounds of ammo... then have at them with stukas and veteran pziiig tanks...

or set up a 'bagration' scenario in 1944 with something like 10:1 odds in the soviets' favor... with lots of airpower and tanks...

on the central front, the similarities in rapidity of advance, and amount of land grabbed are remarkable between the germans in 22june-aug of 1941 and the soviets 'going the other way' during the same period in 1944...

in the end perhaps you should ask yourself... is it immersive? if not then perhaps you should find yourself another pastime...

for myself, squad leader was immersive - then ... and so - now - is the cm series... is cmbb perfect? no. is it 'good enough'... YES

[White Phosphorus]

Originally posted by Keke:

1939-40 was such a success.

The weather defeated the Soviets not the Finns.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

The weather defeated the Soviets not the Finns.

No, it was the Soviet High Command and the time table they made for the war, which spelled the outcome. That was caused by unrealistic expectations, as Stalin had rosy illusions of the operational capabilities of the Red Army. He did understand things like building heavy industry for developing the army, but didn't realise that armies need capable commanders as demonstrated by the purges. Result: an embarrasing screwup, which opened the eyes of Stalin - but Hitler's as well.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Nikke:

Here are some observations of a long time hardcore strategy gamer...

I dunno what you count as "long time", but I've been wargaming since 1971.

Originally posted by Nikke:

Also, Russians are modeled too favourably.

I'm sure BFC will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the models in CM are are based on the best data obtainable on the performance of the real-world kit represented in the game.

Can you point to a specific instance in which the data used is wrong, and produces the pro-Russian bias you allege?

Can you point to bodies of numerical data that could be used to model the aspects you mention that produce the pro-Russian bias you allege?

Originally posted by Nikke:

An example: although T34 was, on paper, a very nice machine, it also lacked radio in all vehicles in the early stages. It had a small crew, without radio, that had to operate in VERY limited space. The german early AFVs were more spacious and had a bigger crew.

As represented in CM:BB by the early T-34s having no radios, and having the TC need to button-up when the big gun is firing.

Originally posted by Nikke:

Also the training of German tankers was far superior to that of the Russians.

As represented in CM:BB by the effects of the troop quality level on shooting performance and command delays.

CM:BB also represents the supposed superiority of

German optics, although I am not sure how much data was available to support the modelling.

It would be wonderful if CM:BB could address fightability issues and the crew visibility of each AFV individually. Since you raise the matter, please let us know where we can find the data needed to attempt the modelling of these aspects.

Originally posted by Nikke:

The same is true for infantry. Typical Russian infantryman of WWII was a peasant, whereas his German counterpart was far better educated, trained and more technically oriented.

Let's get this straight -- you are claiming, are you, that peasants do not make good soldiers? Why's that? Too much hard physical labour, familiarity with the countryside, ability to live on frugal fare with few creature comforts? And are you claiming that there was no peasantry in Germany at the time?

Originally posted by Nikke:

The Russian had a system of politruks, political officers, which lead to tremendous on-field bureacracy.

...and was abolished by the decree of 9th October, 1942. From that date, Soviet commanders had full responsibility for the direction of their units.

Originally posted by Nikke:

Especially early in the war, Russian infantry tactics very extremely crude. They usually just "human-waved" with one unit position behind the attacking ones in order to kill any one failing to attack as ordered.

What's your source for this statement, please?

All the best,

John.

[Keke]

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

The weather defeated the Soviets not the Finns.

Yeah, Finns just sat in their dugouts, drinking and playing cards while the infamous General Winter took care of the heavy stuff.

(How many "rolleye" posts I´m gonna write today? )

[ February 17, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[Sergei]

Okay, lest we forget... the original topic. A serious take.

You have to be careful when considering how the historical results should apply in CM. Not just that there's a difference between tactical, operational and strategic levels and how those might differ, but also because a typical CM scenario and a typical RL battle are totally different affairs.

What do we play CM for? To have fun and excitement. It's not fun to have total walk-overs, and so we try to have challenging yet not too much, ie. balanced, fights. Real life battles were not fought for that purpose, however, and no sane commander was looking for having a balanced fight!! If it was known to be that way, then the fight would be avoided unless under the most dire circumstances. A good RL commander opts for tilting the scales for his benefit.

Germans were good at this. They never declared a war before attacking a country, and they even surprised Soviets in 1941! Of course, the element of surprise was a most valuable asset for German army in the early stages, meaning that most of the battles were rather onesided, with disordered, piecemeal Soviet counter-attacks that mostly were strategically absolutely futile and benefited the Germans more than the Soviets. Red Army was disorganised, front units were lacking of communications, ammunition and even food. Germans could pick the weak points and just slaughter their way through. Stragglers would surrender soon after.

So how does this translate into a CMBB QB or scenario? Well, it doesn't, really. Unless you want to play a battle in which you know for sure that the Germans are going to win always, in which case you can have weakened, low-on-ammo conscripts with medium to heavy casualties, in open terrain against a ten times larger mechanised German veteran force with artillery support. With a time limit tight enough, it could be challenging. Or then have the afore-mentioned German force defending against an equal-sized but conscript Soviet force, with Stuka support.

Most people would consider playing that kind of scenarios a waste of time. Then again, and most veterans of WW2 probably agree, that war WAS a horrible waste.

[White Phosphorus]

Originally posted by Keke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

The weather defeated the Soviets not the Finns.

Yeah, Finns just sat in their dugouts, drinking and playing cards while the infamous General Winter took care of the heavy stuff.

(How many "rolleye" posts I´m gonna write today? ) </font>

[Keke]

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

Well winter defeated the best army in the world - the German, so the Soviet army was just walk over for it.

Yeah, Soviet soldiers just sat in their dugouts, drinking and playing cards, while the infamous General Winter took care of the heavy stuff.

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Keke:

And that´s why the operation "Kick Finns out of Finland" 1939-40 was such a success.

Keke, of course, it was a long haul for the Soviets (something I believe you're aware of - in fact, I know you're aware, so this post is a bit below the belt, don't you think? ) The 1937 purge not only put an end to their amazing military development but actually sent it into regression, the Khalkhin Gol battle was indicative of what would be in time, the Winter War was indicative of how wrong the political leadership was to cull their military elite then take control of their own army away from them, and the same for Barbarossa. The Soviet-German War is a study in the political leadership relinquishing control of the Red Army and its development, and allowing the military elite to continue the process begun in the 1920s and 1930s, ultimately to refine it by 1944-45. What resulted was a revolution in military affairs, though most people west of Berlin never realized this until about 20 years ago.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Grisha:

[sNIP] What resulted was a revolution in military affairs, though most people west of Berlin never realized this until about 20 years ago.

Comrade Picketsky would like to argue that most people west of Berlin still don't realise this.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Ares_the_Great:

Originally posted by von Lucke:

The same old stereotypical statements, put in the same old way... *sigh* If the Sovs sucked so bad, how did they ever succeed in throwing the Fascists out of Russia?

Lets see...could it be a dwindling german economic system(resources,was most likely the reason for invading russia)?

The Germans controlled, or were allied with all of mainland Europe, plus Norway. This gave them a massive industrial base with which to prosecute the war. Some numbers:

German and Soviet production figures (in millions of tons):

>>>>>>1941><1942><1943><1944

coal

Germany:::246......258......269......281

USSR:::::::151.......75........93.......121

steel

Germany::::31.......32........35......35

USSR::::::::18........8.........10......12

oil

Germany:::::6........7

USSR::::::::33.......22........18.......18

As you can see, the only area the Germans were surpassed in resources by the Sovs was in oil production. However, with the German development of synthetic fuels (from coal, which they had in abundance), and access to the Rumanian oilfields, it was less of a hindrance then it might appear --- at least until 1944.

Hitler attacked the USSR because his philosophy (as plainly spelled out in Mein Kampf), was rabidly anti-Bolshevik.

Could it have been that the germans had an overly complex supply and logistics system(Look at the allies in the WTO,standardized munitions...etc)?

The feudalization of the German armed forces (SS, Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine; all using seperate requisition and resupply systems) is fairly well documented: In 1941 the Germans had more than 2000 different vehicles in service, few sharing any common parts, and the situation never improved. If anything, on a strategic level, this was where the Germans lost the war. (And yes, it's hard to supply yr panzers using horse-drawn wagons). As previously stated, the USSR didn't enjoy greater economic resources --- they just managed them better.

Could it have been the germans were fighting a war on two fronts(yes i know that was mainly at the very end of the war,but contributed none the less)

By June 1944, the Red Army had pushed the Germans back to Poland, and with the exception of the Baltic States (technically, not even part of the USSR until 1940) reclaimed all their former territories. Where else was the Wehrmacht fighting before 1944? North Africa? A sideshow. Italy? A defensive paradise for the Axis (units were rotated out of Russia to Italy for R&R), and an offensive meat-grinder for the Allies.

If you want to throw in the Allies contribution, better to cite the artillery and Luftwaffe resources required to defend Germany against bombing raids. Or better yet, all those Lend-Lease Studebakers that motorized the Red Army when the Heer was still using horses.

Last but not least,let us not forget that if it werent for an early and severe russian winter,that the germans were ignorantly not prepared for,there might not even be russians today.

"Ignorantly not prepared for"? Probably. But it wasn't just German intel that predicted the Sovs would collapse in just six months --- British and US intelligence predicted the same thing. As for the "early and severe" Russian winter; it was right on time, and no more severe than usual --- it just seems that way when yr freezing yr ass off in it wearing nothing but yr summer-weight uniform.

In any case, the effect of General Winter is much over-hyped by most German-based accounts of the war. By December 1941, the panzer divisions (the pointy-est part of the Wehrmacht spear) had been worn down to bloody nubs by combat, attrition, lack of replacements and spare-parts (6th PD was down to one operational tank!). Winter was just frosting on the cake (so to speak) of their operational failure. The German histories just don't like to admit that the Sov counter-attack took them by suprise, and clipped them a hard one right in the jaw.

And anyway --- that was only in 1941. Wouldn't you agree the Wehrmacht was a bit better prepared for cold weather by 1942?

I look forward to the response to that last point.Im sure it will be debated,but it shouldnt be,who can argue that the reds were on their heels(if not their backs),and the onset of winter allowed them to hold,then plan to retake thier contry.

I just did. As previously pointed out, during that first winter, the Red Army didn't defend, they attacked. They may have been pushed back "on their heels", but that was only because it's easier to leap forward from that position.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Grisha:

The Soviet-German War is a study in the political leadership relinquishing control of the Red Army and its development, and allowing the military elite to continue the process begun in the 1920s and 1930s, ultimately to refine it by 1944-45.

And the development in Germany was quite the opposite...

[SgtMuhammed]

Back to the original point. What I see most of the time is people complaining that the game is ahistorical and then telling about taking a company of T34s and KV1s and obliterating a company of PIIIs and short IVs.

So what is wrong with this picture? If you want a view of the historical situation then you have to set up the historical situation. Select your forces by an actual OOB rather than the best that you can buy.

Here is an example. In a recent QB I chose a company of Pz38(t)s and a company of SOMUA Tanks (just for kicks) backed by a platoon of Stug IIIs and a platoon of PIII(kurz). The computer had 91 BTs, 2 T34s, and 2KV1s. End result, 93 dead Soviet tanks and 23 dead German. The only survivors were the KVs which accounted for over half the computer's kills. The point is, if you choose your forces realistically (even somewhat) you will get pretty realistic results. If you give yourself the best case then you will get the best case.

The game itself has very little sense of what actually happened. You, however, do. So don't blame the game for not recreating history if you don't do so yourself.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

Hitler attacked the USSR because his philosophy (as plainly spelled out in Mein Kampf), was rabidly anti-Bolshevik.

Why did Hitler say after 1933, that he wouldn't write "Mein Kampf" again?

"Mein Kampf" was the book of a opposition-politician.

Take the personal circumstances into account.

Take the circumstances of the german nation into account.

And then take a look at the extremely pragmatic politics Hitler made: South-Tyrol, hallway to Danzig ("No other german politician could dare to strive for that minimal solution").

The attack against the Soviet Union was improvised due to the over 100 russian divisions concentrating on the west-border.

There was no more time to wait until the Heer was perpared for a russian war.

The concentrated russian forces were that massive, once they had started to attack, several hundred kilometers in extremely high populated Germany country and deep defensive positions would have been needed to stop them (Germany isn't that big).

Only a fool can believe, that Hitler after he had won against France and was in war against Britain, that he and german HQ was that stupid, to start a two frontier war, while ALL involved strategists, including Hitler, knew what a two frontier war would mean, from WW I.

It's really funny, how (excellent informed) people ignore the huge soviet troop concentrations of millions of soldiers on a quite small strip close to the german border, although it made absolutely no sense for a defensive strategy, in such a huge and neverending country like the USSR was.

Do you really prefer to believe in such a primitve story, that "Mein Kampf" was the reason, while the historic military facts of troop-concentrations, movements and orders are speaking for themselves?

But even if we believe the tale about the "peaceful" communistic USSR (and ignoring all the attack wars since 1917 against it's neighbours), this story becomes even more ridiculous:

can you explain to me in a logical way, where was the reason for Hitler to attack the "peaceful" communistic USSR, while the war in the west still was going on?

Why did he start just for fun a two-frontier war?

And please, don't come with that explanations for school-children, that the evil does things 'cause it's evil and the enemy of western democracies and their aliies (as long as they are alliies) are eating children just for fun.

Let's assume, that the most successful politician in this time, had rational reasons for what he did.

What were the reasons for a just-for-fun two-frontier war?

[Schoerner]

double post

[ February 18, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[rune]

Oil? Perhaps the plans he had to capture the caucusas and their oil fields had something to do with it? Perhaps because he believed it would only last 6 months. Perhaps because he believed it would give him a back door into the mideast and it's oil? Perhaps we all don't believe in revisionist claptrap?

Rune

[rune]

Oh yeah, don't forget the coal mines of the caucusas, or the wheat field of the Ukraine, or the fact that in 1937 a document was written about "The aim of German policy was Lebensraum (living space), German people had 'the right to a greater living space than other peoples' and they would find it in Europe 'in immediate proximity to the Reich.' Two countries stood in the way, Britain and France but, despite their own problems, they and Russia must be factors in Germany's political calculations."

I am sure that had nothing to do with it.

Rune

[ February 18, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: rune ]