CMBB Multi-playability

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Is anyon else here besides myself wondering how CMBB will play out in human vs human battles?

I have found that there have been alot of games that in some way or another tend to favor the Soviets.

It's a good thing that Soviet equipment is going to be realisticly modeled, but for some reason i'm worried that all the attention to the Soviets will in some way neglect the Axis.

Perhaps because i keep hearing about the time table and what not, but i am confident that the Soviet force will be modeld perfectly, but will it be at the expense of Axis forces being neglected in someway and not recieving enough historic detail?

Also, when playing another oppononent, chances are they will not be making the same mistakes as alot of the Soviet commanders seemed to have a hard time avoiding. I just hope my worries go unfounded about this.

[Schrullenhaft]

I wouldn't worry too much about BTS giving preferential treatment one way or the other regarding the combatants in CMBB. Every attempt will be made to get the correct data for the hardware that each side used. Interestingly if this was the sole basis of the game you would find that the 1941 Soviets were more than a match in terms of hardware.

Of course BTS is going to model more than just the hardware stats. This is where the differentiatoin will occur and give some plausability to the early war defeats of the Soviets. However CMBB is not a strategic game, which is primarily the scale where the Soviets lost early on (in my opinion). That said, it is quite possible to experience games where the Germans will get thrashed in the early war (which did happen) - something that some players may not expect.

Some of the reasons that there may be so much 'talk' about the Soviets is that 1) they're the sole Allied combatant (until the Romanians and Finns change sides) 2) the amount of data on the Soviets isn't near as great as that available for the Germans - so there can be a bit of 'interpretation' of data (though I'm sure that BTS isn't showing any bias on this - it's just that the historical data for the Soviets has just be come more available in the last decade and there are still records out of reach of historians) and 3) many people feel that most simulations get the facts or modelling wrong when it comes to representing the Soviets; so many people are interested (and have opinions on) in how the Soviets are modelled this time around.

[Mud]

'sides which, it's still a tactical game. It's not like the Soviet player could demand more or better troops earlier, claiming that he wouldn't have repeated various strategic mistakes of the past; in QBs, he'll still be limited by the point constraints imposed by CMBO/CMBB to try to present a decently fair game (no 5000-pt forces crushing 500-pt ones...), while scenarios will still rely on the discretion of the scenario designer.

There were probably lopsided battles. That doesn't mean that there's any compulsion to recreate those actions; just, if you're looking at historical scenarios, find actions which were more evenly matched or otherwise interesting.

[killmore]

My hope is that "Human waves" will not be the only way to play soviets.

From what I have seen BTS has respect to Soviet WWII army so I believe they will do a good job. It will not be like Nazi version of the history: "SubHuman hordes attack with 10:1 force advantage. They have no fear because these animals are incapable of it"

[gunnergoz]

ICS, with all due respect, I think that if you spent some time doing research in the forum's historical archive you will be reassured that BTS will do the Eastern Front justice. You will likely see that these guys are devoted to doing the best possible job given the limitations of technology, manpower and feasibility. They've missed a point or two but on the whole the BTS team still provides the best game I know of.

Although I must say that I'm curious as to what games you've played that gave you the impression that they were biased towards the Soviets?

My experience has been that tactical games especially tended to favor the German forces for the ususal reasons (command, cohesion, tactics, and certain weapons advantages) and this was more prevalent in poorly balanced games.

A well-designed game will find the capabilites of the two opposing sides see-sawing as the war progressed and as leaders, tactics, experience and technology evolved.

And we are talking about a game, right? It has to be balanced enough to reward a player taking either side, though some roles will be more challenging than others.

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by killmore:

From what I have seen BTS has respect to Soviet WWII army so I believe they will do a good job.

Got that right. I even think Steve has a degree in Soviet history studies. Or something of that sort... :confused:

[Battlefront.com]

Nope, just a BA in History with concentration on interwar and WWII European history. But I do have a VERY healthy respect for the Soviet forces of WWII (not just the Army!).

My "break through" came with the excellent book written by Brian Fugate, "Operation Barbarossa". I read this for the first time well over 12 years ago and it was the first major work I had read that clearly laid out why the Germans lost in the first year despite all the astonishing "victories". It was also the first time I had read detailed accounts of the battles which the Germans lost prior to Moscow and, more importantly, why. This did much to undo the horrible bunch of crap I had digested as a teenager and early wargamer. Been a Glantz junky for 5 or 6 years too.

Funny thing is that Fugate and Glantz disagree somewhat on some basic stuff, but in the end come to the same exact conclusions that the Soviet Union was far more prepared for a war with Germany than Germany was with the Soviet Union.

Anyhoo... we are trying our best to not only do justice to the reality of the Soviet Army vs. common historical opinion, but also to try and correct the misperceptions of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian contributions to the war. And while I have never seen anything that has painted the Finns in a bad light, we are also working very hard to make sure we put in 110% effort there as well. That theater, although a sideshow in many respects, has always fascinated me. Not only for the combat that took place there, but the failing of the German High Command to fully grasp the importance that theater could have had on the war. Just a wee bit more effort could have had a huge payoff (i.e. securing Leningrad and cutting off Archangel and Murmansk's Lend Lease aid base of operations).

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by killmore:

My hope is that "Human waves" will not be the only way to play soviets.

From what I have seen BTS has respect to Soviet WWII army so I believe they will do a good job. It will not be like Nazi version of the history: "SubHuman hordes attack with 10:1 force advantage. They have no fear because these animals are incapable of it"

Hehe, i'm sure text like that exists, but i found that the books i've read from the german combatants perspective have been the leastbiased of all the other nations. Mabe it's just randomness of the books i happend to have read but it's just an observation.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

ICS, with all due respect, I think that if you spent some time doing research in the forum's historical archive you will be reassured that BTS will do the Eastern Front justice. You will likely see that these guys are devoted to doing the best possible job given the limitations of technology, manpower and feasibility. They've missed a point or two but on the whole the BTS team still provides the best game I know of.

Although I must say that I'm curious as to what games you've played that gave you the impression that they were biased towards the Soviets?

My experience has been that tactical games especially tended to favor the German forces for the ususal reasons (command, cohesion, tactics, and certain weapons advantages) and this was more prevalent in poorly balanced games.

A well-designed game will find the capabilites of the two opposing sides see-sawing as the war progressed and as leaders, tactics, experience and technology evolved.

And we are talking about a game, right? It has to be balanced enough to reward a player taking either side, though some roles will be more challenging than others.

Panzer General 1. It was easy at fist, but if you wanted to drag out the easern war......it basicly got impossible.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Nope, just a BA in History with concentration on interwar and WWII European history. But I do have a VERY healthy respect for the Soviet forces of WWII (not just the Army!).

My "break through" came with the excellent book written by Brian Fugate, "Operation Barbarossa". I read this for the first time well over 12 years ago and it was the first major work I had read that clearly laid out why the Germans lost in the first year despite all the astonishing "victories". It was also the first time I had read detailed accounts of the battles which the Germans lost prior to Moscow and, more importantly, why. This did much to undo the horrible bunch of crap I had digested as a teenager and early wargamer. Been a Glantz junky for 5 or 6 years too.

Funny thing is that Fugate and Glantz disagree somewhat on some basic stuff, but in the end come to the same exact conclusions that the Soviet Union was far more prepared for a war with Germany than Germany was with the Soviet Union.

Anyhoo... we are trying our best to not only do justice to the reality of the Soviet Army vs. common historical opinion, but also to try and correct the misperceptions of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian contributions to the war. And while I have never seen anything that has painted the Finns in a bad light, we are also working very hard to make sure we put in 110% effort there as well. That theater, although a sideshow in many respects, has always fascinated me. Not only for the combat that took place there, but the failing of the German High Command to fully grasp the importance that theater could have had on the war. Just a wee bit more effort could have had a huge payoff (i.e. securing Leningrad and cutting off Archangel and Murmansk's Lend Lease aid base of operations).

Steve

I think i'll pick that book up, there are a ton of reason the germans failed to win in the east, but i assumed the most important reason was Il Duce's meddling in the Balkans. The Italian army had to be bailed out like usualy, but this tiime at the tremendous cost of delaying Operation Barbarossa. If the Operation was launched as originaly shcedualed, the Germans would not have needed winter clothing assuming they had the same success then as they did originaly.

Also Alber Spier did'nt kick the German economy into a war-time economy till the middle or end of 43. The Germans were at war for years and did'nt bother to produce their potential numbers of arms and machines till late in the war.

When the western allies were bombin the heck out of the german industry in 43, their production number actualy dramaticly rose from previous years.

[Battlefront.com]

[quot]If the Operation was launched as originaly shcedualed, the Germans would not have needed winter clothing assuming they had the same success then as they did originaly.

Most historians would disagree for two man reasons:

1. The German Army was simply not ready to undertake Barbarossa any earlier. The forces used in the Balkans were not large, so they didn't affect the whole of the preparations enough to be of major concern.

2. The border areas were experiencing a very wet Spring. This would likely have made the initial German gains far worse, which then would have made the initial Soviet strategic defense plan far more effective than it turned out to be.

The main reason the Germans lost in the East is because they didn't have a clue what they were up against. Weather, distances, terrain, industrial production, resolve of the enemy, and above all else... the enemy's true military capabilities... all horribly underestimated and not prepared for. It is actually amazing the Axis forces did as well as they did.

Steve

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

And while I have never seen anything that has painted the Finns in a bad light, we are also working very hard to make sure we put in 110% effort there as well. That theater, although a sideshow in many respects, has always fascinated me. Not only for the combat that took place there, but the failing of the German High Command to fully grasp the importance that theater could have had on the war. Just a wee bit more effort could have had a huge payoff (i.e. securing Leningrad and cutting off Archangel and Murmansk's Lend Lease aid base of operations).

Steve

I'm very confident that this will be best game ever also from the Finnish point of you, thank you for reassuring this . It is thrilling to hear that you take such interest in Finland.

Now to the point, one of the big IF's of the war. I do not believe for a second that Germans didn't realize the full potential of the northern front, they just couldn't make the Finns do what they wanted, despite numerous attempts. Needles to say, they were more than disappointed in the Finnish response. One very important thing to remember is that Finland and Germany were not officially allies, the Finnish stand being that they were conducting "separate" or "parallel" war.

Germans did make a serious attempt against Murmansk from Norway, which failed miserably. Extremely difficult terrain and wheather conditions made supply virtually impossible and allthough Germans were mountain troops, their experience and abilities were not suited for these conditions. Finnish patrols did cut the Murmansk railway few times, more permanent solution would have required occupying vast areas of enemy ground.

On the Leningrad issue there has been a lot of speculation for the reasons why Finland refused Germany's request to attack Leningrad. Two common answers are that Finns feared Russian revenge after the war would be lost and that Mannerheim had emotional attachment to St. Petersburg of his youth. First reason is afterwisdom to large part, though it didn't go unnoticed that Germans started to suffer big losses already at this point. I believe the second reason is just silly, even if Mannerheim would have let such sentimentall things to affect his desicions (which I doubt), it was not for him to deside alone but also for the Finnish governement.

The real reasons were many. Taking Leningrad would have required lot more than just "whee bit more effort" from the Finnish side, it would have meant huge losses for a country whose resources and manpower were already stretched. Men were needed also on the fields. Secondly, the moral support for this action was close to nonexistant, as a matter of fact there had been already some serious mutinies when soldiers had been ordered to cross the old border. Very important factor was also the role of western diplomacy, ultimatums by GB and USA, as Finnland wanted to avoid war with them. GB was forced to declare war in december 1941, but Finland managed to keep peace with US.

Most importantly Finnland's strategic goals were to get back the land which had been lost in Winter war, and some people had dreams about getting a piece of Eastern Karelia. When these goals were achieved, it was found wiser to wait and see.

Sorry for the OT rant, there is lot more to it of course, but I'll spare you this time .

[ February 04, 2002, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Knaust]

Maybe Germany would have won the war hadn't Hitler diverted panzergruppe Guderian to the South to encircle Kiev.

The offensive against Moscow was delayed for almost one month, and Hitler lost the only big gamble he had to win the war.

Moscow was important not only for political rreasons, but it was the most important communication centre in the Soviet Union.

[Battlefront.com]

Kallimakhos,

While the Germans did understand the importance of operations north of Leningrad, I do think they underestimated how important it was (particullarly regarding Lend Lease) and therefore did not make as much of an effort to secure their objectives as they should have. Reading about the initial attacks of the Army of Norway highlights, to me, how little support they were given for a mission which should have been seen as over ambitious.

As for what the Finns would and would not allow the Germans to do, or aid the Germans with their own forces, is as you say a different issue. However, I think that if the Germans had played their cards differently with the Finns that things might have turned out differently. I am constantly amazed at how inept the Germans were in terms of negotiating with their Allies. In some cases they were downright criminally stupid!

Knaust,

One of the most debated topics of the Eastern Front. I am of the opinion that driving right to Moscow would have caused an even greater German disaster during the winter and following year than what in fact happened. But basically my point is that arguing over the "little" stuff misses the big point, and that is the Germans weren't prepared for that style of war and ultimately were doomed to be defeated.

Steve

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I am of the opinion that driving right to Moscow would have caused an even greater German disaster during the winter and following year than what in fact happened.

Ill just chime in my agreement nice and quick. As Kutuzov once said, "Moscow is not Russia". Sure the government was there. Doesn't mean it could not be moved. Sure it was a communication center - but any other city could become an equally important comm center relatively quickly. When it comes to out-lasting the enemy, the Germans wouldn't have had a chance.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Kallimakhos,

While the Germans did understand the importance of operations north of Leningrad, I do think they underestimated how important it was (particullarly regarding Lend Lease) and therefore did not make as much of an effort to secure their objectives as they should have. Reading about the initial attacks of the Army of Norway highlights, to me, how little support they were given for a mission which should have been seen as over ambitious.

Steve

From what I've read (which is not very much) I've understood that Germans gave up the attempt on Murmansk not so much because of opposing Russian forces - which also was very tough - but because terrain and other conditions (arctic, mountains, no roads etc.) made large bulk of their forces ineffective even without contact to enemy. The northern most front was a logistical nightmere which made supplying large attack formations impossible even during the short summer, attacking in winter wasn't even considered.

There was another attempt further south, in Salla, a joint Finnish-German operation which had some early succes, but the German 36th army group, not good fighting in woods, suffered heavy losses and became soon inoperative, and the supporting Finnish 6th division was finally forbidden to continue the attack by order from Mannerheim. Again, something to do with western ultimatums.

It is possible this front could have offered more possibilities, if Germans would have been willing to concentrate more troops, hard to say. Anyway it seems that the Germans underestimated the difficulty of terrain or overestimated their troop's abilities. This front was also very far away from other fronts, so shifting more troops there couldn't happen on short notice. If I remember right, it took four months for one Gerbildivision to ship from Greece to Murmansk front. I feel sorry for those guys!

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

[quot]If the Operation was launched as originaly shcedualed, the Germans would not have needed winter clothing assuming they had the same success then as they did originaly.

Most historians would disagree for two man reasons:

1. The German Army was simply not ready to undertake Barbarossa any earlier. The forces used in the Balkans were not large, so they didn't affect the whole of the preparations enough to be of major concern.

2. The border areas were experiencing a very wet Spring. This would likely have made the initial German gains far worse, which then would have made the initial Soviet strategic defense plan far more effective than it turned out to be.

The main reason the Germans lost in the East is because they didn't have a clue what they were up against. Weather, distances, terrain, industrial production, resolve of the enemy, and above all else... the enemy's true military capabilities... all horribly underestimated and not prepared for. It is actually amazing the Axis forces did as well as they did.

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I am of the opinion that driving right to Moscow would have caused an even greater German disaster during the winter and following year than what in fact happened.

Ill just chime in my agreement nice and quick. As Kutuzov once said, "Moscow is not Russia". Sure the government was there. Doesn't mean it could not be moved. Sure it was a communication center - but any other city could become an equally important comm center relatively quickly. When it comes to out-lasting the enemy, the Germans wouldn't have had a chance.</font>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

That front of the war was so brutal , it looked as though both sides were in for a fight to the death. Though Stalin was more dependent on the allies for opening a 2nd front.

In my opinion there was already a 2nd front by '43 with the air war over Europe, then the 3rd front came with Operation Overlord.

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

I think they would have, they were equaly as determined as thr Soviets, they killed 1,000,000 Soviets in Berlin with remenents of what was once an army.

Whooo-boy. 1,000,000?? Where did you get that number? From my sources, it was several hundred thousand, not a freakin' million.

Cornelius Ryan sites the figure at 300,000. Still a large number, but your facts, as seems to happen quite often to you, are a long way off.

Even this was only because of the competition between Koniev and Zhukov and the "race for Berlin". Otherwise the Germans would have been annhialated slowly, with more care and with less Soviet casualties.

Oh, and the Germans were no where as determined as the Soviets when it came to conquering the USSR. When defending your own land, the defenders will eventually win if the attacker cannot achieve victory quickly. Germany could not. It bogged down. History has proven this many times both before and after WWII.

[ February 04, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

I think they would have, they were equaly as determined as thr Soviets, they killed 1,000,000 Soviets in Berlin with remenents of what was once an army.

Whooo-boy. 1,000,000?? Where did you get that number? From my sources, it was several hundred thousand, not a freakin' million.

Cornelius Ryan sites the figure at 300,000. Still a large number, but your facts, as seems to happen quite often to you, are a long way off.

Even this was only because of the competition between Koniev and Zhukov and the "race for Berlin". Otherwise the Germans would have been annhialated slowly, with more care and with less Soviet casualties.

Oh, and the Germans were no where as determined as the Soviets when it came to conquering the USSR. When defending your own land, the defenders will eventually win if the attacker cannot achieve victory quickly. Germany could not. It bogged down. History has proven this many times both before and after WWII.</font>

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Funny thing is that Fugate and Glantz disagree somewhat on some basic stuff, but in the end come to the same exact conclusions that the Soviet Union was far more prepared for a war with Germany than Germany was with the Soviet Union.

I think I understand what you're saying here, but it's stated a little oddly. I think the Soviets did a far better job than the Germans making ends meet with what resources they had available, but I don't believe that on June 22, 1941 the balance favored the Soviets. Likely, neither does David Glantz, if Stumbling Colossus is any indication. I'd argue that had the Germans not screwed it up in 1941, in all likelihood we wouldn't have had the chance to see what operational art looks like when it's done right, circa 1944 in Belorussia.

Scott

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

I think they would have, they were equaly as determined as thr Soviets, they killed 1,000,000 Soviets in Berlin with remenents of what was once an army.

Whooo-boy. 1,000,000?? Where did you get that number? From my sources, it was several hundred thousand, not a freakin' million.

Cornelius Ryan sites the figure at 300,000. Still a large number, but your facts, as seems to happen quite often to you, are a long way off.

Even this was only because of the competition between Koniev and Zhukov and the "race for Berlin". Otherwise the Germans would have been annhialated slowly, with more care and with less Soviet casualties.

Oh, and the Germans were no where as determined as the Soviets when it came to conquering the USSR. When defending your own land, the defenders will eventually win if the attacker cannot achieve victory quickly. Germany could not. It bogged down. History has proven this many times both before and after WWII.</font>

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

It was my understanding that the Soviets suffered 1 milions casualties taking Berlin. That would make the figure of 300,000 plausible, if you count 1 of every 3 or 4 casulties as death (a fairly good ration from WWII in general IIRC).

Incorrect. Read below.

Originally posted by ICS:

I can't remember the name of the book off hand but i'm going ot start doing some reading again soon and if i come across it i'll post it. Say if it was 700,000 people though, thats an insane amount of casualties.

Yes, if it was 700,000 it would have been and insane ammount. Thankfully for the Soviets, most figures point at less then half that number.

You might find this thread at the Soviet Union Factbook interesting.

The third and last posts in this thread provide casualty statistics with reliable sources.

http://pub19.ezboard.com/fussrfrm5.showMessage?topicID=6.topic

[Scott B]

The Commissar has his numbers right. According to Krivosheev's Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, the Berlin Operation cost the Soviets 78,291 irrecoverable losses, and 274,184 sick and wounded, for a total of 352,475 casualties during the operation, over a 23 day period.

Scott