The Russian Army of WWII and SC2

[arado234]

Thats my point SeaMonkey,in reality the germans outclassed russia in experience and tactics and still lost(for various reasons we all know).

In this game if the german player outclasses the allied player and england is still in the game the germans can and do beat russia.

As far as the reds mounting an effective counterattack,ive read many battles here and have experienced many where russia has done it.People make mistakes and these can be capitalised on.I also think its pretty hard to get two players that are exactly evenly matched.

The germans arent supposed to have an easy time of it.In reality their hope of winning was much slimmer than in this game.Thats why its fun being either side.You know you have a chance.

[SeaMonkey]

Point Taken!

[Blashy]

The goal of the default scenario is to give each side a 50/50 chance of winning.

Although I prefer if it were historical, simply giving USA their proper Industrial output does that, tested this many times and I made a mod out of it.

I totally understand why Hubert would chose the 50/50 route, it simply has more mass appeal. And if I were in his shoes I would do the same thing, after all he makes a living out of this game.

Historical for me means Axis holding on until August 31st 1945. If they have Koenigsberg, Warsaw, Munich, Berlin and Rome = Major victory for Axis by succeeding in getting a peace treaty on equal terms and a minor victory same as above but without Rome, armistice is achieved.

Not many people would like the challenge of knowing victory is achieved through resistance as Axis, most people prefer a concrete victory by defeating their opponent.

[ August 14, 2007, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[ev]

I do not think the Germans had a chance of taking over Russia. They did not have the manpower...

But "victory" should not be defined as taking over Russia. Ass a matter of fact, the historical goal of Barbarosa was to set up a defensive line deep enough into Russian Territory for Russian bombers not to reach Germany...

I would define a major Axis Major Victory as follows: by war's end, the Allies have no cities and no ports in Western Europe, the Axis control Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland, Libia, the Baltic States, Minsk, Smollensk, Kiev, Karkov, Odesa, the Ukranian Resource centers and Sevastopol.

I would define an Axis Minor Victory as follows: by war's end, the Axis Control Paris, Dunkirk the French resource centers north of the Alps, all cities of Benelux, Denmark, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Western Poland, Germany including East Prussia, and, Italy including Sicily.

I would define a Minor Allied Victory if, by war's end, the Allies recovered all French and Russian cities and hold at least one German or Italian City.

I would define an allied Major Victory if, by war's end, the Allies recovered all French and Russian cities and also hold at least half of the original (1939) Italian and German cities.

Notice there is room for a draw. If the Allies fail to clear French and Russian Cities, there will be a draw even if they take over most of Germany and Italy. Also, if the Axis manage to hold each and every of their original (1939) Italian and German cities, it is a draw.

...and, by the way, I really don't like the A Bomb as a victory condition. If you want to have a super bomb that can knock out a city for ever, fine. But blasting a city with an A Bomb should not be a "victory" condition. A German city should not be deemed occupied by the Allied merely because the Allies bombed it away with an A Bomb, nor vice versa.

We can also define an Axis Overrun and Allied Overrun Victories when a knock out is achieved before war's end. An Axis Overrun would require the Axis to take out France, England and Russia (as in SC2) before war's end. An Allied Overrun would require the Allies to take Rome, Berlin and two thirds of the original (1939) German and Italian cities, before war's end.

[arado234]

ev, how long would germany have to hold those cities for?Untill 1945 or 1947.

As far as the abomb goes, it forced the final surrender of japan unconditionally.If the allies started dropping them on germany i bet the germans would have given up.If the allies had just kept up the fire bombing attacks they started germany might have given up.Goebbels was sure worried about it.

Germany could have beaten russia if they went is as "liberators"as alot of the russians felt they were.Your right as far as once the slugging match started germany would have to have gotten very lucky to win.If russia kept on using those massed charges and the germans had used a sensible defence russia may have gotten tired of the slaughter and made a seperate peace.

As far as your victory conditions go you could always just set those as the ground rules for any P.B.E.M. game you play.

[Guest Mike]

It may be of interest that the rail lines in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were operating within 2 days of the bombs being dropped......

[ev]

Originally posted by arado234:

ev, how long would germany have to hold those cities for?Untill 1945 or 1947.

As far as the abomb goes, it forced the final surrender of japan unconditionally.If the allies started dropping them on germany i bet the germans would have given up.If the allies had just kept up the fire bombing attacks they started germany might have given up.Goebbels was sure worried about it.

Short answer, I don't think Germany had any chance at all of winning the war, even if the U.S. did not have the A Bomb.

I think an Axis player that manages to hold to very small gains until 1946 should be consider "victorious" for game purposes. There are two ways of balancing a game, making the Axis player look stronger viz a viz the Allies than historically accurate or making the "Victory Conditions" represent what a good genearl could have reasonably achieved given the most difficult odds faced by Germany.

Hitler lost the war when he attacked Russia in 1941. And he lost the war for a second time when Japan attacked the U.S. later that year. Either one of those events meant certain defeat for Germany down the road. Maybe Russia would have attacked Germany any way. Maybe the U.S. would have declared war on Germany any way. Either way, Germany could not fight a two front war.

I find the following number very telling: When Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, about 12% of Germany's male population was already in the armed forces. I am including male babies and old men as part of the male population. This is a huge number.

A lot has been said about Germany not fully mobilizing for war because Hitler did not want to put undue preasure on the population. Numbers do not support this. As of June 1941, Germany had about 158 regular infantry divisions, 11 security divisions, 37 panzer and light panzer divisions (pnzr grndr) plus2 independent panzer brigades and the equivalent of 2 paratrooper divisions, the largest airforce in the world, and probably the largest submarine force as well.

To put this in context, during the whole of WWII the U.S. activated something like 100 divions. And the order of battle I listed above corresponds to 1941 - before the U.S. even entered the war.

The fact is that Germany mobilized too many men from the very begining, hurting industry and transport infrastructure. Whatever the Wermacht achived through 1941-42 was the most you could reasonably expect from the Wermacht.

Back to my victory conditions comment, these comments regards solely what should be the victory conditions for the game. Winning in the game does not mean anything but that, winning the game. It does not mean that because Germany won the game, does not mean that Germany could have won the war.

[ev]

Earlier in this topic I mentioned:

Originally posted by ev:

As of 1941 the Russian Army had over 3 million enlisted men. By most account, the Russian Army also had the best and the most tanks. And, it also had 5 million partially trained men ready to be called to arms. (In preparation for an impending war with Hitler's Germany they had made provision to give partiall training to all abled bodied men. On the date of the invasion they had over 5 million men with one month worth of miliatry training in addition to the 3.3 million enlisted men.)...

I've wondered how to simulate in SC2 the fact that Russia had so many patially trained men ready to call to arms. I remember reading recently about the stupendous rate at which the Russians created new divisions and armies during the first few months of the war. I will try to get this numbers for you all later on. Any way, I remember something the Russians raising something like 100 divisions in a few months.

Obviously, all these reserves were called so quickly because Germany was invading Russia. I imagine that these reserves would not have been activated at the same rate if Russia had attacked Germany. So I wonder if Hubert and Co. could include a script in the game that activated production of a large number of Corps when Germany takes over say 3 Russia cities.

I remember playing a board game (War in Europe) that did just that. In WIE Russia could be in either of three states: neutra, limmited war, and total war. Russia entered total war when Germany captured any 3 Russian cities. This activated fast production of Russian Reserves (the 5 million men mentioned above) and also activate war production (similar to an automatic rachetting up of Production Tech in SC2.

...I hope Hubert and Co. look at this idea. It allows for the Axis player to chose an interesting game path. Face a hostile Russia without pushing it into "The Great Patriotic War" - to use the term still used by Russian historians.

[Blashy]

One of the main reasons they managed to train so many troops was that they did not have to allocate so many resources to their logistics equipment.

USA furnished over 75% of all logistics equipment to Russia and I think Zhukov mentioned in his memoirs that over 90% of all logistics equipment was US made in 1941 or 1942 can't remember which year.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by ev:

A lot has been said about Germany not fully mobilizing for war because Hitler did not want to put undue preasure on the population. Numbers do not support this.

Production, not Mobilization!

May i Quote Wikipedia:

In contrast, Germany started the war under the concept of blitzkrieg. It did not accept that it was in a total war until Joseph Goebbels' Sportpalast speech of 18 February 1943. For example, women were not conscripted into the armed forces or allowed to work in factories. The Nazi party adhered to the policy that a woman's place was in the home, and did not change this even as its opponents began moving women into important roles in production.

I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even imagine today?

(National Socialist propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels 18 February 1943 in his Sportpalast speech)

The commitment to the doctrine of the short war was a continuing handicap for the Germans; neither plans nor state of mind were adjusted to the idea of a long war until it was too late to help win the war. Germany's armament minister Albert Speer, who assumed office in early 1942, nationalized German war production and eliminated the worst inefficiencies. Under his direction a threefold increase in armament production occurred and did not reach its peak until late 1944. To do this during the damage caused by the growing strategic Allied bomber offensive, is an indication of the degree of industrial under-mobilization in the earlier years. It was because the German economy through most of the war was substantially under-mobilized that it was resilient under air attack. Civilian consumption was high during the early years of the war and inventories both in industry and in consumers' possession were high. These helped cushion the economy from the effects of bombing. Plant and machinery were plentiful and incompletely used, thus it was comparatively easy to substitute unused or partly used machinery for that which was destroyed. Foreign labour, both slave labour and labour from neighbouring countries who joined the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, was used to augment German industrial labour which was under pressure by conscription into the Wehrmacht (Armed Forces).

:cool:

[ev]

Originally posted by Blashy:

One of the main reasons they managed to train so many troops was that they did not have to allocate so many resources to their logistics equipment.

USA furnished over 75% of all logistics equipment to Russia and I think Zhukov mentioned in his memoirs that over 90% of all logistics equipment was US made in 1941 or 1942 can't remember which year.

From my readings it sounds 75% of supply trucks used by Russia were probably U.S. made. These trucks probably supplied the heavier mechanized units. Meanwhile, probably most of the foot infantry was supplied by carts drawn by animal. My guess is that these carts did not count as equipment eventhough they probably hauled the supplies for most of the army... just like they did for their German counterparts.

As far as the comparison with the U.S., your comment is fair enough. Still my point is not to diminish the role played by U.S. industry but to point out the vast amount of men mobilized in a very short time by Russia. Russia called to arms something like 6 million men within the first 12-15 months of the war. This number is extraordinary by any measure. ...and, I would like SC2 to somehow model it.

[arado234]

ev i agree with you about russia having all these troops real fast but i think with all the other historical events and possible events that arenot included in this game is because of play balance.If you start adding in more historical realities then the game becomes impossible for germany to "win".

Your idea about changing the victory conditions to reflect this(russia getting all those extra men)is agood idea.Perhaps it could be an optional setting?

[Guest Mike]

Most Russian truck production was from factories set up by US companies that produced old US designs - ZIS-5 and ZIS-6 trucks were copies of Autocar designs (525,000 of these were made from 33-48), GAZ-M's were direct copies of the Ford 1934 model (400,000 made 38-47)

Brandt, Hercules, Ford and autocar all helped construct Russian truck factories in the early 30's.

the Trucks delivered under lend lease were more modern and much better carriers.

According to Wiki the USSR produced about 200,000 trucks, and LL delivered another 375,000.

In addition LL provided 92% of soviet rails, 81% of it's loco's and 80% of it's rail cars and 30% of it's tyres made/received during the war.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

You could introduce some sort of Supply and Manpower pools into the game-there are titles out there which handle such variables. But would that destroy the balance and non-micromanagement philosophies which Hubert has striven to put into his magnum opi?

[ev]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

You could introduce some sort of Supply and Manpower pools into the game-there are titles out there which handle such variables. But would that destroy the balance and non-micromanagement philosophies which Hubert has striven to put into his magnum opi?

Right now we have this hard/soft limits. I would use Supply and Manpower pools instead of hard/soft limits. I dont think this would change the current level of micromanagement from the current game. ...and the impact on balance should not be very different from the current hard/soft limit set up.

However a pool system would give more flexibility to the players. For instance, right now you have a fixed limit of corps and army units, you cannot change one for the other. With a pool system you could have more corps and less armies or vice versa. Same thing with supply: some think gas was an issue for Germany. But you could reduce the number of tanks and increase the number of planes. Or reduce the number of cruisers and increase the number of trucks to carry infantry.

[SeaMonkey]

Hence the new thread.