EP '14 mechanics/balance

[ComradeP]

Now that the game with jonnymacbrown is several days into the Clash of Empires campaign scenario and after reading the manual more thoroughly than before, I have some observations about the balance in EP '14.

The overall balance in terms of units and unit quality feels right, the only exception being Russian E quality reserve MG and gun formations as that feels like too much of a penalty. Making them D quality would make them significantly more useful, but not overpowered.

The reasons for why the MG and gun units are one quality level lower than the infantry units as explained in the manual make sense, but making all of them D quality seems like enough of a penalty on their performance.

The area where the balance is threatened is in how the specific penalties imposed on the Russians by design and the values associated with them in the Clash of Empires campaign combine into very serious penalties that in turn give the Germans a significant advantage.

The primary cause of the problem is supply, or rather: the lack thereof, and how it has an effect on unit effectiveness through units becoming low ammo and through the replacement rate.

To start with replacements: for over half the campaign, the Russians get either no or a handful of replacements. Initially, I thought there was at most one drop in supply, but there are three. That means frontline supply is 20-25 in optimistic cases starting September 1st, and replacements dry up completely or go down to 4 or so men at most.

This is then combined with units also being likely to have a Low Ammo status. Here, the command radius of 1 of Russian brigade HQ's combines with the low local supply levels to rapidly reduce Russian battalion effectiveness even excluding actual losses.

Comparing that to the German side: the Germans nearly always get ~30 replacements on average and as their HQ's cover 7 hexes in a circle centered on the HQ instead of 3 like the Russian HQ's, they can replace losses (and regain fatigue) whilst advancing or defending. The Russians can't move a unit back multiple hexes whilst the rest of the regiment/brigade is at the frontline with all units being in range of the brigade HQ whilst the Germans can do so. This is a crucial advantage.

Over time, it means you can't inflict meaningful losses on the Germans in a way that the Germans can't replace, without suffering disproportionality yourself as the Russians. If you inflict 300 losses and suffer, say, 150 (which is very optimistic), the Germans can replace those losses in 10 turns whilst your men might never come back. Over a period of several days, it's clear which way the wind will blow.

Any kind of combat operations lowering Russian strength in a way that can't be replaced is something that can over a period of days cripple entire divisions. Even a frontal attack without artillery support by the Germans can achieve this.

As an example of how the Russian MG and gun assets can quickly lose effectiveness: MG's and guns are likely to become Low Ammo, which makes them E morale. That in turn makes them likely to disrupt, which means placing them directly at the frontline is risky. The German MG and gun units are unlikely to be Low Ammo and if they disrupt they're still D morale. The Russians are F morale when disrupted and low ammo and unlikely to recover.

The Russian army might indeed have been rotten to the core in a number of ways, but this is also the army that could with some slight variations in events have prevented Tannenberg or turned it into a German defeat, the army that nearly inflicted a serious defeat on the Germans at Lodz, that took Lemberg and managed to stay in the war for several years regardless of those inefficiencies. An army having unique characteristics that require a certain play style is fun, but there's a certain point where penalties feel like they're too severe or artificial/arbitrary.

A few examples of the latter category:

-You need to plan the return of Samsanov's HQ several days in advance and never get both the Guards and the 1st Rifle Brigade and Samsanov. In the Tannenberg scenario, all three are present. That by itself is fine, but having to decide where Samsonov goes days in advance feels too gimmicky.

-Supply in Russian forts isn't artificially increased to counter the supply variations, which mean none of them will have any supply left by September 1st.

-"Extra" 10th Army units arrive piecemeal and the Daily arrival chance means they might very well arrive without their HQ. If they're not supposed to be there, OK, but if they should have a chance to arrive, make them arrive per formation if you give them a Daily chance.

Fatigue recovery is the same for both sides, but it's more difficult for the Russians to keep their battalions in range of their HQ and the Germans attack first on each day, so a huddle of battalions can be vulnerable.

Historically, the Russians could be tough defenders. Examples include the southern attack at Gumbinnen, the failure of which routed the Germans off the field, and the frontal attack against 1st Army during 1st Masurian Lakes which got nowhere. In the famous battles of the early stages of the war on the Eastern Front in World War I, the Russians were defeated through being outflanked, out-generalled and/or caught out of position. With the limited quantities of artillery available at the time, frontal attacks were costly for both sides.

My current impression is that the balancing has gone too far to favour the Germans, as even normal, not very costly, combat operations can quickly remove the fighting effectiveness of Russian formations in a way that they can only recover from with great difficulty.

One of the main differences in balance between campaigns and scenarios is the turn number, which means a side that enjoys a small effective advantage or no effective advantage in a scenario can enjoy a much greater advantage over time in the campaign.

The Russians can currently attack in an efficient manner, but they have no means to sustain that attack. Their numerical superiority exists mostly on paper (it's about 1.5:1 after the German reinforcements arrive) and as disrupted units have full movement points, destroying units is difficult for both sides, but the Germans can destroy Russian units through the Fragile nation mechanic.

Something like making Russian brigade HQ's range 2 in a situation where German brigade HQ's are range 3, and not reducing Russian supply so it's 50 or so at the border and about 2/3 of the German level would give the Russians more of a fighting chance. Replacements would still be lower but the higher replacement rate (4% compared to 3%) could compensate for that.

I like the feel of the game and the specific WWI charm, but giving the Russians a break so they can launch an attack which isn't destructive on the long term would in my opinion improve balance.

[Volcano Man]

Apart from the issue about choosing where the Russian 2nd Army HQ will arrive in advance, unfortunately I disagree with just about everything you said. While we can split hairs about whether the Russian supply level should be X or Y, or with the number crunching that you do with this or that (I will avoid that and just concentrating on the main points here), the Russian Bde HQ command radius size should absolutely NOT be anything other than it is. Believe me all manner of radius values were tried during testing and the very small radius felt the best, considering that it allowed the Russian Army to be strong in very specific circumstances but can over extend itself rather easily. The small radius for Russian Bde HQs (and all other HQs for that matter) encourages them to be historical and maintain dense formation for good order, or spread out and become brittle. Someone could argue that Russian infantry should all just be D quality, and HQs should just be higher radius -- but this doesn't do them justice as, like you said, they were known to be tough defenders. With the current approach it allows them to occasionally solidify into a very tough nut to crack, or make an effective push at the expense of certain parts of the division's front. Also it means that it gives the Russian Army some historical and very real character in that it could be effective in very specific situations. I guess you just have to trust me, a change here would break everything. With all due respect, there is a very fine balance at work here that you don't seem to realize. Just ask some of the testers and they might tell you how the Russian were early on when they had larger command radii, among other things. ;)

Re: Russian Supply level, they begin the campaign at 60%, and this is very optimistic IMO if you read about their supply situation. 60% is certainly adequate for offensive operations, and especially the bumbling and indecisive kind. The decline is supply levels coincides with the fact that we don't really know if their actual supply level was 60% or 40% -- is this documented somewhere where we can put a finger on it? It is like trying to put numeric values on the difference between "terrible" and "abysmal". No, all we know is that it was bad, and inadequate, which to me is 40% to 60%. Even with 40% supply you can still attack, but momentum will break down in areas that are heavily engaged , while areas that aren't engaged will recover all supply to full capacity in about a day. This sounds right to me. The final -10% decline on September 1st (thereby making Russian supply level = 30% for the 1st Battle of the Masurian Lakes) is all about putting them on the defensive at that point. Maybe this final -10% isn't really needed anymore, but during design I thought it was to throw the Russians into defense by that point, which was essentially the case for Rennenkampf by that time. He wasn't exactly marching towards Konigsberg anymore by then and we all know the reason why, but in a campaign where it is very difficult for the Germans to reproduce their historical successes (the nearly complete destruction or full rout of the Russian 2nd Army) then if both Russian armies still exist by September 1st then they must have their supply reins pulled back, so to speak. The rationale here being a transition from attacker to defender. Can you still attack with 30% supplies? I think so, but obviously you wouldn't want to be making a full frontal assault on German positions by this point.

Re: the Samsonov HQ decision, yes it is a bit gamey I agree, but it had to work within the given constraints, and most importantly in game design, it had to have a pro - con relationship while at the same time representing something you absolutely must have in a wargame about Tannenberg: a mechanism to degrade 2nd Army. So, the player is given a choice -- better units and historical degradation of the 2nd Army, or keep 2nd Army in order (and with a better HQ) but give up some of their best units (the guards). I don't see any other way it would work.   Yes I do agree that choosing where Samsonov will magically return to the battlefield if he passes his trial and defies history is a bit of a gimmick in how it is handled, but again, as a designer you have to think of ways to "make it work".  I could have not done anything with Samsonov, then I would receive complaints about how 2nd Army cannot be destroyed because it never actually gets degraded in any way. So choosing where Samsonov will return a few days in advance is of minor importance to that in my book. Edit: in regards to the Tannenberg scenario, all three (Rifle Bde, Guards Div and Samsonov HQ) are indeed all present, but if you look closely Samsonov is removed during the scenario as a withdrawal. The only difference is that in the campaign you have a choice, albeit you have to make it in advance, though.

Re: fortress supply levels dropping to 0%, this is true but it is intentional that they drop to 0 - at least I was fully aware of it during design and was fine with it. The fact is that the Russian supply system was totally inadequate and struggled to maintain consistent supply. If that means you cannot fall back an army onto Osowiec fort, get it isolated, and not get 5% supply from the fort, then so be it - it sounds perfectly fine to me especially since I know that the main reason why I put those supply sources there was simply to prevent the ISOLATED status from occurring to a force isolated around a fort. ;)  Beyond that Kovno is the most important fortress on the map but it has a primary supply source within arms reach and would be impossible for the Germans to get to without dealing with the fortress (unless they exercised some kind of outrageous pontoon bridge attack across the Neiman and Neris, then down the east side of that map. If someone did that in a game then I would recommend to the Russian player to quit immediately and stay far away from the gamey German player who did this. That said, I have it on my to-do list (when we get around to a battle with important forts with vital supply sources) to be able to specify a minimum level that a supply source will drop to, and I will certainly carry that feature over to EP14, but for the time being I didn't feel it was vital given the rationale above.

Re: Russian 10th Army arrival, they did arrive that way as far as my research showed. The 10th Army was forming during the period, and it was done rather hastily and as an emergency to cover for the sudden disappearance of the 2nd Army -- which was not something that they expected to happen as you can probably imagine. Also, not only was it very difficult to determine what was actually there on what day (I don't think the Russians knew it themselves from time to time), all research pointed to the fact that units were arriving as they were able to, with or without their HQs. A battalion might arrive one day, and the rest of the brigade the next. It was by no means an organized assembly.

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

All I can say is that the effects on the Russian Army that you describe are 100% intentional. You mention that on paper they are strong, but in practice they are often not so. This is exactly the effect I wanted to achieve, so I am glad to hear it -- the Russian Army was indeed a strong force on paper but in practice it was clumsy and prone to being defeated in detail. Have you tried playing either East Prussian campaign or the full Tannenberg battle against a human? Or better yet, have you tried the Lodz campaign as the Germans against a human?

The fact is that just the slightest change to the Russians will turn them into a monster that in no way plays historical because it wouldn't portray them BOTH with very drastic strengths and weaknesses.  I know this because the Russian forces evolved very heavily during the year+ of testing, from an initial point of being an unstoppable juggernaut to something less effective but still impossible for the small German forces to deal with, to what it is now where a small and very capable German force is now able to actually fight back and inflict defeat on a vastly numerically superior force.

By the look of the EP14 campaign results, it is slight pro German with the likely result apparently being a German minor victory (if we just go by the numbers). I am relieved to see this because I was actually concerned that the Germans could not win it. It should certainly be difficult for the Russians to win and a minor victory means that Draw and CP Minor Defeat are within range, so I don't see a problem there. I don't think it would be fair to portray the East Prussian campaign in a frame of reference where a Draw or Minor Russian Victory is the most likely result. So, what we end up with is a situation where it is very difficult for the Germans to reproduce a Major Victory (that is their challenge) and difficult for the Russians to achieve a Minor Victory (their challenge) and very difficult for them to achieve a Major Victory - which both Major Victory results must clearly depend on quite a bit of luck and quite a bit of blundering by the other side.

Beyond all that I don't really know what to say. I appreciate the fact that you decided to deeply analyze EP14, but I do think that you may not be looking at the full game design oriented picture when making these in depth dissections. If it was completely broken then I would be inclined to make a wide range of changes but, honestly, I wouldn't have put it out there if I felt it was broken.  Besides me being totally against changing the Russian OOB, I am constantly tweaking the scenarios to be more balanced so if there are any suggestions as to VP levels in a certain scenario then I am always all ears. Also if enough people think that the -10% decline in Russian supplies is too harsh on the September 1st and is not needed, then I wouldn't be against cutting that out.  So, in other words, what I am really interested in hearing about is Scenario X is impossible to win with Side Y and I suggest a VP level adjustment of +/-Z points, or that the OOB has a bug in it. ;)

[Mr Grumpy]

Thanks for the feedback, always great to read players comments on these titles.

From my reading about the Russian army strengths/weaknesses in WW1 I feel that the blend of values Ed has given them has been successful in representing those strengths/weaknesses within the game mechanics, the C quality and weapon values show that the average front line division Russian soldier was tough, well trained and had weapons that had similar capabilities to other nations.

However the Russian army had a critical problem, poor logistics and generally poor command, this is represented by low supply values and the smaller command radius.

Personally I love playing the Russians as you have to be very careful in how you organise their formations which falls in with my anal mind set, they can be very powerful but only if used correctly, if the Russian player is sloppy in his play he will find the German line very difficult if not impossible to pierce and for this reason I think there will always be sense amongst players who are used to PzC or German F14/EP14 command ranges that the Russians cannot achieve anything of use.

From hundreds of hours playing EP14 I am convinced that without the limitations placed on the Russian forces they will be an unstoppable steamroller and we would see players posting that the game is impossible from the German side, I have just launched an offensive against Ricky B's Germans in the Lodz campaign, using superior numbers I almost trapped half a division of German troops and it was only the short command range (that prevented disrupted Russian units becoming un-disrupted) and low ammo status that prevented or weakened assaults that saved these units from destruction, if the Russian forces had had command/supply values similar to the German forces then I have no doubt would have swept Rick's forces away.

[Volcano Man]

Ah, yes that is why I asked if he played Lodz with a human. They Russians are rough there, given the numerical difference that they often relied upon when facing the Germans of course. Not to say that it is perfect (and actually the Lodz campaign has undergone some nice tweaks for the coming update) but just saying that the Russians aren't a push over either.

BTW, regarding Lemberg, let's keep in mind that the Russians were fighting the Austro-Hungarians. It would be best to reserve full judgement of the the Russian Army until the eventual day that we have that battle in a game. I have no doubt that the Russian Army would be capable of effectively fighting the Austro Hungarians though. ;)

Also I really don't see how a historical result would even be remotely possible if the Russians were any different in Tannenberg, but I do understand that sometimes it is depressing or a shock if our favorite army has serious weaknesses. :0

A little known factoid: Russian infantry Bde HQ command radius values are actually all 2 hexes not 1, it's their poor quality that makes it what it is. ;p

[BigDuke66]

Very informative posts, thanks Volcano Man.

[Landser34]

The thing I think should be changed is the Russian ability to dig in in every book I have read like Dennis Showalter's Tannenberg Clash of Empires and Prit Buttar's Clash of Empires and a Seven volume series I found on Amazon and on the sections that was focused on the eastern front.In every mention German officers remarked if you gave Russians a few hours they would be below ground and would have to be dug out. I think the Russians should have a bonus on the ability to dig in.I have played and am playing right now another scenario and the Russians some times it takes day for them just to make a improved position.

I spent 8 years in the infantry and I could dig a fighting position in a few hours and morale rating should really have no bearing on how well somebody can dig a trench you can put a shovel in a morons hand and they can be below ground in a few hours if they know that if they aren't dug in they stand a good chance of dying.

just my 2 cents

[Volcano Man]

Well, the places where they dug in, they sat in those places for days. Case in point: Usdau, and the entire line along the 1st Masurian Lakes positions. In both cases the Russians occupied the area and worked on their positions well before the Germans were anywhere in the area. The Russians suspected that the Germans would attack, or thought it was an exposed flank (ie. Usdau) and then they stopped and dug in.

This again is another difference between reading into a passing comment in historical text or something stated in a book, and taking what makes sense at a wargame level. If it is so easy to dig in, then the defender would be digging and creating improved positions just about every two turns, making it IMPOSSIBLE for any ground to be gained against a vastly numerically superior Russian force. So, as it stands right now, the Russians have to spend a day of digging - but it can be much less if they use their engineers to assist (which is what they were mainly for) as they greatly increase the probability.

And also, every army in 1914 had a similar situation - it was not like the soldiers didn't know how to dig a hole in the ground, or were discouraged from doing so by doctrine, or that today's modern infantry are smarter at digging holes. The fact is that every soldier didn't carry a shovel back then - they didn't have a compact fold up E-tool like today's infantry.

If you look at the BEF during France 1914, you will see the comment come up repeatedly that the infantry had a woefully inadequate number of entrenching/pioneer type tools, and this was true for just about everyone. The engineers and pioneers of all armies had the tools, but the infantry did not. There were various reasons for this, such as the shortsightedness that it would just be a quick offensive war in a few months, to logically, there not being enough shovels to go around, nor enough transport to move them (we are literally talking about millions of soldiers here). But I do also think that, logistics wise, no army prepared to go into a war with the idea that every soldier would be digging in to defend. Of course by 1915 more and better entrenching tools suddenly became a priority, and it wasn't a problem to pile up huge amounts of such tools along a static front.

So again, I think the 1% digging in is about as good as it can get in 1914. If it were 2%, which seems like a small change, then there is just too much digging in going on to be historical. The current level encourages the Russians to do what they historically did - plan to go on the defensive somewhere, then spend some time actually setting up defenses for a day or two. If it worked any other way, then the Russians would simply walk up to the Germans and THEN start digging in immediately with results. It didn't work like that and it would break the mobility of the campaign. ;)

[jim pfleck]

I have a few comments.

First off, there is digging in and then there are trenches capable of protection against WWI firepower (I do not have infantry experience so I cannot really comment on what is realistic in terms of field fortification with adequate head cover). I cannot remember the specific source, maybe Sweetman's Tannenberg, but the Russians did not build overhead cover and suffered from the Prussian guns. But I do not claim to be any sort of expert.  A good discussion of this sort of things is in the book Rocky Road to the Great War, which looks at the use of trenches in the wars leading up to WWI. 

Regarding the Russians and their rate of digging in, I think my comments on this reflect my comments on playing as the Russians in general---I find I have to move slow, but react quickly and largely defensively. In practice this means that I am not very good at attacking as the Russians but am finding that attacking with each corps on a single division front, with one division behind to move forward as progress is made, or two whole corps stacked up that way, can lead to local success. Similalry, the tight command range enforces tight, dense formations with often open flanks and also a certain lack of flexibility. My response to this (more later) , is what took my 10 years to learn in the Napoleonic Tiller games---when in doubt retreat, and retreat 1 turn before you think you need to, both tactically and on a larger scale.

Similarly, either on the defensive or if moving to contact, I have found the need (pounded into my head in my EP campaign game vs Doctor), to move in small spurts, often digging in with one brigade or division while the rest of the formation advances a few turns in a tight formation, always mindful of the flanks do to the morale rule that allowed Doctor to snatch up my flank troops...

Anyhow, I mostly disagree with Comrade P regarding the Russian capabilities. I am not saying he is totally wrong, but in my playing of numerous scenarios as the Russians I find that they can do well for the most part but, as I said, I have not come up with a good system for attacking as the Russians. Tactically, on the defensive, I find that if the Russians have a narrow front, the short command range enforces defense in depth (which also helps with digging in).  With the movement rates, the Russians can run away pretty well. 

The problems I really struggle with as the Russians operationally concern space and open flanks in the EP Campaign ( I have not played the Lodz Campaign). The short command ranges, low morale, and fragile morale make it nearly impossible for me to make headway against a good opponent and, with so much space on the map (compared to the unit density), to protect the Russian flanks and avoid destruction. I think that, as Ed says, it is very, very hard to win any level of victory as the Russians against an equally skilled German player.  I think that it would take a major strategic error AND tactical errors for the Germans to lose. On the flip side, the Russian two-step (taking two steps back each turn to avoid being meleed) is a saving grace.

[jim pfleck]

A second line of thought refers to Comrade P's comments on recovery of losses and I would be interested in other people's thoughts and experiences about this.

Personally, I tend to focus more on fatigue level and disorder than raw troop numbers. And when I do count, I am more concerned with the number of battalions than their size (as long as they are over 500 men each or so). So I am more concerned with the fragile morale than with the recovery of men. Am I wrong? Going too far in disregard of numbers? At one point in my campaign game with Doctor (minor Russian defeat for me), I was thinking that with the low morale and bad command range he would be slaughtering me without fragile morale (two corps got caught in a river bend by Francois. It was ugly, likely avoidable, and horrible)!

Maybe against another German opponent who is a little less organized I will do better, but it seems, at least with my playing style, that the Campaign will largely involve the Germans chasing the Russians around and my Russians hoping to catch a break and win a battle by dumb luck.

Tactically, I find that the Russians can do ok as long as they give ground as needed and attack slowly and methodically (which means the Germans can almost always get away). Most of the German infantry is not rated super high, so they disrupt on the attack, especially when facing Russians in good order (not disrupted). Of course, it is hard to keep good order as the Russians but I think that for small chunks of time- maybe 2-4 turns- the Russians can perform like they do in the history books---standing their ground and dishing out a lot of damage. But after more than a few turns the the low morale and command range issues make that sort of firepower unsustainable.....

[ComradeP]

Regarding trenches, one thing the engine doesn't model well due to there being no slope hexsides is that in an era where the majority of the weapons are direct fire weapons, digging in on a hill will give you a very significant defensive advantage as it makes your troops more or less immune to most kinds of fire because the trajectory of most weapons means the fire will hit the hill/earth breastworks and not your troops.

There are no slopes in the game, so you can't create a reverse slope defense, but it would be far more effective to do so in these early stages of WWI with limited artillery and no mortars than in WWII or later wars with large quantities of indirect fire weapons.

Having no top cover means little without air burst weapons or without situations where shrapnel or shrapnel like objects are in the air like with tree bursts. Regular artillery shells buried men alive because the shock blew the earthen wall of the trench at them. Top cover wouldn't change much about that. Top cover would also make “going over the top” on a broad front impossible, not to mention that there were thousands of kilometres worth of trenches that simply couldn't be covered without deforesting Europe.

Deep trenches with strengthened walls offered good protection to WWI type artillery, the trenches of about half a man's height of the first year of the war wouldn't provide much protection from artillery fire, but would give good protection against direct fire if the attacker is below you.

To continue the discussion about the balance in Clash of Empires:

First, Russian supply isn't likely to be 30 at the frontline starting September 1st but about 20. I'm not sure why both Volcano Man and my current opponent, who tested the game, think it's 30. If you open the 1st Masurian Lakes scenario, it's clear that supply is about 20 at the frontline and the supply situation for 1st Army is slightly better than for 2nd Army. Global supply actually never decreases according to the game, which surprised me, so that remains at 60 (it's 30 in the 1st Masurian Lakes scenario, and adjusted for supply level decrease in other scenarios as well) but your main supply sources drop from 70 to 40.

Any discussion of supply too much or too little needs to take into account that supply already degrades the further you move away from your supply sources, so it's about 20 points lower at the front than at the edge of the map. 50 supply is already fairly bad, particularly when facing an opponent who doesn't face any supply difficulties. As many of your HQ's will be out of command each turn, avoiding/recovering from Low Ammo through the HQ roll is often not possible, so you rely on the regular supply roll.

In practice, even in the best of cases at about 50, units are unlikely to be properly supplied more than half the time. That is already a serious penalty. At 20, units have just 1/5 chance of being in supply.

No matter how chaotic the supply situation was for the Russians, units being able to fire about twice each day (including a successful HQ check) in a normal supply situation will cripple any offensive operation and any defensive position that isn't dug in.

It's also important to keep in mind that Russian support weapons are already D or E morale, as noted in my previous post, so when they become Low Ammo regular infantry division MG units become E morale and are no longer all that scary for the Germans.

The reason why I feel the various penalties combine into a too significant overall penalty to Russian effectiveness is that historically the Russians fell apart when under pressure. Currently, their effectiveness just falls apart all by itself.

A campaign scenario requires careful balancing, and maybe I indeed don't understand what will happen if the Russians are improved, but I doubt the Russians are as threatening to the Germans as is implied with range 2 HQ's and somewhat better supply. The German maximum effective front that can be covered by the divisional and brigade command radii (on a line: 6 to one side, the hex the HQ is in and 6 to the other side=13 for the divisional HQ+3 on each side for the brigade HQ's=19, 14 hexes of which are in command of brigade HQ's) are currently at the level of corps as described in the design document, so there's already a large gap. You can't hold that front, but you can certainly place units that far apart. For the Russians, the limit is 7+2=9 with 6 hexes in command of brigade HQ's.

They still face strategic penalties like reinforcements arriving at the edge of the map with no functional rail line to the front in the north and center (the German reinforcements from the Western front can either arrive close to the edge of the map, or somewhat west of the center but with good rail lines to the front) and having their late game defense in the south hang in the air through the extremely variable arrival of 10th Army.

10th Army's arrival might not have been an organized affair, but the Germans did have to take its presence into account. Currently, it's more of a phantom threat. Even with a regular 8% arrival chance instead of an 8% daily arrival chance, it would still take them days to reach the front. You would, however, at least have something to prevent the Germans from pushing too far in the south and center, a push which was stopped historically as well: Fortress Osowiec held out, for example, something which it might not do without some outside help at the moment.

The release schedule for 1st Army also gives variable results and that they start rolling for release on the second and not the first day turn of each day doesn't help. 1st Army also literally can't reach its historical positions on time with the current release schedule and the short days even if it would release on the second daytime turn of each day and would face only limited German opposition after the first day. My men are barely at Insterburg at the start of the 27th, and only because there was no defense at the Angerapp. Any halfway decent defense at the Angerapp will throw a big wrench in keeping with a historical timetable.

I also started a game as the Germans at the same time as my game as the Russians, and I never really feel any pressure at all. 1st Army stops itself without my influence, I can let 2nd Army advance for a few days and just wait somewhere knowing that its supply situation will worsen rapidly. There is no sense of impending doom unless I succeed in knocking out a large part of the Russian force. As noted before, the Russians cripple themselves. It just feels too organized.

You can't sustain an offensive with 20-30 supply and little to no replacements against an enemy who gets ~30 replacements per turn (or 125% of that number, if replacements are like fatigue recovery in the sense that what you actually get is between 50% and 200% of the given number, which makes the average 125% that number unless there are further modifications weighing it towards the given number).

Volcano Man, if you recall the discussion about France '14 a while ago where the French could stage a very forward defense and win because losses were less relevant than the points they held: the German player is in a fairly similar situation. You can't rotate troops as easily because you have fewer, but there are quite a number of tricks you can pull on the defense to protect the objectives and losses can be replaced fairly easily. Fatigue is another matter entirely, but with good play it can be managed as well. The Landwehr can also temporarily take over whilst your other forces regain strength/decrease fatigue.

There's also the matter of what incentive the current design gives to the player. It is now the 27th of August in my Russian game against jonnymacbrown and I've just had my second supply decrease. What is my incentive to keep moving forward? You know the Germans have a significantly better loss recovery rate, better supply situation, interior lines and reinforcements that will warp to the front in a few days. A draw might be possible, but victory seems far out of reach.

If the Russians don't get the supply they need to at least have the idea that they can keep an offensive going, why should they attack if they know they will lose? From what it feels like, there is no carrot and a lot of sticks for the Russians. This might also not be enjoyable for the German player if he has to remove the Russians from positions prepared for several days in order to get a draw, but getting a draw is already tricky.

My 2nd Army briefly captured Bischofsburg and then I retreated when the Germans attacked as for the moment there was no logical reason to keep advancing, it is suicidal with the current supply situation. The Russians get hit by supply decreases through distance and overall supply decreases, which is a double whammy that prevents them from keeping a good advance going.

I understand the need to prevent the Russians from being too strong, but a single 10 supply decrease already accomplishes that. At 50 or so, they get ~23-24 replacements, at 40 about 16, or about half what the Germans get. That, to me, allows you to make interesting yet also difficult strategic choices. Now my battalions get 8 replacements per turn and will soon get 1 or 2 for over half the campaign game. On the attack, the Russians would be bled white without being able to dislodge the Germans from a serious defensive position.

That matter of incentive could also cause problems in, say, a FWWC game featuring the Russian advance on Lemberg as the Austro-Hungarians needs to have an incentive to not do the smart thing and dig in and hide behind the numerous rivers in the area but attack instead.

The problems that have been commented on by my opponent and others of not being able to destroy units is due to both sides having the same moment rate for the regular infantry, units having full movement rates when disrupted during daytime, there being little to no offensive firepower (the usual two step back move to avoid assaults has already been mentioned) and no mobile units aside from vulnerable cavalry units. There are also not that many units for both sides. Not being able to destroy units is thus not caused by Russian (or German) supply, command radii or replacement rates.

As to Lodz: it's a very different scenario for the Germans. The weather is mediocre to bad, the supply situation is bad, your forces are mostly D/C quality, your cavalry doesn't get replacements anymore so they can't replace their losses, the Russians outnumber you and your forces arrive spread out in distance and time. Like, I believe, burroughs wrote as commentary on his victory in a Lodz game: any competent Russian defense will win them the game.

I'm going to start a game with a modified version of the scenario, with improved Russians, to see how bad it truly is as at the moment I can't see them win against a good German opponent.

jim pfleck: in scenarios with replacements instead of recovery, fatigue is likely to reduce combat effectiveness more than losses, but there are ways to manage it. The usual Soviet strategy in WWII PzC titles seems to be to wage a war of attrition through losses and fatigue, because you have more units that can take fatigue and can usually take the losses as well. The Russian supply situation in Clash of Empires makes it difficult to use their numerical superiority as although you can rotate forces more easily (your regular divisions have 4 more battalions than German ones on average after all) the other penalties keep the advantage in check. For the most part, I feel that's fine, it's just the overall rapid reduction in combat effectiveness even without actual combat that bothers me.