Soviet counteroffensive? How and When...?

[Te_Pille]

This... How we can simulate a soviet counteroffensive? and when will be set the hardware to do it, or we need to wait until pacific map?

 

I don't believe we gonna feel that with the introduction of the La-5FN only. Probably we need some new introduction as Katyusha BM-13 player controlled or so. 

 

 

[56RAF_Roblex]

The LA5FN is just an extra.  VVS pilots are better pilots so already kick Axis ass in inferior aircraft.     

Edited January 9, 2018 by 56RAF_Roblex

[von-Luck]

If IL-2 BoX is anything to go by the Soviets would be in Berlin shortly after Barbarosa began.

 

von Luck

[-SF-Disarray]

I don't know that it was hardware that turned the tied against the Germans, not any new piece of equipment anyway. The introduction of newer models of LA-5's and Yaks defiantly helped, but I think you will find that it was more of the grinding nature of the combat and the extremely long lines of supply coupled with the logistical nightmare found in the Soviet west that stopped and ultimately turned back the Germans. That and the wave after wave of infantry the Soviets were willing to part with to get the job done. When you get into that kind of fight numbers matter, a lot, and one thing the Soviets had in great thumping quantities was warm bodies.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Let's see... there was the Soviet counteroffensive in 1941 after the snow fell on Moscow, there was Operation Uranus during the winter months of the Stalingrad campaign, and the entire Kuban battle is a Soviet offensive period. So, three?

 

I don't know that it was hardware that turned the tied against the Germans, not any new piece of equipment anyway. The introduction of newer models of LA-5's and Yaks defiantly helped, but I think you will find that it was more of the grinding nature of the combat and the extremely long lines of supply coupled with the logistical nightmare found in the Soviet west that stopped and ultimately turned back the Germans. That and the wave after wave of infantry the Soviets were willing to part with to get the job done. When you get into that kind of fight numbers matter, a lot, and one thing the Soviets had in great thumping quantities was warm bodies.

 

Completely. Anyone who ascribes a single weapon type to winning or losing the war is kidding themselves. Wars are won by boring things like supply logistics and truck drivers and ultimately the long slow grind of men (and sometimes women in the case of WWII on the eastern front in particular) and machines that ultimately won the war.  Things like oil and a massive industrial base are important too.

[Rolling_Thunder]

What disarray said plus the weather coupled with the German army poorly equipped for the severe conditions.

@Von luck if the german army had the same mindset as the majority of the il2 community that fly only German aircraft they would never have started barbarosa, they'd be too busy whining about OP spitfires and hurricanes after the battle of britain

[Te_Pille]

I don't know that it was hardware that turned the tied against the Germans, not any new piece of equipment anyway. The introduction of newer models of LA-5's and Yaks defiantly helped, but I think you will find that it was more of the grinding nature of the combat and the extremely long lines of supply coupled with the logistical nightmare found in the Soviet west that stopped and ultimately turned back the Germans. That and the wave after wave of infantry the Soviets were willing to part with to get the job done. When you get into that kind of fight numbers matter, a lot, and one thing the Soviets had in great thumping quantities was warm bodies.

I get what you say but I don’t believe numbers gonna be simulated in custom made mission. For example multiplayer. So that why the soviet need an extra hardware maybe player controlled to make the difference.

 

You never gonna make the mission maker to do a mission with aircraft superiority in one side... at least in the real practical.

 

Probably that should be made from the developers to make the difference.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I get what you say but I don’t believe numbers gonna be simulated in custom made mission. For example multiplayer. So that why the soviet need an extra hardware maybe player controlled to make the difference.

 

You never gonna make the mission maker to do a mission with aircraft superiority in one side... at least in the real practical.

 

Probably that should be made from the developers to make the difference.

 

I think this is a misnomer too. Yeah, ultimately the Soviets had numbers on their side in the air war but if you are talking about a dogfight to dogfight scenario... Rare to be really outnumbered except during larger operations. The outnumbered part is usually more to do with attrition rather than dots you see in the sky.

Edited January 10, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[hames123]

I think this is a misnomer too. Yeah, ultimately the Soviets had numbers on their side in the air war but if you are talking about a dogfight to dogfight scenario... Rare to be really outnumbered except during larger operations. The outnumbered part is usually more to do with attrition rather than dots you see in the sky.

Same on the ground. The Soviets did not spam their way to victory blindly. Rather, they were able to mass produce units that were good enough to kill German tanks in large enough numbers to ensure the Germans would lose the grind. For example, look at the T-34. Cheap, has good sloped armour, a very good gun and is fast. Used in large numbers, it is probably the main reason why Uranus worked. Without the T-34 Uranus would not have worked, quite simply. While without logistics and infantry and all sorts of other things they would not have worked, they were the main component of the spearheads that surrounded the Germans.

 

I expect we shall see that in the career. The Stalingrad camapaign will start off easy for the Germans, with maybe a Stuka unit doing all sorts of missions, as the German tank columns below continue to surge forwards against very little opposition.

 

Then, as the Autumn and Winter come, the fighting will start to be concentrated on Stalingrad itself, which will be full of MGs and AT guns, and the boats and later trucks crossing the river. After lots of ground support missions in the city, day after day, watching your tanks crawl through the streets into ambush after ambush from an AT gun in a wrecked building or a KV-1 dug into the street, or bombing trucks crossing the frozen river(and not noticing or trying to ignore the large number of Soviet tank columns gathering in the woods on the North and South flanks of Stalingrad, and being brought in by train), Uranus will start, probably bringing with it a huge flood of nothing but ground support missions until the end of the campaign, each with 50 T-34s advancing on a thin line of 50mm or 75mm guns and MGs.

 

Over and over again, except until Wintergewitter, when you will once again be supporting friendly tanks(including maybe a few Tigers, to give the Germans an advantage on the ground for a change) against Soviet AT guns and dug in tanks. Then, after it fails, you continue doing ground support as the Soviets start to roll up the Kessel, and even worse, start to head West.

 

Once Spring 1943 comes, it will finally end. If you survive, you will probably have a huge list of tank kills to your name. Then it is off to the Kuban for more of the same, except now from the very get go the Soviets are attacking, and they now probably have KV-85s. No wonder people like Rudel, who managed to survive(because being a Stuka pilot was dangerous work, and most did not. You should get an achievement for surviving a dead is dead campaign as one) racked up so many tank kills. On the other hand, this constant state of Soviet attacks, especially intensive after Kursk, caused huge numbers of German casualties, and soon most of the professional German troops from the start of the war had gone, replaced by younger and younger men from Germany or drafted from abroad.

Edited January 10, 2018 by hames123

[Te_Pille]

Ok that was a historic talk above. All we know that, this is real history, now... how we can simulate all that superiority?

 

Taking account the mission maker will not simulate the side superiority in numbers.

 

Also knowing very well La-5FN will not make all the difference to turn the situation.

 

What kind of hardware could be including to turn the situation in Simulate matter.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Ok that was a historic talk above. All we know that, this is real history, now... how we can simulate all that superiority?

 

Taking account the mission maker will not simulate the side superiority in numbers.

 

Also knowing very well La-5FN will not make all the difference to turn the situation.

 

What kind of hardware could be including to turn the situation in Simulate matter.

 

You're still confusing logistical superiority and depth in available numbers to replace losses on the front and actual local numerical superiority. The Soviet Union mostly had the former but rarely the latter.

 

For example, in a hypothetical situation a Russian unit may have 12 fighters available at an airbase. Let's say 7 of them are serviceable at any one time. So they will probably fly a couple of flights of 2 and 4 in an operation. Against the Germans at this point in the war who may have 16 fighters available and 10 of them are serviceable its the Germans that have local superiority. However, if the Germans then loose 6 of their fighters in the fighting it may be several weeks before 2 or 3 new fighters and pilots arrive to replace losses while the Soviets may loose half the squadron with only 6 fighters left but the next week they have another 6 fighters and pilots to replace the losses.

 

But at the actual front the situation is mostly 7 versus 10 with numerical superiority for the Germans at the start and numerical superiority over time for the Soviets at the end.

 

It doesn't mean that the situation is always going to be 4 German fighters against 26 Soviet fighters every day.

[Te_Pille]

You're still confusing logistical superiority and depth in available numbers to replace losses on the front and actual local numerical superiority. The Soviet Union mostly had the former but rarely the latter.

 

For example, in a hypothetical situation a Russian unit may have 12 fighters available at an airbase. Let's say 7 of them are serviceable at any one time. So they will probably fly a couple of flights of 2 and 4 in an operation. Against the Germans at this point in the war who may have 16 fighters available and 10 of them are serviceable its the Germans that have local superiority. However, if the Germans then loose 6 of their fighters in the fighting it may be several weeks before 2 or 3 new fighters and pilots arrive to replace losses while the Soviets may loose half the squadron with only 6 fighters left but the next week they have another 6 fighters and pilots to replace the losses.

 

But at the actual front the situation is mostly 7 versus 10 with numerical superiority for the Germans at the start and numerical superiority over time for the Soviets at the end.

 

It doesn't mean that the situation is always going to be 4 German fighters against 26 Soviet fighters every day.

Ok then tell us how you simulate in a custom mission those situations?

[CIA_Yankee_]

I think this is a misnomer too. Yeah, ultimately the Soviets had numbers on their side in the air war but if you are talking about a dogfight to dogfight scenario... Rare to be really outnumbered except during larger operations. The outnumbered part is usually more to do with attrition rather than dots you see in the sky.

 

Quite right.

 

We musn't forget that the LW had mastered schwerpunkt, and would obtain overwhelming superiority as part of any major offensive. So, even though the VVS generally had more planes than the LW, the LW often enjoyed significant local superiority.

 

It's not until 1943 that this advantage erodes away, through constant attrition and soviet production kicking into high gear, at which point you truly do start seeing the VVS obtaining numerical superiority over the LW. Part of that change was also administrative: the VVS originally split its forces and attached regiments directly to ground forces, which basically allowed the LW to have significant numerical superiority whereever they so chose... it's not until Novikov's reforms and the formation of the air armies that the VVS started actually employing concentration of force (with Mars and Uranus, I think, being the first actual accomplication).

 

As for how to simulate that in a custom mission (let's go with a coop mission, like we'll be getting), there is actually no way to "simulate" the attritional advantage of the VVS over the LW. Missions last a couple of hours, and the fact the VVS was able to replenish its losses is something that manifests itself over days, not hours. In the meantime, if the VVS took serious losses it meant the LW gained momentary air superiority for a few days. The problem, for the LW, is that whenever they thought they had finally beaten the VVS (and really, this applies to the red army in general), they'd end up butting heads against yet more units later on.

 

So, basically, the VVS advantage in numbers, at least in the first half of the war, mostly manifested itself at the strategic level, with the VVS being able to keep feeding in new units in an ongoing battle (over the course of days, that is) while the LW struggled to make good its own losses. But at the tactical level, the LW frequently would gain momentary superiority (mostly through superior training, organization, command and control, and concentration of force).  Given that, there's no real "realistic" ways to simulate the VVS advantage in the course of one mission.

 

The closest thing you could do, I guess, would be in a TAW-style server, where you give the VVS a faster resupply rate mission-to-mission.

Edited January 10, 2018 by 71st_AH_Yankee_

[-SF-Disarray]

Ok then tell us how you simulate in a custom mission those situations?

 

That depends on how long you want to run your sim. If, for example, you are envisioning something like a long term campaign visa vi TAW or Finish Dynamic Warfare you could play with the resupply mechanics for new planes. Let's say you want to run a mid to late battle of Stalingrad scenario. If you were to represent the balance in this way you would have Soviet planes replenishing at a faster rate than German planes as by this point in the battle the supply lines for Germany were beginning to or had almost completely broken down. If you are putting on a recreation of the battle for Moscow you'd have the Germans replenishing losses slightly faster than the Soviets to model the near complete state of disarray that the Soviet high command was found in when Barbarossa hit them completely flat footed; as an aside reading some of the accounts of conversations between Stalin and his commanders about the German attack are astounding. Another way to do this would be to put a hard cap on the number of losses a team can sustain before losing, TAW does this though it is the same number for each side. Depending on which phase of the war you are trying to model the numbers should be more forgiving to one side.

 

Then there is the brute force approach of simply capping the number of players for each team. This is, probably, the worst option as it will make the capped side mad and probably feel cheated. It also has the down side of only providing an accurate reflection of the numbers in microcosm when the game is full. But if you are running a short term sim, say just one mission special event kind of thing, then this may be an appropriate means of representing the realities of history.

 

Personally, I like the death cap the most, though I think it would work really well with a resupply manipulation as well. Having a certain number of planes that are allowed to be lost provides a few benefits. First, it helps balance things out when team numbers aren't even, logically if there are more players on a team the proportional losses should be higher as well. The second benefit, especially as it applies to historical accuracy, is that this is a real world consideration for military planers. Military planers often judge the success or failure of a mission based on 'acceptable losses.' If a force is taking ground but losing too much in the doing the operation may be halted or potentially result in a retreat.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Ok then tell us how you simulate in a custom mission those situations?

 

I don't know exactly what you're asking here.

 

In a custom mission you would go with available serviceable fighters. Frequently that would be exactly what you see in the average in-game mission.

[Te_Pille]

I don't know exactly what you're asking here.

 

In a custom mission you would go with available serviceable fighters. Frequently that would be exactly what you see in the average in-game mission.

You still are not clear in you answer. Explain better please how should be a mission made for Multiplayer to get the feeling the soviets have non stop until concord Berlin.

 

Actually we seen the German won almost all battle... no complain with that.

 

Now is the turn for the Soviet push back all that. How you imagine a mission designed to get this goal?

Edited January 11, 2018 by pepin1234

[hames123]

You still are not clear in you answer. Explain better please how should be a mission made for Multiplayer to get the feeling the soviets are non stop until concord Berlin.

 

Actually we seen the German won almost all battle... no complain with that.

 

Now is the turn for the Soviet push back all that. How you imagine a mission designed to get this goal?

So you are asking us how to make a server that the Soviets will always win?

[Cybermat47]

If IL-2 BoX is anything to go by the Soviets would be in Berlin shortly after Barbarosa began.

von Luck

Agreed. The almost total lack of Axis attacker and bomber pilots makes things very slanted towards the Soviet side. It would be nice if some of the players who fly nothing but Bf-109 and Fw-190 fighter variants would actually fly more than 6 aircraft types (out of the 29 we have available).

[Tomsk]

Agreed. The almost total lack of Axis attacker and bomber pilots makes things very slanted towards the Soviet side. It would be nice if some of the players who fly nothing but Bf-109 and Fw-190 fighter variants would actually fly more than 6 aircraft types (out of the 29 we have available).

 

So recently I collected the stats from WoL for all of 2017. VVS obviously won every month except one, and so I was expecting to see the VVS have much higher ground kills, and the LW higher air kills. In fact (within 0.1%) they both got exactly the same air and ground kills over the year. So perhaps it is possible that there are fewer Axis attacker and bomber pilots (there are no stats for that sadly) ... however, they still kill just as many ground targets as the VVS.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Tomsk

[=X51=VC_]

So recently I collected the stats from WoL for all of 2017. VVS obviously won every month except one, and so I was expecting to see the VVS have much higher ground kills, and the LW higher air kills. In fact (within 0.01%) they both got exactly the same air and ground kills over the year. So perhaps it is possible that there are fewer Axis attacker and bomber pilots ... however, they still kill just as many ground targets as the VVS.

I noticed a couple of games recently where LW were ahead on every mission metric by some margin then lost due to running out of planes. That might explain your statistics. Games that are stacked in LW favour in terms of numbers give them a chance to make lots of air/ground kills but also waste planes so fast they lose anyway.

[Finkeren]

So recently I collected the stats from WoL for all of 2017. VVS obviously won every month except one, and so I was expecting to see the VVS have much higher ground kills, and the LW higher air kills. In fact (within 0.1%) they both got exactly the same air and ground kills over the year. So perhaps it is possible that there are fewer Axis attacker and bomber pilots (there are no stats for that sadly) ... however, they still kill just as many ground targets as the VVS.

 

I don't remember exactly what restrictions are on bomb loads on WoL, but could the reason be, that the German bomber pilots are loading their planes up with the extremely heavy bunker-busters of 1000kg and above to take out targets in one go, thereby destroying a lot of non-essential targets such as AAA and trucks in the process, whereas the VVS pilots' attacks have to be more accurate due to the smaller ordinance, thus getting fewer "bystander" kills but actually destroying more objectives? 

[Tomsk]

I don't remember exactly what restrictions are on bomb loads on WoL, but could the reason be, that the German bomber pilots are loading their planes up with the extremely heavy bunker-busters of 1000kg and above to take out targets in one go, thereby destroying a lot of non-essential targets such as AAA and trucks in the process, whereas the VVS pilots' attacks have to be more accurate due to the smaller ordinance, thus getting fewer "bystander" kills but actually destroying more objectives? 

 

That could be one reason, although I'm not sure I'm convinced I saw an interesting video a while back arguing that actually much of the difference was that the Russian tanks were a bit tougher, and thus more difficult to kill. As I noted in my other post, even shifting the objective completion rate by a few percent could be enough to ensure VVS wins almost every month (due to "first past the post" effects).

 

However, I think this is getting off topic. On the original topic, I'm not really sure what the OP is advocating for ... it seems he wants a competitive MP scenario, but one where the Russians definitely will win. Since this isn't guaranteed (even though the Russians almost always do win in MP), he would like them to get extra hardware to ensure it? Have I understood correctly?

Edited January 11, 2018 by Tomsk

[A_radek]

On the original topic, I'm not really sure what the OP is advocating for ... it seems he wants a competitive MP scenario, but one where the Russians definitely will win. Since this isn't guaranteed (even though the Russians almost always do win in MP), he would like them to get extra hardware to ensure it? Have I understood correctly?

 

I think he's asking when the game starts simulating the war outcome. And how that will be solved in multiplayer.

Edited January 11, 2018 by a_radek

[Tomsk]

I think he's asking when the game starts simulating the war outcome. And how that will be solved in multiplayer.

 

Well for coop scenarios (when we get those) that's easy enough. For competitive multiplayer ... it has to be competitive, so one side can't always win. However, it would be possible to have a sequence of missions such that the scenario moves on regardless of which side wins. So the front lines move, the narrative is that the Germans are on the back foot and the mission goals are more defensive, etc.

 

However, given that he's asking for extra units for the Russian side ... I'm not sure that's what he means.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Tomsk

[Cybermat47]

That could be one reason, although I'm not sure I'm convinced I saw an interesting video a while back arguing that actually much of the difference was that the Russian tanks were a bit tougher, and thus more difficult to kill. As I noted in my other post, even shifting the objective completion rate by a few percent could be enough to ensure VVS wins almost every month (due to "first past the post" effects).

 

 

I think that is the case. T-34s have much better armour than Panzer IVs, and I'd say that the IL-2 is the best tank-killer in the game. 

 

I don't remember exactly what restrictions are on bomb loads on WoL, but could the reason be, that the German bomber pilots are loading their planes up with the extremely heavy bunker-busters of 1000kg and above to take out targets in one go, thereby destroying a lot of non-essential targets such as AAA and trucks in the process, whereas the VVS pilots' attacks have to be more accurate due to the smaller ordinance, thus getting fewer "bystander" kills but actually destroying more objectives? 

 

That's exactly what happened in pretty much every LW and VVS bombing raid I've taken part in.

[ShamrockOneFive]

You still are not clear in you answer. Explain better please how should be a mission made for Multiplayer to get the feeling the soviets have non stop until concord Berlin.

 

Actually we seen the German won almost all battle... no complain with that.

 

Now is the turn for the Soviet push back all that. How you imagine a mission designed to get this goal?

 

"Non stop until concord Berlin" ??

 

Non stop conquest until Berlin? What are you saying here.

 

If you're talking about the tide of the war, you don't feel that at the tactical level. You feel that at the strategic level and being a fighter, attack or bomber pilot is very much at the tactical level.

Edited January 12, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[unreasonable]

"Non stop until concord Berlin" ??

 

Non stop conquest until Berlin? What are you saying here.

 

If you're talking about the tide of the war, you don't fell that at the tactical level. You feel that at the strategic level and being a fighter, attack or bomber pilot is very much at the tactical level.

 

Oh yes you do. You would feel it in the proportion of sorties on which you encountered enemy aircraft, for instance, and the strength and confidence of the opposition.  I am sure that aircrew, like ground soldiers, have a fairly good idea of the tide of war.  Obviously in a game, even in SP, people tend to want to meet the enemy so missions have to be designed to achieve that.

 

If you were actually simulating a series of missions throughout the whole east front air war, a large proportion of them would be unopposed: initially by the Soviets,  towards the end of the war most Soviet aircrew would hardly ever see a German plane. (This was even true of allied flyers in the west, where 3/4 of the German fighters were located).

 

Obviously you cannot model this in MP in a way that keeps the dog-fighting competition going.

[Finkeren]

Air crew might feel the tide of battle more directly in combat, where resistance would all but cease, if things were going well for you (it happened several times in each direction during the Stalingrad campaign) 

 

A soldier on the ground might not feel it as directly, because ground combat is much more localized and concentration of forces can create widely different situations at different points of even a very narrow front. For a foot soldier you'd probably feel the tide of battle when for the third day in a row you'd be advancing in a general direction without seeing combat.

[Max_Damage]

The biggest victories of the soviet forces were actually in 1944 when for example the soviet tanks lagged behind and were semi obsolete compared to the german tanks in most aspects. namely the t34 76. However it is debatable since it had many obvious advantages still with powerful he and shrapnel gun and a diesel engine with high torque and offroading.

 

Hardware plays a role but it should not be overestimated. The most important part is skill.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Max_Damage

[Finkeren]

Hardware plays a role but it should not be overestimated. The most important part is skill.

Agree with the first sentence, wildly disagree with the second, at least when it comes to winning a war.

[Max_Damage]

There is also luck and fate. Fate in particular. You dont always have control. maybe it is the opposite.

[Finkeren]

The reason the T-34 (and also the Sherman) were war-winning vehicles were not that they were the best, they weren’t, but the fact that there were 85,000 and 50,000 made respectively.

 

A Tiger tank might be a fearsome opponent, but it really doesn’t matter, when you can only field a couple hundred at a time and most of the allied soldier will never see one, let alone meet one in combat.

[unreasonable]

The biggest victories of the soviet forces were actually in 1944 when for example the soviet tanks lagged behind and were semi obsolete compared to the german tanks in most aspects. namely the t34 76. However it is debatable since it had many obvious advantages still with powerful he and shrapnel gun and a diesel engine with high torque and offroading.

 

Hardware plays a role but it should not be overestimated. The most important part is skill.

 

I find myself not really agreeing with that, either. The 1944 Soviet victories were the biggest in the sense of German units destroyed perhaps, but in a wider perspective they were little more than mopping up operations. The Germans were finished once they failed to force the Communist regime to capitulate and then failed to to capture the Baku oil fields in 1942. Everything else was just detail.

 

The most important part is production and logistics - things the Germans got horribly wrong.

[Finkeren]

There is also luck and fate. Fate in particular. You dont always have control. maybe it is the opposite.

WW2 were won on two factors: Numbers and logistics. Everything else was secondary.

[hames123]

Well, the most obvious difference will be for the troops on the ground in the career. While at the start of the Stalingrad campaign there would be large numbers of German tanks advancing in groups through Soviet territory like a knife through butter, at the end there would be bitter struggles in the Kessel, as you fly over German positions getting overrun by massive amounts of T-34s. When the German tanks do appear, advancing over the same ground they covered in the Summer to try and save the Kessel, they will now be confronted with masses of T-34s, and mostly likely beaten, give the relative weakness of German tanks beside the F-34 in 1942. That will be how the player will see the tide turn, if the guy making the career mission generator is any good.

 

It will go like this.

 

Easy German advance in the Summer, with relatively few ground support missions, and the engagements you fly over will mostly be large German tank spearheads trashing either a very thin line of Soviet 45mms or a convoy of fleeing Soviet trucks.

 

In the Autumn and Early winter, the fighting stiffens, with more and more ground battles occuring, especially in and around Stalingrad. Stalingrad in this period should be filled with ground units, not empty like it looks now. There will be lots of Soviet artillery firing from the East bank at German units in the city(like they do in the ground support missions currently), with boats and later trucks shuttling over the river bring troops in. T-34 columns will drive in towards their gathering points North and South of the city while Soviet train and truck convoys will be a very common sight as the Red Armt gathers for the counterattack. In this period the player will be called for ground support way more often, still mostly for German attacks, against much stronger defenses now(more 76mm AT guns, double the amount of AT guns in the defense lines, dug in KV-1s, secondary lines of Soviet AT that spawn if the German tanks get through the first).

 

When the counter attack comes, it will mostly be masses of T-34s overunning lines of 50mm AT guns at the front, before going on to the artillery. Once through that, the next few days will be groups of Soviet tanks moving deep into German lines, attacking German airfields, truck convoys, trains and enemy tank columns.

 

The next chapter(I assume that is the easiest way to make the missions in each period have a common theme of sorts), the air bridge, will mostly be dedicated to the air bridge. Ju 52s and Heinkel 111s will be continously flying to the airfields in the kessel and out again in a constant stream. The Soviet advances into the Kessel will be mostly unsuccessful, as they probably will be in game, given that the kessel edges usually have a huge clump of all sorts of German ground formations in game. Tank positions, AT guns, artillery etc. Notably, while the Soviet tank attacks in the Kessel will have Katushas and standard artillery support, the continued Soviet drive west will only have katushas, and much less of them, having just driven 50km west in the snow. They will also be against stronger German defenses now. Lines of 75mms supporting the 50mms, double lines of AT guns, Marders and Stugs amongst the AT guns(they are a tragically underused asset in the same), sometimes even a large group of Panzer IIIs spawning and counterattacking the T-34s if they manage to get through.

 

Wintergwitter will basically probably be a large series of tank on tank engagements to the North East of Stalingrad. The Germans are always advancing, with the Soviets either chosing to meet them in an open battle(lots of Panzer IIIs and T-34s clashing head to head), or digging in their tanks(KV-1s and T-34s dug in and fighting Panzer IIIs, IVs and Stugs). Infantry defenses of AT guns and MGs will only be encountered by the Germans several days into their relief operation, since it took a while for the Soviet infantry to advance after Uranus and dig in. Then there will be German attacks on lines of Soviet AT guns.

 

Finally, last days will have renewed Soviet attacks in the West and in the kessel. These should be the largest and fiercest fighting yet, with massive groups of T-34s clearing up very large German defenses of dug in tanks, AT guns, MGs, with German tank counterattacks and everything. Should be a treat to watch fron the air, as long as the flak does not get you. By this point there will be hardly any 109s left over Stalingrad, but there will still be some in the West, and you might see some of the first FW 190s, so it really depends where your squadron is. If you are a German then the only way you will see the kessel being cleared is if you make a really long flight.

 

And that is how I would expect the new career missions to be like. Moscow would follow a similar trend with the Germans attacking then the Soviets counter attacking. Kuban will be Soviet attacks from the start though. What the devs need is a placeholder campaign between Stalingrad and the Kuban.

Edited January 11, 2018 by hames123

[von-Luck]

WW2 were won on two factors: Numbers and logistics. Everything else was secondary.

Not to get too far into the weeds here but that is a pretty gross oversimplification. Generally I would agree but there are plenty of examples to the contrary.

 

Now for my own oversimplification

 

Anyways this entire thread seems misguided. Somebody wanted to feel a sense of strategic supremacy in a tactical game - that's mostly out of scope. Want a feeling of superiority in a flight sim? Go interdict an objective and bounce some unwitting pilots. War is hell and even if somebody tells you you're winning that doesn't necessarily change the immediate challenges ahead of you.

 

von Luck

Edited January 11, 2018 by von-Luck

[Te_Pille]

BM-13 Katyusha player controlled with a reasonable short time to rearm will be my fist choice for in game counteroffensive. we take off suddenly after been killed so how come you gonna set 30min tu rearm...   

[ShamrockOneFive]

Oh yes you do. You would feel it in the proportion of sorties on which you encountered enemy aircraft, for instance, and the strength and confidence of the opposition.  I am sure that aircrew, like ground soldiers, have a fairly good idea of the tide of war.  Obviously in a game, even in SP, people tend to want to meet the enemy so missions have to be designed to achieve that.

 

If you were actually simulating a series of missions throughout the whole east front air war, a large proportion of them would be unopposed: initially by the Soviets,  towards the end of the war most Soviet aircrew would hardly ever see a German plane. (This was even true of allied flyers in the west, where 3/4 of the German fighters were located).

 

Obviously you cannot model this in MP in a way that keeps the dog-fighting competition going.

 

You make a very good point and you were entirely reasonable about it (Sorry )

 

Over the course of multiple missions that certainly does make sense but as you say people don't really want that when it comes to gameplay.

 

I would cation that its not always the case on every front. For example, resistance on both the ground and in the air began to wane significantly in 1943 and into 1944 in the New Guinea area until the point where the Japanese Army Air Force was practically non existent. At points I'm sure Luftwaffe resistance against the VVS would have dropped off significantly in some areas while in other areas they would continue to meet on a daily basis despite the tide turning.

[unreasonable]

Yes that is true - take Hartmann's JG52: as the last full JG on the whole eastern front from 1944 on, I am sure that they would have seen lots of action. So any Soviet units that happened to be in their sector(s) would have had a high chance of action too. Meanwhile, over most of the front, the Soviet ground attack units rampaged unopposed. If you were making a war game simulating the eastern front no doubt this is the sort of outcome you could expect.  But trying to replicate it in MP is pointless: even in SP you have to make compromises to make the game more fun.

[Te_Pille]

Just put the players to play with Katyushas. The Germans will run the marathon non stop to Berlin.