The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

[Chris10]

ORIGINAL: saintsup
i'm pretty sure Heliodorus is talking about human vs human play.

If thats the case...forget my hasty comment [;)]

I jumped nearly to the end of the topic without reading the OT...facepalm...

[56ajax]

I can well understand this game not being fun to play, or being a foregone conclusion for the experienced player. Afterall it is an historical game and we all know the historical result; what seems to be lacking is a mechanism that somehow enforces some of the historical decisions made during that period. For example, I think it was Stalin who ordered his armies to hold Kiev and lost 600,000 in the process (or Hitler to hold Stalingrad etc). We as players would not do this, we know historically what is coming so we high tail it out of there....

Now I'm pretty certain tht the Russians didnt retreat all the way to the leningrad/moscow/stalingrad line because they felt like it; they were ordered to, rushed troops to the front and tried to stop the Geramns much further West but couldnt....

perhaps the Game needs some type of Hitler/Stalin political mechanism which somehow penalises the player for eg abandoning Kiev; this is already partly calulated into the Victory Points, but perhaps some Admin point penalty as well, or Kiev falls, morale drops by % etc...

still the experienced player will work out the mechanics of the new rule, and over time play it to maximum advantage, just like a good General....

[Empire101]

I agree with all your points heliodorus04. The German player must still have some sort of tangible idea that he could still win and pull the iron out of the fire upto around the middle of 43. Those immense 'Stalin Lines' ( although at level 4 they feel like Maginot Lines ) really should cost something in terms of supply, or the static idea from IdahoNYer which is a great idea.


Ketza also has a point about the ants ability to inflict the same casualties as a larger unit.

Has anyone tried a game downgrading the Forts in the Game options? The Fort Build Level can be altered for both sides. Now I have'nt tried this yet properly, as I'm currently playing the AI with its Fort level only reduced to 90. If on the other hand the Fort Build level was set to say 50 for both sides.....??[:)]

I know this raises the issue of slowing down Level 1 and 2 Forts vis a vis 3 and 4 Level Forts, but this could be a possible short term solution for this awesome game.

henri51 also raised the problem with the weather. I've already mentioned this in another post. henri51 is right to mention that historical weather favours the Soviets as they know exactly when to strike, and on the random side of weather, who wants mud or snow in June??? ( well the Soviet player might... one can imagine Uncle Joe Joe shouting 'EAT THIS ADOLF', with mud in June[:'(] )

Anyway, back to henri51's point. I have already mentioned this in another post. Both sides Airforces took a great deal of interest in the weather. Could a possible meterological report be incorporated into the game that gives the player a break down of possible types of predicted weather for the following gameturn?
For example, the first week in October the chances of Clear weather 50%, Mud 40% and Snow 10% etc

This does'nt solve the problem but at least the High Command would have some idea of what is possibly coming and adjust their plans accordingly, or gamble away with the drive on that objective 'just over the horizon'.[:D]

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

I can well understand this game not being fun to play, or being a foregone conclusion for the experienced player. Afterall it is an historical game and we all know the historical result; what seems to be lacking is a mechanism that somehow enforces some of the historical decisions made during that period. For example, I think it was Stalin who ordered his armies to hold Kiev and lost 600,000 in the process (or Hitler to hold Stalingrad etc). We as players would not do this, we know historically what is coming so we high tail it out of there....

Now I'm pretty certain tht the Russians didnt retreat all the way to the leningrad/moscow/stalingrad line because they felt like it; they were ordered to, rushed troops to the front and tried to stop the Geramns much further West but couldnt....

perhaps the Game needs some type of Hitler/Stalin political mechanism which somehow penalises the player for eg abandoning Kiev; this is already partly calulated into the Victory Points, but perhaps some Admin point penalty as well, or Kiev falls, morale drops by % etc...

still the experienced player will work out the mechanics of the new rule, and over time play it to maximum advantage, just like a good General....

This is an excellent point. One of my old board games ( I think it was 'Drive on Stalingrad' ) had just such a mechanism. Once certain objectives had been met, the German player had to roll on a Fuhrer Order table which could seriously change objectives. Now I'm not advocating a Fuhrer rug chewing mechanism, but the 'Not one step back' orders from both dictators had serious consequences for both sides, and this couldpossibly be incorporated into the game.

[gradenko2k]

At present, the German's glory days end at Turn 18. This is a-historic.
I want a game that reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of 1942 and 1943.

Isn't this a symptom of the game giving you as much freedom as it does?

That is, didn't the Germans only get to ride roughshod over the Rodina past "turn 18" because historically, the Soviets made so many mistakes? Mistakes that a Soviet WITE player would not make?

Expounding on that, isn't the situation in 1942 and 1943 a direct result of the Soviet (and to some extent, German) mistakes of 1941? Again, decisions that would not be made by our respective WITE players decades after the fact?

I mean, I suppose I'd be more inclined to agree with you if starting from the actual 1942 scenario also results in an unfluid situation, but if it's only turning out that way because the Soviet player isn't playing along historical lines, then I'd say it's less about mechanics and more about WITE being a game.

The other implication at play here is that other games that deal with the topic subjects the Soviet player to either explicit or house rules to simulate the Soviets committing the same historical mistakes - either the Soviets can't issue all the orders they would have wanted, or the Soviet units are even weaker than they would have been, so that the Germans can still make their historical advances even in the face of complete Soviet freedom.

[Wild]

Hi Guys, I for one have thought this game was fun from the very beginning and it's only getting better. I find that knowing the game mechanics makes it more fun not less, because i can devote more thought to strategy rather than how to play.

I have only played against the AI though. Maybe this helps because i don't have players quitting on me, but looking at the AARs it seems there are German players who do quite well against a human.

I don't really know what others expected when they bought this game, but i expected a simulation of the eastern front and in my opinion WITE delivers quite well. It should be hard for the Germans and it is.

As far as replay value, for an WWII junkie like me, i see no sign of getting bored of it.

[timmyab]

I've been wondering lately if the higher level forts and fortified zones could be incorporated in some way so that level 3 or higher forts could only be built where there is a fortified zone present.The fortified zones would represent the specialized workforce needed to build higher level fortifications and the ap cost would represent the cost of materials.It would also solve the problem of fortified zones appearing to have very little useful purpose in the game.
It could be done so that you have to pay even more AP's for level 4 and 5 forts.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The tough part is that we see some good German players that are doing very well, and many comments are that with HQ build up the German players are too strong. It's hard to deal with that issue and your feeling that the German situation is too difficult. I really don't think we know enough about 1942 in 1.04 yet because we haven't had many games with good German players and good Soviet players get that far. More games may show us that high level forts need to be more of a decision with costs then something that is automatic, but this would require interface and AI changes, so it would not be an easy change. For that kind of change to be made we've got to see more evidence that this is a problem.

I certainly appreciate the need to wait for enough data.
But to me, you seem to be saying something that, were I a designer, I would take special interest in finding an answer to:
Why aren't many games making it to 1942?

My writing in this post, I feel, identifies the chief problem:

At the macro level, it's because only 2 things matter to the German (Leningrad and casualties).

At the micro level, the ease with which the Soviet can safeguard the casualty total through complete freedom of movement (which I don't want to take away and don't have a solution for) and fortification again steals the German player's hope by Turn 18.

Now, I may be wrong, of course. But my hypothesis is that you're NOT GOING to get 1942 data because of the 1941 situation. Germans will keep quitting.

My position is that you ought to have enough data to see that 1941 is the real problem for 1942.

One thing I always concede is that I'm not a programmer, and I have no idea how difficult stuff is to code, implement, and integrate into the game.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The tough part is that we see some good German players that are doing very well, and many comments are that with HQ build up the German players are too strong. It's hard to deal with that issue and your feeling that the German situation is too difficult. I really don't think we know enough about 1942 in 1.04 yet because we haven't had many games with good German players and good Soviet players get that far. More games may show us that high level forts need to be more of a decision with costs then something that is automatic, but this would require interface and AI changes, so it would not be an easy change. For that kind of change to be made we've got to see more evidence that this is a problem.

In my current game I even see tendencies to a "no mans land" where I am sitting in level 3 forts and the enemy is too, and when someone is knocked back from a front hex no one wants to occupy that hex, as without fortifications you are setting yourself up to be clobbered next turn. This leads to 1 or 2 empty empty "no mans hexes" here and there. Surely this cannot be the intention. IMHO forts are having an overly great influence on operations in 1942. (And losing 1500 - 2000 tanks in 4 weeks to the bug didn't exactly help my offensive capabilities).

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The tough part is that we see some good German players that are doing very well, and many comments are that with HQ build up the German players are too strong. It's hard to deal with that issue and your feeling that the German situation is too difficult. I really don't think we know enough about 1942 in 1.04 yet because we haven't had many games with good German players and good Soviet players get that far. More games may show us that high level forts need to be more of a decision with costs then something that is automatic, but this would require interface and AI changes, so it would not be an easy change. For that kind of change to be made we've got to see more evidence that this is a problem.

I certainly appreciate the need to wait for enough data.
But to me, you seem to be saying something that, were I a designer, I would take special interest in finding an answer to:
Why aren't many games making it to 1942?

My writing in this post, I feel, identifies the chief problem:

At the macro level, it's because only 2 things matter to the German (Leningrad and casualties).

At the micro level, the ease with which the Soviet can safeguard the casualty total through complete freedom of movement (which I don't want to take away and don't have a solution for) and fortification again steals the German player's hope by Turn 18.

Now, I may be wrong, of course. But my hypothesis is that you're NOT GOING to get 1942 data because of the 1941 situation. Germans will keep quitting.

My position is that you ought to have enough data to see that 1941 is the real problem for 1942.

One thing I always concede is that I'm not a programmer, and I have no idea how difficult stuff is to code, implement, and integrate into the game.

I think you sum it up well Helio!

I have played both sides extensively (more games as the Soviets actually, but way more turns as the German, as German opponents tend to quit). Here is my view:

* I think it it is harder to play the Germans. I am much more confident playing the Soviets than playing the Germans.

* If I play well as the Germans in 1941 and then get through the blizzard to be in reasonable shape for 1942, I will still be met by a Kursk-style defense from north to south that I have to batter my way through. And even if I do that and survive to level 4 there is no way to kill the enemy boss...

My solutions (I have advocated them before elsewhere):

* Some kind of incitament for the Soviets to defend locations like Kiev and Moscow for as long as possible.

* Reduce the extensive fort building (mostly a problem after 1941).

I still think the game is extremely enjoyable! I do think it is a problem that, given reasonably matched players, even if I do extremely well in 1941 as the German compared to the historical Germans, I am still faced with a situation in 1942 where there is no way I can replicate the advance to Stalingrad.

[BleedingOrange]

I would suggest that the factories not be able to be relocated until they were historically and only the amount that was moved. Then after the date they were evacuated you could move more if you still held the city. The problem I see is the Soviets get to play Stalin by ordering the troops to retreat and evacuate the factories much earlier then historically. This leads to them being able to save their troops and production instead of having to chose between buying time for the factories to be evacuated or saving the troops. This would allow the German player the chance to hurt the Soviets and give them a reason to play past 41. Right now with the forces the Soviets can have plus more production and ability to create more units, the +1 bonus and the Maginot lines of death, most German players just call it because the end is not in doubt. While the Soviet player gets to play Stalin and remove most of their mistakes the German player is not able do the same. He's not able to use the extra men from less losses to form units, he can't order the country to a war time economy, or change occupation policy to reduce partisons, etc.

[Scook_99]

I am agreeing on forts for two things, they are too easily built and thus used everywhere, and once build, losses skyrocket trying to get through the fort line. I keep wondering, why is digging in a stronger asset than spending 4AP to build fortifications? Built fortifications are a huge detriment, as entrenching occurs slower, and reduces stacking to two other units. I am hoping the new patch will adjust things a bit, but I do think the resources to make cement casements everywhere is too high.

[kvolk]

I think having limited time with the game and with reading several AARs that the issue is lose of fluidity after 1941 as most players for germans or soviets adopt a more conservative style because attacking becomes to costly if it isn't 100% effective. I think that if either players chooses to entrench heavily they should be subjected to more of a an encirclement chance then if they stay more flexible. If the staic unit makes this happen then the opportunity cost of attacking is lowered because of the potential gain. I have greatly enjoyed this game and will be playing it for years to come but if the fluidity of the early game is maintained into summer of 1943 while keeping the fidelity to the historical situation in place as far as man power, supplies, TOE, it would be that much better. Either way it is still the best war game I have ever played up to now. JMO.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
At the macro level, it's because only 2 things matter to the German (Leningrad and casualties).

At the micro level, the ease with which the Soviet can safeguard the casualty total through complete freedom of movement (which I don't want to take away and don't have a solution for) and fortification again steals the German player's hope by Turn 18.

I would add that destruction of as much Russian industry as possible is also on the German list of things to do in 1941.

On the macro level is where including "extra" things for capturing objectives (moral hit for the loss of Moscow for instance) would help the game out a lot. 1942 has its own issues. There is simply no incentive for the Germans to launch a 1942 style campaign. What are they going to do? Capture more territory? They won't destroy any more industry if the Russian player has half a brain. The only strategy that makes sense for the Germans in 1942 is to kill Russian units for the sake of killing them.

There are issues with fortifications and I wish I had some better solutions/suggestions. I think the level 1/2 fortifications are for the most part fine. I think it is far too easy to get level 3/4 forts on such a wide scale level with no additional cost. I could have a rifle brigade and as long as it is left alone, there is this nice level 4 fort for 3 rifle divisions to fall back to. Obviously the game staff thinks there is an issue as they have tweaked the rules a bit.

I have seen an admin cost suggested on the higher forts. That could work perhaps. Maybe something else is you need more than 1 unit to get a level 3/4 fort or better is the construction value of the hex has to be above a certain threshold so two brigades/regiments can build a level 3 fort while a division/corps can't. That would help with the Russian mass carpet fort building operation somewhat. If you want a city heavily fortified, that is fine, but it will take several units in the garrison to pull it off.

The more I think about it, I like the idea of having a construction threshold to get to level 3 and a higher level to get to level 4, etc. Even doing it for a level 2 fort may not be a bad idea. For maintenance, you need to keep at least half the level required to build or the fortifications start to go down. The further the difference the faster the fortifications decay. Probably double the requirement in mud.

[heliodorus04]

Aside from my original recommendation that forts be restricted to a hexside facing, I want to emphasize this other major detail (IMO, of course).

The problem doesn't start with level 3 forts.  It starts with level 2.
Either they build too fast, scale too well to multiple units, or offer too much protection, or some combination.

The reason that I feel hexside limitations on protection is the most important part is because it will encourage realistic flank protection for both sides.

The way linebacker works right now, you're encouraged to disperse your divisions over 30 to 40 mile frontages because you have complete ZOC into all 6 hexes around you, and that's all you need to prevent major encirclements.

[kvolk]

Does the time it takes to build forts model well with real world accounts? I was thinking that the Soviets in 43 built up fomidable defenses in the Kursk salient but they had months to do that. With WitE having turns of one week does this take that time into account? My sense is it builds to fast but I haven't really paid attention to it.

[hfarrish]

I'm failing to see how "forts" are such a humongous problem right now, particularly in 41. The AARs currently on the board demonstrate the good German players can take Leningrad and in many cases Moscow in 41 without too much difficultly. The changes made earlier make level 3 and 4 forts much less likely except in cases where very substantial time is spent building them, which means there aren't going to be lines and lines of level 3 and 4 forts. If the Level 1 and 2 fort building is limited even more (and according to other suggestions on this board, factory evac and rail are further limited), the position of Soviet players will be totally untenable...which perhaps is the desired result.

As far as the 42 campaign, if the Soviet player preserves his army in 41 and doesn't launch a bunch of wildly ineffective, costly Spring attacks (a la Stalin), why shouldn't he have a much better chance of preventing large scale German gains? Case Blue would never have gotten as far as it did if the Soviets hadn't thrown away a substantial chunk of their forces during the spring.

I think the biggest issue to be addressed is the overpower of the Soviets in later years, where they gain the ability to hammer the Germans relentlessly across the entire front from 43 on without any seeming constraint on operations. Not only is this ahistorical, it takes the fun out of those years for both the Soviet and the German. Some of the changes in the recent patch do seem to work in the direction of addressing it, hopefully.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
The only strategy that makes sense for the Germans in 1942 is to kill Russian units for the sake of killing them.

Wouldn't the AP cost of rebuilding surrendered/shattered units eventually be a bottle-neck for the Russian if the Germans kill off enough of them? It seems like it should be, if it isn't, given the production dichotomy of the 2 sides.

[herwin]

In OCS, level 1 forts can be constructed using locally available resources, but higher level forts require significant levels of engineering supply (4000 tons per level per hex at the WitE scale).

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish
If the Level 1 and 2 fort building is limited even more (and according to other suggestions on this board, factory evac and rail are further limited), the position of Soviet players will be totally untenable...which perhaps is the desired result.

Can we bury this last sentence? I'm tired of it.

I've gone way the fuck out of my way to explain that I understand the issues a player from either side faces in terms of fun, and that I'm looking for a fun game rather than a game that the Germans can win (at least in 1941/1942) even 20 percent of the time.

As far as the 42 campaign, if the Soviet player preserves his army in 41 and doesn't launch a bunch of wildly ineffective, costly Spring attacks (a la Stalin), why shouldn't he have a much better chance of preventing large scale German gains? Case Blue would never have gotten as far as it did if the Soviets hadn't thrown away a substantial chunk of their forces during the spring.

I agree with this in concept.
In practice, it's SO easy for the Soviets to preserve his force that a 1942 summer offensive is futile by a German player, and thus, there is no point in playing the German side. The German becomes an 18-turn sparring partner, with the main event being 1942/1943 trouncing by the heavyweight Soviet player. Not fun. I'm not playing that game again, as EITHER side.

The Soviet can lose Leningrad and Moscow and still know that 1942 will see the crescendo of his unstoppable power.