ORIGINAL: SCAR
ORIGINAL: chaos45
Read Glantz series of books on the battle of stalingrad. There was no real collapse in Soviet morale just lots and lots of counterattacks esp north/NW of stalingrad that cost the soviets a ton of losses but also bled out parts of the 6th Army prior to and during the very intense fighting in the city.
Its one of the bigger system issues that is supposedly being worked/fixed in .05 low losses for combat action. If they Germans suffered real combat losses for attacks they would be slowly bled down by offensive operations you dont see that in the game at current. By the winter of 1941 the Germans were seriously short on manpower all across the front, the game really doesnt replicate that. The shortage of infantry and trucks was the main reason the Germans only attacked in the South. As they could only bring formations in 1 army group even near close to full strength in both and even those formations often only hit 80-90% ToE.
Also the pocket battles of 1941 were much bloodier affairs than pocket battles in the game, all this equals much stronger german formations to resist winter counterattacks which then compounds for a much more powerful german offensive in 1942 and why more and more german players are just playing for either a quick 41 industry win or a 42 win when the soviet will to resist artificially collapses.
I agree here wholeheartedly. I don't consider myself as a fan boy for either side, but if there is anything that needs to be fixed, its the casualty rates and thus the crippling effect losses had on both sides at different times.
The replacements currently given are much too generous. On the forums I see the constant debate on the +1 rule, or whether the Soviets could mount successful attacks. If the manpower losses meant more, due to replacement shortages etc., or a lag time between losses and replacements, then a even a Soviet attack that fails, would still hurt the Germans in the manpower side of things, as it should, which I think more closely models the actual campaign.
The Rzhev battles of 42/43 over three months cost the Soviets what, over 1 million dead and wounded, the Germans half that maybe.
The supply system really really needs to be fixed. Not sure if WitW system is the answer, but something needs to be done to make things a little less "middle earth" to quote previous forum posts. At some point supplies must become an issue, for both sides at different times. If nothing else to prevent the attack anywhere and everywhere feel of the current game. I don't know how many of you remember the AH World at War series. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoC-ElG6cxk
But its simple system was to provide a certain amount of supplies, and you selected which units got how much supply. Depending on the level of supply, the units got more fuel and ammo, thus making them move farther and fight better. If I remember correctly it was offensive, defensive and minimal. At any rate, you could attack with units on any supply state, but more supplies was where you put the effort.
As for WitE, I bought it when it came out, played it briefly, and removed it from my hard drive. A few years later, kicking myself that I didn't give it a chance, I tired it again. If I need the space I will delete it again. I hope the devs don't turn WitE 2.0 into anything close to War in the West.
Finally, regarding the two camps that seem to exist for this game. One camp seems to want a competitive game, wherein both sides have a chance to win, and I believe rules are tweaked and certain aspects of the campaign are ignored or pass by to make the game one that can be played competitively. The second group seems to want a game that more closely models what did happen, and what was possible, or less middle earthish. I like a good pbem game, but seems to me the way to fix these "competitive" issues is through victory conditions,
not changing what was possible as far as supplies, or manpower, or moral reductions etc. If the Germans do better than historically, maybe that's a draw, or far better, maybe that's a minor victory. One of my complaints for WitW is how hard they tried to make the sides even. To make it competitive. If I wanted that, I would play chess.
Sorry for the long post, and I'm sure these points have been addressed before in previous posts, just hope they haven't been decided one way or the other yet.
Agree that the way to make the game competitive should be in victory conditions and stick with modeling what was historically possible. Can you outperform historical results is the challenge.
Also what is the status of WITE 2.0?
