Generals in charge of divisions feature?

[Commanderski]

A lot of the generals in the game only commanded a division and not a Corps or Army. Is it possible that a future feature will have the generals assigned to a division.

Or would that be too complicated due to the amount of divisions in the game?

[Cavalry Corp]

I thought this as well - German Divisional command was very good and Soviet bad. BUT maybe that is factored in the unit morale and experience?

[morvael]

I think so. What you are missing is just some immersion (more historical names and pictures). But creating divisional/brigade command database whould be a huge task (imagine adding thousands of Soviet colonels...).

[M60A3TTS]

I wouldn't mind seeing in WitE 2 a unique, very small HQ unit named "STAVKA Coordinator" Actually 2 or 3 of them. Vasilevsky and Zhukov held such roles from time to time later in the war where they coordinated the activities of multiple fronts and in game could provide an additional leader check.

[Cavalry Corp]

I would like to see the Germans make KG HQ with a range of 1 or something for a few AP points, these would be with random leader stats and say only be able to attach 2 or 3 Brigades or regts and a couple od support units.

[chaos45]

In future editions of the game the ability to build new units should be available to the Germans as well.

Esp corps/army HQ. Plus it would then allow the German player to benefit from doing very well in the game by adding to his forces.

[Cavalry Corp]

Agree German player should decide when corps HQ are built or arrive. On other support units I think its fair to say that they do have a limited capacity. I do not like all the withdrawals that were not really withdrawls but refits either.

[HMSWarspite]

Here we go again. I suggest you search on this topic, it has been discussed many times, and wont be changed I suspect.

[uw06670]

Some of us weren't around for those discussions and like to feel like a part of the equation. Plus, it can be fun

[loki100]

the larger problem is that what you would need would be a dynamic event system as there are a lot of these fixed changes in the game that only make sense if the game progresses close to history.

Pelton's raised the issue of the German infantry re-org in 1944 hits the player regardless of whether they have a manpower reserve, so ideally you need a if/and routine to trigger that shift in the OOB. For the Soviets an eg is the 1942 NM sequence. The drop to 40 from May-September works as a means to trigger a realistic collapse in the Soviet defences but in truth its back to front.

Soviet morale did collapse in the summer - though there are grounds to suspect that people like Chuikov may have over-embellished this in the memoires (after all it makes the defence of Stalingrad even more impressive). But it did due to the failure of the winter offensive and worse, the aftermath of the Kharkov offensive. When the Germans started to repeat the stunning gains of 1941 in the Voronezh and Rostov battles, a lot of people felt it was over for the Soviets.

So morale fell apart because of the earlier defeats and the scale of the German gains, it didn't fall apart and then the Germans made gains. So again, ideally you need an and/if/or set of rules telling the game engine to bring this effect into play or not.

[Cavalry Corp]

Maybe morale drops and gains( over national morale) should be controlled by random rolls and for losing cities, territory etc defeats and wins rather than dates. BUT the current version feels pretty good and its the reason why I have come back to this game.
I would like to see some more players start at Bagration or 43 like Pelton as see if he can save the Reich.

[M60A3TTS]

If we're going to have options to keep German divisions from flipping to smaller ones late game, I'll take the option to keep Soviet tank divisions from flipping to brigades. Soviet tank divisions in 1942 with 200+ T-34s will be just fine, thank you.

[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.

[RedLancer]

I very much doubt we'll get consensus but we need a balance to keep the most rabid fan boys on either side appeased. Soviets can always build more units but Germans can't. The historic German OB change to 6 Battalions was driven by manpower shortages. Why penalise players if they have the manpower? Stopping an upgrade entirely doesn't allow you to use new weapons like the Hetzer.

Remember that WitE2.0 will develop from WitW and the WitW logistics system presents significant challenges to offence. I know Pelton has strong views on this. I think the intent with any of this family of games is to maintain realistic balance and minimise exploitation.

Personally I think we are at the point where any additional complexity is decreasing playability. I've spent 2 years with WitW and still don't get it all even after working on the documentation. We need to concentrate on simplifying gameplay. It is interesting with WitW that the EF Box has been largely ignored - a feature arguably prompted in part by the comments here about whether units destroyed at Stalingrad should be withdrawn. Added complexity and unpredictability creates a balancing challenge that is not always positive.

We must think to the finish in any suggestion. I welcome the discussion. I used to think that being able to turn Corps HQs to Army Abteilungs would be a neat feature but what does it add that a Corps HQ attached to a Army Group doesn't? I don't think so now.

[Bob12]

I don't think the 1942 morale drop is necessarily artificial. Considering morale isn't just morale but a function of soldier quality etc I think the 1942 drop represents the soviet recruitment/training system hitting a stumbling block after the mammoth effort of 1941.

[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.

[Bob12]

Attacking everywhere was the standard soviet strategy, at least according to Glantz. They would attack wherever they could along the front until something cracked. In any case I believe supply has been pretty much fixed by 1.08 with only some tweaking left. I agree casualties are too low for battles with very large numbers of troops, I'll be interesting to see how effective the changes are in .05 in this regard.

[loki100]

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.

agree about combat and the cost of reducing pockets but they will not change till WiTE2. Its noticeable in WiTW that pockets can be tough to reduce. While some bits of Fritz's Ostkrieg are plain silly, its very good on German logistics and plans. One telling comment was that German infantry dreaded having to clear out pockets, even in the summer of 1941 due to sheer nastiness of the fighting.

My morale point was not about Stalingrad, but the events from the end of Kharkov till the start of the city battles. The 'not one step back' order was not issued by accident, or because Stalin had spare time and a working typewriter. It was a very deliberate attempt to shore up crumbling morale as Soviet units fell back to the Volga.

I'm not sure if Chuikov's memoires are available in English, but he is clear at the demoralised nature of the formations that retreated to Stalingrad and were formed into 62 Army. Now you need to be as careful with Soviet sources as any historical record.

Post the victory, plenty of people wanted to claim credit for the defense and the counter-attack (tracing the shifting claim to the glory of first conceiving that allows you a pretty good match to the post-war iterations between Stalin, Kruschev and Brezhnev, as well as Zhukov's fall from favour after 1949-50). Even during the battle, Vasily Grossman (a Soviet journalist with the army 'Red Star' newspaper) reported that different commanders would complain at the press coverage of their neighbours. Commonly it would be 'I planned that operation' and so on. So Chuikov may well have over-stated the situation, but it matches most reports of the situation by the start of August.

[RedLancer]

One of my complaints for WitW is how hard they tried to make the sides even.

Did we? That's certainly not my understanding. From a development perspective I cannot be any clearer that WitE2.0 will evolve from WitW. This is because it will use the new tiled map (allowing the creation of scenarios with the full scope of the Karelian Front), the improved logistics system that tracks the movement of freight and the improved air model.

[swkuh]

@Red Lancer: Glad to hear some appreciation of playability.

In general, what constitutes victory may always be up to players. A victory point system that aspires to a definitive solution could easily become another source of contentious discussion.

Great feature of this game is sense of historicity that comes from detailed unit IDs & unit details, and (one hopes) corresponding combat performance.

Looking forward to continuing developments.