Razing the Reich

[Michael T]

If Pelton 'mans up' and accepts his defeat I will play him again. But I suspect that will never happen.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

If Pelton 'mans up' and accepts his defeat I will play him again. But I suspect that will never happen.

If he quits because of a "bug" that only he can perceive, then I'd generally agree with you.

If he sticks it out though and tries to drag the game out past the soviet victory date by playing hyper-careful attritional warfare, then I don't fundamentally think he's doing anything wrong. Ultimately he's a min-maxer and he's trying to maximize his changes of winning within the context of the game system.

What he's doing (turtling), imho isn't very exciting (unless you happen to like working with spreadsheets), but it is a valid, non-exploitive, strategy.

The one area where I do think you have a valid complaint though is that there's an element of bait and switch in this game.

Pelton is known for being a very aggressive, hard driving, axis player.

So when you accepted the game, you likely expected to get a game with lots of thrust and counter-thrust.

What you got, unfortunately, was a sitzkreig though, which takes some of the fun out of it .

I suppose my $0.02 then is that what he's doing is not exploitive, but you still have a valid reason to be irritated by it since he's not giving you the kind of game you expected.

[Michael T]

If he plays the game out, fine. Although you are right that it is not what I expected or wanted, i.e. borekrieg. I am past that now as from 1943 on I can play. But my concern is he is going to try and call off the game because of some perceived bug, or slow the turn rate to irritating levels, or some other problem. I would not put it past him to create a problem. It might be possible.

He has whinged non stop the whole game about this or that. Sure I play to win, but winning without the fun factor is not what its about. I can not fathom why anyone would do this just to avoid a loss.

[swkuh]

Not reading Pelton Posts past this point, its all PP. There is his whine in the tech sub-forum about some point or other and its being looked at by the mods. Appreciate your staying on the case as it'll help all who care to see this end.

Once asked PP himself what he intended to call a personal victory from this game and he ducked the question.

But I'll ask you the same questions, Berlin by when? Losses, Axis/Soviet? As in any game, my objectives count more than the calculated VPs of the game designers.

BTW, to pp's credit, I've learned a bit of defensive tactic and have evaluated the game a little deeper. But for that I could have done what was needed vs. AI.

[Flaviusx]

He's complaining about something that's been known for ages. He himself has understood how the battle engine works for quite some time. Yes, it is absolutely the case that attacking Soviet formations in the late war becomes very expensive, particularly the rifle corps. His own strategy has allowed the process to be dramatically accelerated, and the only person he can blame for this is himself. That is why running away to Poland in 1941 and the giving the Soviets an absolutely free pass in 1942 is a boneheaded strategy. MT is now in a place that most Soviet players don't reach until will into 1943 or even later. If you don't keep the Soviets off balance and stay on the offensive until at least the end of 1942 you will of course be in trouble as the Axis. He wrote a bunch of postdated checks with this silly runaway strategy and they are beginning to bounce loudly. He declared strategic bankruptcy long ago and deluded himself into thinking otherwise.

Making this into an issue at this late stage of this game is pure sour grapes. MT has cause to be greatly irritated.

OTOH Soviet retreat losses in 1941 are stupidly high and Axis combat losses are correspondingly absurdly low, and it is almost impossible for Axis to get take kind of losses they took historically in 41 until the blizzard artificially inflicts them...something you will never hear him complaining about. Except he doesn't seem to completely get this. This is why stopping so early was a horrible mistake. The Axis can keep pummeling the Soviets for 5:1 or better losses all the way to blizzard and grind the Red Army with great effect, blasting through just about anything short of well fortified stacks in the Valdai Hills. That is why he should have kept right on attacking where the attacking was good all the way up to blizzard.

You didn't see MT spam the technical forums about this other side of the coin because everybody gets that this is how the game works in 41, right or wrong. The cake is baked. No serious changes will be forthcoming for WITE at this point. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

[terje439]

If I may play the Devils Advocate here (no offense ment in any way, just asking a Q. Well sort of). Is not the REAL problem how the USSR is able to destroy alot of Axis formations during Blizzard -41, and THAT is what really needs fixing (been thinking about maybe some sort of reduced USSR MP during Blizzard to make it harder for them to surround enemy units).
I have no issues with their increased attack ability, the Axis reduced defence ability, nor the high Axis casualty rate, but I do have some issues with how the USSR can cause an avalanche effect without too much difficulty, and destroy 5+ Axis divisions without too much difficulty (take this statement with a pinch of salth)? As it stands now, to me (again this can easily be just me), it seems that if you try to make a stand, you WILL lose quite a few divisions, and the Axis manpower/armaments pool will suffer for the rest of the game as a result.

Again, sorry for the semi-highjacking.


Terje

[Flaviusx]

The blizzard is a mess, no question about it. But if you remove it and leave that alone, Axis casualties will be negligible going into 1942, far short of historical. And Axis morale will also snowball. The combat system simply doesn't produce historical results in 1941 or anything like the wear and tear the Axis suffered even before the winter hit.

The system has problems both in the early and late periods of the war and systematically favors the offense. It is too generous early on for the Axis and also for the Soviets once things turn around past 43.

[Michael T]

@rrbill, my objective is to capture Berlin before 1944 is out. I believe this is entirely possible.

I appreciate the moral support from you guys. Its a trying situation. Haven't had a turn for a few days now. I am only guessing, but perhaps he is waiting for the devs to check out his 'problems'. I have PM him trying to find out what is going on.

[Michael T]

Pelton has been around long enough to know of the games shortcomings, as we all do. Like Flav says, you know this going in. But its still a very good game. The best on this subject on PC that I know of.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Pelton has been around long enough to know of the games shortcomings, as we all do. Like Flav says, you know this going in. But its still a very good game. The best on this subject on PC that I know of.

I will not argue about that, as I agree fully. However, that being said, I will never stop wanting for something better [:)]


Terje

[Michael T]

Naturally we want it better. But the Devs have made it quite clear that apart from bugs what we have is it till WITE 2.0. I would pay for that now

Meanwhile my turn has just arrived yippee!

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The blizzard is a mess, no question about it. But if you remove it and leave that alone, Axis casualties will be negligible going into 1942, far short of historical. And Axis morale will also snowball. The combat system simply doesn't produce historical results in 1941 or anything like the wear and tear the Axis suffered even before the winter hit.

The system has problems both in the early and late periods of the war and systematically favors the offense. It is too generous early on for the Axis and also for the Soviets once things turn around past 43.

True, however there should imo be a better way to fix things, than to allow the USSR to completely overrun the Axis in winter of -41, that was my main point (and also why I am wondering what the result would be if you reduce USSR movement points during the Blizzard, so that they can push the Axis back, but will not be able to (this easily) surround enemy units).


Terje

[NotOneStepBack]

I've been following AAR's now since the game was released and always had some respect for Pelton. But after this one, I think all of that is lost. He is simply a number cruncher and does not appreciate the art of war. He accusatory remarks and constant scapegoating in this game really shows his true character. He simply was outplayed and will not own up to it. I hope you grind him into the dust by '44, if he lets the game get there.

[Flaviusx]

I don't think messing around with MPs is the answer. What needs to happen is for the blizzard to be done over from the ground up and to properly model the logistical breakdown of the first winter, rather than the kludge of combat penalties and mandated attrition losses we've got now. These things should occur naturally if the logistical system worked properly rather than being imposed by fiat. Where the Axis could get supply through, they fought well enough even in that first blizzard. That's why the lines assumed the form they did, clustering around transportation nodes, with the Soviets oozing through the open country and then running out of steam themselves as they get too far away from their own sources of supply. All those weird salients going into spring of 42 reflect the supply situation on the ground...but it's nearly impossible to recreate these results in game, because the penalties involved are global.

[KamilS]

Flaviusx

I don't think messing around with MPs is the answer. What needs to happen is for the blizzard to be done over from the ground up and to properly model the logistical breakdown of the first winter, rather than the kludge of combat penalties and mandated attrition losses we've got now. These things should occur naturally if the logistical system worked properly rather than being imposed by fiat. Where the Axis could get supply through, they fought well enough even in that first blizzard. That's why the lines assumed the form they did, clustering around transportation nodes, with the Soviets oozing through the open country and then running out of steam themselves as they get too far away from their own sources of supply. All those weird salients going into spring of 42 reflect the supply situation on the ground...but it's nearly impossible to recreate these results in game, because the penalties involved are global.

Really good post. Thank You.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
OTOH Soviet retreat losses in 1941 are stupidly high and Axis combat losses are correspondingly absurdly low, and it is almost impossible for Axis to get take kind of losses they took historically in 41 until the blizzard artificially inflicts them...

This, the German units suffer too few casualties while attacking. Make no mistake, I love playing the Germans, but right now I'm playing my first GC as the Soviets and there are a few issues that left me shaking my head. But not only does the German suffer too few casualties while attacking, the Red Army is absolutely in no position to counterattack, unless you can amass overwhelming local superiority. It simply can't be, that when I attack a single infantry division in the open field with two tank divisions totaling the same CV with nearly 200 T-34 and dozens of KV-1, I lose about 30% of my force while the German only loses a couple hundred men.

For the blizzard issue aside from the logistics higher German losses until december 41 would be a big bonus. Right now the German units, no matter how strong they are, are magically turned into crap once the clock hits december. A big reason for Soviet success in the winter of 41 was the state of the German units, with most frontline units burned out and reduced to a shell of the June 41 variant, due to losses and lack of sufficient replacements (supply). Higher losses coupled with the supply issue could really make the game (or WITE 2) more interesting in 1941 as both sides would face trade-off decisions. For the German it would be either pushing forward, thereby causing and suffering more losses, or start to dig once mud hits. For the Soviets it would be run to preserve your force, but then you are faced with a much stronger Wehrmacht in winter, or stand and fight.

[carlkay58]

The major problem that WitE has is its presentation of following losses by individual men. Once you start doing that, man have you got PR problems. There is just too much complexity involved to do this. As a player, it is a great feature, but if the model is off just .05% the offset just keeps magnifying and exposing you to comments degrading your system.

Beyond that the following are problems that REALLY stand out:

1) Soviet manpower is missing. While the Soviet replacements come out about right, the initial reserve activations (game turns 1 - 5 Soviet reinforcements) were historically about 60% strength while the game has them as shells. This represents a major loss of manpower, armaments, etc. for the Soviet players.

2) Unit upgrades that show a reorganization of TOE requires MASSIVE ARM points to achieve where in real life the reorganization was done to shift around the existing resources into more efficient organizations WITHOUT having to spend the ARM as if it were a new unit. A prime example is the 42 Soviet Reorg that eats about 600K+ ARM.

3) The logistics model is not brutal enough. Part of it is that I think GG forgot to subtract civilian usage from fuel production and industrial usage of rail capacity. The Axis had a severe fuel shortage in late 41 that contributed to their bad supply situation. This is not even close to happening in the game.

4) One of the factors in the combat model that favors the attacker is the ease in which fatigue is recovered. It may also be that fatigue does not matter as much as it should.

5) Special rules seem to be off target too much. The Start Turn effects in the south allows a good Axis player such as Saper to eliminate the SouthWestern and Southern Fronts almost completely with the Soviet player having no chance to save more than two or three corps in total. To balance this we have the Winter Counteroffensive where the Soviets become invulnerable supermen where the Axis have no choice but withdrawing along the entire front.

[Seminole]

If Pelton 'mans up' and accepts his defeat I will play him again. But I suspect that will never happen.

I hope you play the return game regardless.
I'd like to see what he has learned about reserve activation applies to the Soviets in '41 and '42.

[turtlefang]

As far as the AAR goes, my hat's off to you. Your absolutely right regarding that both you and Pelton know the game and understanding the game's short comings/limitations BEFORE you both started this. Pelton complaining about it now is simply a smokescreen at best, an attempt to justify his loss, or a way to get out of the game at worse. It really puts him in a poor light.

And the funny thing is that winning or lossing the game isn't as important as enjoying the game as you have pointed out (and I like to win). If two great players had played a great game, who won or lost woulnd't have been as important as the fact that a great game had been played.

Stratetically, I suspect once his 41 offense failed, he decided he simply couldn't take you out. And then moved to the retreat to Poland and switch to the defense. Your reputation probably had a lot to do with it. I don't agree with his strategy as I don't like giving the iniative to the enemy, but it is a valid strategy. I hope it doesn't work as I don't want it become the "norm".

You laid out your strategy, correctly identified Pelton's strategy, developed an effective counter to his, and have maintain an excellent focus on you long term goals. While some have questioned the strategy a little (Finland first? have to admit that's the way I might have gone), you have clearly identified what you regard as the primary strategic goals and are sticking to it and executing against it. And you haven't been griping about all the items stacked against the Soviets in 41 - you've focused on maximizing the tools that you have.

I doubt that you really need the moral support, but you have it. Your doing a great job and I hope to see you in Berlin - ideally in mid 44.

[mmarquo]

The "retreat so early to Poland option" will never work in this game and for me it is boring to watch it being proved [>:]

The only way the Axis can forestall defeat is to force the Soviet player to evacuate production and to take away manpower centers; this alone will slow the growth of the Bear to perhaps manageable limits. I recently won a match with surrender of my Axis opponent in mid 1943; he had penetrated into Russia only twice as far as Pelton, and I had 1,500,000 men and 1,000,000 armaments in reserve - so much I did not know what to do with it all. In fact I make an error in spring 1942 and lost 120,000 men/12 divisions in a pocket. I nearly pissed myself laughing as I replaced the whole lot in 1 move.

" Your absolutely right regarding that both you and Pelton know the game and understanding the game's short comings/limitations BEFORE you both started this."

I disagree - one only knows what one knows; no one has yet had enough experience with this system (multiple games played to the bitter end, playing both sides against a whole panache of opponents) to have a really good grasp of it; it's not like chess where one can play multiple games in the time it takes to make one move of WITE.

Happy New Year [:)]