The Political Question?

[freeboy]

So I would hope that the losses of these areas would essentially curtail the masses of Red army infantry to a managable amount?
How does the game model the relief from the West? Does it increase or decrease via options or on board performance? The US lend, cough, lease greatly helped, or is that outside the realm of the game? I cannot imagine a US LL plan in 42 43 44 against a Russia without Moscow.. can U? Just my 2 cents worth..
FYI THis looks GREAT!!!

[elmo3]

I believe Lend Lease will be modeled but the details are not worked out yet.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

So I would hope that the losses of these areas would essentially curtail the masses of Red army infantry to a managable amount?
How does the game model the relief from the West? Does it increase or decrease via options or on board performance? The US lend, cough, lease greatly helped, or is that outside the realm of the game? I cannot imagine a US LL plan in 42 43 44 against a Russia without Moscow.. can U? Just my 2 cents worth..
FYI THis looks GREAT!!!

Losing population centers would reduce available manpower but it would be up to the Russian player to reduce the size of the Red Army by disbanding units or not forming new ones. Nothing in the game prevents the Russian player from having large numbers of weak units.

Lend lease support is fixed to what was received historically. Lend Lease was helpful but far from decisive to the outcome of the war on the Eastern front. American lend lease aid didn't kick into high gear until 1943 by which time the Russians had already turned the tide. If Moscow falls in 1941 the game will likely be over before lend lease is ever a factor. I am of course assuming that a human Russian player would have conceded or a human Axis player (versus the AI) will consider the game won and stop.

[itsjustme]

ORIGINAL: Captain

On the main topic itself, I would not want to see arbitrary political decisions put in, I would rather have political realities reflected by victory points, (for example: the USSR loses if the Axis has captured Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad by 1/1/42, to prevent the Soviet player from just retreating and coming back in force in 43).

In this type of game, I see the player as wearing many hats, from Hitler/Stalin down to corps commander. You want to be able to explore various options without being tied to solely the historical outcome.

Everyone always assumes that they will do a better job than Hitler or Stalin. Now is your chance to find out...[;)]

Sure, as long as you don't tell anyone to produce a different type of equipment. So let me see, you can make different decisions on a completely strategic level, but not decide to produce FW190s over ME109s. I get it......[8|]

[freeboy]

I thought you could produce anything you want.. V12's etc with the editor.. I want my knew 1942 super V weapons .. and a Whole new liberatiokn army of Baltic states troops, and then I get to reduce the Germans SS troops, a kinder gentler Germany freeing the Reds from themselves!
lol[&o][:-][X(]

[paullus99]

I've read a lot of historical research that shows the Soviet factory evacutation to be mostly a myth of wartime propaganda. A lot of those factories already existed or were built from scratch during the war. Some equipment and machinery was put to rails, but most of what was utilized was already there to begin with.

It sounds like the commander situation gives some flexibility, with the uncertainty of war as well.

[Helpless]

I've read a lot of historical research that shows the Soviet factory evacutation to be mostly a myth of wartime propaganda

No

[Shupov]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Please remember that we're still in alpha so this is subject to change. You can see von Bock's ratings below. Leaders affect movement, combat, morale, and logistics. So yes there is a big benefit to having good leaders in key positions. The ratings don't change but as mentioned above they do get promoted or dismissed based on performance.

In addition to Victories and Defeats another performance measurement could be "Attacks". In the early part of the war Stalin put heavy pressure on his generals to attack regardless of their situations. Generals who did not attack were branded as cowards and dismissed (or worse).

Both Hitler and Stalin loved aggressive commanders! In the game, Russian (and German?) leaders who don't attack should have a higher risk for dismissal. Leaders who do attack should gain chance for promotion regardless of outcome.

This factor would simulate the political reality the generals faced. Without this penalty smart Russian players will withdraw from the frontier as quickly as possible to avoid encirclements. There is no question the Russian attacks in the summer of 1941 were disasters, so why repeat history?

Counting Attacks should be simple to program into WitE. I know many players don't want any interference from political sources, so I suggest this feature should be selectable by the players, or part of play-balance.

[elmo3]

I doubt Hitler or Stalin would have rewarded failed attacks but you never know.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Shupov

[In addition to Victories and Defeats another performance measurement could be "Attacks". In the early part of the war Stalin put heavy pressure on his generals to attack regardless of their situations. Generals who did not attack were branded as cowards and dismissed (or worse).

Both Hitler and Stalin loved aggressive commanders! In the game, Russian (and German?) leaders who don't attack should have a higher risk for dismissal. Leaders who do attack should gain chance for promotion regardless of outcome.

This factor would simulate the political reality the generals faced. Without this penalty smart Russian players will withdraw from the frontier as quickly as possible to avoid encirclements. There is no question the Russian attacks in the summer of 1941 were disasters, so why repeat history?

Counting Attacks should be simple to program into WitE. I know many players don't want any interference from political sources, so I suggest this feature should be selectable by the players, or part of play-balance.

The tracking of victories and defeats is designed to reward competency not aggressiveness. You, the player, determine how aggressive your forces will be.

As for the historical Russian counterattacks, these mostly occurred within the first turn of the game. They are "simulated" by the Russian forces being in the path of the German advance. By the time it gets around to the Russian player's turn one there is nothing much left to counterattack with (a little to withdraw also).

From the Russian player's perspective you pick up history on turn two as you try to put some sembalance of a front line back together again.

[Shupov]

The tracking of victories and defeats is designed to reward competency not aggressiveness. You, the player, determine how aggressive your forces will be.

As for the historical Russian counterattacks, these mostly occurred within the first turn of the game. They are "simulated" by the Russian forces being in the path of the German advance. By the time it gets around to the Russian player's turn one there is nothing much left to counterattack with (a little to withdraw also).

From the Russian player's perspective you pick up history on turn two as you try to put some sembalance of a front line back together again.

In the event, Stalin and Hitler both removed generals for lack of aggressiveness. Even Zhukov was temporarily demoted for recommending the abandonment of Kiev. This proposal would simulate a political reality the generals faced. Assuming the current effect for Victory and Defeat is +/- 1.00 political point, attacking or defending could act as a modifier by the following schedule:

Attack and Victory +1.50 (or +2.00)
Defend and Victory +1.00
Attack and Defeat -0.50
Defend and Defeat -1.00

Will WitE ever remove Guderian or Zhukov for lack of competency? Both were relieved for wanting to withdraw instead of attacking or standing fast.

Again this could be an optional feature that could be turned off by players not wanting irrational Dictator oversight!

[elmo3]

We've discussed some possible "irrational dictator" rules but frankly there are more important core game mechanics that are still being developed and tested.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Shupov


In the event, Stalin and Hitler both removed generals for lack of aggressiveness. Even Zhukov was temporarily demoted for recommending the abandonment of Kiev. This proposal would simulate a political reality the generals faced. Assuming the current effect for Victory and Defeat is +/- 1.00 political point, attacking or defending could act as a modifier by the following schedule:

Attack and Victory +1.50 (or +2.00)
Defend and Victory +1.00
Attack and Defeat -0.50
Defend and Defeat -1.00

Will WitE ever remove Guderian or Zhukov for lack of competency? Both were relieved for wanting to withdraw instead of attacking or standing fast.

Again this could be an optional feature that could be turned off by players not wanting irrational Dictator oversight!

I think you're taking the names too seriously. The leaders merely represent a set of combat capabilities not real people. The "promotions" represent your ability as a player to manage these capabilities effectively. The game system "sacking" leaders for losing battles represents not only a failure on your part to conduct your operations effectively but also a failure to have the right men in the right positions at the right time.

[vinnie71]

Tell that to Manteuffel! Started off as a divisional commander and ended commanding an army in the East. I'd love to have the ability to promote generals as it would give added flavour and also create a realistic need for good generals. If I'm right, generals will be present from corps upwards, so there won't be that many in the field. Will there be a pool of generals which we can see and appoint? And will the Luftwaffe have its own generals? Will some generals withraw to be assigned elswhere (von Arnim and Kesserling come to mind)?

Frankly having a crazy dictator interfering would be a real pain in the neck. For, I am that crazy dictator! [:D]

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Tell that to Manteuffel! Started off as a divisional commander and ended commanding an army in the East. I'd love to have the ability to promote generals as it would give added flavour and also create a realistic need for good generals. If I'm right, generals will be present from corps upwards, so there won't be that many in the field. Will there be a pool of generals which we can see and appoint? And will the Luftwaffe have its own generals? Will some generals withraw to be assigned elswhere (von Arnim and Kesserling come to mind)?

Frankly having a crazy dictator interfering would be a real pain in the neck. For, I am that crazy dictator! [:D]

Only the program can promote leaders. There is currently nothing in the rules about officers withdrawing but rules to that effect could be hard coded into the program. I will have to remember to ask Gary about that the next time I talk to him.

[Helpless]

There is currently nothing in the rules about officers withdrawing

There is. Leader could be dismissed during the supply phase based on the previous performance.

[Captain]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

We've discussed some possible "irrational dictator" rules but frankly there are more important core game mechanics that are still being developed and tested.

I also don't see a need for a "irrational dictator" rule.

Once we get into the game, I am sure players will come up with their own monumental screwups to rival anything Hitler or Stalin did....

[vinnie71]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

There is currently nothing in the rules about officers withdrawing

There is. Leader could be dismissed during the supply phase based on the previous performance.

Interesting. Therefore if there is a leader which really did badly in the last couple of turns, he could be dismissed by the player? Or is it the AI which dismisses him?

BTW in this thread someone mentioned lend lease. I'm not going to dispute its relative importance or not, but its main throughfares. LL came through the Soviet Pacific territories, Murmansk and the north and the Caucasus. The former 2 options are out of the purview of this game but if I'm correct, the Caucasus is part of the game. So would LL remain at the same level or would it be curtailed if the Axis conquered the Caucasus? Somewhere I read that the south would be attractive to the Axis player, so the Caucasus could become a natural target.

[Helpless]

Interesting. Therefore if there is a leader which really did badly in the last couple of turns, he could be dismissed by the player? Or is it the AI which dismisses him?

By AI during the Supply Phase.

BTW in this thread someone mentioned lend lease. I'm not going to dispute its relative importance or not, but its main throughfares. LL came through the Soviet Pacific territories, Murmansk and the north and the Caucasus. The former 2 options are out of the purview of this game but if I'm correct, the Caucasus is part of the game. So would LL remain at the same level or would it be curtailed if the Axis conquered the Caucasus? Somewhere I read that the south would be attractive to the Axis player, so the Caucasus could become a natural target.

Not the Caucasus as such but the loss of Caspian ports would have impact on Southern lendlease. Not all of them are on map.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

There is currently nothing in the rules about officers withdrawing

There is. Leader could be dismissed during the supply phase based on the previous performance.

Pavel,

I think the questioner was wondering if leaders were transferred back and forth from the Eastern Front not whether they could be dismissed. For example, is there anything in the code to have Kluge transfer from command of Army Group Center in 1944 to replace Rommel at Army Group B on the Western Front?