Winter Idea......Comment

[Emx77]

TulliusDetrius, please look at my map. I will ask you just one simple question. If this was real war (which this game is trying to simulate), how realistic result will be that of what Soviets achieved in my game?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

TulliusDetrius, please look at my map. I will ask you just one simple question. If this was real war (which this game is trying to simulate), how realistic result will be that of what Soviets achieved in my game?

Emir, but this has nothing to do with the blizzard per se. It's about the Soviets getting utterly destroyed (300 units) and coming back. It's a different issue [:)]

Don't worry, 2ndACR, not really interested in this issue so I will stay away [8D]

I just thought it was rather weird, people assuming all of us simple NOOBS can't do no wrong. Testers are the spearhead, we should trust them.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I am not really interested in saying anything here (because I do NOT know anything about the blizzard: yes, I see it's hell). But one thing is certain. MOST if not all the players except the testers are UTTER NOOBS... Soooo, when some of you say "look at x AAR, great German / Soviet player"... are you sure this is true? How do you know that? Because they kicked some ar***? What about the other player? He was of course a great player as well (not a simple NOOB)? Hmm... if I remember correctly the testers SAID they could survive the blizzard... They even shared tips.

Sorry but I do NOT buy the "x guy [a NOOB in fact] is a GREAT player therefore he can't do no wrong therefore the game does not work". I trust the games played by the testers, sorry [;)]

EDIT: needless to say, I think this is the simple truth because we just started playing this game er on december: 2 mere months. That does NOT make any player here a master, or even competent opponent, sorry.

The historical German Army generals were not supermen and did not get a second (or more) opportunity to perfect their decisions in the game. The generals tended to be very conservative, but the game currently seems to support grossly inaccurate operational maneuvers. Is it possible that extreme risk taking is most rewarded in the game currently?

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Emir, but this has nothing to do with the blizzard per se. It's about the Soviets getting utterly destroyed (300 units) and coming back. It's a different issue [:)]

This has everything to do with blizzard [;)]. Another thing, Soviets suffered less in reality and they weren't even close to do what they did here. So something is wrong here.

I just thought it was rather weird, people assuming all of us simple NOOBS can't do no wrong. Testers are the spearhead, we should trust them.

If player which eliminates 300 divisions and take most of Soviet key cities till autumn (leaving Moscow in deep rear) is noob, then everything is fine. He deserves to be overrun by Soviets and game works like charm.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

I bought this game on the day it was released and I think it has many things going for it. What I did not realise when I paid my £70 was that I was not buying a finished product. So far I have had to download six patches and still I read that the "game will only be balanced" when enough people play it who can point out its faults.

35 years ago my first wargame, bought as a present for my fifteenth birthday, was "Drang nach Osten" by GDW. In real terms it probably cost more than WITE but worked "straight out of the box" and is still playable today without amy major modifications.

When I bought WITE I wish someone had written on the Matrix website that "this game will be great when you all find what is wrong with it now".

Hi troll. This is the fourth thread you have copy/pasted this comment to.

Shoo.[:-]

[bdtj1815]

See my other responses to your unofficial reply!!

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Emir, but this has nothing to do with the blizzard per se. It's about the Soviets getting utterly destroyed (300 units) and coming back. It's a different issue [:)]

This has everything to do with blizzard [;)]. Another thing, Soviets suffered less in reality and they weren't even close to do what they did here. So something is wrong here.

I'm sorry but it hasn't [:)] You destroyed 300. It could have been 500, 800 or 0 for that matter. The case IS that somehow the Soviets had a lot of manpower and thus tons of divisions to execute offensive operations during the blizzard, and forced you to pull back (the blizzard issue that is) [8D] In this case it's a problem of manpower ie could the Soviets have afforded such human and material losses in the real thing etc. etc.? That's indeed debatable and you are possibly right [:)]

Or are you trying to tell me that the Red Army which attacked during the blizzard was composed of very few divisions that managed the same to kick you out of your positions? [;)]

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

If player which eliminates 300 divisions and take most of Soviet key cities till autumn (leaving Moscow in deep rear) is noob, then everything is fine. He deserves to be overrun by Soviets and game works like charm.

Emir, I am kicking my PBEM German opponent's a** in late september / early october 41 and YES, that does NOT change absolutely anything: I am an UTTER noob [8D]

EDIT: sorry, 2ndACR. I am out of here [&o]

[2ndACR]

Your alright, I don't mind arguments about the issue, but don't want price, finished arguments.

[Klydon]

A couple of points.

First, I think it is obvious to just about anyone in the community there are issues with the 41 winter campaign, regardless if you support a "side" or not. I have pretty much abandon a game after I destroyed over 100 Axis units by mid January simply because its an exercise in silliness.

The amount of posted active AAR's have dropped off huge because of the winter issues and are likely not to pick up again until some major changes are made. It is simply too big of a time investment to get to the winter to find out things are a mess.

Next is that for now because of these issues, players may well want to look at a 1942 start for the time being to give the staff that precious item that no one ever has enough of and that is time to look at what they are seeing, work on solutions, do a little testing and then give it a shot to see what happens.

[pat.casey]

I have to agree with the consensus here that something is deeply broken with the winter campaign. The soviet side is grossly overpowered.

This does not make sense from a historical perspective since the in-game results in human v human AARs virtually always show the soviets doing far better in the blizzard than they did historically (in most AARs the soviets gut the wehrtmacht and win the war in the first winter).

This does not make sense from a gameplay perspective since it is neither fun nor controllable by players; its just a "you lose" mechanic.

Games like this benefit from player choices with consequences. The blizzard is a mechanic about which the Axis player can do virtually nothing.

In that context, I like the original idea of letting the axis make decisions which lowered the efficiency of their summer offensive at the expense of improving their winter survival. I do this fully aware that virtually every Axis player *will make that choice*. This will offset the fact that virtually every soviet player will pull their forces back rather than submit to encirclements in the summer of 1941.

Neither side should be forced to repeat history's mistakes.

[Mynok]

While I'm totally in agreement with Tullius's contention that most of us are noobs at playing the Germans, I'm still on the side that something is unbalanced with the first winter. Don't know what it is. That's why I'd love to see some more tester AAR's from the Axis side where they survive the winter in an OK state. I know sure haven't, even just against the AI. Many more have suffered far more against Soviet humans.

What are we doing wrong? That's the question.

[2ndACR]

I too am still looking for the answer. I did manage to hold the AI to almost no advance in the Blizzard in one game. It only managed a single break out that I managed to close up with my 2 mountain div. Against a human, no chance.

[Mynok]

I do so wish we could see more tester AARs from the Axis perspective. They are consistently claiming they can survive the blizzard effectively. Help us out guys. Show us what we are doing wrong.

Please.

[cookie monster]

I checked out Big Anorak's field marshall noob AAR

I found no insight in how to survive the winter

If I did I didn't notice cos it was commonsense

[2ndACR]

The only thing I have tried (against the AI) that seemed to work was I steadily pulled back via Rail short hops and made sure they were in towns at all times. This was after they broke my line. I basically did a Sir Robin any time a Russian got close. That saved me all the nasty retreat losses, kept my troops in decent shape. Against a human, I would have been back in Germany by winter end probably. But the AI sticks it's neck out and I clipped it's wings a few times railing around my mountain troops cutting off it's penetrations.

But against a human, I just cannot figure out how to NOT get crushed.

[Skanvak]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

But whining about the developers not listening when you are not overwhelming them with evidence sounds like slinging mud not real interest in making the game better.

+1

We need more methodology and back the argument with evidence. Look at the debate on the airfield in the warroom, they try to used evidences.

If people are interested we can put in a methodology to check our assertion. I hope the designer are doing something correct.

For me the following thing should be done :

_ Collect historical weather information and compare the system to it (may be ask a meteorologist to design the weather model, it is their jobs, and they are good at it).

_ Compare this average to the game model to see if it is correct or not as the the weather frame and change speed. correct as needed.

_ Design a 5Dec41 scenario which mean researching the exact situation of both side at the time.

_ Reseach about what each side did as offensive, then play the test scenario trying to replicate the historical move by both side. See if the result is coherent or not.

_ do research on both side to identify structural causes of the result that are beyond player decision and shoudl result in tweak in the game. Those that are well in the player decision should be ignored.

_ from the test result, change the CV modifiers (I share Q-Ball opinion that it is on of the main problem) or other if justified by previous research until the test scenario reproduce the historical result.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I know the Devs are listening, I have been around long enough to have faith in 2by3 and Matrix.

Instead of "winterizing" even just doing away with the auto slashing of CV during blizzard turns and just allowing the attrition to take effect only would be a vast improvement. At least then, those level 3-4 forts might actually last 2-3 turns and make it worthwhile to dig hard and deep.

With that change, the German now has some counter attack ability, the Russian will not just run rough shod over the German and the forts levels are actually worth building to high level.

Just look at how hard it is to crack level 3-4 forts during Summer 41 with the German troops. Should be just as hard to crack them during winter as Russian. Get rid of the auto slashing of CV. I know that attrition alone will hurt any unit outside proper towns. That would be a good place to start IMO.

Sounds very good. I assume AI will need still a good boost to achieve a winter offensive.
How about doing the same thing as with other game parameters, have a customizable option (0-100%)at game start that allows to set the "CV-increase" for the Russian side during the blizzard turns of 1941/42. Then the designers could suggest a default value for AI, and a different one for PBEM. And the players would be up to choose their own vice.

My point of view is simply that there should be no to very little combat effectiveness increase for the Russians (except against AI). Both sides had some problems with winter gear and arms. There should be a slight MP decrease for German narrow-tracked tanks, and maybe in the first blizzard turn or two there should be an additional "Blizzard shock" moment, where MP and supply are reduced for a short period of time and for some units, not all (randomly the ones in the open, and off lines of communication).

Aside, the blizzard was probably not a continuous 3 months period of time, but surely there were milder days/weeks in between. BigAnork's suggestion of adding a couple of snow turns was a good one. I think one could make this an option, i.e. either have a couple of fixed snow turns built in, or play with a more variable weather option that during December to February there is a certain probability for blizzard: say 80% in Dec, 60% in Jan, and 40% in Feb that a turn is a blizzard condition. That way there would be less predictability, which I think is better than playing out your game with an ancient weather table on your planning desk... That just doesn't mimic the uncertainties that shape wars, much like the fixed withdrawal/reinforcement schedules, or the fixed forces setup at start.

[1275psi]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Until you experience it, there is not much you can say. I have stopped all offensive ops in Late Sept against the AI and had level 4 forts across the entire front, had every single rail repaired. And I still got crushed during blizzard. It does not matter if you prepare hard or advance till the last turn prior to blizzard, you will get crushed. That simple.

Not a matter of surviving. Of course we will survive. But the army will be a shell of it's former self no matter what you try to do.

And thats why i am un installing. Some one decided that the game MUST reflect real life in losses - how many times do we see comment -nearly mirrors real life -so its OK in the test AARs?
No matter what you do -you get crushed!
i took Moscow -besieged leningrad against AI -ON EASY level -just to see what would happen - dug in two turns before the mud - and still got crushed.
God help me in PBEM -that would be madnes to start.
There is no reward for the German player -you get crushed
No choices, no options -the blizzard starts-and its the end. I have tried limited attack -got crushed, stopped at somolensk - got crushed, all out -got crushed
I am sorry, thats not a game.
great potential -wonderful detail, brilliant mechanics.
No fun to play all the way through.

my two cents

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi



And thats why i am un installing. Some one decided that the game MUST reflect real life in losses - how many times do we see comment -nearly mirrors real life -so its OK in the test AARs?
No matter what you do -you get crushed!
i took Moscow -besieged leningrad against AI -ON EASY level -just to see what would happen - dug in two turns before the mud - and still got crushed.
God help me in PBEM -that would be madnes to start.
There is no reward for the German player -you get crushed
No choices, no options -the blizzard starts-and its the end. I have tried limited attack -got crushed, stopped at somolensk - got crushed, all out -got crushed
I am sorry, thats not a game.
great potential -wonderful detail, brilliant mechanics.
No fun to play all the way through.

my two cents

1) What part of the Manual led you to think that digging all over the frontline was the best strategy for blizzard?

2) Have you read the posts by BigAnorak on how to fight during Blizzards?