Game Has Serious Problems

[Sabre21]

If any of you followed the AAR between me and Stuart when we did the Case Blue scenario for Wargamer, you will see that I was creating pockets all the way up to the beginning of mud on turn 15 of that game. It can be done.

[Mike Parker]

I apologize for the wall of text, but if someone comes in as a obvious fan of one side or the other and calling foul about the game being broken, then I think the community is not going to respond in a real positive fashion most of the time. I don't speak for the community at all, but that is my opinion and observation.

Firstly I am replying to Klydon because it was convenient to quote him.. this is addressed generally!

I didn't note the names when I was reading, and I see no reason to go back and look now. I don't know if you Klydon made any remarks about OP that made me wrinkle my forehead or not and sincerely I don't care...

But some of the commentary I would characterize as "Nasty" and the OP said nothing to deserve it. The title of this thread is not inflamatory in and of itself nor were any of the suppositions right or wrong made by OP. Just as I don't care if you were the one that made any comments.. what bothers me is that such comments were made. One can refute the OP's suppositions without resorting to ad hominem.

I also think OP overstated the points he had to make. I do believe myself that its harder to encircle in WITE than it was historically (after the first 3-4 turns). I believe that is mostly because a good Soviet player knows not to exhaust himself uselessly in counter-attacks as often happend in the real war. As for the other point.. I have not noticed the Soviets getting much at all in the way of devestating counters in '41. Its awful hard for them to get credible offensive forces together anywhere to make much of a push... unless as has been said the German sticks his neck out too far!

So to everyone here... relax just a little. We all have our feelings on the game, but when someone posts something you disagree with, post your thoughts, and with civility attack the argument.. don't ever attack the person making the argument... well unless they really are a console player complaining about the lack of explosions and animated blood/gore in WITE!

[entwood]

If one player or another seems to think the "Game Has Serious Problems",  and so posts, it seems Joel has read and considered any truth there may be in the 'complaint' along with any other feedback from other posters.  As long as this holds true, seems ok.  Based on the OP's statement,

"The two main issues I see from the game system are an inability for the Germans to create pockets after the first few turns, and an ability the game gives a good Soviet player to execute on a regular basis attacks resulting in retreat against significant German stacks"

My suggestion, to please more people, is to open the game with a few more options or preferences that could be used to adjust either side.  A very rough example, The Axis motorized units get 52 base movement points instead of 50, and whatever other parameter for this "retreats issue", and so on.

In other words, permit some game parameters to be tuned, movement, combat, weather, etc., a little bit here and there, and eliminate some hard code. In this manner, it might not be horrendous coding changes because the code could pull the 52 other other options from the preferences file instead of parameters being hard coded somewhere.  Again, this is just a rudimentary example but the two benefits I see:

1. A player could adjust or tweak a few parameters because that is what he/she feels is historically accurate or makes for a better game to that person.
2. Tweaks could also be used to benefit one side or the other in PBEM, to give an advantage or disadvantage to stronger and weaker player to help balance player skill.

just a few thoughts. Not sure if feasible.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein

I would first want to say that this is a groundbreaking game with many positive points. At the same time though it appears to have some serious problems. The two main issues I see from the game system are an inability for the Germans to create pockets after the first few turns, and an ability the game gives a good Soviet player to execute on a regular basis attacks resulting in retreat against significant German stacks. Both issues have been discussed since the early days of the game in this forum but I've seen no changes to really address the issues. If anything the changes made seem to take the game in the wrong direction.

Don't let them shout you down, mate. You are quite correct.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: entwood

If one player or another seems to think the "Game Has Serious Problems",  and so posts, it seems Joel has read and considered any truth there may be in the 'complaint' along with any other feedback from other posters.  As long as this holds true, seems ok.  Based on the OP's statement,

"The two main issues I see from the game system are an inability for the Germans to create pockets after the first few turns, and an ability the game gives a good Soviet player to execute on a regular basis attacks resulting in retreat against significant German stacks"

My suggestion, to please more people, is to open the game with a few more options or preferences that could be used to adjust either side.  A very rough example, The Axis motorized units get 52 base movement points instead of 50, and whatever other parameter for this "retreats issue"'

In other words, permit some game parameters to be tuned, a little bit here and there, and eliminate some hard code. In this manner, it might not be horrendous coding changes because the code could pull the 52 from the preferences instead of 50 being hard coded somewhere.  Again, this is just a rudimentary example but the two benefits I see:

1. A player could adjust or tweak a few parameters because that is what he/she feels is historically accurate or makes for a better game to that person.
2. Tweaks could also be used to benefit one side or the other in PBEM, to give an advantage or disadvantage to stronger and weaker player to help balance player skill.

just a few thoughts. Not sure if feasible.

Yes, I agree completely. I would be happy if that could be feasible.

Customizable settings: manpower multipliers, annual basic levels of national morale, CV penalties during blizzard (/4 or /3), number of snow turns inserted during blizzard, even in non-random weather...(0/1/2...)

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Knavery

Hey Mehring and Alfonso,
Good responses. I understand where your coming from. It's good to know that you can sway history a little bit in the game. I own it, but am still trying to grasp hex based wargaming in general. I didn't grow up with tabletop wargames so the hex thing doesn't come easy to me what-so-ever. I also don't understand the detail of how these forces fought each other. So, I guess my argument is that unless I read a few books first, I'll lose every time. However, if there's some flexibility with what you can do assuming you understand tactics and strategy, I'm cool with that. I wasn't backing the OP so much as trying to find an answer myself that might also help the OP.

Two suggestions that may perhaps help you and other people that may be in this situation.

First, I recommend starting out small. Play the smaller scenarios to get used to the feel of the game and how things work. Trying to go for the grand campaign games right off the bat can lead to frustration and a lot of wasted time. The concepts are generally the same be it small scenario or big campaign; it is just there is more to the big campaign game.

As far as information on the campaign as a whole, you could likely spend a life time doing research and reading many books on the topic. (Someone started a thread around here someplace with book recommendations, but I don't have a link handy). For a quick digest of the campaign, I would suggest checking out Wiki. You can get an overview of the campaign, read about a particular battle, learn about some of the leaders on both sides, etc.

One other thing is to check out the War Room section on the boards here. There is a lot of good information there for both experienced and novice players for both sides.

One final note for people that want to say the game is broke because they can't do xyz or that the other side can do abc. In my job, I repair equipment. I have found over the years that customers who can't get the equipment to do what they want consider it broken when it is a case that they need to be educated on how to do what it is they want to do. IMO, this game can be like that as well. It is not really a game issue, but rather a player learning the ropes of the game. This is going to be one of those games that many will learn to play, but few will become a true master of.

[Ascended]

Carl,

Is the Soviet AI throwing itself at you in hopelessly unsupported and under supplied attacks? Because historically, the German army had that particular advantage, in that the Soviet doctrine called for these attacks and not only were they confused and poorly organized at practically every level, but often the equipment was just breaking down on the way to the front lines or running out of fuel. Equipment that did make it to the front lines fought and ran out of fuel, or broke down, before they were useful or else immediately after their first use (for those that, finally, made it into an actual battle.) And of course the battles often involved tanks being stripped of infantry and trying to fight it out on their own against superior numbers and superior combined arms tactics/organization.

In other words, the Soviets historically practically gave it to the Germans. The Germans weren't making any particularly astounding operational moves, with few exceptions. Mostly equipment was being abandoned and the men were able to escape to the strategic rear.

[comsolut]

Wow - my better sense says to stay out of this, on so many different levels. But can't.

Carl and I are involved in a PBEM game. So it is not against the AI. We are having a GREAT GAME! At least in my opinion.

And we have enjoyed a dialogue back and forth which has enhanced the game. We even bring Glantz's book into it. But one thing we developed or discussed was the ability of the Russian to pinpoint target their counterattacks. It must seems frustrating for the German Player that the Russian Player has almost perfect information about the combat strength and best HEX to attack to release a pocket. Most of the time the Generals in the back lines were desperate for information - yet it seems the Russian player can look down with an eagle eye and spot exactly where to move the requisite number of infantry attack points to relieve the encirclement.

My comment to Carl in an email was something to the point that - if all those CV's were hidden - I would be thrashing around like a fish out of water trying to find the weak spot. So in one sense it does seem to give the Soviet Player a level of information that is, I ADMIT IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, a bit elevated.

I cannot speak to the encirclement issue. I want to believe I'm just good at defending. But I agree with my German opponent that my ability to counterattack seems a bit too precise. And that coming from the Russian side.

Just my two cents - so please don't flame me.

[comsolut]

PS - I have played against three prior German opponents and Carl has been the toughest so far. He is an extremely good opponent making well considered moves. Around Turn 12 I was certain my lines were going to break and I would be forced into wholesale retreat. Only some mud and I suspect need to rest a few German Panzer groups has saved me so far.

My experience, this being my fourth PBEM GC as the Russians is - German Players are definitely getting more experienced and skilled!

[Ascended]

ORIGINAL: comsolut


the Russian player can look down with an eagle eye and spot exactly where to move the requisite number of infantry attack points to relieve the encirclement.

Well, that's not right. Information should be pretty scarce as to what strengths each German hex has.

[jomni]

This is just one of games that are easy to get into but hard to master, especially the German side.
Once you're aware of the game mechanics, then just keep on practising.  You totally need to unlearn habbits and startegies used in other games.

Serious games like this need serious and committed players.

[randallw]

'Successful attacks on significant German stacks?'  Is this during blizzard or in the spring/fall 1941?  I see in AARs single German divisions having to retreat, after getting mobbed by 'the hordes' but don't recall two or three divisions stacked up, and in proper supply, having to retreat ( pre blizzard ).

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: randallw

'Successful attacks on significant German stacks?'  Is this during blizzard or in the spring/fall 1941?  I see in AARs single German divisions having to retreat, after getting mobbed by 'the hordes' but don't recall two or three divisions stacked up, and in proper supply, having to retreat ( pre blizzard ).

Game mechanics state that it is better to surround the stack instead of attacking them. Did a lot of these things against AI as Soviet in Winter 41, lots of POWs.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: comsolut
But one thing we developed or discussed was the ability of the Russian to pinpoint target their counterattacks. It must seems frustrating for the German Player that the Russian Player has almost perfect information about the combat strength and best HEX to attack to release a pocket. Most of the time the Generals in the back lines were desperate for information - yet it seems the Russian player can look down with an eagle eye and spot exactly where to move the requisite number of infantry attack points to relieve the encirclement.

Promise not to flame you, but my experience has been very different. In my PBEM game, I attacked some German units which showed a CV of 1 (rather hopeful on my part to believe I suppose), but the actual CV was much higher. I've also had it go the other way.

[randallw]

Were those 1's showing during mud?  Mud can mess up attacks, big time.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: randallw

Were those 1's showing during mud?  Mud can mess up attacks, big time.

Nope, I think about turns 11-12. In two instances I saw 1 CV units, attacked, got my butt kicked, and then after the battle saw that the CVs displayed on the counters showed 10 or 12.

[jomni]

Must be poor recon.

[karonagames]

but don't recall two or three divisions stacked up, and in proper supply, having to retreat ( pre blizzard ).

If supply don't get you, fatigue will. I had Flavio attack a stack that included SS motorised with about 12 rifle divisions and got retreated. My "THIS GAME IS BROKEN" posts have been stickied in the development forums.[:D]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: jomni

Must be poor recon.

Clearly, although I had units adjacent to the German units both times. But the point is, the Sov player does not automatically know the strength of the German units.

And as a related matter, my recon planes don't seem to fly more than a couple of missions, sometimes none on some parts of the front--not sure what is going on there.

[Rugens]

Sorry for the long time between posts. Sadly work in the real world takes priority.

A couple of things to clear up and then I'll get to the issue.

I never said the game was broken. I said I felt it had some serious problems. At least to me there is a very big difference between those two statements. As I have stated in previous threads, when I purchase a title from Matrix I do not expect a finished product. They are works in progress. Paying for the game is the customer trying to keep the hard working people at Matrix fed & clothed so that they can continue to slave away making the product better such as WITP AE. I cannot imagine anyone is getting rich working on these game and still nobody does it better than Matrix.

I also apologize to several other posters that were kind enough to state their thoughts and the reasons behind them. My ranting back was meant to be only directed at the people that posted and had nothing to say other than express their disgust at being forced once more to read things they don't want to read.

To give a little background on the game comsolut and I are playing, we each have a framework we are working within. Comsolut told me right up front he likes to play the game with a very active and rugged defense. I like this becasue it should and is resulting in a game that may be a little closer to history than the average Soviet might play. He dosn't give up ground easily and counterattacks a lot. What he does not do is launch attacks that are pure suicide or defend positions to the last man which is quite understandable. On my end, as much as possible I use historical German doctrine to carry out my plans. Comsolut experieced some frustration in his earlier pbem games that those he had played against may not have understood quite how the Germans conducted warfare. I've tried to say true to historical doctrine which is actually pretty easy in this game since it rewards that kind of play as opposed to some games that reward gamy non-historical play. Beyond these frameworks neither of us (comsolut, please feel free to chime in if I am not accurately stating your feelings) cares if the game turns out as it did historically or not. We both appear to have developed strategies with significant differences from our historical sides so neither desires to repeat history.

Considering our approaches to the game it has pretty much followed the lines one would expect. His harder but non-suicidal defensive has resulted in me not getting quite as far as historical and we had been racking up reasonably respectable number of Soviet casualties (just above 2,000,000 by turn 13. The problems (IMHO) started in the 2nd phase of the campaign (September) where it shifts gears a bit. We were attempting to create additional pockets. Nothing terribly amitious in terms of size and certainly no German units were pushed way out on a limb. In fact almost never were the German units in a position that did not have friendly hexes on at least two sides and usually more. Only a few times were we outnumbered more than 10 - 1 and usually a lot less. Supplies were not bad and if either fuel or supplies were low we were able to air it in to acceptable levels. Units were generally no more fatigued that one would expect pushing through to complete a pocket. A fair number of the panzer/motorized units had just completed refitting prior to heading back to the front. Air was not over extended during the offensive phase so that there was some for defensive air and interdiction. Following are the statistics for the Soviet attacks conducted during September & October:

September (4 turns)
24 attacks in total resulting in 2 holds, 1 rout and 21 retreats

October so far
24 attacks in total resulting in 1 hold and 23 retreats

The above are only the Soviet attacks. I conducted plenty of attacks during the same period and did reasonably well. In the above attacks, in almost all situations the Soviets lost about 2-1 in men. Some were attacks against regiments in holding positions but most were against one & two division stacks. Needlest to say, in almost every attempt he was able to unisolate the pocket because of the retreat results he achieved. It's not that I find it difficult to believe the Soviets could have been successful in some attacks. It's the consistancy and degree to which they are able to be successful. As comsolut said earlier in the post, he was able to select exactly the weakest point in the pocket and break it. It appears to me that he is able to conduct the Soviet army as a precision tool as opposed to the rather lumbering/thundering/blundering herd that it was in 1941. On my end it feels much like I am fighting the 1943/44 Soviet Army (less effective tanks thank god) than their forces which existed in 1941.