determined outcome

[barkman44]

What is interesting is that germans went all out to capture Moscow in real life,were beaten back by the soviet winter offensive but not routed.
And then were able to muster the resources to launch major operations in the south in a relatively short period of time.
From what I've read this is not replicable in game[hav'ent gotten that far myself keep patching and starting over].

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: molchomor

Better to draw manpower from the dead-pool, as this seems inexhaustible [:D]

[:D] An army of Zombies.

[Skanvak]

Fun as some people think that being push to its capital by endless mass of soviet is less fun than being push to its capital by unstoppable German onslaught.

[bodmerm]

Still, i believe you can do as axis whatever you like and keep destroying soviet forces (January 1943 8.7 millions vs 2.2 millions) and they gain every turn more men, tanks and planes. No reward for taking and holding most big towns in western russia. It cannot be that you play (yes, it is a game) for hundreds of hours only to be smashed because it was real. There should be some rewards (conquer material, men as "HIWIS", disoukrupt soviet morale or decrease production (as it was in 1942). At least one should see some progress when pocketing hundreds of thousands of russian every 5-8 turns.

Give us (or me) some more reason to keep playing and not resign because of adetermined outcome.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: bodmerm

Still, i believe you can do as axis whatever you like and keep destroying soviet forces (January 1943 8.7 millions vs 2.2 millions) and they gain every turn more men, tanks and planes. No reward for taking and holding most big towns in western russia. It cannot be that you play (yes, it is a game) for hundreds of hours only to be smashed because it was real. There should be some rewards (conquer material, men as "HIWIS", disoukrupt soviet morale or decrease production (as it was in 1942). At least one should see some progress when pocketing hundreds of thousands of russian every 5-8 turns.

Give us (or me) some more reason to keep playing and not resign because of adetermined outcome.

Not only can it be. It should be.
However, there is reason to keep playing to try to do better than your historical counterparts.

If people have purchased this game with the perception that both sides have an equal chance to crush the other, than i can only say that this game is based on events that happened in the real world.
In the real world, the Germans had no chance to crush the soviets after 1941.(Personally,i don't think crushing them in '41 was possible either.)

This is how it should be. If i wanted to play fantasy i'd play World of Warcraft.

[Klydon]

I disagree on the German's only chance to crush the Russians was 1941. I think the Germans have a shot in 1942, both in the real war and also in this game, especially in this game if they plan for it and can execute their plan.

I have been giving this some thought lately. Part of the issue for the Germans in 1942 in this game is what can they do in order to finish off the Russians. I think most people have been thinking of some geographical location, be it Baku or someplace else and I don't think that will do the job to be honest. Even if you managed to capture a lot of economic centers in the 41 campaign, it doesn't seem to matter too much. (I need to do some more research on what percentage of their industry the Russians may get nailed, but I don't think it is high enough to cripple them). I think what the Germans have to concentrate on in 1942 is the destruction of the Red Army. They must remove Red Army units off the map faster than the Russians can replace them with command points. Continue to do this and eventually I think the army will collapse. The Russians simply won't have enough units to plug holes and offer serious resistance to the Germans trying to encircle them. In a way, it makes sense because in most scenarios that you figure the Germans would win in, the destruction of the Red Army has to take place.

This is one of the reasons I am not happy with playing against the Russian AI (unlimited command points) because destruction of the Red army in terms of counters can't take place.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I disagree on the German's only chance to crush the Russians was 1941. I think the Germans have a shot in 1942, both in the real war and also in this game, especially in this game if they plan for it and can execute their plan.

I have been giving this some thought lately. Part of the issue for the Germans in 1942 in this game is what can they do in order to finish off the Russians. I think most people have been thinking of some geographical location, be it Baku or someplace else and I don't think that will do the job to be honest. Even if you managed to capture a lot of economic centers in the 41 campaign, it doesn't seem to matter too much. (I need to do some more research on what percentage of their industry the Russians may get nailed, but I don't think it is high enough to cripple them). I think what the Germans have to concentrate on in 1942 is the destruction of the Red Army. They must remove Red Army units off the map faster than the Russians can replace them with command points. Continue to do this and eventually I think the army will collapse. The Russians simply won't have enough units to plug holes and offer serious resistance to the Germans trying to encircle them. In a way, it makes sense because in most scenarios that you figure the Germans would win in, the destruction of the Red Army has to take place.

This is one of the reasons I am not happy with playing against the Russian AI (unlimited command points) because destruction of the Red army in terms of counters can't take place.

I agree, it still should be possible to win in the game in '42.(In the real world i don't think it was possible) It just shouldn't be the norm. It should be rare.
I believe the norm should equate with history.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: bodmerm

Still, i believe you can do as axis whatever you like and keep destroying soviet forces (January 1943 8.7 millions vs 2.2 millions) and they gain every turn more men, tanks and planes. No reward for taking and holding most big towns in western russia. It cannot be that you play (yes, it is a game) for hundreds of hours only to be smashed because it was real. There should be some rewards (conquer material, men as "HIWIS", disoukrupt soviet morale or decrease production (as it was in 1942). At least one should see some progress when pocketing hundreds of thousands of russian every 5-8 turns.

Give us (or me) some more reason to keep playing and not resign because of adetermined outcome.

You should take a look at PeeDee's AAR. He's in 42 in a 41 GC game. And doing very well I might add.

[kswanson1]

Was the actual event preordained? I've been an avid reader of books relating to the war in the east for as long as I can remember. My chief impression or main lesson I have taken away from most of my reading is that the war in the east was not preordained. It could have gone either way in both 1941 or 1942 - but for a few very crucial errors. While my impression of the history of the war is that it was far from pre-ordained, I sometime wonder if some of the posters above are correct in interpreting WiTE as being a preordained simulation - with the obvious exception of what appear to be AARs between mismatched opponents

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: bodmerm

If you dont win as Axis in 1941 you are determined to loose. Somehow the game feels "fixed" whether or not you survive blizzard reasonably or not. What is the fun part uf such determinism? I dont know.

And you have several AARs to show your statement is true.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: bodmerm

If you dont win as Axis in 1941 you are determined to loose. Somehow the game feels "fixed" whether or not you survive blizzard reasonably or not. What is the fun part uf such determinism? I dont know.

Wait, what now?

[Jim D Burns]

Germany should not be able to win the grand campaign game early unless they literally clear the map of Soviet units, and that should be all but impossible. The way I look at things is the real victory contest begins in 1944 and beyond, the early part of the game is just a setup phase for this final contest. If Germany manages to keep the Russians out of Western Europe all together by game end, it should be a decisive win. Any other result should be weighed against historical progress to settle on what level of victory or defeat Germany achieves.

Ending the game in 1941 or 1942 makes no sense to me. It feels like the German players on the forums arguing for a change simply don't want to game out the second half of the war and want to end the game prematurely before that part of the war even begins. How on earth will you manage to keep Soviet payers interested in the game if you take away the second half of the war by adding in some kind of sudden death rule? Heck I'd even envision German players pointing to their lack of achieving a sudden death as an automatic Soviet victory and resigning their games the way Japanese players tend to resign in WitP if they fail to get their needed 3-1 victory points early in that game.

If the victory goals in game are focused on the end game achievements from the very start of the game, then everyone is looking ahead to that future outcome and planning accordingly. If you bring the mark down to a 1941 or 1942 potential win, then that's where everyone will be looking and they'll do things that hurt their 1944+ prospects in efforts to win early. And when those early wins don't materialize and they've damaged their army beyond repair in the effort to reach it...

If you want to win as the axis in 1941/42, then create some 1 year long campaign scenarios that can give reasoned victory conditions based against historical progress at those times.

Jim

[molchomor]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

This is one of the reasons I am not happy with playing against the Russian AI (unlimited command points) because destruction of the Red army in terms of counters can't take place.

Yes I'm about 13 months into the '42 campaign against the Soviet AI on normal (Sep '43 now) and the AI seems stronger than ever (13k afvs, 6.8M men, 18k planes, 100k arty). I can't really see any indications that e.g. taking Leningrad or inflicting losses to the Soviets of around 170 corps plus 150 divisions from the start of the scenario has done anything at all to weaken the Soviets. I guess with unlimited CPs this is what to expect. I also find it difficult to increase the kill rate of Soviet units as the AI keeps teleporting walls of units to counter any breakthroughs/encirclements.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The way I look at things is the real victory contest begins in 1944 and beyond, the early part of the game is just a setup phase for this final contest.

I think what the OP is saying is that this is exactly how the game is set up to play out. I think he is saying that, as the Axis player, there is absolutely no option available to avoid this. It is, in his words, predetermined.

[bodmerm]

Agree. Despite 9.1 millions inflicted losses, Soviet union has 80k arty, 23k planes (having destroyed 24k!) and 15k armored vehicles. I am holding Leningrad till Yaroslavl in the north, I held all big southern cities till Voronoezh and I am 5 hexes from Moscow. I encircled 250 k men in the north within 3 turns only to see there are 50k corps coming up there 3 turns afterwards.
I suggest to balance this game out and let the axis player have a chance if he avoids crucial mistakes as happened in the ral conflict (Stalingrad, Crimea, Kuban, Kursk...). It is simply not motivating, thats all.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: bodmerm

Agree. Despite 9.1 millions inflicted losses, Soviet union has 80k arty, 23k planes (having destroyed 24k!) and 15k armored vehicles. I am holding Leningrad till Yaroslavl in the north, I held all big southern cities till Voronoezh and I am 5 hexes from Moscow. I encircled 250 k men in the north within 3 turns only to see there are 50k corps coming up there 3 turns afterwards.
I suggest to balance this game out and let the axis player have a chance if he avoids crucial mistakes as happened in the ral conflict (Stalingrad, Crimea, Kuban, Kursk...). It is simply not motivating, thats all.

Once again, I have to disagree. I got an auto-victory in 43 after inflicting fewer casualties than that. I do agree with the part that says the real contest (usually but not always) is in 44 to see if you can hold out longer than IRL. But that is only after you fail in 41 and 42 to set up for total victory in 43.


Now I think that (at least in 1.03) while it is possible to totally defeat the Russian AI (Challangeing) about two times out of five, I have only seen two AARs for human-human play that did (could have) achieved that. But once again, if you want to get an even game between two perfectly matched human players than all you have to do is adjust the handicap bars to do it.

[molchomor]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: bodmerm

Agree. Despite 9.1 millions inflicted losses, Soviet union has 80k arty, 23k planes (having destroyed 24k!) and 15k armored vehicles. I am holding Leningrad till Yaroslavl in the north, I held all big southern cities till Voronoezh and I am 5 hexes from Moscow. I encircled 250 k men in the north within 3 turns only to see there are 50k corps coming up there 3 turns afterwards.
I suggest to balance this game out and let the axis player have a chance if he avoids crucial mistakes as happened in the ral conflict (Stalingrad, Crimea, Kuban, Kursk...). It is simply not motivating, thats all.

Once again, I have to disagree. I got an auto-victory in 43 after inflicting fewer casualties than that. I do agree with the part that says the real contest (usually but not always) is in 44 to see if you can hold out longer than IRL. But that is only after you fail in 41 and 42 to set up for total victory in 43.


Now I think that (at least in 1.03) while it is possible to totally defeat the Russian AI (Challangeing) about two times out of five, I have only seen two AARs for human-human play that did (could have) achieved that. But once again, if you want to get an even game between two perfectly matched human players than all you have to do is adjust the handicap bars to do it.

The 41-45 and 42-45 campaigns are totally different in terms of balance (or lack thereof). My view is that the '42 campaign as axis is a waste of time currently (1.03), as you will never be able to win the war for real it seems. If anyone beat the cheating Soviet AI on normal in the '42 campaign, please post and prove me wrong.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Germany should not be able to win the grand campaign game early unless they literally clear the map of Soviet units, and that should be all but impossible. The way I look at things is the real victory contest begins in 1944 and beyond, the early part of the game is just a setup phase for this final contest. If Germany manages to keep the Russians out of Western Europe all together by game end, it should be a decisive win. Any other result should be weighed against historical progress to settle on what level of victory or defeat Germany achieves.

Ending the game in 1941 or 1942 makes no sense to me. It feels like the German players on the forums arguing for a change simply don't want to game out the second half of the war and want to end the game prematurely before that part of the war even begins. How on earth will you manage to keep Soviet payers interested in the game if you take away the second half of the war by adding in some kind of sudden death rule? Heck I'd even envision German players pointing to their lack of achieving a sudden death as an automatic Soviet victory and resigning their games the way Japanese players tend to resign in WitP if they fail to get their needed 3-1 victory points early in that game.

If the victory goals in game are focused on the end game achievements from the very start of the game, then everyone is looking ahead to that future outcome and planning accordingly. If you bring the mark down to a 1941 or 1942 potential win, then that's where everyone will be looking and they'll do things that hurt their 1944+ prospects in efforts to win early. And when those early wins don't materialize and they've damaged their army beyond repair in the effort to reach it...

If you want to win as the axis in 1941/42, then create some 1 year long campaign scenarios that can give reasoned victory conditions based against historical progress at those times.

Jim

Finally, common sense.

I couldn't agree with you more Jim.

[Aurelian]

Maybe those Axis players who want to win in 41 should forget it and read the following:

tm.asp?m=2705668

[PeeDeeAitch]

Screw that, I am just going to end all my games now and declare myself the winner.