Disparity Soviet Play German Play

[Uedel]

Hi,

Playing WitE ow for quiet a Time and realy Enjoying it i reach more and more the need to Play some What if´s scenarios etc as the same old GC over and over gets somewhat old.

but Playing as Germans i wondered why i cant Build Units like the Soviets, if we stick one side in this Game to the Historical OOB and Withdraw schedules, why we don't stick the other side too to the Historical OOB.

I would really Vote for an Option to use parity to let German Players build also Units like the Soviets can, Limiting Factor for the both sides are Manpower and Armament Points anyway so there Would not be a Swarm of "Elite Zombie Divisions from Hell" as German Players could not supply or refit them, but it would be nice to have the Ability to crank out some extra Divisions when u played smart in Winter 1941 and have a manpower and armament plus because u didnt loose half of your Army in Winter 1941.

Just some thoughts.

Uedel

[kirkgregerson]

Well join the club. Many have been asking for more control for the axis in building support units, adjusting production, and TOEs. Seems silly not to have this in WitE at some point. I understand that for now there's more important things for development to fix/adjust, but it will just be a matter of time until this happens. At least that is my opinion.

[:'(]

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Uedel

Hi,

Playing WitE ow for quiet a Time and realy Enjoying it i reach more and more the need to Play some What if´s scenarios etc as the same old GC over and over gets somewhat old.

but Playing as Germans i wondered why i cant Build Units like the Soviets, if we stick one side in this Game to the Historical OOB and Withdraw schedules, why we don't stick the other side too to the Historical OOB.

I would really Vote for an Option to use parity to let German Players build also Units like the Soviets can, Limiting Factor for the both sides are Manpower and Armament Points anyway so there Would not be a Swarm of "Elite Zombie Divisions from Hell" as German Players could not supply or refit them, but it would be nice to have the Ability to crank out some extra Divisions when u played smart in Winter 1941 and have a manpower and armament plus because u didnt loose half of your Army in Winter 1941.

Just some thoughts.

Uedel

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

Well join the club. Many have been asking for more control for the axis in building support units, adjusting production, and TOEs. Seems silly not to have this in WitE at some point. I understand that for now there's more important things for development to fix/adjust, but it will just be a matter of time until this happens. At least that is my opinion.

[:'(]

I think it makes sense to have German production control IF they expand the game to War In Europe (oh, please! [&o])

[carnifex]

ORIGINAL: Uedel
but Playing as Germans i wondered why i cant Build Units like the Soviets,

Because when you're playing as the Soviets, you are Stalin. You decide everything. You have total control over your troop deployments because fighting the Evil Fascists is all you do.

When you're playing the Germans, you are not Hitler. Hitler has a lot of things on his mind besides the Eastern Front. He's fighting in Africa, he's pacifying the Balkans, he's dealing with possible invasions in France and elsewhere. You get the troops that he decides you need.

[Uedel]

Well as a good Commander of the OKH i should be able to have some sayings and some more Freedom, but as it is now it feels just like a unnatural Handcuff.....

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Uedel

Well as a good Commander of the OKH i should be able to have some sayings and some more Freedom, but as it is now it feels just like a unnatural Handcuff.....

How would you respond to the arguement I present below?

The war in Russia did not go very well for the Axis. In so, Hilter gave, and left, more resources there than he otherwise would have. So, the Axis player has as much as he/she would ever hope to get. If the attack would have gone better, more resources would have been pulled away as they were desparately needed elsewhere.

[Uedel]

Well, in the end this is a matter of standing Points, if my Campaign runs well and i loose far fewer People and Arms then historical, then there would not be a shortage elsewhere, so with no shortage elsewhere (because Russia don't eat all the Divisions alive) there would be Room for stratecic decisions made by the Leader of the OKH (Player).

There could be a Strategic limit bound to Manpower and Armament Pools, i.e. Arm and Manpower Pool above Factor X OKH can create Units like the Soviets do, below that Numbers and you don´t can do it.
So it would Honor people who play smart and save Manpower. Additional you could bring also in a Factor for Victory Points, i.e. Manpower above X and Victory Points over Y trigger green for OKH created units, below that --> sorry man.......

But bind Players of one side to Historical correct and stiff OOB and give the other side a non historical Flexibility is IMO a poor design decision wich could and should be discussed.

[WingedIncubus]

I disagree, it's perfectly reasonable.

In Germany, OKW had no control over arm production and unit creation, that was the perview of Hitler and the priorities he would set. OKW's job was to reach the military objectives Hitler would set them to do with the resources he would allocate them to reach them, whether they liked it or not.

In Russia, Stavka was Stalin (and a few others) and Stalin was Stavka.

[Uedel]

visa Versa Hittler was OKH and OKH was Hittler so where is the difference now?

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: Uedel

visa Versa Hittler was OKH and OKH was Hittler so where is the difference now?

Well, for first officers on field who didn't agree with Hitler resigned and got posted elsewhere. Officers who disagreed with Stalin died.

Hitler had nowhere the level of control over the operational side of war that Stalin had on the Russian side. Saying "hold fast to the last man" or "take that city" is hardly operational control, and quite a few commanders completely ignored these orders when it suited them, and rationalized afterwards so that Hitler would agree. Hitler wasn't the control freak Stalin was, he was perfectly content to leave issues to the OKW and individual commanders until things got awry and "needed" his input.

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Uedel

visa Versa Hittler was OKH and OKH was Hittler so where is the difference now?

Respectful disagree. OKH was one front of a multifront war. It was denied resources that Africa and Western Europe got. As I stated earlier in this thread, expand this game to War in Europe, problem solved. [:D]

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

ORIGINAL: Uedel

visa Versa Hittler was OKH and OKH was Hittler so where is the difference now?

Respectful disagree. OKH was one front of a multifront war. It was denied resources that Africa and Western Europe got. As I stated earlier in this thread, expand this game to War in Europe, problem solved. [:D]

Er, OKH is the Army's High Command, i.e. Oberkommando das Heer, while OKW is the High Command for the whole Wehrmacht, i.e. Oberkommando der Wehrmacht.

There were no theater command, both Western and Eastern fronts were dealt with through OKW.

[Uedel]

Hairsplitting, you know what i mean [:'(]

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Drakken

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

ORIGINAL: Uedel

visa Versa Hittler was OKH and OKH was Hittler so where is the difference now?

Respectful disagree. OKH was one front of a multifront war. It was denied resources that Africa and Western Europe got. As I stated earlier in this thread, expand this game to War in Europe, problem solved. [:D]

Er, OKH is the Army's High Command, i.e. Oberkommando das Heer, while OKW is the High Command for the whole Wehrmacht, i.e. Oberkommando der Wehrmacht.

There were no theater command, both Western and Eastern fronts were dealt with through OKW.

How does that change the arguement that the East Front did not rule Berlin?

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

ORIGINAL: Drakken

ORIGINAL: Gargoil




Respectful disagree. OKH was one front of a multifront war. It was denied resources that Africa and Western Europe got. As I stated earlier in this thread, expand this game to War in Europe, problem solved. [:D]

Er, OKH is the Army's High Command, i.e. Oberkommando das Heer, while OKW is the High Command for the whole Wehrmacht, i.e. Oberkommando der Wehrmacht.

There were no theater command, both Western and Eastern fronts were dealt with through OKW.

How does that change the arguement that the East Front did not rule Berlin?

Well, I don't understand your argument.

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Drakken

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

ORIGINAL: Drakken



Er, OKH is the Army's High Command, i.e. Oberkommando das Heer, while OKW is the High Command for the whole Wehrmacht, i.e. Oberkommando der Wehrmacht.

There were no theater command, both Western and Eastern fronts were dealt with through OKW.

How does that change the arguement that the East Front did not rule Berlin?

Well, I don't understand your argument.

That the east front is PART of a war for Germany, but it is the entire war for Russia. You cannot play the Axis in a vacuum. You can with the USSR.

[misesfan]

Hitler controlled the German army in much the same way as Stalin. Early in the war, for example, Stalin sealed SW Fronts doom with a stand fast order, while Hitler ordered the operation over his generals advice. Later in the war, Hitler demanded approval for for any retrograde movement (i.e. Retreat) down to the battalion level of command. That's uber- micromanagement...

I have always wondered why in the game, the Soviets have much more flexibility in their TO&E than the arguably more flexible German army. The German practice of forming kampfgruppen to match the personnel with the task assigned gave them an edge in their ability to still conduct offensive operations late in the war.

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: pwieland

Hitler controlled the German army in much the same way as Stalin. Early in the war, for example, Stalin sealed SW Fronts doom with a stand fast order, while Hitler ordered the operation over his generals advice. Later in the war, Hitler demanded approval for for any retrograde movement (i.e. Retreat) down to the battalion level of command. That's uber- micromanagement...

I have always wondered why in the game, the Soviets have much more flexibility in their TO&E than the arguably more flexible German army. The German practice of forming kampfgruppen to match the personnel with the task assigned gave them an edge in their ability to still conduct offensive operations late in the war.

Fine. No arguement.

And I would like the Axis to have control over production as the Soviets do. But how to tie the outside world to it? Units are moving from east to west and back again. Soviet war is single front. There is no outside (don't worry about offmap Russia, just a holding area, no conflict).

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil
And I would like the Axis to have control over production as the Soviets do. But how to tie the outside world to it? Units are moving from east to west and back again. Soviet war is single front. There is no outside (don't worry about offmap Russia, just a holding area, no conflict).

Right, it is much simpler for Russia (assuming that the game-war doesn't turn out so well as in a few rare AAR's, when you could start making the point that Japan would have jumped the opportunity and also the Russians would have to redirect resources elsewhere).
Point is, that for both side the struggle in Russia is hard to take out of context as anything such as force and replacement assignments (i.e. production in game terms, and withdrawals) are dependent on the course of action. Both in Russia, as well as on other fronts, which would in a real world be mutually dependent, but no game can correctly catch that. Maybe future "War in Europe" will make a big step towards that, but still miss the interplay with the Pacific. Just beyond the scope of present possibilities.

However, arguing that the state for the Germans would only be influenced by the outcomes in other theaters is quite faulty. Assuming the war in Russia ran very well and Moscow, Leningrad and Sevastopol had fallen in 41/early 42, one could guess that perhaps more LCU or LBA forces (and replacements, supply etc) would have withdrawn from the East, perhaps to beef up efforts in Africa. Other way around, if things went a lot worse, the Germans would have adapted. Even with Hitler.
So considering one side's production and force setup (TOE, and unit formation) static, while the other's isn't, just is an asymmetry. A simple example: the Russian player can form new units, more than historical, if his losses are higher -- or less, if not. The Russian player can decide to put importance on tank formations, if it appears that tanks are dominating the battlefield in his game. Or put more importance on Infantry, Artillery, or Sappers for that matter. Depending on way the situation, the tactics and fighting of specific AARs develops -- which is awesome. What argument would there be that the German side could not adapt to changes, even with the limited resources it gets?
One thing I found surprising in any case, was that (unlike in WitP/AE) not the underdog gets the added flexibility here to cope with its vastly superior (in 44-45 terms) opponent.

Ideally I would wish to bind both sides to fixed production and unit reinforcement/withdrawal/formation schedules, or give both sides the chance to adapt -- best as an option at game start. Yet I understand that adding the level of production and TOE changes to the German side adds a lot of complexity in terms of game balancing, and therefore should be not a priority before everything else seems ironed out. So if that is the argument why this has been not attempted for now, it is probably best -- after all, what could you do with a game that allows you everything, but doesn't simulate anything right?
But long term it would seem highly desirable to give similar possibilities to both sides.

[Aurelian]

The war with the Germans and their allies was *the* war as far as Russia was concerned. A one front war.

Germany had to deal with two/three fronts.

You get what you get as the Axis because there are other theatres outside your control. (Same thing as the Allies in WitP.)

And one other thing. Obviously, Gary wasn't happy with how production was done in his previous games.