My biggest issues with the game at the moment

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

... I don't seem to see a lot of Russian units in Berlin, as opposed to tons of Germans in Moscow......

I am working on it... all it takes is time [;)]
tm.asp?m=2792361&mpage=1&key=

[KamilS]

I see, that discussion degenerated into argument [;)]


To clarify things:

My comments on C&C were based on assumption, that German command should be vastly superior in '41, clearly superior in '42 and slightly in '43 and since '44 pendulum swings in Soviet's favour.


OFF Topic

I am dissatisfied with connecting C&C efficiency to historical time line. It is as big simplification as in case of national morale - both should reflect in-game state of affairs.



C&C components


Unit reassignment - It is on average 3 to 4 times less expensive for Soviet's, but it is necessary to remember, that at early stage of war German division is 3 to 4 times stronger. It changes in '42 in favour of Soviets (they get more reassigned more CV points per AP spent) and I think it is right. (I have to point out, that there is one problem as well - corps size units are far to expensive to reassign, in '42 it is approximately 3 time more AP per reassigned CV




Commanders - I feel, that Soviet leaders are slightly too poor, especially in commanding mechanised units.


HQs -


Soviet C&C in '41 is tragic. They start situation is total mess, they have only 6 Fronts and building fortified zones is very expensive. Plenty of issues little AP. Germans have almost perfect 1st level of command, good 2nd and much better commanders, overall they are vastly superior. I feel it is as it should be.


In '42 Soviet C&C look pretty good, too good - new fronts arrive, every army is within command limit and each is much stronger. Corps are hard to reassign, but there are still plenty of divisions around, and they strength isn't as tragic as in '41.



When Axis launch their limited offensive (year '42) they can get almost every participating corps within its limit of command, but getting 2nd level of command right isn't that easy and Soviets hold advantage here as well. My conclusion is - in '42 Soviet 1st and 2nd level of command is slightly better, and they can reassign more CV per each spend AP. Germans have superior commanders, so in my estimation situation is even. It lasts for around half a year, until autumn of '42 when Germans loose one of their armies.

Since then Soviets fed by constant arrival of new fronts supplemented by creation of corps size units slowly approach state of 2 perfect levels of command



Conclusion:


In my opinion Soviet C&C surpass German one year too early.





Off Topic

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Funny how Pelton rants & raves, yet I don't seem to see a lot of Russian units in Berlin, as opposed to tons of Germans in Moscow......

Aurelian

But but, the Axis are not suppossed to have the freedom to do that. Or take Leningrad. Guess the "redneck Russian fanboy carebears" slipped up.

You got it completely wrong.

Many games ended in '42 and '43 because German player knew game is lost and didn't want to play it out (what not always is bad).

Argument You mentioned is actually evidence against Your point - How many times Soviets loose Moscow and game ends up in axis victory or draw? Not too many I guess. If so then what is the significance of the fact, that Soviet can loose Moscow and still win?

[Aurelian]

No, I don't have it wrong. How many times have the same few whined and moaned about how the game is so pro Russian?

How the Axis are tied by history?

You saw the arguement above "Stalin was a nut job who micromanaged the war from the top."

And yet, no complaints about how the Axis, from the few, about how they have the freedom to ignore history as well.

I don't see any Russian players whining about how the Axis can ignore Hitler and take Leningrad/Moscow. Or ignore the stand fast orders. Or forces them to launch Typhoon/Blue/whatever.

[KamilS]

Aurelian


No, I don't have it wrong. How many times have the same few whined and moaned about how the game is so pro Russian?

How the Axis are tied by history?

You saw the arguement above "Stalin was a nut job who micromanaged the war from the top."

And yet, no complaints about how the Axis, from the few, about how they have the freedom to ignore history as well.


I don't see any Russian players whining about how the Axis can ignore Hitler and take Leningrad/Moscow. Or ignore the stand fast orders. Or forces them to launch Typhoon/Blue/whatever.

So where did I get it wrong?

Assuming that German C&C is superior to Soviet until the end (or mid) '43? Or not proving, that Soviet C&C surpasses German in late '42?



Plus if Soviet players do not complain, does it mean they have nothing to complain about or are they just more sensible than German ones? (that is joke, but it has some reference to reality)

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Conclusion:


In my opinion Soviet C&C surpass German one year too early.

I disagree. If one is trying to build a historical Russian OOB, then good C&C becomes very difficult in 1942. Basically, it boils down to two main choices for the Russian player in 1942, in regards to the spending of Admin Pts:

1. Good C&C and good leaders, but weaker OOB.
2. Historical OOB, but poor C&C and bad leaders.

I think most Russian players are choosing #1, because it is more instinctual especially after playing the German side first.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Kamil
How many times Soviets loose Moscow and game ends up in axis victory or draw? Not too many I guess. If so then what is the significance of the fact, that Soviet can loose Moscow and still win?

Kamil, I don't really have a strong opinion either way on your main point about C&C, but I think that your point above is misleading for a couple of reasons. First, I don't know why you seem surprised that the Sovs can "lose Moscow and still win"? Why shouldn't the Sovs be able to lose Moscow and still win? This general topic has been discussed very extensively in other threads, so I won't repeat it all here...

Second, very few games have made it to 1944-1945, but in the games that have, the Germans did very well in 1941-1942, taking Moscow and much else besides. In those games, including Tarhunnas' game, the Germans will almost certainly get a draw or even a victory. Please show us the AAR for a game where the Sovs are in Berlin by May 1945? And this is for the pre-1.05 games; by the looks of the AARs, in most of the 1.05 games the Germans will do even better.

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Many games ended in '42 and '43 because German player knew game is lost and didn't want to play it out (what not always is bad).

I think the main problem that causes a lot of Pbem games to end early; is the common misconception that people have when they enter them. That these complex long-term strategy games are all about the outright victory, and they are not. They are as close as you can get, to the operational level wargame portrayal of twentieth century warfare.

In WitE, and WitP there are just about always never a complete victory by either side, and there shouldn't be. As these games are not about that, they are about each and every turn, about the art of the campaign game. The point being that if you get two equally committed players, then the outcome is open ended.

I think that players who go into these game for an end-game fix, are missing the point. These games are not about the end-game fix, they are about the each-turn fix. Operational warfare is not easy to run, and that is why commanders had huge staffs. That is why a staff problem is called a problem, because that's what it is.

So it goes without saying that there will be numerous problems with running an operational wargame, that's the game. Work with them, or work round them, that's part of the beauty of this game. That is why it's about the turns, and not the end, it's about the getting there.

[JAMiAM]

Excellent post, DivePac88. It ain't the destination, it's the journey getting there.

[karonagames]

/agreed

+1

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

I think the main problem that causes a lot of Pbem games to end early; is the common misconception that people have when they enter them. That these complex long-term strategy games are all about the outright victory, and they are not. They are as close as you can get, to the operational level wargame portrayal of twentieth century warfare.

In WitE, and WitP there are just about always never a complete victory by either side, and there shouldn't be. As these games are not about that, they are about each and every turn, about the art of the campaign game. The point being that if you get two equally committed players, then the outcome is open ended.

I think that players who go into these game for an end-game fix, are missing the point. These games are not about the end-game fix, they are about the each-turn fix. Operational warfare is not easy to run, and that is why commanders had huge staffs. That is why a staff problem is called a problem, because that's what it is.

So it goes without saying that there will be numerous problems with running an operational wargame, that's the game. Work with them, or work round them, that's part of the beauty of this game. That is why it's about the turns, and not the end, it's about the getting there.

Very nicely written and very true Des! [:)]



Leo "Apollo11"

[kafka]

amazing how people tend to identify themselves with one of both sides. To me, it's just a gameplay issue: I'd like to have the same gameplay options for whichever side I choose to play. Not having them is the one of the reasons I stopped playing the game, additionally to not having the time to. Annoying, considerung it's not a low budget software

[Tophat1815]

Frankly if both the Axis and Soviet fanboys are complaining seems to me the devs are doing something right! [:'(]

This is an excellent game that continues to be tweaked and improved.

[KamilS]

Somehow I am bothered to ask one more time (just for the sake of my curiosity) -


Am I right or wrong? And if wrong, then where is flaw in my logic?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Somehow I am bothered to ask one more time (just for the sake of my curiosity) -


Am I right or wrong? And if wrong, then where is flaw in my logic?

What was the question again? Oh...right. An alleged Command and Control disadvantage for the Axis. You're wrong.

The flaw in your logic is that with the Axis, you have 4 layers of C&C, which are only slightly overloaded, given a maximizing of forces assigned to lower tiers of command. Meanwhile, the Soviets are stuck with only 3 layers of C&C, with all of the layers subject to overloading, given anything close to a historical OOB. So, in short, the Axis are getting 4 chances at making thousands of hidden die rolls, which are generally not suffering too hard a drm, while the Soviets are getting 3 chances at making those die rolls and generally suffering a more drastic drm.

QED.

That said, it is possible for both the Axis and the Soviets to lessen the impact of overloading, by spending APs, and rotating troops. The Axis can, and should have the bulk of the regiments and several of the divisions used in garrison duty or partisan hunting. For example, the Static Divisions and Luftwaffe Regiments are ideally suited for breaking down and covering the Leningrad area. All rear area forces, and rebuilding, or refitting units can be assigned to OKH, relieving stress at the lower levels. Also, some of the forces could be assigned to Finnish HQs, which are led by relatively good commanders. Granted the Finnish Army is short on Corps HQs, so the forces will likely be assigned at the Army level, unless you assign a German Korps to one of the Finnish HQs.

The Soviets have the potential to work around their C&C limitations to some degree by buying more Army HQs, but they run into a severe shortage of APs to buy them, good generals to lead them, and higher level HQs to assign them to. At the current stage of development, STAVKA is severely overloaded, making it virtually useless. The Fronts, will be overloaded if you assign all of your forces to them, as well, leaving only a single layer of inept Army command to make the thousands of hidden die rolls. So, even though the Soviets can play around with the tools given in order to optimize their C&C, these optimizations are still far behind what the Axis can manage.

As far as high ROF elements skewing combat results, that is something that I simply don't worry about, since there is virtually nothing in my control as a player that I can affect, nor even as a beta tester, to encourage development of. Combat system changes are high-risk programming choices that the developers are not likely to take on, given a lack of a clear vision as to what is wrong, if anything, and the specific steps needed to address them that won't ripple through the rest of the engine and likely break something else.

[pompack]

What he said [:)]

I agree completely but I could never say it so well.

[Flaviusx]

James, you forgot to add that German leaders are much better on average.

But yeah, presently, the entire burden of C&C for the Sovs is at the army level. If they don't make the roll there, it's very unlikely they'll make it with their overloaded fronts, and STAVKA may as well not exist from 42 on. After mid 43 the Front situation improves, and you can start getting those somewhere near command capacity (but it's still tight.) So that gets them a second roll. But this is as good as it gets: 2 bites at the apple.

Look, this was demonstrated mathematically a while back. Somebody (I forget who and in what thread) ran the numbers here showing the chances of the Axis making their leadership rolls versus the Soviets. It's not even close.

[KamilS]

I apologise, but it is not that convincing for me - I still believe that German 2nd and 3rd level of command in '42 is too poor. But since so many people are disagreeing I can only accept my intellectual shortcomings [;)]

[randallw]

One wonders, if the amount of HQs for the Axis are historically in line, why were they willing to have a shortage of them?

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: randallw

One wonders, if the amount of HQs for the Axis are historically in line, why were they willing to have a shortage of them?

They didn't. There's no practical material restraint to Corps KQ's or even Army HQ's. There's also no real world reason why Corps can't have f.e. 15 command points or why late war German HQ's can handle more units than 41 HQ's, if anything it should probably be the other way round.

It's a deterministic game design decision with little or no real world foundation, which is difficult to avoid since ingame HQ's have little in common with real world HQ's.

[MechFO]

I do agree there's a mismatch in how C&C is being represented ingame, but I don't think that is happening in the form of overload, but in how cooperation penalties are being applied. I don't see why the Soviets should have only penalties for Army level cooperation while the Germans already suffer for Corps level cooperation. Make cooperation penalties kick in at Army level for both.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Somehow I am bothered to ask one more time (just for the sake of my curiosity) -


Am I right or wrong? And if wrong, then where is flaw in my logic?

What was the question again? Oh...right. An alleged Command and Control disadvantage for the Axis. You're wrong.

The flaw in your logic is that with the Axis, you have 4 layers of C&C, which are only slightly overloaded, given a maximizing of forces assigned to lower tiers of command. Meanwhile, the Soviets are stuck with only 3 layers of C&C, with all of the layers subject to overloading, given anything close to a historical OOB. So, in short, the Axis are getting 4 chances at making thousands of hidden die rolls, which are generally not suffering too hard a drm, while the Soviets are getting 3 chances at making those die rolls and generally suffering a more drastic drm.

QED.

That said, it is possible for both the Axis and the Soviets to lessen the impact of overloading, by spending APs, and rotating troops. The Axis can, and should have the bulk of the regiments and several of the divisions used in garrison duty or partisan hunting. For example, the Static Divisions and Luftwaffe Regiments are ideally suited for breaking down and covering the Leningrad area. All rear area forces, and rebuilding, or refitting units can be assigned to OKH, relieving stress at the lower levels. Also, some of the forces could be assigned to Finnish HQs, which are led by relatively good commanders. Granted the Finnish Army is short on Corps HQs, so the forces will likely be assigned at the Army level, unless you assign a German Korps to one of the Finnish HQs.

The Soviets have the potential to work around their C&C limitations to some degree by buying more Army HQs, but they run into a severe shortage of APs to buy them, good generals to lead them, and higher level HQs to assign them to. At the current stage of development, STAVKA is severely overloaded, making it virtually useless. The Fronts, will be overloaded if you assign all of your forces to them, as well, leaving only a single layer of inept Army command to make the thousands of hidden die rolls. So, even though the Soviets can play around with the tools given in order to optimize their C&C, these optimizations are still far behind what the Axis can manage.

I see the point for the Command constraints on the Soviets, their C&C in the beginning was very bad, AP's are a big bottle neck for them since they need AP's for anything and everything, this makes the trade offs in how they are spent important.

However, I don't see the point of such artificial constraints for the Germans. What is it supposed to represent? Their C&C was fine from the beginning, AP's are not their bottleneck since they don't have the wide range of choice on how to spend them and the management methods you note are tedious player admin duties which don't add anything to the game.

Allow the Germans to buy additional Corps and Army HQ's for a few 100 AP's, there would then at least be some point to having them.

As far as high ROF elements skewing combat results, that is something that I simply don't worry about, since there is virtually nothing in my control as a player that I can affect, nor even as a beta tester, to encourage development of. Combat system changes are high-risk programming choices that the developers are not likely to take on, given a lack of a clear vision as to what is wrong, if anything, and the specific steps needed to address them that won't ripple through the rest of the engine and likely break something else.

While I agree that the combat engine per se isn't going to change, there's no reason not to tinker with the data.