Will you keep playing after this patch?

[stone10]

Why not? Is there any reason to not play? Back in 1.04, the game is like a nightmare for German player start from 1942, and I still enjoy the game.

[darbycmcd]

I have never come across a serious military historian that has suggested the Germans could have won the war on the Eastern Front. I have read many, many suggestions based on completely unrealistic 'could-have-beens' that some non-military people have put forward (see the 'oil' thread for one flagrant example). it isn't narrow-minded to have an opinion, even if it disagrees with yours.
What the german perspective players are missing is: Both sides in this game have a chance of winning!!!!!! but that isn't what you mean. you mean that you want the germans to be able to win before the soviets can build-up. you want to win before the other guy gets his chance, that just doesn't seem very defensible to me.
look, it is simple, the game goes until berlin falls. that is the end of the 4th quarter. there is no sudden-death rule. fight till the end. you do better than historical, you win!! how simple is that. stop looking for an easy out.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think both sides should have an equal chance of winning the game. That is not the case right now. Russia is clearly the side to play if you simply want to win a game.

I like to be challenged. Playing Russia in WITE is no challenge in so much as ultimately winning the game. I would like to be challenged no matter which side I play.

As far as the war goes. Yes I agree the most likely outcome was Russia winning especially once the US got going in 1943. But I beleive, from what I have read over the past 40 years and from what I have heard first hand from interviews done with the protagonists that Germany had a chance (the size of which is debateable) of defeating Russia in 1941/42 outright. How are we to know what may have occured had Moscow been taken or a succesful Fall Blau? My mind is open to any number of what if scenario's. Apparently the Soviets were interested in a negoiated peace as late as early 1943.

Why is it that people can accept (in game terms) that France should be able hold out in 1940 but not that Russia could lose in 41/42? It seems they are quite prepared to accept some what if's but not others. Will the France WITW game be designed around the premis that France cannot win because historically it did not happen?

If the game(s) are to be limited to strictly historical outcomes what is the point in playing them at all?

It would appear then that perhaps the only thing we disagree about is, as you say, the size of the chance that Gemany had to win in Russia.

With respect to the Fall of France in 1940, I think perhaps the major difference here is that historically Gemany"outplayed" France. So any recreation of this Battle should favour the French Player as all he will have to do is outperform his historical counterpart; which should be easy. By the way, if they start the game in May 1940 with the historical disposition of troops than, IMHO, France will not stand a chance. The French player may be able to out perform his counterpart in terms of surviving longer, but France will fall.

[Flaviusx]

Micheal T, you haven't played the Sovs against a first class Axis opponent as a Soviet, and have a rather exaggerated notion of how easy they are. (Your last game exemplifies this, although that one had a promising start.)

I think you need to start picking games against folks in your own weight class. Why not challenge Pelton? (He's beatable, mind you, but better than any of the German opponents I've seen you play.)

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think both sides should have an equal chance of winning the game...
Why is it that people can accept (in game terms) that France should be able hold out in 1940 but not that Russia could lose in 41/42? It seems they are quite prepared to accept some what if's but not others. Will the France WITW game be designed around the premis that France cannot win because historically it did not happen?

If the game(s) are to be limited to strictly historical outcomes what is the point in playing them at all?

If you think Germany should have an equal chance to win, you might as well be asking to play a fantasy game, which I think most here are not particularly interested in.

And as to why people have different opinions about the possible outcomes in France and Russia, maybe because, you know, the facts were completely different? Key fact: France is not Russia.

And I actually think that Germany had a small, tiny, chance of winning in Russia, but only if they could have triggered a political collapse. Given the ruthlessness of the Soviet regime, such an outcome was very unlikely but not completely impossible, especially if Hitler had played his cards very differently (which of course is equally unlikely).

[Michael T]

76mm you confuse two issues. One is where I consider Germany had *some* kind of chance to win the war against Russia.

The other is where I consider that both sides should have a equal chance of winning the *game* not the *war*

They are entirely different issues. The issue of game victory is entirely driven by the games victory conditions. There are two ways for Germany to win the game. One is to attain 290 VP's. Which is impossible against and equal opponent. The other is to survive until Oct 1945. Again impossible against an equal opponent.

For the sake of the argument lets consider I subscribe to your view that Germany could not win the war. Ok

Do you think the games vitory conditions offer both sides an equal chance of winning the *game* ?

Obviously they do not. I say that they need a drastic overhaul now more than ever.

And Flav I have played both sides
well enough to make an informed call that playing Russia is much easier than playing Germany. Against equal opponents Russia will always win the *game*. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

[Flaviusx]

I disagree, Micheal T. I think if we go by the endgame GC victory conditions it's going to be a footrace to Berlin. (Yes, the timetable is too forgiving. Those extra innings need to go away.)

Between equally skilled opponents draws won't be uncommon at all. I can see minor Axis victories becoming quite possible with a May 45 ending date. If you cripple the Sovs in 41-2 they may not be able to work up a head of steam until practically 1944 and they'll never get to Berlin on time. We're seeing quite a lot of this.

Now I understand this isn't the "win" you're looking for.

I know you play both sides. I think you need to find opponents more at your level of play. Your Axis opponents are making clear blunders. That last game you played was thrown away.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

76mm you confuse two issues. One is where I consider Germany had *some* kind of chance to win the war against Russia.

Sorry, based on the context I thought you meant winning the war.

As to winning the game, I think it is hard to say, since the only games I've seen which have gone to 1944-1945 are those in which the Germans did really well early on, and are likely to achieve a minor victory. That said, I would probably agree that the Germans will lose the "average" game.

[Michael T]

You see Flav this is where we have a fundamental difference. You see *game* victory solely decided by whoever controls Berlin by a certain date. I can seperate the conditions needed to win the war as opposed to the game. Many cannot it appears.

In order to have incentive for aggressive play the Auto Win conditions need to be acheiveable. Otherwise the German player will always enter the game with a survival mentality rather than the confident all conquering army that the Wehrmacht was in 1941 and to a lesser degree 1942. Ideally I want to play (when German) with this mindset in 41/42. Then, if my opponent holds me off go in to a survivalist mode. As it stands I see the 41/42 aggressive German player becoming extinct. And that seems wrong to me.

I really think *game* victory should be determined by an accumilation of points based on both players acheivements throughout the game.

For example Tarhunas v Gids. Gids Soviets may well win the war and the game. But Tarhunas has received no credit for the long periods he occupied most of European Russia. In game terms he should have received some *bonus* vp for that in my view.

[Farfarer61]

I like the old SPI sudden death. If the Axis takes (and holds at the same time) Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad it is a decisive sudden death victory. This will shape game play quite nicely, nay almost historically. Very simple and the simplicity will annoy everyone equally. If you are a die-hard Hitler simulator, put Baku in as well, but as long as the Axis get Ukrainian partisans

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
In order to have incentive for aggressive play the Auto Win conditions need to be acheiveable. Otherwise the German player will always enter the game with a survival mentality rather than the confident all conquering army that the Wehrmacht was in 1941 and to a lesser degree 1942. Ideally I want to play (when German) with this mindset in 41/42. Then, if my opponent holds me off go in to a survivalist mode. As it stands I see the 41/42 aggressive German player becoming extinct. And that seems wrong to me.

I totally agree with you here, with the additional complication that "survivalist mode" does not really seem to be a viable strategy.

[Michael T]

I like the old SPI sudden death. If the Axis takes (and holds at the same time) Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad it is a decisive sudden death victory. This will shape game play quite nicely, nay almost historically. Very simple and the simplicity will annoy everyone equally. If you are a die-hard Hitler simulator, put Baku in as well, but as long as the Axis get Ukrainian partisans

Farfarer, you have raised a very taboo subject around here. Shame on you [:)]

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I really think *game* victory should be determined by an accumilation of points based on both players acheivements throughout the game.

I agree with this; but unfortunately it is unlikely this feature will be added to the game now even as an optional rule. My only concern is that Leningrad is just too easy to capture. Even if the Germans commit the same forces to it's capture as historical and the Russians commit more than historical I believe it will fall in most games. But perhaps this would be balanced by the Russians capturing Berlin and other objectives earlier than usual.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I disagree, Micheal T. I think if we go by the endgame GC victory conditions it's going to be a footrace to Berlin. (Yes, the timetable is too forgiving. Those extra innings need to go away.)

Between equally skilled opponents draws won't be uncommon at all. I can see minor Axis victories becoming quite possible with a May 45 ending date. If you cripple the Sovs in 41-2 they may not be able to work up a head of steam until practically 1944 and they'll never get to Berlin on time. We're seeing quite a lot of this.

Now I understand this isn't the "win" you're looking for.

I know you play both sides. I think you need to find opponents more at your level of play. Your Axis opponents are making clear blunders. That last game you played was thrown away.

I, of course, agree with Flavio!

In my book the German win is not total military victory (which is impossible in game where opponents are more or less of equal skill) - it is doing better than history (i.e. keeping Soviets as far as possible from Berlin)!

Therefore this is exactly what "Tarhunas" did - although the game was declared "Draw" he is the victor!


Same applies to WitP - anyone who played WitP knows this - regardless of all victories in 1942 (or even in 1943) the end for Japan would come in 1944 and 1945... the victory is to have Allies as far as possible from Home Islands!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I have never come across a serious military historian that has suggested the Germans could have won the war on the Eastern Front. I have read many, many suggestions based on completely unrealistic 'could-have-beens' that some non-military people have put forward (see the 'oil' thread for one flagrant example). it isn't narrow-minded to have an opinion, even if it disagrees with yours.
What the german perspective players are missing is: Both sides in this game have a chance of winning!!!!!! but that isn't what you mean. you mean that you want the germans to be able to win before the soviets can build-up. you want to win before the other guy gets his chance, that just doesn't seem very defensible to me.
look, it is simple, the game goes until berlin falls. that is the end of the 4th quarter. there is no sudden-death rule. fight till the end. you do better than historical, you win!! how simple is that. stop looking for an easy out.

Yep - exactly!

I have also never heard of any modern serious historian who would claim that Germany might have won in war against Soviet Union (regardless of "what if" scenarios - even including going straight to Moscow in late August / early September 1941 and ignoring Kiev and Ukraine) - same thing is with war colleges!


Leo "Apollo11"

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

76mm, that's only part of it.

For the tank armies they never should have been allowed to get so big to begin with. This one really is a no brainer. 3 corps was the standard. They simply didn't run around with 6+ mobile corps.

The combined arms thing, well, that one is trickier. Generally speaking late war combined arm armies tended to have 3-4 corps (not always rifle, sometimes including a mobile corps) and various odds and ends. But there were many exceptions. It was felt that the command model should aim at the average here. The "shrinkage" is in part due to the distortions caused by the shift from divisions to corps. The command costs associated with these are not linear, bear in mind. Corps are more efficient in terms of command load than 3 divisions. So that gets you some of the perceived shrinkage.

The easier solution is to increase the CPs of corps

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: RCH
  For me though the unhistorical aspects win out in the long run. 

That's why I stopped playing chess. Don't tell me the queen was all-powerful in medieval times. Then we have knights doing dressage rather than charging in an historical manner (obviously an anti-Pelton's Teutonic knights nerf), and don't get me started on moving castles...............

Each to his own but for me WiTE is just an excellent game

[Farfarer61]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I like the old SPI sudden death. If the Axis takes (and holds at the same time) Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad it is a decisive sudden death victory. This will shape game play quite nicely, nay almost historically. Very simple and the simplicity will annoy everyone equally. If you are a die-hard Hitler simulator, put Baku in as well, but as long as the Axis get Ukrainian partisans

Farfarer, you have raised a very taboo subject around here. Shame on you [:)]

Oops. Mea culpa, I won't mention Ukrainian partisans again. Someone please sticky the "List of Offical Taboo subjects" thread

Interesting the comparison with Japan play strategy in WITP where a successful plan means subordinating all activity to the Grand Design of "B29 Keep Away". Now there are recommmendations to "see if you can get that Axis draw or minor victory" although fun was previously poked at:

" Oh boy, June 21 1941! The first step in my master plan to achieve a minor victory in May 1945 begins!"

[RP on] "Gentlemen launching Operation Barbarossa is critical to halting the the Red Army at the Oder four years hence so the Reich can surrender to western powers. Plan accordingly. " [RP off]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I have also never heard of any modern serious historian who would claim that Germany might have won in war against Soviet Union (regardless of "what if" scenarios - even including going straight to Moscow in late August / early September 1941 and ignoring Kiev and Ukraine) - same thing is with war colleges!

Well, I might say that in war colleges one would like to rate the students on the basis of how well they achieve things, even in the face of massive strategic imbalance. Having the VP system of scenarios in the GC has always made a lot of sense. Rewards people who kill the most of the enemy while losing the least. Rewards people that tries to defend their country (or they conquests). I'd say that it would be nearly impossible to attain a 1:2.5 VP ratio with the Soviets, following a historical schedule with historical losses.

Common practice in wargaming is to assign victory levels according to performance better than historical.

As I see WitE right now, things are rigged so that the Axis player - no matter how weak or strong - achieves similar gains to those achieved by Nazi Germany by December 1941. Hence why we'll hardly see any Axis player suffering the nearly 500,000 casualties (permanent and temporary) suffered historically by the combined Axis Armies between 22nd June - 1st September. That's the reason why will never see Southwestern Front more than holding their ground against the massed forces of AGS 6th, 17th and 1st PzGroup. That's why there isn't anything like the Smolensk battles between July and August 1941 in the game.

And the converse is true for the Soviets. The game is rigged from 1943 onwards. The German Army loses quality even if it doesn't suffer anything like the Winter 1942-43 disasters or 1941-42 attrition rates.

To be honest, the only really interesting part of the game is the one that goes between May 1942 and March 1943 (with the historical start). Some of the scenarios in the upcoming expansion might well sparkle again my interest in the game.

But the 1941-45 GC? I know that playing monster game campaigns is a risky proposition. There's always the possibility of some patch crapping on your game. I would have endured that if I could see that those changes were made for a good reason (say, the fortification changes). But in this particular case, I can't really see any good reasons.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

As I see WitE right now, things are rigged so that the Axis player - no matter how weak or strong - achieves similar gains to those achieved by Nazi Germany by December 1941. Hence why we'll hardly see any Axis player suffering the nearly 500,000 casualties (permanent and temporary) suffered historically by the combined Axis Armies between 22nd June - 1st September. That's the reason why will never see Southwestern Front more than holding their ground against the massed forces of AGS 6th, 17th and 1st PzGroup. That's why there isn't anything like the Smolensk battles between July and August 1941 in the game.

And the converse is true for the Soviets. The game is rigged from 1943 onwards. The German Army loses quality even if it doesn't suffer anything like the Winter 1942-43 disasters or 1941-42 attrition rates.

Key points, with the predetermined NM (as main driver of MP/CV) and TOE changes being the main regulators of that process.