Game Suggestion

[Powloon]

In game the effects of the two dictators are pretty much ignored (other than a few executed generals) compared to real life (which I am guessing some players probably prefer).

Both Stalin and Hitler ordered stand fast proclamations at one time or another what I would propose is an optional rule. During the periods where such an order was in force when each unit (within a certain distance to an enemy unit) calculates its movement points for a turn based on supply , fuel etc another variable would be considered. Each units leader would need to pass a check based on their political rating or see their movement points cut and rail movement disallowed.

Using the existing game mechanics it might impose a political dimension on the battlefield. For the red army the head long retreat in 41 might have to be carefully considered if the army cannot disengage at will and for the Germans the massive voluntary retreats during the blizzard may have to be rethought.

[2ndACR]

Nope, I don't support this one at all. I am hampered by history enough as it is. I took Hitler out back and shot him when I assumed command.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Nope, I don't support this one at all. I am hampered by history enough as it is. I took Hitler out back and shot him when I assumed command.

I tend to agree with 2ndACR.

Funny, Hitler had me took out back and shot...

[Powloon]

Fair enough.

I would see this rule effecting both sides though. A common complaint for German players seems to be the Soviets have no requirement to defend forward in 41 other than to allow their factories to be evacuated. This would to some extent force the Soviet player to defend forward. The converse would be the Germans would not all be able to slip 1 to 2 hexes back during the blizzard to avoid attack. Although to be fair Stalin butted out and left it to his generals from at some point in 1942 where as Hitlers meddling only increased.

If it was possible I would like to see it as an optional rule available to check at start up.

[Zort]

I disagree with 2ndACR to the extent that politics greatly effect how a large campaign like this plays out. Most players want to just push pieces and not worry about two important aspects of a campaign like this, logistics (not sexy) and politics (I am better). Discussions abound in this forum about "historical accuracy" when it comes to a tank or plane. But historically the generals where handicapped by their leaders. I would like to have the optional ability to include orders from the supreme leaders and a penalty if you don't do them. Right now there are little consequences for not consisdering the political aspect. Remember this is a large campaign in which politics played a major role. IE why didn't the soviet generals not just run away, why didn't the polish generals give up half their country by defending further back, politics. There has to be a way to include some sort of politics/supreme leader orders that still allow for good/fun game play.

[elmo3]

Maybe for WitE 2, but these kinds of major changes will happen for WitE.

[2ndACR]

If I want historical to that extreme, I will read a book. If you want Hitler etc meddling, then you might as well take 6th Army and allow it to be destroyed in 42. I have no desire to "repeat" history, it has already been done, I got the books and movies for that. I want to see if avoiding those mistakes would have made a difference in the outcome.

I prefer what if's more than anything. What if the last push for Moscow had not happened and the German army dug in, brought forward replacements, the 50 divisions worth of winter gear that was sitting in Poland but got shoved to the way side for fuel and ammo? Would it have made a difference? Since I avoided the massive losses of 41-42 blizzard, inflicted heavy losses to the Russians during the winter offensive because I took the time to winterize my units for added protection, they heavily dug in, made good a lot of losses from the summer campaign, made sure my Panzer Div actually got the tanks I want in the field, would that have made a difference?

If I avoid all the above, suffer no where near the losses the real German Army suffered, then why do my units keep getting smaller and smaller across the board, why cant I select some units to stay "heavy", why must my morale steadily shrink when I am kicking butt and taking names? Because a new year starts? I prefer what little control I have now over another "outside" influence.

The Russian can run all he wants, as fast as he wants, I will do the same thing come winter when I know what is about to happen. Sorry, but every time us German players come up with a strategy that actually preserves our Army, and allows us to also have a heavy fist to hit back with, someone comes along and tries to take it away. Enough is enough.

I agree the Lvov Gambit would likely not be feasible with daily turns, I used it when the game was released, but have also made just as good an advance without using it and still bagged most of those units anyway.

[Flaviusx]

Rigid standfast rules are icky. I've only seen one game really pull off this sort of thing well, and that was Proud Monster, and even there it achieved the result more by careful construction of its VP schedule than by micromanaging things at the unit level.

The Proud Monster approach probably won't work in WitE simply because the German advance is highly accelerated in 41 regardless of what the Soviet does. Leningrad is too easily captured, the Dnepr is crossed crazy early, etc. This isn't because of Soviet "runaways." It's because the first few turns are a total Axis blowout. Things would have to change elsewhere in order to enable a PM type VP schedule, you'd get auto losses every time otherwise in summer of 41.

Significantly, the PM VP approach tended to breakdown even in that game post 41. The longer a campaign goes the more difficult it is to do this sort of thing and VP tailored for the long game will tend to look something like what we've already got. The game's scenarios lend themselves better towards this VP fine tuning than the grand campaigns.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Rigid standfast rules are icky. I've only seen one game really pull off this sort of thing well, and that was Proud Monster, and even there it achieved the result more by careful construction of its VP schedule than by micromanaging things at the unit level.

The Proud Monster approach probably won't work in WitE simply because the German advance is highly accelerated in 41 regardless of what the Soviet does. Leningrad is too easily captured, the Dnepr is crossed crazy early, etc. This isn't because of Soviet "runaways." It's because the first few turns are a total Axis blowout. Things would have to change elsewhere in order to enable a PM type VP schedule, you'd get auto losses every time otherwise in summer of 41.

Significantly, the PM VP approach tended to breakdown even in that game post 41. The longer a campaign goes the more difficult it is to do this sort of thing and VP tailored for the long game will tend to look something like what we've already got. The game's scenarios lend themselves better towards this VP fine tuning than the grand campaigns.

I am quite certain better VP conditions would make for more historical campaign behaviour, where players tried to hold Kiev for as long as possible to gain some VP for example.

Admittedly hard to fine tune the VPs, but one can hardly call the victory conditions finely balanced in the GC as it is.

[Kronolog]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

If I want historical to that extreme, I will read a book. If you want Hitler etc meddling, then you might as well take 6th Army and allow it to be destroyed in 42. I have no desire to "repeat" history, it has already been done, I got the books and movies for that. I want to see if avoiding those mistakes would have made a difference in the outcome.

The same argument could be made for the abolishment of the supply system. Because with the current one, you have no real possibility of advancing east of Gorky in 41.

Politics - as supply - is however, an integral part of war, and not something that one should overlook if one aspires to give the player the same opportunities and restrictions as those that applied to the generals of the period in question. Of course, exactly how these should be modelled is another question.

[2ndACR]

I never made it to Grozny as German. But I use very few HQ build ups, so that slows me down a lot. I also don't stray too far from my rail if I can help it. I might spring forward for 2-3 turns and then make slow advance for 2-3 while rail catches up, then leap forward again. But that is me.

I don't want the restrictions. I got enough of those already. My div get withdrawn on certain dates because that is when they left in real life, usually because they were beat to pieces and needed it.

We have one side that has the ability to tailor make his army from the lowest unit up. The other side is hamstrung by historical everything.

[RCHarmon]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

If I want historical to that extreme, I will read a book. If you want Hitler etc meddling, then you might as well take 6th Army and allow it to be destroyed in 42. I have no desire to "repeat" history, it has already been done, I got the books and movies for that. I want to see if avoiding those mistakes would have made a difference in the outcome.

I prefer what if's more than anything. What if the last push for Moscow had not happened and the German army dug in, brought forward replacements, the 50 divisions worth of winter gear that was sitting in Poland but got shoved to the way side for fuel and ammo? Would it have made a difference? Since I avoided the massive losses of 41-42 blizzard, inflicted heavy losses to the Russians during the winter offensive because I took the time to winterize my units for added protection, they heavily dug in, made good a lot of losses from the summer campaign, made sure my Panzer Div actually got the tanks I want in the field, would that have made a difference?

If I avoid all the above, suffer no where near the losses the real German Army suffered, then why do my units keep getting smaller and smaller across the board, why cant I select some units to stay "heavy", why must my morale steadily shrink when I am kicking butt and taking names? Because a new year starts? I prefer what little control I have now over another "outside" influence.

The Russian can run all he wants, as fast as he wants, I will do the same thing come winter when I know what is about to happen. Sorry, but every time us German players come up with a strategy that actually preserves our Army, and allows us to also have a heavy fist to hit back with, someone comes along and tries to take it away. Enough is enough.

I agree the Lvov Gambit would likely not be feasible with daily turns, I used it when the game was released, but have also made just as good an advance without using it and still bagged most of those units anyway.

This post is right on.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
If I want historical to that extreme, I will read a book. If you want Hitler etc meddling, then you might as well take 6th Army and allow it to be destroyed in 42. I have no desire to "repeat" history, it has already been done, I got the books and movies for that. I want to see if avoiding those mistakes would have made a difference in the outcome.

I prefer what if's more than anything. What if the last push for Moscow had not happened and the German army dug in, brought forward replacements, the 50 divisions worth of winter gear that was sitting in Poland but got shoved to the way side for fuel and ammo? Would it have made a difference? Since I avoided the massive losses of 41-42 blizzard, inflicted heavy losses to the Russians during the winter offensive because I took the time to winterize my units for added protection, they heavily dug in, made good a lot of losses from the summer campaign, made sure my Panzer Div actually got the tanks I want in the field, would that have made a difference?

If I avoid all the above, suffer no where near the losses the real German Army suffered, then why do my units keep getting smaller and smaller across the board, why cant I select some units to stay "heavy", why must my morale steadily shrink when I am kicking butt and taking names? Because a new year starts? I prefer what little control I have now over another "outside" influence.

The Russian can run all he wants, as fast as he wants, I will do the same thing come winter when I know what is about to happen. Sorry, but every time us German players come up with a strategy that actually preserves our Army, and allows us to also have a heavy fist to hit back with, someone comes along and tries to take it away. Enough is enough.

I agree the Lvov Gambit would likely not be feasible with daily turns, I used it when the game was released, but have also made just as good an advance without using it and still bagged most of those units anyway.

I guess I would also vote for having no such "superior" rules unless optional (which of course allows much bigger gains or defeats, anyway you want to put it). They would be quite contradictory to the present, rather large freedom to optimize.
On the other hand, it also sounds like a challenge to be forced to play under orders. Either sensible ones, or not so much. It probably shouldn't be historical goals, targets, and timeliness (unless historical weather is selected...?), but image you get certain targets assigned for the 41, 42 and 43 offensives as Axis, e.g. AI makes Gorky your target instead of Stalingrad, offering extra VP? Or as a Russian, spring 42 or spring 43 adds a new VP location to Kursk, or Rostov for some extra VP? Doable things.

Then there could also be (further option) true Hitler and Stalin meddling, which I think would offer another, differently layer challenge: Could I manipulte and shuffle things so smartly and still achieve something despite the meddling of the fools messing up everything? Sound there should be some penalties then for failing these goals, or ignoring say stand-fast orders, such as forced withdrawal of officers, or at worst -- perhaps an immediate game end since the "virtual commander" is sacked. Something that forces you balance between the tactic choices, and the well-being of your own person and head. This does seem like the position a Mannstein and other must have found themselves in.

I might try such a bit restricted game, though wouldn't bet I would play more than one GC with it. But it sure sounds like a very different, intriguing challenge and could even be a quite novel feature to gaming of this type. However, before working on that, there is a long list of other things I would hope them to work on first... from reaction orders, to AE-like air combat modeling, and the naval component, to a full production and R&D model for both sides and control over ToE transtions, to true training pools (determining the experience of recruits) and a more meaningful, and logic unit moral mechanic.

ORIGINAL: Kronolog
Politics - as supply - is however, an integral part of war, and not something that one should overlook if one aspires to give the player the same opportunities and restrictions as those that applied to the generals of the period in question. Of course, exactly how these should be modelled is another question.

The question is, whether the conflict still feels related to its history counterpart if certain factors are left out of the simulation/model. I imagine that no one would argue that if, just for example, allowing certain tank types to run on very little or no fuel (or for the sake of driving the argument to its extreme, the Tigers would be allowed to fly ), this war game would be merely a scifi game. As such, also other factors that did possible give this contest its uniqueness need to be considered to give it a right to be called a simulation of this conflict. But it seems like even there is a lot of space for personal opinion on what contributes to the character, or what exactly the latter is? Freedom of design comes in here...

[Powloon]

For what it is worth I wasn't proposing a "rigid standfast rule". I simply was suggesting when the movement allowance for the unit was calculated in addition to checks for supply fuel etc that the leaders political rating would be tested if it passed there would be no detriment to the units movement if it failed a further movement penalty could be applied (and if game mechanics allowed prevent it using rail movement for the turn).

This check would only be carried out during the periods when the dictators had their hold fast proclamations. Also I would see it as being optional as clearly some people do not want historical reality to impinge on their wargame.

In effect it would give an extra dimension to the use of leaders whilst adding some additional tactical challenges.

** Bows out gracefully after suggesting unpopular rule change ** [:)]

[Djouk]

That s the prob of historical games : some players want absolut historical rules and others want some liberty. So for firsts this Will be certainly a good game if they can play a great campaign nearly as it was. For seconds a what if or change in history is welcome. It s difficult to find good rules to balance these tendancies. This is a wargame as a reflexion game ? Or a game just for understand war at this Time in russia ? I think to much historical rules dont help reflexion in this game... I just copy here some my own suggestions: About german withdrawals conceptors have done a fabulous work but i wonder why some divisions are just here for just few turns or retired when they occupy vital areas. Italians are there then disapear ...so they just got an invitation and go home. I suppose that historically all these withdrawals came with reserve units and or with global european strategy. Finally trying to absolutely respecting history give this strange aspect of the game because are we hold to follow Big strategy of this era even if in fact entire outcome of this war is here in russia ? It would be simple to let or no withdrawals with an option at start of a game. So with no withdrawals why not giving more or less forces to the axis but letting him develop its own global strategy just acting on reserve pool ? Yes i imagine conceptors are responding me just to wait an overall bigger game at all eureopean scale where you could also change all production... Go to Time of fury , ok but this game go far from realism and history !

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I am quite certain better VP conditions would make for more historical campaign behaviour, where players tried to hold Kiev for as long as possible to gain some VP for example.

Admittedly hard to fine tune the VPs, but one can hardly call the victory conditions finely balanced in the GC as it is.

I really agree with this. The scenarios have this type of setup, it seems the GC could also. Then you as a player could weight the benefits of retreating, or trying to hold territory or an objective for another turn or two.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I never made it to Grozny as German. But I use very few HQ build ups, so that slows me down a lot. I also don't stray too far from my rail if I can help it. I might spring forward for 2-3 turns and then make slow advance for 2-3 while rail catches up, then leap forward again. But that is me.

I don't want the restrictions. I got enough of those already. My div get withdrawn on certain dates because that is when they left in real life, usually because they were beat to pieces and needed it.

We have one side that has the ability to tailor make his army from the lowest unit up. The other side is hamstrung by historical everything.

You have a point with the withdrawals. If the game has a weakness, it is that reinforcement and withdrawal schedules seem too often reflect what was happening on the eastern front, which doesn't necessarily need to be happening in your game.

So, withdraw some of the SS Divisions in Summer 43 and Summer 44 to meet what was happening in the west...that is historic.

But don't remove or add as a reinforcement a Division that only pitched up because of a local issue, or withdrew because of losses.

It complicates things, but it shouldn't be beyond the game to come up with a system for this.

Regards,
ID

[Redmarkus5]

The bottom line, IMHO.

1. WitE, if my info is accurate, was built on top of a partially completed 10 year old block of coding that Gary decided to revive - not a first for him, I believe. Is this correct? What was the original game design called again?

2. After a year of unofficial public beta testing, the strengths and weaknesses (as well as the level of consumer demand) of the game have been well established.

3. To develop a satisfying simulation of the war in the east that provides the range of options and alternate histories needed (including options for stand fast rules, modified VPs, etc.) requires a build from scratch approach.

My guess is that we won't see such major changes in either WitE or WitW (which is built on the same engine) so we are stuck with what we have. I personally don't get the sense that Gary is really listening anyway, as demonstrated by his pressing on with new projects while WitE is still stuck in the mud and CV collapses of spring '42. I guess there are financial pressures as well.

Hopefully, some other developer is reading this forum and making careful note of the lessons learned.

[ComradeP]

WitE does use some data from older games, for obvious reasons (why reinvent the wheel?) and although there were seemingly some conversion errors (some aircraft data), the end result is not bad. You're not playing WiR, you're playing WitE.

The strengths and weaknesses of the game are indeed sort of established now, but I don't see why that is surprising. Name me a game you've played that didn't have both strengths and weaknesses? It's a natural state, every system has its flaws. The developers, nor the testers, have ever denied that the game has its flaws. I've personally stated, since release, that WitE is a rough gem. It has become more polished since then, but it still has its rough edges.

You're right that a build from scratch approach is needed if you want the things you mention in the game, as the current engine won't include them. WitE is not a simulation, it's a game or a mixture of a game and a simulation.

As to other developers coming along: WitP:AE is a better product than WitP according to part of the community, but not all of it, and both games still have their flaws. There's always a limit to what can realistically be done, especially with a part-time commitment.

I don't think a system with increased relevance of VP's will work, for the same reason it doesn't work in many other games or even in smaller scenarios: the VP's rarely, if ever, balance the cost of holding objectives.

If you can choose between holding Kiev (to use an example given earlier) and lose a corps or army, but gaining a small amount of VP's for holding it for a turn or 2, or losing the city and preserving your forces, what kind of halfway decent strategist would pick the handful of VP's option in a campaign? The longer the scenario, the less important VP's become and the more important preserving your forces becomes, because per turn VP's are likely to be rather low.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The strengths and weaknesses of the game are indeed sort of established now, but I don't see why that is surprising. Name me a game you've played that didn't have both strengths and weaknesses? It's a natural state, every system has its flaws. The developers, nor the testers, have ever denied that the game has its flaws. I've personally stated, since release, that WitE is a rough gem. It has become more polished since then, but it still has its rough edges.

Fact is the game has a lot of flexibility and potential but core parts of the model have big problems, problems recognized from the get go, yet nobody seems to have been working on even possible fixes, and this after more than a year. What we have had is numerous (appreciated) bug fixes and a lot of tinkering at the margins. The problem with tinkering at the margins is that they can only fix so much and the time spent on them is wasted as long as the core isn't fixed. The fact that so much time and effort has been spent on tinkering tells me that the core is inviolate for the foreseeable future and that is frankly a waste of potential and a disappointment.

While it is true that a game of this scope can't be tested fully prior to release, the various underlying mechanics can be tested in smaller scenarios. Why there's f.e. no Blizzard scenario Army Group Center to validate the Blizzard rules makes little sense and goes a long way to explaining why even glaring problems weren't spotted until well after release.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I don't think a system with increased relevance of VP's will work, for the same reason it doesn't work in many other games or even in smaller scenarios: the VP's rarely, if ever, balance the cost of holding objectives.

If you can choose between holding Kiev (to use an example given earlier) and lose a corps or army, but gaining a small amount of VP's for holding it for a turn or 2, or losing the city and preserving your forces, what kind of halfway decent strategist would pick the handful of VP's option in a campaign? The longer the scenario, the less important VP's become and the more important preserving your forces becomes, because per turn VP's are likely to be rather low.

I agree VP's aren't the way to go. It would have to be something that's in shortage for both sides. For the Soviets this is obviously AP. For the Axis at the moment it is Armaments, but could be also AP if they would actually get some flexibility.