Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!!

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

My suggestion is to freeze any TOE reductions starting in 1943 (any TOE increases or additions should still take effect). Any shortcomings in men or guns or vehicles should then be controlled by the player, through the use of in game modified TOE percentages (which many players are already doing anyways).

I like this suggestion...so +1.

But...and it's a big butt...given the current issues with auto-upgrading of aircraft and equipment by the AI, I wonder how practical this approach would end-up being. The various hard-coded unit TO&E changes -- while not ideal given the 1100 panzer loss thingy -- do result in guaranteed equipment upgrades. I still agree with the 1943 freeze on TO&E "upgrades" (or something similar and along this same line of logic), but it would have to go hand-and-hand with revisiting the game coding that is currently associated with AI invoked equipment upgrades. I mean equipment upgrades outside the realm of those invoked by Formational TO&E changes.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

How realistic though would it be to have a large amount of AFVs in 1945? Because the biggest problem was the Germans didn't have gas for the AFVs they actually had, let alone any extras they might have saved through more judicious combat.

It's an admittedly artificial cap to reflect decreases in Wehrmacht AFVs, maybe because the fuel system doesn't provide the problems that it should for the Germans

Fuel was the real problem for the Germans; not lack of AFVs

Yes, but if Axis Players are managing the war in the East better than their historical counterparts, it is possible that Axis players could maintain control of various critical resources...like holding Ploesti late into the war. Why than should the Axis TO&E be artificially hammered based upon Fuel shortages? Makes little sense. The game has fuel and oil built into it already. Unfortunately with the current game system fuel and oil are a lot like Soviet HI. Moreover, fuel & oil, has little real impact on WiTE play because of the huge glut in stores of fuel and oil that accumulate during the game. This is sort of a different issue, but Fuel as an artificial limit on Axis AFV numbers was brought-up. Fix the fuel and oil aspect of the game and late war Axis lack of fuel\oil and its potential impact upon Axis AFVs will take care of itself.

[EisenHammer]

ORIGINAL: Treale

ORIGINAL: AFV

You're still here Tony? I thought you were leaving.

Not sure that I understand your comment?

It was wild who said he was leaving.
A real nice goodbye. I am never coming back. Whining post.... a while ago.

[AFV]

Tony said:
Do we have to listen to you "Trash Talking" again?

As was pointed out, he does not have to. He can leave. Apparently, he wants to listen to the "trash talking", since he has not left.

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


Don't you have something better to do with your time? Blah blah blah, $80, debs don't listen, blah blah blah.

There are a lot of players who have made constructive criticisms that have majorly improved the game (blizzard impact reduction, fort reduction, HQ buildup limitation etc.). Maybe changing TOE rules will be one of those, maybe not. But sitting aroun to complain about how you spent $80!!!!! For the 9000th post gets wearisome. If you're that hard up maybe you should spend less time whining on game boards.

Just gets annoying in the midst of actual discussion.

[&o] Wow - now there is a reasoned argument. Of course - you forget to mention the fact that he is absolutely right - and what the game does IS ridiculous. Having paid $80 myself and being reasonably affluent I still feel I have a right to complain. The game has glaring problems - not picked up by all those glorious reviews simply because those reviews were written five minutes after the game came out. People blindly stating the game is the best thing since sliced bread when its clearly not also gets annoying. Even this one thread is a littany of all the things that dont work in the game.

[hfarrish]

I think all of my posts have noted that the game DiD/DOES have issues, and that in many cases the criticisms levied HAVE improved the game. Constructive criticism, such as that by the OP, is helpful. What is annoying are those who have sat on the board for a year jumping on every thread to run it into a forum for simply rehashing their gripes that the game is totally broken and the developers don't care. If you already feel like you wasted and/or were cheated out of 80 bucks, why keep wasting more time on it?

Speaking of "reasoned arguments" I dont think anyone on this thread said te game was "the greatest thing since sliced bread" or anything close to that.

[LiquidSky]

This game is the greatest thing since sliced bread.. Really. I mean, I have no trouble toasting sliced bread. The bread just cant cut it. But I can cut the bread. Once you breach the crust, its a soft gooey interior. If you leave the bread alone long enough, its defenses get moldy.

[Farfarer61]

I like the idea of selecting global TOE changes. It would be an enhancement of some features already in embrionic form in the Commanders Report. There could be a 'window' of acceptance for say switching to Volksgrenadier Divisions, converting to Pz Grenadier and such. When playing Russian, the ability to craft a designer Army is fun. The Axis is not.

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: AFV

Tony said:
Do we have to listen to you "Trash Talking" again?

As was pointed out, he does not have to. He can leave. Apparently, he wants to listen to the "trash talking", since he has not left.

Gee whiz Tex. Just when I thought that we were starting to "bond"!!!

[colberki]

Yes, it seems ridculous in games where the Germans are doing well with ample manpower to press the war in the East and are stymied by the auto TOE downgrades from 1943 forced upon the Germans. For the Soviet army, its up all the way. Cant help me think that this game should have been titled the Great Patriotic War.

[mariandavid]

What seems to have been forgotten is that the massive armoured unit OB's changes (largely redcutions) that start from late '44 on are political in origin. And therefore have to be hard-coded. Hitler (and his mindset is all that matters) had fallen in love with the 'more units the better - even if weaker' syndrome, one that affected many, many dictators. Since the All-Highest has decided that lots of weak SS divisions and lots of unsupported panzer brigades are to be the future, it follows that the world-wide Wehrmacht (including us whining East Front commanders) will have to accept it. And as for the lost 1,100 panzers - those in Germany are being added to numerous (and often imaginary) PG divisions and in the west to ineffectual panzer brigades.

Now I could accept the addition of a German 'unit creation' system, matching that of the Russians; but only operative at dates matched to major unit OB amendments. In other words - precious tanks are removed from panzer divisions, but one-half enter the pool. And at the same time the 'units ready to be built' fill up with new brigades, PG divisions etc that can absorb them.

[hfarrish]

There are really two issues bring discussed here. One is a technical issue that needs to be fixed, namely a (ridiculous) one time force reduction to reflect the negative drag on German strength via years of warfare. There must be a better way of handling this. The second seems to be a bizarre assumption by many that every man you don't lose in the east relative to historical should stay in the east, and that the German army in the east should just continue to operate at 41/42 levels of effectiveness regardless of developments elsewhere. If anything, the game is generous to the German on this point, since "unlost" troops remain in their pools. The reality of this assumption is that the Germans would just allow the West to be overrun rather than shifting troops from the "successful" eastern front. Whether or not the designers intense the game to reflect this, it's current state (minus the technical issue noted above) is far more realistic than the fantasy world where the Easten army keeps all its resources in the Ukraine or Russia (depending on how well the player is doing) while Patton marches across the Rhine.

A better way to deal with this would probably be an additional drain on resources towards the west (plus increased German VPs on a per turn basis, which would require a revamp of the vp system, which has been suggested and i would support)if the German player keeps the Reds out of Greater Germany after a certain point. Just a thought.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish
The reality of this assumption is that the Germans would just allow the West to be overrun rather than shifting troops from the "successful" eastern front.

IRL, from 1944 on the East front was stripped of reinforcements: The rationale was to hit the Wallies hard and deny them a second front. The second rationale was the need to play it offensively on the Western front so to avoid mass desertion into comparatively "comfortable" western POW camps. Hitler knew the down stripped Ostfront would keep on the desparate fight because just no German soldier wanted to be in Russian captivity.

Best regards

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish
The reality of this assumption is that the Germans would just allow the West to be overrun rather than shifting troops from the "successful" eastern front.

I disagree. The grand campaign already extends to Oct 1945, which is longer than even the Japanese surrender date, which means that as long as the Eastern Front doesn't collapse, then it would appear as though the West is not and will not be overrun. Whether the German player is barely getting by or beating the Soviets handily, the 1945 TOE changes always kick in, but the game still extends to Oct 1945 regardless.

You can't justify the TOE change as being necessary for the game to run as long as it does, when the opposite is untrue. That is, the game still runs as long as it does anyway even if the German is up against the wall and the TOE change barely frees up any extra troops relative to OTL.

[KamilS]

Don't get me wrong, it is great game and I like playing it very much. Unfortunately WitE is full of flaws, and this is one of them.

[kg_1007]

In reference to the original poster, I agree. I think something needs to be done to account for if the German player is able to avoid the historic mistakes, he should not still pay their penalty.
That said, I am playing alot in the editor, mostly with TOE, and trying to make up for the fact that in my first time of playing, I avoided making most of the mistakes made historically by the Germans, yet still paid for them with units leaving, etc.
This far, it seems to work well..if I do not make the mistakes, I can keep my manpower from falling off, and manage to survive, and keep full strength divisions..so mostly what I did was change TOEs to make later divisions less weak, and add some divisions....while if I do fall to the same things, I will have many weakened divisions, as they did historically.
In short, this game is great in that it does give us the opportunity to tinker, but I still would like it if the designers would look at this and try to fix what IS an issue.
If the entire idea is just "replay WW2 in Russia" then it is not a fun game, we already know how it turned out..the entire fun of gaming it, is to see if you can "do better" even though, of course, WE already know, for example, that the first winter really will suck, etc lol..information THEY did not know until it happened.

[LiquidSky]

It occurs to me that if you reach the point where the game wants you to take the lesser TOE, but you are doing so well that you dont need to...havent you already won? And if not, if you know that this TOE change is coming, and you have some sort of excess of panzers. Shouldnt you have been counterattacking to slow the Russians down earlier?

You get an incredible ahistorical hindsight into the future in this game, is it really the game designers fault if you don't use it?

I would be curious to know if the original poster actually lost his game because of this TOE change.

[kg_1007]

Well..in my campaign for example...I had taken Leningrad and Stalingrad both, while the Soviet (AI) kept a steady stream of spoiling attacks in the middle, and defended Moscow quite well. My losses were from 1941-1944 only about 30% of what they were historically, and only about 17% of what Soviet losses were. Somehow the Soviet side, despite that I held most of the population centres and had almost immediately in 1941 overrun the factory areas for most of their T-34 production areas, etc..still kept enough in front of me, not to beat my side on offense, but enough to stop my otherwise powerful juggernaut from taking Moscow..and the campaign still goes on to the end.
The really poor argument(sorry, no offense) that we should have already won, or that the tanks would have been used in the west, etc etc..all are conjectures that have nothing to do with the original posting, which IS an issue...if your side does better than the historic record the game is set to play, there should be a way to keep the game from assuming that you lost those battles at Stalingrad, Leningrad, or even Moscow.
For myself, I have already changed it in the editor, and it works great now. Without changing it, I would have put the game down, and not played it anymore, as I do not like a game that just assumes I will lose battles, and automatically punishes me for it, while at the same time assuming that the other side will win the battles, and keeps helping them keep up the manpower, etc, that if you do well, they also should lose.
Still..I do not intend this as a complaint, I love this game..but mostly, I hope they still look at some items like this...but I love that they did give us the ability to make changes in it, to give each of us a game we like.

[gradenko2k]

Just because it's survivable doesn't mean it's excusable. The only time you'd hand-wave away something like this would be in consideration of effort involved, but we don't really have a say on what is and isn't worth the developers' time and sweat - we can only voice what we think are (and aren't) legitimate issues, and this one seems to be a rather genuine concern.

[ETF]

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer


On 1 Mar 1945 the new '45 Panzer MTOE comes into effect. And it gutted my Wehrmacht panzers. Compare the panzer strengths in the screen shot. Most Pz Divs had 150+ panzers, now....111. This ain't right guys.

Hmm 45 and your Panzer Divisions have 150 + tanks in each. Wow. Much Much better than historical.