Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!!

[RCHarmon]

I don't understand the insistence with the devs and some players to tie the Axis to historical TOEs and therefore to remained to be tied to Hitler. I really don't understand when someone says, "You are better than historical. Be quiet and be happy." It is not much to ask for TOE options and that is from either side. The Axis side is really tied down to historical situations and not game realities. This is an easy request that everyone should be on board with.
The issue about where does the Axis get all this fuel to operate these increased AFV is a very good point. That goes back to the games supply system. A system that is unrealistic for both sides. Again the Axis shouldn't be tied down or penalized when there are no such penalties for the Soviet side. Fix the supply situation for both sides. If that was the case, then it would be more essential for the Axis player to be able to control his TOEs.

The Axis players do not want to play to a script.

[navwarcol]

I agree RCH! The supply system could be linked to where, if things are going as poorly as historical, the game gives you an option to change TOE to adjust..while if they are going better, there is no need. The winter of '41-'42, mostly, and the winter of '42-'43, with the attendant losses of the 6th Army, etc, were the main reasons for the change irl of TO&E..without the heavy losses, the Germans would not have changed much. And as the German player here, if you can capture the oilfields of the Caucasus,where in reality they came close, but did not quite make it, it would solve some of the oil problem, as well.

[navwarcol]

I do have a question though also to anyone...do these "lost tanks" stay lost? Or are they substituted as replacements, etc?
And if the engine does not use them once they are not needed directly in a TOE(as for example the old PzIII models, etc) can we not adjust TOEs to still use the old models as well?

[Farfarer61]

I would be happy if I could combine Axis SU's like the NW sub-units etc.

[veji1]

I think one element we need to forget is the whole "what is happening on the other Fronts" or its consequence "yeah but the allies would have rolled in Berlin by now".

This game is limited to the East front and the rest is not even abstracted, just inexistent. If you can fight it out till october, means the allies are not rolling in Berlin but stuck somewhere else ?

The game punctions units, mens and armaments to represent the other fronts whatever and wherever they maybe. It doesn't go any further than that therefore any more speculation serves no purpose.

the logical consequence is that late war TOE changes, those that are determined by lack of means, usure, need to lower ambition, should be driven by what happens in game. If the German player can afford 43 TOE in 45, good for him. If his army is being ground and he is starting to suffer from lack of counters, better 3 45 TOEs than 2 43s...

Once this is made more logical (therefore late war TOE changes optional, a bit like PDUs in WITP air units or upgrades for ships where you can toggle yes or no), you can work on trying to ensure that switching TOEs makes sense : for example better emulating the dwindling of fuel supplies and transport capacities of the german due to the bombing campaigns leading to a loss of importance of the Panzer formations, less affordable, etc....

Of course as Aurelian cleverly points out everytime, "this is what the editor is for whiners." Nevertheless we all know that nothing replace an actual changing and patching of the official release...

[AFV]

Maybe make the TOE changes optional, and if you want, edit it back to making it mandetory? Since he is very proficient with the editor, he should not mind that.

[RCHarmon]

Currently, the only adjustments that can be made to TOE is in the 50% to 100% range. As a minimum, this should be adjusted to 50% to 200% range. This is not a perfect solution, but I think one that could be implemented in the current game. I maybe wrong. Ideally the option to upgrade should be in the hands of the player. Given that a single square can be attacked by 300k men and the reserve funtion is inadequate to compensate for this, the Axis player should have more control over the structure of his army.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: veji1

I
Of course as Aurelian cleverly points out everytime, "this is what the editor is for whiners." Nevertheless we all know that nothing replace an actual changing and patching of the official release...

Can you show where I say that every time? I can't recall.

But you right about one thing. That is one reason there is an editor. Though I can't recall pointing that out.

But what you are unaware of something else. Or just plain ignore it.

The TOE changes are set in stone for this game. Not my decision, as I have nothing to do with any part of the design or development. Since it isn't a bug, it's off the radar.

All one has to do is two things. First, understand that the game has been out for a year. And despite the complaining, TOEs haven't changed.

Second, read the forums. Save's one alot of useless angst. Like "Why can't Axis build support units."

Here ya go: tm.asp?m=3055488&mpage=1&key=?

"If you really want to play an "historically based" fantasy game where the Germans fight the Red Army to a standstill while the Western Allies sweep across Germany, be my guest but don't expect me to change the TOE upgrades so you can indulge that fantasy; that's what you have an editor for."

Said by......wait for it......jaw. Funny how you forgot that. Especially considering you qouted him.

You doing it yourself would insure that *you* get what you want.

[kswanson1]

This forum needs a Jar labeled “Douche Bag”. Every time a forum member posts something that is obviously douche bag’ish they should have to put a dollar in the DB jar. The above poster owes the DB Jar a buck.

[AFV]

Actually, he owes the jar about $100.
 
Regarding the set in stone, cannot ever be changed comment:
Would that be similar to the alternate CG end date, and the victory conditions?

[kg_1007]

I think that, had I known BEFORE I spent money for the game, that playing the axis side, you are already pre-determined to suffer for their real mistakes, even if you do not make them, I would likely have saved my money. I do like the game, but the idea of a wargame should be that doing better than historic, making better choices if you will, benefits you. This game is great fun to tinker with, etc...but it seems set up to already achieve the historic results, even to the point of cheating for the Soviet side, and against the axis side, to get those results.
To those who say the TOE changes were made to defend the west from being overrun, you likely have a too-great idea of the western allies contribution to the war effort. If it had not been for the fact that MOST of the Wehrmacht was actually slugging it out in Russia, D-Day, already a very close run thing, would have been a disaster, and there would not have even been a western front. The German army already nearly shoved back the allies in Italy, in Normandy, etc...one more division in either of those places, especially "at the right time" would have ended the west front. Yes, I know that is a HUGE "if", but this is a game, where we deal in the "what-if"
To sum it up, no game player would want to play as Axis, if the game is just to be a recreation of the actual event..who wants to play a game they already know from history they will lose?
A good game should give historic results, IF, and ONLY IF, the player makes the historic choices.

[randallw]

The German offensive at Anzio caused quite a bit of trouble for the Allies, and they were considering evacuation, but then realized that only a portion of the troops and all the heavy equipment would have been left, so they shelved the idea; this is just Anzio, and the main Allied line ( to the southeast ) was sort of a standstill...the Germans did not have the resources to go on the offensive.

Omaha Beach was trouble for the U.S Army, but that was the only Allied beach where there was any real threat of the Germans forcing evacuation.

[kg_1007]

Quite true Randall, but, in both cases, it was the fact that the majority of the German concentration was in the east, that even allowed the western allies to be there. One more division at Anzio, and it would have crushed the landing. One more division at Normandy, or even the "chief idiot" Hitler, allowing the panzer reserves that already were there, to move up sooner, and that landing would have been a disaster that the allies would not have recovered from. This was known to the allied generals, also, in the case of Eisenhower, who held a note in his pocket apologizing for the disaster, "just in case"..and the British general Brooks, who expected a disaster.
Deception efforts caused the Germans to spread so thinly trying to cover many unreal targets, so that they could not concentrate on the real one, a great job, a great strategy, but HARDLY a "sure thing"...and much less so, had not the Wehrmacht still put about 60-65% of their effort in the east. Even going beyond, since it is a game, had Hitler listened to generals such as v Rundstedt, Guderian, Manstein, etc..he would have avoided most of the "first blizzard" losses, as well, which were the PRIMARY reason for the switch to weaker TOE..as a player, we perhaps have an unfair advantage already knowing that those generals were correct, but we should still have some way of not making the mistake, or at least, some luck involved, instead of automatically assuming we will make those mistakes, and programming into the game, that we will.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Quite true Randall, but, in both cases, it was the fact that the majority of the German concentration was in the east, that even allowed the western allies to be there. One more division at Anzio, and it would have crushed the landing. One more division at Normandy, or even the "chief idiot" Hitler, allowing the panzer reserves that already were there, to move up sooner, and that landing would have been a disaster that the allies would not have recovered from. This was known to the allied generals, also, in the case of Eisenhower, who held a note in his pocket apologizing for the disaster, "just in case"..and the British general Brooks, who expected a disaster.
Deception efforts caused the Germans to spread so thinly trying to cover many unreal targets, so that they could not concentrate on the real one, a great job, a great strategy, but HARDLY a "sure thing"...and much less so, had not the Wehrmacht still put about 60-65% of their effort in the east. Even going beyond, since it is a game, had Hitler listened to generals such as v Rundstedt, Guderian, Manstein, etc..he would have avoided most of the "first blizzard" losses, as well, which were the PRIMARY reason for the switch to weaker TOE..as a player, we perhaps have an unfair advantage already knowing that those generals were correct, but we should still have some way of not making the mistake, or at least, some luck involved, instead of automatically assuming we will make those mistakes, and programming into the game, that we will.

"chief idiot" Hitler implies that there were other idiots in Nazi and Wehrmacht leadership. And rightly so.

"60-65% of their effort in the east": From 1944 onwards "Wehrmacht" did not put a majority of effort & ressources into the Ostfront. The count is not only about manpower in the Heer. The air war alone in the Med (1942/43) and above the Reich (1944) was immensely costly in manpower and material. The Flak alone consumed gigantic ammounts of ressources.

"avoided most of the "first blizzard" losses": Barbarossa was everything bit the kitchen sink. Another short Blitzkrieg. There just was no plan B for any serious fighting after autumn, nor for the needed logistics. To have been forced to stop advancing would have been seen as defeat. Barbarossa wasn't fought in a vacuum but as part of a major war becoming a world war. German military thinking was all about "attacking is the best defense" and "do not fight on two fronts". Thus for Hitler and OKH it was imperative to go on.

Sure Overlord wasn't a sure thing, simply because it never had been tried before on this scale. But a successful German defense was even less a sure thing. Simply because the Atlantic front (from thes Spanish border to the North Cape) was thinly defended in many ways. (Apart from maybe the very first hours) the fate of Overlord was not decided by one lacking German division.

Regards

[kg_1007]

Actually, German casualties in the east throughout the war, historically, were 80+% of their total casualties..and in the last few years of the war, after the "second front"..from November 1943-VE Day April 1945, their total(both front)casualties were roughly 5.000.000, and of these, approximately 3.450.000 were on the East Front( 69% of their casualties in the wars final 17 months, AFTER the western allies began their offensives in Europe)
Of committed forces, not casualties..the following numbers give also roughly the same percentage..

July 1943 Total troops in Heer 3.933.000...deployed to East Front 2.477.790(63%)
June 1944 Total troops in Heer 2.522.000 deployed to East Front 1.573.728 (62+%)
January, 1945 Total troops in Heer 2.234.000 deployed againt Russians(east front, but by now, inside greater Germany in some areas) 1.344.872 (60%+)

Note numbers sourced from various works, wikipedia, slaughterhouse:handbook of the eastern front, etc.

[randallw]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Quite true Randall, but, in both cases, it was the fact that the majority of the German concentration was in the east, that even allowed the western allies to be there. One more division at Anzio, and it would have crushed the landing. One more division at Normandy, or even the "chief idiot" Hitler, allowing the panzer reserves that already were there, to move up sooner, and that landing would have been a disaster that the allies would not have recovered from. This was known to the allied generals, also, in the case of Eisenhower, who held a note in his pocket apologizing for the disaster, "just in case"..and the British general Brooks, who expected a disaster.
Deception efforts caused the Germans to spread so thinly trying to cover many unreal targets, so that they could not concentrate on the real one, a great job, a great strategy, but HARDLY a "sure thing"...and much less so, had not the Wehrmacht still put about 60-65% of their effort in the east. Even going beyond, since it is a game, had Hitler listened to generals such as v Rundstedt, Guderian, Manstein, etc..he would have avoided most of the "first blizzard" losses, as well, which were the PRIMARY reason for the switch to weaker TOE..as a player, we perhaps have an unfair advantage already knowing that those generals were correct, but we should still have some way of not making the mistake, or at least, some luck involved, instead of automatically assuming we will make those mistakes, and programming into the game, that we will.

If the Germans had been stronger in the west then the Allied landings would not necessarily have been undertaken as they actually happened.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Actually, German casualties in the east throughout the war, historically, were 80+% of their total casualties..and in the last few years of the war, after the "second front"..from November 1943-VE Day April 1945, their total(both front)casualties were roughly 5.000.000, and of these, approximately 3.450.000 were on the East Front( 69% of their casualties in the wars final 17 months, AFTER the western allies began their offensives in Europe)
Of committed forces, not casualties..the following numbers give also roughly the same percentage..

July 1943 Total troops in Heer 3.933.000...deployed to East Front 2.477.790(63%)
June 1944 Total troops in Heer 2.522.000 deployed to East Front 1.573.728 (62+%)
January, 1945 Total troops in Heer 2.234.000 deployed againt Russians(east front, but by now, inside greater Germany in some areas) 1.344.872 (60%+)

Note numbers sourced from various works, wikipedia, slaughterhouse:handbook of the eastern front, etc.

Friendly casualities are not equivalent to "war effort" - for 1944 I'd rather say the German casualities in the East show (apart from Red Army's growing fighting power) that for Hitler the Eastern Front just wasn't top priority any longer.

Heer is not Wehrmacht. And manpower up front was only a part of the war effort. So if you add Luftwaffe personell and Kriegsmarine personnel, for 1944 the total ratio of manpower was not in favour of the East front. Luftwaffe personnel in August 1944 was 2,89 Mio. men, mostly deployed in Luftflotte Reich and in the West (70% of 1,1 Mio Luftwaffe Flak personnel fought in the Reich or in the West). Plus, in 1944 the distribution of armament output in 1944 also was not exactly in favor the Eastern Front.

Regards

[kg_1007]

That may be true, however, this is predominately a "Heer" game with a lot of abstraction in the air war, and no Kriegsmarine effort, at wall...and the reason for the discussion, here, was land TOE(Heer) as well, and the argument that should the German player do better than historically, he should not suffer the historic penalties of manpower, as for the Heer, by any of the numbers I listed above, etc, or you can even look up divisions, etc, the majority were deployed against the Russians already.
I listed casualties, but immediately below that, I listed the deployment of the Heer, all through the end of the war, after the Western front had already begun, still 60+% of "Heer" troops, remained committed to the east. That was the point of the second paragraph above, after the one regarding casualties.
Regards,
Kyle

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: veji1

I
Of course as Aurelian cleverly points out everytime, "this is what the editor is for whiners." Nevertheless we all know that nothing replace an actual changing and patching of the official release...

Can you show where I say that every time? I can't recall.

But you right about one thing. That is one reason there is an editor. Though I can't recall pointing that out.

But what you are unaware of something else. Or just plain ignore it.

The TOE changes are set in stone for this game. Not my decision, as I have nothing to do with any part of the design or development. Since it isn't a bug, it's off the radar.

All one has to do is two things. First, understand that the game has been out for a year. And despite the complaining, TOEs haven't changed.

Second, read the forums. Save's one alot of useless angst. Like "Why can't Axis build support units."

Here ya go: tm.asp?m=3055488&mpage=1&key=?

"If you really want to play an "historically based" fantasy game where the Germans fight the Red Army to a standstill while the Western Allies sweep across Germany, be my guest but don't expect me to change the TOE upgrades so you can indulge that fantasy; that's what you have an editor for."

Said by......wait for it......jaw. Funny how you forgot that. Especially considering you qouted him.

You doing it yourself would insure that *you* get what you want.

No offense Aurelian, it was just a tongue in cheek comment. I am glad to be reassured that OKH actually bothering to get 1100 functionning on trains to be brought back to Germany to be then cut to pieces, molten and than used as pitch forks and hammers is completely WAD... pfiouu for a moment I had a doubt.

[darbycmcd]

Is it true that the exess tanks removed from the units go back into the pool? I thought they did. If that is the case, the issue is irritating but not too critical. It would be very nice if the german player could make SU though, to take up some of the excess if it was there. that should probably come into the game with the combination of WitE and WitW... in about 5 years.