Next qualitative leap for WitE

[Guru]

He's saying the game should force the Soviet player to counterattack in 1941 irrespective of the fact the German player will be optimizing is play to make those counterattacks as meaningless as possible. If you examine the actual times the Soviets counterattacked in any force before the winter of 1941 you will see that these attacks were launched to exploit vulnerabilities created when the Germans over-extended themselves. In most games it is rare for the German player to run such risks therefore the Soviet player has few if any opportunities to counterattack. People keep saying they want a game not a book but then ask for rules to force players to play historically. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

I'm not necessarily saying that you have to suicide the whole Red Army with banzaï charges. But at least hold on to some vital ground and poke the advancing spearheads.
The question of the balance between historical and non-historical has no definitive answer. It is all a matter of how many concessions you make to reality and how you conceive you should draw the line. WitE HAS a lot of historical constraining - why, for example, wouldn't the Germans be able to focus exclusively on building Panthers and FW-190 as soon as the prototypes are available ( as it used to be the case in the former War in Russia)? What if I want to? I can't. And I believe it is best that way, because Nazi War industry system was a nearly feudal constellation of competing interests, and that has to do with the very nature of the Nazi regime's way of ruling. And we're playing the Nazis. The Soviets too suffer some straightjacketting. Why the frozen units? Why do the low admin points prevent to reshuffle the whole command structure on turn 1, why the restructuration of units into unwanted formats?
All these are things that a player might want to do or avoid, but that the army he commands was unable to acheive historically, due to its nature/doctrine/structural limitations/ whatever.
It is worth noting that this issue was dealt with from War in Russia to WitE in the sense of a clear restrcition of the freedom spectrum, and eveyone seems to welcome the changes.
I only wish this reflection had been conducted more thoroughly to embrace such fields as the in-build operational and strategic capabilities of each army/ regime.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: vicberg

<SNIP>

what 2by3 did with WITPAE

<SNIP>

The "2By3" were not involved with WitP-AE - the "2By3" made "Uncommon Valor" (UV) and original "War in the Pacific" (WitP)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[vicberg]

Apologies. Their logo still comes up for WITPAE. Point is, someone beefed up the Japanese, ignored the allied fanboys crying non-historical foul. and created a game far more active and with a much larger base than this game. Don't care who did it. Irrelevent.

[Klydon]

Slight derail as I know very little about the WITP/WITPAE game, but didn't the community come up with the mod that beefed up the Japanese? In general, my impression is that variant of the game has become the accepted one to play by the community at large.

There have been no mods created yet for WITE by the community that the community at large has shown even remote interest with let alone looked at as a "more balanced" version of the game. (That is to say any mods created by the community have pretty much been ignored).

I think this also highlights the difference between the two theaters in that there is pretty close to universal agreement that Japan can not "win" the war while there is no such agreement in the war between Germany and Russian and the opinions range from the Russians don't really stand a chance to the Germans could have never won.

Not anyone's fault. Just the way it is.

[RCHarmon]

h

[kg_1007]

I am currently working on a mod that I will release soon, which has made up for some of these effects, by altering such things as mandatory TOE changes, forced withdrawals, etc.
One thing I cannot control in the mod, that I would like to see, is more in the way of game results dictating game conditions.
For example, the Soviet morale gradually trends upwards from 1942, while the German trends downwards...this is irrespective of current conditions in game. Historically, this morale change occurred because the war began going against Germany around that time. if in the game, it is not, there should be no reason for suddenly German armies to be low morale, and Soviets to be higher, also, vice versa, if the Germans totally blow it in '41, their morale should start tumbling a lot sooner.
The same with many aspects of what otherwise I still see as a great game...it reminds me some of the Paradox game HOI where they had leaders automatically "killed" on the historic date, even if the player was not actually even in a battle on that date, etc. Perhaps it is difficult to make a game that follows the path the players are creating, but if doable, it would make for a much more immersing experience.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Slight derail as I know very little about the WITP/WITPAE game, but didn't the community come up with the mod that beefed up the Japanese? In general, my impression is that variant of the game has become the accepted one to play by the community at large.

There have been no mods created yet for WITE by the community that the community at large has shown even remote interest with let alone looked at as a "more balanced" version of the game. (That is to say any mods created by the community have pretty much been ignored).

I think this also highlights the difference between the two theaters in that there is pretty close to universal agreement that Japan can not "win" the war while there is no such agreement in the war between Germany and Russian and the opinions range from the Russians don't really stand a chance to the Germans could have never won.

Not anyone's fault. Just the way it is.

Actually, what started as mods were integrated into stock. Further mods have been integrated into other mods and will become stock. So yes, you are correct. The point I'm trying to make is that WITP is competitive. And because it is, you've got a lot of people willing to play both sides.

I'm not seeing the level of play that in this game. I would love to. It has an highly addictive movement/combat system, brilliant, and fun. However, the rest of game can be extremely unforgiving, especially for the Germans. It can be unforgiving if the Soviets make the mistakes, but the burden is squarely on the Germans to have a perfect 41, which sets up 42 and on. Some of the combat mechanics make it extremely difficult to have a perfect 41.

Depending on the level of modding allowed in this game, yes it's worthwhile to look at, and if the devs start seeing many more people playing the mod than stock, maybe they will wake up.

If I were thinking about a mod, and I might try it, I would love to increase Soviet morale in the first year so they don't feel like they have to run away. In addition, I would increase the cost to production of losing major cities, so there's a need to fight, and I would slow down Soviet production in 42 or at a minimum increase Germany in 42. 42 is when Germans started entering their wartime economy. They had a lot of slack in 40 and 41. These aren't necessarily historically based, but an attempt to balance the game. The goal would be that the Germans don't need a perfect 41 in order to have a competitive 42.

[kg_1007]

Quite true Vic..in general, the Soviets were under the same(idiotic, I might add) orders from Stalin not to run away in 41 and early 42. The Germans seem to have their stupid orders built into the game, assuming they will collapse at Stalingrad, for example, assuming they will not send winter supplies, assuming Hitler ignored the advice of generals such as Guderian, Manstein, Rundstedt, v. Leeb, etc, who all insisted on pulling back to better defense quarters. So, we have the game essentially saying , for example, that germany falls apart in that first blizzard, as they nearly did historically, ONLY because Hitler did not accept what was sound advice from his generals, and on the other hand, the Soviet side is excused from THEIR idiot leader's orders to stand and defend their ground, which was not historical.

[RCHarmon]

Easy there kg_1007, that's crazy talk in these parts.

[vicberg]

Yes, the lack of winter supplies is built right into the game in the form of CV being halved or thirded or worse, blizzard attrition, plus the 1-1 becomes 2-1 rule. That was Hitler's decision and can't be overridden by anything. The Soviets aren't forced to make the same decisions as Stalin, but the German army HAS to suffer the decision of Hitler.

I never thought about that.

[RCHarmon]

This very same point was argued before by other players(players who have since moved on). The answer is always the same. The Axis are not tied to Hitler and there will be no Axis fantasy game.

[vicberg]

A real crazy thought, if the war isn't going well in 41, which it generally won't against a good Soviet, save yourself from the blizzard, pull back to before that x54 coordinate, and start the war anew in 42. Morale will be higher than when the war started. The entire german army won't suffer the morale hit and will be refit, rested and ready to fight again. I don't believe the Soviets will have units to convert the rails back, so the best they can do is damage them, making the conversion back fairly quick. Could be wrong there.

Probably will fail anyway because of the Soviet production will be too high, but it's tempting to try. It's certainly a work around to the "Hitler Rule"

[RCHarmon]

Ideally, the axis player should be able to escape some/most of the blizzard effects if they are in a lv 3 fort. That would make the Axis player have to think to push on or to dig.

The soviet would have to engage the Axis so they couldn't build the lv 3 fort and then ensure the blizzard effects on the Axis.

Instead there is a blizzard script.

The idea of a lv3 fort is to give the Soviet a reason to have to fight. If they are allowed to run with no repercussions should the Axis also be free from repercussions?

It takes a lot of time to build a lv3 fort. Time is against the Axis player. If the Axis player takes the time to build these and have the APs and the Soviets let him, then yes he should get some benefit. This whole game is one bad manipulation.

The Soviet will have to have something to fight with. I think the Soviet player wants to fight. Let 'em fight.

I expect the Axis player to kicked around some during the blizzard in 1941. As a player I expect to be back on my heels. Not so in this game. If you are not running with your back to the enemy you could be toast.

This game does allow the complete preservation of Panzer divisions which players take advantage of and in a way that is not really possible. Training out all your panzer divisions back to Germany? So, the Axis do get a big benefit in that regard.



The editor is insufficient to fix all that is needed to be fixed.

[vicberg]

According to the rules, the first blizzard rule only applies to x > 54 and y < 95. That basically means germany is safe. What am I missing?

[RCHarmon]

I was mistaken about the range of the blizzard, sorry.

[vicberg]

It's extremely tempting, though probably pretty stupid. Don't worry about Lgrad (or possibly, so they take a temp manpower hit and let the Finns garrison/defend). Push to Smolensk, Denpr in the south. Protect the panzers, move forward with infantry and combined arms, perhaps rush the panzers out if there's tons of open ground to quickly capture cities, but otherwise, focus on improving German morale. Since there isn't going to be a huge rush for land, let the Germans collapse all the pockets to gain morale (I usually let the huns and romans collapse the Lvov pocket). Get the majority of the army into the high 70s or 80s or 90s, then pull back. The soviets will still be at low morale going into 42 and the German army will be fully ready for a 42 battle, a battle perhaps using BigA's war of attrition.

It's the blizzard that I find difficult to counter. I have no idea where the lines will be by the blizzard, so it's difficult to figure out when and where to start the fort lines and unless I've been lucky and I've done enough damage the Soviets in 41, I find the German army totally depleted going into 42, minus one shock army (usually the 18th). One shock army isn't going to cut it.

Of course I could always mule and that would fix all of this.

[Klydon]

Oh where to start with this.

First, lets take the topic of severe blizzard and the effects upon the German army in Russian in 1941. It is far more than the matter of some warm cloths showing up at the front to make things all better.

You have no anti-freeze for engines, the fact that the artifical rubber (buna) the Germans used broke in the severe cold, most lubricants would not work, etc. In addition, the Germans were tenderfoots in that type of climate. Even if they had the warmer gear, etc they still would have learned how to cope with conditions. They had solders dying because they went to the latrine. No matter what or how much you sent to the front, you can't change the fact the German army didn't know how to deal with the climate. Only after they got some experience with it, learning through the school of hard knocks, were they able to adapt and better survive. Sort of the same thing happen in the desert. The British were able to adapt better to the desert climate than their Axis counterparts, especially the Italians. (One example was the Italians used pasta rations in the desert; something requiring a lot of water).

A couple of books I have read from the German side of view lament the occasions that fresh troops showed up and were immediately thrown into battle without being "seasoned" in theater and learning about the Russian theater before being committed to battle. Such formations committed right away typically took hideous casualties. For perhaps a different view, this is why General Pershing would not commit his US troops in WW1 to the line until they had undergone more training and seasoning in terms of trench warfare, etc. History was to prove him correct that while the US troops took casualties, it was much less than if they had just been thrown into battle upon landing in France.

Should there be a option in the future that allows better German preparedness for winter? Probably. But it seems many players have this all or nothing expectation that the blizzard effects on the German army would just totally go away only if Hitler had authorized a few warm coats and allowed his troops to build some shelters out in the middle of nowhere.

[RCHarmon]

All your points are valid. What made the blizzard worse for the Axis was that they were out of position, exhausted, low on supply. The blizzard was bad,but in the end the Axis did not break. They did fight and hold(they did lose ground. They were pushed back from Moscow and lost some ground in the south) and come spring they did straighten their line out some.

What if the Axis had pulled back? Gotten a little rest? Saved some of those supplies expended on Typhoon? If they did construct a positioned defense? Losses yes, but not to the level that it was.

In this game, if you stand and fight as they did historically, you will lose many divisions. Historically, how many divisions were lost by the Axis?

The only divisions captured during the 1941-1942 blizzard were Russian not Axis.

[vicberg]

I can understand being unprepared for the severity of the winter, so the affects should not be removed outright.

However, I think winter clothing would have helped, quite a bit, especially going to the latrine. It's loss of troops which I see as having a bigger impact than anything else. The panzers, even in current winter rules, run to cities or Germany.

The issue is the Hitler Rule being built into game, which the Stalin rule isn't.

Off topic: Pershing didn't want to commit his troops unit he had command of them. France and England wanted them under allied command. Once Pershing got what he wanted, the French noted the bravery in which the doughboys fought (and I forget the couple of battles), where the US fought without regard to trench warfare. They fought like the French and English did in the beginning of the war when Trench warfare was being learned and perfected. They fought with disregard to their lives. The Germans weren't ready for that either. One the battles, the US got their tails handed to them. I'd have to look up that battle. They also had a crappy commander. I forget his name also.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I can understand being unprepared for the severity of the winter, so the affects should not be removed outright.

However, I think winter clothing would have helped, quite a bit, especially going to the latrine. It's loss of troops which I see as having a bigger impact than anything else. The panzers, even in current winter rules, run to cities or Germany.

The issue is the Hitler Rule being built into game, which the Stalin rule isn't.

Off topic: Pershing didn't want to commit his troops unit he had command of them. France and England wanted them under allied command. Once Pershing got what he wanted, the French noted the bravery in which the doughboys fought (and I forget the couple of battles), where the US fought without regard to trench warfare. They fought like the French and English did in the beginning of the war when Trench warfare was being learned and perfected. They fought with disregard to their lives. The Germans weren't ready for that either. One the battles, the US got their tails handed to them. I'd have to look up that battle. They also had a crappy commander. I forget his name also.

I'm going to repeat the question here so it doesn't get overlooked; Vic, have you ever played the Soviets?
I'd appreciate a response as I'm really curious about this. Thanks!