Where are my Mules? (Muling)

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: AFV

While I disagree on the use of muling, I do agree with your other premises.

There is no reason for the Soviet not to simply run- but there could be
1) Manpower loss- does not matter much- but devs could make it matter
2) Armament loss - super RR capability combined with HI not needing to be moved, so this does not matter
3) Victory points - simplistic VP conditions so this too does not matter but it could if there were VP that could be gained or lost by holding certain cities by a certain date
4) Moral - seems like this could be linked to territory- give up too much, your moral drops, keep more than average, it goes up. But instead moral is on a strict time line with nothing to do with what happens in the game. 

Yes, I agree with all that.
I'd also add that the rail system is too powerful as it stands.There needs to be a limit on what individual rail lines can carry per turn.
As an added bonus, the high capacity main lines would tend to run through cities which would give another powerful reason for capturing those cities.
If this limitation of rail cap could be applied to supplies as well then we would really be getting somewhere.

All of these things combined with a simulation of the breakdown in the Soviet command structure in 41 would make the game much more interesting and realistic.Muling and possibly even HQ buildup itself could then be done away with.

All very good points and I agree. One thing though. Morale something of a misnomer, it is not morale per se, but rather proficiency, so I think that is good as it is.

[Meteor2]

Good posts, indeed !
It is my deep concern, that fundamental problems are not being considered any more by the devs and that
we have reached nearly the final game status. Is that the reason, why the community is not so involved any more ?

[Panzeh]

The problem with the Soviets in 1941 is that there's no chance of accomplishing anything with a forward defense. Historically this posture did some damage to the German army, but in game there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop German attacks or even cause casualties in 1941 so there's no point fighting. That's kind of the general trend for this game. Each side is an unstoppable force for its alloted part of the game, which makes it kind of boring.

[Tarhunnas]

The forward defense probably did more damage to the Soviet army than the German, but the point is that there is no incentive to fight forward in the game. With more dynamic victory conditions, there might have been.

It is often the victory conditions that make a game interesting and playable, even an unbalanced situation can be made interesting to play with well thought out and balanced victory conditions. The tragedy with WITE is that the game itself is good, but somehow uneven, with some areas immensely complex and almost overdone (the air war), and others underdeveloped, for example the victory conditions in the GCs (supply is another one).

[Panzeh]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The forward defense probably did more damage to the Soviet army than the German, but the point is that there is no incentive to fight forward in the game. With more dynamic victory conditions, there might have been.

It is often the victory conditions that make a game interesting and playable, even an unbalanced situation can be made interesting to play with well thought out and balanced victory conditions. The tragedy with WITE is that the game itself is good, but somehow uneven, with some areas immensely complex and almost overdone (the air war), and others underdeveloped, for example the victory conditions in the GCs (supply is another one).

It's true that 1941 was utterly disastrous for the Red Army, but they did some damage to the Germans, which was kind of critical, and the "blizzard" had a lot more to do with the Germans needing to rest and refit after the campaign than the weather conditions. Unfortunately, this game just kind of scripts it out since 1941 is busted and thusly, 1942 is busted, too.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Good posts, indeed !
It is my deep concern, that fundamental problems are not being considered any more by the devs and that
we have reached nearly the final game status....

Depends on what you mean by fundamental problems. Rewrites of major systems like logistics or the air war are not going to happen and the devs have been very up front about that. Where the devs agree there is a problem with the game not working as they intend, and there is a simple fix, then that problem will get addressed. The need to keep fixes simple is partly to insure that more problems do not get introduced with the fix. The last thing they want is one step forward, two steps backward at this point. The other reason to keep fixes simple is limited programming time and the need to move forward with other games. Of course bugs will continue to get fixed as they are discovered and can be reproduced with a save file.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: AFV

While I disagree on the use of muling, I do agree with your other premises.

There is no reason for the Soviet not to simply run- but there could be
1) Manpower loss- does not matter much- but devs could make it matter
2) Armament loss - super RR capability combined with HI not needing to be moved, so this does not matter
3) Victory points - simplistic VP conditions so this too does not matter but it could if there were VP that could be gained or lost by holding certain cities by a certain date
4) Moral - seems like this could be linked to territory- give up too much, your moral drops, keep more than average, it goes up. But instead moral is on a strict time line with nothing to do with what happens in the game. 

Sadly, I have to agree, two evenly matched foes- its a slam dunk as Russian. Just dont fight forward. Easy formula- run like hell, evac arms, factories you need, wait for mud, then regroup and its all downhill for German. By the time clear weather comes again, there should be no chance for breakthroughs, Soviet will lose hexes but the German will grind his army to a nub- and really for no reason as industry is gone and manpower does not have much of an impact.

Michael- you and Pelton are part of the problem (no offense intended, read on). The Soviet fanboys point to your AARs and say "see, the Germans are too powerful as it is". Unfortunately, the other 99% of the games played are not visible, and thusly ignored- which follow the formula above, and end in 42 when the German can muster only gaining a few hexes across the entire front each turn.

Good summation of the issues at hand.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Muling was not intended to be part of HQ buildup. The devs and testers continue to discuss what to do about it.

Well, removing them shouldnt be to hard. Not that im a programmer but since provisions are in game/code for 2 out of following 3 steps i cant imagien its alot of code rework.

1. Make HQBU so that as of now where they add supply fuel to divs within 5(corps HQ range or what ever the command range happens to be) and sets them at 0 movement.
Remove the fuel, supply build up at the HQ it self in HQBUs.

2. Remove the fact that the HQ cant draw supply the following turn to off set the fact that the HQ doesnt build up supply.
Else u would be penalized too, thats not the intend.

3. Either make changing HQ costs 1 MP that u need to have or make 0 movement point units unable to do so. This one is essential too.
Else u can still continue too semi mule/exploit HQBUs in 1 HQ and moving units to another after the BU is made.
Edit: if u wana make it airtight, make a unit unable to change HQ in turn following BUs.

Muling removed, while keeping the intended build up ability at the divisional level.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[vicberg]

Ok, small changes

1) Assume a house rule for no mules
2) A diff scenario so ppl can play both versions
3) Improve soviet morale for all starting units on map by at least 10 or 20 points. They did consitute the regular soviet army and though they weren't very powerful, they probably had a higher morale than 40. If that doesn't stop the Lvov opening, then put the anti-tank, tank and infantry units that stand between PZG1 and Romania to 90, lol. Whatever it takes.
4) Add level 4 forts (level 5 if the game doesn't prevent it) to all leningrad hexes plus the critical open terrain hexes (with the all important port) to the east of Leningrad and just south of Finland. Add level 2 forts along the length of the Volga river
5) Don't let manpower escape, period. Not sure if that's going to have a real impact as manpower doesn't seem to be a major issue to the Soviets. If it isn't an impact, then perhaps move manpower forward so it does have an impact.
6) Guns or butter, either increase the cost of moving arm factories or HI or decrease soviet rail capacility. It could enable the Germans do to some all-important encirclements because the soviets can't rail enough to the front or cost them in terms of not being able to rail factories out in time.
7) Winter quarter rule - assume that Hitler listens to his generals and they build winter quarters by extending the x coordinates where blizzard does not take affect east. Enables a functional German army going into 42. This is not forts, but rather housing.

All of the above items would have to played with for game balance. Goal is to enable a fairly historical German 41, without needing mules, that 1) prevents Lvov pocket, 2) encourages a more forward fight or suffer a greater loss of production as the Soviets, 3) prevent massive soviet troops from being shipped to the front without risking factories in cities, or pull factories out and have less troops at the front, 4) enable a competitive 42.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Good posts, indeed !
It is my deep concern, that fundamental problems are not being considered any more by the devs and that
we have reached nearly the final game status....

Depends on what you mean by fundamental problems. Rewrites of major systems like logistics or the air war are not going to happen and the devs have been very up front about that. Where the devs agree there is a problem with the game not working as they intend, and there is a simple fix, then that problem will get addressed. The need to keep fixes simple is partly to insure that more problems do not get introduced with the fix. The last thing they want is one step forward, two steps backward at this point. The other reason to keep fixes simple is limited programming time and the need to move forward with other games. Of course bugs will continue to get fixed as they are discovered and can be reproduced with a save file.

Understood regarding the constraints associated with trying to invoke any sorts of changes in the logistics system at this point in WiTE development. I think most folks that visit this site on a somewhat routine basis appreciate the honest and forthrightness of the 2by3 designers. For me, what I am hoping is that the 2by3 designers approach to supply\logistics will be revisited and revamped during development of "War in the West". And hopefully such changes can be play tested honed\polished and eventually make their way into "War in the East 2" or "War in the East -- Admirals Addition" (or whatever). I'd like to see HQ build-up completely eliminated from the game.

Having said that, I think HQ-Buildup was (and is) a necessary abstraction given the current supply system. I'd even go as far as to label the original design intent of HQ-Buildup to be both an elegant and simple solution to various in-game supply problems Axis players invariably experience during 1941 and 1942 portion of the game. I also agree with some of the points by MichaelT, and think that there has to be a means by which the Axis can obtain an early “win” in WiTE against an equal skill-set Soviet player. IMHO, it feels like -- given equal opponents -- the only way for the Axis player to stand a chance is to completely hammer the Soviets in 1941. Or – steel himself for a long drawn out war against a bulldozer and hope that he can hold onto Berlin through 1945. The only way to completely hammer the Soviets in 1941 (again assuming equal playing skills on both sides) is to employ muling. Some folks will disagree with this statement. It’s my own opinion based upon playing WiTE numerous times on both sides of the fence vs. a wide variety of players. But I don’t post AARs, so I’d be amongst the silent majority of game players of WiTE that AFV is referring too in his above posting.

It's evident (at least to me) – given the way HQ-Buildup is being employed by some very vocal players -- that HQ Buildup in its current form needs to be tossed out the window (along with the baby – i.e. the supply system). How to fill the HQ Build-up vacuum? Who the heck knows? As I say the original intent of HQ-Buildup is sort of a necessary game evil for the Axis player in 1941/42. Unfortunately when "muling" is used, it's a complete game changer in that muling is providing the Axis player with a level of operational mobility that was never intended by the game designers. Perhaps the place to start is to work backwards and look at why an abstraction like HQ-Buildup was needed in the first place.

And an aside -- I also agree with the premise that if the Axis player is going to hammer his opponent with muling, the Soviet Player shouldn't feel any need to rein in the use of deep para-drops on the Axis rail net. It's the logical outgrowth of muling. Muling was not intended by the game designers, nor do I think was deep rail cutting via para-drops. Both are horsepower boosters for those interested in working the system. Personally I'd rather see both fixed, but if someone is gonna use muling against me, than I'm not going to hesitate to use deep air-drops.

[comsolut]

It is often the victory conditions that make a game interesting and playable, even an unbalanced situation can be made interesting to play with well thought out and balanced victory conditions. The tragedy with WITE is that the game itself is good, but somehow uneven, with some areas immensely complex and almost overdone (the air war), and others underdeveloped, for example the victory conditions in the GCs (supply is another one).

Between two evenly matched players (when does that really happen):

1941 victory conditions will not solve anything - I can see German players trying for that last hex - coming up short and then getting crushed in the Blizzard - and giving up. And since they are alreay giving up no improvement.

Now - 1942 and the Russian Army is too strong - that seems to be the complaint and maybe the reality. So with house rules against muling and the first turn Lvov pocket drive to Rumania, maybe manpower numbers for Russia need to be lowered for 1942 and spread out into 43 and 44.

The goal, imho, is to get good contests in 1942 where if the German player does well he sets up a good position for 43 and 44, and if the Russian player does well he gets to Berlin earlier.

------

Besides running away in 41, although my opponents will testify I tend to fight for most of the ground, how many Russians really exhaust themselves attacking in the Blizzard. I know I do not. I figure 42 will be tough so I conserve strength (not to mention preparing multiple defensive lines to fall back to) and maybe that is leading to higher Russian OOB numbers.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: comsolut

1941 victory conditions will not solve anything - I can see German players trying for that last hex - coming up short and then getting crushed in the Blizzard - and giving up. And since they are alreay giving up no improvement.

I was thinking more of VP locations that encouraged, or even made it vital, for the Soviets to defend locations forward as long as possible, thus giving the Soviet incentives to risk being encircled, just as it was for the real Soviet command.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: comsolut

Now - 1942 and the Russian Army is too strong - that seems to be the complaint and maybe the reality. So with house rules against muling and the first turn Lvov pocket drive to Rumania, maybe manpower numbers for Russia need to be lowered for 1942 and spread out into 43 and 44.

Yes, it's too strong, both in terms of sheer volume of troops that can be moved to the front in 41 WHILE pulling out factories and production, and that leads to a non-competitive 42. The Germans were able to push the Soviets at least another 200 miles in 42 to Stalingrad. (maybe a little more or less, not quite sure, but it was more than a few hexes) which can't happen at all in 42 unless there's perfect German play and Soviet mistakes in 41.

It's the sheer volume of troops thats the problem, so it's part production and part rail.

[comsolut]

The goal is the same - you are trying to lower the Russian OOB for 42.

With victory conditions you have a whole host of balance issues, and I think you set the German player up to try for the knock out blow - but when they come up short - overextended and defeated in the Blizzard. Right now, I see most German players setting up early for the Blizzard and getting through in good shape but then hitting an overstrength Russian Army.

I guess you can try to force it with conditions or code it with manpower.

[RCHarmon]

If you take a step back and look at the overall situation it becomes clear what is needed. This can all be examined by looking at cause and effect. The muling and LVOV pocket(in its varying forms) are effects. You can chase around all the "effects" you want, but nothing will be solved until the causes are addressed.

Personally,I am against the muling and Lvov pocket. I hate the 1941 blizzard. The magnitude is way off making it comical to have the entire German army (half to 2/3rds anyway) in flight for three months. Bad yes, but it is way overdone. For every Axis player that has been raped in the 1941 blizzard, I hope you know that the only divisions captured during that blizzard historically were Russian and not Axis. If they need a fudge they can get their fudge without going as extreme as they have. Even toning down the 2nd and 3rd blizzard months would be better. A great benefit that the Axis player has is that he is able to preserve his panzers in cities in the rear even though it is questionable if they could have trained all their panzer divisions west before blizzard. In the end this too is an effect. It is the cause that needs to be addressed.

It is probably better to just play with house rules. It is easy to play with house rules if they are clear and up front. There are two phases of this game. The early Axis game and the later Soviet game. Both could use adjustments. If enough games ever reach the Soviet phase there might be adjustments made that phase also.

The editor is insufficient to make the needed adjustments to this game. The blizzard is hard coded along with C&C, etc.

[RCHarmon]

In game, as is, the Soviet has everything to lose and nothing to gain by fighting. Why should the Soviet risk without any reward. If the Soviets are made stronger in 1941 then more cans of worms will be opened. Being able to fight and put up speedbumps will slow down the Axis. I think all of this would be good and right, but then more balance issues arise and this game is back to day 1 beta testing.

Maybe it would be better in not doing the Lvov pocket (by house rules) and making the manpower penalty greater. This would give the Soviet some decent forces to fight with. This would be the best fix for this "effect".

[vicberg]

It's the lack of economic consequence that's the major problem in 41 coupled with rail being too strong. The soviets should be making a very hard choice each turn between guns and butter. Troops or factories, not both, or both in a much more limited manner.

If the cost of losing cities were much higher (by not allowing manpower to escape or by moving more production to up front cities or both), you might see Soviets defending more forward, which provides more opportunities for Germans. In this context, I would have no problem with Soviet morale starting higher for starting on map units, which could prevent the Lvov opening. I wouldn't have a problem with Lgrad being harder to take.

It would really open up strategic decisions for the Germans. 1) Focus on Lgrad because it's all level 4 (or higher) forts and would require a much greater troop committment, 2) Focus on Moscow, 3) Focus on production in the south. With less troops the Soviets could not defend everywhere without sacrificing production in the cities or they choose where to defend or they choose to run away and suffer the economic consequence in 42 and beyond.

The problem is rail and production. They are both way overblown.

[RCHarmon]

The Soviet being able to outright run with no consequence is as big a problem as muling. The Soviet running isn't looked at like a problem though. Any fix needs to fix both. And then the Soviet must have the tools to fight with. Just giving the troops that are usually captured in the Lvov pocket will go a long way.

I imagine they will "fix" muling and not address Soviet running. There has to be some consequence to outright running.

[vicberg]

Yes, a reduction in OOB, either via manpower or armaments/heaviy or both. But you can't limit production without giving something to the Soviets and 40 morale units aren't going to cut it. Lvov has to be stopped and I believe increasing starting morale will do that. Lgrad has to be much harder. The soviets will have more units to play with, but they will have to choose between standing their ground or losing production. They will have to choose between railing factories or moving troops to the front. Higher morale units might induce forward fights, but with panzers, always a risk. Running away will have a large impact on 42 and beyond and who knows, might even allow a real stalingrad?

RCH, I would not assume the devs aren't going to do anything. They've already gone down the path of balancing to a degree. There are many more people coming out, so to speak, with very similar game results and there's quite a bit consensus, even within this thread, that something needs to be done. Not everyone in this thread, but quite a few people. More german players are posting similar results as mine in a number of threads.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Yes, it's too strong, both in terms of sheer volume of troops that can be moved to the front in 41 WHILE pulling out factories and production, and that leads to a non-competitive 42. The Germans were able to push the Soviets at least another 200 miles in 42 to Stalingrad. (maybe a little more or less, not quite sure, but it was more than a few hexes) which can't happen at all in 42 unless there's perfect German play and Soviet mistakes in 41.

It's the sheer volume of troops thats the problem, so it's part production and part rail.

Sorry Victor, this is notoriously wrong and a misunderstanding of the issues with the game. I in another thread pointed out that if u follow the game the soviets lose 28 arms historicly.
Trying to build the historic units with the remaining arma is gona be very hard pressed as it, in '43 and '44. As i pointed out if u just look only at the arty divs the russians made pre kursk in first half of 43 the number of armament points just going into those and this is 24 IIRC units only is a significant proportion of the total arma production in the first half of '43.
Only reason ppl dont notice this more if u hit an AP wall before u hit the arma wall and dont have the AP to create the historic units.
Even if u do save all but Minsk of arms that leves u 24 arms up or around 7% up from historic numbers. 7% is ofc some thing, but it isnt a game changer in any way.
This is the wrong way to go all it will accomplish is making the russian side "even" more unable to build the '43 '44 stuff it in fact did make.

U can ofc argue that with "more" russian stuff more steam rolling will happen and im not in disagreement with that, but its a strawman arguement. Instead of tackling the real issue, steaming rolling, u try and focus on a 2ndary issue to stop steamrolling, well at leased one way of the steamrolling, not so much the other way.

So sorry, but i reject this as a case for the problems in game [:(]

Rasmus