Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


I tend to think of building divisions and artillery brigades and managing the APs to do so as a chore, not "fun." I guess we all have different definitions, however.

How about the husbanding of all those cavalry divisions in 1941 to form an esprit de corps of Cavalry corps size units that will start rampaging in Dec? That's a very good gaming moment, at least for me. Its cool - forming big beefy units that are able to maul the enemy. Realistic or not, its fun.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: AFV

I fail to see how anyone can argue that getting reinforcements on a set timetable is more fun than building your own army.

I don't want the "freedom" to build an inferior Red Army. That's not very fun, nor free.

If I want to have some real fun building up a Red Army from scratch, I fire up Hearts of Iron (which is a bad game in a lot of respects, but is fun in this way at least.) Or, really, any grand strategy title that has an actual working economic system to play with. APs are not such a system. This game is operational in nature and the jury rigged AP purchase system is merely annoying to me. I know how to work it and optimize it, but fun? No.

Give me a historical reinforcement schedule please, and let me spend APs the way the Axis does and stop forcing it to perform many roles badly.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: pwieland

You are comparing the Red Army (game) to Red Army (actual). That's not what is being argued, unless I am missing the point entirely. The point is, the Wehrmacht does not possess the ability to have this kind of flexibility which the Red Army enjoys throughout the game.

I mean really, do you think that the Germans are as much to fun to play as the Russians - even given the challenging aspect of the contest?

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: pwieland

You are comparing the Red Army (game) to Red Army (actual). That's not what is being argued, unless I am missing the point entirely. The point is, the Wehrmacht does not possess the ability to have this kind of flexibility which the Red Army enjoys throughout the game.

I mean really, do you think that the Germans are as much to fun to play as the Russians - even given the challenging aspect of the contest?

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

I'm not sure where the world is going too, but I'll have to say again I totally agree with Flav. I'd rather spend those AP's on reassigning div, Corps, Armies, etc... then spending it all on building Corps, and SU's of all kinds and having none left for the really fun part.

I do think that manual TOE's would be a VERY good option. For both sides, however...

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

I would ask what you would spend the AP's on, but I really dont think it matters. You 'envy' the German's historical OOB and their ability to use AP's on operational matters - in this case I would assume you mean moving leaders around, shuffling around SU's, changing unit echelons, and HQ buildups.

I would say your envy is misplaced, and simply point to the dearth of constructive German strategies enumerated in the forums. Muling is the best operational plan the German players can devise? If you want to look at operations, the Soviet capabilities cannot be denied throughout the war. Realistic, historical, or whatever (which I would personally disagree) but the Germans are bound to a trench warfare state in operations throughout most of the game.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: glvaca



I'm not sure where the world is going too, but I'll have to say again I totally agree with Flav. I'd rather spend those AP's on reassigning div, Corps, Armies, etc... then spending it all on building Corps, and SU's of all kinds and having none left for the really fun part.

I do think that manual TOE's would be a VERY good option. For both sides, however...

I dont remember anybody talking about completely reinventing the TOE of the Wehrmacht or the Red Army. Perhaps I missed the post. Anyways, there have been many operational and strategic level wargames designed in which the production is used to reinforce units or to create units from whole cloth. But this is the first I have seen in which only one side has that capability.

And note - the flexibility of the AP system isnt the only issue with balance within the game. As someone else stated, the artificial morale levels, removal of units due to events that never happen, etc.. are pretty bogus as well.

Dont get me wrong, I like the game, and consider my $80 well spent. But the game, especially the heavy-handed BS regarding the Wehrmacht, is not above criticism.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: pwieland

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

I would ask what you would spend the AP's on, but I really dont think it matters. You 'envy' the German's historical OOB and their ability to use AP's on operational matters - in this case I would assume you mean moving leaders around, shuffling around SU's, changing unit echelons, and HQ buildups.

I would say your envy is misplaced, and simply point to the dearth of constructive German strategies enumerated in the forums. Muling is the best operational plan the German players can devise? If you want to look at operations, the Soviet capabilities cannot be denied throughout the war. Realistic, historical, or whatever (which I would personally disagree) but the Germans are bound to a trench warfare state in operations throughout most of the game.

Yes, quite. Paying 50+AP's for moving around an Army, of which you have plenty, is something to envy for sure.
Moving a Cav Corps, 16AP, is something to pround and happy off.
Building a couple of FZ, 4 a pop. But wait, they only have 6 sapper squads. Meaning zit digin ability. So you have to assign RR brigs, another 3AP's. 7 total. No problem you think. Wrong. Because you need to save to pay for all those SU's and for building Corps at 20AP's a pop. Oh, and then you need to move in SU's, 3AP's a pop. And wait, there's more, then you need build new HQ's, to put the buggers in, 25AP's a pop.

Seriously, both sides have advantages and dissadvantages. It's well thought out and balanced. Both sides will never be even, that's part of an historical game. If you prefer the Sovs, good for you, great.
I enjoy both sides for what they are...different.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Yes, quite. Paying 50+AP's for moving around an Army, of which you have plenty, is something to envy for sure.
Moving a Cav Corps, 16AP, is something to pround and happy off.
Building a couple of FZ, 4 a pop. But wait, they only have 6 sapper squads. Meaning zit digin ability. So you have to assign RR brigs, another 3AP's. 7 total. No problem you think. Wrong. Because you need to save to pay for all those SU's and for building Corps at 20AP's a pop. Oh, and then you need to move in SU's, 3AP's a pop. And wait, there's more, then you need build new HQ's, to put the buggers in, 25AP's a pop.

Seriously, both sides have advantages and dissadvantages. It's well thought out and balanced. Both sides will never be even, that's part of an historical game. If you prefer the Sovs, good for you, great.
I enjoy both sides for what they are...different.

I note the sarcasm but at what, dude? If you think the game is balanced and fun for both sides with no modification, then cool. I think playing the Soviets is a much richer experience because of game mechanics, not the situation.

[Farfarer61]

No way would I want a historic Soviet reinforcement schedule. You can build a superb Red Army and have great fun. As Axis, I really would like just a little control on the SU's, principally the ability to combine the sub-units into the main unit, or spend APs to build SU's if I have 'stuff' in the pool. That's it.

If you want to get dreamy, add in "AGS may now convert to AGA and AGB for 150 AP's".

WITE has served it's prime purpose, a revenue stream to enable the production of interesting follow on games ( and I am happy to have contributed to that revenue

[AFV]

One thing for sure I agree with Flav on is that APs being spent for both building SU and other units and transfering units to different commands, is rather clunky. It works, is about the best thing I can say about it.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: pwieland

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

I would ask what you would spend the AP's on, but I really dont think it matters. You 'envy' the German's historical OOB and their ability to use AP's on operational matters - in this case I would assume you mean moving leaders around, shuffling around SU's, changing unit echelons, and HQ buildups.

I would say your envy is misplaced, and simply point to the dearth of constructive German strategies enumerated in the forums. Muling is the best operational plan the German players can devise? If you want to look at operations, the Soviet capabilities cannot be denied throughout the war. Realistic, historical, or whatever (which I would personally disagree) but the Germans are bound to a trench warfare state in operations throughout most of the game.

Yes, quite. Paying 50+AP's for moving around an Army, of which you have plenty, is something to envy for sure.
Moving a Cav Corps, 16AP, is something to pround and happy off.
Building a couple of FZ, 4 a pop. But wait, they only have 6 sapper squads. Meaning zit digin ability. So you have to assign RR brigs, another 3AP's. 7 total. No problem you think. Wrong. Because you need to save to pay for all those SU's and for building Corps at 20AP's a pop. Oh, and then you need to move in SU's, 3AP's a pop. And wait, there's more, then you need build new HQ's, to put the buggers in, 25AP's a pop.

Seriously, both sides have advantages and dissadvantages. It's well thought out and balanced. Both sides will never be even, that's part of an historical game. If you prefer the Sovs, good for you, great.
I enjoy both sides for what they are...different.

Sure can do alot with 60 APs. Should I transfer that Army? Even with the work around I use? Should I transfer SUs to those Corps? Spend them rebuilding the six trashed armies I have. (Only six divs at a time, and they take awhile to fill up and train.) Convert those 9 Mech/Mot/Tank brigades to Corps? Build SUs in the hope that I can add them to said Corps? On and on and on.

As for trench warfare, that's what I've been doing. Much safer than Panzer punching with tiny Tank Armies.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: pwieland

ORIGINAL: glvaca



I'm not sure where the world is going too, but I'll have to say again I totally agree with Flav. I'd rather spend those AP's on reassigning div, Corps, Armies, etc... then spending it all on building Corps, and SU's of all kinds and having none left for the really fun part.

I do think that manual TOE's would be a VERY good option. For both sides, however...

I dont remember anybody talking about completely reinventing the TOE of the Wehrmacht or the Red Army. Perhaps I missed the post.

There's been quite a few actually. Much acrimony because those who cause it want 2by3 to fix it, (something that's been said over and over iis a no go.), rather than use the editor to do it themselves.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: AFV

I fail to see how anyone can argue that getting reinforcements on a set timetable is more fun than building your own army.
Screw which one is better, that is irrelevent to this discussion.

The reason being, that building the Russian Army the first couple times is fun and cool and a novelty. After that, it becomes a chore and a waste of time. I'd much rather spend my time and energy on operational matters and PLAYING the game. It's a wargame, not a spend-half-your-time-building-the-red-army-game.

Again, years from now, when this game consists of 90% of us playing the Soviet side vs the AI, and a dead forum, no one wanting to play the Axis side, do not be surprised.

People only play the game to win? I guess I'm getting old. I thought wargaming was about challenging oneself. Which is why I prefer playing the Axis. It's much more of a challenge, and success is therefore much more gratifying.

This is not directed at you AFV, just an impersonal rant:

I think many players have gotten lazy. They're trying to 'game the system', rather than actually 'command' an army. There's plenty of AARs showing the Russians getting their butts kicked. I don't think it's coincidental that in those games, the German side has shown a great deal of imagination and creativity. In games where the Germans do poorly, there is quite often a noticeable lack of imagination by the German player, little outflanking, unhinging, or feints. I always assumed these were basic wargaming principles. Whatever happend to springing a trap on your enemy? I think many players are relying far too much on HQ build-ups and direct assaults. They want big fancy encirclements and then a steamroller into Moscow. What they really need, is a little more von Manstein or Guderian spirit in them...

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: pwieland

You are comparing the Red Army (game) to Red Army (actual). That's not what is being argued, unless I am missing the point entirely. The point is, the Wehrmacht does not possess the ability to have this kind of flexibility which the Red Army enjoys throughout the game.

I mean really, do you think that the Germans are as much to fun to play as the Russians - even given the challenging aspect of the contest?

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

May I remind you, you hypocrite, that when I suggest that we change the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get, you counter in two ways. One, you say that the APs don't matter to Germany (so why now do they matter to the Soviet?) and Two, you say that if that happened, you'd have to adjust the amount of APs that the sides get.

So let me understand you, you're arguing that in your ideal AP system, the Soviets STILL get 50 per turn AND don't have to spend anything on units? Do they still get the super cheap cost to transfer divisions?

I'm relatively sure that's what you're arguing, because you've jumped the reservation into Aurelian-land, but it's still interesting to note that you see no problem hypothesizing about the candy-land sh1t that the Soviet should get.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get...

Whenever you shout out this point, you always seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps you aren't aware of the historical realities) that a Soviet 'Division' for the most part was, in regards to combat power and strength, typically little more than a reinforced German Regiment. Far more comparable to a German Division, would be Soviet Corps level units (Tank, Mech, Cav, and Rifle). These 'Corps' (but in reality more on par with German 'Divisions') cost between 8-16 APs to transfer. Considering the state of Soviet leadership, more often than not it costs the full 16 APs. Considering the state of German leadership and that they generally make the die roll to get the full discounted transfer price, it is actually the Soviets who are typically paying a 400% penalty to transfer equivalent units.

The above is still a selective argument, so to be fair if we considered 3 Rifle Divisions to be the equivalent of a German Infantry Division, it still only costs the Soviets 3 APs to transfer them all. Then again, more Soviet Divisions get destroyed, there's more units to shift around, so there is far more frequency to the transfering of units by the Soviets. All in all then, I'd say it evens out in the end.

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

People only play the game to win? I guess I'm getting old. I thought wargaming was about challenging oneself. Which is why I prefer playing the Axis. It's much more of a challenge, and success is therefore much more gratifying.

Personally, my comments are meant more for having enjoyment. Perhaps winning adds to that, but by no means (at least for me) is it the only factor. More people enjoy playing the Soviet side, I am one of them, and its mainly due to the flexibility you get. And yes Flav, you can hang yourself with that flexibility. I guess that is a challenge- and so Schmart, I think you are right, it is the challenge. But there still has to be a fun factor.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get...

Whenever you shout out this point, you always seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps you aren't aware of the historical realities) that a Soviet 'Division' for the most part was, in regards to combat power and strength, typically little more than a reinforced German Regiment. Far more comparable to a German Division, would be Soviet Corps level units (Tank, Mech, Cav, and Rifle). These 'Corps' (but in reality more on par with German 'Divisions') cost between 8-16 APs to transfer. Considering the state of Soviet leadership, more often than not it costs the full 16 APs. Considering the state of German leadership and that they generally make the die roll to get the full discounted transfer price, it is actually the Soviets who are typically paying a 400% penalty to transfer equivalent units.

The above is still a selective argument, so to be fair if we considered 3 Rifle Divisions to be the equivalent of a German Infantry Division, it still only costs the Soviets 3 APs to transfer them all. Then again, more Soviet Divisions get destroyed, there's more units to shift around, so there is far more frequency to the transfering of units by the Soviets. All in all then, I'd say it evens out in the end.

Or the Soviets could combine those three infantry divisions into a Rifle Corps unit. Before everyone yells about the AP cost involved, please note that I am simply looking at this from a gaming point of view, and stating that the choice involved is good.

I understand that others would rather not have this choice based on the previous replies in this thread, but I think it actually adds to the game.... at least for one side.

[vicberg]

Yes, but most Soviet units come onto the map, including HQs, assigned to Stavka, and cost NOTHING to transfer. So as long as you've planned out your organization to a degree, it costs very little to organize the Soviet Army, until you want to build corps.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get...

Whenever you shout out this point, you always seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps you aren't aware of the historical realities) that a Soviet 'Division' for the most part was, in regards to combat power and strength, typically little more than a reinforced German Regiment. Far more comparable to a German Division, would be Soviet Corps level units (Tank, Mech, Cav, and Rifle). These 'Corps' (but in reality more on par with German 'Divisions') cost between 8-16 APs to transfer. Considering the state of Soviet leadership, more often than not it costs the full 16 APs. Considering the state of German leadership and that they generally make the die roll to get the full discounted transfer price, it is actually the Soviets who are typically paying a 400% penalty to transfer equivalent units.

The above is still a selective argument, so to be fair if we considered 3 Rifle Divisions to be the equivalent of a German Infantry Division, it still only costs the Soviets 3 APs to transfer them all. Then again, more Soviet Divisions get destroyed, there's more units to shift around, so there is far more frequency to the transfering of units by the Soviets. All in all then, I'd say it evens out in the end.

Looking at my PBEM game, transferring a Mech Corps is 12-15. The Tank Corps next to it is 12-17. A Cav Corps two hexes behind the lines ran the same as the Tank Corps. Random checks of Rifle Corps showed 12-15. Since a Sov Corps is about equal to a German div..... Where is this 500% discount helio claims?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: pwieland

Or the Soviets could combine those three infantry divisions into a Rifle Corps unit. Before everyone yells about the AP cost involved, please note that I am simply looking at this from a gaming point of view, and stating that the choice involved is good.

I understand that others would rather not have this choice based on the previous replies in this thread, but I think it actually adds to the game.... at least for one side.

They can, but then it cost alot more to transfer a Corps.