Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

[veji1]

This conversation is very sad. Like many before on the same theme. It eventually boils down to some players hoping for change for the axis side, the majority of them for the perfectly respectable aim of having fun, and others saying that there is no point in doing those changes, the game is fine as it is and those changes that can be made by the player should be made through the editor.

I don't want to get confrontational again so I will just say this : WITE is a wargame that due to its scope, the fact that it covers a single continuous front, has a lot less replayability than WITP-AE (or just WITP for that matter). I would hope that for the long term sake of the game the developper would not lose sight of the important enjoyment and fun factor, to ensure a long life to the game.

Some of the suggested changes and adaptations for the german side (toggles or manual changes to the TOE, more possibilities regarding SUs, including potentially building some) might be, in the long run, nothing more than chrome, not altering the general dynamic of the game... Great! In games quite often many features are mainly chrome and do not have much of an effect, but players love chrome, because it is part of the fun and immersion. Some players are saying that giving those abilities to the axis would either :1/ Not change anything, the german players don't realise how tedious/useless those features are or 2/ change the balance of the game, alter it too much, creat more trouble.

Faire enough I suppose, but again in the end the goal for the developpers should be to make their game long living and enjoyable for both players. I am saddened that this objective doesn't appear to be at the heart of the current support of the game from the devs. It means that WITE has a considerably shorter life expectancy on my hard drive than WITP and AE. And that I am sure wasn't the objective.

There might not be changes to WITE anymore because of other projects. Fair enough,

[invernomuto]

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.

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.
I think both player should have only the ability, paying an appropriate AP cost, to rebuild their destroyed units (maybe only once per game) and to create SU. I have 100 tigers in the pool, I build 2 heavy panzer regiment and assign them where needed.
I do not think this would unbalance the game and a lot of Axis player will be happier.
Reinforcements should be the historical ones for both sides.
Giving max freedom to only one side was a bad design decision. The whole AP sistem, as represented in WITE, it does not work well. Why I have to pay 50+ AP to transfer an Army to a Front to another?
Flexibility come always with a cost and often will lead to unhistorical situations: in WITP if you tweak your production, Japan could overcome the USA in fighter production in 41-43.
I love WITP, but this is wrong for a game that want to be an accurate "simulation" of the Pacific War.
My 2 cents.

Bye.

[PMCN]

As I read the first post here I am struck a few thoughts.

As a friend of mine said when we started up a game against the AI, the challenge of playing the Germans (or the Japanese) is to do better than historically. To know that in the future you will the underdog and to deal with that situation when it comes. But looking at the situation I don't see where the soviet player gains that much from being able to tailor the military force of the Red Army. A lot of the early purchases are in SU because you start with nothing near what you need while the German player starts with a large number of them. But would it harm the game if the German player could build some extra ones? Hard to say without testing would be my comment.

Allowing the player to tinker with the economy was in WIR and from my experience it simply allowed people to do gamey crap that didn't improve the gameplay at all. I still recall the one time I tried a PBEM game with someone I didn't know personally...I looked in the DAK and found the german panzer divisions had been swapped to italian tanks. When I think about advice you can find in HOIx the bulk of what I ever recall seeing was optimizations and gamey exploits. Mixed in with that is the odd bit of sensible advice such as "check out your port size" or "don't overwhelm your supply network." The same is true of research, in the end it will just be another exploit if allowed unless it essentially pointless.

I think maybe perception plays a major role, because you can material effect things as japan by having more resources and such then you feel like you have more options. What about allowing allowing the German player to pay APs to delay the removal of units? Or to get decision questions...Hitler concentrates on Jet Fighter Development OR Hitler demands a Jet Bomber. A little like in HOIx. The example I gave is a bad one since who would not want to have jets but there must be other things that could be implemented that would be more balanced. Hitler authorizes the formation of the Luftwaffe felddivionen OR Hitler demands the excess Luftwaffe personnel go through basic. One gives you more divisions now while the other gives you more replacement later. That sort of thing would go a long way towards giving a feeling of agency to the player. Probably not possible in the game but maybe it would be worth considering for the next one.

Also it depends on what you play the game for. If you play to win then you are mostly concerned with "balance" and what you can do to "win." I could call that gamey exploits and gamey tactics but that isn't always true and isn't likely to be always fair but at the core of it is what you can do or must do to win. If winning is best accomplished by evacuating singapore you do so. If running for the urals is the best thing to do you do so. I don't play for this reason and so it is hard for me to understand this mindset, to me if it would not work in real life it has no business in the game. But at the end of the day I don't see how anyone can expect a battle recreation to be balanced except via victory conditions rather than winning or losing a la chess.

I also don't see how people who finess their way from germany to the romanian border in a week have any grounds to complain about what the soviet player does. If you want to do things that make no logical sense or defy reality then your oppenent should be free to do so as well. But a lot of things that are done in games because they are just treated as a game, without the context of the time. That is at times good since no player likely would have condemed the Canadian's to the defence of Hong Kong or the Russian armour to the counter attack at Pispesk (or however that is spelt). But at the same time removing the context simply reduces you to playing Tactics II or the modern equivalent.

I'm with Flavius in saying that I don't see what harm a historical reinforcement schedule would do to the Soviet side. Fiddle faddling around building SUs and such is not that much fun. The only problem may be dealing with 42 where your builds are likely more to be in reaction to losses, but that is also the issue for the Germans (units removed that may not have been lost). If it balances out is something that would need testing to determine.

That the logistics is essentially broken probably is also a contributing factor to all this balance debate.

[Tarhunnas]

Half the fun in playing the Soviets in WITE is being able to basically build your own army. However, the system now gives the player too much leeway to build what is most effective, especially support units. If there could be some way to restrict the choices more, then I think it would make the game more fun as the Germans to be able to build your own support units, and tinker with the OOBs if it could be done in a manner that would avoid exploits.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Half the fun in playing the Soviets in WITE is being able to basically build your own army. However, the system now gives the player too much leeway to build what is most effective, especially support units. If there could be some way to restrict the choices more, then I think it would make the game more fun as the Germans to be able to build your own support units, and tinker with the OOBs if it could be done in a manner that would avoid exploits.

Give me the historical SUs, I genuinely don't give a damn. Building swarms of sapper regiments doesn't get my blood pumping. And I'd get more SUs and of a larger variety if I actually got them for free via a historical schedule, too.

Fundamentally, I want to get APs out of the unit construction business altogether. If we're going to have unit builds, design a proper economic system for this and leave APs out of it.

[invernomuto]

A lot of the early purchases are in SU because you start with nothing near what you need while the German player starts with a large number of them. But would it harm the game if the German player could build some extra ones? Hard to say without testing would be my comment.

If there are balancing concerns about the possibility for Axis player to build SU, it could be introduced as an optional rules (like "Axis SU building" option at game start menu).
Let the players play and test it.
A little more tactical flexibility for the Axis player...
You do not need in 1941 but later on when you URSS is pushing away your units on the map.
Even in WITP they gave us an optional player defined upgrades for Air Units. More options (even useless ones) to the players = more fun.

Bye.

[heliodorus04]

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.

I understand the principal of your counter-argument. The problem is that using history to define game engine mechanics is pointless because there is hypocrisy to go around for every nationality (separately) in the game.

We also hear that the abundance of brigades in the late 1941 reinforcement schedule appear (historically) as a reaction to the fact that the Soviets found brigades more easy to command in maneuver warfare. But if you look at the cost to transfer Soviet brigades within the command system, you find that the Soviet brigade costs exactly as much to transfer as the Soviet division (i.e., 1 AP). So something is missing from the history on that end: Why are divisions not more expensive to change for the Soviet side?

Why aren't German divisions cheaper (which is really the point I wish to correct via future patching)? Germany was a proven, agile army in command. If you look at the France 1940 campaign, certain divisions changed HQs three times in a week.

I bring up this singular point so often because it's the easiest for any player to see in terms of the a-historic advantage that the Soviet gets, and the unavoidable rails of doom that the German side is tied to starting in December 1941 and lasting forever for the rest of the game.

Again and again and again, War in the East gives the Soviet side failsafes that make his defense much easier to plan and execute than his historical counterpart could have dreamed of. I have said before that Stalin would have ejaculated to see the capabilities in his army that War in the East gives him.

The game design is punitive to the player who enjoys the historical challenge of playing Germany. Further, speaking for myself, I have never lost a game as the Soviet, and I have never felt close to being challenged when playing the Soviet. It is the quintessential definition of an 'easy mode' game.

My AP cost argument will remain a "don't-buy-this-game-or-war-in-the-west" argument because anyone who has read a little history about the doctrines of the respective armies can see that this is a precise example of bullsh1t game design. The skeptics about buying such awful titles will see that Germany is prevented from realizing its doctrine by handcuffs in game design, and the Soviet design allows that side to competes with the equivalent of 1986 NATO command and control.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.

"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict [;)] One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk [8D]

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict [;)] One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

I do not mind to surpass historical Red Army.
I had fun preparing for winter offensive, assembling shock Armies and preparing the winter offensive in 1941. I built just a few on map units, I created many SU to "equip" my Shock Armies.
I like micromanagement so it was "fun" at least for me. Maybe after I do it for 10-20 times I'll find it boring, but who knows... That's an option that the axis player does not have.
It was the only fun part of the game after the initials turns where I was laying checkerboards and carpets to slow the Axis offensive. Not a fun part of the game for me, too much thinking about how to make him losing his MPs than using Soviet units to do proper counteroffensives.

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk [8D]

I and my oppenent where not experienced players. Expecially him with the Axis. He resigned at the beginning of jenuary 1942 after I annhilated his winter defensive line.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto
I do not mind to surpass historical Red Army.
I had fun preparing for winter offensive, assembling shock Armies and preparing the winter offensive in 1941. I built just a few on map units, I created many SU to "equip" my Shock Armies.
I like micromanagement so it was "fun" at least for me.

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical. Not the Soviets's fault if a) the Soviets had huge reserves (backed by an industry which could arm them) and b) if the Germans started a war without the necessary strategic reserves... for a long war that is. No wait, the Soviets were supposed to collapse before the winter. Reserves? Who needs stinking reserves? [;)]

Morale of the story? The USSR was too big for Germany [8D]

In WitP we could assume that the "Yamatos" idea was thrown overboard. This is plausible (in the Twilight Zone though)... but the human reserves (and German industrial capacity) are simply arithmetics.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical. Not the Soviets's fault if a) the Soviets had huge reserves (backed by an industry which could arm them) and b) if the Germans started a war without the necessary strategic reserves... for a long war that is. No wait, the Soviets were supposed to collapse before the winter. Reserves? Who needs stinking reserves? [;)]

Morale of the story? The USSR was too big for Germany [8D]

In WitP we could assume that the "Yamatos" idea was thrown overboard. This is plausible (in the Twilight Zone though)... but the human reserves (and German industrial capacity) are simply arithmetics.

You may state that it was a mathematical certainty that Russia would win the war, others may agree with you. However, I would say that you are incorrect, but more importantly state that its irrelevant.

The point being - if it isnt competitive, then why do you even play? Why would you expect anyone to even play the Germans against your superior army and its mathematically ensured victory? Maybe thats the point in others voicing concern about the balance issues....

Oh and by the way, stating that the Red Army's flexibility completely outclassed the Wehrmacht's is complete historical revisionist BS. But again, its irrelevant since the game is obviously portraying the Soviets as such - and the game is an effort in futility for the Germans.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.

"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict [;)] One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk [8D]

What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).

Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.

On to your other post, though:

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical.

The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.

By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.

You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.

I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."

The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.

Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.

Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: pwieland
You may state that it was a mathematical certainty that Russia would win the war, others may agree with you. However, I would say that you are incorrect, but more importantly state that its irrelevant.

The correct conclusion would be that the attack on the USSR was pure adventurism... [;)] Based on a pre-conceived assumption: "we will utterly destroy them before Christmas". IF this assumption proves to be false, what have you got to pursue a long war? NOTHING. This is called -again- adventurism. Germany in ruins, the consequence.

The game -as far as I know- it is not supposed to explore what ifs. Unless I'm a clown I should be advancing towards the general direction of Berlin. In fact, after my disastrous PBEM Soviet summer 1942 defensive I might not even get to Berlin, so... [:D]

The point being - if it isnt competitive, then why do you even play?

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Why would you expect anyone to even play the Germans against your superior army and its mathematically ensured victory? Maybe thats the point in others voicing concern about the balance issues....

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.

"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict [;)] One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk [8D]

What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).

Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.

On to your other post, though:

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical.

The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.

By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.

You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.

I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."

The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.

Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.

Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).

I used very incorrectly the APs [:)] I bought many diggers... when the forts mattered. Then a patch changed that. Whatever, now I know you only have to be a Spartan: buy the minimum assets.

As I said, Some of you forgot (and this is critical) that the Red Army is on the ropes in the first half of the war. This means the APs are needed to merely survive. You German players have lovely units with high experience (and good commanders). The Soviets don't... You might be forced (every single turn) to bring fresh units (aka spend APs) to replace depleted/low morale units, which are reassigned to let's say Stavka, to avoid overloading that front HQ... This, the Germans CAN avoid it. The Soviets can't [:(] You have a shabby army, and even if you use many APs to replace demorailised units the army will be shabby the same. The truth is I will badly need APs to upgrade to the Red Army v2.0. Will I do it in time? It's a tough struggle (keep the head above the water etc.).

And thanks for the compliment, but no, I am not "the best WitE player out there", not even close [8D] My 1942 summer defensive campaign is the proof on my book [:D]

As I see it (AARs), German players are currently surpassing their historical counterparts, so I still don't get it.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).

While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


The correct conclusion would be that the attack on the USSR was pure adventurism... [;)] Based on a pre-conceived assumption: "we will utterly destroy them before Christmas". IF this assumption proves to be false, what have you got to pursue a long war? NOTHING. This is called -again- adventurism. Germany in ruins, the consequence.

The game -as far as I know- it is not supposed to explore what ifs. Unless I'm a clown I should be advancing towards the general direction of Berlin. In fact, after my disastrous PBEM Soviet summer 1942 defensive I might not even get to Berlin, so... [:D]

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).

You prove the point that the original poster was making. That is, why doesnt the inferior side get some of the love regarding game mechanics like WITP? Unfortunately, when game mechanics are brought up, the inevitable Russian counterattack ensues regarding realism and inevitable conclusions and whatnot. If it werent about winning or losing then why do people argue about allowing both players to have the same capabilities in regards to game mechanics?

The game, by the way, is an entirely what-if situation. It has no demonstrable measure of historical reality within it, even as those of you decry rule changes based on historical dogma. Does the game simulate einsatzgruppen terrorizing the countryside liquidating large pockets of civilians? No, but the effects of their campaign are evident within the partisan rules. If you want to be historically accurate, the army had the opportunity to prevent these murderers from working in their sectors of the front. Why not allow a rule that allows a benign occupation of the country, where army commanders were able to affect such changes. However, this one change would make your mathematical certainty a bit suspect.

Now, I enjoy the game and am an armchair historian regarding the Eastern Front, so I think the game is great. However, I dont think that the game is realistic or emulates warfare on the East Front with a high degree of precision. And I also think that when playing PvP the Germans lose more than 90% of their games (admittedly a very rough calculation based on AAR's in the forums and personal xp). Hell Tarhunnas got a draw playing the Germans even though he kept the Russians on the Vistula on Turn 240. Say wha???

[Q-Ball]

Pompack's post is spot-on IMO, and probably one of the main differences between this engine and WITP-AE.

Playing both games, I have to say that giving Japan extra help seems "right" to me, and not giving the Germans a ton also seems "right". I can't explain 100%, but generally intelligence and risk plays a much greater role in WITP-AE than it does in WITE.

1944-45 turns into a grind either way, so whether that grind in on the Dnepr, or the Polish border, or the Oder, doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of playability. I think future versions of the engine may have more depth to include "what-ifs", but WITE is the first crack at it.

Remember, WITP-AE is now in it's 8th year as an engine. 8 years of 2 additional releases, countless patches, mods, all kinds of stuff. It was fun along the way, but just great now. I bet as the engine develops, you'll be more pleased with it. It takes time. Stick with it.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: pwieland
You prove the point that the original poster was making. That is, why doesnt the inferior side get some of the love regarding game mechanics like WITP? Unfortunately, when game mechanics are brought up, the inevitable Russian counterattack ensues regarding realism and inevitable conclusions and whatnot. If it werent about winning or losing then why do people argue about allowing both players to have the same capabilities in regards to game mechanics?

So the Red Army -led by a competent player- should hardly get to Berlin? Yes or no? [;)]

My opinion is that if the game is well designed -and I fairly know Matrix philosophy- you should a) stuff the Germans and b) get to Berlin.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus




"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict [;)] One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk [8D]

What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).

Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.

On to your other post, though:

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical.

The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.

By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.

You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.

I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."

The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.

Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.

Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).

I used very incorrectly the APs [:)] I bought many diggers... when the forts mattered. Then a patch changed that. Whatever, now I know you only have to be a Spartan: buy the minimum assets.

As I said, Some of you forgot (and this is critical) that the Red Army is on the ropes in the first half of the war. This means the APs are needed to merely survive. You German players have lovely units with high experience (and good commanders). The Soviets don't... You might be forced (every single turn) to bring fresh units (aka spend APs) to replace depleted/low morale units, which are reassigned to let's say Stavka, to avoid overloading that front HQ... This, the Germans CAN avoid it. The Soviets can't [:(] You have a shabby army, and even if you use many APs to replace demorailised units the army will be shabby the same. The truth is I will badly need APs to upgrade to the Red Army v2.0. Will I do it in time? It's a tough struggle (keep the head above the water etc.).

And thanks for the compliment, but no, I am not "the best WitE player out there", not even close [8D] My 1942 summer defensive campaign is the proof on my book [:D]

As I see it (AARs), German players are currently surpassing their historical counterparts, so I still don't get it.

Ya know what, I have to wonder just how "disbanding Corps HQ/SAD bases." is hindsight. Being that they disband on their own, and there is no way to stop it.

I keep hearing that the Axis player is on rails. Now, I haven't seen *any* evidence that they are. especially as they have the ability to game the logistics for at least a year before the Soviets can. The fact that the guy who just said they are wants Matrix to pay him to "go away" as it were, says alot.

In the first half of the war, it is the Soviets who are "on rails."

To quote jaw:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

IIRC Russian ground support is hardwired to, in a nutshell, suck.

[hfarrish]

In the first half of the war, it is the Soviets who are "on rails."

To quote jaw:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

IIRC Russian ground support is hardwired to, in a nutshell, suck.

I wish my current games were AARs (if only I had the time...). Maybe the very, very best Soviet players (Tarhunnas, Flav, et al) can really whip the Soviet army into shape in 41 but as one who played the game a lot in 2011 pre-fort nerf and now playing multiple games today, I can't see what any complaining is about. The Soviets are nigh on impossible in 41...I am now questioning the fort nerf, because (a) it makes the Soviets ridiculously weak in 41 and (b) it will exacerbate late war problems (if anyone ever gets there) because the Germans will get creamed. I would wholeheartedly endorse eliminating brigade ZOCs (which don't matter in 41) and the ability of brigades to build forts (a lot of the problem in 42 and beyond) for a restoration of some level of entrenching ability in 41...