Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Well said!

[janh]

ORIGINAL: pompack
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

Add my two cents. You couldn't have summed it up in better way.

I can't recall a balance discussion for AE, the only discussions there focus on (technical) capabilities that are overestimated by the game engine. There rest is matched against history (i.e. Scen 1), and the only balance there is between 1 year offensive phase for the Japanese player with limited assets versus 3 years for the Allied player. And yet, it is extremely fun and exciting.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: 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...

I think alot of it stems from not being able to win before the winter against Soviet player who is at all competent. Or the fact that they can't replicate those massive pockets. (Thus various proposals to handicap the Soviets even more.)

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: pompack
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

Add my two cents. You couldn't have summed it up in better way.

I can't recall a balance discussion for AE, the only discussions there focus on (technical) capabilities that are overestimated by the game engine. There rest is matched against history (i.e. Scen 1), and the only balance there is between 1 year offensive phase for the Japanese player with limited assets versus 3 years for the Allied player. And yet, it is extremely fun and exciting.

Couldn't agree more. Playing as Japan is fun. Not because they can tweak a few things. But the journey itself. How long can you pound on the Allies before the tide turns.

[Zonso]

I realize some in this community are quite polarized but are they really saying flexibility isn't fun or Russia in WitE isn't flexible??? I have played the Russian side and maybe you can't do everything you want, but you can definitely tweak and change things to shape the Army to your likeing. Something wholly not possible from the German side. In my 40+ years of gaming, being able to change variables has been the hallmark of a great, immersive game. Next I expect to hear the sky isn't blue anymore! I recall many years of acrimony between gamers in WitP before the community settled and the game matured. Perhaps the same will happen here though in some respects the fault lays with the combat engine of WitE itself - there are too many things imo that don't reflect or capture the feel of operations on the East Front. After the first turn all is fantasy anyways!

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Zonso

I realize some in this community are quite polarized but are they really saying flexibility isn't fun or Russia in WitE isn't flexible??? I have played the Russian side and maybe you can't do everything you want, but you can definitely tweak and change things to shape the Army to your likeing.

Not quite. I can tweak the Red Army as APs allow. And due to the limited number of APs this results in a smaller and less diverse Red Army than would be the case with a historical OB. Thus, everyone winds ups building as many sapper regiments as they can. This in the end turns out to be quite a few less SUs than you'd get otherwise with an historical OB, and is certainly less interesting.

It's all about APs. I hate APs. They are trying to do too many things at once, badly. I'm not managing the Red Army. I'm managing APs, which control army formation and command and control at the same time, two things that simply do not mix together and ought to be separated. Being cost effective with APs is the exact opposite of "flexible."

The game needs a proper economic system in order to do unit formation, not APs.

[Aurelian]

I can't tweak it to my liking. 60APs a turn doesn't really allow much tweaking.

Want to transfer that army to a new Front? That's 50 APs or more.

I have 3 Tank Armies. Should I build more, or rebuild the 6 armies I lost in what I call the Great Debacle?

Replace the bad leaders I got when the good ones died?

And so on.........

[glvaca]

I think the crux of the arguement is that as a German player mainly you haven't played the Soviet side long enough to realize in what an AP shortage they are and only see the good things of building SU's looked at from the German perspective. And turst me (and many others who've gone before), in 1941 as the Sovs, you're actually well off, it's 1942 and (I presume) beyond that's the pain in the behind.
As the German (mainly) you have AP's to spend on operational matters, new leaders and shifting a couple of Divisions, SU's around. So obviously, there is plenty of room for some extra SU building AP wise.
What they don't see, know or ignore is that as the Soviet, your main focus is to get your army and air organization up to the starting level of the Germans. Sure, you're "building" your army, but it's not to get ahead, it's to catch up!
The Soviet is striving towards efficiency the German starts with!
So, if the German players are just out to build a few extra Tiger Battalions if the pool allows, just say so. I, personally, have no problem with that and don't think it's going to be a game breaker. If it makes the German players happy (including myself) to build a limited amount of SU's if they do well, then why not?

All the other BS about AP's and building the Soviet Army to your personal liking at your whimp is nonesense by, as TD put it, created by people who haven't played the Soviet far enough in a competitive match to really know what they are talking about.

[Farfarer61]

The rub is, Axis players do not accept, for a variety of reasons, that their case is as hopeless as Japan, and won't accept a game that condemns them to a pre-ordained fate. Get over it, the Players have spoken. The same players perfectly willing to play KNOWING they will lose as Japan are happy to play WITP, but are unhappy in WITE. For WITE there are simply a majority of Axis ( losing side) players who say NO, with hindsight and my omniscience as a game player, I can win WWII on the East Front, so I won't play in the same "doomed to lose" paradigm that I will accept and enjoy in WITP.

[glvaca]

I'm sorry Farfarer, can't follow you there. I do believe the Germans had the chance to win the War in Russia. I also think that WITE allows the German player to do this, provided they play well and more.
Personally, I'd put the 1941-42 GC till end of March at a 10/10 marks as the Russian. IT's extremely challenging as the Soviet to even perform as historical against a first class German, as SJ80 certainly is. Every turn is simply a nailbiter. Incredibly intense.
Blizzard is good, really good now. The Germans have options, they can fall back or stand in place. The costs vary, the gains too.
1942 seems like very interesting setting, I'm loving it!
Really guys, just play! This game is really deep and there are some interesting behind the scenes checks and balances you just gotta love (although bloddy inconvenient at times!).

[hfarrish]

Agreed, although I still think there is room to make the 41 campaign less absurd and make the 42-45 period more realistic (which would hurt the Germans in 41 but make it more playable for them later on...)

[TulliusDetritus]

I hadn't thought about this, but yes, I think the Soviet player should have (via reinforcements, à la WitP) what was had in the real thing. For free that is. With withdrawals included.

After all, the Germans get an historical OOB (along with withdrawals) via the reinforcements thing. And when their units are destroyed they are rebuilt for free as well.

I guess some sort of Iron Man scenario [a WitP scenario, already mentioned, in which the Japanese are better prepared, namely, we assume they were clarivident [:D] and that they knew the queen of the oceans -the battleships- would be soon obsolete, and that the naval air power would rule] might be created (modders, yoohoo... anyone at home...?), with more German units: divisions and support units. We might assume they were taken from France, the Balkans, Scandinavia, etc. etc. Not a lot. Again, German human reserves are a barrier: why do you think the losses suffered during 1944 (when the Germans were stuffed) were er, simply not replaced? Why did they raise battalions of sick and deaf men? Not to mention the kids and old men... Yes, everyone felt manpower shortages but the German case is clearly the case of someone who cannot pretend to conduct a long war... Fact.

In all, a competent Soviet player should be advancing towards Berlin the same... [:D]

P.S.: if you don't like the last sentence, let me use other words: "a competent Soviet player should be retreating towards Berlin the same" [8D]

[Aurelian]

With historical OOBs, the Sovs would have many, many, more SUs IIRC. To quote jaw: "What they had historically was a lot, in fact a lot more than most Soviet players would ever build. As the Soviet player, I would love to have the historical Soviet OOB and not have to screw around with building units. Yes, I would get some clunkers like Ski battalions, Motorcylce regiments, Anti-tank rifle battalions, etc. but I would avoid all the time and pain of building those corps or figuring out what support units really matter."

As well as things that are not in the game. (Those 10 Engineer armies, those 10 Reserve armies. Yes I know the latter all had their designations changed, but still.)

[Joel Billings]

Here’s a suggestion. For PBEM players looking to add some pressure to the early game, and looking for victory conditions that make it easier for both sides to end the game before summer of 1945, use the victory conditions from the AH game Russian Campaign. Players could email their sudden death objectives to a neutral party before the game. The victory conditions are:

German: Take AA line (285 victory points in WitE).
Soviet: Take Berlin, Bucharest, Breslau, Helsinki and all cities east of these.

If by end of June no one has won, it’s a draw unless sudden death has occurred.

Sudden Death:

Before the game each side secretly picks an objective for start of each year from 42-45 from a list. If either player controls both sides’ objectives at the start of a year, they win. Objectives must be picked from this list:

Axis Objectives:
1942: Dnepropetrovsk, Bryansk, Leningrad
1943: Leningrad, Kharkov, Maikop
1944: Sevastopopl, Riga, Kiev
1945: Warsaw, Lvov

Soviet Objectives:
1942: Sevastopol, Kalinin, Kharkov
1943: Voronezh, Moscow, Stalingrad
1944: Leningrad, Rostov, Kursk
1945: Bucharest, Berlin

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: 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

Great post and I totally agree. The difference as you point out is time scale. My WitP AE PBEM game has just reached 1/44 after two years of game play in RL. How many WitE games could I have played in this time frame? Would I have wanted too lol?

Maybe it is the fact that after playing a game where I have a huge amount of operational fredom and then play WitE and discover how limited my options are (for both sides) just does not seem fun. Interesting yes, fun not so much.

To be blunt, I am more of 'I want a game that feels historical, which WitP AE does, rather than a game that is historical'. WitE just does not provived that 'feel' to me. Do not get me wrong, the game is an amazing feat imho. This is why I can like games like HoIx as an example becuses it 'feels' right rather than a slave to historical facts and events.

But regardless of that, it seems like the best way to play Germany is to go as far as you can in '41, pull back a little, and then spend the rest of the game fortifing every hex between the front and Berlin [X(]

To give you context, I played a PBEM game of DG's War in Europe and had a blast even though the game is designed specificly to have Germany lose. Why? Because all combantents could adjust production. Wven if you just played War in the East or West, you could still effect things in the other non-simulated fromts by assigning more or less troops to the non-active fronts.

So in WitE, just like the different setups for Japan in WitP AE, there should have been options for both sides that could have effected the outcome in the East. Several that come to mind would be, no Atlantic Wall, full war production in '42, no purge of officers, etc. This would have made the game more interesting to play for both sides.

ORIGINAL: pwieland

I dont think the OP was talking about balance. It was about which side was more fun to play (at least how I read it). In its current form, Germany is not as fun to play as the Soviets. The Soviets have many more choices and more flexibility with their OOB than the Germans. Thus, the preferred side playing WITE is the Red Army. I think its fairly obvious, but perhaps I am mistaken.

Just for the record, you are correct pwieland, I was taking about the 'fun' and you were not mistaken about my point of view [:)]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Here’s a suggestion. For PBEM players looking to add some pressure to the early game, and looking for victory conditions that make it easier for both sides to end the game before summer of 1945, use the victory conditions from the AH game Russian Campaign. Players could email their sudden death objectives to a neutral party before the game. The victory conditions are:

German: Take AA line (285 victory points in WitE).
Soviet: Take Berlin, Bucharest, Breslau, Helsinki and all cities east of these.

If by end of June no one has won, it’s a draw unless sudden death has occurred.

Sudden Death:

Before the game each side secretly picks an objective for start of each year from 42-45 from a list. If either player controls both sides’ objectives at the start of a year, they win. Objectives must be picked from this list:

Axis Objectives:
1942: Dnepropetrovsk, Bryansk, Leningrad
1943: Leningrad, Kharkov, Maikop
1944: Sevastopopl, Riga, Kiev
1945: Warsaw, Lvov

Soviet Objectives:
1942: Sevastopol, Kalinin, Kharkov
1943: Voronezh, Moscow, Stalingrad
1944: Leningrad, Rostov, Kursk
1945: Bucharest, Berlin

Sounds like a great thing to add to WitW [:)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: pompack

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

Nice post Jay! [:)]


For me it was always the journey... I love playing UV / WitP / WitP-AE and I played both sides without any prejudices!


I always knew that winning as Japan was impossible (except in UV in special grand campaign scenario case) but I played Japan because I wanted to be better than history and that is a win in my book!

Same is with WitE - I play both sides without any prejudice!

And I also know that Germans can't win - this is because they simply can't win (and no serious modern historian claims that as well [;)]) - but they can do better than history and that is, again, a win in my book!


Also I don't like winning because of winning alone - for me, again, it is a journey that matters - the winning at all costs ("bending" game engine and using other "methods") is not something anyone should be proud of!


At the end - we are Grognards - we are such a small group of people and we should cherish what we have and enjoy the journey in our long long long games!!! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Joel Billings]

There are those that want to play a game as a game, trying to win using the rules as they are. I have no problem with that, and agree that the rules should be set up so that "winning" is equally possible for both sides. In practice, making this an equal chance is not easy, but that is the goal. There are those that are interested in learning something about history, and enjoying the journey, and that is fine too. At various tmes I've played wargames both ways, although I tend to be in the journey camp more often than the competitive gaming camp in my play. I don't want anyone to walk away from this discussion thinking the we aren't trying to balance the game so that both sides can win by the victory conditions. That is always the number one goal of the victory conditions.

[Tarhunnas]

Good victory conditions and games as history are not two opposites. On the contrary, victory conditions are often needed in a wargame to reward and encourage historically reasonable gameplay. In WITE a VP system that encourages both the Soviets and the Germans to try to hold terrain for as long as possible is a must, otherwise players are operating totally outside the boundaries that constrained the historical armies and generals. Having the Red army just run eastwards isn't history, that is pure fantasy! No Soviet commander could ignore decisions on to to stand and fight, and the same for the German commanders later in the war. And the German commanders were under severe pressure to capture their objectives before the winter of 1941. That should be reflected in VPs not just to make a playable game, but to reflect the historical constraints and imperatives.

[marcpennington]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Good victory conditions and games as history are not two opposites. On the contrary, victory conditions are often needed in a wargame to reward and encourage historically reasonable gameplay. In WITE a VP system that encourages both the Soviets and the Germans to try to hold terrain for as long as possible is a must, otherwise players are operating totally outside the boundaries that constrained the historical armies and generals. Having the Red army just run eastwards isn't history, that is pure fantasy! No Soviet commander could ignore decisions on to to stand and fight, and the same for the German commanders later in the war. And the German commanders were under severe pressure to capture their objectives before the winter of 1941. That should be reflected in VPs not just to make a playable game, but to reflect the historical constraints and imperatives.

I agree completely. I think some form of victory conditions are needed to actively encourage both a Soviet active forward defense in '41 and '42 (with the entailed risk of pockets) rather then a simple run to the east as fast as possible as is the case now , as well as a German sense that one more drive might actually win the war (also, with the entailed risk of over-extension.) My personal preference would be for the game to model some percentage chance of Soviet collapse based on how quickly they are loosing urban locations. I should emphasize that this a Soviet collapse designed to model in game terms that both sides' leadership were acting under the assumption that this collapse was indeed possible, and hence the need for "not a step back" and risky offensive drives, rather then a historical verdict on whether such a collapse was actually likely.

But that said, the victory conditions Joel posted above from the board game actually sounds like a rather elegant way to model this, although they probably would require a bit of tweaking to work within the context of the game. My gut feel is maybe providing choices of 2 out of 5 cities for both sides, but that is a seperate subject.

Both ways though would give the proper encouragement for a GC that feels more historical--- i.e. one where there is basically bitter fighting for each advance, and one has to agonize over when to retreat or not or to dig in to defend against the winter offensive. As it is, I limit myself to the scenarios (and am having an immensely enjoyable time playing them, especially with the new Don to Danube ones), where the victory conditons make one feel like one is actually simulating a historical Eastern Front, not the gamey min-maxing that the lack of these transforms the GC into.