A question about current state of balance and tactic

[Aurelian]

I see w(hine)ild is back.

His fantasys are amusing.

Maybe he should actually read all the patch notes and show where this Soviet bias is.

Maybe he should actually, I dunno, *play* the game.

Not buying WiTW? That is surely good news. One less whiner.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

76mm you are right in that it is circular. However, we are seeing the end of muling in the next patch but apparently the run away without any ramifications will remain....

I don't think the devs see the run away as a problem. That is the main issue.

What some of us are seeing is this: in a standard game with no muling, Leningrad is gone, Moscow is a 50/50 proposition, and the south up to Rostov is also gone. This is better than historical.

The problem that you have Michael, is that you want a knock out blow win in 1941 for the Axis. If the game falls short of that, then it's never going to be good enough for you. Yet 1941 without any of your gimmicks is already a pretty rough year for the Sovs.

If running away was so wonderful, where are all the Soviet wins? I'm not seeing hardly any of these in the recent AARs. The Axis is doing very well right now across the board, even without resorting to your expedients.

[notenome]

so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
Do you base this on play against the AI or against a human oponent?

Mostly against AI on both sides, tuned up a bit, granted, but you can draw the same conclusions from the more detailed of the recent AARs. I don't think I can find the time to be a reliable PBEM opponent, unfortunately. I regret that even more with AE, but I simply cannot expect anyone to understand my unpredictable freetime.

Anywho, even playing AI you notice quickly that Axis does have a few strong cards, such as mulling, air supply, the logistics model, or the rather plentiful AP points that allow me to swap stuff around much faster and more flexible than when playing Soviet. The big difference is that these cards are worth most in the early stages, when on the offensive and while the Soviets are weak, whereas on the Soviet side I find that the freedoms such as tailoring the Army and C&C to the balance possible with limited APs only gives fruits in the later stages. But it gives also some benefits, so I don't see any huge bias. Look at the AARs, and you also see this, but you won't see any strong disparity. Take Tulius latest AAR - I find it scary how far East one of the strongest PBEM players here has been pushed. And he is not the only example. There is not tendency for this engine to produce major Soviet of the majority here.

The advantages through the logistics model and HQ-buildup in the early stages result generally in unusually high op-tempos, and that ought not to be, independent of whether playing a human or not. There supply and especially fuel shortages that led to almost month-long resupply and refit halts of AGC and AGN should happen in most cases, but don't, even without extensive use of mulling or air supply. That alone is a pretty good card in the Axis hand. So if bias, I would say through the logistics model, the early interval is biased in Axis favor, blizzard on Soviet, 42 in Axis, and thereafter things shift in a natural fashion over to the Soviet side. Seems quite right to me, but definitely not biased in the overall sense.

BTW, I am watching your game against BigAnorak closely. You two seem to be a good match, and the opening with the small Lvov pocket and the forward defense you conduct will hopefully shed some light on how viable this Soviet strategy is in 41, given both sides do not exploit the rules and logistics. I am curious whether you can hold more than usual, or whether you'll just suffer more than usual.

ORIGINAL: notenome
so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.

Yep, did read your ideas, and some of them have been mentioned here already and make some sense. I'd probably like it if the German had some "artillery counters" on the map for bombardment, but their formations are just much smaller to be represented here in a huge number. Don't know, maybe one could create a special counter that you could assign these nebelwerfer battalions etc. to and use "similarly to artillery divisions"? There would only be rare occasions for the Germans to force such concentrations, but sounds like a nice "idea". The catch is, ideas are cheap and plentiful. Developer time isn't...

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
The reality is that even the Soviets' own records show just how close to sinking they really were in the war's first 15 months, and a chance even into 1943 with Kursk. The fact they did not is testament to their people's incredible spirit, it is not the result of simply "what was guaranteed to happen" especially as anyone with a real world military knowledge above primary school level should know that there are no guarantees at all once bullets start flying. Perhaps it makes people feel better about themselves somehow thinking that there was no way Germany could have won 70 yrs ago..for those people the only solution is impossible...a trip back in time to see just how desperate things really were back then.

Well, the patronizing tone of your post forces me to respond...I'm afraid that I have "a real world military knowledge above primary school level" and notwithstanding your odd assertion that it might make me "feel better about myself" to say that Germany could not have won, but I will say it anyway--there is virtually no way Germany could have won. Most serious military historians--who presumably also possess more than a primary school level knowledge of military affairs--also hold this position. To say that the Germans had a chance of winning as late as Kursk is, well, different...

Yes, Stalin did help the German cause considerably with bone-headed orders, but even he could not completely squander the Soviet's massive advantages.

Hmmm, maybe you're right after all, I do feel better about myself for (once again) refuting the nonsense argument that Germany "came really close to winning" blah blah blah.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: janh
BTW, I am watching your game against BigAnorak closely. You two seem to be a good match, and the opening with the small Lvov pocket and the forward defense you conduct will hopefully shed some light on how viable this Soviet strategy is in 41, given both sides do not exploit the rules and logistics. I am curious whether you can hold more than usual, or whether you'll just suffer more than usual.

He [Tarhunnas] can do whatever he wants: run away or hold. There's no way he's going to lose 6 million men. And especially 3 million captured. To do that he should first send this mass to the frontline and then be stubborn aka not one step back. The panzers should do the rest (and this on the first 23 turns)...

What I'd like to know is what would happen to the Soviet side on the game after those many losses were taken? [;)] I predict a total annihilation, a German military parade (after those many masses are in the bag). And yet this is not what happened in the real thing. Anyone might care to explain why?

Finally, could anyone (testers included) say if this scenario (almost 6 million losses -3 million prisoners) ever appeared? What were the consequences? Did the Soviets keep Moscow and Leningrad?

When the Germans want a historical not-one-step-back, they are asking exactly for these 3 million men captured. No less [8D]

In other words, Tarhunnas may call it "fight forward", he is NOT going to be as stubborn as the authentic Red Army. He only has to show us the losses screen on turn 25. I predict maximum 2 million prisoners (and I suspect I'm generous: losses will be lower) [;)]

I am not saying that these should be the average Soviet losses. What I am trying to say is that if these are to be the Soviet average losses, Moscow and Leningrad should be the same (on average) in Soviet hands... No less. So how do you solve this problem?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: notenome

so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.

You're not anymore on my blacklist [8D]

Also, the experience and morale of the Red Army in 42 seems to be too high.

This is not true anymore. This was changed since 1.05 [:(] [despite the sad icon, this is correct in my opinion, by the way]

[Meteor2]

I have followed a lot of topics in this forum from the beginning, but I am more and more convinced, that all the guys, who tried desperately to make the game more interessting for both sides (expecially for the German one), are leaving or they are frustrated.
And there, IMHO, Wild is not totally wrong...
To stay for a long while on my PC, a little more "fun and feeling" is needed for this game. And for this, some guys are fighting really hard.
It is hard for me to imagine, that WITW will have a good start, after the shortcomings of WITE will not be ironed out after all.
And the immediate bashing of all players, finding axis problems and bringing them forward, is not understandable any more (for me).
The series has to be satisfying for the customers, to be succesfull. Maybe some players have forgotten these fundamentals.[:(]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
The reality is that even the Soviets' own records show just how close to sinking they really were in the war's first 15 months, and a chance even into 1943 with Kursk. The fact they did not is testament to their people's incredible spirit, it is not the result of simply "what was guaranteed to happen" especially as anyone with a real world military knowledge above primary school level should know that there are no guarantees at all once bullets start flying. Perhaps it makes people feel better about themselves somehow thinking that there was no way Germany could have won 70 yrs ago..for those people the only solution is impossible...a trip back in time to see just how desperate things really were back then.

Well, the patronizing tone of your post forces me to respond...I'm afraid that I have "a real world military knowledge above primary school level" and notwithstanding your odd assertion that it might make me "feel better about myself" to say that Germany could not have won, but I will say it anyway--there is virtually no way Germany could have won. Most serious military historians--who presumably also possess more than a primary school level knowledge of military affairs--also hold this position. To say that the Germans had a chance of winning as late as Kursk is, well, different...

Yes, Stalin did help the German cause considerably with bone-headed orders, but even he could not completely squander the Soviet's massive advantages.

Hmmm, maybe you're right after all, I do feel better about myself for (once again) refuting the nonsense argument that Germany "came really close to winning" blah blah blah.

I'll irritate people like wild and say I agree.

Germany planned for short campaigns. "Real world military knowledge above primary school level." knows that they never planned for the long haul until it was too late. They expected, based on Soviet preformance in the Finnish War, and their own racial idealogies, (The Slavic subhumans), the great Purge, etc,that the Soviets would just roll over.

Their own real world military knowledge above primary school level was that they would win before winter. A six month campaign. almost, but not quite, "Home before the leaves fall."

Their "real world military knwoledge above primary school level" was wrong.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: notenome

so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.

It seems that unless you spice up your posts with some personal attacks and conspiracy theories, they will not be interesting enough to take seriously... [;)]

[Michael T]

I love the way Flaviasss knows all about what I think, yet knows nothing at all.

I give up. I will keep playing the game but my time flogging a dead horse on this forum is done.

[Flaviusx]

Micheal, given where the present state of the game stands, yes, it's very obvious what you think.

You want the 41 knock out blow. You can already do better than historical, but that's not enough.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: notenome

so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.

It seems that unless you spice up your posts with some personal attacks and conspiracy theories, they will not be interesting enough to take seriously... [;)]

Truth is boring. Conspiracy theories are sexy.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: notenome

so, anyone have any comments on my opinion post? I tried to make it as well though out as I could, but it seemed to be bypassed in favour of adhoc attaccks by both sides... Or have I been blocked by everyone on this forum? whelp.

I think you make some good points, I am looking at editing the game for a mod, which was nearly done, but will now wait for the upcoming patch. I am not sure how much things such as the air war can be edited, and even though I would love to see it be more in depth, at some point the game would become a true monster. Still, I hope some of your points are looked at.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
The reality is that even the Soviets' own records show just how close to sinking they really were in the war's first 15 months, and a chance even into 1943 with Kursk. The fact they did not is testament to their people's incredible spirit, it is not the result of simply "what was guaranteed to happen" especially as anyone with a real world military knowledge above primary school level should know that there are no guarantees at all once bullets start flying. Perhaps it makes people feel better about themselves somehow thinking that there was no way Germany could have won 70 yrs ago..for those people the only solution is impossible...a trip back in time to see just how desperate things really were back then.

Well, the patronizing tone of your post forces me to respond...I'm afraid that I have "a real world military knowledge above primary school level" and notwithstanding your odd assertion that it might make me "feel better about myself" to say that Germany could not have won, but I will say it anyway--there is virtually no way Germany could have won. Most serious military historians--who presumably also possess more than a primary school level knowledge of military affairs--also hold this position. To say that the Germans had a chance of winning as late as Kursk is, well, different...

Yes, Stalin did help the German cause considerably with bone-headed orders, but even he could not completely squander the Soviet's massive advantages.

Hmmm, maybe you're right after all, I do feel better about myself for (once again) refuting the nonsense argument that Germany "came really close to winning" blah blah blah.

What I said about real world military knowledge was NOT that it meant the Germans would win..what I said, if you actually read it, was that "anyone with real world military knowledge knows that once the bullets begin to fly, there are no guarantees" If you truly have any real world military knowledge, you cannot argue that point.
That said, as I said on another post already, I came home to see sudden battles on the forums. I am sorry for helping ignite them, and really did not intend to seem to be condescending to you, 76mm, or to anyone.

[Michael T]

Flavius are you for real? Because how many times have I said I am advocating for a balanced game? It must be at least 20 or more times. Can you possibly get that concept in to your head?
 
I will challenge you. I will play Soviet and you German. No muling. I win the game everytime. And in your own words I am not that good a Russian player. I can't make it any clearer.
 
So what if I lose Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov. It won't bring on a collapse or even ruffle my feathers. I will still go on to win the game. You keep going on and on about how easy it is for Germany to do better than the historical high water mark. So what, it means nothing in game terms.
 
I don't know how many credible historians have posed very valid questions like: What if Guderian wasn't sent south to Kiev? What if instead he was sent on to Moscow? Surely Moscow would probably have fell, when one considers how close the Germans got in late 1941 even with the diversion to Kiev. And don't crap on about logistics because the distance from Smolensk to Moscow is *less* than the distance from Smolensk to Kiev. These are the things in the game that players do. The result is unhistorical, so what. Of course there is potential for lesser or greater gains depending on what players do with there forces. I would bet that if the German player sent all his Panzers from AGC on perpendicular lines of march until October (like the Germans did) rather than directly to Moscow, then Moscow will hold out. But most players are hell bent on taking it with a direct line of advance. Thus many times it will fall. But even so how many would go on to win the game? Bugger all, so its irrelevant.
 
Personally I think WITE is fundamentally flawed and really needs a rebuild from the bottom up. But it is the best PC game on the subject to date so I persevere with it, support it, and will buy WITW and WITE 2.0. Right now I am playing a great game of FITE/SE. And I am having a blast. The game is fluid and my opponent and I are both looking very much forward to the Soviet winter CA and the subsequent 1942 summer campaign. This old boardgame still does the war in Russia better than the PC WITE. I have played near on 80 games of FITE/SE. Yes 80. I know something about what makes a good East Front divisional game. Having units that track every tank, squad and gun mean squat when the system has so many floors. FITE/SE has been around since 1984. People still play it all over the world. Sure it’s a little dated. But as a *game* it works far better than WITE.
 
My time spent on this forum debating these issues was solely to make WITE a better *game*. *I do not have a preference for either side*
 
I have spent equal amounts of game turns playing each side.
 
But I am done with trying to help. This forum has become dominated by Soviet fanboys who have closed minds and a pack mentality. Blot out any opposing thought with a continuing boring diatribe of propaganda and misinformation. I join the growing list of reasonable minds who have better things to do.
You should try looking at the game from both sides of the fence rather than this ironclad Soviet box you made for yourself.
 
My challenge to you stands. If you can defeat me as the Russian without muling I will graciously accept I am wrong about the balance of this game. But 35 years of wargaming tells me I am right.

[kg_1007]

Off topic, but what is FITE, Michael?
And yes, I think a lot of board games "do it better" except for the really annoying part that most people don't have the time anymore to devote many hours, so it is almost guaranteed to be messed up when it is put aside 'till next time' and the dog walks on it, or the children think it looks like a fun toy, or something lol.

[Aurelian]

FITE is Fire in The East. An old Game Designers Workshop boardgame. IIRC, it was a remake of their Drang Nach Osten game.

Part of the Europa series.

Here's an old review. http://grognard.com/reviews/fireeast.txt

This covers a possible remake: http://hmsgrd.com/wordpress/?page_id=20

[kg_1007]

Oh, yes, I heard of those before, true monsters, but GDW made some great ones..I have never tried that series, but someday when I retire and have the time to actually devote more than a few minutes a day, I would love to...maybe by then, cpus will be strong enough to have fewer limits as well.
Of course, the stronger they make cpu s , the more demanding we wargamers will become.I can see it now" why can't we have a man-for-man level of the entire East front?"

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Oh, yes, I heard of those before, true monsters, but GDW made some great ones..I have never tried that series, but someday when I retire and have the time to actually devote more than a few minutes a day, I would love to...maybe by then, cpus will be strong enough to have fewer limits as well.
Of course, the stronger they make cpu s , the more demanding we wargamers will become.I can see it now" why can't we have a man-for-man level of the entire East front?"

Well, Decision Games has the Computer War in Europe. They have a demo. But, it's face to face or PBEM. .

But, SPW is putting out a series of games on WW1, (I have all but one.) The intend the map to be used for a future WW2 in Europe as well.

I don't know if you saw them, but I added a couple of links to the above post.

And funny you should say the last part The old Avalon Hill General had a tounge in cheek article about that very thing. Featuring things like a 30 acre game board. 33,000 leaders of the Third Reich.....

As an aside, the price of board games is..... well let's say between spending $420 for DG's War in the Pacific, and $70 for WitP AE, I'll go with the latter.