Thanks Ill hang up and listen.
So...sell me on this..:-)
Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3
So...sell me on this..:-)
Im an awful wargamer. Dont recall winning many if any PBEMs...yet Im like a bug to fire I cant resist. Im also a long time WITP player...(and yeah I suck at that
)...how suitable is this game for PBEMs? and does it have any similarity to WITP as far as unit scale? The one thing I despise about WITP is the unrealistic ground combat in places like China and Burma (in my opinion at least). Is it more realistic here given that there are no navy units to toy with?
Thanks Ill hang up and listen.
Thanks Ill hang up and listen.

RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
I think that even the most loud critics of this game probably enjoy it. It is incredible in its depth, it is a heaven for those who like tinkering through the editor, its game play regarding land warfare is not perfect, but is probably worthy of an 8.5/10 rating. The air war is a bit abstracted, which as it played a huge part in the real thing, sometimes could be a bit annoying, but really, with so much detail already in the land model, if they added much more to the air model, it probably would take days to finish one turn, and become a "real-time" ww2 game taking 4 yrs to complete.
I would definitely say that if you enjoy land warfare games, it is worth it.
I would definitely say that if you enjoy land warfare games, it is worth it.
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
I haven't played WITP, but I did play UV, and land combat in WITE is totally different. In WITE, the focus is on land combat, and it is immensely more detailed and dynamic. In UV land combat felt like a poor cousin, an afterthought, while in WITE it is the main thing. WITE is a complicated game though, but the best on the market on the subject I would say.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
RTW3 Designer
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
the air war is abstracted how? Do you not control individual squadrons (as far as bombing missions caps etc). Is

RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I haven't played WITP, but I did play UV, and land combat in WITE is totally different. In WITE, the focus is on land combat, and it is immensely more detailed and dynamic. In UV land combat felt like a poor cousin, an afterthought, while in WITE it is the main thing. WITE is a complicated game though, but the best on the market on the subject I would say.
Yeah the land combat in WITP is pretty awful in burma and china....steamrollers.
I assumed it would be good here...my interest was more how the air was handled...and just how "micro" one can get ...for PBEM purposes.

- heliodorus04
- Posts: 1653
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
- Location: Nashville TN
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
For PBEM the game is utterly borked.
Germany is tied to the rail of 'national morale' that will always drag down its ability to stand its ground, completely irrespective of other attritional aspects of the war. The morale loss in January of every year is the single biggest obstacle Germany will face from 42 on. No one will share the morale increase formula, but my personally collected data shows that Germany has less than a 5% chance to increase unit morale in a successful attack or defense, an almost 100% chance to lose a morale point in an unsuccessful attack, a mandatory loss of 1 morale point (with a probabilistic chance to lose 2) if it loses a defense. This is my chief complaint with the game mechanics. The same equations that drive German morale down also drive Soviet morale up, and the reciprocals of Soviet morale increases are far, far more generous to the Soviet side.
The Soviet player has all the advantages. He can lose Moscow and Leningrad and still preserve a 6 million man army by December 1941, with which he can then drive the German player back, limited only by movement allowances.
The Soviet has huge hindsight advantages that are denied to Germany, indeed, Germany's rails ensure it commits all sorts of inefficient force 're-organizations" that will result in hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces leaving the eastern front to sit in "reserve pools". The Soviet is free to look at his TOE per year and skip the inefficient unit types, increasing his force growth over history, and creating a fighting force that is perfectly tailored to the game mechanics.
The air war in this game is beyond ridiculous, with the Soviet having the ability to destroy the Luftwaffe entirely by 1942 (house rules are always used on this point, but still, it should stand as a warning to you about the other oversights in this game engine).
The Soviet can field brigades of 1,000 men and 10 artillery pieces that can effectively slow down an entire panzer division of 14,000 men and 120 tanks. There is no such thing as an 'over-run' so the Soviet is free to remove divisions from the front (to raise their morale in the rear) and replace them with conscript-type brigades that cost exactly as much movement to attack, and that never shatter.
The Soviet player understands the production system, which is so designed that the category of "Heavy Industry" (which basically produces supplies) are irrelevant if captured by Germany. This results in the Soviet evacuating all of his armaments (the much more important bottleneck to Soviet production), and then using the excess rail capacity to permanently embed a high-quality Army and its subordinates, creating a lightning quick-response team that can show up at any 1942 danger zone and be used as a de facto fire brigade. By the middle of 1942, the Soviet front is 5-hexes deep, encased in fortifications that will bleed the German dry. Maneuver warfare ends there, at which point you have a detente that predictably transfers power from the German to the Soviet, who then slams turn after turn into the German defenses with his perfect army until the German player quits out of frustration with tedium, or the Soviet says he's bored and quits. Most games see Germany falling in 1944, if the game even evolves to that point (which is very rare these days).
Whether you have a "Stalingrad" or not, you will see the units that surrendered at Stalingrad removed from the map for no reason reflective of your unique game.
One partisan unit can shut down supply to your army groups for 2 weeks in 1941, effectively doing more to stop you than the entire Red Army. If that's not bad enough, the engine allows the Soviet airborne brigades to drop 200 miles behind enemy lines (right on the rail line) where they will land perfectly and also shut down the rail for two more weeks. People do this. This is legal. This is why you should not play PBEM (unless you know your opponent's sportsmanship).
I could go on.
Remember that when people point to AARs where Germany wins, it's to one of the 4 or 5 best players in the game, without exception. Look in the "Opponents Wanted" section to see how many Soviet players are looking for German opponents (especially "experienced" German opponents). The reason for that disparity is that people who enjoy the German history of the Russian front have moved on, realizing that this game was never really intended for us.
Save your money. PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.
Germany is tied to the rail of 'national morale' that will always drag down its ability to stand its ground, completely irrespective of other attritional aspects of the war. The morale loss in January of every year is the single biggest obstacle Germany will face from 42 on. No one will share the morale increase formula, but my personally collected data shows that Germany has less than a 5% chance to increase unit morale in a successful attack or defense, an almost 100% chance to lose a morale point in an unsuccessful attack, a mandatory loss of 1 morale point (with a probabilistic chance to lose 2) if it loses a defense. This is my chief complaint with the game mechanics. The same equations that drive German morale down also drive Soviet morale up, and the reciprocals of Soviet morale increases are far, far more generous to the Soviet side.
The Soviet player has all the advantages. He can lose Moscow and Leningrad and still preserve a 6 million man army by December 1941, with which he can then drive the German player back, limited only by movement allowances.
The Soviet has huge hindsight advantages that are denied to Germany, indeed, Germany's rails ensure it commits all sorts of inefficient force 're-organizations" that will result in hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces leaving the eastern front to sit in "reserve pools". The Soviet is free to look at his TOE per year and skip the inefficient unit types, increasing his force growth over history, and creating a fighting force that is perfectly tailored to the game mechanics.
The air war in this game is beyond ridiculous, with the Soviet having the ability to destroy the Luftwaffe entirely by 1942 (house rules are always used on this point, but still, it should stand as a warning to you about the other oversights in this game engine).
The Soviet can field brigades of 1,000 men and 10 artillery pieces that can effectively slow down an entire panzer division of 14,000 men and 120 tanks. There is no such thing as an 'over-run' so the Soviet is free to remove divisions from the front (to raise their morale in the rear) and replace them with conscript-type brigades that cost exactly as much movement to attack, and that never shatter.
The Soviet player understands the production system, which is so designed that the category of "Heavy Industry" (which basically produces supplies) are irrelevant if captured by Germany. This results in the Soviet evacuating all of his armaments (the much more important bottleneck to Soviet production), and then using the excess rail capacity to permanently embed a high-quality Army and its subordinates, creating a lightning quick-response team that can show up at any 1942 danger zone and be used as a de facto fire brigade. By the middle of 1942, the Soviet front is 5-hexes deep, encased in fortifications that will bleed the German dry. Maneuver warfare ends there, at which point you have a detente that predictably transfers power from the German to the Soviet, who then slams turn after turn into the German defenses with his perfect army until the German player quits out of frustration with tedium, or the Soviet says he's bored and quits. Most games see Germany falling in 1944, if the game even evolves to that point (which is very rare these days).
Whether you have a "Stalingrad" or not, you will see the units that surrendered at Stalingrad removed from the map for no reason reflective of your unique game.
One partisan unit can shut down supply to your army groups for 2 weeks in 1941, effectively doing more to stop you than the entire Red Army. If that's not bad enough, the engine allows the Soviet airborne brigades to drop 200 miles behind enemy lines (right on the rail line) where they will land perfectly and also shut down the rail for two more weeks. People do this. This is legal. This is why you should not play PBEM (unless you know your opponent's sportsmanship).
I could go on.
Remember that when people point to AARs where Germany wins, it's to one of the 4 or 5 best players in the game, without exception. Look in the "Opponents Wanted" section to see how many Soviet players are looking for German opponents (especially "experienced" German opponents). The reason for that disparity is that people who enjoy the German history of the Russian front have moved on, realizing that this game was never really intended for us.
Save your money. PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
I think Helio has a tendency to be over-negative. Personally, I enjoy playing both sides in PBEM, and I have not had as much enjoyment out of any other game. While there is room for improvement, the developers are listening to the forum and gradually making adjustments. IMHO this is a great game, and one of my best gaming buys ever!
Only if you want to be outraged and then apparently have nothing better to do than spend an inordinate amount of time complaining in the forum about a game you don't like.
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.
Only if you want to be outraged and then apparently have nothing better to do than spend an inordinate amount of time complaining in the forum about a game you don't like.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
RTW3 Designer
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
I'm new to WiTE but am enjoying it greatly.
Playability - it does look overwhelming, but it's actually surprisingly easy to manage the huge number of forces compared to other games I've played. I started off by ignoring some of the more in-depth features, and slowly am coming to understand when I need to tinker with things (TOE levels, HQ buildup or Refit mode etc).
I'm a long term studier of the eastern front and after a lot of hesitation I got the game and have not been disappointed. For me, a game of this size and scope is more about the journey than the destination. I don't have strong emotions invested in either side and am interested in the challenges each faces. I have not played any PBEM, at the moment my work makes me too unreliable as an opponent, but the AI is one of the most capable I've come across - I've been pleasantly surprised so far. Although your query is about PBEM you will still want to play the AI quite a few times before jumping into playing a human opponent.
And yes I believe ground combat to be much more realistic than WITP.
Regarding the Stalingrad withdrawals - it's true this would be exasperating if built in to the engine, but they are not. You can edit scenarios and campaigns to *not* do whichever withdrawals concern you:
tm.asp?m=2910346&mpage=1
Seems to me we don't have to accept the victory conditions in GCs either. Edit and set your own, or both players can come to an agreement about what victory or defeat entails.
Many of the complaints about issues involving "gamesmanship" can and are addressed by house rules - speaking of which that would be a good topic, "best house rules". There are some issues that can't be fixed by house rules, or editing, but that's life. No game of this scale is perfect, all wargames are a compromise to allow people like us to experiment with history within a set of confines. Not everyone will be happy with that, the great thing is there are so many wargames out there and each of us will find something we like.
I like WiTE!
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
ORIGINAL: rroberson
ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I haven't played WITP, but I did play UV, and land combat in WITE is totally different. In WITE, the focus is on land combat, and it is immensely more detailed and dynamic. In UV land combat felt like a poor cousin, an afterthought, while in WITE it is the main thing. WITE is a complicated game though, but the best on the market on the subject I would say.
Yeah the land combat in WITP is pretty awful in burma and china....steamrollers.
I assumed it would be good here...my interest was more how the air was handled...and just how "micro" one can get ...for PBEM purposes.
The airwar is nowhere near as detailed. No pilots to keep track of. The air units train themselves. You can send them to the National Reserve where they can't get touched by enemy action. There is an Air Doctrine screen where you can set what percentage will fly for the various missions.
You can set the airgroups to upgrade automatically or by manual. Fighter Bomber groups can be set to do one or the other. You can also set them to fly day or night.
Building a new PC.
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
For PBEM the game is utterly borked.
Germany is tied to the rail of 'national morale' that will always drag down its ability to stand its ground, completely irrespective of other attritional aspects of the war. The morale loss in January of every year is the single biggest obstacle Germany will face from 42 on. No one will share the morale increase formula, but my personally collected data shows that Germany has less than a 5% chance to increase unit morale in a successful attack or defense, an almost 100% chance to lose a morale point in an unsuccessful attack, a mandatory loss of 1 morale point (with a probabilistic chance to lose 2) if it loses a defense. This is my chief complaint with the game mechanics. The same equations that drive German morale down also drive Soviet morale up, and the reciprocals of Soviet morale increases are far, far more generous to the Soviet side.
The Soviet player has all the advantages. He can lose Moscow and Leningrad and still preserve a 6 million man army by December 1941, with which he can then drive the German player back, limited only by movement allowances.
The Soviet has huge hindsight advantages that are denied to Germany, indeed, Germany's rails ensure it commits all sorts of inefficient force 're-organizations" that will result in hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces leaving the eastern front to sit in "reserve pools". The Soviet is free to look at his TOE per year and skip the inefficient unit types, increasing his force growth over history, and creating a fighting force that is perfectly tailored to the game mechanics.
The air war in this game is beyond ridiculous, with the Soviet having the ability to destroy the Luftwaffe entirely by 1942 (house rules are always used on this point, but still, it should stand as a warning to you about the other oversights in this game engine).
The Soviet can field brigades of 1,000 men and 10 artillery pieces that can effectively slow down an entire panzer division of 14,000 men and 120 tanks. There is no such thing as an 'over-run' so the Soviet is free to remove divisions from the front (to raise their morale in the rear) and replace them with conscript-type brigades that cost exactly as much movement to attack, and that never shatter.
The Soviet player understands the production system, which is so designed that the category of "Heavy Industry" (which basically produces supplies) are irrelevant if captured by Germany. This results in the Soviet evacuating all of his armaments (the much more important bottleneck to Soviet production), and then using the excess rail capacity to permanently embed a high-quality Army and its subordinates, creating a lightning quick-response team that can show up at any 1942 danger zone and be used as a de facto fire brigade. By the middle of 1942, the Soviet front is 5-hexes deep, encased in fortifications that will bleed the German dry. Maneuver warfare ends there, at which point you have a detente that predictably transfers power from the German to the Soviet, who then slams turn after turn into the German defenses with his perfect army until the German player quits out of frustration with tedium, or the Soviet says he's bored and quits. Most games see Germany falling in 1944, if the game even evolves to that point (which is very rare these days).
Whether you have a "Stalingrad" or not, you will see the units that surrendered at Stalingrad removed from the map for no reason reflective of your unique game.
One partisan unit can shut down supply to your army groups for 2 weeks in 1941, effectively doing more to stop you than the entire Red Army. If that's not bad enough, the engine allows the Soviet airborne brigades to drop 200 miles behind enemy lines (right on the rail line) where they will land perfectly and also shut down the rail for two more weeks. People do this. This is legal. This is why you should not play PBEM (unless you know your opponent's sportsmanship).
I could go on.
Remember that when people point to AARs where Germany wins, it's to one of the 4 or 5 best players in the game, without exception. Look in the "Opponents Wanted" section to see how many Soviet players are looking for German opponents (especially "experienced" German opponents). The reason for that disparity is that people who enjoy the German history of the Russian front have moved on, realizing that this game was never really intended for us.
Save your money. PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.
Arent all of these things that you can go in and modify yourself in the editor? I'm just learning to play with the editor, so I am not sure. I've been playing with outfitting all of my Pz Grp with Mark VI's in June 1941. It's fun!
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Save your money. PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.
blah blah blah. The game certainly has flaws but if you have general interest in the topic it is worth picking up and playing at least a few games. The game is expensive, but is not a bad deal on a $ per playing hour basis.
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
The Germans are not "on rails" They have as much historical hindsight as the other side. More so, as unlike OKH, they can take a peak at the Russian unit arrivals. They know *exactly* where all the Soviet units are. You won't hear them say, as Halder did " We reckoned with 200 divisions; now we have already counted 360." He said that in mid August 1941.
The Russians can get the same info on the Axis. But for some strange reason, it is of no help. In 41/42 anyway.
The logistics favor the attacker. Which means Germany first.
TOE? Neither side can change it.
The Stalingrad nonsense. It's been explained over and over why he is wrong about it. But it falls on deaf ears.
Read it here:
tm.asp?m=3097828&mpage=5?
Tell me that the Soviets are not on rails:
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.
This happens in *every* game. *No* amount of wishfull thinking or carping will change that.
Does the game have issues? Of course it does. It hasn't been around since the 6th century like Chess.
But it is quite playable.
Oh, and per helio: "Give me a $20 refund (and another $10 for the manual I bought) and I'll be more accommodating. Else, you will have to put up with me abiding by your forum rules and calling you out on the myriad hypocritical, a-historical, or just plain 'poor design decisions' in your product."
Kind of hard to give him *any* credence with such a statement.
The Russians can get the same info on the Axis. But for some strange reason, it is of no help. In 41/42 anyway.
The logistics favor the attacker. Which means Germany first.
TOE? Neither side can change it.
The Stalingrad nonsense. It's been explained over and over why he is wrong about it. But it falls on deaf ears.
Read it here:
tm.asp?m=3097828&mpage=5?
Tell me that the Soviets are not on rails:
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.
This happens in *every* game. *No* amount of wishfull thinking or carping will change that.
Does the game have issues? Of course it does. It hasn't been around since the 6th century like Chess.
But it is quite playable.
Oh, and per helio: "Give me a $20 refund (and another $10 for the manual I bought) and I'll be more accommodating. Else, you will have to put up with me abiding by your forum rules and calling you out on the myriad hypocritical, a-historical, or just plain 'poor design decisions' in your product."
Kind of hard to give him *any* credence with such a statement.
Building a new PC.
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
I think that despite the points listed, the game has, as I said above, great potential...what is probably as much important, perhaps even more important, is this...
This is a genre where few companies survive long, and if I see a company making products that I like, even if there are some things I hope they change at some point, I would be hurting my own favorite hobby, if I do not support them.
This is a genre where few companies survive long, and if I see a company making products that I like, even if there are some things I hope they change at some point, I would be hurting my own favorite hobby, if I do not support them.
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
When it's all said and done, it is worth the money.
This is coming from someone who balked at the price too.
Which is really strange considering I bought WiTP. And almost whole SPW series. (1 left.)
This is coming from someone who balked at the price too.
Which is really strange considering I bought WiTP. And almost whole SPW series. (1 left.)
Building a new PC.
- heliodorus04
- Posts: 1653
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
- Location: Nashville TN
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.
Only if you want to be outraged and then apparently have nothing better to do than spend an inordinate amount of time complaining in the forum about a game you don't like.
I stopped playing multiplayer, and I was responding to a question asked. Notice that I am not one to complain about the 'run-away' factor that land can just be abandoned. I don't mind that, because it works equally for/against both sides throughout the game.
It was my math that showed how great an advantage the Soviets have in command and control, shortly after which the CP levels of Soviets were adjusted downward as the war progresses by patch. I don't mean to say that is to my credit, but I was the one researching and measuring the problem.
Look, War in the East was a revenue-generating beta test for 2by3 and Matrix. You can read how our complaints in War in the East are being used to generate a better engine for War in the West. But I didn't BUY War in the West for $80. I bought War in the East, and I expected more support than I've gotten.
People who bought this title were rubes being farmed for money first and input second on the engine that they will ultimately release 2 or 3 titles from now (War in the West, another possible War in the East, some War in North Africa/War in Western Europe/France, what have you).
This title was an intermediary product on the way to a final product, and we were bilked exorbitantly to beta test, as well as being given false promises about product support. I do find that outrageous.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
- Joel Billings
- Posts: 33526
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Santa Rosa, CA
- Contact:
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
Here's my post from the other thread:
Re the Stalingrad withdrawal issue. It is one part myth, one part design. Many units destroyed at Stalingrad were rebuilt and sent to the Western Front. These are the units that we have set to withdraw with the assumption that had they not been destroyed, they, or units like them would have been sent to the Western Front. Now there is some disagreement about this because some of the units were being formed in Germany and took on the names of units that had been destroyed in Stalingrad. IIRC the guys working on this replied that many/most of these units were just starting to be formed and that resources did come from the main pool that would have otherwise been available to go east. In the game, if you have a unit destroyed, it is rebuilt by resources otherwise available in the East and if it was set to withdraw it is still rebuilt and then withdrawn. Bottom line is if you don't lose these units at Stalingrad you end up better off than if you lose them, which is as it should be.
Helio, as I 've said before, I'm sorry you are not happy with the game, but no game pleases everyone . Your continuing to hit the same points over and over again (including having this mythical Stalingrad issue on your sig) is not getting you or the game anywhere. I have never used the forum blocking mechanism before, but I am going to use it now as I see you adding nothing to the conversation at this point and are simply wasting a lot of people's time and energy that could be much better spent elsewhere. I wish you the best and hope you find a game to play that you can enjoy.
Re the Stalingrad withdrawal issue. It is one part myth, one part design. Many units destroyed at Stalingrad were rebuilt and sent to the Western Front. These are the units that we have set to withdraw with the assumption that had they not been destroyed, they, or units like them would have been sent to the Western Front. Now there is some disagreement about this because some of the units were being formed in Germany and took on the names of units that had been destroyed in Stalingrad. IIRC the guys working on this replied that many/most of these units were just starting to be formed and that resources did come from the main pool that would have otherwise been available to go east. In the game, if you have a unit destroyed, it is rebuilt by resources otherwise available in the East and if it was set to withdraw it is still rebuilt and then withdrawn. Bottom line is if you don't lose these units at Stalingrad you end up better off than if you lose them, which is as it should be.
Helio, as I 've said before, I'm sorry you are not happy with the game, but no game pleases everyone . Your continuing to hit the same points over and over again (including having this mythical Stalingrad issue on your sig) is not getting you or the game anywhere. I have never used the forum blocking mechanism before, but I am going to use it now as I see you adding nothing to the conversation at this point and are simply wasting a lot of people's time and energy that could be much better spent elsewhere. I wish you the best and hope you find a game to play that you can enjoy.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-- Soren Kierkegaard
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
Thank you Joel, the red button can only do so much.
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
The troops reformed from Stalingrad is not a myth. Both sides have an argument, but it is not a myth. I understand troops were needed west and some units probably would have been sent west. I argue that not an entire army would have been sent west. The loss of 6th army destabilized the entire southern front. Pulling out that many troops would have had consequences in the actual war. Compromise and pull out half and leave half I would agree with. Pulling them all is hard to accept. I happen to be in game currently and am losing those formations. I need them and do not see how I am better off.
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The Soviet can field brigades of 1,000 men and 10 artillery pieces that can effectively slow down an entire panzer division of 14,000 men and 120 tanks. There is no such thing as an 'over-run' so the Soviet is free to remove divisions from the front (to raise their morale in the rear) and replace them with conscript-type brigades that cost exactly as much movement to attack, and that never shatter.
The upcoming patch will make it much easier for Soviet Brigades to rout.
If that's not bad enough, the engine allows the Soviet airborne brigades to drop 200 miles behind enemy lines (right on the rail line) where they will land perfectly and also shut down the rail for two more weeks. People do this. This is legal. This is why you should not play PBEM (unless you know your opponent's sportsmanship).
The upcoming patch will nerf this.
RE: So...sell me on this..:-)
I agree there needs to be some compromise here, whether its half or even just a better system of letting the player choose withdrawals. I just don't think its going to be done in this WiTE version however, especially since its easily modified in the editor.
From turn 1 the withdrawal system is unhistorical because those decisions were made based on the conditions at the time. Seems to me they chose to implement this the best they could while not spending too much time creating a completely player driven system (which would take many more man hours to code than a fixed system).
The only way its going to completely make sense is if we make our own history with War in Europe
From turn 1 the withdrawal system is unhistorical because those decisions were made based on the conditions at the time. Seems to me they chose to implement this the best they could while not spending too much time creating a completely player driven system (which would take many more man hours to code than a fixed system).
The only way its going to completely make sense is if we make our own history with War in Europe





