A question about current state of balance and tactic

[veji1]

Funny, this last exchange of posts is exactly what I meant. Couldn't you just ignore the baiting posts of someone you have argued countless times and try to focus on the discussion at hand :

How could we, within the constraints of a game that isn't going to be completely rebuilt, tweak it so that we get a better historical feeling in 41/42 (more fighting capabilities for the Sovs, less c&c ; less speed from the Axis) and more fun in 42-45 for the side that has repetedly expressed that at this stage, fun is lacking (ie axis players : Give us some funky Chrome !).

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas




This is just unconstructive carping on the same subject over and over again. While you have made several good points in the past that I agree with, deliberatly spreading malcontent in the forum in each and every post is doing new players a disservice. There are certainly things that could be improved in WITE, but I think the verdict above is wildly exaggerated.

Don't forget this gem: "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."

We could start a collection. [;)] I would certainly be ready to pitch in a few dollars just to get rid of this dreary carping. And I think I have had very much game for the bucks for the money I paid for this game.

LOL!!!

I have yet to win as..... the Soviets. But the ROI has been dang good.

I just don't get it. There's games I don't play anymore. Either because they *really* are bad, (Braveheart anyone?), or I found something I like better. (Ageod's WW1 instead of Guns of August. Or AACW over GG WBTS.) Nothing wrong with WBTS. I like some of the concepts. I just like AACW better.

And despite losing 20 straight games as......... the North.

My point, (finally!!), is that I don't post on those forums or badmouth the games/designers over and over.

It isn't like it's Battlecruiser 3000 by Derek Smart.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
The problem is that some Soviet pockets did fold completely in a week in 1941, and most cities were not turned into fortresses like later in the war. But I do agree that in general, isolated units are too weak. It is not only the Soviets, the same goes for German units later in the war. I would suggest that their combat values were raised some, maybe with some random factor depending on leadership and/or morale rolls. The better leaders and the better the units morale, the larger chance that it would keep a decent combat ability.

As far as I have it on mind, the larger pockets took 2-3 weeks on average to reduce. And that took quite an effort for the German infantry.

I'd go a step further, pointing towards the occasionally cut-off German Panzer or Mot Div during 41 or 42, that certainly is a well known to any Axis player. Just happens sometimes, and it is also in the book with some exciting breakthru-fighting to relieve a cut-off spearhead during Barbarossa, or cut-off Demyansk (though here you could argue an airbase unit was in that pocket in game terms). The cut-off units turn to weak too quickly in my opinion, which is the same with the pockets. I'd wish for the supply in these units to decay slower, and hence combat values stay higher. I'd be happy to have to lower my optempo and accept higher losses when reducing the pockets in return for a little less punishment on cut-off spearheads.

[Tarhunnas]

The Biyalastok pocket was cleared by july 5 as far as I can determine. That is roughly two weeks from the start of the operation on june 22, which fits rather neatly in the time frame of WITE, one turn to surround them, one turn to mop them up. But I do agree that many pockets did take longer, and it seems that Soviet pockets were more resilent the longer the war lasted, that is why I suggested a connection with morale and leadership. And of course German isolated units were quite tough from the beginning.

Demyansk, Kholm or even Stalingrad are not possible to replicate in the game, they will fall much too fast. The air supply rule is a well intended, but since it is pure luck if you happen to have an airbase in the pocket, it is meaningless. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever had any benefit from that rule?

IMHO normal air supply, provided it is possible to fly in a sufficient amount, and coupled with decent morale and leadership, should make surrounded units largely immune to isolation effects.

[timmyab]

On the subject of isolated units, I'd like to see something of this sort implemented in any future games in this series.
Isolated units would have a strength related to a combination of their morale, ammo and supplies.Units with very high morale, say in the 80s, would fight at close to full strength as long as they had plenty of supplies and ammo.As their supplies and ammo diminish so would their CV.Morale would also drop for every turn isolated and in contact with enemy units.Perhaps in the region of 5 points per turn?
Whether a unit surrendered or not when isolated and attacked would depend on a combination of unit morale and the morale of any leader isolated in the same pocket.
In this way Soviet pockets would tend to be reduced quickly because of low morale units and leaders and historical long lasting German pockets would be possible.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The Biyalastok pocket was cleared by july 5 as far as I can determine. That is roughly two weeks from the start of the operation on june 22, which fits rather neatly in the time frame of WITE, one turn to surround them, one turn to mop them up. But I do agree that many pockets did take longer, and it seems that Soviet pockets were more resilent the longer the war lasted, that is why I suggested a connection with morale and leadership. And of course German isolated units were quite tough from the beginning.

Demyansk, Kholm or even Stalingrad are not possible to replicate in the game, they will fall much too fast. The air supply rule is a well intended, but since it is pure luck if you happen to have an airbase in the pocket, it is meaningless. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever had any benefit from that rule?

IMHO normal air supply, provided it is possible to fly in a sufficient amount, and coupled with decent morale and leadership, should make surrounded units largely immune to isolation effects.

A way to simulate "fierce, desperate, resistance would be nice. I know that in SPI's War in the East 2nd edition, if the Soviet units could trace to a Personel Center, like say, Minsk or Kiev, they were considered in supply. As far as defending that is.

The Germans, yeah, would fight as hard as they could to not end up as Russian prisoners.

Not sure how you could do that in this game though.

[Joel Billings]

Actually this isolated thing is a case of us agreeing in principle but the code being harder to deal with than you'd think. The system now has all kinds of factors in it to try to give higher morale units more staying power when isolated. It was tweaked several times during development and I think after release, but it never yielded the results that I'd like to see. I agree it should be very much a morale/experience thing, with the early Soviet units not being able to survive (the pockets did not last long when you realize that the current system takes at least 2 weeks to surround, isolate and destroy a pocket), while better units would survive longer. Unfortunately the code at this point is probably much more complicated than it should be. Another factor that we deal with is that the AI is not good at cleaning up pockets and dealing with units in the rear. We didn't want the early Soviets to be able to totally screw up the AI timetable. Bottom line is this item is on my list for some redoing as we work on altering combat in general in WitW in anticipation of WitE 2.0 and WiE.

[kg_1007]

I agree actually with both Joel and Aurelian here...I think this code is desirable, but would likely be a total bear to create...and even the best AI often has trouble with things such as mopping up pockets, etc..it does seem to work quite well at evading pockets when on the defensive, but not as good at creating them or finishing them off on offense, at least from how I see it thus far from trying both sides some against AI in trying to finish my mod.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I never bought the game, one reason is is I'm not sure I have the patience to learn it, another reason is I see lots of problems made by players on these lines which sort of puts me off as historical accuracy is important to me but so is fun. Things like German units that were destroyed in Stalingrad have to leave the East front even if Stalingrad never happened in game strikes me as bizarre game design (I take it back if this is the wring info I've garnered). Finally reading between the lines it feels like I'm best waiting for WITE 2 as I'm in no rush.

Anyway surely the victory conditions should be as follows for the GC. If the Germans hold off the final defeat to a later date than historical they win, if the Russians finish Germany off before the historical date they win. Or have a 6 month buffer either way and call it a draw if you fall within the buffer. Rather simple yet seems right to me.

I think WITE 1 is still better than many, not sure I would wait for WITE2 as by my calculations that is probably 5 yrs away

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The Biyalastok pocket was cleared by july 5 as far as I can determine. That is roughly two weeks from the start of the operation on june 22, which fits rather neatly in the time frame of WITE, one turn to surround them, one turn to mop them up. But I do agree that many pockets did take longer, and it seems that Soviet pockets were more resilent the longer the war lasted, that is why I suggested a connection with morale and leadership. And of course German isolated units were quite tough from the beginning.

Demyansk, Kholm or even Stalingrad are not possible to replicate in the game, they will fall much too fast. The air supply rule is a well intended, but since it is pure luck if you happen to have an airbase in the pocket, it is meaningless. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever had any benefit from that rule?

IMHO normal air supply, provided it is possible to fly in a sufficient amount, and coupled with decent morale and leadership, should make surrounded units largely immune to isolation effects.

In my last game (versus AI on Hard) I held Orel surrounded for 4 turns in January/February 1942 (i.e., first winter) with a panzer division, an infantry division, and an airbase in the city. I saw that it was going to be surrounded, realized I wanted it held, and moved the airbase in deliberately. It was only attacked twice in 4 turns (and it was relieved of isolation at least once) but overall I was very happy with the results of a (small) pocket and an airfield.

[Jimbo123]

I read these " balance " posts and wonder if some of the "everything is OK with the Germans posters" have even played the German side. I have started 12 GC's and won 4 as the Germans. Only 2 of the 12 games have gotten into 42. I have not yet tried a game as the Russians. If I have learned anything, the quality on the opposing Russian player is the #1 factor in deciding the game. I do not believe the German has a chance against a quality Russian player. By chance I mean the danmage and penetration in 41 to make it an interesting game. With the rail repair reduced to 3/4 hexes per turn and the the better players understanding how to maximize the use of reserves, I find it almost impossible to make enough progress in the South to scare the Bear! I believe I have played some excellent player in my last few games based on their posts and AAR's I have read. I am able to get Leningrad, get close to Moscow but really struggle to get even close to the Karkov/Stalino/Kursk line. To me it is pointless to play on if the penetration into Russian doesen't cause enough damage and gain enough space. I haven't used muling but have used the Lvov gambit. Love the game and will keep trying to fingure out " how to get to Rostov"! I just don't see it happening.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I read these " balance " posts and wonder if some of the "everything is OK with the Germans posters" have even played the German side. I have started 12 GC's and won 4 as the Germans. Only 2 of the 12 games have gotten into 42. I have not yet tried a game as the Russians. If I have learned anything, the quality on the opposing Russian player is the #1 factor in deciding the game. I do not believe the German has a chance against a quality Russian player. By chance I mean the danmage and penetration in 41 to make it an interesting game. With the rail repair reduced to 3/4 hexes per turn and the the better players understanding how to maximize the use of reserves, I find it almost impossible to make enough progress in the South to scare the Bear! I believe I have played some excellent player in my last few games based on their posts and AAR's I have read. I am able to get Leningrad, get close to Moscow but really struggle to get even close to the Karkov/Stalino/Kursk line. To me it is pointless to play on if the penetration into Russian doesen't cause enough damage and gain enough space. I haven't used muling but have used the Lvov gambit. Love the game and will keep trying to fingure out " how to get to Rostov"! I just don't see it happening.

I do agree with the basics of your post. I have played against AI 3 as German, winning 0, and 3 as Soviet, winning 3, all three I won before the end of '42 as Soviet. I think that a fairly competent Soviet player will always win this game.
I have changed some of this now with the mod I am trying to finish, one of which change was adding a couple of the "FBD" units to Germany, giving them 6 rather than the 4 they began with in "stock". This makes it possible to do some things that were not possible before, but I am toying with the idea of leaving them in or not, as rail truly was a hassle for the Axis side. Mostly I put them in to counter some other disadvantages I saw as unrealistic, but will see if I leave them in or not when I see how the next patch affects things.
The key though is that it is possible to fix a lot by tinkering with the editor, but you have to be careful that a small "fix" does not vastly change things, which I think is the worry of the designers who probably agree with a lot of the things brought up here, but it is delicate to "fix" one thing without knocking out something else.

[Jimbo123]

I wonder if lowering the ability to repair rail was a reaction to muling. Hopefully you contine to make progress with you Mod!

[entwood]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Actually this isolated thing is a case of us agreeing in principle but the code being harder to deal with than you'd think. The system now has all kinds of factors in it to try to give higher morale units more staying power when isolated. It was tweaked several times during development and I think after release, but it never yielded the results that I'd like to see. I agree it should be very much a morale/experience thing, with the early Soviet units not being able to survive (the pockets did not last long when you realize that the current system takes at least 2 weeks to surround, isolate and destroy a pocket), while better units would survive longer. Unfortunately the code at this point is probably much more complicated than it should be. Another factor that we deal with is that the AI is not good at cleaning up pockets and dealing with units in the rear. We didn't want the early Soviets to be able to totally screw up the AI timetable. Bottom line is this item is on my list for some redoing as we work on altering combat in general in WitW in anticipation of WitE 2.0 and WiE.

I am a programmer and I have seen and worked on heinous code. You just don't want to go into it, but if it has been worked on before, at least you know where that code is, and it can be tweaked again....no? or add a little algorithm at the end of the routine; seems doable

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I wonder if lowering the ability to repair rail was a reaction to muling. Hopefully you contine to make progress with you Mod!

I understand why the developers wanted to kill muling, but I am still not sure why anyone thought it was necessary in the first place...where are these mysterious Soviet players who totally run away and ruin the game? I haven't seen them - but I understand why they would now. Quite frankly, being a non-runner (I will run to the Dnepr but generally try to fight from there) the fort nerf makes it extremely difficult to do anything but run, even with a house rule against muling!

Right now playing as a Soviet with no Lvov pocket restriction against a good German player is almost impossible if you try to actually fight. That's what makes me laugh about the commenters who claim that runners are such criminals...it is the only sane response! Fighters can get 3-4 German units to retreat a turn...and then get 20 divisions immediately pocketed for their efforts.

Not a pleasant experience...

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I wonder if lowering the ability to repair rail was a reaction to muling. Hopefully you contine to make progress with you Mod!

I understand why the developers wanted to kill muling, but I am still not sure why anyone thought it was necessary in the first place...where are these mysterious Soviet players who totally run away and ruin the game? I haven't seen them - but I understand why they would now. Quite frankly, being a non-runner (I will run to the Dnepr but generally try to fight from there) the fort nerf makes it extremely difficult to do anything but run, even with a house rule against muling!

Right now playing as a Soviet with no Lvov pocket restriction against a good German player is almost impossible if you try to actually fight. That's what makes me laugh about the commenters who claim that runners are such criminals...it is the only sane response! Fighters can get 3-4 German units to retreat a turn...and then get 20 divisions immediately pocketed for their efforts.

Not a pleasant experience...

Showing my ignorance here as I did when asking what muling was before..but what is the "fort nerf"?

[76mm]

but what is the "fort nerf"?

When the game came out, it was much easier to build level 3, 4 and 5 forts, resulting huge, deep, belts of fortifications stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas and, in most cases, stalemate and trench warfare beginning in 1942.

One of the patches made it much more difficult to build forts beyond level 2, and since such forts are almost worthless, the utility of building forts is much reduced.

[kg_1007]

Ahh..that was something I had not heard, that indeed would indicate one thing that is not "pro-Soviet" at all, as that takes away one of their better advantages.
Was that intentionally done? Or just an accident noticed after the fact?

[76mm]

The nerf? Of course it was done intentionally, it was hard to miss the 5-hex-deep carpet of forts all across Russia and the resulting lack of 1942 offensives by the Germans.

But, shhhhh, we might upset the players who are convinced that the devs have a deep-seated pro-Sov bias.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The Biyalastok pocket was cleared by july 5 as far as I can determine. That is roughly two weeks from the start of the operation on june 22, which fits rather neatly in the time frame of WITE, one turn to surround them, one turn to mop them up. But I do agree that many pockets did take longer, and it seems that Soviet pockets were more resilent the longer the war lasted, that is why I suggested a connection with morale and leadership. And of course German isolated units were quite tough from the beginning.

Demyansk, Kholm or even Stalingrad are not possible to replicate in the game, they will fall much too fast. The air supply rule is a well intended, but since it is pure luck if you happen to have an airbase in the pocket, it is meaningless. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever had any benefit from that rule?

IMHO normal air supply, provided it is possible to fly in a sufficient amount, and coupled with decent morale and leadership, should make surrounded units largely immune to isolation effects.

In my last game (versus AI on Hard) I held Orel surrounded for 4 turns in January/February 1942 (i.e., first winter) with a panzer division, an infantry division, and an airbase in the city. I saw that it was going to be surrounded, realized I wanted it held, and moved the airbase in deliberately. It was only attacked twice in 4 turns (and it was relieved of isolation at least once) but overall I was very happy with the results of a (small) pocket and an airfield.

Hmm, interesting, thanks! I don't think I would dare to do that against a human opponent though.