Game Suggestions:

[Bronze]

Just to make sure this was seen by developers (I think it should really be in the next patch):

6) Adjust the upgrading routine of the AI's airforce.

After the end of my last GC in the fall of '43, I am able to look at Soviet Units (thanks for this fix). Most of the fighter/fighter bomber air units are equiped with I-15/I-16 types despite the fact that the reserves are depleted of them. There are probably on average 10 planes per max 32 unit. In the meantime, 1000s of newer, more modern, greatly superior frames sit in pools that barely possess any active units using them.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Von Hindenburg

Just to make sure this was seen by developers (I think it should really be in the next patch):

6) Adjust the upgrading routine of the AI's airforce.

After the end of my last GC in the fall of '43, I am able to look at Soviet Units (thanks for this fix). Most of the fighter/fighter bomber air units are equiped with I-15/I-16 types despite the fact that the reserves are depleted of them. There are probably on average 10 planes per max 32 unit. In the meantime, 1000s of newer, more modern, greatly superior frames sit in pools that barely possess any active units using them.

This is not ringing any bells with me. Did you bug report it in the Tech Support forum with a save file?

[Schmart]

I don't now if the aircraft upgrade routine is a bug per se, but that was something I mentioned many moons ago. It was especially the I-15/I-16 type series that wasn't upgrading (although other types fall into the same 'system') because they have no defined upgrade path, so the computer makes little attempt to upgrade the equipment, presumably because there's nothing telling it to upgrade those types.

[Denniss]

Common problem for aircraft without upgrade path, you may see it with MiG-3 and LaGG-3 as well. I can't remember whether bombers/ground attack are affected as well or the routine works better for them.

[bednarre]

I think the Russian CV is too deterministic, and the average has to be keep down to allow German breakthroughs. The Russian command control in WITE allows the SHC to exactly coordinate defensive withdrawls, building of fortifications, and knowlege of exact defensive capability (CV). The attack side of the CV might as well be 0; only an occasional isolated German unit can be attacked by swarms of Russian divisions. A quick fix to add confussion to certainty is to make the possible CV range for the Russians to be very large, and this spread would decline with the years into the war. The randomness would keep the average Russian CV the same, but allow very low CVs in some cases, and very high CVs in other cases. For example, suppose the average CV for a Russian unit is 1. In the current game, variation would probably have it somewhere between 0.5 and 1.1. This makes attacking impossible and forces stacks of Russians units for any credible defense. Suppose the spread was more like 0.1 to 4.0, still averaging 1.0 . A stack of 3 Russians units like this could have a CV ranging anywhere from 0.3 to 12.0, not counting fortifications. This offers some hope of attacking a weak German division, but also has the chance of being a weak defense. With a level 3 fort the range would be 1.2 to 48.0, with the average 12.0 . This forces both sides to factor in this uncertainty, and takes alot of gamey tactics out of the equation (Lvov Masterpiece, for example). The Russian player is encouraged to attack, because building an impregnable line is a myth, and it is the offensive capability of the defense that preserves the line.

There will now be a strong chance that the line will have several weak points, but extra attacks will have to be conducted to find them. On the other hand, historical tough fights early in the war can be simulated, and most important of all, the Russians should not become supermen in the Great Blizzard. The spread should decline with time, so that in 1942 it may be 0.2 to 3.0, and still averaging1.0 . The randomness should only be factored in at combat time, so German reconnaisance will only see the average. If Matrix is interested, I could develop some probability tables which show the point.

[Bronze]

Correct, didn't log it as a bug but will go home and fetch the save file. And yes, the Laggs, Mig3s and Yak1s (I think) also didn't upgrade - I didn't pay much attention to the bombers as I feel the AI doesn't really use them much.

[cpt flam]

for me i saw frequently SB2 being replace by IL4
must tell you to put manual change for tactical
Su2 & IL 2 can be changed with U2-VS and then no more change possible
turn later (or two) name will change from tac to night bomber [:@]

[bednarre]

I agree that Russian command and control appears to be too efficient. I would only display the maximum MPs a Russian (or German) unit may have and when they are out of MPs, the unit stops. The perfect orchestration of massive defenses and complete encirclements would make modern armies envious. The tooltip for MP should also be based on maximum MPs. There is no movement loss in reserves for breaking through lines initially. The best way to have breakthroughs is with a large Russian CV varitability.

[Flaviusx]

Yeah, I don't want to play a game where I have no idea what my units movement ratings are. Full stop. And what's more, I doubt most German players want to play that game either.

[governato]

Yeah, I don't want to play a game where I have no idea what my units movement ratings are. Full stop. And what's more, I doubt most German players want to play that game either.

I disagree. It is however true that many people do not really want to deal with the real problems that commanders had on the field, which would translate into a much stronger 'fog of war'. While this is common in computer games I think it is too bad. With less information about our units and the opponent forces we would have more games like M60 vs Farfarer (where Farfarer basically pretended not to know how big the Red Army was and went full on Zitadelle on M60), which have a true historical feel and less of a chess like game, where instead people worry about rule details and exploit them to the full.

Long story short: I'd be fine with having a rough estimate of a unit MPs, if that 'd work both ways. Heck sometimes
Red Army a commanders did not even know where their infantry divisions were..for several days (Glantz makes for an interesting reading about this, as usual). That'd be easy to translate into a partial knowledge of a unit MPs.

My personal hope is that in a few years, with better AIs, there will be games where the players will be able to give abstract orders to units at the army/corp level and let the computer take care of the rest.

[Flaviusx]

Governato, in such a game, I would conduct myself as if every unit only had the minimum possible movement points available for an unisolated infantry unit. That is to say, 12 MPs. (Isolated units are generally not going anywhere more than a hex or two.) There would very little variability here from the Soviet standpoint before 1943. (And even later beyond, since the Soviet advance is generally set at the speed of rifle corps and artillery divsions.)

The confusion would be all on the side with units that have a large spread of movement ability. That would be the Axis.

So unless you change up this floor on movement rates, it won't much affect the Soviet side. The downside is all on the Axis which is far more reliant on panzers with MPs that can be all over the place.

Beyond that, this is a very deliberately old school game drawing on a lot of old school board mechanics and appeals mostly to a specific demographic that doesn't want things to wander too far off that reservation. There's only so much you can do with an IGOUGO turn based game.

[governato]

I see the problems and mine was more of a comment for future games than WITE itself, which is indeed 'traditional'.
Any changes in the MP sytem would have wide implications in terms of game balance..and I have no desire to go there with the current game!

[swkuh]

Certainly agree that IGOUGO affects a lot of game feel, but things are what they are. (Looking for a game that does some sort of interactive, continuous operation.)

Be nice if this thread or others dealing with patches or corrections to current versions could focus on what doesn't conform to the users handbook, or suggested operations. (Using current beta version.)

For example, noted that turn-to-turn casalties don't add up to totals after a few turns. Is there a reason?

Similarly, Soviet side often is reported to have very low or zero losses after AI completes. Seems silly.

Defensive CVs reported during combat resolution sometimes are enormously different from what's expected. Interesting effect , but what's intended? Wasn't happening in, e.g., 1.06.06, earlier versions used.

Still try and fail to reassign air units to different bases. During the multi-step procedure an info panel pops up and covers the icon for the goto air base. What am I doing wrong?

Would be nice to have threads on attempted changes for next update and features for WitE 2.0. And to get authoritative info from the developers.

[cpt flam]

to transfer planes from a base to an other
- must not have fly (or first mission)
- you select departure airbase
select plane (click on left of the unit)
- select destination (plane will have 1 per cent fly)

[swkuh]

Thx cpt flam. That's the procedure I've tried. Yes, there have been no missions. Yes, I select the losing base (by clicking on the map hex to see the right side detail.) Yes, I select the unit by clicking the air base, clicking the left side of the unit descrition. At that point a large pop-up panel covers the map so I click on the receiving air base in the right side detail. This only shows the units of the selected receiving air base. There is no transfer. (is this maybe a function of the "commanders' screen?")

What I do is to assign the unit to "reserve" and later, assign it from reserve to an active air base, using the "assign" function. This process makes sense as it ties up the unit for 1 turn. Just don't understand manual's description of a one-step transfer process.

[bednarre]

Flaviusx:

Some early wargames on the Eastern front did not show the Russian CV, but they were very enjoyable games (Panzer Group Guderian, SPI). If you want a "game", versus a "simulation", why not let the Russians have a chess-like movement capability. In fact, giving the Russians more attack capability would really increase Russian-side interest in the early years. But the two are difficult to go together. Why? Combine chess with superior numbers equals checkmate. The Russians would have liked this capability in 1941, and even expected this! But that is not what happened and the German OOB is based on historical German performance (good and bad). Thus there is always a "simulation" component which constrains the player. Having more movement capability when isolated, especially for foot soldiers, combined with unknown variable movement rates, results in chaos, just like in the actual campaign! Many Russian units escaped encirclement while their neighbors did not. Why did the actual Russians not form two or three lines of defense in 1941/1942?

[mrchuck]

Since this is for game suggestions, I have a few, mostly UI stuff.
1. Show fighter and bomber radius from airbases--real staffs would have known this stuff, counting hexes is a pain. Too many times the engine is happy to send off unescorted bombing missions. I'm not. A circle centred on the base would be really handy. Ctrl-something?
2. Remove the need to deselect 0 movement point units in a stack. Of course they should be deselected by default. They can't move. Duh! Major source of excess clicking.
3. There has to be a better way to find detached regiments than hunting through either the reports or the map. Show direction and distance to peer units? Doesn't have to exact, but anything would help. Again, real staffs would be able to tell me.
4. There should be a way to steer SUs to a specific location where they are needed. For example, I'd like to send the Karl mortars to Sevastapol where they would be most useful. I can't figure out how to do this by hand.
5. I'm having the same problem relocating air units. This may be a bug or something. Can't get it to work.
6. Some way to set the TOE max % other than one by one in the Commander report, e.g. for an AG, Front, Army or Corps. This is so fiddly as to be almost useless unless I've missed a better way to do it.
7. I'm in strong agreement with a much earlier post that suggested being able to use AP to manipulate the Axis reinforcement and withdrawal schedule within certain strict limits. This looks like a great idea to me. Also with being able to nominate which units to satisfy withdrawals, even if you don't change the schedule, as opposed to having them vanish inconveniently. This is reasonable and sensible and in keeping with the spirit of the current rules.
8. Air unit detail doesn't tell you what type of plane you're looking it. This seems to be an oversight. Matters with obscure types or where e.g. recon and bomber versions are hard to tell apart.
9. Air doctrine should include automatic withdrawal to reserve of air units below a certain strength. If this feature is supposed to be there, it doesn't work.

[mrchuck]

Almost forget another couple of niggles:
10. Mouseover to show VP value of cities. Helps when setting objectives and very hard to work out from looking at the map. Alternatively, show the value INCLUDING ENEMY-HELD with the 'v' hotkey.
11. Garrisons. I find myself forever trying to figure out what combination of units will be a sufficient garrison for a given city. Even a mouseover suggestion would be helpful e.g.
III - if a regiment will probably do it
X - if a brigade will do it
XX - if it needs a division.
This has proven to be a considerable time waster and is not IMO realistic since, you guessed it, my staff should be able to advise me. Now some of the time I may have send the garrison off to hunt partisans, but that's my problem.
All of these suggestions are motivated by trying to think about what level of staff support should be available at the level of abstraction modelled by the game. This micromanagement stuff is annoying and detracts from the fun stuff--if you're me anyway!

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: mrchuck
6. Some way to set the TOE max % other than one by one in the Commander report, e.g. for an AG, Front, Army or Corps. This is so fiddly as to be almost useless unless I've missed a better way to do it.

Bring up the particular HQ unit screen. Towards the lower right you will see clickable text "Show Subordinates". This will bring up the commander's report but only for units subordinate to that HQ. For example, a Russian Front HQ will show all subordinate units attached to the Front directly, AND all units attached to the Front's Army HQs. You can then adjust the max TOE for all units, groups/types of units, or individual units. To set the TOE for all selected units, click the MAX TOE % text at the top of the column in the CR. To select groups or types of units, adjust the filter at the bottom of the CR.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: mrchuck
11. Garrisons. I find myself forever trying to figure out what combination of units will be a sufficient garrison for a given city. Even a mouseover suggestion would be helpful e.g.
III - if a regiment will probably do it
X - if a brigade will do it
XX - if it needs a division.
This has proven to be a considerable time waster and is not IMO realistic since, you guessed it, my staff should be able to advise me. Now some of the time I may have send the garrison off to hunt partisans, but that's my problem.

A little bit of trial an error, but I think that's in keeping with how wars are conducted.

Basically, a SEC Regt will cover any city. Two SEC Regts will cover just about any Urban hex. SEC Divs are typically overkill for anything, but the Rumanian and Hungarian SEC Divs can't be broken down, so I use them for the largest sized urban hexes. Put the German SEC Regts on Refit, as it will take a full strength Regt to cover a city. You may still only get 95-99% city garrison requirement for larger sized cities, but it's enough to keep the partisans to a minimum. Non-SEC units are a little more hit and miss. Typically two non-SEC Regts are required for a city, and a full non-SEC Div for urban. LW Feld Divs are good for garrisoning urban if you need to. Run-down Rumanian Divs are also useful for garrisoning. IIRC, a 55% TOE Rumanian Inf Div is all that is needed to garrison urban.

You can see the city garrison as a % when you click on a unit in the city. The % will be displayed next to the city name in the upper right corner of the screen.

I find that unless I'm pushing beyond historical front lines, the game provides more than enough SEC units for city garrison requirements.