The new noraml for 1.06.13+

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
These are simple facts. The only reason that they can still elude you is because you are biased.

No, actually it's because the devs have repeatedly given their rationale behind their decision on this game decision point, and I found it reasonable. But frankly, they could reverse it based on your incessant whining and I could care less.

As far as I can tell, the devs are in this business for the money, and not to create Sov propaganda, so I'm completely mystified why you seem to believe that they would deliberately spend years of their lives developing a game which according to your "market research" no one wants to play, specifically because of bias?

You can complain about flaws in the game all you'd like, but to blame all of the flaws on bias, and then repeatedly insult the devs and other players on this grounds, is not a particularly helpful or convincing approach.

[Aurelian]

IIRC, he demanded a refund to stop?

Understandable why Joel green buttoned him.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
That's double the loss factor (though not necessarily 200%). How are these facts in dispute?

The reason I am petulant is because your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You guys consistently fail to address how the abstracted replacement system accounts for the divisions at Stalingrad surrendering (historically) and moving west. And then you call me the one who is detached from facts.

These are simple facts. The only reason that they can still elude you is because you are biased.

You've been sounding petulant to me since your very first post on these forums.

As usual, you are able to put forward a seemingly convincing point by focusing on one single particular aspect which I do certainly agree is unfair to the Axis, and then go on blasting the devs and beta testers, putting forward a rant which depicts them as card-carrying members of the Communist party and haters of all things Prussian.

Let me remember you about the two other sources of manpower available to the Axis: the POW pool - those Hiwis freeing up manpower in Support squads, which are the major manpower hog in this game - and the Disabled pool. The first thing was added in a patch, and the second was tweaked to increase the recovery rate for the Germans.

Now you're making a huge point of what, 60,000 men being stolen from you? Those figures just pale in comparison with the hundreds of thousands you get per year by the above two mechanics.

The counters are indeed big deal, but these are the pains of a two front war. I don't know if we can tweak the resources split rules for German production in the editor, but editing out those withdrawals that are such a BIG deal is trivial.

[Walloc]

And if u start to add it up u will see that if u compare to historicy. The german, not axis, alone in the first year gets around 1 million more manpower than what historically got. (around 1/3 of the total Ost Heer). Ever wondered why ur inf divs never seem to be depleted when they reach Moscow?
Like wise with a historic mobilization the russian mobilized 29.575.000 men. In game assuming it follows historic lines u get some what between 15-17 mio depending on degree on damage to manpower centers that is some what random and how much is evaucated, which is semi random too.

Just another profe of the "slant" of the dev's... oh no, its not.

Btw, not saying it should change just stateting the realities u dont hear listning to Helio. Not to start on Luftwaffe that stays in game all of the game and is never withdrawn to defend the reich. But, yeah u "lose" 60k manpower worth of divs.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Peltonx]

I think the game on balance has gotten better with each patch dispite some of my whining. Ok allot from time to time. A few times I have been right and something was fixed or nerfed.

Sure there are areas that could be twecked, but there are a hell of allot less then there was 18 + months ago.

2by3 has to produce games to make money,good games. WitE is a great game.

They are working on WitW so until thats done there will be no major over hauls of wite.

Which is fine by me.

As I stated this thread is about the state of the game and my way I try and win as GHC.

I am very happy with the game, but I reserve the right to whine from time to time

[mrchuck]

I've been watching the evolution of the game and player tactics with great interest since last year. It would seem that as of 1.06.someversion, 2x3 have created a ww2 simulation where frontal attacks are to be preferred to encirclements, economic concerns have become almost irrelevant, and risk carries no reward.

Congratulations on standing 2,500 years of military science on its head.

I suggest the following changes which might make a better AND more playable game:

--link morale to success or failure on the battlefield at a higher level. Leningrad and Moscow don't matter at the moment--everyone has done the calculations and the manpower is in the South. So, morale bonuses and penalties for taking/losing these cities, Stalingrad too. They mattered, this is why a million troops on each side fell in front of them. You can add penalties for GHC losing cities it's taken as well--Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev. The reason morale was poor for GHC in 45 wasn't because it was 1945, it was three years of appalling losses--men, material, land. One reason it was going up on the other side was increasing success. I would prefer this to the current morale nerf with fixed changes by year.

This would give the Germans a reason to go hell for leather in 41 and 42, and the Russians a reason to attack hard and not just grind in a leisurely way.

--Manpower evacuations from cities which cannot trace any supply line have to make a check for interception by the beseigers (high chance). If taken without being surrounded, no change. The current system is silly. Again, need to create incentives for players to be ambitious.

--Checkerboard defence in 41. Jeez guys, this is as old as hex-based gaming and I remember using this in the CARDBOARD War in the East (S&T) 40 years ago! Why not try this: low morale units have a random and fairly high chance of not exerting a ZOC when phasing enemies are moving past--I was going to say in 1941, but the hell with it, why not across the game?. That might set the cat among the pigeons. It could be severe below 30 morale and taper off to say 55 or so, reflecting reluctance or disorder preventing routine patrolling etc.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: mrchuck

I've been watching the evolution of the game and player tactics with great interest since last year. It would seem that as of 1.06.someversion, 2x3 have created a ww2 simulation where frontal attacks are to be preferred to encirclements, economic concerns have become almost irrelevant, and risk carries no reward.

Congratulations on standing 2,500 years of military science on its head.

I suggest the following changes which might make a better AND more playable game:

--link morale to success or failure on the battlefield at a higher level. Leningrad and Moscow don't matter at the moment--everyone has done the calculations and the manpower is in the South. So, morale bonuses and penalties for taking/losing these cities, Stalingrad too. They mattered, this is why a million troops on each side fell in front of them. You can add penalties for GHC losing cities it's taken as well--Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev. The reason morale was poor for GHC in 45 wasn't because it was 1945, it was three years of appalling losses--men, material, land. One reason it was going up on the other side was increasing success. I would prefer this to the current morale nerf with fixed changes by year.

This would give the Germans a reason to go hell for leather in 41 and 42, and the Russians a reason to attack hard and not just grind in a leisurely way.

--Manpower evacuations from cities which cannot trace any supply line have to make a check for interception by the beseigers (high chance). If taken without being surrounded, no change. The current system is silly. Again, need to create incentives for players to be ambitious.

--Checkerboard defence in 41. Jeez guys, this is as old as hex-based gaming and I remember using this in the CARDBOARD War in the East (S&T) 40 years ago! Why not try this: low morale units have a random and fairly high chance of not exerting a ZOC when phasing enemies are moving past--I was going to say in 1941, but the hell with it, why not across the game?. That might set the cat among the pigeons. It could be severe below 30 morale and taper off to say 55 or so, reflecting reluctance or disorder preventing routine patrolling etc.

All good ideas. Many have been asking for the morale/city idea for a long long time.
The hole checkboard thing is very very silly and has changed the game allot in 41

[Michael T]

I have been banging on about the primitive zoc rules since this game was released. If we had some sophisticated/realistic zoc rules checkerboards would be a thing of the past. Throw in some proper Victory Conditions, an overrun rule, remove HQBU (but increase rail conversion by about 20%) and the game would improve by 200%.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have been banging on about the primitive zoc rules since this game was released. If we had some sophisticated/realistic zoc rules checkerboards would be a thing of the past. Throw in some proper Victory Conditions, an overrun rule, remove HQBU (but increase rail conversion by about 20%) and the game would improve by 200%.

Great Ideas!!!

HQB is about usless now, unless chaining. Even then its really only usfull vs average to poor SHC players.

The ZoC rules are silly a rifle divisions with 4000 men in it has the same effect as a Rifle Corp with 100,000? Sillyness.

VP rules would be nice also, what we have now is really to 1970's. GG is old school.

[Wally Wilson]

I remember that some of the old 70's east front boardgames had overrun rules, but they were often a bit gamey as a player would use just enough combat strength to guarantee a victory, no matter the dice roll.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have been banging on about the primitive zoc rules since this game was released. If we had some sophisticated/realistic zoc rules checkerboards would be a thing of the past. Throw in some proper Victory Conditions, an overrun rule, remove HQBU (but increase rail conversion by about 20%) and the game would improve by 200%.

I don't disagree with most of this but my understanding is that the current rail re-conversion rates are wildly ahistoric, so that gives me a bit of pause...

Also there needs to be some mechanism to give the Red Army the same ability to recover in '41 as it had historically...currently if you stand your ground and take losses like the Reds did in 41 you are completely effed. I've always thought some kind of manpower tweak in '41 might be a good thing (maybe balanced to lesser in late 44/45). Just some thoughts.

[Wally Wilson]

The Soviet manpower replacement rate does fall during the game.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Wally Wilson

The Soviet manpower replacement rate does fall during the game.

I am aware of that. My point was that it needs to be juiced in '41 above what it currently is (or the AP cost for new units needs to be cut) because the Red Army cannot recover from disasters under current circumstances like it was able to do historically.

[mrchuck]

MT great call about tying ZOC strength to unit strength, could add morale, experience, fatigue, elite status, supply status, detection level and a little random factor to spice things up--surprise was achieved .

This would make operations Uranus or Bagration more believable too, since sliding past a battered infantry kampfgruppe or a freezing and demoralised bunch of Rumanians should be a lot easier than past a full strength Guards corps or SS division. Could nevertheless give GHC some sort bonus here and thus model superior german doctrine--at the moment the sides are defensively identical given all other factors--but not too much.

This would have been impossible with paper games back in the day, perfect sort of grunt work for a computer to be doing in the 21st. century.

I think if the game is a good simulation, it should be almost impossible for the axis to win in 41 unless soviets hand it to them--which was nearly the case. But there should be incentives there to try.

The 1941 operation to think about is the fight around Yelnya and the game does not model this at all well. Mind you this was Zhukov in action, so perhaps here is a clue--sufficiently well-led and small enough units (only one army in this case) should be able to perform reasonably well even in 1941. Plenty of evidence that he was able to overcome many difficulties to hand AGC a nasty surprise. I don't know what the base risk of leader getting KIA is, but it should perhaps be higher in 41 to prevent players trying to game something like this or at least to risk something if they do. Especially energetic leaders who tend to lead from the front.

[mrchuck]

Also I don't know that an overrun rule has a place here. Since movement and attack are more or less combined already, it doesn't seem appropriate. It is already cheap to brush aside a weak unit since a hasty attack will do it. If the cost of entering its ZOC is changed to be variable, it would become very cheap indeed. The beauty of it is that with FOW you wouldn't know until you approach the unit what will happen.

Anyway variable and partially unknown ZOC strength would do a lot to commit both sides to either defend seriously or run seriously unless EITHER high-quality forces are used to delay OR you trust to your luck--and to my mind, this seems absolutely right on the money.

I would also like to see more chance of leaders getting captured or killed if HQs displace or are in the front line. At the moment pressing them right up to the front is basically free except that you may lose some supplies--bad enough, but they can be replaced. Guderian and Zhukov can't. Even a random artillery shell or bullet can do the job fine. This business of HQs displacing all over the place with no real penalty after the first time is a bit much.

Rather than automatically assigning a replacement every time an HQ displaces and the leader is killed, which could chew through your generals in short order, he could be replaced with a generic mediocre leader and the events log note that an HQ needs a new boss. This could require a lower but non-zero AP cost so players don't get complacent about the problem. An example of how part of this might work is the John Tiller ACW games where leaders getting killed happens a lot.

[mrchuck]

Another thought: perhaps a solution to 1941 summer weirdness is to increase russian combat strength somewhat but decrease ZOC strength especially against pz and mot...just an idea. This might encourage more standing and more counterattacking since the options could be worse...

Perhaps this might work for the first winter if applied to the axis as well--reduce ZOC strength more than combat strength so it's fluid but not a walkover (which it wasn't). It was a classic backhand--where the german troops were in good order and/or dug in, they often stopped the russians. Where they weren't they were often flung back. At the moment it seems far too aggressive in its effects.

I dunno what do the devs think about all this stuff?

[elmo3]

I'm not a dev but I can tell you what has been said before. There are not going to be significant changes to the game at this point. Bugs will be fixed and minor tweaks will be made when necessary, but their focus is on WitW now. At some point a WitE 2 is planned and no doubt there will be many significant changes to the game both by incorporating systems from the games that come in between and from new ideas as well.

[carlkay58]

One problem the Soviets have in WitE is that there is a definite lack of troops in 41. The historical Soviets had losses greater than the game Soviets have total troops. According to my Soviet sources, most of the new divisions being called up in the July through September timeframe were at 50 to 60% TOE, in the game they are mostly shells (other than the Far East transfers). That is a huge loss of manpower for the Soviets. As far as I can tell, the amount of infantry from manpower centers in 41 looks about right - although it may be on the low side - Soviet sources of the 'draft' that went on in 41 are very sketchy. So the game Soviets can't afford to lose the 6M+ men that historically happened - and remember that the 'official' Soviet claim was that they lost over 10M men in 41. If you notice in the game, by the end of 41 the Soviets have roughly about 10M men total between losses and army. Historically the Soviet had about 5 to 6M men at the start of their counteroffensive facing the Axis. So the Soviets are about 3 to 5M men short in 41.

HOWEVER - I can understand that the additional men would overbalance the game as it currently stands. If the Soviets do the run away or a fall back defense, they typically lose less than 2M men before the winter counteroffensive. That leaves them with an army of about 6M men when the Blizzards hit - a bit on the high side versus the historical but within the range of possible. If they had another 3 - 5M men on top of that - the Soviets would be MUCH too powerful - although they may not be able to arm and have sufficient units for them!

I would like to see some game mechanics (such as a National Morale adustment for gaining or losing cities / victory points / manpower centeres / whatever) that would encourage both the Soviets and Axis fight for territory - mostly the cities. If that were done, then the Soviets should have the additional men which would not only encourage a front fight over cities and such but enable the Soviets to absorb the losses these fights would cause. That would change the game for the better (in my opinion).

[mrchuck]

If there are to be no major changes until wite 2.0 then variable ZOCs is certainly out. However would there be any consideration for altering the morale system to take city control into account? I would have thought existing mechanisms could be adapted readily enough--VPs are already adjusted for city control, and morale is already adjusted for other factors. It could be doable...and I think could be very worthwhile if done properly, not to mention making it a better simulation.

One other thing that interests me, is linking up with the Finns no longer considered a compelling reason to try really hard to take Leningrad in 41? You get to hand around 20% of the front, which you can then basically forget about during the first winter, to the Finns, along with shortening the line and freeing up maybe another 10-15 divisions in 16 and 18A and one or two panzergruppen, which looks like good business to me, regardless of SU manpower etc. I see no comparable advantage in a southern strategy in 41. Naturally a lot will depend on what your opponent does--if the south is stripped, why not take it I suppose. However these are free and very powerful (in first winter) forces that can make life much easier, and at the very least can only be dislodged with far greater effort and expense than other axis forces.

Furthermore if the soviets try to hang on to Leningrad and fail, you can possibly surround and destroy beaucoup numbers of troops and maybe make your 4mil after all...
Or doesn't it work like this any more?

[swkuh]

Wonder if someone who knows would publish the current "buglist" for the current version. Might save some postings and inform active players.