The current state of WitE, New normal .13+

[Peltonx]

There now has been a long list of games that started when .13 was released. I guess its time to take a look at what effect it has had on the game.

Looking at the long list of AAR's

In all but 2 games the SHC has gone on the offensive by 9-1942. Clearly nothing close to historical. Most of the games GHC has surrendered by June 1942. Some of the best GHC players have failed badly in some cases. There has not been a single run away game in 1941 and only 1 game where GHC has been able to stay on the offensive past Dec 1942.

Why?

1. In many games SHC was able to hold Leningrad, in all games Moscow was held and in 90% Rostov was held also.

Personally I don't have and issue with the SHC holding Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov. Its basicly historical

So on a hole 1941 looks fine.

2. Blizzard 41/42 is just plain a unhistorical joke that is completely screwing up the game. Historically the GHC pocketed more units then SHC, but in WitE 10-20 divisions pocketed by SHC is normal and games of up to 40+ divisions is not uncommand. Its truely Middle Earth and has nothing to do with history and is complete fanasty. Then add in the loss of 8-16 pts of morale just from General winter and the German Army is totally usless in more then 50% of the games by July 1st.

3. Most games will end in mid-1944 so most GHC players simply run up the white flag.

There was a time when the white flag was run up by the SHC because of the muling/fuel exploits/supply exploits/airbase fuel exploits ect ect.

Now the white flags are being run up by GHC because of The Middle Earth 41/42 Blizzard rulesets.

The game should be balanced enough so that two same skill players can get to 1945, but right now the game is still stuck in 1942 as it has been from release.

There are many of the better players who play both sides and have never lost a single game as SHC, none getting past 1942 because the game would have ended in mid 44.

One can stick their heads in the sand and say there is not an issue, but the facts are only 3 games of the 1000's have got to 1945.

I 110% understand that the GHC chances should be slim, but right now there is a slim chance of a game getting past mid 1944 when the GHC does as good as historical or better then historical.

GHC should only win in cases where they have more skills then SHC for sure, but there should atleast be a 33% chance of a draw for GHC ewhen the players are evenly matched.

Game really is not playable in most cases after June 1942 because of the 41/42 blizzard that nerfs GHC. The blizzard is simply not historical in anyway shape or form.

Flame on

[Sorta]

Have just finished a MP game which ended in June '42 and we stopped playing as the Axis couldn't mount a succesful attack - to his credit the Axis player wanted to continue but he couldn't see large number of tank armies I had refitting plus significant reinforcement pool. By the time he pushed through 2 rows of strong Inf divs my Shock + 1 tank army pushed him back to a net 1 hex advance - just wasn't going to get anywhere. On other games (eg AACW) we are equally matched.

I disagree with the Axis not being able to take Moscow or Lenningrad. Lenningrad was surrounded and I thought it was a decision not wanting to take it - a big difference from not being able to take it. Also Moscow had the decision for the panzer divisions to be diverted south.

It would seem reasonable if at least one of the cities fell.

The first month of blizzard appears truly unrealistic as I could attack over the whole front as if the Axis weren't there. Were all the Soviet units 'winterised' in the war?

I want to play a return match as the Axis but not sure if worthwhile, especially with WiTP AE and AACW available.

The blizzard seems unhistorical. And not being to take 1 or Lenningrad or Moscow the same. I've been playing Soviet in wargames for 30 years and even i feel sorry for the Axis player...

[STEF78]

I have played 4 server games past .13 as GHC. 1 was won in 1941, 1 was won in may 1942, 2 of them are ongoing (1 is in october 1941, 1 in february 1942)

- As you notice, I have no experience past 06/1942
- I took Leningrad 3 times on 4.
- Blizzard in december is really too strong. German CV are ridiculous and in my last game, with 3.3M losses, the SHC was able to attack all along the front...

Entrenchement is underestimated during the blizzard. The GHC was badly counterattacked besause GHC was still attacking at the beginning of december. But, when they were entenched and supplied by air, they were able to resist efficiently.

Another key point is about encirclement. In WITE, an encircled unit is dead next turn. Stalingrad was encircled end november 1942 and the last units surrenderered at the beginning of february 1943, more than 8 turns later!!. It would never happen in WITE.

Globaly, I think the game is slightly balanced in favour of the SHC.. but they reached Berlin in May 1945 and I haven't yet seen a SHC player making such mistakes as the Stavka in 09/1941.

But overall, I'm very happy with this wargame I was waiting since 1985 when I played "War in Russia" on my Apple 2 GS

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: STEF78

I have played 4 server games past .13 as GHC. 1 was won in 1941, 1 was won in may 1942, 2 of them are ongoing (1 is in october 1941, 1 in february 1942)

- As you notice, I have no experience past 06/1942
- I took Leningrad 3 times on 4.
- Blizzard in december is really too strong. German CV are ridiculous and in my last game, with 3.3M losses, the SHC was able to attack all along the front...

Entrenchement is underestimated during the blizzard. The GHC was badly counterattacked besause GHC was still attacking at the beginning of december. But, when they were entenched and supplied by air, they were able to resist efficiently.

Another key point is about encirclement. In WITE, an encircled unit is dead next turn. Stalingrad was encircled end november 1942 and the last units surrenderered at the beginning of february 1943, more than 8 turns later!!. It would never happen in WITE.

Globaly, I think the game is slightly balanced in favour of the SHC.. but they reached Berlin in May 1945 and I haven't yet seen a SHC player making such mistakes as the Stavka in 09/1941.

But overall, I'm very happy with this wargame I was waiting since 1985 when I played "War in Russia" on my Apple 2 GS

I am guessing your 41 was vs a non skilled SHC player or you used the airbase fuel bug which has been nerfed. Sappers offensive quickly stopped once the bug was nerfed. The magic gone.

On the forums there have only been 2 GHC players playing into 1943 post .13 Sure vs unskilled SHC players winning early is possible but not vs average + SHC players.

Also your games need to be on server.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Sorta

Have just finished a MP game which ended in June '42 and we stopped playing as the Axis couldn't mount a succesful attack - to his credit the Axis player wanted to continue but he couldn't see large number of tank armies I had refitting plus significant reinforcement pool. By the time he pushed through 2 rows of strong Inf divs my Shock + 1 tank army pushed him back to a net 1 hex advance - just wasn't going to get anywhere. On other games (eg AACW) we are equally matched.

I disagree with the Axis not being able to take Moscow or Lenningrad. Lenningrad was surrounded and I thought it was a decision not wanting to take it - a big difference from not being able to take it. Also Moscow had the decision for the panzer divisions to be diverted south.

It would seem reasonable if at least one of the cities fell.

The first month of blizzard appears truly unrealistic as I could attack over the whole front as if the Axis weren't there. Were all the Soviet units 'winterised' in the war?

I want to play a return match as the Axis but not sure if worthwhile, especially with WiTP AE and AACW available.

The blizzard seems unhistorical. And not being to take 1 or Lenningrad or Moscow the same. I've been playing Soviet in wargames for 30 years and even i feel sorry for the Axis player...

I think most any open minded person sees the blizzard as just plan science fiction

[Von Weber]

What is usual ratio of Wehrmacht and Red Army after blizzard in manpower,tanks,guns,planes? How much losses has been taken by the German side during the blizzard?

[captain18]

As an old grognard of the Europa series and ADGs "Trial of Strength", I am Sorta's opponent.
We have played numerous games online and are both veterans and reasonably matched from AACW, RCW, EIA, etc.
I actually regret having to write this, as I so wanted this game to work. Alas it doesn't.

I have previously written about the disaster with the distorted Finnish front. Ok Joel says MK2 will fix that and the board will the complete. Ok we just have to accept that.

However their is something fundamentally wrong with the game if the general concensus is that the Germans need to gain either/or Leningrad or Moscow just to "survive" 42/43. Well the Germans didn't take either and fought on till 45.
A simulation by its nature is open ended however within those parameters there is a premise that the majority of outcomes will more or less follow historical outcomes. WIE seems almost impossible to recreate the German successes.

At a cursory glance the problems appear to be in not replicating superior German Command/control and fire control systems. The supply system "appears" ok.

Blizzard simply doesn't work and I believe it should be scrapped in favour of specific unit winterisation rather than generic gamey rules favouring one side. Let us not forget it wasn't long before the Russians were freezing in large numbers in Finland. Winterisation needs to be on a unit by units basis and not just broad brushed across fronts. Europa btw did this quite successfully.

I will write more when I have some more time.

As I said I really want this to work, but wanting it to work and it actually working are two different things. I can't afford to invest the time in a game that is so fundamentally flawed as to prohibit historical outcomes and my fellow gamers are of a similar opinion.

Look it would be a great game "if" it worked, but in its current state it unfortunately (despite all its strengths) doesn't simulate the eastern front very effectively.

I hope this criticsim is accepted in a positive way as it is intended.

[delatbabel]

I don't think that the blizzard effects against the Germans are nearly as overpowered as the June/July/August/September 1941 effects against the Soviets.

Axis players need to try mounting any sort of counter-attack as the Soviets prior to December 1941.

I'm not entirely sure what this nonsense is about 40+ German divisions being pocketed during the blizzard. The AARs just don't support that, and none of the games I've played support that either.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I don't think that the blizzard effects against the Germans are nearly as overpowered as the June/July/August/September 1941 effects against the Soviets.

Axis players need to try mounting any sort of counter-attack as the Soviets prior to December 1941.

I'm not entirely sure what this nonsense is about 40+ German divisions being pocketed during the blizzard. The AARs just don't support that, and none of the games I've played support that either.

Most GHC players attack until the last turn of snow then have to start running (10-20 miles per turn) or get wiped out.

I personnally lost 52 divisions to TDV and others have lost 40+.

This game should be a historical simulation as about everyone agrees. Historically speaking more Russian units were captured during blizzard then German. The SHC offensive was limited to the Moscow area, German units did not magicly loss morale because Gandalf waved his magic wand.

It is the normal out come of blizzard for GHC to lose 10-20 divisions. Lose 50-200 miles along the hole front and worst of all 20% of unit morale or far more if they lost a battle every other turn. Its simply Middle Earth and has no plase in an historical simulation.

AS we all know the game heavey favors SHC, Kamil found out by playing GHC side.

If one was to improve the SHC in 41 - GHC would not even get over the rivers all things being equal.

Post .13 when all of the fuel exploits were removed GHC can easly be beat

1. SHC loses less then 2.8 million
2. SHC has 5 million by blizzard.
3. GHC takes Middle Earth loses in morale, men, land and equipment.
4. SHC has 7 million men by June 42.
5. GHC is unable to move lines east after July as lose ratio is not close to historical. Historically SHC lost more men in 42 then in 41.
6. SHC goes over to offensive in fall of 42.
7. Game ends as most players see game will likely end in mid-44.

Basicly because of the silly blizzard 1942 is skipped completely. SHC was not able to go on offensive until JULY 1943, but the fact is SHC is going offensive in September 1942 or at the latest January 1943.

MT,Katza, Hoooper, Bomazz and many others have never lost a SHC game before .13. I am sure there are many others.

The blizzard simply has to go as it simply has nothing to do with history.

1v1=2v1 was an unhistorical rule and so is the current blizzard ruleset. Its making the game unplayable as everyone is learning that plays GHC vs and equally skilled player.

If the game was balanced or an historical simulation there would be more then 3 games that were played out into 45 out of the 1000's that have been started over the last 2 yrs.

Also the new refit system is simply not working and static mode is now completely usless for both sides.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I don't think that the blizzard effects against the Germans are nearly as overpowered as the June/July/August/September 1941 effects against the Soviets.

They're both silly, really. The one is designed to offset the other. This isn't the best solution.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I don't think that the blizzard effects against the Germans are nearly as overpowered as the June/July/August/September 1941 effects against the Soviets.

They're both silly, really. The one is designed to offset the other. This isn't the best solution.

Game needs a sudden death system or make the manpower centers have a real effect on game. Hopefully witw has a better engine.

At the core the combat ratio is simply way off historical loses. SHC losses were higher in 42, 43 and 44 then 41. An there was very few surrenders from 42-44. The base combat ratio is way way off historical.

Starting late in 42 the lose ratio is even or worse, which is not close to historical 3 to 1 BEST CASE.

Germans can only get 2.5 to 1 in late 42- early 43, then from early 43 -45 its under 2 to 1 even when GHC routes stacks.

The ratio is off and thats why GHC has to stop offensive operations by mid 42 in most cases.

If the normal ratio was historical for GHC wins 3.5 / 3 to 1 then GHC could attack into mid 43, but as it stands its killing more GHC forses attacking.

[Blubel]

I agree that German looses are to high, due to fast firing soviet elements, from 1943 onwards.

I did however just count the AARs on the first two pages of the AAR section. I counted 17 AARs which started, or within the first 5 turns converted to .13 and posted casualty reports at the end of the snow offense. I might have counted some twice, if both players did an AAR, but I think I got it right.
Of these, in 8 AARs the German player achieved at least 3 million casualties or the Soviet player surrendered. In 9 games the German player did achieve less than 3 million casualties.

[Seminole]

At the core the combat ratio is simply way off historical loses. SHC losses were higher in 42, 43 and 44 then 41. An there was very few surrenders from 42-44. The base combat ratio is way way off historical.

Soviet manpower replacement is below historical too, no?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

At the core the combat ratio is simply way off historical loses. SHC losses were higher in 42, 43 and 44 then 41. An there was very few surrenders from 42-44. The base combat ratio is way way off historical.

Soviet manpower replacement is below historical too, no?

I have 4 games on going (plus 5 past games 43-45) and in all the + 1943, manpower for SHC has never been and issue. Hugh has 9 million men and growing every turn dispite very heavey fighting. Same for Brian/Bobo and myself as SHC. 100k SHC running acroos open terrain should be a disater for SHC instead its 2000 lost to 2000 lost.

The SHC loss rate is 1.5 to 1 1/2 of historical loss ratio. If loss ratio was historical he would still be basicly static.

As it stands now there is no armament or manpower shortages, even if lose ratio was in line with historical it would be static.

Then they still need to go back to the old replasement system as the current one is a disaster for GHC and has zero effect on SHC which as I understand was what it was designed to do- slow down SHC some. But the effect is doing nothing to SHC and crippling GHC front line units. Big OOPPPs

ORIGINAL: Kamil

My biggest problem is not morale, but replacements. Units involved in offensive operations are of good quality, but after few turns of fighting their TOE goes down and despite massive pool of manpower and armaments do not increase.

I refit them, many are not in enemy ZOCs, my HQs are on 100% TOE, supply level is good, and still OOB goes down and manpower pool increases.

This is limiting factor for me.

tm.asp?m=3202999&mpage=8

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Blubel

I agree that German looses are to high, due to fast firing soviet elements, from 1943 onwards.

I did however just count the AARs on the first two pages of the AAR section. I counted 17 AARs which started, or within the first 5 turns converted to .13 and posted casualty reports at the end of the snow offense. I might have counted some twice, if both players did an AAR, but I think I got it right.
Of these, in 8 AARs the German player achieved at least 3 million casualties or the Soviet player surrendered. In 9 games the German player did achieve less than 3 million casualties.

Good info, but the better players simply stay under 2.8, MT has always been closer to 2.5 and thats vs the better GHC players

[Seminole]

Good info, but the better players simply stay under 2.8, MT has always been closer to 2.5 and thats vs the better GHC players.

I bet on his third or fourth try Stalin could have held Soviet losses down too.
That's the biggest problem with trying to make comparisons to historical outcomes in these games.
We're like Bill Murray in Ground Hog's Day, constantly getting to replay the same situation over and over and refine our approaches.
How many AARs have we seen where a Stalingrad Pocket is successfully snared by the Soviets? Experienced German players just won't let it happen.
If the developers could somehow reach complete historical fidelity the players are still going to learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. A luxury Stavka and OKH didn't have...

[morvael]

This can be done only by awarding victory points for following doctrines and battle plans of the time. There are games that do just this and for me it's great. 2by3 on the other hand are against introducing such incentives, so in their games Soviets will always run away in 1941, won't squander their troops in ill-planned offensives and the Germans will not repeat Stalingrad, ever.

[timmyab]

I agree that the game could do with tweaking in the Axis favor.Barbarossa isn't ideal and I think it could be greatly improved but the end result between well matched players is about right.After that it all goes wrong though.I think the Germans could be strengthened in December for a start.If you could winterize about half the Red army that would be even better.The other half would be weakened so they couldn't attack.Another option might be to give Axis units a morale boost in March 42.Perhaps 5 points per unit or thereabouts.These things would help the game into late 42.From 43 onwards the Red army needs taming somehow.Supply should be the limiting factor but as that's not possible then I'd be in favor of a more artificial constraint.One option off the top of my head could be to have a maximum hex side frontage of two corps, i.e. only allow a maximum of two corps per hex to attack at once.Late war casualties also need toning down for the Axis and toning up for the Soviets.
The problems are deep rooted so we'll have to wait for WITE 2 if there's to be any fixes to the supply, combat, C&C and air war systems.

[Flaviusx]

There is nothing historical about a two corps attack limitation. If anything, the game severely understate how much the Sovs could pack in a hex for an attack in the late war given a chance. The could pile multiple armies in what in game terms is a single hex. This happened time and again from 43 onwards, they'd stuff a bridgehead and create overwhelming local superiority.

Late war problems are the result of the combat and logistical engines which do not put an adequate break on the offensive. But this particular proposal is the wrong way to address that problem.

[timmyab]

I did mention that supply is the real problem and that my off the cuff solution was artificial.
What solutions would you suggest to tame the beast?