The current state of WitE, New normal .13+

[Flaviusx]

Well, for starters, deliberate attacks by on map artillery might be jacked up to use their entire movement allowance. That would give the Axis a chance to do gradual withdrawals if they detect a massive artillery buildup; fall back one hex and force the Red Army to either attack without that fire support or advance cautiously. The Sovs couldn't organize these massive barrages on the fly.

But even that isn't enough. The game systematically is biased towards the offense on so many levels that you have to redesign the combat engine and logistics from the ground up. OP tempo needs to be tamed. And this problem is just as bad in 1941 when the Axis is on the offensive.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The game systematically is biased towards the offense on so many levels that you have to redesign the combat engine and logistics from the ground up.

Amen to that.It's not going to help the game we've already got though which would still be great fun to play if it was reasonably well balanced.Unfortunately it's going to need artificial, low budget solutions.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, for starters, deliberate attacks by on map artillery might be jacked up to use their entire movement allowance. That would give the Axis a chance to do gradual withdrawals if they detect a massive artillery buildup; fall back one hex and force the Red Army to either attack without that fire support or advance cautiously. The Sovs couldn't organize these massive barrages on the fly.

But even that isn't enough. The game systematically is biased towards the offense on so many levels that you have to redesign the combat engine and logistics from the ground up. OP tempo needs to be tamed. And this problem is just as bad in 1941 when the Axis is on the offensive.

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The game systematically is biased towards the offense on so many levels that you have to redesign the combat engine and logistics from the ground up.

Amen to that.It's not going to help the game we've already got though which would still be great fun to play if it was reasonably well balanced.Unfortunately it's going to need artificial, low budget solutions.

There are 2 simple fixs I have been crowing about now for over a yr.

1. Blizzard = the first 6 weeks should be at Januarys atritions lvls and 1 pt lose of morale. The last 6 weeks at Februarys atrition rates and no lose of morale.

2. The combat ratio should be 3 to 1 and not this sillyness of 1.5 to 1 its 100% not historical. The russians sucked just as bad in 42 and 43 as 41. Losses in 42 and 43 where higher then 41. Thats an amazing fact!!!!!! The SHC could not simply start grinding down GHC in 1942

If the combat ratio was historical you could remove the Lvov pocket, 41 ratio should be 5 to 1. These ratios do not include pockets.

2 simple fixes, but I have said them so they get ignored and so we are stuck with and unplayable 42 to 45 all things being equal.

Also the pockets getting wiped out in 1 week thing has to go.

[Peltonx]

I am not so sure witw is going to be any better, its the same combat engine. They just playing with the air and logistics part of game.

I am sure allot of things will be better, but we and 2by3 have had 2 yrs to improve wite and it still stuck in 1941.

1. Lvov pocket needs to go.
2. 1 week and pockets get wiped needs to go
3. blizzard effects need to get nerfed
4. combat ratio from 42-44 needs to be in line with historical. The ratio jumps from 41 to 45, why?

[Toidi]

Wow, it seems I am to agree with Pelton.

However, if so, the game will become a very different game. Therefore those changes will not be - sadly - introduced. Hopefully in WitE 2.

Also, I am very strongly against any manipulation of the combat rules depending on the time of the year. Rules should be the same during whole game, possibly affected by weather, but still the same all the game long. That appears not to be the case now. I am quite certain that the same toe attacking at different times of the game against the same toe opponent will lead to different results in July '41, in '42 and yet different in '44.

I also think that combat should be much more transparent - how about having the engine actually showing how the cv values are modified during combat, both live and in the detailed combat report? The combat is way too much of a black box. I can watch the elements firing, but I can hardly see the outcome of it.

Why not having the whole army elements shown on the screen, which are firing, which are taking fire, how the number diminish and how the cv is affected in the combat report? The changes of cv can be excessive - I recently got an attack where defenders got cv x 10 changed from 90 (initial) to 900 (modified) [yes, the initial reckon value of the unit was 10] and the engine does not give a hint why is that. Usually it is much more predictable, but strange outcomes happen.

Also, the leaders rolls (the major ones, those which double/triple/half the combat value) should be displayed in the combat report (preferably with a chance of this to happen) - I want to know whether I am winning because of lucky rolls (or winning because of lucky rolls, but actually it is the likely outcome), or because I chose the right magic of support units and attacking units.

T.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I am not so sure witw is going to be any better, its the same combat engine. They just playing with the air and logistics part of game.

I am sure allot of things will be better, but we and 2by3 have had 2 yrs to improve wite and it still stuck in 1941.

1. Lvov pocket needs to go.
2. 1 week and pockets get wiped needs to go
3. blizzard effects need to get nerfed
4. combat ratio from 42-44 needs to be in line with historical. The ratio jumps from 41 to 45, why?

[Seminole]

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.

I didn't say it was an issue, I was asking if Soviet manpower replacement in the game engine is below historical.

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.

That first sentence is unclear to me. You're saying that Soviet losses in your game were 1.5x as much as historical, or do you mean 0.5 as much?
You wrote "The SHC loss rate is 1.5 to 1.5 of historical loss ratio" and that doesn't make sense to me.
What I'm trying to understand is, if Soviet recruitment is lower than historical, and Soviet losses are lower than historical, isn't that a wash?

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

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.

The airbase fuel nerf has not slowed Saper down at all. As far as I am aware he has won or is winning all 3 games as GHQ that he began after this so called nerf. Unfortunately none of these games are AARs.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: 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...

+1

[Peltonx]

Your not having any issues in your game.

Post nerf he was in Moscow and Stalingrad in 41 HB. He got no wheres near that in your game and his openning 42 offensive is weak and spread out. His main thrust was into a major river line? Why? hehe

PBeM's can be thrown out in general, server game is where rubber meets road.

[AFV]

Would it not be very easy to nerf the power of Soviet SMG?
That would be low budget, easy. It would not "fix" everything, its just a start- a step that is low risk and can be taken.

[Von Weber]

When soviet rifle squad change rifles for smg? Is it in the mid of summer 1942? Sorry for offtop.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: AFV

Would it not be very easy to nerf the power of Soviet SMG?
That would be low budget, easy. It would not "fix" everything, its just a start- a step that is low risk and can be taken.

When I first started questioning the sudden flip in the combat ratios several beta testers told me the issue was the submachine guns being over powered in the combat engine.

So yes AFV that would be a great start.

The same issue will plague witw I am guessing, same combat engine

[Leber]

I think the problem here is that the unrealistic Soviet blizzard offensive is a response to an incredibly unrealistic Axis advance in 1941. In the game it's suicide for a Soviet player to fight forward against a reasonably skilled Axis player; it just leads to more encirclements for next to no gain. Launching attacks leads to nothing but massive losses. The Axis can keep attacking right up until the last snow turn with little change in combat power.

This is very different from historically where after the initial frontier battles the combat situation changed dramatically. At the Battle of Smolensk the Axis spent weeks trying to close up it's encirclement of Soviet armies west of Smolensk, with the entire battle degenerating into a bloody slog. Soviet losses were still incredibley heavy, but the net effect was that Axis forces were also worn down. In WITE this would never happen against a skilled Axis player.

Throughout 1941 the Soviets launched numerous counterattacks, even Front-wide counteroffensives; they universally failed, and badly, but they wore down and delayed Axis forces, sometimes for weeks! In WITE attempting this against a skilled Axis played would be a horrible strategy.

Historically by November of 1941 Axis forces were worn down to the point where they simply could not advance. At Rostov and Tikhvin in November of 1941 the Soviets launched successful counteroffensives even before the "official" start of the blizzard period. Around Moscow German offensives ran out of steam and ground to a halt, unable to advance further against Soviet resistance. A culmination of months of fighting crippled Axis forces.

The Soviets were also worn down, but they had fresh reserve armies to commit to battle. Thus the winter counteroffensive began; not with massive weather penalties, but the commitment of fresh Soviet reserves against exhausted Axis forces. The result, naturally, was an Axis defeat.

However, as Pelton has said, Soviet capabilities were still limited and they were unable to encircle large Axis formations, and often themselves were overextended and encircled. The "broad front" advance seen in most Blizzard offensives was simply beyond Soviet capabilities.

[smokindave34]

Since I just completed a full server campaign game as axis I'll chime in with my opinion:

1) The blizzard period is not realistic. In my game with Pelton (which is into spring '43) I made the foolish error of deciding to hold my ground in the first week of the blizzard. It seemed reasonable to stay in my level 2 and 3 forts versus retreating to open ground. This was a huge mistake. I spent the rest of the blizzard watching cavalry divisions and armored brigades ZOC lock my units and then have them swallowed up by the Soviets the next turn. I had to committ the last of my armored reserves to save an entire army (yes an army) from encirclement by the end of the blizzard. Would it be possible to reduce the ability of brigades to ZOC lock an entire division? or make a slight increase in the ability of the axis to counterattack during the blizzard (multiple division attacks agains tank brigades routinely failed during January and I learned to avoid them and cut my losses and keep running)

2) I agree with Flavius regarding the fact that this game favors the side on offense. This is certainly an advantage to the axis in '41 and should be dialed back. However the advantage the axis gets from this flaw is not nearly as beneficial as the one the Red army gets come late '43 and 1944. Once Red Army 2.0 gets rolling nothing will stop it; not major rivers, not forts, not panzer divisions etc. A wall of 20+ CV guards rifle corps backed up by tank/mech corps and artillery divisions all fully supplied from one rail line is impossible to stop. In my completed game I was on the Dnepr from Smolensk to D & Z town in June 44 and Berlin was in ashes in late March '45. Certainly this was partly due to my opponents (Von Beanie) excellent play but I essentially started out further east than the June '44 historical start line and Berlin still fell a month early. I think WITW is going to limit the supplies that can be delivered by a single rail line - I'm not sure if that can be done with WITE at this point but something has to give with the operational tempo (for both sides!).

I hope 2X3 can make some changes to help the balance with this game. I've never played a game as much as WITE and still really enjoy it even with it's flaws. However I want to be able to play as the axis and know I have a chance to hold Berlin past May '45 (I'll doubt I'll ever be good enough to knock out a Soviet opponent in '41 or '42) and if I play as Soviets I also want my opponent to have a chance to make it to '45 if we are evenly matched opponents so that I get my chance to push on to Berlin.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: smokindave34
Would it be possible to reduce the ability of brigades to ZOC lock an entire division? or make a slight increase in the ability of the axis to counterattack during the blizzard

Brigade and regiment ZOC needs to be reduced throughout the game.If it can't be lowered to match the unit's strength I'd rather see it taken out of the game altogether.
One possible fix for the unhistoric pockets that are caused by ZOC lock is to allow the Axis a minimum move of two hexes during the first winter.

[Seminole]

The "broad front" advance seen in most Blizzard offensives was simply beyond Soviet capabilities.

Map of Soviet counterattack: Counteroffensive

Would it be possible to reduce the ability of brigades to ZOC lock an entire division?

I think there is merit to a sliding scale of costs between the 'friction' generated by a brigade, division, or corps to adjacent hexes MP costs.

I agree with Flavius regarding the fact that this game favors the side on offense.

In my opinion War tends to favor the offense. Unless like Pelton you are beating your head on bad terrain and the highest concentration of forces (his failed right hook on MT) you are picking where and who fights much more effectively than the defender.

[Peltonx]

We also have the poor replasement system that replased the old one thats a 42-45 game killer.

tm.asp?m=3202999&mpage=8

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Replacements situation (one of many shortcomings of game engine) massively spoils my current game and it fells like WitE should end in summer of '43. I am deeply disappointed, because my struggle against Mike was my most enjoyable encounter so far, but current system will soon take most of the pleasure away by imposing trench warfare and boring passive defence.


At the moment German player is forced abandon attack far to quickly because of designed snowball-effect.

I attack so I suffer loses and they won't properly be replaced. So to maintain momentum I need to weaken other parts of front handing initiative to Soviets everywhere but in area of attack.

My forces on the flanks get beaten so they suffered losses, but obviously they won't be replaced, so either I continue attacking and make situation on flanks even worse or I switch to defence and slowly rebuild forces what won't change anything, because by the time German forces regains strength Red Army will be too strong for any prolonged attempts to create pockets. Once it happens attacking stops being option for Germans, because loses ratio favours Soviet massively.

And it leads to constant withdrawal for one side, and dull grinding for the other.



Game is to be fun and WitE slowly stops providing it.

After removing +1 rule '42 was fun. Not so any more.




Having said that, I don't want to take anything from Mike who is playing better than me, but I need to add that current replacement system is not helping me at all and I feel this is factor that is tipping the scales.

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Game is good and lively, but I find it irritating when I have 450k manpower in pool and my divisions melt-away.

Imagine situation when all of my divisions were 15 to 20% stronger. It would be the case if replacements were being send properly to the front.


I have lots of 2CV infantry divisions, that have morale in low 70s and I can't do anything to increase number of infantry squads.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Leber

I think the problem here is that the unrealistic Soviet blizzard offensive is a response to an incredibly unrealistic Axis advance in 1941. In the game it's suicide for a Soviet player to fight forward against a reasonably skilled Axis player; it just leads to more encirclements for next to no gain. Launching attacks leads to nothing but massive losses. The Axis can keep attacking right up until the last snow turn with little change in combat power.

This is very different from historically where after the initial frontier battles the combat situation changed dramatically. At the Battle of Smolensk the Axis spent weeks trying to close up it's encirclement of Soviet armies west of Smolensk, with the entire battle degenerating into a bloody slog. Soviet losses were still incredibley heavy, but the net effect was that Axis forces were also worn down. In WITE this would never happen against a skilled Axis player.

Throughout 1941 the Soviets launched numerous counterattacks, even Front-wide counteroffensives; they universally failed, and badly, but they wore down and delayed Axis forces, sometimes for weeks! In WITE attempting this against a skilled Axis played would be a horrible strategy.

Historically by November of 1941 Axis forces were worn down to the point where they simply could not advance. At Rostov and Tikhvin in November of 1941 the Soviets launched successful counteroffensives even before the "official" start of the blizzard period. Around Moscow German offensives ran out of steam and ground to a halt, unable to advance further against Soviet resistance. A culmination of months of fighting crippled Axis forces.

The Soviets were also worn down, but they had fresh reserve armies to commit to battle. Thus the winter counteroffensive began; not with massive weather penalties, but the commitment of fresh Soviet reserves against exhausted Axis forces. The result, naturally, was an Axis defeat.

However, as Pelton has said, Soviet capabilities were still limited and they were unable to encircle large Axis formations, and often themselves were overextended and encircled. The "broad front" advance seen in most Blizzard offensives was simply beyond Soviet capabilities.

This cuts to the essence of what is nearly impossible to simulate. In reality when the Soviets went over to the offensive they had a small advantage in numbers across the front and this concentrated at Moscow. So not surprisingly all they achieved on most sectors was to drive back over-extended advanced units. The only front to make real progress, in addition to those around Moscow, was Koniev's Kalinin. In part because he was exceptionally able and in part as he could make use of the disruption to the German defense caused by the Moscow offensive.

Now the Soviets had got themselves in that position for a mixture of reasons. Major encirclements such as Kiev that were completely avoidable and that, in any simulation, just will not happen (unless hard wired in some way) and heavy losses in localised, and near continual, counterstrokes. These did a lot of damage to the Germans too but in this game are just an easy way to inflict one sided losses on the Soviets. So in-game, say from July-October, the Germans will not gain the secondary massive pockets they historically did, nor will a Soviet player indulge in the constant, ill prepared, localised offensives. So inevitably come the chance to counterattack the Red Army is going to be stronger.

The second bit you can never simulate is mindset. Hitler believed he had a chance to take Moscow in late 41 so gambled, and lost. Equally most German players come 1943 will go over to an active defense and never risk a Kursk if the balance of forces is reasonably historical. But then as a player, you know you can 'win' if you hold Berlin in Autumn 1945. To the German leadership, the Red Army arriving in Berlin at any stage meant they had lost. So on that basis a wild gamble that just might succeed was better than accepting the inevitable?

What is wrong in the blizzard period is two-fold. First, the real relative balance of forces will never occur. So inevitably, the Soviet blow will be that much stronger. Second the mechanism hands too much advantage to the Soviets and overstates their capabilities. Again, in reality, the Winter offensive, as a coherent plan, was over by the end of January, all that was left was a series of localised battles ending in the disaster at Kharkov.

There is another problem that we are players and are looking to win. One reason why the offense often seems so strong is we will never let an advantage slip away, so once we start to dominate we will do all we can to maximise the potential advantage. There's not much that can be done about that except to play with imposed restraint - something that is easy in SP and near impossible in PBEM.

For what its worth, if there is one mechanism I'd like to see changed its the effect of isolation. This happens too fast and is too devasting, making it so much easier to finish off bypassed units. As it was both sides had real problems dealing with stubborn by-passed formations, the Soviets were still defending Brest-Litovsk into July.

[swkuh]

Idea to give some life to cutoff units seems to make a lot of sense-realistic and improves game-play.

[gamer78]

+1
I will be very happy if first winter rules tweaked a bit for Axis. If for "scenario balance" sake tweak isolation rules for Soviet to compensate.
In my pbem game my opponent were in Riga in march 1942, North Army Group totally destroyed and encircled. Luckily at least half of it reinforced and replaced by spring.In fact I'm still not a great player. [:D] but nonetheless in my other game with other opponent I had to be over cautious not to attack even need to,wonder how that will turn out in blizzard.[8D]