Should WITE2 force the Germans into a short war approach?

[rmonical]

Now that I have the Toide AAR off my chest, I can ask the question that has bothered me since I realized how rigidly WITE hard wires the Germans into the short war strategy. While there are compelling reasons to do this driven by the very nature of the Nazi regime. Alternative design elements would be interesting.

The design elements I think hard wire the short war approach are:
1. Of course, First Winter Rules are the major design decision. No German economy of force/logistics measures alter the impact of these frankly bizarre rules. They are the reason I lost interest in WITE the first time I tried it out against the AI.
2. Inability to structure the ground force. The Soviets have enormous flexibility to build support units, headquarters or divisions. The Axis have none.
3. Inability to structure the air force. If the Germans adopt economy of force in 1941, Luftwaffe casualties will be lower. Unlike the Soviets, the Germans will not be able to do anything with the excess planes as they build up in the pool. Burn them or lose them.

[navwarcol]

I do not think a game should FORCE those who purchase it into any set strategy. Everyone already knows how things went in real life, if we just wanted to copy it, we could read a book. This issue led me mostly to give up what otherwise would have been a great game here, also. The total freedom of action allowed to the one side that was historically also bound by many of the same idiotic rules the German side was, while still limiting the German side to be bound by the mistakes they made in history, even if you as a player do not make them, just really ended for me to set aside one of the most expensive games I have ever purchased, and to be careful about recommending or playing any future games. It really has been disappointing, because it IS such a great game potentially. I hope the same mistakes will not go into a WitE 2. I also know there are plenty (most of the people who still post here) who do not see it as a mistake. I can sympathize to a point with them, also..but still come back to the point that after paying 80USD for a game, I should be able to expect more from it...not hard coded guarantees that if I play one side, no matter what choices I make, I will be bound as if the idiot-in-Berlin is still making the historic mistakes, while the idiot-in-Moscow somehow did not order his army to stay on the line as he did historically, etc. And instead allows them to fall back almost all the way to Moscow.

[Flaviusx]

If they start the game on 22 June 1941, yeah, much is going to have to be hardwired. Too many decisions already made and locked into.

If you want to fix the logistical mess they found themselves in you have to roll things back quite a bit before then.

[rmonical]

If you want to fix the logistical mess they found themselves in you have to roll things back quite a bit before then.

You do not have to fix the mess to prepare for the long war. You just have to not make IT AS BAD AS IT CAN POSSIBLY GET. The Germans could have done much to prepare for the long war when the results at Smolensk became clear. Instead, they "officially" pursued the short war myth.

[Numdydar]

Like 1936 lol.

[Michael T]

If you want a ahistorical game then of course you need to change VC, game end in say 1948, atom bombs and the like. No thanks. I like the historical flavour, indeed more please.

[Flaviusx]

Rmonical, bear in mind that both sides are locked into things here. The Soviets are locked into their ridiculous forward deployment and utter surprise.

Hindsight is 20/20, shrug.

[navwarcol]

Agreed, or, you could hold the Soviet side to the same penalties theyhad historically.. or could leave a random chance that the Japanese did not agree not to attack the SU, etc.. a wargame is supposed to be about "what if xxxx had happened, instead" as long as the 'xxxx' is plausible... was it plausible that perhaps Hitler would have done as his high command was pressing him to do, and for example, allowed a military person such as Manstein to assume command in a military hierarchy over the war effort? Yes, that was plausible, the German High Command was pushing for this for much of the war.. it should be at least a random option that they won, which would have changed a lot. The Japanese decision not to attack the Soviets, also could have gone a different way, the Allied landings at Normandy could have been repulsed, it was in their own words a close run thing. An allied failure there would have released the German units pulled from WitE, and allowed them to stay put. The most infamous of these hard coded forced decisions is the units destroyed with 6.Armee at Stalingrad, being removed, even if you did not lose them in the historic pocket. The Soviet ability to magically evacuate factories and manpower from surrounded cities to other cities all the way across the map, etc... there are just too many examples to name. If the hard coded choices and results were forced on both sides, it would not be better though, I do not want the Soviet side stuck with the Stalin orders of "stand fast", either.

[chuckfourth]

The wolf is slinking through the spring forest, He hears the quiet breathing of the bear in his hollow still asleep.
If he can just tear the bears throat out before he wakes.
Alas just as he gets a good grip, the bear awakens.
Game over.

[navwarcol]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

The wolf is slinking through the spring forest, He hears the quiet breathing of the bear in his hollow still asleep.
If he can just tear the bears throat out before he wakes.
Alas just as he gets a good grip, the bear awakens.
Game over.

I somewhat agree chuckles.. but the ironic thing is that the bear only won with incredible effort, and valiant, heroic fighting, combined with a gigantic allied effort of shipping in supplies and weapons. To say it was a certainty, actually belittles those who fought it, and the millions of Soviets who sacrificed everything in that effort. The German army came within a hair of winning. The game seems also to assume the German side will win, without giving them incredible handicaps... so ironically we have the players being called "Soviet fanboys" (I disagree with the term, for the record) who despite their 'fanboy' view, seem to insist that unless you tie the Germans hands behind their backs, figuratively speaking, they are going to win ...

[Michael T]

People seem to forget that without said lunatics (Hitler and Stalin) there would be no war in the first place. We must have rules to reflect the political realities in a game of this scale. Indeed there should be more. Certainly concerning the Soviet running in 1941. Stalin simply would not tolerate any Commander doing that. Same for Germans running to Poland in the winter of 1941.

If a player wants to take on the role as dictator of Germany in WWII then WITE is not the platform for it. Read the bi-line for the game, you, the player is not Hitler or Stalin. You represent the High Command. You take your orders from Hitler or Stalin. Hitler wants a short war. So there you are.

If you want to be Hitler you need to play some WWII strategic level game where you can do pretty much as you please with your available resources. There are quite a few around I might add.

[rmonical]

The Soviets are locked into their ridiculous forward deployment and utter surprise.

There is lock-in and there is lock-in. Compare your examples to say, historical arrival pattern for Soviet support units. A 2 point reduction in national morale if Leningrad falls. A two point reduction when Kiev falls. Another two points if Kiev falls before turn 10. A two point reduction in national morale if Smolensk falls before turn 6. etc. Those lock-ins would certainly tend to give the game a more historical flavor and are at least as reasonable as the blizzard German morale nerf. How about a 1 point reduction in national morale for every turn in July-September the Soviets make less than 20 attacks on the Germans.

[chuckfourth]

Hey I never said it was easy to get a wolf of your throat.

No need for any special rules to get the soviet to fight forward.

RRrate in baltic goes to 10 RRrate in the rest goes to 5 or better. (historical)

Soviet has to defend forward or its certain he will lose (or so Im told)

Remove the German spring surprise rule advantages. (gamey anyway)

The soviet now can defend forward. (playbalance restored)

I am a novice so I am relying on the seasoned players to think about this and tweak it here and there for "playbalance"
but that is the path the game needs to go down.

Best Regards Chuck.

[Mehring]

Germany attempted to fight short wars because they knew, Hitler included, they would be unable to win long ones against the big players of the day. That's not our hindsight, it was their own insight into their relative economic inferiority.

Intractable economic inferiority within the current global division of territories was driving Germany to war again, as it had in 1914. Had they not happened upon the use of armour to tear up the front, they may well have deluded themselves that they could start and win a long war. People, and particularly desperate people, have a terrible habit of self-delusion, but that's a whole different war and wargame.

For historical flavour, not only should there be mechanisms such as NM drops for the Russian '41 runaway, but Germany should have to get Ukrainian manganese production up and running within a time limit and keep it running, or risk economic collapse.

[Flaviusx]

Pffft. "Intractable economic inferiority" my foot. The impressive thing about Germany is how strong that economy has been for the last century and then some. They have been punching well above their weight the entire time.

They didn't have to go to war in 1914 for economic reasons, either. All Germany has to do to win is...what they are doing now, as a matter of fact. Sit tight and allow their productivity to zoom ahead and dominate the European market and assume inevitable political leadership of Europe. Ironically, they don't want it anymore.

War is for chumps.

[terje439]

The only thing I would really like to see for the Axis (espesially the Germans) are an ability to better manage your tanks. I do not intend to make an entire Tiger Division (would be neat though ^^), but to be allowed to not simply scrap my PzIIIjs because a certain date arrives. I would love to tell WhatEver#Panzer Division to keep their IIIjs, while Another#Panzer Division is allowed to update to newer versions.


Terje

[The Guru]

People seem to forget that without said lunatics (Hitler and Stalin) there would be no war in the first place.

Couldn't agree more. The very existence of such a brutal entreprise as WWII stems from a number of "psychological" conditions in the German leadership.
Players that want a WWII but with a very reasonable German leader in charge are asking for an historical aberration.
Players that want to play Barbarossa with a German High Command taking all precautions necessary to a long protracted conflict are asking for a historical aberration: had the Germans known, Hitler included, that the war in Russia was not going to be won in one single summer campaign, there wouldn't have been any Bararossa. full stop.

This is why I have always been a fervent advocate of VC that reflect the agressive nature of Barbarossa, that is, conquering strategic territory, instead of the current "let's invade Russia and try and loose as late as possible", leading to turtling up strategies. As I said many times, losing was not an option, whether in March 1945 or September 1945 made no difference at all.
Victory in wargames should measure performance relatively to the goals of the military entreprise portrayed, not the contribution to the delaying of defeat.

In the same way, Stalin is part of the WWII equation. The forward deployment the Russian player is stuck to (and should be) is only part of the very strategic conception that would have made a non-fighting general retreat before the Wehrmacht impossible.
The offensive doctrine was in-built in the Russian Army, only after incalculable disasters on the battlefield, and only then, did things start to change. Hence, also, my plea for elemnts in the game that portray that, and my earlier suggestions converge with rmonical's own:

A 2 point reduction in national morale if Leningrad falls. A two point reduction when Kiev falls. Another two points if Kiev falls before turn 10. A two point reduction in national morale if Smolensk falls before turn 6. etc. Those lock-ins would certainly tend to give the game a more historical flavor and are at least as reasonable as the blizzard German morale nerf. How about a 1 point reduction in national morale for every turn in July-September the Soviets make less than 20 attacks on the Germans.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pffft. "Intractable economic inferiority" my foot. The impressive thing about Germany is how strong that economy has been for the last century and then some. They have been punching well above their weight the entire time.

They didn't have to go to war in 1914 for economic reasons, either. All Germany has to do to win is...what they are doing now, as a matter of fact. Sit tight and allow their productivity to zoom ahead and dominate the European market and assume inevitable political leadership of Europe. Ironically, they don't want it anymore.

War is for chumps.

Yes, common sense tells us that strong growth is good. The truth of phenomena lies in their constantly shifting relationships, in which light, pluses often become minuses and vice versa.

Even if German economy of today and 1914-45 were a constant (they are not), the environment in which they operate is quite different. Germany, until recently, operated peacefully because since 1945 the west had no conceivably necessary war other than one of unification with the east. To wage this, it was unquestionably too weak.

The strength of the German economy existed in relationship to the British and French empires, the rising US economy and, post WWI, the rapidly developing Russian economy.

The British empire, particularly, made the German economy look third rate. Both empires hemmed in the German economy to the extent that, lacking sufficient internal market and resources, its growth actually became a problem, however third rate it was. The empires became a brick wall to the German economy zooming ahead, a problem the US also began to experience as it saturated its immense domestic market. Both countries were virtually forced to war, they just did it different ways and on different sides.

German industry was artisanal and could not compete with the production technique of the US. All the economic might of her inevitable adversaries put together, and Germany didn't have a hope in a long war.

Germany's position since the war is not comparable with that of 1914-45. Post 1945,the US, sharing the same problems, found a temporary solution in opening its sphere of influence to freeish trade under its aegis. Germany, in a broad sense, won the war along with the US. Unable to sustain their empires and trade barriers, Britain and France lost.

[Flaviusx]

I don't think you can really compare the British Empire to Germany in the long run. While the world wars accelerated the breakup, it seems to me that it was bound to happen. So it's a question of comparing the long term performance of the UK to Germany. And Germany wins here. Colonialism generally wasn't going to last for anybody.

The German General staff had convinced themselves that preclusive war against Russia was necessary, true, and it is also true that Russia was growing very fast and that its military potential would grow with it. But given their two front situation, Germany would have been better off seeking a defensive solution, and detaching the British from the French and Russians, not invading Belgium, etc. Keeping Italy friendly or at least neutral would also be a good idea. Wilhelmine Germany's diplomacy was amateur hour.

Japan is an interesting case here as well. They actually "won" the peace post WW2. Showing that their previous policy of colonialism and economic autarky was unnecessary and self defeating. Although they now have a terrible deflation problem that should have been addressed long ago. (BOJ finally has decided to get serious about this.)

[rmonical]

I am not proposing anything radical here. The underlying notion is that by August it was increasingly clear that Russia was not going to be defeated in 1941. Preparing for the 1942 campaign starting in August 1941 instead of January 1942 is not a far fetched idea. What precludes it in WITE are the first winter rules which are largely based on the notion the German's attack all out until December, are deeper into Russia, and are physically and logistically all played out. The decision to not "burn" the Heer and the Luftwaffe in October and November in pursuit of an implausible quick victory could have been made in August. So my recommendations supporting the long war notion are pretty simple:
1. Recast the first winter rules to have a strong foundation in logistics rather than voodoo.
2. Give the Axis some of the same force structuring capability granted to the Soviets.
It is T41 in my game as Axis with Mehring and there are almost 1800 modern combat aircraft in the pool. There are maybe slots for 300-400 of them in the available air groups. Those 1800 combat aircraft have almost 3000 high powered engines in them. And we are entering another low air activity period with mud predominating so these numbers are going to get a lot more lopsided. In this game, recall that I ignored the Ukraine but captured Leningrad and Moscow. There are 13600 Soviet air losses to 3700 Axis losses.

Of course the response to my complaint is: "well, if you had figured out how to employ the Luftwaffe as the designers intended (AKA - experience higher casualties) then you would not have all of those air frames and aircrew sitting around." But I did not. And now I have significant combat power that cannot be employed by rule not reality. The ability to create more bomber units is huge because their morale falls so fast. Even if they sit in National Reserve 60% of the time instead of 30% of the time, the capability they add to key situations and overall higher morale is significant. And deploying as many fighters as possible is almost a no brainer because they have such a small logistics footprint.

What should WITE2 do with runaway German aircraft pools?