Realism discussion

[Gabriel B.]

Are you sure you are comparing Wehrmacht numbers not just the Ostheer ?

at the start of the game Lw is around 450,000 men with all the airbases , aircomands, aaa regiments and battalions .

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Was just saying I have fought those arguments before, for pure history I will read a book or pop in a DVD, for a game, I shoot Hitler, Tojo or Stalin on turn 1. History is no more.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

The German is crushed by strict lowering of morale, reduced fixed TOE down grades and the Russians get to custom build their army from the ground up basically.

History is out the window when u start. So the russian side should be able to build inf, tank corps, mech and cav corps right of the bat. The russians shouldnt go through their OOB down grades and if wanted too should stay in their 17k man division instead of downgrading to the 11k man division losing 40% CV, right?

Just like teh german teh russian side is bound to downgrades and no more controll over them than the german side. They like germans can have tousins of tank in pool they cant use cuz they cant fit in OOB or making more tank formation isnt possible or having heavy regiement wont upgrade to IS from KV tanks. should the russian side if teh german side is allowed to controll their OOB like wise be able to controll theirs? 44 Mech OOBs in 42?

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
So personally, I don't cry foul about his play, and never will. The day the Russian player's forgo custom building their armies and stick with exactly what they get in the arrival screen except for auto upgrades, I might actually load this back up.

As i have pointed out numerous time if the russian side got historical OOBs they would have many more units than the are currently are able to be build. There maybe minor variation but how can having less be an advantage?

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Never played as the Russians so have no clue what their historical unit arrivals look like.

And there in is the truth. Never having played the russian side u have no idea what their capabilties or lack there of are.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I for one want a semi historical game..........historical range weapons, same stats etc, but don't curse either side with any historical limitations.......example, the 16th Panzer left the East front on this date due to losses incurred during some battle that never happens in our game. In 1944 the TOE went to this historically due to losses incurred across the front in real life yet never happen in the game. This was why I actually removed the game from my hard drive

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
But I have seen the massive cavalry corp build's for use in Blizzard that can gut the German if he aint careful.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Way back when, I saw AAR's that had the Russian at Polish borders in 1943.

So u decided up on seeing one game with that usage of cav corp was not some thing you like to see to the degree of an outrage that made u uninstalled the game.
How does that fit in with from turn one history is out the door and player can/should be able to do as they see fit.
Do u get similar outraged when the german player takes Kiev in turn 2?

The history out the door but its far from only by u used as a strawman argument that can be used when it fits in ur line of thot.
Its all a question of selected outrage when russian do better aka is at the door of Polen in 43. u dont use the word unhistorical but certainty its clearly unwanted to the degree u uninstall the game. U do in fact want history or ther couldnt be any issue with the russian using cav corps and being at the polish border in 43 nor would it be a problem tha the german shall be carefull not to be gutted by the same. If history indeed had been out the window from turn one the russian player should be able to do that with out any objections. The game shouldnt be the limit.


Case in point being my original OP. Ppl dont treat the 2 sides the same nor do they infact want history out the window from turn 1. They just want what fits their vision of history. This all makes it impossible to have any thing of discussion on the subject of game balance as any degree of question or raising issue with the german side of advantages is summarily dismissed.

Com on ppl even in the same thread where the OP was about the 2 sides are treated differntly its happening time after time, wake up and smell ur own roses,

Rasmus

[SigUp]

Yeah, my bad, forgot about that one. But still, if you deduct air bases, Luftwaffe HQs and Luftwaffe AA units, the average game is still like 500.000 men over. As a rough reference point, take the 1942 scenario. Germany starts with around 2.9 million men, with your average infantry division strength north of Voronezh at around 8.500 to 9.000 men.

EDIT: The Cavalry corps penetration is problematic and leads to unrealistic results. Especially combined with ZOC locks. Smokindave lost 20 divisions due to this. To quote Flavius

So far as the blizzard goes, it seems Sapper has perfected some kind of crazy combination of zoc locking and hasty attacks...more spam, in other words. Reign in the logistics, tone down the morale hit, and tame big red and much of this ought to go away. The blizzard shouldn't be deciding games. It's too easy to leverage it right now, and I won't pretend otherwise. Despite MT's superb recent winter defense in his AAR.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Are you sure you are comparing Wehrmacht numbers not just the Ostheer ?

at the start of the game Lw is around 450,000 men with all the airbases , aircomands, aaa regiments and battalions .

Yes using OKW numbers that are counting all men in any branches on the eastern front. Including ost batttalins and so on. Not only that, german uses several different kinda of numbers, which that can confuse matters. The highest number includes ppl that arent actually at their units at present, but that possible is just allocated to that unit. Those are the numbers used. So if u instead use the numbers of actual men present then the number actually less. For comparison sake its the same types of numbers that isused in order to avoid misrepresentation and keep the comparison the same. The only that isnt accounted for is the flak units in teh german cities. shouldnt should be counted but in game they dont represend that many men. On teh other hand the OKW figurs also count in kriegsmarine personel and since naval base units arent covered in game they are lacking in in game numbers. This is ofc like the flak issue very minor figurs overall.
At the start of the game there are 24 Flak units in german cities not all of those wouldnt have counted. Each at 4k men so for a max of 100k men.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Gabriel B.]

In my first game if a german division was left with 8500 in any sector it was considered a good division , [:D]
stand fast and all that , so skill probably plays a major role .

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Are you sure you are comparing Wehrmacht numbers not just the Ostheer ?

at the start of the game Lw is around 450,000 men with all the airbases , aircomands, aaa regiments and battalions .

Yes using OKW numbers that are counting all men in any branches on the eastern front. Including ost batttalins and so on. Not only that, german uses several different kinda of numbers, which that can confuse matters. The highest number includes ppl that arent actually at their units at present, but that possible is just allocated to that unit. Those are the numbers used. So if u instead use the numbers of actual men present then the number actually less. For comparison sake its the same types of numbers that isused in order to avoid misrepresentation and keep the comparison the same. The only that isnt accounted for is the flak units in teh german cities. shouldnt shoudl be counted but in game they dont represend that mnay men. On teh otehr hand the OKW figurs also Count in kriegsmarine personel and since naval units Arent covered in game they are lacking in in game numbers. This is ofc like the flak issue very minor figurs overall.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

German strength reports are confusing. You have something like "Verpflegungsstärke" (for supply purposes), "Ist-Stärke" (amount of troops present), or "Gefechtsstärke" (strength of the fighting units). The difference can be quite big. For example, for "old-style" Infantry Divisions in the field (pre-1943 reorganisation) the "Verpflegungsstärke" was 14.604 men. "Ist-Stärke" numbered 10.153 and "Gefechtsstärke" only 4.493 (that's also why it is misleading to say a Soviet Rifle Division possessed fewer men than a German Infantry Division, if you compare the actual fighting strength they are about similar and taking infantry only a Soviet RD actually had more men in its TOE). Taken for the entire Ostheer, the "Gefechtsstärke" was only about 50%. For example on 1st October 1943 the Ostheer (without SS and LW Felddivisions) possessed 2.564.000 men. The "Gefechtsstärke" amounted to only 47% with 1.214.000 men. For WITE purposes I assume a utilisation of "Ist-Stärke" is appropriate.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Are you sure you are comparing Wehrmacht numbers not just the Ostheer ?

at the start of the game Lw is around 450,000 men with all the airbases , aircomands, aaa regiments and battalions .

Btw u can load up the 1942 scn check the numbers there as they naturally includes airbases and so on in both the 1942 scn and in the 1941. Actually its proberbly the best case as u making sure that way that numbers are treated are done in a simmilar way. The number in the 1942 scn OOB for the germans is 2.97m vs between 3.3m to 3.7m when playing a scn through a 1941 scn. Again that includes the 100k men from flak but not kriegsmarine personel. Deduction 100k from the 2.97 and u pretty close to the 2.7-2.8m.

Gets even funnier when u start to deduct the loss from OKW figurs. Using OKW numbers of losses and then do the same in game. If u lose lets 800k men in game then the OOB should be X and so on. The typcical number u get out ahead is between 700k to 1m depeding on severity of blizzard losses in game.

I would just state i dont belive u can or should remote that 1 mio man as it would totally unbalance the game as is now. Just pointing there are a number of cases that is clearly fantasy land on the german side and its never comes up when pointing out decrepiencis on the german side. Its always X lacking, russian can do Z Y and X. Never is it, Ok but i also got this that i didnt. It might also influnce the arguement.

Case in point being my OP.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Jimbo123]

I have probably 20 games under my belt all as the GHC so you are aware of my bias. I have played most games against forum playes who are quite good. I have won 3 times all against new SHC players and once when I decided to finally chain. (nerfed) I am not able to use flying gas cans as it crosses a personal line for me. This is in no way intended to say it's wrong to do so. It's maybe "my" realism line. I believe many German players know starting the game we will lose. The journey is what is broken. Unless the German can inflict enough damage both on present and future manpower as well as arms then they don't get out of 43. I read the arguments by those who support the SHC and I guess my question is don't you want a better game? The I have to win crowd exists on both sides of the front line. I do know that many us of play games for the sheer joy of the mental effort. My ego for one is not on the line win or lose so I don't care if I win. I just want a great game! That doesn't mean I don't play hard too.

Despite the Lvov opening the South is what is broken for me. How can you make enough headway in the South when all the SHC needs to do is to outrun GHC supply and perserve their army only to send most of it north of the marshes. The result is a brick wall in 42 and the early 43 meat grinder which too quickly destroyes German inf, front breaks game over. Shouldn't desperation "historically" begin after the 44 summer offensive. Maybe we would stick around longer with some hope which by the way was what the Germans did historically even after losing the whole 6th army in 42!!

Anyway, love the game and will probably keep sticking my face in the grinder until WitEII.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

Despite the Lvov opening the South is what is broken for me. How can you make enough headway in the South when all the SHC needs to do is to outrun GHC supply and perserve their army only to send most of it north of the marshes. The result is a brick wall in 42 and the early 43 meat grinder which too quickly destroyes German inf, front breaks game over. Shouldn't desperation "historically" begin after the 44 summer offensive. Maybe we would stick around longer with some hope which by the way was what the Germans did historically even after losing the whole 6th army in 42!!

Anyway, love the game and will probably keep sticking my face in the grinder until WitEII.

I would to say that depence on how u view it. I think the mood both among general and soldiers in better parts of AGS was in late 1942 amd early 1943 as there was next to no front lines after Stalingrad in part of AGSs area and the russian advanced from Stalingrad to just outside Z town in some months was pretty close to desperation. non the less the russians overextedned them self and got beat badly.
Again the retreat in ukraine after Kursk became pretty desperate and several pockets was only narrowly avoided or broken and I think the mood was pretty deseperate at times too there.
I dont think that u necesarrily can say that "historic" it only became desperate in 1944. ofc this depence to a certain extend on what u mean by desperate.

That doesnt mean i think that u should necesarrily see the same happening just as that. Just pointing that great advances / retreats historicly occured before 1944 start alrdy starting in late 1942 and certainty when u look at teh description of this by the general involved its clear that not in all cases did they have things under control at leased for a periode.

AS to replicating this there are where u have seen russian overxtending them self or become complacent where there have been setbacks and even in 1 case a complete turn around. Do it happen often, no but it happens. Is it more likely that the player doesnt make the mistake of overextending, sure. Again if thta part is up to the player and They arent forces to make the same mistakes. Non one forcing the germans to do Stalingrad i only would say the same should apply to the russian side.

Yes i do belive most ppl want a better game so lets have that discussion, but if u going to discuss the logistics that makes the russian steamroller happen which is thesame that makes german advances that is far beyound historic both in time and place happen. If the discussion about the latter is summarily dismissed cuz of blizzard the and steamroller issues how can u even start to begin addressing issues when half the issues gets dismissed. If u rein in the steamroller effects by reining in logistics it naturally will and IMO should have an effect on the 41 advances. If touching those cant even be discussed becasue X Y and Z the discussion stops before its even begun.

Only asking for that and some self awareness of that,

Rasmus

[mmarquo]

"There is a problem with that explanation: The German replacement/manpower system already takes into account how many 'generic replacement' Germans are sent to other theaters. So for example when, in 1942, the 20% of generic manpower that goes to other theaters is theoretically going into any fresh division mustered out of the theater considered in WitE.

The Stalingrad divisions are removed, while the generic replacements represented by the reconstituted/recruited(/possibly renumbered) divisions already account for that. Germany nevertheless sees a counter, its contents, and its precious, precious experience (assuming it's high) disappear from the East."

The problem is the war was multifront for the Axis and unidimensional for the Soviets. Unless the entire Theater of Operations is depicted, with every country and historical pressure modeled (what about the Brazilians, the Turks...). perhaps the safest assumption is historical progression of WITW/Africa with related pressure/constraint on WITE.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"There is a problem with that explanation: The German replacement/manpower system already takes into account how many 'generic replacement' Germans are sent to other theaters. So for example when, in 1942, the 20% of generic manpower that goes to other theaters is theoretically going into any fresh division mustered out of the theater considered in WitE.

The Stalingrad divisions are removed, while the generic replacements represented by the reconstituted/recruited(/possibly renumbered) divisions already account for that. Germany nevertheless sees a counter, its contents, and its precious, precious experience (assuming it's high) disappear from the East."

The problem is the war was multifront for the Axis and unidimensional for the Soviets. Unless the entire Theater of Operations is depicted, with every country and historical pressure modeled (what about the Brazilians, the Turks...). perhaps the safest assumption is historical progression of WITW/Africa with related pressure/constraint on WITE.

I think a well thought out East-Front-Box like the one they are implementing in WITW (with the option to get historical arrival / withdrawal) is a pretty good way to handle this. With progress being determined by the strength of the units you send there. This also leaves strategic options for the Axis player. For example, does he send more units (but with inferior quality) East (or West in WITE2), or does he send fewer units, but stronger ones.

[loki100]

well stepping a long way from the bounds of what WITE can be developed to do, my ideal is:

a) 1941 the Soviets pushed to the edge of destruction but due to logistics there is no way (even if a Soviet player enacts all of Stalin's mistakes) that the Germans can finish them off
b) an inept but brutal counterstroke where the Soviets lack the logistics and operational tools to lever a counterattack into victory - worth remembering how much Soviet planning in the Winter offensive went into capturing German supplies - for their own use and need;
c) 1942 either as a strategic stalemate (Stavka's expectation) or an exceptionally dangerous last ditch German blow;
d) 1943 slowly mounting Soviet pressure (I'm assuming almost any German player would shift to a mobile defense) constrained still by flaws in their OOB and logistics
e) 1944 the capacity of the Soviets to launch massive offensives on one sector of the front, again logistics means you keep the Ukraine static while doing a Bagration etc

the fun is then around those broad dynamics, can you execute this or that better, can you come up with an effective defence. Against the AI a-e is yours for the organising but of course you lack the sport of dealing with an opponent who is also thinking and planning more than one move ahead.

Within WiTE as it is, I'm intrigued at what would happen in PBEM if you set the logistics at say 80%. If anyone wants to do a test using one of the longer 'road to' scenarios, I'd be delighted to go along and do some sort of AAR style report

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: loki100

Within WiTE as it is, I'm intrigued at what would happen in PBEM if you set the logistics at say 80%. If anyone wants to do a test using one of the longer 'road to' scenarios, I'd be delighted to go along and do some sort of AAR style report

This is something I have been wondering. With the logistics being too generous, why don't people try playing with restricted logistics (and limited aerial resupply). Of course such a game would need a Soviet player who doesn't turn around and runs. I would be quite interested in the outcome. For my part, I only know what 60 logistics have for an effect against the AI (without bomber supply and other tools to bump logistics). The effect was basically what I described in a post above, severe lack of fuel for motorized units, forcing breaks after two turns or so.

[swkuh]

Says Loki, "However, to be fair, I have no clue where competent gameplay crosses an imaginary line into exploitation."

Hurrah! So too me.

I hope for an enjoyable game versus AI (and get that now) and for H2H games that can be "balanced" through "house rules."

Remember that "historicity" in outcomes is not the same as "realism" in presentation. The former can be forced by hard coded ad hoc factors that change performance in an instant (whether documented or not.) Realism is perception of appearances and might always be improved. But every improvement in additional, more accurate detail could be a nightmare to reflect in historical performance though the code.

[tm1]

Hi guys
I don't want to start getting off the main topic of this thread but as a new player who plays the AI and has only played a handful of campaigns as the Axis.
Can someone clarify me on this Stalingrad divisions situation I have never captured the city yet.
Am I correct in reading that if the Axis player captures the city they automatically lose a certain number of divisions regardless if there is no disaster at Stalingrad.
what are talking about here the historical 22 divisions that were trapped there in 1942, its sounds kind of harsh if you win the city you lose troops, does not sound fair to me.
Is there any time limited say avoid capturing it in 42 but capture it in 41 or 43

Regards TM

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: tm1

Hi guys
I don't want to start getting off the main topic of this thread but as a new player who plays the AI and has only played a handful of campaigns as the Axis.
Can someone clarify me on this Stalingrad divisions situation I have never captured the city yet.
Am I correct in reading that if the Axis player captures the city they automatically lose a certain number of divisions regardless if there is no disaster at Stalingrad.
what are talking about here the historical 22 divisions that were trapped there in 1942, its sounds kind of harsh if you win the city you lose troops, does not sound fair to me.
Is there any time limited say avoid capturing it in 42 but capture it in 41 or 43

Regards TM

This is a misrepresentation. You don't lose any division because you reach Stalingrad. Some Stalingrad divisions are withdrawn, yes. But these are some of the reconstituted divisons after they were destroyed at Stalingrad, that were utilized elsewhere.

[Gabriel B.]

Done just that , LW stays around 450,000; a bit more (470,000 ) if the 6 jager regiments are counted .
So the army with all the support units is around 2.5 milion out of 2.98 at the start of 1942
campaign.

[BleedingOrange]

The problem with those reconstituted divisions being removed is they were new units because the old ones were destroyed. If you take the old unit and send it west, where does the newly created unit go? It doesn't go west because nothing changes in the west. So the German loses several divisions (either the original or the reconstituted ones) for no other reason then a loss that never occurs in your game. To add to this even though the original units were destroyed when they are withdrawn they are brought up to strength before being removed (unless my understanding of the withdrawal process is wrong, but seem to remember they did this to prevent people from suicide attacks with those units). In the game the German player can lose a million fewer men and no units, he still won't benefit from it. He won't get a single additional division, will be stuck with lowering morale and crappy TOE "upgrades".

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

The problem with those reconstituted divisions being removed is they were new units because the old ones were destroyed. If you take the old unit and send it west, where does the newly created unit go? It doesn't go west because nothing changes in the west. So the German loses several divisions (either the original or the reconstituted ones) for no other reason then a loss that never occurs in your game. To add to this even though the original units were destroyed when they are withdrawn they are brought up to strength before being removed (unless my understanding of the withdrawal process is wrong, but seem to remember they did this to prevent people from suicide attacks with those units). In the game the German player can lose a million fewer men and no units, he still won't benefit from it. He won't get a single additional division, will be stuck with lowering morale and crappy TOE "upgrades".

This view is short-sighted. The German side gets divisions the Germans historically probably wouldn't have sent East if some divisions didn't get destroyed. Who says that for example 304th, 306th, 333rd, 335th Infantry Divisions would have been transported East if the 6th Army doesn't get encircled at Stalingrad? You lose 8 Stalingrad divisions, stretched over 8 months. I am not convinced that this is a huge loss, considering you get dozens of new divisions in this span.

[Aurelian]

tm.asp?m=3104200&mpage=1&key=stalingrad&#3106060