The core problem with WitE+

[Peltonx]

It is the combat engine. This was addressed by others long ago and is not my baby.

As Flaviusx has pointed out it seems to promote attacking.

Gary wanted the system set-up so attacking was encouraged which would help reflect the EF (Eastern Front)

But the fact is it has not, because it does not reflex historical combat ratio.

The current system encourages turtling and running.

1941 6 to 1
1942 5 to 1
1943 4 to 1
1944-45 3 to 1

Historically German and Russian operations stopped because they ran out of men and equipment and not ammo/food/fuel.

Currently and in the past 2by3's focus has been on logistics to stop run away games, which has never worked.

Until the combat system is historical, once one side starts winning they keep winning.

Most games become a stalemate ( ones that are not exploited to death ) in late 42. The lines are static and can be just past Leningrad, close to Moscow and Rostov
until 1944 or the lines can be close to Poland. The line cracks and the Red Army steamrolls east very quickly game is over. The current logistical "fixs" to stop this have not and will not, because SHC players can focus which forses they need as CV's are so inflated
, they only need a handful to keep pushing.

Historically The Red Machine had to stop because of massive losses in men and equipment not supplies.

Until 2by3 focus becomes combat ratio's and not logistics the core problem with the game will remain the combat engine.

Of course allied replacements will need to be historical and the same for Germany.

The more logistics remain the focus the less and less historical the games will become and feel as we play them.

This is the best eastern front game to date, but the combat engine needs a major over haul not the logistics system.

[Flaviusx]

I think WITW may address this. How much and how well remains to be seen.

It is far too late in the day to expect fundamental changes to the combat engine for WITE 1.0. That's really going to be a 2.0 thing, following up on the evolution of the game during WITW.

Mostly all of us need to start getting used to the fact that this cake, WITE 1.x, is just about a done deal. We had a wonderful indian summer here with Morvael and that's spoiled us a bit, but all good things must come to an end.

Big Red certainly did pull up short both as a result of losses and supplies, btw. Frankly, the game doesn't really show this properly in either case.

[rmonical]

Big Red certainly did pull up short both as a result of losses and supplies, btw. Frankly, the game doesn't really show this properly in either case.

Glantz cites low tank strength as one reason for OKH calling a halt to offensive operations near Smolensk.

And Typhoon ended and the Soviet successfully counterattack because German rifle and tank strength was bottoming out.

Part of the problem analyzing this is you can always substitute blood for bullets. As your logistics (AKA artillery ammo) runs thin, you can continue the attack with direct assault with limited fire support. The Soviets and Germans were more willing to do this than the Americans.

[Peltonx]

I know wite is done after .14, but am hopeful more time is spent looking into combat results and allot less on logistics in the future.

WitE short coming now I believe were was the results of allot of time being spent tring to limit logistics, silly blizzard effects and 1v1=2v1.

Many of the patchs were tweaks around these 3 things.

Blizzard effects should have been, mild as they are now at release or close to release. They just simply were non-historical.
1v1=2v1 from 41-45 at release WTH were they thinking? and even to be in the game at all as it has NOTHING to do with history.

How many patchs and how much times was wasted on these two thing? Allot

Logistics issue would not have been and issue in the first place if the combat engine reflected historical out comes - surrenders of course.

How many major patches were to do with limiting logistics ALLOT!.

If 2by3 is focusing on logistic heavly as in the past the combat engine will still be the core weak pt in the game.

Its almost like they think logistics ( and I have said this more then once) in Europe should be the same as WitP and it is completely different.

Germany, England and Russia were hardly ever short on ammo, food and fuel. Germany was short on manpower, Russia short on equipment and England both.
95% of the slow down in tempo of the conflict was caused by the depletion of the front line units. aka manpower and equipment.

Supplies were never generally the issue, because of basic math.

When a major operation started there were men and supplies. As the operation came to and end there were 50% less men and 75% less tanks ect operational, which means allot less supplies were needed because there are less forses on the field of battle.
Most times operations stopped because both sides were depleted, not because of supplies.

The combat engine should be the center piece of the game. This would give the game allot better feel more historical.

Russia would get bleed white during operations, but in the end would bleed Germany white over time.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Big Red certainly did pull up short both as a result of losses and supplies, btw. Frankly, the game doesn't really show this properly in either case.

Glantz cites low tank strength as one reason for OKH calling a halt to offensive operations near Smolensk.

And Typhoon ended and the Soviet successfully counterattack because German rifle and tank strength was bottoming out.

Part of the problem analyzing this is you can always substitute blood for bullets. As your logistics (AKA artillery ammo) runs thin, you can continue the attack with direct assault with limited fire support. The Soviets and Germans were more willing to do this than the Americans.

Its apples and oranges.

Russia did not care about manpower or equipment.
They thought they had and unending supply, which they knew by late 44 was not true.
They did not expect men and tanks to last long so did not build up much for them, unlike artillery.

England and America depended more on fire power so they required mountians of supplies ( ammo, food, ect ect).

Germany relied on speed and really only needed fuel and as the war went on ammo/ fire power to counter the Red wave attacks.

Each operational doctrine requires different supplies and amounts.

Modeling the Eastern Front after the Western Front would be a mistake.

Germany can and did advance with far less, faster and longer distances then any modern army until 1991.

All 3 systems can not be put into 1, it simply will fail.

We have seen the results in wite.

The core problem is the combat system aka combat ratios. America required 5x the ammo as Germany to do the same operation, this is not reflexed in the combat engine and the same goes for the Russian front.

This is why we get stalemates when there should not be any.
Russia attacking should be getting more retreats after 41 allot more but at a cost and German wins should cause allot more then 1.5 to 1 ratios after September 42.

This core issue is really bad and engrained in the combat system if it is based on supplies or retreat loses.

Germany won battles not because they had more men, equipment or more supplies. They won battles because they were better trained,
used modern tactics, modern command and control while the allies were still using dated tactics.

A simple fact : only 1 in 5 allied infantry aimed an fired at a man while 4 of 5 Germans aimed and fired at a man. Why? Training.
A human simply has a hard time knowing he will be killing someone, German trainers knew this so the over came this human instinct be having there men shot at targets.

After the war America wanted to know why a handful of Germans could hold back 4 to 5 times there numbers with worse equipment ( rifles ect ) and less ammo ect. They knew they were not supermen.

It was as simple as basic training, after this the USA changed there basic training to reflex German basic training and shortly after so did the rest of the world.

My Grandfather was in a Sherman during Normandy and it was known by everyone that we fired 10-12 shots to get a kill and the Germans fired 1 time, 2 at the most to get a tank kill.

The logistics system will NEVER EVER reflex this only the combat system can.

Tring to model the conflict in Europe based on logistics will fail every time. Because the conflict was based on combat aka depleted manpower and equipment, not hot dogs and ice cream.

This is Europe not the pacific theater.

[RedLancer]

Yes - Let's not mix apples and oranges.

I agree that the Germans did more with less Ammo and this is a combat engine issue. (What value the role of morale in battle?)

Fuel consumption is a product of vehicle numbers, distance and time and therefore is reasonably constant across nations (other factors being equal). Supplies representing food, defence stores and spares is also reasonably constant for the same reasons. I agree that the current WitE process of converting supplies to ammo is one of the many weaknesses in the WitE logistics system. Moving any item presents the same challenges unless you can rewrite the laws of physics but how you move it is a key issue. Building on Flavio's comments these issues are infinitely more likely to be solved in WitW than WitE.

...and the 2by3 focus on logistics - perhaps - but when things don't go right blaming the logistician is always the commander's first option. [:D]

[gingerbread]

Soviet ground elements could use more ammo. I have no idea where the low exp triggers.

V1.04.14 – April 28, 2011
•
New Features and Rule Changes
...

4)
Formula Change – Added code to make low experience combat elements expend more ammo when they fire.

[Great_Ajax]

I think you are generously glossing over the impact of logistics in the East. There was not an unlimited supply of fuel and ammunition nor the capability to distribute them to the ground forces. The inability of the Germans in 1941 to bring forward required quantities of spare parts resulted in the cannibalization of the German air and ground vehicle fleet. Operational losses due to mechanical failures were probably comparable to actual combat losses in 1941 and early 1942. The Germans had about 250 operational tanks in all of Russia by mid January 1942. The further inability of the Germans to push forward fuel in the winter in 1941-1942 resulted in massive losses in heavy combat equipment such as artillery. Shortages of fuel were so severe in 1944 and 1945 that Panzer Divisions had to loaded on rail cars for even tactical movements. The near destruction of the German rail net in 1945 forced many panzer divisions to be near immobile. In the West, fuel and ammunition shortages were constant. The lack of German motorization assets throughout the war severely hindered the Germans ability to move strategically. There is a reason why all of those German divisions were bottled up along the Normandy coast - they had no transports to move.

IMO, the reason that the 41-42 winter can not be accurately depicted is because the attackers (Germans) are not suffering enough disabling casualties. The game uses the blizzard to force the same effect on the Germans that the combat engine cannot.

Trey

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I think you are generously glossing over the impact of logistics in the East. There was not an unlimited supply of fuel and ammunition nor the capability to distribute them to the ground forces. The inability of the Germans in 1941 to bring forward required quantities of spare parts resulted in the cannibalization of the German air and ground vehicle fleet. Operational losses due to mechanical failures were probably comparable to actual combat losses in 1941 and early 1942. The Germans had about 250 operational tanks in all of Russia by mid January 1942. The further inability of the Germans to push forward fuel in the winter in 1941-1942 resulted in massive losses in heavy combat equipment such as artillery. Shortages of fuel were so severe in 1944 and 1945 that Panzer Divisions had to loaded on rail cars for even tactical movements. The near destruction of the German rail net in 1945 forced many panzer divisions to be near immobile. In the West, fuel and ammunition shortages were constant. The lack of German motorization assets throughout the war severely hindered the Germans ability to move strategically. There is a reason why all of those German divisions were bottled up along the Normandy coast - they had no transports to move.

IMO, the reason that the 41-42 winter can not be accurately depicted is because the attackers (Germans) are not suffering enough disabling casualties. The game uses the blizzard to force the same effect on the Germans that the combat engine cannot.

Trey

I agree with much of what you say.

But clearly the engine falls far short as the war goes on.

1.5 to 1 combat odds in 1942 when Germans win?

Yes logistics have there plase, but this short coming is the unhistorical combat ratios the engine puts out once the SHC Corps are formed.

As rmonical clearly and correctly pts out the hole leadership system needs and looking at.

As MT pts out this is all interconected.

This is why as Flaviusx pts out sht snowballs.

If the combat engine could be tweaked to reflex historical results FIRST then logistics ect ect would follow and you have a struggle on The Eastern Front instead of a dance followed by a stalemate followed by a runaway.

Its like things were done ass backwards. Still 100x better then the rest of the game out there or being worked on.
Dam you guys have done to much hard work on units ect ect to have the game weak because of the combat engine being off.

And yes using higher up words,

I piss on any other Eastern Front Games to date or yet released.

[chuckfourth]

I agree with Pelton wholeheartedly
I posted this already in
tm.asp?m=3428981
But I believe the previous posts content is relevance to this thread also.
In my opinion there is a great need to improve the combat algorithm at this lowest level first, -then- look at higher level changes in the combat engine/game.

The current assault modelling appears relatively simple. As I understand it the two sides line up and march forward all weapons firing. This results in way too many specialist weapons and indirect fire weapons being damaged/destroyed.

my suggestion for how to run an assault in game.

1. Air Attacks.

2. Artillery duel.

3. Assaulting Artillery barrage on enemy positions.

4. Infantry advances.

5. Advancing infantry shelled by defending Artillery.

6. Advancing infantry comes under fire from enemy direct fire weapons, Advancing support weapons return fire.

7. Advancing infantry closes.

8. Armour exploits.


Currently the divisional and higher artillery is treated as though it was emplaced in the front line. Divisional artillery and Higher(Corps artillery) are long range indirect fire weapons. In practice sensible emplacement of this type of artillery is at its maximum range from the position to be shelled or supported.
So the Divisional and Corps guns need to be treated differently to the rest of the equipment. Basically they need to be removed from taking casualties as they are in fact removed from the battle. With some provisos, see below.

Those steps again in detail

1. Air Attacks.

Air attacks unchanged they can engage anything, the bigger the target the more likely it is to be engaged.

2. Artillery duel.

Only Heavy Guns batteries (corps artillery) engage in the artillery duel(excluding Rocket batteries) and then only those with very long ranges. The probability of qualifying Artillery firing couterbattery should be very low. And vary with nationality and equipment range.
The bigger the guns(batteries) range the more likely it will fire counterbattery.
Each battery conducting counterbattery results in one of the enemy (Divisional guns or Corps) batteries not firing. (ie they cancell each other out).
The countered battery only takes disruption, no guns are damaged.

3. Assaulting Artillery barrage on enemy positions.

The Effect should be mainly to disrupt "squad" category and 'soft' equipment from the equipment tab.
The ratio of casualties between field pieces, squads, HMGs, Mortars etc should be the same as the ratio of these equipments to each other in the formation being bombarded. Artillery is an -area- weapon.
Anything with armour in unaffected. (Armour defeats schrapnell and chance of a direct hit is tiny.)
Neither sides Artillery (Divisional and Corps) receive any disruption or casualties.

4. Infantry advances.

Only squads(infantry, engineer, cavalry etc), assault guns, CS tanks and Flame tanks advance. Everyone else stays put.
So only these categories in the assaulting force receive casualties.

5. Advancing infantry shelled by defending Artillery.

Indirect fire Defending Artillery fires on only advancing assault force as defined in step 4.
Defending artillery is all indirect fire guns mortars and Rockets.
The shorter range and hence later engagement time of the smaller mortars is balanced by their high rate of fire one employed. Again this is Area fire.
Result negligible on armour (direct hit extremely unlikely). "Squads" are moving and so suffering high damage/disruption.
Armour emerges unscathed
For Armoured infantry no effect.

6. Advancing infantry comes under fire from enemy direct fire weapons, Advancing support weapons return fire.

For the Attacker only the advancing assault force as defined in step 4. take casualties.
The Attackers Mortars and Infantry guns take no casualties.
Assaulting Assault guns, CS tanks, Flame tanks, fire as range permits.

Defending AT returns fire as range permits. (assuming the gunners know at what range they can penetrate the oncomming armour)
Run a subroutine here between Assaulting armour and defending AT until one or the other has 100 percent disruption/casualties.
Defending AT engages -only- Armour.
Defending "heavy squad weapons" and "squad weapons" and "man weapons" fire as the range permits.

7. Advancing infantry closes.

Now Attacking squads can fire as Range permits. Attacking casualties are still restricted to the advancing assault force.

I base the following "defender casualty" routine on the premise that the various formations are deployed to be mutually supporting and sited in depth, to mean that the infantry screen is placed forward and their support weapons are emplaced in depth.

Defender casualties reflect Divisional deployment, This varies but generally the formations exist in 3's so for example,

In a platoon the 3 squads will be forward, the platoon HMG sited in depth so you need to nuetralise 1 squad ( or one third of the platoons squads) before you can engage the platoons HMG. In a coy 3 platoons would be forward and the company HMGs and mortars placed behind, so you have to destroy one platoon before you can engage the -coy- mortars and HMgs. One -coy- (or its equivelent) needs to be nuetralised before you engage the battalions heavy mortars. one battalion needs to be nuetralised before you can destroy the regimental infantry guns. and so on.

When I say 'engage' there should be a probability here, ie nuetralise one coy before you can engage the battalions heavy mortars reads nuetralise one coy (or equivelent) to get a 50 per cent chance of engageing the battalions heavy mortars, nuetralise all 3 coys give you 100 per cent chance of engageing battalions heavy mortars

8. Armour exploits.

For an armoured division steps 1-7 are run as described, using the corresponding elements in the armoured division. ie the infantry element of the armoured division is deployed first. -then- the armour is committed. Once the one third of squads within the defending division has been damaged/disrupted armour is free to engage all enemy categories of equipment(exploit).

conditions

Flak should not be employed by the Attacker at all. In the defence it is employed rarely. (as is the current case I believe)

Currently the AI commits AT and flak support units to attacks this should I think be discontinued as AT is a defensive (support) weapon, even when tracked. Tanks are for the attack.

On the defence AT weapons are only allowed to fire at armoured vehicles otherwise they are not committed, (ie dont suffer any casualties) Defenders AT weapons fire as range permits.
Attackers AT weapons are not employed at all and so the Attackers AT suffer no casualties in any event. note this should include "tracked tank destroyers"


To implement this we would need more categories for ground elements. We can then differentiate between identical Coy, battalion, regimental and divisional ground elements. ie "HMG company" and "HMG battalion".

Equipment page would need to differentiate between howitzers (indirect fire divisional guns and better) and direct fire infantry guns, currently they are all "guns" the howitzers need a new category maybe howitzer, light med and heavy. So they can then be 'abstacted' for the barrages.

Basically indirect fire artillery and AT engagements are removed from the general assault. (ie if there isnt any armour to shoot at the AT guns limber up and fight another day)


Implementation (based loosely on a german inf division)

you need as set of tables for each division

ie for example a Division might contain
3 regiments
9 battalions
27 companies
81 platoons
243 squads

and in terms of MGs
81 HMG:Platoon
27 HMG:Coy

for indirect fire weapons it might be
81 Mortar:Platoon (50mm)
54 Mortar:Coy (81mm) (two per coy)
18 Inf gun:Regiment (75mm) (6 per regiment)


calculate the ratios between the different formations supporting weapons (another table)

3 squads for each HMG:platoon.
13.5 round up 14 squads per Inf gun:regiment.

Keep a tally on how many "squads" you have destroyed (and then HMGs etc)

Then you need a set of rules to force the assaulting elements to work up the divisional heirarchy
like so.

Start engage squads only

When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons (referencing the tables) then
engage HMG:Platoon[probability 50%]
When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage Mortar:Platoon[probability 50%]


When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage HMG:Platoon[probability 100%]
When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage Mortar:Platoon[probability 100%]


When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of battalions then
engage Inf gun:Regiment[probability 50%]
a sliding scale or similar in here.
When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of regiments then
engage Inf gun:Regiment[probability 100%]


For all these calculations if you fail the probablility test engage another squad.


Obvioulsy pages and pages of such 'rules' are possible, and I think desirable.


I think this or something similar would give you a more historically accurate casualty spread. Less AT, Flak, artillery, more infantry.


There is obviously a lot of room for modifications and refinements(subroutines) here, I put this forward as a starting point only.

Keep up the good work Pelton
Best Regards Chuck.

[timmyab]

I really don't see the point of the combat system the way it is. If it can't replicate strategy and tactics then it's all meaningless. The Germans had the whip hand in both departments throughout the war which is why Soviet casualties were so enormous and why they got trounced in the first year.
The combat system should be simplified and more focused on the influence of leadership and training. It's these things that really influence the outcome of battles as the Soviet debacles of 41 and 42 prove.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I really don't see the point of the combat system the way it is. If it can't replicate strategy and tactics then it's all meaningless. The Germans had the whip hand in both departments throughout the war which is why Soviet casualties were so enormous and why they got trounced in the first year.
The combat system should be simplified and more focused on the influence of leadership and training. It's these things that really influence the outcome of battles as the Soviet debacles of 41 and 42 prove.

In this regard I dislike the importance that "morale" has in the game, especially with morale being determined to a great deal by combat. I don't know how the combat system / strength of units is determined, but I have the feeling that experience should play a much bigger role.

This would also serve as another factor for deciding whether to refit units. The Wehrmacht for example waited (at least in the early years) until a unit was more or less completely decimated before sending it back to get rebuilt. They thought a weak but experienced unit was still worth more than a full strength one with many unproven elements who were not accustomed to fight with one another. An American study after the war found out that the combat strength of the German units resulted mostly from the formation of primary groups with great cohesion and experience. This is perhaps also a reason why Army Group North's units managed to retain their order in the Summer of 1944 and hold out in Courland until the end of the war. They suffered comparatively lower casualties after 1941 and many units were veterans fighting together since Barbarossa.

A reason of the massive Soviet losses persisting until the end of the war was their practice of throwing people together, getting them rudimentary training only, send them into battle and then rebuild them again. Even the Germans showed what disadvantage inexperienced units were. The heavy losses in June - August 1941 were partly due to the inexperience of many units resulting from the formation of new units (when older, cohesive, units were broken up by utilization of the cell-division method) and the lack of formation training.

[Peltonx]

Yes it is hard to refute Americas own investigations into why the Germans did so dam good with so little and not as good equipment.

But it was very simply, more and better training. A small group of veterans could easly and did hold off 5x their numbers. They aimed and fired instead of closing your eyes and firing allot hoping to hit something.

Russia was simply handing a gun to someone,
spent a week training and then off to the front lines.

The combat engine simply does not reflex the historical non-surrender combat ratio's at all.

1941 6 to 1
1942 5 to 1
1943 4 to 1
1944-45 3 to 1

The in game ratios are 1.5 to 1 starting in September 1942 which is simply way way off historical.

For balance I fully admit Russia will need the missing 200 divisions which are not in the game at present to bring back balance to the game once the combat engine reflexs the historical combat ratio's.

I also relize as Flaviusx has pointed out these changes are more for future releases then the present version, but the player base can see the short comings with the current engine.

We would like to see the future engine reflex historical out comes and not tring to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I believe, because this was the defense of the combat ratios by 2by3 long ago was that:

On the eastern front from 1941-45 the combat ratio was 2.5 to 1. But that includes a pile of surrenders the last few months of the war.
I believe this is why we have an engine so off, it was not modeled after non-surrender results 41-44.

The current combat engine from 42-44 is stuck in 45 + surrender results.

Any future engine needs to be modeled after combat results ( not surrenders the last few months) of the yrs involved.

[Great_Ajax]

Pelton, I completely agree with you about the combat engine issues. Me and Flavius have raised this issue numerous times and I believe that it will be fixed in WitW and subsequently in WitE 2.0. You rarely see Pyrric victories which were common during Soviet assaults. I just wanted to point out that logistics was never a feast for either side in WW2. The Germans dealt with shortages of everything throughout the war which became critical in 1944 and catastrophic in 1945.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I think you are generously glossing over the impact of logistics in the East. There was not an unlimited supply of fuel and ammunition nor the capability to distribute them to the ground forces. The inability of the Germans in 1941 to bring forward required quantities of spare parts resulted in the cannibalization of the German air and ground vehicle fleet. Operational losses due to mechanical failures were probably comparable to actual combat losses in 1941 and early 1942. The Germans had about 250 operational tanks in all of Russia by mid January 1942. The further inability of the Germans to push forward fuel in the winter in 1941-1942 resulted in massive losses in heavy combat equipment such as artillery. Shortages of fuel were so severe in 1944 and 1945 that Panzer Divisions had to loaded on rail cars for even tactical movements. The near destruction of the German rail net in 1945 forced many panzer divisions to be near immobile. In the West, fuel and ammunition shortages were constant. The lack of German motorization assets throughout the war severely hindered the Germans ability to move strategically. There is a reason why all of those German divisions were bottled up along the Normandy coast - they had no transports to move.

IMO, the reason that the 41-42 winter can not be accurately depicted is because the attackers (Germans) are not suffering enough disabling casualties. The game uses the blizzard to force the same effect on the Germans that the combat engine cannot.

Trey

I agree with much of what you say.

But clearly the engine falls far short as the war goes on.

1.5 to 1 combat odds in 1942 when Germans win?

Yes logistics have there plase, but this short coming is the unhistorical combat ratios the engine puts out once the SHC Corps are formed.

As rmonical clearly and correctly pts out the hole leadership system needs and looking at.

As MT pts out this is all interconected.

This is why as Flaviusx pts out sht snowballs.

If the combat engine could be tweaked to reflex historical results FIRST then logistics ect ect would follow and you have a struggle on The Eastern Front instead of a dance followed by a stalemate followed by a runaway.

Its like things were done ass backwards. Still 100x better then the rest of the game out there or being worked on.
Dam you guys have done to much hard work on units ect ect to have the game weak because of the combat engine being off.

And yes using higher up words,

I piss on any other Eastern Front Games to date or yet released.

[Flaviusx]

I've long thought that Soviet artillery divisions were a bit too easy to use. It could take weeks and months to put together a really big artillery offensive, the supply requirements were crazy. Some of the smarter German commanders caught on to this and even had tricks to take advantage of it to make the Soviets waste their ammo on empty trenches. (Heinrici was probably the master at this.)

You never quite get this feeling in WITE. The arty units themselves are a bit slow, sure. But they don't actually have to ever pause to accumulate supplies or anything. They can just keep pounding away turn after turn.

[gingerbread]

Well, if you made it so that artillery units could only be used every other turn, players would build twice as many...

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

Well, if you made it so that artillery units could only be used every other turn, players would build twice as many...

No use if there aren't enough supplies.

[Peltonx]

el hefe something to think about and you to Flaviusx.

France 1940

France and England had better tanks, guns, planes were equal ect ect

France and England had more equipment-planes/tanks/guns and men.

France and England were dug in with strong reserves.

France and England had more ammo/supplies/fuel.

Yet the got lost very badly.

If you go back and read the engagments even at the tactic level France and England got schooled.

Logistics ONLY matters if it is a war of attrition. Logistics did not matter at the tactical level.

Logistics was never an issue in Europe other then fuel late in 44 on the ground.

Morale is the game engines key matrix when it should be training and C&C

Putting Russian troops on an equal footing with German troops even in late 44 was simply not happening other then in odd cases, that's why the ratio was 3 to 1 even in 44

[SigUp]

Pelton, comparing France to the Soviet Union is comparing apples to oranges. The infrastructure of the Eastern Front is far, far worse than the infrastructre of Western Europe while the size of the country is a few times larger. Logistics did play a significant role in the East.

[rmonical]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

Well, if you made it so that artillery units could only be used every other turn, players would build twice as many...

No use if there aren't enough supplies.

I think WITW has elements that help address this by accounting for rail capacity for the delivery of supplies.
So if WITE2 gets consumption rates and truck efficiency right, then logistics may become more relevant to the game.

I think the disconnect in the conversation is commanders will always plan operations with logistics in mind. So it may look like logistics played no role in the operation, it certainly played a role in the operation planned.