Best Combo of Settings / 'House Rules' for Historical Game?

[rainman2015]

I am VERY new to the game, and in the process of learning with ver 1.08.02.

I have gone thru a lot of forum posts, and heard a bunch of comments about this needs improving, or that was broken but is now fixed in the new release beta (or the beta broke something new). I don't want to recreate the exact Russian front, will use things like random weather, BUT, i DO want to be as close to operating under the same real constraints as the original leaders were.

So, in order to create a historical platform with which to create my own version of the Russian front, what 'House Rules' do you suggest as the best ones to use when playing PvP (or even vs the AI).

I am thinking one of them might be to ditch HQ Build up entirely for one example.

Play with the reduced Blizzard for historical results?
Play with the new +1 type rules?

Thoughts?

Let the debate begin!

Randy

[Gabriel B.]

I do recomend playing without Hq build up , it will help master the logistic aspect of the game, albeit trough trial and error.

[von altair]

The most important rule you need, is to limit airbase bombing to 1-3 after turn 1 for Soviets.

You may want to consider airborne and sea invasion limits at -41 too.

There is NO point to limit HQ buildup at all. That is ok feature for new and average players.
There are only few players who have exploited it.

[rainman2015]

Yes, i thought about listing the restriction on bombing of airbases after turn 1. Should that just apply to Soviet bombing of airbases throughout the war? Should it be limited to 1, 2 or 3 times per turn?

Also had read about others limiting airborne and amphib limits. Just in 41? Just for the Soviets? I know only the Soviets can amphib.

So, so far, possible House Rules:

1) Limit (or eliminate) HQ Build Up: If so, eliminate completely or limit it. Limit it only in 41 or afterwards also?

2) Limit airbase attacks: If so, limit only applies to Soviets? Limit to 1, 2 or 3 times per turn?

3) Limit airborne and amphib assaults: If so, limit only to 41? Limit only to Soviet?

Any others? Thoughts on the above ones?

I know this debate could get a lot of possible feedback, would like to hear it all.

Randy

[rainman2015]

Remember, the idea of the game rule options we use AND of any house rules is to set the stage for as close to recreating the real historical situation as possible.

That said, in addition to the above, what about:

Using the reduced blizzard effect or not?

Using the +1 Soviet attack or defense new rule, which i dont fully understand yet?

What about reducing logistics to 90 or admin to 90 for the Germans (and maybe the Soviets) to better simulate the supply issues. Supply more than anything (and general attrition, etc) should be a huge factor in slowing the German advance down in 41, right?!

Again, looking for the best combo of actual game settings + house rules to setup as historical an initial game platform to play with as possible. Then, what we do with that historical game platform is up to us and is the fun of it!

Thanks
Randy

[loki100]

I'll try and give you my answer, but all this is very conditional, not least on player skill and so on.

Don't mess with the core settings, keep them at 100%. I've just had a potentially great game that had lasted 15 months (real time) fade into the ground due to the unintended impact of changing this.

Think about what is 'historical' in your eyes. There are posters here who see nothing wrong in getting Pzrs to Stalingrad by T15, so its a pretty broad concept. To me, a historical game has an ebb and flow. Rampant German offensives June-July 1941, stiffening Soviet resistance Aug-Sept 1941, final round of German attacks late Autumn, a Soviet counterattack that takes the Germans to the brink but can't quite fulfill its potential, a German attack with very similar characteristics, late 42-mid 43 some sort of brutal attritional stalemate, and then mounting Soviet dominance?

Let the +1 go on attack (and don't use the +1 on defense, thats something I'd give the Soviet AI), it'll mean less attacks in 1941 but not critical. Ideally with no +1 you need a blizzard setting somewhere between the current 'reduced' and the old 'excessive'. If you feel you are well matched, you've just got to pick one or the other, if you feel one of you knows the game better etc, that might be a good balance rule. The severity will play very directly into how dangerous the Germans are in the Summer of 1942.

Keep airborne, but agree a limit. My last PBEM we had none before Nov 41 (which is realistic, there is no way the Soviets could have organised one), one a month to June 42 (but you can save them, so if you don't drop in Nov 41 you can do 2 in Dec etc). This stops spam, but makes a German player have to think about rear area security.

Use random weather - this will favour the Soviets in 41 and the Germans for the rest of the game.

Try to not do HQ bombing - you can't completely avoid this as limited recon may only tell you there is a unit in the hex. Not for the old reason of avoiding silly levels of leader death, but instead its just too effective at destroying support units.

Keep to a limit on bombing airbases, or the Soviets will simply overwhelm the Luftwaffe over time.

HQBU is a problem. I really don't like it, its completely artificial (though 1.08 has done a lot of good), but without it the Germans will stall too early in 1941 and it will remove a lot of uncertainty for the Soviet side. Also too hard to police in PBEM, so let it be, its a bad means to a good end.

Consider a trade off in the Ukraine. No Lvov pocket, Germans to stay north of the line that releases S Front on T1. In turn, no Soviet mass evacuation to fill out the defense of Leningrad. In combination this makes the Ukraine a lot more fun for both sides than the alternative of the good Soviet units heading north and the Germans having to wade through a sea of 1-1 ants laid out like you are playing checkers.

[lowtech]

Loki100,

This is exactly what I am looking for. I think you mentioned somewhere else there are roughly two major groups of players:
1)those that view WitE as "just another game" like chess and go through a min/max exercise.
2) those who are looking more for a, for lack of a better term, competitive historical simulator.
I didn't get any impression that you thought one was better than the other; all a matter of personal preference.

I prefer a "historical" game, exactly the ebb-and-flow you mention. I'll play other, less complicated systems, for straight-up competitive gaming. But again, no moral judgment from me. To that end I am interested in house rules. So if I understand correctly, you recommend, given two players of roughly equal ability and using the 1.08.3 Mod:

All values at "100" for both sides
+1 Soviet Attack
Random Weather
1st Winter Rules
No more than 3 airbase attacks on the same hex per turn
No air attacks on HQs alone in hex

Airborne Operations
Soviet: No Soviet operations prior to Nov 1941. I don't think the Soviets can ever launch more than one Bde at a time, correct? I'd also add that the Axis should never be allowed any airborne ops at all. If there's a history section on these boards and anyone cares, I can go into the "why". Remember Crete assault had just ended prior to Barbarossa.

HQ Build-up
Possibly something along the lines of limiting this to some number of Corps HQs for some period of time. Say 1 Axis Corps per turn from June to Okt 1941 and then 6 turns of 1 Corps HQ for the entire summer of 1942? Would have to be on the honor system. For the Soviets? How useful is Corps BU for them?

Historical Barbarossa 1st Phase
This is something along the lines of balancing out the Axis perfect knowledge of the Soviet deployment versus the Soviet perfect knowledge of the Axis VP and logistic constraints. You mention no AGS thrust below say "x" 55,56,57 so as to not create the Lvov pocket versus some restriction on deployment to the Leningrad Front. That one is a bit harder to quantify. But I like the idea. The classic solution to that problem, in general design terms, is allowing "free" Soviet initial deployment at a "cost"; must deploy within certain parameters plus Axis gets some unknown benefit.

Wading through ants in a "checker board" [X(] Not my idea of fun. Is this really the only defense option the Soviets have in the south in 41?

[loki100]

Aye, I make no judgement about the merits of playing by the rule book (ie if its not impossible then do it ... if you can) against accepting some constraints in the search for realism. From experience, I think its best not to play someone from the other camp, but equally I'd struggle to pinpoint the step at which good game play and understanding the system slips into outright rules abuse.

I'd drop the +1 to be honest. In my current PBEM, I'm surprised how many successful attacks I've managed. The only difference is I've had to really choose them, rather than just hit back 'because I could'. But a combination of German fatigue and the advantages of quantity over quality means I've been winning about 80% of the attacks I make with on-map cv at 1-1.

HQBU is a rubbish way to model something essential. There is a critical need for the Germans to have some capacity for surprise in both 1941 and 1942 or it would be relatively easy for a Soviet defender to count MPs and costs and work out the limits to German capacity. The WiTW system with fixed depots and priorities (plus setting priority within your command system) is far better, it will model the need to build up for an offensive far more than the WiTE system does.

With the Soviets, I don't think I've ever bothered with HQBU to be honest. Even late game, a Soviet offensive is a thing of violence and power not finesse and you will very rarely get a clean break out. Also if you rest your tank/mech corps for a turn its pretty easy to get the MP back up to 40+ in any case. Another problem is that HQBU burns off a lot of trucks and right to the end trucks are the biggest constraint on the Soviets both for supply and troop movements.

In the south you need to always defend in depth and its better to have weak but multiple lines. If someone has just removed SW (and potentially South) Front in the opening turn then you have little choice but to set up a checkerboard as your 'defence' becomes one of burning off German MP. A more nuanced opening allows for a much more contested battle in that region (at least I think so), which is more fun for both sides as its less about simply moving units as far as they will go each turn.

[M60A3TTS]

I think the usual airbase attack house rule is no more than 3 attacks total per turn rather than per hex but I could be wrong. I've done very little of it myself.

[uw06670]

question on that AB attack house rule. As M60 mentions, is it 3 attacks per turn? Or 3 attacks per AB per turn? If the latter, then if 3 AB are stacked together in 1 hex, can you attack it 3 times or 9?

[Peltonx]

1941 GC Sudden Death or Alt VC260 1.08.03

I like sudden death 1st but will do alt-VC260

Server game
Locked HQ Support
Full FOW

House Rules:
No Para drops at all.
No bombing of air bases more than 3 times a turn (after turn 1)
No bombing of HQ's unless stacked with a ground unit
No naval invasions before November 1941, none outside the 1939 Soviet borders before January 1943
In addition if Sevastopol is either isolated, or in German hands, none west of the Crimea,
which reflects the scope for air/naval interdiction not really reflected in the game.

Additional Auto VC:
If the Axis player holds
Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov concurrently at any time in 1941 he wins
an Auto Victory. No need to waste any ones time as we all know the end results based on past games if these cities fall in 1941.

Optional Rules Setup:

Mild Blizzard Rules
Random Weather
No 1-1 = 2-1

[M60A3TTS]

Should be total of 3 per turn. You can still beat the Luftwaffe down with 3 per AB per turn.

Pelton, that's how your house rule works, yes?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

Should be total of 3 per turn. You can still beat the Luftwaffe down with 3 per AB per turn.

Pelton, that's how your house rule works, yes?

LW basicly is a non factor other then 100% Odessa and Leningrad in 3 turns and keeping it 100%.

Once they are taken do the big blob.

Just to let you know WitW air system also requires House Rules as AB bombing is simply Middle Earth = 2by3 has learnt nothing for WitE

There are some things that require people out side the good old boy club to get it right

[Peltonx]

Old school people know the names.

Hopefully they let them fix WitW next once they are done with WitE

[chaos45]

Just going to say I dont think there is really anything wrong with airbase bombing per say...you bomb a place enough it should become un-useable and most likely destroy almost all the aircraft stationed there.

However typically Airfield attacks came in at lower altitude to have truly devastating effects which in turn should equal drastically heavier attacking air losses if you have decent AA coverage. I know I used to do this alot in the old Bombing of the reich game as the P47s strikes almost always hit at low altitude so my primary airfields would be loaded with 20mm/37mm flak then after the air strike a ton of P47s would be damaged and slowed...so I would scramble my fighters and hold them away from the strike force then after they hit the airfield and were flying home my squadrons would descend on all the damaged stragglers lol...I know not very sporting but very effective.

As even with my best fighter pilots 1:1 fights with any allied fighters was suicide in the game. I only used suicide/expendable fighter groups to tackle allied fight groups and then usually only to make them waste fuel so my real kill groups could hit the bombers.

An yes the airbase was trashed but I would just rebase to other airfields and rinse and repeat. Over time it really put the FBs a good drudging.

I would have to say the main issue probably is the German fighter ratings...as in all the games it seems the Axis fighters have in general subpar performance compared to the Allied aircraft. You talk to the guys that flew them and even characteristics wise the aircraft on many terms were almost equal but most 2by3 games seem to underrate axis air to air fighters to the point that unless they have a huge edge in number or experience they tend to lose. Been my experience on all their older games and have noticed people complain about it in WitP AE as well. So it might be a combination of factors creating the issue.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Just going to say I dont think there is really anything wrong with airbase bombing per say...you bomb a place enough it should become un-useable and most likely destroy almost all the aircraft stationed there.

However typically Airfield attacks came in at lower altitude to have truly devastating effects which in turn should equal drastically heavier attacking air losses if you have decent AA coverage. I know I used to do this alot in the old Bombing of the reich game as the P47s strikes almost always hit at low altitude so my primary airfields would be loaded with 20mm/37mm flak then after the air strike a ton of P47s would be damaged and slowed...so I would scramble my fighters and hold them away from the strike force then after they hit the airfield and were flying home my squadrons would descend on all the damaged stragglers lol...I know not very sporting but very effective.

As even with my best fighter pilots 1:1 fights with any allied fighters was suicide in the game. I only used suicide/expendable fighter groups to tackle allied fight groups and then usually only to make them waste fuel so my real kill groups could hit the bombers.

An yes the airbase was trashed but I would just rebase to other airfields and rinse and repeat. Over time it really put the FBs a good drudging.

I would have to say the main issue probably is the German fighter ratings...as in all the games it seems the Axis fighters have in general subpar performance compared to the Allied aircraft. You talk to the guys that flew them and even characteristics wise the aircraft on many terms were almost equal but most 2by3 games seem to underrate axis air to air fighters to the point that unless they have a huge edge in number or experience they tend to lose. Been my experience on all their older games and have noticed people complain about it in WitP AE as well. So it might be a combination of factors creating the issue.

AA are really usless high or low level.

Bro attach 100 AA units to and AB HQ and then stack 2 AB's in same hex.

You can kill all the planes withen a few turns vs 1000's of AA guns low lvl or high.

WitE and WitW AA = Middle Earth BS, the AA system is broken because it based on historical results, what do I mean?

Historical result of human being not want to get there asses shot out of the sky, so they were not retards and once flak started hitting they got to F out of dodge.

So we have to model the historical data, but historical data does not take into account someone with and IQ above 50. No one in there right minds would hit and AB with 100 AA guns at low much less 1000+

And not even a Stalin Air General would not send his planes into a meat grinder.

SO then the game gets modeled based on historical results then some A-hole like me goes dam I can simply wipe out the LW in 15 turns, heheeh cool.


Your right they should get shot down by the dozens, but because its modeled based on historical results its simply Middle Earth and has nothing to do with WWII

Mybee Morveal can fix the shitty AA system, because WitW system sucks as bad as WitE.

House rules should not be needed for something that someone flying a plane in 1942 could figure out, I guess its genetic entropy.

[chaos45]

yes...but also historically not many places got the kind of flak concentrations players will in western front games...hitler and in general the german overall strategy of defend everything was very flawed.

Even in the old Europa systems if you concentrated a ton of German flak in a couple locations you could basically neutralize allied air support against those hexes. Gamey, kinda but it worked once allied players realized the odds of flak doing damage/returning bomber grps for no effect they just didnt bother even hitting those hexes with air support and forced them to attack other locations.

Most of the issue is the flight system I think...as it only lets planes sortie a couple times a week which is utter BS. You read examples of aircraft sorties several times a day especially german fighter and divebomber units.

So in the system air units only get a couple full fights per week then get super diminished returns when in the WITE anyway they should theoretically be able to launch 2+ sorties a day depending on range/supplies. Which in a Wite game would be something like 14+ possible missions per available aircraft per game turn. The weekly system break down for airpower tho, you have to do to a day by day type system like in WitP AE.

[lowtech]

Pelton,

"I feel your pain" but, for a variety of reasons a big chunk of those who design and play these kind of games are TO&E obsessed. Everything from my experience, military, corporate, educational etc. confirms that "the stuff" ranks way, way down on the list of what's important. So this system models, for example, the difference between a Lithuanian and a German, of Czech manufacture, butt-scratcher but fully neglects the actual relationship of AA to aircraft that you mention. But we have to go to fake, virtual war with the Software at hand [:D] and to that end I really do appreciate guys like you, even though we are in different categories as far as play style & goals are concerned. From my somewhat brief overflight of these boards, there's a very healthy percentage of dudes who do indeed give the ass of a rat.... *

I'll add that in another folder in a Thread concerning what other systems might be "better" you said in effect, many of the alternatives are one or two person operations. And while I like GG goals, his design philosophy doesn't seem like the best way to get where we all seem to want to go. But! With WitE there is a larger team and a committed group of nut-jobs who support, tweak and explain it all to No0Bs like me; and that is a big positive.

*- Note to non-native speakers "I don't give a rats ass" means I really don't care

[lowtech]

Okay. Still not clear on the Air suggestions from Pelton.

What I understand is:
Other than the first turn, no more than 3 attacks on Airbases total per turn.

LW basicly is a non factor other then 100% Odessa and Leningrad in 3 turns and keeping it 100%.

I'm assuming this means city attack to deny port capacity

Once they are taken do the big blob.

This means, concentrate LW all in one sector?

No air force in WW2 was capable of that kind of consistent port denial until much later in the war and then pretty much only the US, and then only against late war Japan. But I'm assuming this is to reduce the ability of the two cities to generate supply? Historically an airforce could inflict pretty nasty attrition on an unsupported naval force attempting to supply a city. Odessa, not so much as the LW was not committed and the Romanian AF wasn't really capable but certainly Sevastopol(42), Riga (41), Courland (44) and Danzig (45) and many places in the Pacific theater versus the IJN

[lowtech]

Chaos45 and Pelton,

Briefly concerning modeling air operations... yeah. I've seen no operational or strategic system get it "right"; paper or computer game. To be fair, most of the participants in WW2 didn't really understand the air war either and it has taken "us" decades and many, many developments in analysis and operational art to sorta understand it. From a game design perspective, operationally/strategically air ops in WW2 are "pure" attrition. In those instances where air obtained a decisive result it was almost always in conjunction with a "conventional" force.

Concerning ground attack

Ground attack is incredibly difficult and dangerous. The biggest "problem" specifically with the game isn't the AA sub-routine (although it seems pretty unbalanced) it's the Intel; the near perfect picture of where aircraft are and what kind of damage one is doing. From this flow most of the problems. Summarized:

1) Finding airbases that actually had major concentrations of aircraft; most "airbases" were simply grass fields
2) Hitting those bases at a time when they were vulnerable; are the enemy aircraft even there or are they off flying a mission.
3) Having weapons that could actually do damage; the ability to actually damage runways for example
4) Causing more damage to the enemy that one suffered; all the operational loss stuff, plus the supplies expenditure

If you've ever actually had experience running air operations, you understand that you have everybody clamoring for air support of one kind or another (I was one of the "clamorers" [:)] ) The great bulk of interdiction and counter-air (air base attack) was run in a complete fog. No WW2 air commander really had a good feel for what they were actually accomplishing, until say the ground forces over ran an airbase or something. Especially for both the Red Air Force and Luftwaffe commanders, they were completely subordinate to the Ground Commanders and basically were ordered to provide mostly direct support. Added to all this was the logistics element. Both sides were often running air ops at the very edge of the logistics envelope. Even a successful attack didn't matter because there wasn't enough fuel, bombs, spare parts to run operations much less get destroyed on the ground.

Finally, ground attack requires excellent flying skills, excellent observation skills, fantastic situational awareness especially when conducting close air support (bombing near friendly troops) and is the single most dangerous kind of mission. The USAAF in Europe often would forbid returning US escort fighters from performing Ground Attack because of its high risk nature. The IL-2 was such a good ground attack aircraft because it was stable, easy to fly, and robust; it also wasn't a maintenance hog (not to delicate or needed lots of repair).