WitE 2

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

For Prep Pts see Post 560 : tm.asp?m=3933956&mpage=19&key=

The rules have recently changed but you get the idea (no pun intended).

Thank you. It sounds like a good system to make "freshness" matter.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Interestingly, being given (rare) leave, didn't reduce PTSD for the Germans. First, the soldiers had to suffer partisan attacks on their way home, then suffer Allied bombing, seeing civilians die (perhaps even some known to them personally), then suffer partisan attacks on their way back.

I read that the US army first gave some troops leaves at home, but they changedthe policy when they realized that it made the troops no good. Some of them would get into conflict with their "old lives". Some others would become "civilians" again and it would be difficult to make them work as soldiers again. Some would not want to go back to hell. After that, most leaves were given to stay in England, or France, but not to return home.

[Schmart]

And let's not forget that we're also trying to compare a game that can be replayed innumerable times to virtual perfection with historical hindsight, against reality that can be played out only once. I guess in order to really emulate reality, wargames like this could only ever be played once by any one person. You typically only get one try at it with war in real life. That kinda puts a little bit of different pressure on the kinds of decisions you make. There's no way to realistically emulate real-world life, decisions, pressures, and emotions in a game (or the gun at the back of your head as your Commanding General tells you to attack no matter what the predicted (always slightly shady) pre-combat odds of success as calculated by a computer algorithm.

Personally, I've always enjoyed the unpredictability element in games that provide some degree of semi-random (likely/plausible/possible) political/social events that can effect the gameplay, like political revolt, social upheaval, leaders suddenly dying, Allies pulling out, production shortfall due to industry problems, etc. Makes it feel a little more like real-life not knowing exactly what can happen, as opposed to coldly calculated and perfected gaming techniques, knowing your opponent's reinforcement schedules and production beforehand, figuring out how to game the system with mathematical precision (and historical/predictable weather, yeah right!), etc.

Sure, the Germans holding the Volga line through 1943 would have given them a bit of a morale boost (it sure gives me a morale boost in-game!), but who's to say such an extended stay on the Steppes (with the associated partisan war) wouldn't have quickly created a "bring the boys back home" movement from all the mothers and housewives back in Germany? And soon enough, the troops in the field want to go home just as much and morale plummets... The possibility of one simply creates the possibility of much more downstream.

[wodin]

A fantastic book. Highly recommended.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

ORIGINAL: morvael

This effect is clearly depicted in all diaires of privates from Eastern Front. Everyone has a point at which his psyche is permanently affected by the horrors of war. You need fresh recruits to overcome this, but Germans were forced to rely a lot on recycled manpower, and so it was overall dropping in quality. You gain experience fighting, but also accumulate "insanity points" to borrow a term from some other game. At some point the penalty from the second factor becomes dominant. I don't understand your comments, this is not advice, just an observation that there is long term fatigue (psychical) beside short term one (physical).

And indeed in all armies at all times though no doubt at different levels in different times and different cultures. An absolutely excellent book that describes the problem in a tough Scottish infantry unit on the west front in '44-'45, is 'With the Jocks' by Peter White

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I cannot envisage any major changes in WitE2 to the current system as to how MORALE, EXPERIENCE and FATIGUE influence combat and movement.

As an old timer I do keep quite a record of how the games (including WitW in the mix here) have been evolving over the past six years. So I am wondering about the meaning of the above, John. Don't take the comments below as a dig at you guys.

I personally find that Morvael latest changes to the existing WITE combat engine - incremental as they need to be - to be a definite step in the right direction, and frankly, it does look to me that WITE combat engine is fairly superior to the one in WITW at release. Does the above mean that you guys have taken on board Morvael's iteration on Gary's models? If, so that is great news. If not, colour me surprised.

In contrast with others who have over the years criticised the choice of abstractions (Morale/Combat Capability, Experience and Fatigue) I do think the concepts are sound. But the naming of the first needs to be fixed somehow guys, you can at the very least change the labels on the widgets appearing in the user interface. Ewald's suggestions were interesting and go a long way towards understanding how people do perceive WitE/WitW systems: I do think that every of those concepts are represented well in the game (with Fatigue representing well the will to fight, Morale representing Combat Efficiency as you say, and so on) it is not apparent to players the function they perform, so they turn to a "literal" interpretation of their meaning, since the engine offers so little in terms of feedback (i.e. battle AARs, besides a more or less informative list of casualties, could be improved heaps by telling people what effect had morale, experience and fatigue in the process). Also, I do think that some of those are not employed in a way that maximzes their usefulness. For instance, Fatigue should have much more deleterious effects on combat efficiency - not causing attrition for the sake of it, offensive capabilities (as in being able to initiate attacks), and movement. It should be much harder to make it go away, forcing players to manage the "freshness" of their forces actively, by pulling them offline.

Other long-standing issues with the design of the series seem to be locked in for good, even if I see glimmers of hope (i.e. how air operations are handled in a daily basis in WitW, breaking with the curse that the weekly turn structure has been to keep Gary's models of combat and logistics producing sane results). I still think after all these years that the game would be SO much better with

1) Shorter turn structure, having AI functions used for the computer opponent to help with moving forces by defining waypoints and frontages,

2) Making hasty attacks the default and deliberate to require some sort of preparation (that could include stuff like setting maximum fatigue limits on units involved in deliberate attacks, minimum stockpiles on hand, limiting pre-combat MP expenditure and so on), cranking up fatigue and fuel consumption for the former, attrition in the latter (they're set pieces battles and those are always bloody affairs),

3) Making fortification both harder to build up (i.e. maybe requiring fort regions so one has to spend "influence/AP", materiel and men or requiring to have combat units to become "static") and greatly limiting movement through for the attacker if they force a retreat,

4) Make disengaging from enemy contact function as a retreat where attrition and fatigue depends on the firepower of the enemy units in contact,

5) Factoring attacks from multiple directions to produce distinct outcomes at the operational level (shorter engagements, more severe results on the defender such as shattering, etc.) empowering the player and leaving less to randomness,

6) Having routed units to slow down enemy movement, suffer attrition via POW capture / dispersion, and retreat automatically towards supply depots in a more "organic way" (i.e. one hex at a time, for instance),

7) Get rid of the 3-units-per hex limit, more so now that airbases are represented on the map in a different way, keeping in place the existing limits on the amount of force that can be projected via a hexside, and model congestion effects both for operations and supply,

8) Have divisions to be containers of battalions instead of containers of single vehicles and squads as they are now, allowing the combat engine to run on smaller "packets" for shorter time steps, also an opportunity to produce a combat log that humans can parse.

I could keep going and I am pretty sure many here have similar laundry lists... with both big and small items in there. Maybe there's some stuff like the above in the latest versions of WitW, I sadly lost interest on that game after an excruciatingly boring campaign up the Italian peninsula...

[Smirfy]

The principle problem for me with both outings was logistics and its relationship with the game. Once a front was broken in the East (or west) it was impossible to reconstitute a new one until the attacker ran out of steam. In both campaigns we have depth of frontages and unit densities (just look at any multiplayer AAR) that were unsupportable in the real world. Fighting a defensive battles to the last were just as damaging in Normandy and Bagration as they were in Barbarossa. In game you are rewarded for for last ditch not an inch defence because 1/ the logistics support a truly unbelievable troop density at the front, 2 One week turns cannot adequately model the periods of intense rout (and massive equipment and personnel loss). When is WitW going on steam?

[RedLancer]

@ Bletchley_Geek

Thanks for the post. I will try and answer most of your questions within the leeway that I have (I’m able to give an semi-official slant on where we are – so what I say may be wrong or changed at a later date.)

The first thing to highlight is that the origins of the WitE2 code started when WitW split from the original WitE code. I guess that this was probably 2 years before morvael began his changes. This means that morvael’s changes have had no direct impact on WitE2. This may fill you with horror but many of the changes and bug fixes that morvael has made were never required as the code had already moved on. There is a view that WitW was just WitE in the west and WitE2 will be WitW in the east. Nothing is further from the truth. The games are evolutionary.

Much of my responses question whether it is worth the effort. It is one thing to ask for a change and yet another to deliver it. Many changes are not simple to deliver as decisions on the structure of the code made a decade ago present serious challenges now. What might appear simple takes many hours reworking the entire game data structure. Last night I asked Pavel to make a change to the colour coding of text in the editor. I hope it’s simple and it will make my life much easier but every second he spends doing it (if he does) is a second not spent working on the code elsewhere.

I agree in part with your comments on morale, fatigue and experience. This is an area in flux and we may yet change the term morale. I disagree on providing a complete breakdown on how the factors interplay. For one I think the effort is too much and secondly I think it runs counter to the nature of warfare. I think you might be surprised how much fatigue does play a role in the combat iteration of the combat engine and you can already see this with WitW. It is now supplemented by the combat preparation rules and of course sufficient supply is also a vital factor.

As I said earlier WitE2 is evolutionary. Even with retaining some of the same key components, development takes a number of years. Much is gained by utilising experience from previous work and understanding how changing some of the key inputs work. Another key factor is delivering a game with a top quality AI. Many players don’t want to PBEM. The more vocal members of the community are PBEM players and that can lead forum readers to a skewed view on where priorities lie.

In response to your questions:

1) We won’t be moving away from 1 week turns but we are doing all we can to reduce the burden on the player. The creation of ‘Air Divisions’ is all about simplifying the control of multiple air groups.
2) I would argue Hasty Attacks are already the default. The combat engine in WitE2 is producing a very different game to WitE.
3) Already the case – and we introduced Hex Combat Delay in WitW.
4) I presume you mean when units are next to each other in a hex and not as part of the combat routine. ZOC costs already provide a penalty. It is also difficult at this scale to do something like this. Is it worth the effort?
5) This is not valid at a game of this scale and probably impossible to teach the AI.
6) The retreat code is already horrendously complex. I question whether we really need more now we have combat delay.
7) This has been discussed at length and I don’t know what the final answer will be. I think we would like to do it but the cost/benefits on development and game play are not as clear cut as you may think.
8) The game is essentially at the Divisional level. I question what this is actually going to add to the gameplay. We have only 32 slots per TOE so a change of this magnitude would take many months of development. That doesn’t just mean the code but also redoing all the hundreds of TOEs.

Finally you say you lost interest in WitW because the ‘Italian Campaign’ was boring. Well it was historically I’m afraid. I’m not sure whether to take that as a criticism or a compliment.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

@ Bletchley_Geek

Thanks for the post. I will try and answer most of your questions within the leeway that I have (I’m able to give an semi-official slant on where we are – so what I say may be wrong or changed at a later date.)

The forums software has eaten up my answer to your answer twice already... let's see if I am more lucky with the third attempt.

Thanks for your answers, I appreciate the time you took to write it.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
The first thing to highlight is that the origins of the WitE2 code started when WitW split from the original WitE code. I guess that this was probably 2 years before morvael began his changes. This means that morvael’s changes have had no direct impact on WitE2. This may fill you with horror but many of the changes and bug fixes that morvael has made were never required as the code had already moved on. There is a view that WitW was just WitE in the west and WitE2 will be WitW in the east. Nothing is further from the truth. The games are evolutionary.

I am not horrified, but still surprised. Expecting that Morvael's code can be patched "right away" into the WITE 2 codebase is certainly unrealistic. On the other hand, I want to believe that the effects of the changes made in the combat engine of WITE over the past two years are taken on board to inform the development of the titles currently under development. After all, Morvael's revision has been "tested" by probably 100 times more people than WITE2 has beta testers.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Much of my responses question whether it is worth the effort. It is one thing to ask for a change and yet another to deliver it. Many changes are not simple to deliver as decisions on the structure of the code made a decade ago present serious challenges now. What might appear simple takes many hours reworking the entire game data structure. Last night I asked Pavel to make a change to the colour coding of text in the editor. I hope it’s simple and it will make my life much easier but every second he spends doing it (if he does) is a second not spent working on the code elsewhere.

I concur that having Pavel doing that is a waste of his time. What wouldn't be a waste of his time would be to ask having trivial, cosmetic settings such as the one you mention exposed via configuration files read at startup, so non-programmers can modify them. Nowadays companies like Firaxis make public huge swathes of their UI code for people to customize: see the recent issues with scrolling being hardcoded in the latest iteration of Civilization, and how one can "fix" them by modifying the UI code themselves. 2by3 isn't Firaxis, but a more humble goal and an easy win could be to have those configuration files in ini, json or yaml format for people without access to the source code to tweak settings.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
I agree in part with your comments on morale, fatigue and experience. This is an area in flux and we may yet change the term morale. I disagree on providing a complete breakdown on how the factors interplay. For one I think the effort is too much and secondly I think it runs counter to the nature of warfare. I think you might be surprised how much fatigue does play a role in the combat iteration of the combat engine and you can already see this with WitW. It is now supplemented by the combat preparation rules and of course sufficient supply is also a vital factor.

Twenty years ago I played the heck out of this strategy game. It wasn't the deepest of war games, nor the one with the most moving parts. But I remember fondly the way it described how battles played out, using concise sentences, almost a lyrical - and sometimes comical - understatement of the events simulated by the game. For instance, a particularly bad combination of "maneuver" (frontal attack, flanking attack, ambush, etc.) and terrain/weather would be described by a sentence like "your heavy infantry had trouble negotiating the thorny brambles while flanking the enemy, who saw us coming from miles away" or something to that effect. What was the specific way it affected the outcome of the battle (that is, either it was a win, a draw or a loss, and how many casualties were suffered for each of the 6 different TOE slots available in combat units in that game)? Who knows, and who cares really if the combat power of the enemy militia tripled or my heavies strength halved. King of the Dragon Pass also used similar devices to great effect.

What I meant is that WITE and WITW are very good at showing people numbers, and very bad at conveying meaningful information about how combat (or other aspects of the game such as logistics) play out. I do appreciate the more verbose situation logs of Morvael too, I just hope he had the same flair for the whimsical that the MEPBM writers had. The point is that one wants to make sure that the most important factors following from the gameplay (i.e. stuff the player can affect in some manner) that affected the outcome of the event (battles, for instance) are clearly spelled out. Whether they had a positive or negative impact is useful, but that info will be already ambiguous. I think that is a low tech, and potentially more effective approach than having people poring over sequences of numbers that change dramatically between patches or runs of the game as the seed of the RNG changes.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
As I said earlier WitE2 is evolutionary. Even with retaining some of the same key components, development takes a number of years. Much is gained by utilising experience from previous work and understanding how changing some of the key inputs work. Another key factor is delivering a game with a top quality AI. Many players don’t want to PBEM. The more vocal members of the community are PBEM players and that can lead forum readers to a skewed view on where priorities lie.

I am pretty sure that AI only players do like as well that the AI plays with the same rules they do. Striving for an AI that depends less on scripting and more on dynamically choosing goals on the basis of victory conditions and the current situation, and develop operational plans to achieve them would definitely put something new on the table.

Some notorious PBEM only players have tried - for years - to lobby the games development with varying degrees of success. In any case, other than the occasional virtual columns of smoke rising from the forums, I think that I enjoy more reading and laughing about the drama that ensues some times than I feel outraged by the juvenile antics that some supposedly grown up adults engage in while on the Internet.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
In response to your questions:

Thanks for taking the time to go over them!

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
1) We won’t be moving away from 1 week turns but we are doing all we can to reduce the burden on the player. The creation of ‘Air Divisions’ is all about simplifying the control of multiple air groups.

Okay, I put this one first because I knew it was the one which isn't going to happen any time soon.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
2) I would argue Hasty Attacks are already the default. The combat engine in WitE2 is producing a very different game to WitE.

About time to start a developer's blog of sorts?

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
3) Already the case – and we introduced Hex Combat Delay in WitW.

Did you already go that way with fortifications? When did that happen? Is Hex Combat delay related to the duration, intensity and existing defensive works (i.e. minefields).

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
4) I presume you mean when units are next to each other in a hex and not as part of the combat routine. ZOC costs already provide a penalty. It is also difficult at this scale to do something like this. Is it worth the effort?

Computer wargames where this has ever mattered was in John Tiller's Panzer Campaigns where leaving ZOCs was impossible because of massive costs unless the enemy units were dislodged (which required forward planning but quite sound actually) or Norm Koger's TOAW "active disengagement" rules (which were a bit arbitrary, but worked). How big were those "features"? Not very big, but certainly avoided divisions (motorized or not) from waltzing away like the first ballerina of the Bolshoi.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
5) This is not valid at a game of this scale and probably impossible to teach the AI.

Hmmm, I do not understand either of the answer to this one. What is wrong with forcing the enemy to defend over an extended frontage? Say the defender "force" is 1, if it has to cover the perimeter corresponding to two or three hexsides. Then there needs to be some "stretching" of a limited resource (combat power). That can't be good for the defender, I find hard to think of cases where the defender is guaranteed to be able to withdraw and avoid being defeated in detail... This is an old argument, about which I had mixed feelings five years ago, and now I think the game cries for it.

When you say "impossible to teach" you mean "hard to get coded", right?

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
6) The retreat code is already horrendously complex. I question whether we really need more now we have combat delay.

Let me put it in another way.

The current way you portray the collapse of command, control and discipline of combat units in trying circumstances, strikes me as horrendously unrealistic, as it hopelessly warps the relationships between time and space in an operational context. It also forces you guys to come up with more or less arbitrary rules to avoid unrealistic, hopelessly warped strategic outcomes, that result in hugely complicated code made up of intricately nested conditional statements which are exceedingly hard to debug and maintain [:)]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
7) This has been discussed at length and I don’t know what the final answer will be. I think we would like to do it but the cost/benefits on development and game play are not as clear cut as you may think.

I tend to think that the less arbitrary the rules, the happier the player tends to be and the less undesired trickle down effects in the design of the game appear. That may require an UI with an scrollable section on the right-hand pane too.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
8) The game is essentially at the Divisional level. I question what this is actually going to add to the gameplay. We have only 32 slots per TOE so a change of this magnitude would take many months of development. That doesn’t just mean the code but also redoing all the hundreds of TOEs.

To the gameplay, not much. It is meant to provide with structure to the combat engine (this structure dictated by the typical unit of maneuver at the operational level, which I consider the battalion or battalion-equivalent to be in World War II) so you can simulate better a dynamic process like that of combat between divisions and corps over frontages of 10 to 30 kilometers and extended periods of time (days). Also, you can generate a narrative as you go around an operational war game set on World War II, without resorting to gimmicks like painting the OKH as a raucous establishment more chaotic than a saloon in Deadwood, South Dakota in the late 1870s. Which could be a fair comment about how things played out, but another discussion [:D]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Finally you say you lost interest in WitW because the ‘Italian Campaign’ was boring. Well it was historically I’m afraid. I’m not sure whether to take that as a criticism or a compliment.

I only play hotseat since a very long time ago. So that one was self-inflicted in two different ways: I chose to play the part of Sysyphus and against a quite determined opponent too [:D]

Edit: muddled sentences, I was a bit exasperated with the forums.

[RedLancer]

Well that is some comeback.

Time is short at my end (tea break). I think I have two immediate ripostes. I suggest you dust off WitW and look at the latest version, probably avoiding Italy! Things have moved on since release.

On the subject of morvael's changes because the code is so complex and different there is no easy read across. There isn't anyone who has the detailed understanding of both sets of code and importantly the time to make a line by line comparison.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I cannot envisage any major changes in WitE2 to the current system as to how MORALE, EXPERIENCE and FATIGUE influence combat and movement.

5) Factoring attacks from multiple directions to produce distinct outcomes at the operational level (shorter engagements, more severe results on the defender such as shattering, etc.) empowering the player and leaving less to randomness,

This is something I have never understood. It shouldnt be the same being attacked from a single direction, that being attacked by multiple ones. Resources should be far more strechted if you are attacked from multiple directions. Thus, you should have bigger problems defeating the attack of two different divisions from two different directions than the attack of those two divisions from a single direction. Thisis especially true if you are attacked from opposite directions. Big military units were not pourcopines, but peackoks. The front part was the though part, the rest was all soft underbelly.

[Cavalry Corp]

I would like to see some modelling of Volkstrum in wite 2. Like have a battalion in each Town and City in Germany and East Prussia. Have them attach to the town or something. Just an idea there were a lot of these units and they did destroy quite a lot of Soviet armour - mentioned in quite a few books and modelled in some board games.

[Stelteck]

I was hoping germany should be able to built units in WITE2.

If it is too powerfull, maybe we may restrict it to Volkstrum support units / volonteer/militia brigades of low quality. But at least give something to the german to play with. Something a little more fun than defense zone.

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

I was hoping germany should be able to built units in WITE2.

If it is too powerfull, maybe we may restrict it to Volkstrum support units / volonteer/militia brigades of low quality. But at least give something to the german to play with. Something a little more fun than defense zone.

Unless you have excessive armament points in pool it would not make sense to build useless units. They would be better invested in reinforcing high quality formations.

But what I would like to see is to having control about new formed units and destroyed. To have the ability to choose when and if at all they will be formed.
Also having control about the TOE would be nice. Be able to choose which from the historical TOEs any particular unit will have.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

I was hoping germany should be able to built units in WITE2.

If it is too powerfull, maybe we may restrict it to Volkstrum support units / volonteer/militia brigades of low quality. But at least give something to the german to play with. Something a little more fun than defense zone.

Unless you have excessive armament points in pool it would not make sense to build useless units. They would be better invested in reinforcing high quality formations.

A great deal of what computer war games are about is to repeat the mistakes of the player's historical counterparts.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Well that is some comeback.

Time is short at my end (tea break). I think I have two immediate ripostes. I suggest you dust off WitW and look at the latest version, probably avoiding Italy! Things have moved on since release.

On the subject of morvael's changes because the code is so complex and different there is no easy read across. There isn't anyone who has the detailed understanding of both sets of code and importantly the time to make a line by line comparison.

Thanks John, and don't worry about answering quickly. There's no rush, really.

Will try WITW again, and avoid bear traps!

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

I was hoping germany should be able to built units in WITE2.

If it is too powerfull, maybe we may restrict it to Volkstrum support units / volonteer/militia brigades of low quality. But at least give something to the german to play with. Something a little more fun than defense zone.

I'm still waiting for the list of units OKH built I asked about the last time this came up.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

I was hoping germany should be able to built units in WITE2.

If it is too powerfull, maybe we may restrict it to Volkstrum support units / volonteer/militia brigades of low quality. But at least give something to the german to play with. Something a little more fun than defense zone.

I'm still waiting for the list of units OKH built I asked about the last time this came up.

What do you want? The list of Axis units in witE2?

[Cavalry Corp]

Adding Volkstrum etc is not about adding useless units. Its about adding realism. In a game where every tank is there and every squad pretty much you cannot actually leave out pretty much anything. If that means adding a lot of small SU units then so be it - its the monster after all.

[chaos45]

Most of my reading on Volkstrum- even from German sources--basically states they were worthless unless merged into and trained by real combat units.

Many were barely even armed- dont let revisionist history fool you into thinking they performed well or anywhere near real combat units performance. If you read up on the volkstrum that were formed up for the battle of Berlin they had mainly captured axis-allies firearms with almost no ammo and a scattering of panzerfausts. Yes with bravery and against isolated Soviet tanks they could knock out soviet armor but against combined arms formations they lost and lost badly. Not to mention many Volkstrum units surrendered on contact with Soviet Formations as they knew the war was lost at that point.

On the flip side of the coin is the Volkstrum units that were formed up in time to be properly armed and trained/integrated into German actual combat formations did perform alright--(this would be more effectively modeled as additional replacement manpower for real combat units). However due to politics this didnt happen all that often as the Nazis party wanted to control their own army outside of actual Army control---this also led to other problems in which Volkstrum units were not deployed in concert with what the Army was doing which again often made them very in-effective.

As to Soviet tank killing---regular German army Soldiers did the majority of this is many instances of single or small groups of regular german army scattered out knocking out numerous soviet tanks with a bag of panzerfausts. This is well modeled in the game as the Soviets often take very heavy tank losses on assaults.

[Cavalry Corp]

OK so they could be added as a separate element I guess - at least so you see them like Hiwi are an extra element and fairly well modelled I suppose.