As an axis player, I am afraid of using my armor.

[Jango32]

Those aren't total losses (irrecoverable), however. Total losses by September 1941 reached 970 AFVs across all of the Panzer divisions, far below 50% of the starting forces at 27%.

[AlbertN]

To point historical data where there are different recreations of history is ever relative, if not brutally useless.

In history the Panzer Divisions spearheaded, fought first hand and Infantry followed up - often spirited up by the fact their armoured comrades were already winning the battles ahead.

In WITE2 how many German players pratically encircle Smolensk with the armoured divisions and seize it in time and how many have to wait for the infantries to catch up there already? (Admittedly historically the panzers took their respite moment after securing Smolensk encirclement - in that sector at least).

There is a difference between History = Heavy panzer losses through heavy, multiple fighting (successful fighting) and WITE2 = Heavy Panzer losses at the first enemy contact with anything that is not a depleted / shaken and unready division or a a brigade.

Thus the two are totally different worlds in how they unfold.

[Stamb]

+ for AlbertN.
Soviets has no reason to stay and fight in pvp game. They just retreat and retreat. Maybe bigger VP time bonus will make them stay and defend Kiev/Smolensk ?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN
There is a difference between History = Heavy panzer losses through heavy, multiple fighting (successful fighting) and WITE2 = Heavy Panzer losses at the first enemy contact with anything that is not a depleted / shaken and unready division or a a brigade.

In my experience, if you use them historically you end up with roughly historical losses. If you over-use them, you can burn them out faster, it all depends on the player. They generally take no losses at all against depleted/shake/unready divisions.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Stamb
+ for AlbertN.
Soviets has no reason to stay and fight in pvp game. They just retreat and retreat. Maybe bigger VP time bonus will make them stay and defend Kiev/Smolensk ?

Are you not finding the sudden death victory checks and the desire to limit the Axis high watermark for later in the war enough incentive? Or are you playing with the "No Early End" version or focusing only on 1941?

Regards,

- Erik

[therealevan]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

+ for AlbertN.
Soviets has no reason to stay and fight in pvp game. They just retreat and retreat. Maybe bigger VP time bonus will make them stay and defend Kiev/Smolensk ?

In several of my WiTE2 games so far, that is very much the case. The Soviet AI makes little no to effort in a delaying action and prefers to make massive retreating movements. By the time I'm able to catch up their lines appear heavily reinforced. Attempting breakthrough becomes a multi-turn & costly endeavor.

[Yogol]

Why would you not attack with them? What is the harm in having a weak tank division?

You got two options:

A.
- don't attack with your tank divisions
- flip hexes with strong divisions

B.
- attack with your tank divisions
- flip hexes with weak divisions

Weak formations are just as good at flipping hexes than strong formations, no?
It might maybe even be easier to resupply an almost depleted tank division with freight (read: fuel) to keep going because there are less tanks in them.

Or am I missing something?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

....
In WITE2 how many German players pratically encircle Smolensk with the armoured divisions and seize it in time and how many have to wait for the infantries to catch up there already? (Admittedly historically the panzers took their respite moment after securing Smolensk encirclement - in that sector at least).

...

How many Soviet players leave the actual city undefended and concentrate their forces to the south?

[AlbertN]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

....
In WITE2 how many German players pratically encircle Smolensk with the armoured divisions and seize it in time and how many have to wait for the infantries to catch up there already? (Admittedly historically the panzers took their respite moment after securing Smolensk encirclement - in that sector at least).

...

How many Soviet players leave the actual city undefended and concentrate their forces to the south?

No one that I know of because:

A) Axis advance is tied to logistics that can only advance so far per turn.
B) South has lots of plains vs Center / North has lots of defensive terrain.
C) Absolute lack of incentive / reason to defend upfront besides VPs - that are diluted and dotted.

A + B + C = D

D) It is a no brainer to defend where the terrain is better, at parity of distance from Greater Reich border.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Are you not finding the sudden death victory checks and the desire to limit the Axis high watermark for later in the war enough incentive? Or are you playing with the "No Early End" version or focusing only on 1941?

Regards,

- Erik

Ah yes. I am playing in No Early End in both AI and PvP.
AI is trying to defend cities, but players just retreat and retreat until there is a wall of supplied and refitted Soviets.
That is why Soviets will have a massive army even in first winter as they do not need to stay and defend their ground by risking of getting into a pockets.

Not sure how it plays in sudden victory. But i am not interested in that scenario.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Stamb
Ah yes. I am playing in No Early End in both AI and PvP.
AI is trying to defend cities, but players just retreat and retreat until there is a wall of supplied and refitted Soviets.
That is why Soviets will have a massive army even in first winter as they do not need to stay and defend their ground by risking of getting into a pockets.

Not sure how it plays in sudden victory. But i am not interested in that scenario.

Well, the sudden death conditions and the high watermark were added to the default campaign to encourage historical play, both play a key role in both encouraging the Soviets to defend forward and aggressively and encouraging the Axis to keep pushing even when it might not otherwise be advisable. No early end is a variant, not what we consider the main intended campaign, it's fine if you prefer it just know that it was provided based on customer request but the removal of the sudden death victory conditions definitely encourages the type of play you're concerned about. In the long run, the high watermark still means its better to fight, but players may not realize that until they've played through a full campaign.

Regards,

- Erik

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Well, the sudden death conditions and the high watermark were added to the default campaign to encourage historical play, both play a key role in both encouraging the Soviets to defend forward and aggressively and encouraging the Axis to keep pushing even when it might not otherwise be advisable. No early end is a variant, not what we consider the main intended campaign, it's fine if you prefer it just know that it was provided based on customer request but the removal of the sudden death victory conditions definitely encourages the type of play you're concerned about. In the long run, the high watermark still means its better to fight, but players may not realize that until they've played through a full campaign.

Regards,

- Erik

Yep, I understand it. But i want to avoid situation such as Strategy Gaming Dojo had where he was forced to rush to some location with VP no matter what, otherwise sudden lose. Maybe later on i will give it a try.

[Jeff_Ahl]

ORIGINAL:

Yep, I understand it. But i want to avoid situation such as Strategy Gaming Dojo had where he was forced to rush to some location with VP no matter what, otherwise sudden lose. Maybe later on i will give it a try.

Well, IRL the OKH, Heeresgruppen and Fronts had tremendeous pressure from Hitler and Stalin respectivly. That is why I only play Sudden Death. Otherwise the realism are thrown out of the window.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: Jeff_Ahl

ORIGINAL:

Yep, I understand it. But i want to avoid situation such as Strategy Gaming Dojo had where he was forced to rush to some location with VP no matter what, otherwise sudden lose. Maybe later on i will give it a try.

Well, IRL the OKH, Heeresgruppen and Fronts had tremendeous pressure from Hitler and Stalin respectivly. That is why I only play Sudden Death. Otherwise the realism are thrown out of the window.

Considering that it is t8 (aug 10) and there was only some action near Leningrad (and a little bit around Kiev) and all other places are quite cuz of Soviets retreat and I as an Axis have to wait for supply/infantry i might also consider Sudden Death for a next Axis game

[Jeff_Ahl]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Considering that it is t8 and there was only some action near Leningrad (and a little bit around Kiev) and all other places are quite cuz of Soviets retreat and I as an Axis have to wait for supply/infantry i might also consider Sudden Death for a next Axis game

I would recommend it strongly!

[MishaTX]

Just for clarification, because I'm suddenly overcome with doubt here: When you play with "No Early End Date", the AI still plays as if Sudden Death's in effect, don't they?

Because even though I do want to play "Bitter End" in WitE2 as well, I don't want to do it if it means the Soviet falls back to the Urals or, if I'm playing the other side, that the Germans decide to go celebrate the Christmas of '41 in Poland [:D]

[jhdeerslayer]

ORIGINAL: MishaTX

Just for clarification, because I'm suddenly overcome with doubt here: When you play with "No Early End Date", the AI still plays as if Sudden Death's in effect, don't they?

Because even though I do want to play "Bitter End" in WitE2 as well, I don't want to do it if it means the Soviet falls back to the Urals or, if I'm playing the other side, that the Germans decide to go celebrate the Christmas of '41 in Poland [:D]

I'm 6 turns in as Germans against Soviet AI and no Sudden VP requirement. I can confirm the Soviets do not just melt away. Every turn they throw up a new line I have to break

[AlbertN]

Last I remember the VP allocation for sudden death are quite generous and not exactly reachable - so that is definitely not a design that hinders Soviet mass retreat to beef up a line of more solid type later on.
I've yet to hear of a 'Sudden Victory' by Axis - albeit I've heard amany Sudden Defeats between the learning games and some PvP games with old patches. -- I cannot speak for this patch though.

[MishaTX]

ORIGINAL: jhdeerslayer


I'm 6 turns in as Germans against Soviet AI and no Sudden VP requirement. I can confirm the Soviets do not just melt away. Every turn they throw up a new line I have to break

Thanks! I didn't think so, because to fundamentally alter the game AI for the purpose of a scenario variant seemed a bit excessive, but it never hurts to ask! [:)]

[therealevan]

This isn't a question, but more of an pondering.

I have not figured out the air game that much, but I am generally familiar with it. My campaign so far I ended up just only using the entire Luftwaffe for ground support with 120% escort requirements, attached exclusively on the panzer groups. Having looked back on this, I think this is actually a waste, given how infrequently my Pzrgp engage in direct combat, it is more likely that the motorised formations get into combat. And once those units begin to experience low fuel - this frequency decreases even further. I wonder if attaching luftwaffe to more of a mixed, where they might be attached to certain Pzrgp's that I know will be engaged directly in combat, while also being attached to regular infantry corps or armies.