Fix the TB replacement system!

[xhoel]

The TB replacement system need to be fixed/changed as soon as possible as it has the potential to completely derail the balance of games especially in the late war.

I just got my T13 from Gunnulf in the VtB scenario. On T12 I had accumulated a staggering 122k men in the pool and I was receiving only 2 rebuild shell divisions on T13. So by my logic, after weeks of being denied replacements because of a bug, the Ostfront would finally get the much needed replacements in order to be able to contain the Soviet advance. Nope.

To my surprise thats not what happened, because the system that exist is extremely crude and has no idea how to assign replacements, always prioritizing TBs (Why?). So my field army only got a mere 19.000 replacements, of which only 14.5k went to the ground forces. That is only 15% of the manpower. The rest went to the TBs.



Take a look at the WE replacement numbers and compare them to the Eastern Front:



Two Western Front Divisions have received more men than the entire Field Armies in the East (excluding OKH)! Absolutely ridiculous.



At least 85k replacements gone to the West.

Scraps left for the Eastern Front, fighting a 6 million strong Soviet Army:



My OOB has dropped to only 2 million men ready and I am sure that a collapse is imminent. This is extremely frustrating, since I have taken a lot of care of the Wehrmacht and have done everything possible to keep them in fighting shape, only to be crushed because of a system that is simply inadequate at doing what it should do.

The game is called GG War in the East 2, not Western Front TB simulator. The TBs should not be getting priorities for ground replacements, as most of the ground fighting and dying happened in the East.

At the very least add a percentage that is reserved for the Ostfront, like WitE 1 had, which actually worked and made sense.

[Stamb]

+

What about making a slider where player can define in percentage how many men goes to a TB and to a map.
This will allow to refit divisions on the map and in TB when players decides to do so.
To avoid such situation as with a trained pilots that some % are now reserved for the eastern front only, and will not go to a TB even if there are plenty of them in a pool (if I understand the updates correctly)

[Teo41_ITA]

+1! I agree that, at least with the Enhanced TB player control, the player should be given the chance to direct a % of reinforcements going to the TB/map.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

What about making a slider where player can define in percentage how many men goes to a TB and to a map.

The result of this would be that Soviet players would set the slider for theater box reinforcements to 0% in 1941, at least for a while. This would mean that as of turn 3-4 or so, in the 1941 campaign, every on-map Soviet division would be a super strong 100% TOE unit, helping to bog down Germany more quickly.

Also, when around turn 10 or so Soviets start to get the 30somethin morale replacement divisions that replace the divisions destroyed in the turn 1 pockets, Soviet players would just set those units to 0% TOE, or whatever is the minimum, if it is lower than the current 50% minimum TOE.

So any change in this direction would really mostly be a Soviet buff in effect.

And Soviets don't need a buff.

There's just this one main exception of the late war scenario that xhoel is in.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

ORIGINAL: Stamb

What about making a slider where player can define in percentage how many men goes to a TB and to a map.

The result of this would be that Soviet players would set the slider for theater box reinforcements to 0% in 1941, at least for a while. This would mean that as of turn 3-4 or so, in the 1941 campaign, every on-map Soviet division would be a super strong 100% TOE unit, helping to bog down Germany more quickly.

You are right.

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1
Also, when around turn 10 or so Soviets start to get the 30somethin morale replacement divisions that replace the divisions destroyed in the turn 1 pockets, Soviet players would just set those units to 0% TOE, or whatever is the minimum, if it is lower than the current 50% minimum TOE.

So any change in this direction would really mostly be a Soviet buff in effect.

And Soviets don't need a buff.

There's just this one main exception of the late war scenario that xhoel is in.

This is already fixed in the latest patch I believe. Destroyed divisions come with 0% TOE, or am I wrong?

From a patchnotes:

Destroyed units that rebuild are arriving in the reserve set to 100 Max TOE. They should arrive set to 0. Fixed. Note, players will have to consciously increase the unit’s Max TOE for it to receive replacements.

[KenchiSulla]

To be honest, I think the player should be given more control over the assignment of resources.

- Player should then be able to reap the benefits of using those resources on map
- Player should be punished (feedback loop) for starving active TBs

In case of land war: Starving a front of resources would lead to failure that could (would) escalate into more losses and a possible rout... It does so on MAP, it should happen in an active TB (Afrika, Italy, W-Europe).

In case of air war: Starving a front of resources would lead to failure that could (would) escalate into more losses in the air and possible damage to industry and land forces.

In case of partisan: Maybe a bit more complicated but I'm sure we can come up with something

I guess the system for it is already partially in place. By being able to use refit (also in TBs) to control the flow of manpower and arms.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

The result of this would be that Soviet players would set the slider for theater box reinforcements to 0% in 1941, at least for a while. This would mean that as of turn 3-4 or so, in the 1941 campaign, every on-map Soviet division would be a super strong 100% TOE unit, helping to bog down Germany more quickly.

I think even if the slider option was implemented (which I seriously doubt), the effects wouldnt be this bad because the Soviet TBs have no combat happening in them except for the Northern Front which is usually low intensity. So the attrition and losses the Soviets take in the TBs is very small.

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

Also, when around turn 10 or so Soviets start to get the 30somethin morale replacement divisions that replace the divisions destroyed in the turn 1 pockets, Soviet players would just set those units to 0% TOE, or whatever is the minimum, if it is lower than the current 50% minimum TOE.

As Stamb said that has already been changed and I dont see why there is a problem with that. The Soviets should have the freedom to use their manpower as they see fit. If they dont want to fill up their shell divisions, they should be able to do so.

Even if the player was denying replacements to the TBs that will come with a cost as you will lose VPs and combat events will be moved forward. So you cant exploit the system as much as you are saying.

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

There's just this one main exception of the late war scenario that xhoel is in.

I think a big reason for that is that VtB is almost never played (only 1 AAR since the game released) so no one notices as much. Also many games have not reached the late war yet, so there is no data. I think it is quite an issue and shows a problem with the replacement system.

Simply having a certain % reserved for the Eastern Front would go a long way to deal with this issue.

[xhoel]

To show you why this is an issue I just dug up the loss numbers for the different fronts:

WE: 265k
Italy: 64k
Norway: 11k
Balkans: 3k

Total: 343k

Eastern Front (on map): 1.4 million, excluding the starting 500k disabled: 900k men, of which 663k are irrecoverable (KIA and MIA).

As you can see, only the irrecoverable losses in the East are almost twice as high as the total losses from all TBs. Meaning that there is no sensible explanation to why these TBs are being prioritized for replacements while the actual playable army in the East isnt.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

As Stamb said that has already been changed and I dont see why there is a problem with that. The Soviets should have the freedom to use their manpower as they see fit. If they dont want to fill up their shell divisions, they should be able to do so.

Even if the player was denying replacements to the TBs that will come with a cost as you will lose VPs and combat events will be moved forward. So you cant exploit the system as much as you are saying.

I agree with you substantively that it doesn't really make sense for all the reinforcements to go to the theater boxes, but I was not sure everyone quite understood that this would actually be a Soviet buff for the most part.

It is true that it may help Axis in the late war and in VtB, but as you yourself note, there have not been many games (at least judging by AARs) for that, and not many games have really gone to the late war so far. This is partly because not enough time has passed since release of the game, but it is also because a lot of players have a sad tendency to give up long before things get to that point. Credit to you for your willingness to play Germany in the late war in a hopeless situation, but at least so far you seem to be a rare special case.

In the most recent AARs from players who are apparently good at Germany such as tyronec (against K62) and HLYA (against jubjub), both of them surrendered even before mud in 1941. Of course, in their defense, playing Germany is difficult - I would certainly say more so than playing the Soviets. But when you have a large number of players who give up on games like that before the game is even a small percentage of the way "done," it is only natural that many players will not care much about possible VP and AP penalties from shortchanging theater boxes. Why care about that when the game is most likely not going to last long enough for that to matter - even assuming that you care about VPs in the first place.

This change would simply make it easier to shortchange theater boxes, so at least as long as many players tend to not care that much about theater boxes (a fairly natural tendency), then that will probably produce effects which are deleterious for balance.

[Joel Billings]

This is WAD. The system may be crude, but we've done things for a reason to prevent players from exploiting the TBs. You are at the point where Germany is beginning to be overrun in the west, so it's reasonable for there to be a large commitment of forces there. Adding more controls on the TBs will likely end up with adverse consequences. If this were War in Europe, you could decide where the men went to, but it's not, and this scenario is set up so as to not allow the WE to take Berlin before the end of the scenario. Given that, any additional controls would lead the player to rob from the west even more than they already can.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

This is WAD.

Never claimed that it was a bug, just that this design is flawed.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

You are at the point where Germany is beginning to be overrun in the west, so it's reasonable for there to be a large commitment of forces there.

How is it reasonable for the West to get 85% of the replacements when the Ostfront has been starving for replacements and is facing a massive Soviet Army?

I dont want more control for the TBs, just for a system that makes sense. Which is why I proposed you use the percentage system that existed in WitE 1 that reserved a portion of production for the Eastern Front. The current system where TBs are prioritized no matter what is just bonkers.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

But when you have a large number of players who give up on games like that before the game is even a small percentage of the way "done," it is only natural that many players will not care much about possible VP and AP penalties from shortchanging theater boxes. Why care about that when the game is most likely not going to last long enough for that to matter - even assuming that you care about VPs in the first place.

This change would simply make it easier to shortchange theater boxes, so at least as long as many players tend to not care that much about theater boxes (a fairly natural tendency), then that will probably produce effects which are deleterious for balance.

Thats a fair argument and I agree that in that case players would be incentivized to min max the system. My proposal is just to have a % of manpower/production reserved for the Eastern Front thats all. The rest can all go to the TBs.

[Denniss]

By that time the german were throwing the majority of replacements east, desperately trying to stop the soviets.
Against the western allies they merely tried to delay their advance.
Having at least 50% of manpower reserved for East would be reasonable

[ShaggyHiK]

This is how you can do it. Limit the ToE of divisions in TB to 50%.

[Stamb]

This will not work as CV of that divisions will be lower thus you will have to send additional divisions to compensate it.

n% manpower reserved is a workaround that might work ok, same as trained pilots.

[Jango32]

You cannot change the max TOE of divisions in theater boxes other than the Reserve TB.


EDIT: unless Shaggy was suggesting a system so the TBs don't receive priority for replacements and equipment.

[ShaggyHiK]

I agree that such a system of priority seems strange to me. The Eastern Front was indeed a priority for Germany in 41-42-43 and the beginning and middle of 44.
Therefore, I do not fully understand why the game gives priority to TB in the first place.

On the other hand, if the German player gains control of his replacements, it might buff him too much relative to the Soviet player. Because in the obvious way the German army suffers insufficient losses in direct battles with the Soviet units.

[ShaggyHiK]

I feel the pressure of this system in the air war. Soviet units are very quickly knocked out to a non-combat state, but on the map they almost do not receive replenishment, I constantly have to rotate them from map to reserve and from reserve to map. On the one hand, this is similar to the relatively real processes that took place in Soviet aviation, on the other hand, it is absolutely not the same as what happened in German aviation.
The very essence of this kind of rotation process excludes the possibility of a large-scale use of aviation in a over long periods of time.

[Denniss]

Some basic suggestions:
20-25% minimum for reserve TBs on both sides
5-15% on minor fronts, depending on side, activity and strength requirements
WE/ITA may get up to 20-30% as rather large fronts, depending on activity and strength requirement

I'd say for TBs we ned to find a way to combine existing+required strenght and ground/air activity into a percentage of manpower made available for them in the replacement phase

[xhoel]

@Denniss: I think such a system would be a bit too complicated and maybe hard to implement. It would be easier and maybe less difficult to simply "reserve" a n% of manpower and equipment for the Eastern Front, while leaving the system of TB priority as it is.

The % would than change as the war progresses, basically being a lot higher in 1941 and 1942 and then dropping as the Italian campaign and the Western Europe campaign get rolling.

For 1945 (since this was my example), that percentage should be at least 50%, if not more. The current 15% has nothing to do with the historical realities and no player will want to play a campaign where their hands are tied behind their back because of such design issues.