Anyone seen the Unicorn?

[Stamb]

...Are we still looking for the Unicorn?

yes

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Have not been very active in the last six months, but was wondering if the game has gotten closer to historical outcomes?

By now most have all played through several games. My question remains the same, "how many German players have been able to reach the outskirts of Moscow, surround Leningrad, and reach Rostov in the 1941 campaign season?" Are we still looking for the Unicorn?

In terms of reported PvP games I've had a brief look at the first page of the AAR section and found Gunnulf managing it and to an extent AlbertN. TyroneC was well on his way when his opponent resigned and there are a couple of similar wins from HLYA.

[AlbertN]

My game was with an old patch.

In general I believe presently there is still a grand chase of the unicorn barring a certain differential in player skill.
Given in the present patch I am refusing to play Axis and I've 1 game ongoing with Soviets (which is more a thing for fun than anything since I do not really spend hours micromanaging or so.)

[Zemke]

My thoughts on why you do not see very many German players ever reach historical limits of advance in 41, (and these are my OPINIONS on why not based on any inside knowledge other than playing the game and comparing it to historical results.

1. This game will NEVER replicate historical losses or advance rates as both the AI and PvP Russian players are NOT stupid, and they know what will happen if they did. So this fact alone really makes this a mute question almost.

2. Over the past six or seven months, I have run various tests playing another player and playing both sides myself. Here is a brief rundown of the results.

Germans with a +10 morale bonus in a PvP game did NOT reach historical LOA, did very well in 42, and by 43 the Russians were not able to push the Germans back very quickly, and we ended the game pretty much along the historical 43 lines.

I played a modified scenario with the Germans buffed with higher morale and "some" allied units, with me playing Russians. This was the first time I had ever played Russia, and I was stupid and the Germans did reach historical LOA, and more than likely would have won an early victory, we ended the game. I think my own bad play skewed the results.

Played two more test games with the stock campaign scenario against myself. In both, the Russians stopped the Germans well short of historical LOA.

The Russians can simply fall back every time to around the Smolensk area, and then just keep feeding units into the battle, giving up a few hexes worth of territory when needed and the Germans cannot really make it to Moscow or near historical LOA. Already talked about Leningrad, and in the South, the vast distances make every advance East a weaker and weaker German division due to logistics.

Based on the above tests, I do not think the Germans can ever match historical LOA without some mistakes on the Russian side. With the combination of fatigue build-up and shedding rates, logistics, and combat prep points, (CPP) it seems VERY difficult for the Germans ever to build up the strength to make an "Operation Typhoon" push in Oct or sooner given the weather, depth of Russian defenses, terrain and strength of Russian units, the strength of Russian forces not having suffered massive encirclements. Combined with a rapid fall-off of said German built up of combat power due to fatigue, spent CCP, and lack of logistics, German attacks seem to flounder after turn three or so.

Given the above, my thoughts are that if playing Germany, you CAN NOT win in 41 IF the Russians make no severe errors.
I do not think the Germans can win at all, given the way the objectives are and the points allowed, unless you play the game out into 44/45 and delay Russian advances under historical rates. But by 43 and particularly 44 the Russian's gain in morale and German loss in morale make the Russian a fearsome opponent.

I think the original WitE, in some ways, felt more realistic than WitE2 does. Even though I only play WitE2 now, and have no plans to play the first one. I am not sure exactly what needs to be done, but it does seem there are some wide swings in the game on both sides that I don't think are historical or really contribute towards historical unit competence or accuracy.

[loki100]

You can win vs the 1944 HWM test, I've done this vs the Soviet AI (on 120 morale after the initiative change) and in a HtH game that ended in March 44 when my opponent felt he couldn't reach the threshold.

There are AARs with a decent match to the 1941 outline and there are HtH AARs with the Axis side having full strategic agency well into 1943.

Does the game assume that the most likely outcome for 1941 is for the Axis player to outperform historical achievements? No. Does it nail the Soviet player into their historical mistakes? No. Does it nail the axis player in the mid-late game into their historical mistakes? No.

[K62_]

I played a modified scenario with the Germans buffed with higher morale and "some" allied units, with me playing Russians. This was the first time I had ever played Russia, and I was stupid and the Germans did reach historical LOA, and more than likely would have won an early victory, we ended the game. I think my own bad play skewed the results.

Given the above, my thoughts are that if playing Germany, you CAN NOT win in 41 IF the Russians make no severe errors.

I think the original WitE, in some ways, felt more realistic than WitE2 does.

Why do you think your play skewed the results on the Soviet side but not the Axis side?
Any why would it be more realistic to balance the game for an Axis win in '41 without Soviet blunders?

[Zemke]

I played a modified scenario with the Germans buffed with higher morale and "some" allied units, with me playing Russians. This was the first time I had ever played Russia, and I was stupid and the Germans did reach historical LOA, and more than likely would have won an early victory, we ended the game. I think my own bad play skewed the results.

Given the above, my thoughts are that if playing Germany, you CAN NOT win in 41 IF the Russians make no severe errors.

I think the original WitE, in some ways, felt more realistic than WitE2 does.

Why do you think your play skewed the results on the Soviet side but not the Axis side?
Any why would it be more realistic to balance the game for an Axis win in '41 without Soviet blunders?

In the test I think you are talking about, it was my first time playing the Russians against a human, so it did not go very well. Also, the German units had a buff to their morale, as did the Allied Axis, so those two factors made the outcome not exactly a fair test of what we were testing at the time.

I don't think it would be correct to "balance" the game for the Axis to win in 41 without Russian mistakes. But the outcome is pretty much a Russian win IMO. Just look at the number of games that end in 41 with the Axis player calling it quits. Many more examples of that, than any other outcome. But perhaps have a setting that turns on a more historical Soviet side somehow, not sure how exactly, maybe limiting movement and/or coordination by the Soviets, which would be historical to a degree. All I know is when I play the Russians, I don't feel stressed out nearly as much as I do playing the Germans, as long as I keep falling back slowing trading space for time.

To address the previous post, I agree with everything said.
I guess I am wishing the game had the drama of the first WitE game, where the Germans could get to Moscow, and things felt like they hung in the balance. I say that from playing the Russians all the way through to 1945 in a PvP game. In 2, it seldom "feels" like things are hanging in the balance unless severe mistakes are made while playing the Russians. I just feed in units, create double/triple lines along the critical axis of advance, (Moscow / Leningrad), and wait for the mud to show. Every game played will be different, but I think that is the meta going on right now.

[Stamb]

My opinion is that Axis can achieve any meaningful results if there is either at least one of this:
1. right patch, like an arty patches
2. huge difference in players skills
3. Soviet not retreating

Otherwise if soviet player knows what monstrous power he is controlling - Axis has no chances.
I will reference this AAR again:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=379102

It is just madness.

Imagine what Soviets can do when they use all available tools.

P.S
I understand that from time to time we will see AARs where Axis wins. But if more people understand what Soviets can truly do, it will be very rare. Even more rare as it is right now.

[loki100]

Looking at the recent page of AARs there are more Axis wins than Soviet, certainly a lot of games being abandoned with the Axis clearly winning (or just on hold due to the players having other demands)

[Stamb]

In this thread looks like Soviets win more often:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... ?p=4890259

Especially here
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0#p4948590

personally I was unaware that Soviets can retreat or even abandon the South completely
and now that AARs from a RedJohn and Beethoven showed it - win rate will be even higher, IMHO

[loki100]

I can see 14 1941 GC MP AARs on the first page. 8 have ended in some form of axis victory - yours would probably have too but I've counted it as a Soviet win as you conceeded.

can the game systems be abused - of course. Are most Soviet players abusing them to generate 500cv tank brigades or just run away, doesn't look like. Are some Axis players able to win, quite clearly, and not all by overwhelming the Soviets in the opening turns

[Stamb]

...
Are most Soviet players abusing them to generate 500cv tank brigades or just run away, doesn't look like.

Did they know that they can do it? I don't think so. But now most people that read this forum knows it. As a result i expect that this strategy will be used more often and as a result Soviet will also win more often (in case if other game aspects stays the same)
Another example from your game vs Steve.
Steve had no idea that he can use supply priority 4 from a start of the game. Who knows how would it go in that case.
If he will play as a Soviets again - will he use SP 2 or 4? I guess 4.

Are some Axis players able to win, quite clearly, and not all by overwhelming the Soviets in the opening turns

They are.
But we will not see arty patches any more. I hope. And some turns of that games were played using them, i believe.
And as we can see even Axis players that won are saying that they refuse to play Axis any more, like AlbertN.

Another thing.
Why there is a mod that i have link to, in my signature?
Why there are no topics where people say that Axis is overpowered?
While there are many posts about Soviet super powers.

Which unfortunately are called by you as an axis players moaning, while people just want to show that there are some issues and they are showing saves, screenshots. Not only typing messages without any proofs.
I noticed that you defend game balance in any circumstances. For example you was defending arty patches with a words that it was already hard for an Axis to push. So arty patches helps in that direction.
There is rarely any posts from you where you agree that something is broken.
I can understand that you like this game and maybe that is why you are acting like this.
But you have to understand that people that moan, according to you, also like this game, otherwise they will be not here, making posts with description of a problems. People just want to help make this awesome game only better.
So believe it or not. We are all in the same boat. And we are trying to push this boat into same direction.

[carlkay58]

I have playtested WitE2 since it started development and I keep good notes on all of the games I have played, either against Players (very few) or the AI. In all I have gamed the 41 Campaign to Jan 42 over 500 times over all of the versions. Having done so, the following are a few observations:

1. The Historical Axis Advance was very good and is extremely difficult to match or beat in the game.

2. Play vs another Player is totally different than vs the AI - strangely enough it is sometimes easier as the AI can 'teleport' and even have 'tac nukes' at different levels of difficulty.

3. Play and results in 41 is not as vital in the long run as many players think. I admit that there was No Early End option until after release, so I have not played as many games without the Axis VP check in Jan 42. It is not hard to lose the game as the Axis by failing to beat the Axis VP check.

4. The luck of the weather really matters and can make or break the Axis in 41. Over the course of the war this does not matter as much but it is a major factor in determining how far the Axis can go in 41. I usually use the Mud period to rest my panzers and build up some supplies for the frost/snow offensive. In my current PvP game, MUD started in the third week of September and lasted to the first week of November. I then had a single week of frost/snow and then blizzards hit and my forces went to crap. Losing four or five turns of combat weather meant that I lost over 20% of the historical good weather turns in 41. That has a major effect in 41.

5. Many of the chosen Soviet tactics that everyone seems to be doing these days with Supply Priority 4 for everything and several other decisions will not be exposed for the bad decisions they can be until later in the war. It is what it is.

6. Soviet decisions in 41 cannot be determined as good or bad in 41. Their effects will not show up until 43 or later. The biggest thing for the Soviet player to worry about is when the Mech and Tank Corps start to become available and then things start to show. Strangely enough, the size of the Soviet army at that time is a major factor. Too large is even worse than too small at that time.

7. As a note to the Original Question: yes I have seen Moscow and Leningrad fall in 41 in player vs player games that have gone at least up to Jan 42. I have been on both sides of those games AND they have been in various versions that can be described as both Axis friendly and Soviet friendly. I will remark that the Soviet players tend to quit before that happens in 41 so you really don't see it happen. I just finish a PvP game as Axis player in version 1.02.19 only with the Soviet giving up in Sep 41 as I had cut off Leningrad, was three hexes from Moscow. and Kursk and Kharkov had just been captured. My Soviet opponent was experienced and has played and won as the Soviets multiple times.

[rocketman71]

I have playtested WitE2 since it started development and I keep good notes on all of the games I have played, either against Players (very few) or the AI. In all I have gamed the 41 Campaign to Jan 42 over 500 times over all of the versions. Having done so, the following are a few observations:

1. The Historical Axis Advance was very good and is extremely difficult to match or beat in the game.

2. Play vs another Player is totally different than vs the AI - strangely enough it is sometimes easier as the AI can 'teleport' and even have 'tac nukes' at different levels of difficulty.

3. Play and results in 41 is not as vital in the long run as many players think. I admit that there was No Early End option until after release, so I have not played as many games without the Axis VP check in Jan 42. It is not hard to lose the game as the Axis by failing to beat the Axis VP check.

4. The luck of the weather really matters and can make or break the Axis in 41. Over the course of the war this does not matter as much but it is a major factor in determining how far the Axis can go in 41. I usually use the Mud period to rest my panzers and build up some supplies for the frost/snow offensive. In my current PvP game, MUD started in the third week of September and lasted to the first week of November. I then had a single week of frost/snow and then blizzards hit and my forces went to crap. Losing four or five turns of combat weather meant that I lost over 20% of the historical good weather turns in 41. That has a major effect in 41.

5. Many of the chosen Soviet tactics that everyone seems to be doing these days with Supply Priority 4 for everything and several other decisions will not be exposed for the bad decisions they can be until later in the war. It is what it is.

6. Soviet decisions in 41 cannot be determined as good or bad in 41. Their effects will not show up until 43 or later. The biggest thing for the Soviet player to worry about is when the Mech and Tank Corps start to become available and then things start to show. Strangely enough, the size of the Soviet army at that time is a major factor. Too large is even worse than too small at that time.

7. As a note to the Original Question: yes I have seen Moscow and Leningrad fall in 41 in player vs player games that have gone at least up to Jan 42. I have been on both sides of those games AND they have been in various versions that can be described as both Axis friendly and Soviet friendly. I will remark that the Soviet players tend to quit before that happens in 41 so you really don't see it happen. I just finish a PvP game as Axis player in version 1.02.19 only with the Soviet giving up in Sep 41 as I had cut off Leningrad, was three hexes from Moscow. and Kursk and Kharkov had just been captured. My Soviet opponent was experienced and has played and won as the Soviets multiple times.

A brief note on #4: regarding the luck of the draw, I think the turn 29 sudden loss check is too early for the Axis side. I had bad luck in my campaign and when I lost on turn 29 I felt in no way that I was in a losing situation going forward.

[loki100]

.. while people just want to show that there are some issues and they are showing saves, screenshots. Not only typing messages without any proofs. ...
I noticed that you defend game balance in any circumstances. ....

one last go and then I'll shut up.

You, and those who share your view, concentrate on one way the Axis can feasibly win the game, basically an auto-win in 1941.

There are 3 routes:

a) autowin (and I still hold to the view this is most likely to occur in late 42/early 43)
b) vs the HWM in December 1944
c) vs the Berlin criteria in 1945

Now, quite simply (c) has, as far as I know, never been tested in a 1941 start. I know that (b) has. From the few AARs (& the posts in the game results thread), there are quite a lot of German wins against this test point.

Now provide saves and data for (b) and (c) showing the German player can't win and you have a point. Merely assert, because you gave up and didn't even try to solve the puzzle, that they can't and, in the end, its just assertion.

[Stamb]

.. while people just want to show that there are some issues and they are showing saves, screenshots. Not only typing messages without any proofs. ...
I noticed that you defend game balance in any circumstances. ....

...
You, and those who share your view, concentrate on one way the Axis can feasibly win the game, basically an auto-win in 1941.
...

wrong, nobody is asking for an auto win in `41 and with equal player skills it not gonna happen in most of the cases anyway

Can Axis win at all? Yes. And maybe I would have a chance of a win in my game or maybe not, as it is impossible to say without continuing playing that game.
The reason why i gave up in my game is absolute absence of an ability to make history like offensive, and I described reasons for that in AAR. (and this is with taken Leningrad!)

So yes, Axis can win in some games.
But if Soviet player is using all of the tools in his disposal then it gonna be super rare.

Basically we have 2 games.
1. Soviet player that does not read this forum and plays against some random Axis player in steam might actually lose in 41 or 42. And game balance might be ok for a games between casual players.
2. Players that read this forum try to play a game against each other. And if Soviet uses all of his super powers like supply priority 4, transferring most of the troops from a South, making raids with a cavalry divisions that are on the edge of a depleted status, but that are still able to flip hexes, using 1 cv units to throw on an Axis path just to drain CPP and all of the other weird things - then there is very low chance for a win as an Axis.

And now when all of this game issues are posted here on a forum we will see much more Soviet wins, if this "abuses" will be used.
IMHO

Time will show if i am correct or not, but it is enough to read AARs like this:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=378532
And especially this https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=379102
to understand that if someone decides to use 2 (second) type of a game from my example then Axis have barely any chances of a win.

[Stamb]

...
one last go and then I'll shut up.
...

Forum is created to share feedback and discuss things. I do not know why would you make posts like this.
Nobody is hating you or any other players. And I am thankful for all of the answers that you gave to me when i just started to play this game.
If we do not agree on some topics, for example game balance, it does not mean that we are rivals.

Only in discussion we (i mean whole community) can come up with a solutions to make this game only better.