Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

[Mynok]

What is an 'air base' in the context of an isolated unit?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


What is an 'air base' in the context of an isolated unit?

An airbase unit, inside the pocket.

[jzardos]

I have to agree 100% with glvaca. Although I'm always very grateful when WitE patches come out to fix issues, I just don't see the upcoming changes in v1.05 doing much to help the axis situation in 42 and helping make the game more historically accurate.

Joel stated that they want to be careful what they changed as to not ruin the game. Not sure what that really means, because I'm confident they have test/qc in place when making any changes to assure this does not really happen. Given that many of us in the community have determined certain aspects of the way WitE reflects concepts on the eastern front are just not working as was historically. Now if people want to argue the problem points that were brought up that is one thing. But from my perspective if something is broken (combat engine, airfield attacks, forts, German C&C, morale lose, etc) why can't steps be taken to fix it..even if it takes a while? If the premise is that broken parts can't be fixed because it will ruined the entire game, well then nothing would ever even be attempted to be fixed?

What frustrates me is that people have documented, myself included, these issues for months now. Not only has there been nothing to refute that these issues are non-issues, but no tracking from what I can see has been done to start correcting them.

I agree that playing axis means you kick around the Soviets for several months and then a avg Soviet opponent who has retreated his army in decent order will be able to almost complete take the strategic initiative from mid 42 until the rest of the game. We can all agree, those that don't I suggest picking up a book and doing some reading on eastern front, that the Germans had the initiative until about mid 43.

Here's the real kicker. For those that have done some research, it's fairly easy to conclude that the main reason for the axis to have had so many setbacks was due to Hitler's catastrophic decisions.. starting with splitting AG south into A and B. BUT, if WitE is suppose to allow the players to make these types of decisions, the German army should be able to be in a lot better shape than what it was in late 42 an onward (just one case).

Sorry, but I just don't see playing the axis in WitE allowing for a true experience reflecting what advantages the German army possessed in 42 onward. With a some changes to more reflect accurate historical modeling to to morale, exp, and C&C, I believe the CG41 campaign could be more realistic in 42 and onward.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
Certainly, there are changes in there we all look forward too. But, to state they address all the concerns of the community, and more specifically, the ones which have been discussed in this tread, is quite simply not true. Off course you didn't say that but others did, there that's off my chest.

I was referring to the concern - and very interesting discussion we had here a few weeks ago - about forts.

[Joel Billings]

Our games are no stranger to skeptical looks and strongly worded opinions. [:)] We seem to bring out the passion in wargamers (at least the grognards), and will hopefully continue to do so.

Your list of problems is long, which argues that we can't deal with everything on your list at once as there would be too many moving parts (and of course we don't agree with all your points and as you say many of the items were intentionally designed a certain way). I will say that the way that morale recovery is being done now, that German Motorized units can have their morale recover to as high as 90 (although it's not likely to go that high, and for infantry it could theoretically recover to 85 -- originally German units wouldn't recover past 75, although at some point recently tthat was changed to 85, but I'm not sure exactly when that was done). Only time and testing will show us whether this provides enough recovery after the first winter. As for the first winter, the lower Soviet recovery rate of disabled troops will help keep their army size down for the first winter, along with the lower manpower rate in early 42. Of course there are so many changes that we can't say yet exactly how things will work out, but we think the changes go a long way to improving 1942.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
2. Am I the only one who goes hhhummmmm, but! concerning the new fort rules?
Building of forts is reduced in mud, level 3 only with forts in or adjacent. 3+ only with forts. In addition, a new supply element is thrown in. So:
a. this actually means it will become a LOT more difficult for the German to dig in as preparation for the winter of 41-42. As a result, he will again recieve more casualties and, through combats lost, lose more morale, etc...
b. As a result, the German army will again be weak in 1942.
c. Come 1943+ the German is going to have an even more difficult time to dig in and defend.
d. On Forts.
1. These cost AP's. 4 for the Axis, 16 for the Russian. Are they costs going to be reduced?
2. They suck manpower, and common wisdom has it not to build too many of them to avoid sucking your pool dry. So this new rule is actually forcing the Germans to suck their pools dry and spend AP's, both of which they don't have enough as it is.
3. Expenditure of supply. Come digin time 1941, the German is not going to be in a very good supply situation. Unless he stops at the dnepr that is. So how will this affect the German ability to dig in?
RESULT: The German player is probably going to have again a very hard time come winter 41.
CONCLUSION: Advantage Soviet player. Or perhaps to the side which is on the defensive generally as the advancing side _should_ have a bigger problem getting supplies forward which then would give some "hope" of a backhand blow. That is, if you still have an army with enough morale to actually organize an offensive against Soviet rifle corps.

a. I haven't ever heard any Axis player complaining about digging in during 1941 to be too difficult. The hard part is to get the timing to start laying up defenses right. Besides that, now the Soviet player will have a really hard time to setup level 3 - 4 fortifications. Reaching these levels has been essential to defend Moscow, Leningrad and Kharkov from determined Axis attack in all my games. In the 1941 GC I'm playing right now, my ability to setup level 3/4 lines around those cities was of paramount importance. Without them I'd have lost the three cities above, rather than only Leningrad. At 16 AP's each FZ's now the Soviet will have harder time to syphon replacements out of Corps HQ's, reorganizing C&C - attachments and leader appointment, and building SU's. The consequences of this should be obvious to anybody.

b. Not necessarily.

c. You need to get numbers for that. The problem is not the amount of supply, but how hard is to push it forward towards the front lines.

d.
2. 50 FZ's are about 100,000 men. That should be more than enough to build a double line from Tallin to the Black Sea (the level 3 capability is granted to neighboring hexes). Such an investment in manpower looks pretty reasonable to me: just compare it to the resources buried on the West Wall. Disbanding 3 FBD's and some RHG HQ's would account for that manpower.

3. That's an exaggeration.

[Flaviusx]

Soviet fortification costs go down to 4 APs in 1942 and remain there for the rest of the war.

All I can say is the new fortification rules are having a significant impact in my own playtesting.

[Commanderski]

Thanks for the update info! Lot's of stuff and great support as always.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

2. 50 FZ's are about 100,000 men. That should be more than enough to build a double line from Tallin to the Black Sea (the level 3 capability is granted to neighboring hexes). Such an investment in manpower looks pretty reasonable to me: just compare it to the resources buried on the West Wall.

Just thought I'd point out that if you set the max TOE % to 50 when you first build them, your manpower outlay is even more reasonable. Essentially, you just want the shell there, to grant the construction ability, and to perhaps attach construction SUs to, in order to speed the fort building in the hex.

The AP outlay is the more pressing concern for the Soviets in 1941, since until November, the costs are x4, making the 16 AP hit a very tough decision. Later in the war, when the Axis will really need the forts, they should be awash in APs.

The 1.05.xx fort rules are a MAJOR benefit to the Axis. They will open up 1941 even more for the Axis, and make things much more interesting for 1942.

[Q-Ball]

Great list! Thanks for the support!

A number of rules here figure to really help the Germans. The FORTS as JAM points out are pro-Axis, for the simple reason that Axis have plenty of APs to spend on Fort Units, and the Soviets don't.

The Armament change to 130 will mean that Armament Factories are the most important to move; more important than all others.

I also wouldn't underestimate the Morale rule changes; that is a boon for the Axis early on, and help the Soviets in 1944, when they should be rolling

[Pawlock]

Some very big changes there which I think some dont really see. Im a bit concerned with how the fort changes will effect 1941 soviets pre blizzard as I though 1941 was more or less good now? Defending Moscow will be near impossable and many major cities and areas make the Germans unstoppable in 1941.
I can understand the need in mid 42 onwards but I fear with this change you could be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
 
My premonition you will see runnaway wins in 41 very common for Axis.
 
A good axis player in 41 can already take Lenningrad and Moscow, it beggars belief what they will achieve now.
 
 
The rest of the changes will also have big impact and I look forward to seeing how they will work.
 

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

2. 50 FZ's are about 100,000 men. That should be more than enough to build a double line from Tallin to the Black Sea (the level 3 capability is granted to neighboring hexes). Such an investment in manpower looks pretty reasonable to me: just compare it to the resources buried on the West Wall.

Just thought I'd point out that if you set the max TOE % to 50 when you first build them, your manpower outlay is even more reasonable. Essentially, you just want the shell there, to grant the construction ability, and to perhaps attach construction SUs to, in order to speed the fort building in the hex.

That's a golden piece of advice. Thank you James.

[Peltonx]

Looks like allot of good changes so far. As with every up-date thks [&o]

The game is good from 41 to mid 42, then it is really off the mark if the oppossing players are eveny matched.

Joel you say you guys are worried about the game being screwed up. I and many others including yourselfs know the game is screwed up from mid 42 to 45.

I was hoping something would be done as far as the 1v1=2v1 rule goes or something to help out German moral and high loses caused by it.

The lowering of the manpower % and arm output will surely help. The river taking longer to freeze will also help out. Again great game thanks for hard work and monthly patchs that are improving an alrdy uber game from 41 to mid 42. Also AI is best ever [&o]

BUT

The 1v1=2v1 is a huge game changer. It is what is 80% screwing the game up after mid 42.

1. Its causes what would have been light German loses to high German loses because of the forsed retreat. loses causes lower CV
2. Its causes German moral to drop instead of hold and Russian moral to go up instead of drop. Moral dropping causes low CV.

I am very happy with everything in the patch so far, but they really do little to off set the unrealisticly huge jump in German loses and moral that are being caused by a fairytale rule.

Again thks for the great game an all the hard work being put into it, but your limited time as you pt out would get way more bang for the buck if you guys simply dumped this rule that is totally imbalanceing the game in favor of the Red army.

Small tweaks to forts and moral levels are never going to make up for a fantasy based rule that is causing huge loses in moral and manpower/guns/tanks for the Germans.

I know there are more changes in the works, but they will all simply be window dressing until the pigs can fly rule is dumped.

Thank you very very much for the hard work can great game.

Pelton

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, the rule is under review. Don't assume this list Joel laid out is final or complete.

[jzardos]

I almost forgot about the 1:1 rule, but do agree there needs to be something done in terms of making it go away for certain yr(s) or optional.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as ungrateful or disrespectful to all those involved in the design, development, testing of WitE. Was not my intend nor do I feel like WitE does not live up to all the hype.

My underlining purpose for my posts and scrutiny of certain aspects of WitE is only to allow for sustainable playability beyond 41 and to help offer suggestions to what I know about historical modeling and my hrs upon hrs of playing and testing WitE.

I'm frustrated by some of the yet to be reached potential of WitE, but I need to understand that all the changes, once determined valid, can't happen overnight. But I think it's important to have players passionate and with ideas to improve any product. That type of feedback if used properly can be an extremely important tool for any business.

So please don't put me in some category of a disgruntled or disappointed purchaser of WitE. I'm just somebody that wants to help it reach that next level in war gaming on the eastern front.

[Klydon]

I like the idea of restricting the level 3 and 4 forts and making them cost something. Right now, they grow like weeds, especially for the Russian side. This will also make it a bit tougher for the Germans to dig in during 1941 for winter, but I don't have an issue with that because of the logistics issues the Germans were undergoing during the fall and winter of 1941/42.

One thing is clear to me and that is the Russians will have to rethink how they conduct their defense. It should be very tough in 1941 for them from a realistic standpoint of view and in game it is fairly easy to conduct a Russian defense that leaves a strong Russian army intact to launch a punishing winter offensive. I have faith that the community will adapt new tactics to the situation and the result should be a more interesting 1941 from the standpoint that it will likely be more than Russians run away and then the Germans slam into a wall of fortified Russians in late September in most cases.

[Encircled]

Like the look of the changes, though as a Soviet player, its going to make '41 an even bigger struggle than it is already.

Time will tell at a guess

[jzardos]

This will also make it a bit tougher for the Germans to dig in during 1941 for winter, but I don't have an issue with that because of the logistics issues the Germans were undergoing during the fall and winter of 1941/42.

I'm sorry but this type of statement is purely subjective to what the Axis player has done with his 41 advance. It to me is the ROOT of many misconceptions and in differentiating my wanting a dynamic game with historical premisses rather than just a simulation of what actually did happen on the eastern front for either side.

Sure if the axis player pushed his supply line (abusive on HQ buildup) troops far from rail-heads, it would be possible to find oneself in the same issues the Germans had late in 41. But that's not what this game is about, is it?

Here it is in a nutshell. Players need to be rewarded for making good choices and not be punished on a broad level for bad historical choices that we(players) should now have control over. Case and point. The Soviets have a free-hand to retreat troops to wherever they want, when historically this was far from the case considering Stalin's demands. Yet, because of Hitler's moronic decision not to send winter equipment to troops in late fall, I have to suffer as an Axis player by this choice. It's so idiotic that I've seen posts where the game is trying to get historical figures to be an average template for all players? What? That's nonsense, why in the world should players have to always be bucketed in severe loses for winter41-42 as axis players? Don't we have some choices, at the expense of maybe less offensive actions, to better prepare for the winter? Why not? Nobody HAS EVER come up with any points to make the sensible. Other than well, the axis suffered loses in winter because they were unprepared. I say, do you know why they were unprepared??? If not do the research and you'll see that the POTENTIAL for the Germans to be better prepared for that winter was there. Would they still have had some issues, sure. But not at the level for which the state of the Germam army was in 41 because of BAD HIGH level choices. These choices need to be more in the players control. Sorry, this topic is just madness to try and make all winters for all players as harsh regardless of what choices they make in 41. Just madness...


Just wanted to point out that I don't agree with this thinking about having to deal with all the ISSUES a side had when a player could make choices to avoid those problems. To me that is the essence of why it's a game and makes it fun to player because of all the possibilities.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Like the look of the changes, though as a Soviet player, its going to make '41 an even bigger struggle than it is already.

Time will tell at a guess

That’s it looks like and also new chances force Soviet side turtle longer all away from 41-43. It remains to be seen if losing Leningrad and Moscow at 41 in every AAR comes to new norm and not losing them rare happenings.

Soviet side has to stop doing counter attacks as many chances weaken Soviet ability to do those counter attacks they did historically. There is simply no incentive to do those as incentive to make them was weak from the beginning but that’s probably what those German players lobby for and won’t be happy until they get their I win button.

[Flaviusx]

I disagree about the counterattacking. If anything, it is even more important to do this now.