A question about current state of balance and tactic

[kg_1007]

Very interesting games...reminds me of the ones I spent so much time playing on cold winter nights as a kid, getting hammered usually by my father who was great at them.

[kg_1007]

I concur on the price..I heard a lot of complaints on the price of this game(WITE) but compared to most boardgames of anywhere near the same depth, it is a steal still.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
what I said, if you actually read it, was that "anyone with real world military knowledge knows that once the bullets begin to fly, there are no guarantees" If you truly have any real world military knowledge, you cannot argue that point.

If you must know, I do have real-world military knowledge and experience, and think that the statement that "once the bullets begin to fly, there are no guarantees" is a ridiculous statement. You are basically saying that if Luxembourg attacked the US, we can't really know who would win because "bullets are flying"? The fact is that wars are much more involved than "flying bullets" and involve, you know, economics, geography, diplomacy, etc.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I don't know how many credible historians have posed very valid questions like: What if Guderian wasn't sent south to Kiev? What if instead he was sent on to Moscow? Surely Moscow would probably have fell, when one considers how close the Germans got in late 1941 even with the diversion to Kiev. And don't crap on about logistics because the distance from Smolensk to Moscow is *less* than the distance from Smolensk to Kiev.

I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, but I think Glanz has to be considered a credible historian, and I have just read the pages in his book where he said that the Germans were simply not able to continue to Moscow for, er, logistical reasons. Frankly, I don't understand why it would have been logistically easier to more south than east, but at least part of the reason is presumably that there would be more fighting, and thus more fuel and ammo expenditure, heading east.

But moreover, I don't think the fall of Moscow would have ended the war, so I'm not sure that it matters?

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
what I said, if you actually read it, was that "anyone with real world military knowledge knows that once the bullets begin to fly, there are no guarantees" If you truly have any real world military knowledge, you cannot argue that point.

If you must know, I do have real-world military knowledge and experience, and think that the statement that "once the bullets begin to fly, there are no guarantees" is a ridiculous statement. You are basically saying that if Luxembourg attacked the US, we can't really know who would win because "bullets are flying"? The fact is that wars are much more involved than "flying bullets" and involve, you know, economics, geography, diplomacy, etc.

You surely are not comparing the Wehrmacht vs the Red Army to Luxembourg vs the US Army??
Iraq vs the US Army was still nowhere near the comparison, but I sat in on a lot of staff meetings where there was worry even there.
Glanz is alright, but there are quite a few historians who would disagree with his assessments, including Col. Betros, the dept head of History at the US Military Academy(West Point), Anthony Beevor, author of a great many books on the subject, just to name two..

[timmyab]

I'm certain Moscow would have fallen in 41 without the disastrous loss of momentum caused by redirecting AGCs pz groups, but I don't see why it should have ended the war either.Plus without the Kiev pocket AGS would probably have continued to struggle and the Soviets would have had 600,000 more men to play with.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I'm certain Moscow would have fallen in 41 without the disastrous loss of momentum caused by redirecting AGCs pz groups, but I don't see why it should have ended the war either.Plus without the Kiev pocket AGS would probably have continued to struggle and the Soviets would have had 600,000 more men to play with.

I think you are probably correct as far as the extra men if they had not pocketed those armies at Kiev..it is hard to see something as a mistake, that took so many prisoners.
I think that Michael's argument however, was not necessarily about taking Moscow per se, but rather, that so many Soviet players say the Germans taking Moscow is unhistoric(it is) but the reason for it, is not in the game, it is that most German players try to take Moscow, rather than divert to the south...personally, I would not try to take Moscow in '41...if the game could somewhat adjust logistics details, I think the south would be more important as it was in history..the Germans needed the oil, so in their position, probably I would feint toward Moscow, and concentrate on the south, even in '41, rather than waiting for '42. If the German side can roll up the big southern cities, it is always possible to begin 42 with a move to the north to hit Moscow from the south. I do think there should be a reason to make the Germans want the south more..if not having logistics issues such as oil modeled, then even by the artificial method of increased victory points for those cities.

[kg_1007]

There is still one giant advantage both sides have over the historic counterparts, also..we know when the bad winter will hit, and we know how bad it is, which in history ended to be one of the worst on record, but they did not know that historically, until it was already there. A really great idea would be to randomize the blizzard more, perhaps even having some games where it is not as bad, along the lines of a normal winter, as well as arriving at different times... it would add a lot of uncertainty, and would force the German side, mostly, to gamble on when to stop and prepare, or, indeed, on if they should, at all, or should keep pushing. Not certain how hard that would be to code, but it would be very interesting to play.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
what I said, if you actually read it, was that "anyone with real world military knowledge knows that once the bullets begin to fly, there are no guarantees" If you truly have any real world military knowledge, you cannot argue that point.

If you must know, I do have real-world military knowledge and experience, and think that the statement that "once the bullets begin to fly, there are no guarantees" is a ridiculous statement. You are basically saying that if Luxembourg attacked the US, we can't really know who would win because "bullets are flying"? The fact is that wars are much more involved than "flying bullets" and involve, you know, economics, geography, diplomacy, etc.

You surely are not comparing the Wehrmacht vs the Red Army to Luxembourg vs the US Army??
Iraq vs the US Army was still nowhere near the comparison, but I sat in on a lot of staff meetings where there was worry even there.
Glanz is alright, but there are quite a few historians who would disagree with his assessments, including Col. Betros, the dept head of History at the US Military Academy(West Point), Anthony Beevor, author of a great many books on the subject, just to name two..

Well, sure, in any given battle, it can go either way. History is full of examples where the smaller army won. (The better trained/commanded one.) RE Lee comes to mind.

But to follow that example, even though Lee checked Grant again and again, he couldn't make Grant quit. The North had more of everything. Yes, it took awhile to get it all moving. But once it did, the South was out matched.

The GPW was the same. The Germans destroyed army after army after army. But for every dozen divisions they destroyed, a dozen more showed up. The Soviets mobilized more than 10 million during the first eight months. While it is true that many of them were half the strength and had nowhere near the experience of the Germans, it isn't like the Russians were the Incas and the Germans were the Spanish.

Someone, and I don't remember who, compared the Geramn attack to an elephant vs ants. The elephant will kill hundreds of thousands, but the ants will kill the elephant in the end.

Ask jaw for that pdf he posted about. It *really, really*, is worth the read.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I'm certain Moscow would have fallen in 41 without the disastrous loss of momentum caused by redirecting AGCs pz groups, but I don't see why it should have ended the war either.Plus without the Kiev pocket AGS would probably have continued to struggle and the Soviets would have had 600,000 more men to play with.

Picture those 650,000 Russians on the ever larger flank of AGS. One good thing about the advance south though. Instead of moving away from the railheads by going east, the move was parallel. Thus the supply heads could catch up.

Even if Moscow fell, I doubt the Germans could of held it. I'll explain my theories tomorrow. (If I remember that is.)

[Michael T]

If you take a look at a AAR of mine (Kremlin Capers) you will see I lost Leningrad, 2/3 of Moscow, Tula, Kalinin, Kharkov and Rostov plus a I lost a whole bunch of armies. Yet by Feb 1942 I was able to force a surrender. I am no expert Soviet player and my opponent was/is no mug. That tells me something.

[Numdydar]

I come back to this thread a few days latter and find it has REALLY gone OT lol. I do find it very fasinating that no matter how a thread on this forum starts out originally, it seems to devolve into the same topics and discussion points. No wonder so many people have left.

My question is why the hell does everyone seem to care so much about a game [&:]? This is not the War of Roses we are fighting on the forum (or are we?). If everyone here was physically present somewhere, I would fully expect duels at 30 paces every day [X(].

As I have been playing games of this type (Board and computer) for a VERY long time, EVERY game I have played has been flawed in some way. Some way more than than others (for the record I do NOT consider WitE in the very flawed category). The choices are simple from my point of view, if you do NOT enjoy the game, don't play it. I did not enjoy WitE as compared to WitP AE as I have pointed out in my posts in this thread. So therefore I do not care what happens to it at this point, especially since it will be redone in a year or two anyway just like WitP evolved into WitP AE. And I did purchase the full suite from UV - WitP - WitP AE and enjoyed them all. At least once [;)] AE more than the rest.I will do the same for WitE - WitW - WitE 2.0 as well. Because even if I play them only once I still get my monies worth. And Guess what all will be flawed and I will still have a good time playing them once even if I never play any of them again.

However, if you feel like the designers screwed things up beyond repair, don't buy any more games by the same people. If you like the game but feel things need to be changed to make it better, post on the forum one or two times your suggestions and/or send a PM to Joel (I have done both of these). There is no reason to keep beating your breasts and tearing your hair out about things that are NOT going to change they way you want them to. At least not in this version of the game. Go play something else if this game gets you this upset. You do not have to convience everyone here that your point of view is correct and everyone else is wrong.

Besides, my thread has been highjacked and I want it back [:)]

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I come back to this thread a few days latter and find it has REALLY gone OT lol. I do find it very fasinating that no matter how a thread on this forum starts out originally, it seems to devolve into the same topics and discussion points. No wonder so many people have left.

My question is why the hell does everyone seem to care so much about a game [&:]? This is not the War of Roses we are fighting on the forum (or are we?). If everyone here was physically present somewhere, I would fully expect duels at 30 paces every day [X(].

As I have been playing games of this type (Board and computer) for a VERY long time, EVERY game I have played has been flawed in some way. Some way more than than others (for the record I do NOT consider WitE in the very flawed category). The choices are simple from my point of view, if you do NOT enjoy the game, don't play it. I did not enjoy WitE as compared to WitP AE as I have pointed out in my posts in this thread. So therefore I do not care what happens to it at this point, especially since it will be redone in a year or two anyway just like WitP evolved into WitP AE. And I did purchase the full suite from UV - WitP - WitP AE and enjoyed them all. At least once [;)] AE more than the rest.I will do the same for WitE - WitW - WitE 2.0 as well. Because even if I play them only once I still get my monies worth. And Guess what all will be flawed and I will still have a good time playing them once even if I never play any of them again.

However, if you feel like the designers screwed things up beyond repair, don't buy any more games by the same people. If you like the game but feel things need to be changed to make it better, post on the forum one or two times your suggestions and/or send a PM to Joel (I have done both of these). There is no reason to keep beating your breasts and tearing your hair out about things that are NOT going to change they way you want them to. At least not in this version of the game. Go play something else if this game gets you this upset. You do not have to convience everyone here that your point of view is correct and everyone else is wrong.

Besides, my thread has been highjacked and I want it back [:)]

I did not see you as the original poster lol.
But I agree with your assessment. I do think most of the people here like the game(else, why would we be here) but some want to see things changed. Personally, I have never seen a group of "wargamers" who will ever agree on any game, everyone always wants "x" or "y"..and if the designers put "x" in, then you can be certain someone else will suddenly appear, wondering why they put "x", but ignored"y"...that said though, I hope the designers realize that interest in their game, even "critic" interest, is a good thing..forgot who said it, but it holds true, there is not such thing as bad publicity.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
You surely are not comparing the Wehrmacht vs the Red Army to Luxembourg vs the US Army??
Iraq vs the US Army was still nowhere near the comparison, but I sat in on a lot of staff meetings where there was worry even there.
Glanz is alright, but there are quite a few historians who would disagree with his assessments, including Col. Betros, the dept head of History at the US Military Academy(West Point), Anthony Beevor, author of a great many books on the subject, just to name two..

I am merely pointing out that your statement cannot be taken at face value. While I am sure there was worry at the staff meetings you attended--serious casualties are always a possibility-- I doubt there was much worry about losing the war.

In any event, for the record I have never said that the Germans *could not* possibly have won the war. In my view, while it was very unlikely, it was in the realm of the possible, but to say that they came "quite close" to winning is simply not true.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Michael T


If you take a look at a AAR of mine (Kremlin Capers) you will see I lost Leningrad, 2/3 of Moscow, Tula, Kalinin, Kharkov and Rostov plus a I lost a whole bunch of armies. Yet by Feb 1942 I was able to force a surrender. I am no expert Soviet player and my opponent was/is no mug. That tells me something.

By "force a surrender" do you mean that you took Berlin, or that your German opponent wanted to quit because he recognized that he was not going to make it to the Urals and therefore there was no point in playing anymore? Presumably the latter, which indeed tells me something as well...

On your point about the devs not recognizing the problem with runaways--you might be right, but frankly even if they recognize the problem I don't really see any easy fixes, so what should they do? Frankly at this point I think the best we can hope for is something better for WitE 2.0.

On the whole point about why the Germans can't build units, etc.--I can only guess, but I would say that the devs concluded that they did not have time to put this in; the Sovs clearly could not have a historical reinforcment schedule (because their reinforcements ultimately depend on their manpower and factory losses in the game), and my hunch is that the devs didn't want to spend the additional time to code in unit creation for the Germans as well. Or maybe it would have created additional challenges for play-testing (which already was inadequate)? In any event, I don't see why people see some kind of pro-Sov bias by the developerss.

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
By "force a surrender" do you mean that you took Berlin, or that your German opponent wanted to quit because he recognized that he was not going to make it to the Urals and therefore there was no point in playing anymore? Presumably the latter, which indeed tells me something as well...

I didnt quit because I would not make it to Urals, but because of horrible loses. 6. and 11. armies destroyed as well as parts of 17. and 2.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Personally I think WITE is fundamentally flawed and really needs a rebuild from the bottom up. But it is the best PC game on the subject to date so I persevere with it, support it, and will buy WITW and WITE 2.0. Right now I am playing a great game of FITE/SE. And I am having a blast. The game is fluid and my opponent and I are both looking very much forward to the Soviet winter CA and the subsequent 1942 summer campaign. This old boardgame still does the war in Russia better than the PC WITE. I have played near on 80 games of FITE/SE. Yes 80. I know something about what makes a good East Front divisional game. Having units that track every tank, squad and gun mean squat when the system has so many floors. FITE/SE has been around since 1984. People still play it all over the world. Sure it’s a little dated. But as a *game* it works far better than WITE.

I have only played FITE/SE about 5 times, and the last time I tried, it really struck me how dated this game feels. Many of the mechanisms are from the 70s. It can take an hour just to complete the air phase, sorting through ten-high stacks. And it doesn't produce realistic results, just forces you into gamesmanship with lots of counting on overrun-safe stacks. It really taught me I am done with that kind of thing. WITE offers much more enjoyment per time IMHO.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
My time spent on this forum debating these issues was solely to make WITE a better *game*. *I do not have a preference for either side*

I have spent equal amounts of game turns playing each side.

But I am done with trying to help. This forum has become dominated by Soviet fanboys who have closed minds and a pack mentality. Blot out any opposing thought with a continuing boring diatribe of propaganda and misinformation. I join the growing list of reasonable minds who have better things to do.

Many of your points are valid. I agree with you that it is easier to win as the Soviet (or it certainly was in 1.05, I am just now in my first GC as the Soviets in 1.06, so I might have to regret those words). The problem is that it seems too easy for the Germans to overachieve in terms of terrain captured in 1941, but it feels equally wrong that those achievements apparently do not hurt the Soviets very much. And there should be some kind of mechanism to induce both players to hold terrain or key cities rather than withdraw.

However, you do come across as mainly pro-Axis, and your talk of Soviet fanboys dominating the forum lends you no credence.

[Michael T]

There is no option but to come across as pro Axis when debating against what I consider mostly a pro Soviet forum. But I maintain I am not pro Axis. I am very much pro a balanced game. If the Axis were crushing the Soviets in every game I would be arguing for the Soviet cause.

[randallw]

I don't suppose anyone has actually kept track of AAR results here? I don't mean just individual cherry picking, but including results that people won't like to hear.

[Flaviusx]

The Axis are doing very well in most recent AARs. This is what boggles me about the Axis complaints. Leningrad is a gimme. Moscow is falling as often as not. The south is gone as well.

And yet that's not enough.

A lot of Soviet players are having a rough time of it in 1942 as well.

The Axis side has a bigger learning curve because it is on the offense. They have the burden of the initiative and this will punish inexperienced players. But once past that, the Axis have got a real edge in the game right now and results are leaning towards marginal victories for them in games where no gimmicks are used. (With gimmicks blowouts are possible, which Micheal keeps pretending don't happen despite the fact he has never even seen 1942 playing the Axis.)

The Soviet has to struggle to get a draw. We're not seeing a lot of games here where Berlin falls recently.

Tarhunnas, you are not exactly playing an average game right now with Bob since he is taking a pass on a number of tried and true gambits which is allowing you play things in a historical fashion. Don't draw too many conclusions from that. The vast majority of good Axis players, including ones in the testing team, don't do what Bob does. (My last two test 41 games had Lvov openers.) He is almost the only person I know who doesn't frontload AGS. As you can see in your game with him, it changes things completely. He's actually distributing the panzers in a near historical fashion, but most players don't do this: they raid AGC for armor from the getgo and load up the flanks.