War in the West

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Compare this with the Soviet ability to NOT create inefficient 1942 corps combat units (42a and 42b Rifle Corps). Soviet players are encouraged NOT to create these units and instead to use the existing divisions. They skip the inefficiencies and magically STAVKA figures out how to improve on Corps anyway.

Soviets already have the ability to bypass TOE mistakes and inefficiencies.
Germany can actually end up through withdrawals having a worse army than was historical, but that NEVER bothers the Sovie-o-phile side of the playing community.

I wasn't really arguing that the Germans shouldn't have control over their TOEs or production or on-map-counter creation, because they should. I was just arguing against 2ndACR's specific example of pulling out the good Panzers from a withdrawing unit just because it's about to withdraw. If the German player had control over his TOEs, the unit about to pull out probably wouldn't have been the one with the PanzerIV's anyway. If the German player had control over his production, he might have had enough PanzerIV's that he wouldn't need to strip them off the withdrawing unit to re-allocate to his front-liners.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

My reply is in red

What we know is that Germany must stick to its actual TOE at each and every step of the war.
Soviets do not.

I think you mean OOB not TOE as neither side can change the TOEs in an ongoing game. Giving the Axis player the ability to create units would not dramatically effect the game as he really doesn't have the resources to do much different than what was done historically and there is very little diversification in his TOEs to begin with.

Any serious game player can take one look at that dynamic and know that strategic playing options are wildly different for the two sides.
Germany is on rails to withdraw Totenkopf in the second half of 42 irrespective of whether there is a Demyansk pocket.

Germany greatly narrowed its strategic options when it initiated a two front war; as the Axis player you must live with the consequences of that decision. You can control what happens on the Eastern Front but not what's happening on those other fronts or decisions being made by the supreme command; you are not Hitler.

So you waste your breath talking to me about history, I'm talking about equanimity in play (though not identical capabilities).

The Soviets get all sorts of tools and abilities with which to improve the efficacy of their whole army that results in a seriously improved 1942 and 1943 fighting force over history's. They get to learn lessons without first failing.

You can't seriously try to tell me that the Axis player doesn't benefit from historical hindsight. Yeah, he might not be able to improve his army but he can certainly improve how it was used.

Germany, meanwhile, can have the entire summer's worth of success snatched from it by the fiat of arbitrary adherence to history. It occurs in morale drops, it occurs in TOE changes, it occurs in withdrawals.

The withdrawals have already be explained, both sides have TOE changes and German TOEs don't significantly decline until late 1943, and German morale is superior to Soviet morale up until 1944.

What I see is a huge community of soviet-fan players who do not care that their opponent's major setbacks are handed to him by game design, not you.

To me, you all have no meaningful concept of fair play.
And this is why I encourage people considering this or future Matrix titles to pay attention to the lop-sided nature of the discussions, the hypocritical and selective adherence to history, the personal attacks against people with different opinions, and my favorite, the insults based on what you have or have not read.

This is Matrix games and its fan base.
This is the future of War in the West.

If you desire a game in which both sides have an equal chance to "win" then games like WitE are not your cup of tea. In any valid simulation of an historical conflict the probability of the historical victor winning has to be greater than 50%. How much greater depends on how overwhelming the historical victor's victory was. Given that the Axis forces were utterly crushed and its supreme command forced to commit suicide, I would say that the Soviet victory was rather overwhelming.

[kafka]

To re-state my position is less snarky terms, go ahead and put a production OPTION in the game to let people who want to fiddle with it fiddle with it. Don't spend a lot of debug time trying to dig out the deeply buried bugs, but include the function as an untested Beta option.

thank you for this very help- und insightful post depicting those as idiots who dare ask for a limited expansion of the very limited gameplay, what I suppose is what the majority of gamers expect from a gama

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Compare this with the Soviet ability to NOT create inefficient 1942 corps combat units (42a and 42b Rifle Corps). Soviet players are encouraged NOT to create these units and instead to use the existing divisions. They skip the inefficiencies and magically STAVKA figures out how to improve on Corps anyway.

Since historically the Soviets didn't create much more than 5 or 10 of the early Rifle Corps anyways, I'd say that this is a bit of a moot point. Also, NOT creating a Rifle Corps has a trade-off: Not being able to stack as much stuff into a hex. In other words, they can't attack/defend as well with 3 Rifle Divisions as they could with 3 Rifle Corps in a hex. Essentially, it is to the German player's advantage that the Russian player dosen't use the early TOE Rifle Corps. Personally, I'm a fan of an historical Russian OOB, so when playing as the Russians I build the early Rifle Corps anyways.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

My reply is in red

What we know is that Germany must stick to its actual TOE at each and every step of the war.
Soviets do not.

I think you mean OOB not TOE as neither side can change the TOEs in an ongoing game. Giving the Axis player the ability to create units would not dramatically effect the game as he really doesn't have the resources to do much different than what was done historically and there is very little diversification in his TOEs to begin with.

Any serious game player can take one look at that dynamic and know that strategic playing options are wildly different for the two sides.
Germany is on rails to withdraw Totenkopf in the second half of 42 irrespective of whether there is a Demyansk pocket.

Germany greatly narrowed its strategic options when it initiated a two front war; as the Axis player you must live with the consequences of that decision. You can control what happens on the Eastern Front but not what's happening on those other fronts or decisions being made by the supreme command; you are not Hitler.

So you waste your breath talking to me about history, I'm talking about equanimity in play (though not identical capabilities).

The Soviets get all sorts of tools and abilities with which to improve the efficacy of their whole army that results in a seriously improved 1942 and 1943 fighting force over history's. They get to learn lessons without first failing.

You can't seriously try to tell me that the Axis player doesn't benefit from historical hindsight. Yeah, he might not be able to improve his army but he can certainly improve how it was used.

Germany, meanwhile, can have the entire summer's worth of success snatched from it by the fiat of arbitrary adherence to history. It occurs in morale drops, it occurs in TOE changes, it occurs in withdrawals.

The withdrawals have already be explained, both sides have TOE changes and German TOEs don't significantly decline until late 1943, and German morale is superior to Soviet morale up until 1944.

What I see is a huge community of soviet-fan players who do not care that their opponent's major setbacks are handed to him by game design, not you.

To me, you all have no meaningful concept of fair play.
And this is why I encourage people considering this or future Matrix titles to pay attention to the lop-sided nature of the discussions, the hypocritical and selective adherence to history, the personal attacks against people with different opinions, and my favorite, the insults based on what you have or have not read.

This is Matrix games and its fan base.
This is the future of War in the West.

If you desire a game in which both sides have an equal chance to "win" then games like WitE are not your cup of tea. In any valid simulation of an historical conflict the probability of the historical victor winning has to be greater than 50%. How much greater depends on how overwhelming the historical victor's victory was. Given that the Axis forces were utterly crushed and its supreme command forced to commit suicide, I would say that the Soviet victory was rather overwhelming.

Well put jaw. Perhaps Advanced Tactics would be more suitable.

[2ndACR]

No, I understand the withdraw system. I know they are not really withdraws per se for all units. I would just like to be able to control WHO gets withdrawn and when.

Now I benefit greatly from 20/20 hindsight......of course once we German players come up with a tactic to better our chances, it seems to be taken away from us.....take the March Madness......most of that was the German protecting heavily a core army of 20-30 Div from the blizzard and then moving them back to the front and smashing all in front of them. That tactic has now been voided to a great extent.

But since I benefit from 20/20 hindsight, I should be allowed to have as great a control as the Russian/Allied player. I should be able to IF I have the goodies available, create at least support units. I cannot custom build my army like the Russian's. Would be really nice though. Every one seems to get hung up on the "this is a historical simulation", sorry, but that goes out the window when I hit end turn. Plus if that was the true case, the Russian player would have the exact units that were there historically. Period. No custom building his army. If the real Russian army had 10 infantry Corp, so do you. But that is not the case in the least. I have never understood why one side is given huge control over his army, yet the other side is crippled by history.

Some want a purely historical game.......great, they can have it......we had the same arguments in WITP original and we got the PDU switch to greatly control our plane upgrades. Worked for both sides. Those who want historical, do not use it, but those who want to see and play the "what if" select it.......most play with PDU on. Sucks having 1000 of this superb fighter in the pools and only 8 units use it. While you have 16 units stuck with the worst a/c all game long.

For those wanting a historical game, go for it, take the 6th army and park that puppy in Stalingrad and let it be destroyed. Just remember that while you did the historical thing, the Russian is custom building his army to maximize his strategy. And that army will be way more powerful than historical.

I want control over my TOE upgrade dates......just a simple switch...."upgrade available" and I get to choose whether or not to upgrade that particular unit and when. I would like control over armor upgrade/downgrade ability within defined types.....light, med, heavy, assault etc.......why, because instead of having 20 PZIV in each unit and all at 50% strength, I can make 3 panzer div 100% and the others 80% using lesser quality tanks. I can tailor my armor forces to suit what is happening in the game. It is not all about the withdraws. It just irks me to see that unit sitting in Germany loaded with the best tanks I have available while my front line units are using obsolete tanks.

I am not too concerned with production per se......would be nice......but the total lack of any control what so ever on the side that "must lose" is bothersome. While the side that will win every time, is given great flexibility in everything. If I am doomed to fail/lose......then allow me to best utilize my limited resources to the maximum. I do not want to get into the "but Hitler" this and that......I shot that fool when I took control of the army. Most Russian players shoot Stalin on turn 1 too.......20/20 hindsight is great sometimes.

[randallw]

If it is unfair for the Soviet player to be able to avoid the early rifle corps, what should be done in game terms? Should the player be 'forced' to build some, or be penalized APs? Should the first X rifle corps be the early TOE, no matter whether they are actually put together?

If we want the option for the Germans to stop their TOE changes, does the Soviet side get that option too? If the Germans get the option of avoiding teeny panzer divisions and globs of crap Volksturm divisions does the Soviet player get to keep his tank divisions through the war ( instead of the breakdown into brigades in 1941, then experience penalty when tank corps are created the next year ), and motorized divisions, and keep rifle divisions of 1941 at 14k men ( instead of having to switch to the 1941B division of 10k )?

[Denniss]

An ideal system for returning units would be to get them off-map, receive their TOE changes and return at the specified date. All equipment used for or freed by the TOE change would go into the active pool. I assume too much coding for too little effect.

What I would like to see for withdrawing units is an auto maxTOE decrease to 80 if previously set to 81 or higher for the last two turns prior to withdrawal - no need to send stuff to the front that you would have to move all the way back a week later. If the MaxTOE is below 75% it should be increase to maximum 80%, this would ensure the units get their TOE back to 75% or above but not near max level.
Currently you either have to use a global maxTOE of 75% four your land units or you have to micromanage withdrawing units every turn. As fas I have seen the maxTOE 75% is kept for withdrawing units, even for units below 75% TOE, maxTOE below 75% will be resetted to 100% instead.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: randallw

If it is unfair for the Soviet player to be able to avoid the early rifle corps, what should be done in game terms? Should the player be 'forced' to build some, or be penalized APs? Should the first X rifle corps be the early TOE, no matter whether they are actually put together?

If we want the option for the Germans to stop their TOE changes, does the Soviet side get that option too? If the Germans get the option of avoiding teeny panzer divisions and globs of crap Volksturm divisions does the Soviet player get to keep his tank divisions through the war ( instead of the breakdown into brigades in 1941, then experience penalty when tank corps are created the next year ), and motorized divisions, and keep rifle divisions of 1941 at 14k men ( instead of having to switch to the 1941B division of 10k )?

And keep the 24CP armies.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I want control over my TOE upgrade dates......just a simple switch...."upgrade available" and I get to choose whether or not to upgrade that particular unit and when. I would like control over armor upgrade/downgrade ability within defined types.....light, med, heavy, assault etc.......

I think controlling TOE upgrades is a bit much. Imagine going through several dozen Soviet units every turn...and then trying to track which units have upgraded and which haven't...Considering the scale of this game, we may as well allow for controlling/changing Battalion commanders! But hey, if it's not that difficult to code, a simple option check box in the settings options wouldn't hurt anyone.

As for an option for manual AFV model upgrade, I wholeheartedly agree. Frankly, that was half the fun of playing the old WIR [:)] I have been asking for this option since the day the game was released. The code is there for auto vs. manual upgrading of aircraft, it doesn't seem like a leap of faith is needed to transfer the same option to AFVs for Bde and up sized units (I still don't understand why this is available for aircraft but not AFVs...). I think it should NOT included Russian armoured Bns/Regts, but should be available to German (but not Axis Allied) Bn sized armoured units.

[Schmart]

double post.

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: randallw

If it is unfair for the Soviet player to be able to avoid the early rifle corps, what should be done in game terms? Should the player be 'forced' to build some, or be penalized APs? Should the first X rifle corps be the early TOE, no matter whether they are actually put together?

If we want the option for the Germans to stop their TOE changes, does the Soviet side get that option too? If the Germans get the option of avoiding teeny panzer divisions and globs of crap Volksturm divisions does the Soviet player get to keep his tank divisions through the war ( instead of the breakdown into brigades in 1941, then experience penalty when tank corps are created the next year ), and motorized divisions, and keep rifle divisions of 1941 at 14k men ( instead of having to switch to the 1941B division of 10k )?

I am all for the options......The Russian player can tailor build his army from the ground up if he so desires. If the option to allow manual upgrades is enabled, then both sides get to have the cake and eat it too. Of course I feel that since he (the Russian) already gets to create basically any unit he wants, and the German cannot, that they should be forced to use what little "historical" restraints they have. This last one is a personal feeling and probably not for main stream players.

As stated, it bothers me that one side has it's hands tied to the extreme almost while the other side has way too much freedom. All I ask for is the option for the German player to have more control over his forces. I am not asking to be able to build 10 new Panzer div, or 3 new SS panzer Div......I would love to be able to build support units.

[Aurelian]

Do you have a list of support units built by OKH?

It's Gary you have to convince, and a such a list plus sources just might do so.

[2ndACR]

Well, do we have a list of all the Russian units that were built by the Russians at will like they do in the game?

He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?

Your tossing the same argument as everyone else about everything. "But the Germans did not have that in real life" when we are saying "why do the Russians have the ability to construct their army from the ground up at will".

Not some BS about lists........I would be perfectly happy if the Russian ability to build anything outside of completely historical OOB was removed and they had to deal with the same thing the German players have to deal with. They can have their units arrive via exact timetable just like the German player. If a Russian is destroyed, his unit will do the same as the German, head east and rebuild. They can have no more and no less than what the Russians had in WW2.

Then the playing field would actually feel more level.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Well, do we have a list of all the Russian units that were built by the Russians at will like they do in the game?

He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?

Your tossing the same argument as everyone else about everything. "But the Germans did not have that in real life" when we are saying "why do the Russians have the ability to construct their army from the ground up at will".

Not some BS about lists........I would be perfectly happy if the Russian ability to build anything outside of completely historical OOB was removed and they had to deal with the same thing the German players have to deal with. They can have their units arrive via exact timetable just like the German player. If a Russian is destroyed, his unit will do the same as the German, head east and rebuild. They can have no more and no less than what the Russians had in WW2.

Then the playing field would actually feel more level.

What they had historically was a lot, in fact a lot more than most Soviet players would ever build. As the Soviet player, I would love to have the historical Soviet OOB and not have to screw around with building units. Yes, I would get some clunkers like Ski battalions, Motorcylce regiments, Anti-tank rifle battalions, etc. but I would avoid all the time and pain of building those corps or figuring out what support units really matter.

I guess I'm the odd man out but I actually prefer playing the Soviets to managing them; I get enough of that at work. [:D]

[Helpless]

He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?

You are fighting the windmills. There is no such advantage you are talking about. As Jim says I'm yet to see the late war save file with the historical amount of units built. In fact if you made such list it won't fit into the current amount of free slots. Not to mention arranging all the time schedule. Game still would be in development.

Edit: .. and, btw, at the early was the price building new onmap units is so high that, you can't really afford many (if any). We have done as much as we could to make it strict in 1941-42.

[KamilS]

quote:

He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?

Helpless

You are fighting the windmills. There is no such advantage you are talking about. As Jim says I'm yet to see the late war save file with the historical amount of units built. In fact if you made such list it won't fit into the current amount of free slots. Not to mention arranging all the time schedule. Game still would be in development.

Game was released year ago and still received patch after patch, what mean that there were some misjudgements.

If I am right and development team is not omnipotent, then why do You thing You are right in that case, when clearly other option wasn't extensively tested?



In my opinion. fact that it is possible to adjust Soviet army according to in-game situation is big advantage for red side.

When I saw Soviet army in AAR presenting "Don to Danube" scenario I lost all of my doubts.

[Helpless]

Game was released year ago and still received patch after patch, what mean that there were some misjudgements.

There are plenty of conclusions could be driven from the fact. The one you mentioned is also true, but by far not the only one.

If I am right and development team is not omnipotent, then why do You thing You are right in that case, when clearly other option wasn't extensively tested?

Don't understand how opinion can be tested..

In my opinion. fact that it is possible to adjust Soviet army according to in-game situation is big advantage for red side.

When I saw Soviet army in AAR presenting "Don to Danube" scenario I lost all of my doubts.

It is possible to do ahistorical things for each side.

[KamilS]

quote:

If I am right and development team is not omnipotent, then why do You thing You are right in that case, when clearly other option wasn't extensively tested?

Helpless


Don't understand how opinion can be tested..

hehe, that was unnecessary remark

and I have to confess I have written option not opinion

quote:

In my opinion. fact that it is possible to adjust Soviet army according to in-game situation is big advantage for red side.

When I saw Soviet army in AAR presenting "Don to Danube" scenario I lost all of my doubts.

Helpless

It is possible to do ahistorical things for each side.

ok, lets put this that way.


First blizzard. Soviet cavalry corps.

Is Soviet side benefiting from ability to build them or it does not matter what kind of units Soviet army consists of?

[Helpless]

hehe, that was unnecessary remark

and I have to confess I have written option not opinion

it doesn't change the fact - I see no way how we could test (every) option, which is still driven by someone's subjective opinion.

First blizzard. Soviet cavalry corps.

Is Soviet side benefiting from ability to build them or it does not matter what kind of units Soviet army consists of?

I don't understand the question? Yes, some sides have various benefits, but we try to limit them within available resources. What you have is pretty much historical.