Matrix Games Forums

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.

That's the mechanism used in the OCS series.

Yes, but not WITE, where the whim-of-god rules. "Too many guns" is not a problem, as in supply means in supply. Even the overstacking rules are only a partial salve, and you can still pack your stacking limit, in-depth, over a short length of front and attack at immediately full-offensive supply with multiple echelons with limited/no penalties.

Everything uses the supply capacity too... building extensive fortifications is really hard on local/operational supplies, each bunker/minefield taking considerable resources to build, with at least increased supply usage for the building troops (in forage and rations), and at worst huge quantities of lumber/cement/concrete/mines.

OTOH, fortifications should be easily buildable in winter (and shelter too, as snow/ice makes excellent bullet-proof/camouflaged/wind-proof shelters), it seems that troops are stuck with what they had 'before the freeze'. These improvised fortifications should of course evaporate with the coming of mud, and a double track should account for pre-winter permanent shelter, and that made from ice - with a limited re-building in mud after the end of the freeze eliminating the trench-warfare situation of 1942 to a large degree.

ORIGINAL: herwin
That's the mechanism used in the OCS series.

And that's the the very mechanism that makes OCS stand head and shoulder above similar games.
The ability to manage supply is the key to realism in a strategic level simulation.
I presume that some variation on the theme "HQ buildup" could give WitE some mechanics that replicate this kind of stockpiling.
Now think for a moment how many perceived "problems" will have a direct solution: limiting the overall offensive ability of the Red Army in 1942, making selected pocket more likely to resist... etc. etc.

ORIGINAL: Lieste
OTOH, fortifications should be easily buildable in winter (and shelter too, as snow/ice makes excellent bullet-proof/camouflaged/wind-proof shelters), it seems that troops are stuck with what they had 'before the freeze'. These improvised fortifications should of course evaporate with the coming of mud, and a double track should account for pre-winter permanent shelter, and that made from ice - with a limited re-building in mud after the end of the freeze eliminating the trench-warfare situation of 1942 to a large degree.

Snow and ice is NOT very bulletproof. You need several meters of ice and snow is worthless as bullet protection. It is not practical to build any kind of fortifications using snow and ice, all it will do is give some cover and concealment. I did learn the amount of ice needed for adequate protection in the army, but I have forgotten it, but I do remember it was much more than you would have expected. With ground frozen it is extremely difficult to dig. The game models this correctly IMHO.

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.

+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Or recognise that doubling the supply of tubes, also means (at least) doubling the nominal requirement for ammunition supply*, and thus halves the tempo of offensive build-up (but increases the likely duration and success of each phase once launched)

*In practice higher as the proportion of additional tubes which are heavy is greater than the organic Divisional tubes. There has to be geographical and temporal limits to the build-up of supply - simply waving a paw and saying "I want to use these 12 infantry Corps, 3 Tank Corps and 6 Artillery Divisions to crush this segment of front" and hoping it to happen this week is silly - operations at this scale took months of build-up, and week(s) to plan and start even when all resources are present.

Requiring a supply build-up before any offensive operations (but allowing it to be sustained over multiple turns as long as the offensive is still in an effective supply range) and limiting the number of build-ups possible per turn would automatically reduce the tempo of operations. You could build-up a large number of units only by holding off attacks, or could throw a smaller offensive 'now', but with limited chances of strategic success. A spoiling attack could have a chance of disruption of this build-up.

I agree, supply could have been better used for limiting the tempo of operations. In a game as detailed as WITE, there must surely be the possibilities for simulating the connection between supply and offensive operations in more detail.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: Mynok


The Russians will be in Berlin by mid 44 if you require the Germans to static units in order get level 3 or better forts. You really need to understand what a hammer the Soviets wield by late 43.

+1...even level 3 forts offer only meager protection for your rapidly dwindling units in 43 or 44, and if you have trouble moving them out...

Better option is to limit fort building by Soviet brigades (since limiting German regiments would cause the same problems Mynok refers to). If brigades can't really dig past lvl 1, it largely solves the "belts" problem of 42 and 43 since the Soviets don't have enough divisions to build hordes of forts...and it would be a major waste of time and APs to create tons of divisions just for the purpose of doing so.

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

I agree, and have brought this up several times. One more time can't hurt, can it?[:D]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

Yes, I agree, and would be a better option than requiring static units.

Perhaps allow either static units or FZs to get past level 2.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

But that would be somewhat artificial and hard to explain. Better IMHO to require a FZ for forts above level 2. The Germans usually have APs to spare in late war, the Soviets don't in 1942.

Yes, I agree, and would be a better option than requiring static units.

Perhaps allow either static units or FZs to get past level 2.

That would also give the Soviets the choice in early 1942 of either digging in or creating new units and expanding and organising the army. That seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
That would also give the Soviets the choice in early 1942 of either digging in or creating new units and expanding and organising the army. That seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

While the tradeoff is reasonable, I'm not sure that it is particularly realistic: why would creating/organizing new units prevent existing units from fortifying?

I've seen lots of references to concrete, etc., but am not convinced that you would necessarily need loads of concrete to take fortications to levels 3 or 4: I think that the main thing would be whether any bunkers/entrenchements were well-placed and extensive, even if the bunders were based on wooden beams, etc. While I've seen a few WWII Soviet bunkers made of concrete in places like the Valdai hills, my general impression has always been that they relied much more on the shovel and axe than the cement mixer.

And yet people keep ignoring (why, that's what I would like to know) that the Soviets fortified many places behind their front, as I already said quite many times [8|] It's a Socialist society, they concentrate on ONE thing and do it EN MASSE! They had engineer A R M I E S.

Yes, they were caught pants down the same in the south in 1942. But of course they expected agressive German moves in Moscow area. That's where they had concentrated their efforts, ressources.

If the Soviets cannot dig behind the frontline then I'm sorry this game is NOT about the Great Patriotic War...

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.

Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know. No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.

Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know. No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.

I follow you. Problem IMHO starts when you make a good/very good 41 summer campaign against a PBEM noob and you are still facing a 3/4 layers deep of units + level 3 forts when the end of spring mud 42 starts. And it's not that this fortified front is in one place or one zone and you can by careful observation find some weaker place. It's all over the whole north/south line.

ORIGINAL: saintsup

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

TD, that's like saying "If the Soviet isn't forced to commit to stupid defensive positions and faulty attacks, it's not about the GPW"

Be reasonable.  The Soviet player understands fully the operational tempo that the German can maintain, how best to defend, and where best to fortify.  These a-historic advantages enabled by full understanding of the WitE model and perfect hindsight to WW2 history harm play balance and replayability.

Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know. No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.

I follow you. Problem IMHO starts when you make a good/very good 41 summer campaign against a PBEM noob and you are still facing a 3/4 layers deep of units + level 3 forts when the end of spring mud 42 starts. And it's not that this fortified front is in one place or one zone and you can by careful observation find some weaker place. It's all over the whole north/south line.

Some German players have already proven these apparently intimidating carpets might be the DOOM of the Soviet player in fact [:)] PDH for example. Mega pockets, yes in 1942 vs these carpets = game over.

And it makes sense. IF you have everyone in the front (AND you must have them to form these massive carpets) AND your opponent knows how to destroy this defence you are -as I have said- doomed, because all the eggs are in one basket. So where's the problem? I guess the German players should learn HOW to destroy this defence. Just like PDH and some others did [:)]

EDIT: just for the record, my [Soviet] frontlines in 1942 are VERY thin, except of course in front of the panzers.

Is there an AAR of PDH fighting the carpet defense do you know? I would like to learn that paticular skill.

Sure, this one [:)]

tm.asp?m=2738900&mpage=14&key=

Thanks TulliusDetritus [:)]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Heliodorus, as a matter of fact, digging [Soviet side] IS only an issue in 1942. That year and only that year [;)] In 1941 it's a luxury you simply cannot afford. You need everyone to stop the fascist tide. And 1943, Soviet Corps, etc...

I tend to agree - the digging in is only a problem from Spring 42 to Summer 43. There ought to be some restrictions on it until that point, IMO.

Where's the "a-historic" advantage in 1942? [&:] Each German player is free to attack wherever he wants. Not scrypted. Maybe you will strike in the north, or the center or the south. So?

This isn't the advantage I'm referring to, and I get your point about freedom of action benefiting both sides, probably equally. This isn't the a-historic advantage that I'm referring to.

I would say fortifying some (or many) places behind your rear IS a basic, elementary military principle that any corporal has to know.

No rocket science. And you say "get rid of that"? This might make sense in a rather rudimentary tactical game. But this is a very complex and sophisticated OPERATIONAL game (à la WitP of course). If these deep defensive lines and strongpoints existed in the real life (see again my corporal analogy) I WANT them in the game. Period.

Okay, first, this is NOT an operational game, nor is it an operational simulation. The fact that you and I don't have to move artillery shells from a stockpile in the rear to a stockpile in the front completely nullifies the idea that this is an operational game. This may be an arbitrary definition, but operational warfare involves the hard math of logistical operations, and this game ain't got none of that (that the player need concern himself with), so it fails by my definition (and by the standard military meaning of the term operational warfare). What logistics are done by abstraction are unrealistic, I think logisticians here would agree.

Second, your ideal everyman corporal also knows that he digs in to face a particular avenue of approach, and if he's got time and materials, then he digs additional trenches and hull-down positions to face at most a 180-degree threat. I say again: Well-read and experienced Grognards need to be consistent in what they argue feel is tactical and common sense. 360-degree forts are neither tactical, operational, nor common sense. Even the Maginot Line faced only certain directions...

Third, any given brigade commander who was ordered to slow down a 1941 German panzer division with his 1500 men and 42 tanks would know that he was doomed unless he did not engage - his goal would be not to get fixed in position (or launch a suicide attack that would last about a day). Yet the model in this game enables him to successfully slow a force 10 times his size in men, and 3 to 4 times his size in tanks while taking minimal losses.

Even in the winter of 42/43, Manstein and the SS Panzerkorps were able to maul such units over and over, despite their tenuous supply situation, fatigue, mechanical breakdown of equipment and weather conditions for a month (February/March 43), rendering those brigades combat ineffective for the remainder of the operation.

Fourth, a real Soviet army or front commander would not be able to abandon important population centers until after the NKVD had gone in and rounded up all the useful stockpiles of food, fuel, and able-bodied men & women who could either hold a rifle (or, alternately, 5 rounds of ammo) or are able to hobble around an assembly line enough to build T-34s and 122mm guns. But in WitE, all you need to do is wait for the Germans to arrive and all of that stuff magically enters teleporters and ends up in the Urals, where, next week, they are issued rifles and grease guns and they go to work as normal. A real Soviet commander would have to care about evacuating everything in as good an order as possible, and this would affect operations as well.

So please, spare me the idea that these things are realistic. The game is an algorithm of abstractions, and some of the abstractions are ideal, and some of them were thought to be good at release, but clearly they can be readily exploited to unrealistic advantage. MOST of the abstractions are a-historic, whether they work ideally or not. It's the exploitable ones that create grossly inaccurate leverage that I concern myself about, and the ones that are fun-sucks because they force the player to wait on the algorithm to get its shit together (I'm specifically thinking of the PzkwIV N models lying in the motor pool doing nothing, or the BF109s going to Romania when you damn well need them in the Luftwaffe) that need to be addressed.

Hopefully that helps you better understand where I'm coming from.