1.05.59 rule changes more German nerfs?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

One of the biggest turnoffs for me in this game has been the fact that it is either WW1 style or one side or the other gets the track shoes on and both armies spend far more time running than fighting.

But...that's more or less the war on the Eastern Front as it was historically too. Neither the Soviets nor the Germans regained the initiative prior to the enemy exhausting itself during the war, and there were long periods where very little happened on large sectors of the frontline, primarily in the north. If anything, the front wide attacks in WitE each turn are ahistorical, but improvements to static mode have made those more rare for the Axis, although the Soviets can still launch them.

An Eastern Front game that allows both sides to attack, without stalemates, would not be a true Eastern Front game.

The game is sold as a what if game not a cookie cutter you must follow history.

Read the adds.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it’s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that’s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.

You speak the truth as have many poeple who are getting sick and tired of the constant German nerf after german nerf. Then the constant Russian baby sitting patch after patch.

Its to the point that 2by3 just doesnt care if they sell another game, they are going out of there way to piss as many poeple off as possible.

They just 100% do not give a dam what anyone thinks.

The game is not follow anything historical at this point. Combat system needs a major overhaul and they are tring to sell push some exp pack loaded with a joke rad fanboy patch.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

WE ARE BACK TO THE OLD WORLD WAR ONE on the eastern front again.

Pelton

Its clear that patch has

Flaviusx said"You alrdy see that 1942 will be a stalemate, The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- "

1. be bigger then 1.05 by 1.25 million men
2. have 4 months to build forts
3. be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

Those are the facts.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it’s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that’s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.

ORIGINAL: Toidi

It seems to me that now:
- thanks to relatively safe winter/spring of '42 SU can get back to the trench warfare in '42 (I'm pretty sure I can do it with some effort & engineering armies)
- Reduced armies capability is going to hurt in the long turn, but not as much as people are fearing; I have no problem with it
- vehicles are going to hurt much more than the armies reduction; even 10k reduction in vehicles in '43 for SU is hurting; fair enough
- impact of making shock/guards armies a window dressing only (as +1 admin is really not that important imho) will affect the game; maybe it is a good idea
- it seems to me that now chances for major victory for German are nil again; chances for draw are probably same or higher
- impact of weather on reinforcements (especially in blizzard) will hurt Germany a lot. This change will lead to a much more difficult blizzard defense, especially for those who like to fight in blizzard (which was pretty much achievable, not sure anymore); it is the only change I like a lot (as it removes inconsistencies), but I think it may backfire badly

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Anyone who has read Pelton's stuff will have taken note that he has made suggestions to IMPROVE the Russian side (He was one of the first to call for a bump in the armaments multiplier after a new patch dropped it by a lot). This is no different than Flav and ComradeP who have made good suggestions for the Germans, although they are more associated with the "Russian side". While Pelton can sometimes get a bit passionate about the topic of the game, it would be a mistake to assume he wants the "I win" button. If you look at his record, he wins pretty regularly as it is.

As far as my view on this patch, I think it is a step back.

[/quote]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

As the combat system won't be overhauled for the moment, that means the oddities of the combat system (like retreat losses probably being too high for smaller attacks and too low for big ones and wildly fluctuating Soviet losses when attacking) will be there for the future, and they can't be balanced because the problem is with the combat system, not something that's easier to balance like replacements.

ORIGINAL: MechFO

March Madness is a side effect of the too permissive logistics in WITE.

IMO the current March Madness is a result of overextended Soviets low on supply meeting well supplied Blizzard-sheltered Germans. The results are not unreasonable. "March-Madness" isn't occurring with German units that had to man the line, that would be unreasonable.

ORIGINAL: colberki

I just hope WITE does not end up like many games especially those from Russian or Eastern European developers where the Germans (in the game) are destined to lose. It maybe not politically correct for the Germans to win but this is a game. But this new rule reducing German CV during the winter of 1941-42 is feeling like the last straw for me.[:@] And I have been enjoying playing both German and Soviet sides - seems GG is giving in the the ever vocal minority on the forum.

ORIGINAL: Kamil


I think these changes will lower dynamics of fighting in '42. Germans will be less able to attack, but it will take more time to mount serious offensive by Red Army. So both sides will grow grow and grow while front remain static.

I hope I am wrong.

ORIGINAL: sj80

I think Kamil and Pelton are right. 1942 will become much more static now. [:(]
I fear this patch is a half step backwards in WITE "evolution".

It will become now much more important to run as Axis backwards during blizzard to save morale and manpower. Without a snow offensive during winter 1942 the Sovjet strength and the fort levels will increase much. Axis offensive actions in 1942 will become weaker now.
I'm really waiting for the patch that prevents Axis retreats during blizzard with high equipment losses. I think it's only a matter of time until the last loophole for the Axis player is closed.
Pelton is also right with naming the major problem: Germany is bound to historic results, Sovjets are free. It seems there are too few Axis fanboys and too many Sovjet fanboys out there. [:(]

sj80

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?

[wadortch]

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?

[RCHarmon]

I have become fully aware that this is a game and in no way a simulation.

The blitzkrieg was made possible by the Luftwaffe. Everyone remembers the Germans for their tanks. How many battles were won by the Tiger or Panther? Very very few. The victories that the Germans had in France, Poland, Greece, and Russia in 1941 were with the Panzer III and a few Panzer Mark IVs. If you follow the air war you can see a trend in WW2. The trend is with planes and not tanks. This game has inexperienced Soviet pilots with biplanes in parity with German 109s with battle experienced pilots and in 1941. The Germans in 1941 really can do without the Luftwaffe, I don't see how that is realistic. This game has not been developed by looking at two sides, but is overly influenced on one side.

Large problems exist. One example is that of supply. This game routinely allows armies of both sides to operate miles from their supply bases with little or no ill effects. I know the Panzers run out of gas and that is a real problem, but overall the entire supply situation for both sides is really unbelievable.

Why don't some players play some historical games and then we can see how it plays out? Let's test this game as a simulation. Hitler and Stalin are back in charge and the player generals have their hands tied to actual decisions that were made in WW2. That means the Soviet player has to counter attack in 1941. The German player must fight right up to the blizzard without any preparation. Once the blizzard hits only the German generals who retreated will be allowed to do so, such as Guderian, then Guderian will be removed from the game and never given another command, just like actual history. In 1942 the Germans must push into Stalingrad and allow themselves to be flanked and cut off. If there is a test for this simulation then lets play it out. It is possible to do. If the game ends in Berlin in April 1945 and results from 1941 to 1945 are historically feasible within a certain degree of error then we have a good game. It is my assumption that the Axis will prove to be too strong in 1941 and the Soviets too strong after 1942 and unhistorical situations will develop(out of the bounds historical irregularities). I know for sure that the current air war will not follow any kind of historical accuracy at any time in the war. I would do it myself except I am not that strong of a player. We have players that can do it if they wish. I say test the game and lets see.

I am tired of the Axis players being driven away with insults. If the Soviets are so sure of their position they should all be for this test. I am also tired of the apologetic Axis players who say yes I'm going to lose, but please give me a piece of cheese. You yourselves know that this game is biased, but don't want to be attacked and marginalized and want to get along.

Test this game and then let the results be accepted. Is there a scientist or mathematician here who can disagree that this game can be modeled and tested.

I think we all deserve historical results if this game is going to be marketed as a simulation. If it is only a game , well then the Soviets just about have their game.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?

Nothing because its a cool thing that Russians can do. 100% none historical, but possible.

The German Snow O is 100% historically possible, but is nerfed because this game is about nerfing German what ifs and supporting Russian what ifs.

Patch after patch thats the standard 2by3 MO.

Russians get gifts and German get the nerf bat

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: RCH

I have become fully aware that this is a game and in no way a simulation.

The blitzkrieg was made possible by the Luftwaffe. Everyone remembers the Germans for their tanks. How many battles were won by the Tiger or Panther? Very very few. The victories that the Germans had in France, Poland, Greece, and Russia in 1941 were with the Panzer III and a few Panzer Mark IVs. If you follow the air war you can see a trend in WW2. The trend is with planes and not tanks. This game has inexperienced Soviet pilots in parity with German 109s with battle experienced pilots and in 1941. The Germans in 1941 really can do without the Luftwaffe, I don't see how that is realistic. This game has not been developed by looking at two sides, but is overly influenced on one side.

Large problems exist. One example is that of supply. This game routinely allows armies of both sides to operate miles from their supply bases with little or no ill effects. I know the Panzers run out of gas and that is a real problem, but overall the entire supply situation for both sides is really unbelievable.

Why don't some players play some historical games and then we can see how it plays out? Let's test this game as a simulation. Hitler and Stalin are back in charge and the player generals have their hands tied to actual decisions that were made in WW2. That means the Soviet player has to counter attack in 1941. The German player must fight right up to the blizzard without any preparation. Once the blizzard hits only the German generals who retreated will be allowed to do so, such as Guderian, then Guderian will be removed from the game and never given another command, just like actual history. In 1942 the Germans must push into Stalingrad and allow themselves to be flanked and cut off. If there is a test for this simulation then lets play it out. It is possible to do. If the game ends in Berlin in April 1945 and results from 1941 to 1945 are historically feasible within a certain degree of error then we have a good game. It is my assumption that the Axis will prove to be too strong in 1941 and the Soviets too strong after 1942 and unhistorical situations will develop(out of the bounds historical irregularities). I know for sure that the current air war will not follow any kind of historical accuracy at any time in the war. I would do it myself except I am not that strong of a player. We have players that can do it if they wish. I say test the game and lets see.

I am tired of the Axis players being driven away with insults. If the Soviets are so sure of their position they should all be for this test. I am also tired of the apologetic Axis players who say yes I'm going to lose, but please give me a piece of cheese. You yourselves know that this game is biased, but don't want to be attacked and marginalized and want to get along.

Test this game and then let the results be accepted. Is there a scientist or mathematician here who can disagree that this game can be modeled and tested.

I think we all deserve historical results if this game is going to be marketed as a simulation. If it is only a game , well then the Soviets just about have their game.

I have "tested' 19 games now more then anyone far more then anyone.

I have the results and have stated them over and over, but still its German nerf after nerf an gift after gift to the russian side.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Changes look balanced to me.

Even though the drop in Soviet army span doesn't look good at first blush, it's in the right direction. (I think. If not, one will get used to it.)

And wild, I had nothing to do with all this either...........

You may be right Aurelian,but if you are i won't know it. Unfortunately i am finished with this game. It is very sad, but i like to play the Germans and as it stands they are just not fun to play. This patch does nothing to correct that and will probably make it worse.

It's a shame because as an AI only player i see all Gary's hard work on the AI going for naught. But the game just leans too far to the Soviets to make it enjoyable. If they would have only given us some of the options they gave the soviets or for that matter anything really to do after '41. Sigh...

Goodbye.

[JAMiAM]

Honestly, as a 70:30, Axis:Soviet Player, I feel that the changes are more of a hit against the Soviets, than the Axis. I think that people are getting worked up against a relatively minor, and short-termed effect against the Axis (the March effect) and totally neglecting the game-long, (from 9/41) of the declining Soviet army level command capacity. This will have effects against them before the first winter even hits, allowing the Axis better gains in late 1941. To offset this, the Soviets are going to have to divert a lot of resources (manpower and APs) to increasing their REMF percentage. This, in turn, has the effect of lessening boots on the ground, and slowing the conversion of the Soviet army. Else, they will be suffering from those boots on the ground being less effective.

Anyone claiming that this patch somehow favors the Axis over the Soviets is simply not looking at the big picture.

[wadortch]

I share this perception. Pelton takes his hits for his style but I think many of his point are on point. What is the ultimate goal for the game if both sides play a "perfect" game? I would think a draw. What I sense is that the Soviet play testers who I believe are exerting a bias on the game seek is Soviet win which may be historically supportable and proper for a simulation but makes for a lousy GAME.

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The Russians now are going to probably be able to continue to attack well into February if not all the way to the end of February. Right now, they start looking to wind it down the first part of February and certainly by the middle of the month, most Russian offensives are done. Nothing wrong, but the Russians now know the Germans probably can't do anything to them if they extend themselves.

And you know what, that's what happened in real life too. The Soviet Union didn't stop attacking in early February and start making preparation for March Madness -- which never in fact happened in real life. (The real life March madness happened in March...of 1943. March 1942 was a mutual exhaustion society.)

I'm gobsmacked by the number of people here who are defending this March stuff. It's blatantly ahistorical. Nobody should be surprised to see attempt to bring it in line. It is every bit as indefensible as the 1.04 Maginot line business -- nor does getting rid of it mean that we are going back to 1.04. This isn't a binary solution, folks.

You missed the next line:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I understand the desire to nerf the March counter offensives to tone them down some. Part of the issue is not the fact that the Germans are busy attacking, but that they have so much mobility to go with it. Do I have a suggested fix for it? Not really

I realize something has to be done with the "March Madness", but I think it perhaps went too far the other way. Testing should show that one way or another with some AAR's.

I would also toss the historical card out. Why? Historically, the Germans didn't have a pool of reserves that are fresh and not worn out by winter. In the AAR's, most of the German units conducting these "March Madness" offensives are reserve units that spent the winter in Poland/Germany out of harms way and are specificially brought back in to help restore order from a German standpoint of view. Not only are they fresh units, but they are typically elite moral units (IE, the cream of what was left of the 1941 army). In the real campaign, the Germans had less than 200 operational tanks in March of 42. In the AAR's we see, the Germans have many times more concentrated in crack units.

So, is the game going to once again tie the German's hands based on how the campaign unfolded in history? Sure looks like it to me.

This is the same type of thinking that will perhaps see the Lvov pocket opening nerfed as well because it wasn't done "historically".

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I'm a bit astounded by some of the views to be honest. After all the work and effort that's has gone into this. As Joel has stated elsewhere is this a perfect game? No but it's a darn sight more balanced, improved and enjoyable experience than it was previously.

Despite the conspiracy theorists out there us testers don't have agendas. We just test and some also have a great historical knowledge to contribute as well. We also do this of our own free will and time.

I really wish people would just give it a shot rather than bitching and whining to their hearts content. I mean do you really think Gary, Pavel, Joel et al and us testers would really do our best to create a massively biased, fanboy and derisive update?!?

The testers and staff deserve a lot of praise and kudos for producing such a game. It is an award winner as it should be. That doesn't mean it is not without flaws, which everyone realizes.

In my eyes, perhaps part of the issue is the WITE staff/play test group face a credibility issue. They have put a lot of restrants on the Germans in the game in part because the rest of the series is not ready. (Forced withdraws, inability to custom make units to name a few issues). In addition to a lot of the issues the Germans have faced in this game, while the community has a strong presence of testers who post from the Russian perspective, there never has been a steady poster that has helped the Axis in the same way that the community has gotten help from the primarily Russian testers. I am not picking on the primarily Russian testers here; they do a terrific job and offer keen insight into the Soviet side and also give good perspective of the German side. It is that the community does not have a Axis version of the same thing.

Now, the staff/testers can come out in a big uproar of the above and say it isn't true, etc but I am sorry, the perception is there.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

One of the biggest turnoffs for me in this game has been the fact that it is either WW1 style or one side or the other gets the track shoes on and both armies spend far more time running than fighting.

But...that's more or less the war on the Eastern Front as it was historically too. Neither the Soviets nor the Germans regained the initiative prior to the enemy exhausting itself during the war, and there were long periods where very little happened on large sectors of the frontline, primarily in the north. If anything, the front wide attacks in WitE each turn are ahistorical, but improvements to static mode have made those more rare for the Axis, although the Soviets can still launch them.

An Eastern Front game that allows both sides to attack, without stalemates, would not be a true Eastern Front game.

I don't necessarily disagree with you to a point. My issue is there is nothing really important to fight for that a player, especially a Russian, will make a stand for. Both sides play run away (Russian in the summer/fall, German during the winter, Russian during the spring/summer) and the whole thing essentially becomes a counter shoving match back and forth rather than seeing a lot of fighting going on. The fort changes have been a tremendous beneficial change.

Part of the issue is there isn't the ability to have a real good give and take slugging match. The Russians can very rarely counter attack in 1941 and the Germans still can't counter attack without taking casualties that are far too favorable to the Russians from 42 on, no matter what the odds are.

[wadortch]

And time and time again you come back to your defense, to honor the simulation. Which means Soviets should win. I read Matrix Games, not Matrix Simulations, now when are you going to get with that?
I am not interested in investing hundreds of hours playing a GAME well as Axis the Soviets always win sir.

uote]ORIGINAL: Flavius

Micheal T, everybody is biased. Neutrality is an illusion -- as is observer independence. The only interesting question is who is biased in what way.

When you claim you are not biased, you're just kidding yourself. I'm willing to grant that your own biases are not crudely in favor of one side or the other -- but it's fairly clear to me that you lean strongly on the game end of the spectrum versus the simulation one. Time and again you propose things from that perspective. Historicity isn't particularly your concern. You and I are bound to clash because I'm more of a simulation guy, and most of the things you propose don't make much sense to me from that standpoint. We already went through this with the VP business a while back.

That being said, I actually agree you with on the very late end date for 45 -- I don't like it either, it's fantasyland. It ought to be truncated.
[/quote]

[Flaviusx]

Ideally between equal opponents, it ought to be a draw or minor win. That's not "always a Soviet victory." I think the current VPs for the campaign game reflect that, there's definitely a clock ticking, although extending things to October 45 is a bit much.

But if you are asking me: should the Germans have a chance to flat out win in 1941-2 between equal opponents? Just plain overrun the Soviet Union?

No. Not even remotely possible. Not between evenly skilled opponents, anyways. I get the feeling a lot of folks have problems with that. And if so, we're never going to agree on this. They want the game design to enable something that it really should not, not if it tries to be in any way a simulation. There's other games out there that will allow this; I can recommend the fun, but not very historical Time of Fury if that's the kind of thing you're looking for.

[wadortch]

Bravo!

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it’s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that’s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.

[Farfarer61]

If this thread gets any more poplular Super PACs will be posting

[stone10]

I enjoy playing both sides and I think it's much better to nerf Germans in early war.
People playing game for fun. In 1.05, the morale rule change favored the Germans so much that the only thing the Soviets can do is to run basicly. There's no fun at all to play as Soviets in early war. I see no fun in just moving massive amount of counters around a huge map and pray for them. On the contrary, it's much fun to play as Germans. You can slaughter reds easily. If things don't look good you can just say there's no hope and end the game or simply disappear. You can also choose to say that this game biased toward Soviet side or your opponent know more tricks than you do.
 

[Michael T]

Flaviusx I enjoy simulations and games, as long as both sides in each kind are treated equally. It seems to me you are quite happy to enforce simulation type restraints on the Axis but not so much on the Soviets.

Example:

The German extent of advance is limited by its railheads (read the logistical model). You constantly call for limiting this so called unrealistic model. Yet you show no inclination to model the Soviet contraints set by Stalin. That is the freedom the Soviet players have in running away and giving up vast tracts of territory and cities that would never have been possible under Stalins regime.

You can't say the game is a simulation when the Soviets have this freedom. I create simulations and models as my vocation. I know something about building models. Leaving out a parameter/factor such as this (Soviet freedom to retreat) renders WITE as a game, not a model of reality.

Really allowing the Soviets this freedom should be balanced by allowing the Germans to plow extra resources in to rail conversion that would accelerate the rate of railhead advance.

It is a fact that many military historians still have trouble explaining how Germany defeated France and Britain in 6 weeks in 1940. Most games/simulations have trouble recreating it. Yet it occured. If it had not happened and had somehow played out in to a stalemate I have no doubt you would be among the people who would be saying 'What, Germany defeat the Western Allies in 6 weeks. What rubbish!'

[Flaviusx]

Micheal T, you are conflating two separate things: mechanical and unavoidable logistical constraints, and political constraints.

Let's compare apples to apples: if you want Stalin rules, then you have to get Hitler rules. Logistical rules are essentially apolitical and have nothing to do with either. The game doesn't have such rules for either side, by and large, except in the vaguest sense of victory conditions.

So to the extent the game is unrealistic for lack of "hard" political constraints on the Soviet side, I say it is a wash. The Axis doesn't have them either, mostly. You won't hear me calling for Hitler standfast rules, btw. That's a can of worms I'd just as well leave alone.

The logistical model is a purely military and operational issue.

I don't think anybody is totally happy with the game's logistical model. Plainly, there's room for improvement here. (And I expect to see improvements for it in WitW.)

[76mm]

Another huge game-changing patch which screws up on-going games. ... So, I'm in 1943 after playing a campaign game for over a year, and most of my armies have almost 30 CPs so are now massively overloaded. It will take about a million APs to fix that small problem. Unless Ketza agrees to play without this patch, that game is over.

I have had it with investing tons of time into this game only to have massive changes introduced which make it difficult or impossible to continue.

And I didn't see any explanation for why CP caps should DECREASE over time as the Soviets, so I guess it is just a hack to introduce more "balance"?

[Flaviusx]

76mm, it's not a hack, but I myself don't really agree with it. There is a legitimate justification for it insofar as Soviet armies in absolute numbers did tend to decline over the course of the war. (Not universally or uniformly, there's many exceptions, but the trend is clear.)

The tank army change is open and shut -- that one doesn't leave much room for debate, the Sovs almost never deviated from the 3 corps norm. They never should have been allowed to be as big as they originally were in command capacity. I can name on my fingers the occasions they deviated from the norm, and they are all exceptional:

1. The ad hoc Group Popov which had 4 understrength tank corps in the 42-3 offensive.

2. Rotmitstrov's 5. Guards Tank temporarily received 2 tank corps as reinforcements for Prokorovkha. In the context of week long turns, this could be easily explained as reserve movements.

3. 6. Guards Tank Army in Manchuria was heavily restructured and reinforced -- that lies outside the scope of the game.

And that's pretty much it.

The change to combined arms command capacity is more controversial. On average, and within a game context, one can argue that the late war armies tended to converge around the figure selected. It's not a totally crazy argument. But the Soviets concentrated far beyond that on many occasions. Combined arms armies were highly task specific and didn't really have quite the uniform organization the tank armies did.

We're also looking at a granularity problem insofar as the burden of command changes depending on the size of the unit in practice, something the game just doesn't account for. A full strength 30k rifle corps is obviously more unwieldy than the threadbare rifle corps that marched into Berlin. But they are all 4 command points for game purposes.

At any rate, I'm going to play it out and see how it works out. I have some ideas on how to manage the change. It's going to be a real pain in the neck, but it's not a game killer imo, if you're willing to accept that perfect C&C just isn't going to happen all the time.