Assault HQ's (no new games for me until addressed)

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Well playing the Russians seems very easy right now. Assault HQ covering Leningrad, Assault HQ covering Moscow, retreat in the south just out of reach of the Germans. Make the Germans attack and bleed on Leningrad and Moscow fronts, and there you have it. The risk of encirclement at Leningrad or Moscow areas, is present but not huge. The terrain is just brutal to attack into very much favoring the defender. So I ask Loki how does one combat that? I mean it feels like you cannot, unless you play a perfect game, and have some luck. Against a decent to average Russian player I do not see how the Germans get to historical Russian casualties in 41.

if you want to know, and this is a purely personal response, I'm pretty fed up with the tone of that question.

where in this thread, or anywhere else have I said that I think 1941 is playing out properly? I do think that some of the issues raised are the results of people not understanding the (very complex) rules or using the tools that they have available.

I do think, as I have said repeatedly, that the root problem is the early use by the Soviets of Assault Fronts.

So ... my last contribution

[Aurelian]

Historical losses........ Have we seen these yet? https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=157416

I don't get the seeming obsession with Soviets playing historical, yet letting the Axis play whatever way they want.

History goes out the window on the very first move. I mean, really, playing the Axis I took Riga on the first turn. Which is *not* historical.

And nowhere has Loki ever said that 1941 is playing out properly.

Early use of Sov AFs could very well be a root problem. But then again, they only have two, while they face 6. Possibly not allow them the first few turns. Maybe T4 when the Corps HQs start disbanding. Certainly don't let them overload without a stiffer penalty. (on both sides for that one.)

[Mehring]

Raised some of these points months ago. The Russians can slink away just ahead of the advancing axis infantry just like wite1, similar or less historical result. So we still end up with bloated OOBs, but more in Soviet favour. Without an exhausted Soviet, in my experience the axis will be blown away if it attempts an historical winter offensive. You have to dig in too early to survive the counter attack and low supply.

I haven't read all the above, don't have time, but here are some points-

There is a rationale to Assault HQ's improving CPP build up- the formations are using spare time in assault preparation, not building long term fortifications. I think this benefit expresses assault orientation ok.

Soviets should have assault HQ's in 41, they need encouragement to launch serious offensives. I suggest the necessary tweek remains to incentivise a forward Soviet defence. VPs simply don't work at current levels and I read that all overrun industry eventually rebuilds.

I've never used RR units to enhance depots. It strikes me as a stupid, gamey mechanism with zero historical rationale. As someone suggested above, assault status should automatically attract increased supply from the available sources and I do think increasing the command capacity of an assault HQ by such a margin is overblown.

[heliodorus04]

Seems to me like the same problem of design existed in WitE 1. Hindsight greatly advantages the Soviet side more than the German given the game design. It's easy to say that there is no pro-Soviet bias in design by intent. But wait, WitE(1) had these issues, especially early on after initial release.

Remember that the Soviet "plan" called for annihilating the 1941 Axis Army west of the 1939 Soviet border. Soviet officers had the infamous "Red Packets" that were unseen orders to be opened upon war with German and executed without question. In the first 72 hours of Barbarossa the Soviets in the center and north did exactly what the Germans wanted and planned for.

In 1941, the Red Army could only re-organize by accident of fate (saved either by German inaction or ideal defensive terrain). In the games I still like to play, like Dark Valley, the mechanic favored for its simplicity is to require a certain number of Soviet attacks be conducted regardless of circumstance. I was hoping that WitE 2 and its auto-victory conditions would be simple to adjust and force the Soviet to hold positions that by definition would require the Soviet player to risk its precious army for a place on a map....

Raise your hand if you think simplicity is an essential principle of engineering?

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I was hoping that WitE 2 and its auto-victory conditions would be simple to adjust and force the Soviet to hold positions that by definition would require the Soviet player to risk its precious army for a place on a map....

Raise your hand if you think simplicity is an essential principle of engineering?

But war is politics by other means, not engineering. Isn't this supposed to simulate war? The entire system is complex. I like the idea of indirect motivation and allowing both sides to make trade offs. But there's no trade off for the Russians yet, measured retreat is a no brainer. Besides, the Russians launched major counter attacks in 41 that played a critical role in weakening the axis. An obligation to make a number of random attacks won't replicate that.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Well playing the Russians seems very easy right now. Assault HQ covering Leningrad, Assault HQ covering Moscow, retreat in the south just out of reach of the Germans. Make the Germans attack and bleed on Leningrad and Moscow fronts, and there you have it. The risk of encirclement at Leningrad or Moscow areas, is present but not huge. The terrain is just brutal to attack into very much favoring the defender. So I ask Loki how does one combat that? I mean it feels like you cannot, unless you play a perfect game, and have some luck. Against a decent to average Russian player I do not see how the Germans get to historical Russian casualties in 41.

if you want to know, and this is a purely personal response, I'm pretty fed up with the tone of that question.

where in this thread, or anywhere else have I said that I think 1941 is playing out properly? I do think that some of the issues raised are the results of people not understanding the (very complex) rules or using the tools that they have available.

I do think, as I have said repeatedly, that the root problem is the early use by the Soviets of Assault Fronts.

So ... my last contribution

There is no disrespect intended, if taken by my "tone" I apologize. I am kind of "tone deaf".
I am asking your opinion on a solution if you agree there is a problem. I also did not mean to imply that YOU thought there was not a problem, only what solutions besides the mentioned Ast HQ one you may have thought of. Sorry again if you felt offended.

[rmeckman]

I’ve played both WitE1 and WitW and have been considering a purchase of WitE2. As some others have noted, it is not clear to me whether the play-balance issues discussed in this thread are due to Assault HQs overall or more generally to the effects of CPPs on combat. The manual states that CPPs reflect the advantages of units resting and planning. What are these advantages? For the most part they are reduced fatigue, experience gained through training, more supply and replacements, and offensive/defensive combat preparations. Since fatigue, experience, supply, replacements, and planning (through deliberate attacks and fortification levels) have all been modeled since WitE1, what are the key missing factors that justify the doubling of combat value associated with CPPs? Arguably, the CPPs are double counting many of the advantages of rest and planning that are already present in the basic game design.

Besides gaining CPPs faster, the other main benefits of Assault HQs are increased command point capacity and better chances of passing support checks. I assume the thinking is that higher commands are paying more attention to the Assault HQs and providing more staff resources. Since the command structure has limited resources, perhaps the other HQs that are not designated assault should be increasingly penalized in some way (e.g., lowered chance to pass support checks) as assault HQs are created. Currently, the assumption is that an Assault HQ can be created without putting any strain on the command structure somewhere else.

[Kronolog]

ORIGINAL: rmeckman

I’ve played both WitE1 and WitW and have been considering a purchase of WitE2. As some others have noted, it is not clear to me whether the play-balance issues discussed in this thread are due to Assault HQs overall or more generally to the effects of CPPs on combat. The manual states that CPPs reflect the advantages of units resting and planning. What are these advantages? For the most part they are reduced fatigue, experience gained through training, more supply and replacements, and offensive/defensive combat preparations. Since fatigue, experience, supply, replacements, and planning (through deliberate attacks and fortification levels) have all been modeled since WitE1, what are the key missing factors that justify the doubling of combat value associated with CPPs? Arguably, the CPPs are double counting many of the advantages of rest and planning that are already present in the basic game design.

I think that CPP's can be seen as a way of accounting for the abstraction inherent in the other systems. For example, the fatigue-system doesn't differentiate between fatigue as a result of long marches and fatigue as a result of combat. CPP's could in this regard be seen as the benefits accrued by a unit from not being involved in combat for an extended period of time. In regards to supply, CPP's could be rationalized as the time needed to procure and distribute rare or non-standard items. In regards to planning, it could be rationalized as the benefits accrued from planning for more than a couple of days (as a unit can at most make two or three deliberate attacks per turn).

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Well playing the Russians seems very easy right now. Assault HQ covering Leningrad, Assault HQ covering Moscow, retreat in the south just out of reach of the Germans. Make the Germans attack and bleed on Leningrad and Moscow fronts, and there you have it. The risk of encirclement at Leningrad or Moscow areas, is present but not huge. The terrain is just brutal to attack into very much favoring the defender. So I ask Loki how does one combat that? I mean it feels like you cannot, unless you play a perfect game, and have some luck. Against a decent to average Russian player I do not see how the Germans get to historical Russian casualties in 41.

I do think, as I have said repeatedly, that the root problem is the early use by the Soviets of Assault Fronts.

I am inclined to agree. This is a complex game, and it seems that people have fixated on what seems to be the easiest thing to attribute the results we are seeing.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Well playing the Russians seems very easy right now. Assault HQ covering Leningrad, Assault HQ covering Moscow, retreat in the south just out of reach of the Germans. Make the Germans attack and bleed on Leningrad and Moscow fronts, and there you have it. The risk of encirclement at Leningrad or Moscow areas, is present but not huge. The terrain is just brutal to attack into very much favoring the defender. So I ask Loki how does one combat that? I mean it feels like you cannot, unless you play a perfect game, and have some luck. Against a decent to average Russian player I do not see how the Germans get to historical Russian casualties in 41.

I do think, as I have said repeatedly, that the root problem is the early use by the Soviets of Assault Fronts.

I am inclined to agree. This is a complex game, and it seems that people have fixated on what seems to be the easiest thing to attribute the results we are seeing.

Yup, same thing I have been saying. Fix the amount of units that can benefit from Assault HQ's and I think we should be good. The over abundance of units benefiting from Assault HQ's (Germans too!!!!) is way too much.

[AlbertN]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Seems to me like the same problem of design existed in WitE 1. Hindsight greatly advantages the Soviet side more than the German given the game design. It's easy to say that there is no pro-Soviet bias in design by intent. But wait, WitE(1) had these issues, especially early on after initial release.

Remember that the Soviet "plan" called for annihilating the 1941 Axis Army west of the 1939 Soviet border. Soviet officers had the infamous "Red Packets" that were unseen orders to be opened upon war with German and executed without question. In the first 72 hours of Barbarossa the Soviets in the center and north did exactly what the Germans wanted and planned for.

In 1941, the Red Army could only re-organize by accident of fate (saved either by German inaction or ideal defensive terrain). In the games I still like to play, like Dark Valley, the mechanic favored for its simplicity is to require a certain number of Soviet attacks be conducted regardless of circumstance. I was hoping that WitE 2 and its auto-victory conditions would be simple to adjust and force the Soviet to hold positions that by definition would require the Soviet player to risk its precious army for a place on a map....

Raise your hand if you think simplicity is an essential principle of engineering?

I precisely remember that at the start of WITE1 - and that is what got me to ditch the game after some solo game vs the AI, and not touch with a pole WITW. I had hopes in time WITE2 after WITE1 got balanced and tuned an amount was ... different.

[PeteJC]

Apologies if this was addressed in the posting. I have only skimmed through this so maybe I missed it.

Is the issue more of a multi-player issue or is it also an issue if playing as German against the AI. I play Axis against the AI and find it extremely difficult to win. I am fine with that. It should be near impossible for the Axis to win. With that said, I have just started a new game under the updated patch/release (all others were the original version) and I have found it even more difficult. Some very strong Soviet lines as early as turn 5. Did the new patch/update create the excessive Assault Front issue or was it always this way?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: PeteJC

Apologies if this was addressed in the posting. I have only skimmed through this so maybe I missed it.

Is the issue more of a multi-player issue or is it also an issue if playing as German against the AI. I play Axis against the AI and find it extremely difficult to win. I am fine with that. It should be near impossible for the Axis to win. With that said, I have just started a new game under the updated patch/release (all others were the original version) and I have found it even more difficult. Some very strong Soviet lines as early as turn 5. Did the new patch/update create the excessive Assault Front issue or was it always this way?

More of Head-to-Head game discussion.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

And if we're going to use books to make a point, well, instead of naming them all, just read any book that covers 1941-45 in the east. No matter how many you read, the outcome is the same. Russia won. History based you know.

I didn't buy a game to recreate history. It's a history based game. You can't say "The Russians are not playing like they did in history", and ignore how unhistorical the Axis play.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Zemke

ORIGINAL: Aurelian





And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

I do believe that the only thing on the table at the minute is Assault HQ's, FOR BOTH SIDES. The unit total should be lowered in the amount of units gaining benefit from Assault HQ's is my recommendation. Don't think the powers to be will change anything else, or at least I hope not.



To that point I think I will give someone a free pass on the first turn. Meaning I won't move a single counter on the map as Germany. No airfield bombing, no auto interception, no movement of Infantry Divisions, No movement of German Armor during the German turn. Soviets get the first turn to do what they want. Think this would be a good game? I think it would be a neat challenge but extremely difficult one for Germany

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Zemke

ORIGINAL: Aurelian





And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

And if we're going to use books to make a point, well, instead of naming them all, just read any book that covers 1941-45 in the east. No matter how many you read, the outcome is the same. Russia won. History based you know.

I didn't buy a game to recreate history. It's a history based game. You can't say "The Russians are not playing like they did in history", and ignore how unhistorical the Axis play.

Just one further question please. Do you only play the Soviet side of this game? Thank you in advance for your answer.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Same for Zemke, Do you only play the German side of this game? Thank you in advance for your answer.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Zemke



Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

And if we're going to use books to make a point, well, instead of naming them all, just read any book that covers 1941-45 in the east. No matter how many you read, the outcome is the same. Russia won. History based you know.

I didn't buy a game to recreate history. It's a history based game. You can't say "The Russians are not playing like they did in history", and ignore how unhistorical the Axis play.

Just one further question please. Do you only play the Soviet side of this game? Thank you in advance for your answer.

Just started playing the Axis side.

Assault HQs as they stand could use some adjustment. Certainly they should not be overloaded.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Aurelian



You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

And if we're going to use books to make a point, well, instead of naming them all, just read any book that covers 1941-45 in the east. No matter how many you read, the outcome is the same. Russia won. History based you know.

I didn't buy a game to recreate history. It's a history based game. You can't say "The Russians are not playing like they did in history", and ignore how unhistorical the Axis play.

Just one further question please. Do you only play the Soviet side of this game? Thank you in advance for your answer.

Just started playing the Axis side.

Assault HQs as they stand could use some adjustment. Certainly they should not be overloaded.

Great! Ya, playing both sides will enhance your understanding tremendously Then take that experience and play your favorite side. Good luck to you Sir!

[malyhin1517]

The most interesting thing is that at the beginning of the war, the 3rd tank group, for example, was operatively subordinate to the commander of the 9th army! And in the game, on the contrary, the 9th army is easier to disband and subordinate all the troops to the 3rd tank group.