The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Okay, first, this is NOT an operational game, nor is it an operational simulation.

Yes it is, sorry. Just like in WitP you are Nimitz, MacArthur, Zhukov, Rokossovski. You plan OPERATIONS. The execution (the tactical thing that is) is automatically done.

[heliodorus04]

No it's not.
Am I to believe that you believe all advertising is completely truthful?
You're just being specious now.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
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).

I thought you'd be mentioning the toilet paper (as many people do in the WitP forum) [:D]

In WitP you have to move the fuel and supplies, right (convoys, AND thousands of miles). Utter Logisitics! But even in this case supplies are abstracted: it's food, clothes, bullets, etc. etc... and toilet paper... [:D]

Here the movement of stuff is simply automatic. You don't need to move it (trains, trucks, some hundreds of kilometers). I can't see where's the problem: overland movement [;)]

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

No it's not.
Am I to believe that you believe all advertising is completely truthful?
You're just being specious now.

I trust people. Always. That's perhaps a bad thing to do, eh? Well, I would not trust a guy who wants to introduce me to a Nigerian millionaire willing to share his many millions with me [8D]

Can't you read what I say? You are planning OPERATIONS on this game. Is this false? How you prepare them [along with random luck] will determine the result (which is automatic). What part do you not understand? [&:]

[heliodorus04]

I'm carefully considering what you say.  No disrespect to you, nor to the game designers and coders.

To me, and by MY definition of an operational wargame (which I think is fairly normal from the old-school boardgamer definitions), WitE is not an operational wargame because there is no involvement by the player with your supply throughput.  "My" (definition of) Operational wargames emphasize the importance of logistics, and no amount of tactical prowess will make up for poor logistical methodologies.  WitE emphasizes tactics, and occasionally logistics gets in the way, but as long as you're not isolated, your supply situation is disturbingly immaterial to your combat effectiveness. (And a true operational wargame would see isolation handled far differently)

At best, the logistical aspects of WitE only affect movement distances.  This is hardly a dynamically robust logistics simulation.

Operational warfare means that to succeed, you need ENOUGH of the stuff that a unit NEEDS in the QUANTITY it needs at the TIME it needs at the LOCATION it needs it.  Given you play WitP:AE (which I did not) I'm surprised you don't seem to understand my point but maybe I'm being unclear. 

The abstractions of logistics in WitE amount to: how far am I from a rail line, and how many trucks do I have versus the need.  That's it - that's the only operational aspect of WitE, and the player has precious little ability to impact it.

As the Soviet, as long as you're within railhead distance, which you are until you take the offensive, then your units are only concerned with fortification levels, TOE levels, experience, and morale (the latter two you have as little control over as supply).

Calling WitE a 'strategic' level wargame is even more of a stretch.  You cannot control production, you cannot control Axis withdrawl issues, and you cannot even make use of captured raw materials (which, as we've discussed elsewhere, sometimes makes sense).  In a Strategic wargame, I could get Finland to attack beyond the no-move line, or I could get Turkey in the war, or I could prepare for the first winter.

Hopefully this explains better what I mean when I say "WitE is not an operational game or simulation..."

[jzardos]

heliodorus04
+1

Completely agree with your rational about WitE not being a 'operational' strategy war game. I still have loads of fun with it, but it would be VERY nice to have a bit more control over certain aspects of the game. For me the biggest problem I have is the lack of control of production and TOEs. Find my pools filled with arty and tanks as axis is a bit more than annoying when my troops on the front could use them ASAP.

[&:]

just my 2 cents

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: saintsup

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...

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.

Well I could'nt break through even with 4 Pz Armies, all the Su's (including pionneers) I could muster.

[Joel Billings]

Let me say that first off, I don't want to get into a big argument over definitions. Helio states "To me, and by MY definition of an operational wargame" ... it does not qualify as operational. That's fine. Helio has a right to his opinion and definition. However, I would like to point out that for all the boardgames made in the 70s and 80s (and many made since then along with many computer games), many were classified and considered Operational by the publishers and wargaming public even though their idea of dealing with supplies was to determine if a unit was in supply or out of supply. That's it. No quantification of supplies, no build up's of supplies, basically no logistics period. Yet they were considered operational games by the wargaming community. By the normal definitions of "operational" as used by wargamers for over 40 years, WitE is an operational game. There used to be games called Grand Tactical, and in some ways this is a Grand Operational game in that it covers a huge area with multiple operations going on across the broad front at any time. In that way I think it can be considered Strategic, but of course, it's all in how you define the terms. I strongly disagree that there is any false advertising/classifying going on regarding War in the East.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sure, this one [:)]

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

You should notice that it is not really a carpet defense but more like a one line with three units stacking defense in this exemple.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
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

Gross simplification, and thus incorrect. No one has ever said that you put ALL of your forces into the carpet, of course you must have reserve armies in the rear to react to potential breakthroughs, which is easily achievable with any kind of carpet defense. It would be nice if you would recognize at some point that the game can be played other than as you play it.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
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

Gross simplification, and thus incorrect. No one has ever said that you put ALL of your forces into the carpet, of course you must have reserve armies in the rear to react to potential breakthroughs, which is easily achievable with any kind of carpet defense. It would be nice if you would recognize at some point that the game can be played other than as you play it.

76mm, people are certainly talking about mega carpets. Do the maths... From the Baltic to the Black Seas... You need a LOT of units. All of them in fact [;)]

As I see it, we have to learn from other people's mistakes. 2, 3, 4 months ago, that's what we saw during the '42 defensive campaign (your mega carpet included [:D]). It was the normal thing to do. Nothing wrong here. It's part of the learning process. That's why PDH's amazing massacres were er... eye opening [:)]

And people forget on the screenshots FOW is on. I'm pretty certain cpt flm was using (again, like EVERYONE else) the standard carpet. Just like when the weakest football team parks the bus in front of the GK. Natural.

[saintsup]

This is the beginning my turn 51 after recon:

[saintsup]

More south:

[saintsup]

More south it's somewhat thinner. Notice the level 3 forts and two digits CV's. And it's not as you can move 1 or two Pz armies (which takes 3-4 turns) without anyone noticing;





NB: All this with a good 41 campaign, with Leningrad and more than 4 Mil. soviet losses.

[76mm]

76mm, people are certainly talking about mega carpets. Do the maths... From the Baltic to the Black Seas... You need a LOT of units. All of them in fact

If you look at my AAR, you'll see that I had that kind of carpet, and still had powerful forces in reserve. You DON'T need ALL of your units on the frontline for a carpet.

I should emphasize again that in fact I don't think that the carpet is an effective defensive architecture--it is just more effective than the other options in my opinion.