War in the West

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Dili

So having said that I really do not see why a unit destroyed at the real Stalingrad has to be withrawn on the premise that whatever substituted it was later on sent to Italy.

Yes. No unit that was destroyed IRL should be taken from game.

Can we all agree to disagree on this subject? We are NOT going to change the withdrawal schedule to keep those few divisions that were destroyed on the Eastern Front and not returned there to not withdraw. End of discussion on that topic.

When and if we do a War in Europe game withdrawals will be a non-issue and if we do a WitE 2.0 we can revisit this issue then.

Finally let me say again that you have the power with the editor to change or eliminate the withdrawal date of any unit in the game. Ignoring support units which are almost insignificant in the game, how many units are we arguing about here, 5, 10? Even if you have to go back and make this change over and over again with each "official" update, it can't take more than a few minutes to do. I can think of a dozen things I would like to see different in the game but have no control over. Withdrawals are one thing a player can change.

Well I very much regret this answer as this is an actual refusal to deal with a bug. an OOB bug rather than an engine bug, but a bug nonetheless. The manpower pool is the tool that would have to deal with those potential extra 10 or 15 or 20 axis divisions still on the front. if the manpower pool is depleted, these units will slowly melt, as they should. But they shouldn't just vanish for no reason, be it in-game actions of the players or taking account of the other fronts (as the units going there were already being built). I can undestand that is not your priority, but it is still just saying "no we will not deal with this bug".

Regarding the whole TOE/OOB flexibility issue for the axis, I just don't understand why the WITE developpers don't see what was done in WITP/AE and the benefit it has had for the game as a whole, the sales and the community.

Of course no one is talking about turning WITE in "sudden Strike, the eastern front". Keep the historical production numbers, but allow the players (either both of them or giving both players different tools to play with) to use it differently.

If the Axis losses have been more limited in Blizzard 41 or in the battles of 42 and 43, why shouldn't the player be able to use his stocks of equipment and manpower to change the overall outlook of his forces ? He would still be limited by what was historically available, as far as the data is available and implemented (ie be it historically timely accurate data or just mean averages ratios of the historical total).

If the Axis player wants to change the overall outlook of his army to better fit with his "manstein plan" philosophy, with different SU and significant variety in TOEs depending of units role, why can't he ?

If the axis player has tended to retreat before being forced to and therefore avoided massive gun losses through retreat, why couldn't still keep a rich divisionnal artillery TOE or build artillery SUs later in the war ?

It just seems to be a shame to me. As it is WITE is a significantly poorer game than WITP/AE because, being a one front game of homogeneous counterpushing along a specific front, it has consistently less variety than AE where the focus could very well be on the DEI for the whole of 44 or on NOPAC or CENTPAC or Burma for such and such period of the war. Couple that with the far more rigid force composition and disposition settings of the game and the possibilities of the game just shrink.

Now does the desire of some players to expand the possibilities of the game constitute an affront to historical realism ? What many players are asking for is more flexibility within the realm of the plausible... Not a "give me 20 PanzerDivs" button.

I suppose one would have to wait for WITE2 or other games, but this is all very disappointing, for WITE as well as for WITW.

[Q-Ball]

I think part of the problem with an open German production system is that the proper limitations are not in place, certainly not in WITE.

Take that 29th Mot Div example. While the Germans did have enough to duplicate that unit, what they didn't have was the fuel or logistical capacity to support another Motorized Division. As it was, the Wehrmacht was converting some Motorized units back into infantry, for this reason.

WITE as it stands today has basically unlimited fuel, and ample supply of vehicles for the Germans. The engine could very realitistically support another 30 or so Motorized Divisions, when the real Wehrmacht was stretched to the limit to support what they had in the field.

If there isn't an OOB limitation, there needs to be another limitation somewhere that prevents Germans from fielding unrealistically large number of mobile units. That isn't in the engine as it stands.

I think it's best left for a "War in Europe", where that will have to be addressed

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Omat


Welcome on my Ignore list

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

If that's uncivil, you might consider adding me to your list of blocked posters, no disrespect intended.

Did that two or three insults back but it doesn't help much because people keep quoting him in their posts! [:D]

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Dili

So having said that I really do not see why a unit destroyed at the real Stalingrad has to be withrawn on the premise that whatever substituted it was later on sent to Italy.

Yes. No unit that was destroyed IRL should be taken from game.

Can we all agree to disagree on this subject? We are NOT going to change the withdrawal schedule to keep those few divisions that were destroyed on the Eastern Front and not returned there to not withdraw. End of discussion on that topic.

When and if we do a War in Europe game withdrawals will be a non-issue and if we do a WitE 2.0 we can revisit this issue then.

I hope that at least in future iterations of the game the Yorktown Yorktown and Essex Yorktown example is kept in mind and heeded.

Otherwise we just end up with some variant of the mess we have currently.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

If there isn't an OOB limitation, there needs to be another limitation somewhere that prevents Germans from fielding unrealistically large number of mobile units. That isn't in the engine as it stands.

The OOB limitation is in by virtue of the Axis not being able to produce containers. Still no reason, IMO, to arbitrarily reduce their unit count, especially since their real limiter in the end is replacements(=armaments+manpower) and fixed NM.

However the rest of your post does hit the nail on the head, if the right limiters are not in by design, one is tempted to impose arbitrary limiters to compensate, and because they are arebitrary, they inevitably fail any close scrutiny.

The name of the ga..äh..WITE so to say.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: RCH

Quote["So you don't have one. Which means that OKH didn't make any. Which means that to get what you want would make WiTE a fantasy game. And you are against that.

I believe it was John Paul Jones who said "If we can't have what we like, we have to learn to like what we have.""]


We have a good argument being made and instead of addressing the argument the person is patronized.


It is better to say the game is what it is and no changes will be forthcoming.

Boo hoo. The game *is* what it is. It really isn't going to change. So yeah, learn to like what you have. Or at least stop complaining about things that are *not* going to change. Like Axis getting to make support units in WiTE. (The person keeps bringing it up, with two results. A: It's ignored. B: it's answered, and said person *still* brings it up.)

You think that to keep posting about how one would "love to see SU and unit build list for the Axis" is going to make it happen in WiTE?

It isn't a bug to be fixed. Any more than the lack of production for Alles in WiTP, WiTP-AE, or BTR, or the Germans in ED is.

[RCHarmon]

Who are you talking to Aurelian? Are you typing words just to read your own posts? I tried to read your post, but your train of thought is all over the place.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: RCH

Who are you talking to Aurelian? Are you typing words just to read your own posts? I tried to read your post, but your train of thought is all over the place.

Ummmm, since I quoted you, it would be..........you.

You claim it's a good arguement, but the fact that it is built on a foundation of sand, means it is not. The non ability of Axis players getting to make their own units, of any level, was planned from the start.

To continue to bring it up is folly at best. Trolling about a non issue at worst

I'll explain it again. *You* said it would be better said that the game is what it is. So I said it.

It's been said by those who *know*, that changes, major ones anyway IIRC, will *not* be forthcoming. Bug fixes, yes. They are working on the next game you know.

Since the Axis not getting to build units is WAD, there is *no* reason to fix it. This isn't the first game Gary's done like that. Probably won't be the last.

It's also been stated above that the Axis player is not Hitler. Thus you don't get to make what you want, you get what you're given. (I'd hazard a guess and say that won't be the case with WiEu, except for the Western Allies.)

If that is unacceptable, then as also stated, perhaps then WiTE is not your cup of tea.

As for WiTP, WiTP AE, EDBTR, only one side gets production. Just like WiTE.

So yes, if you can't have what you like, you learn to like what you have. Or find a game that gives you what you like. (ATG comes to mind. WiR also. Or the DW series. And a few not published by Matrix.)

(I played SF/WiR extensively. Enjoyed making nothing but KV-1/Yak-3/IL-4s. Yup, production was a non-historical fantasy. Don't miss it in this WiTE. Almost always played the Axis in SPI's version. And never, not once, complained about it.)

[LiquidSky]

Actually, I doubt even the western allies will be allowed to build their own units...I believe the Americans in particular finished building their divisions in mid 1943. Not sure about the Brits though.

[gradenko2k]

You make a good point, LiquidSky - I don't think the Western Allied armies went through the same kind of loss and subsequent metamorphosis that the Red Army did that would justify giving them counter-production capabilities.

[randallw]

I believe the U.S Army was still shipping new divisions across the ocean in 1944. Not sure when the last division was ordered up.

[vinnie71]

Well a good compromise would be that all sides get a finite flexibility setup whereby they could build new (call them unhistorical) formations. Example - the Germans used several divisions as cadres for training. These could be activated at a price and after a specific period.

The French army in 1940 seem to have represented the maximum recruitable formations for the metropolitan army - the same seems to have applied for the Dutch and Belgians

Regarding the US, I stand to be corrected, but they had a target number of formations in mind, which were not all raised - maybe that could be the natural limit.

Ex the Italians also had several embryonic formations (ex Centauro) which spent most of the war in garrisons or at home

I guess each power had an upper cieling of recruitment limit which could be found. That would keep a certain perspective in a game.

[jaw]

It is not a bug; it is a design decision and since this thread has generate absolutely no response from the producer (Joel) or the scenario designer (Trey) who could change this decision I'm inclined to think they are committed to it.

I have explained the reasoning behind this design decision. If you choose to reject that reasoning that's your choice. I have also told you that YOU can change this decision yourself by merely editing the scenario file. When there are dozens of design decisions in the game that the player cannot change, to continually harp on one that you can change seems rather pointless to me.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: jaw

Can we all agree to disagree on this subject? We are NOT going to change the withdrawal schedule to keep those few divisions that were destroyed on the Eastern Front and not returned there to not withdraw. End of discussion on that topic.

What this means is that the German player always suffers the Stalingrad defeat.

Interesting concept.

By the way, do the Soviets have all the divisions that were destroyed in pockets withdraw? Just curious.

[jaw]

Forget Stalingrad, the rule is if a unit leaves the Eastern Front permanently it is a withdrawal. Not all the divisions lost at Stalingrad were sent to other fronts after being re-constituted.

[morganbj]

For those that were "withdrawn" because they were destroyed and reconstituted elsewhere, why don't you have the units disband instead? That's the solution. That way, the german keeps the manpower and equipment that he "saved" from destruction.

[RCHarmon]

Aurelian I don't understand your posts unless it is your intention to incite me. I simply made a post 4 days ago that a good argument was made. I'm not to overly concerned about making my own SUs. I consider that relatively minor. The comments about troop withdraws is a more deserving argument which is also a point that was being made. You also accuse me of trolling. I have communicated with Joel a couple of times by pm about my issues and he never accused me of being a troll or told me to leave the game.

I have come to the realization that the game is what it is and no changes will be made. I'm still here because I have an ongoing game and patches are coming out every 3 days.

I have never told anyone not to play the game, but I have said that the "game" can be fun if played as a "game" (accepting current game design parameters). I have never insulted anyone. I have made some strong posts in the past that if you want to debate we can. Except all those posts, are in general agreement with what both sides have already understood to be game weaknesses, as an example supply is a issue,etc........ The posts that I make about bias I firmly hold to be true and if you want (it isn't going to do any good) we can debate about that.

I have noticed that you seem to target Axis players with intention to incite them. Why?

I'd rather just drop it ,but if you must, lets continue it in private; and please take more time in what you are writing and get your thoughts straight.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: jaw

Forget Stalingrad, the rule is if a unit leaves the Eastern Front permanently it is a withdrawal. Not all the divisions lost at Stalingrad were sent to other fronts after being re-constituted.

A design decision is a design decision, but either way one should keep the facts straigt.

In the last 3 pages it has been established that a unit is withdrawn if the name leaves the Eastern Front. The Yorktown Yorktown and the Essex Yorktown being the analogy that the name doesn't necessarily equal the unit.

And bjmorgans point is correct, all historically destroyed divisions which were resurrected by renaming a different, already existing, division are lost automatically and irrevocably. Either by artificial withdrawals or by missing reinforcements.

One of the obvious consequence being, the player always suffers at least one Stalingrad. He can do worse, but not better.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
What this means is that the German player always suffers the Stalingrad defeat.

Interesting concept.

By the way, do the Soviets have all the divisions that were destroyed in pockets withdraw? Just curious.

The way I see it, is that even if I can avoid a historical Stalingrad, there will be other unhistorical mistakes or surrounded/destroyed divisions that I will suffer throughout a game, but the game dosen't punish me for that, as I get to keep those divisions. I lose some historically destroyed/withdrawn divisions, but keep the un-historically destroyed/withdrawn divisions. In the scheme of things, it more or less cancels out. A difference of 3 or 4 divisions isn't going to change the course of the war.

Even if I can avoid a historical Stalingrad and still avoid any other major loses, THE GAME DOES REWARD ME. I may have a few less containers (to use someone else's analogy), but my containers will be significantly stronger than historical. As I alluded to previously, many if not most AARs (as well as ALL games that I have played) result in a noticeably stronger German army throughout 42-43. +3 miilion men from the spring of 1942 to late 1943 is an UNHISTORICALLY strong German army, due to German players avoiding many of the historical mistakes. This results in a net GAIN to the Germans in men, tanks, and guns, even though they may have lost a couple divisions to withdrawls.

The only realistic solution would be to reverse some of the withdrawls, but at the same time not allow all (or at least most) other destroyed divisions from returning automatically, as those divisions would historically most likely have been withdrawn/re-built in the west, and sent to France or Italy to fight there. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

[LiquidSky]

Not every German unit that was destroyed was rebuilt. The 10th Panzer for example was never rebuilt after it surrendered in Tunisia. I am sure there are others.