Gamey Tactics which Drive Me Wild

[Flaviusx]

The STAVKA business with SUs drives me crazy as well, for whatever it is worth. I think SU transfers from HQ to HQ should be free, period.

[mmarquo]

1. SU transfers should be free, agreed but not to be used in the same move. Imagine moving seige guns from Leningrad to Crimea, setting up the monsters, registering targets and helping in a coordinated assault, all in one week's time?
 
2. Moving STAVKA on a RR hardly puts a dent into the Soviet RR capacity.
 
3. The opening Lvov and Riga gambits reduce the opening moves of WITE to a boring predictable game of chess; what is needed is to take measures to disable Riga's port function to historical levels, and as for Lvov - setup the Soviets in a historical manner or inject an element of unpredictability somehow; let the Axis recreate the Uman pocket if they can. We all know that the South was a bitch for the Axis, and if Guderian did not turn south from taking Moscow, who knows what would have happened - and this is a great choice for players to have to make.
 
 
Marquo

[mmarquo]

Another thing which drives me wild: the interface for navigating between the Commanders Report and the individual units and back again. Why so many clicks to perform simple, housekeeping tasks? Ugh...drives me wild. [:@]
 
Another thing: micromanaging the Partisan war in game of this scope. It is very well conceived and designed, but takes too much effort for what it's worth and the scope of the game. The Axis has to garrison cities adequately, the Soviet has to assign the proper amount/type of aircraft to VVS airfields tagged for night flights, and then game engine creates tens/hundreds of partisan ants from inadequately garrisoned cities and the remnants of shattered/surrendered units; the ants show up in unpredictable places. attack rail lines, and then the Axis player has to track them down and displace them.
 
Why not simplify: calculate the "Partisan Mass" as above, calculate the "Soviet Air Supply Effort" - let the player choose a percentage of effort on the Air Doctrine Screen, calculate the "Axis Garrison Mass", and then determine an overall effect on supply per turn. Let overall general supply radius from the RR vary accoring to these variables and be done with it.
 
Marquo [:)]

[heliodorus04]

Isn't the 'problem' with the Turn 1 gambits based on the fact that the only imperative for the Germans is killing units?
A secondary objective (i.e., a bonus objective) is to knock out means of production, but none of that is available on Turn 1.

Playing the German side is about managing the slow degradation of combat effectiveness of your force. Once you move a unit on Turn 1, it's all downhill from there for the next 225 turns. Soviet players appear to overlook this.

The same factors that make it possible for the German to obtain optimal encirclements in the Lvov pocket are factors that are also available to the Soviet player in the form of unrestricted movement, and perfect understanding of algorithms and history (such as to give the human player psychic abilities when compared to a commander of the era).  While I sympathize with Riga being an a-historic port of call for the Wehrmacht 3 days after the opening of Barbarossa (Turn 2 starts on June 25, IIRC), supply is a heavily abstracted mechanism in this game. 

I see nothing you can do to the opening turn gambits without handing even more of the 'margin of error' bonus to the Soviet player.

At its root, WitE is a game that is critically short of 'payoff' for the German side and 'penalty' for the Soviet.  The only imperative for the German is Soviet casualties until initiative switches sides. Relative to the secondary objectives of destroying production, speed to the east is important, but speed is best achieved by encircling as much as possible early. 

The only imperative for the Soviet is to avoid casualties as early and often as possible.

Like chess, you end up with a series of opening moves that everybody knows, each with its own counter-theory.  Unlike chess, WitE essentially has only 1 set of opening moves that are best, and it's only 'counter-theory' is what the Soviets already do anyway: retreat at the slowest practical pace and form a defense that can't be encircled (part 2: wait until 1943).

[ComradeP]

It's rather unlikely that your forces and the enemy forces always end up in the same location, so the opening pockets are strategies, not the same move as there are some variable parts (which forces you commit, how far those forces get, how many Soviet units shatter or rout, how you position your units creating the pocket or breaking through.

Like with chess, even if both players move the same pawn forwards on move 1, what happens afterwards is not set in stone at all.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Another thing which drives me wild: the interface for navigating between the Commanders Report and the individual units and back again. Why so many clicks to perform simple, housekeeping tasks? Ugh...drives me wild. [:@][:)]

This is the actual disease behind the unrealistic movement of STAVKA / OKH. The problem lies with how time-consuming it is to shuffle SUs around the way the game intends - that players resort to railing their high command around is just a symptom.

[barkman44]

But from what I've read the main objective WAS the destruction of the soviet army ie killing units.I don't recall production centers being a major part of the planning of barborosa.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Isn't the 'problem' with the Turn 1 gambits based on the fact that the only imperative for the Germans is killing units?
A secondary objective (i.e., a bonus objective) is to knock out means of production, but none of that is available on Turn 1.

Playing the German side is about managing the slow degradation of combat effectiveness of your force. Once you move a unit on Turn 1, it's all downhill from there for the next 225 turns. Soviet players appear to overlook this.

The same factors that make it possible for the German to obtain optimal encirclements in the Lvov pocket are factors that are also available to the Soviet player in the form of unrestricted movement, and perfect understanding of algorithms and history (such as to give the human player psychic abilities when compared to a commander of the era).  While I sympathize with Riga being an a-historic port of call for the Wehrmacht 3 days after the opening of Barbarossa (Turn 2 starts on June 25, IIRC), supply is a heavily abstracted mechanism in this game. 

I see nothing you can do to the opening turn gambits without handing even more of the 'margin of error' bonus to the Soviet player.

At its root, WitE is a game that is critically short of 'payoff' for the German side and 'penalty' for the Soviet.  The only imperative for the German is Soviet casualties until initiative switches sides. Relative to the secondary objectives of destroying production, speed to the east is important, but speed is best achieved by encircling as much as possible early. 

The only imperative for the Soviet is to avoid casualties as early and often as possible.

Like chess, you end up with a series of opening moves that everybody knows, each with its own counter-theory.  Unlike chess, WitE essentially has only 1 set of opening moves that are best, and it's only 'counter-theory' is what the Soviets already do anyway: retreat at the slowest practical pace and form a defense that can't be encircled (part 2: wait until 1943).

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Hagleboz

What this game really needs some sort of first turn randomization but I have yet to read or think about an idea that I think would be a really good fix.

Ditto.

The week game turns and large movement allowances allow vast movements with no reaction by the opposing force. Hence, the opening moves. You can't really blame someone for doing what works best, right? Still, it's a dry repetitious exercise.

You could have a political objective. A military objective. Or the long war objective. The Soviet side would not know which was coming.

Political and military would start fairly the same. But the loss of a certain number of key cities and territory would bring down the regime. The objective for that would be the fall of Stalin, not the Soviet Union.

Military objective would be the destruction of the RKKA. Kill x number of units in x number of turns, the RKKA collapses. It would have to be more than historically, yes?

These first two would result in a short war of course.

The long war would see a limited Axis offensive to a certain line in 1941. Then stop for winter. If a predefined line has not been reached by the end of 1943 game over.

Not sure that any of this would work without the game being designed for it from the start. Probably not. [:'(]

I think the way it is will be the way it is. [;)]

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

But from what I've read the main objective WAS the destruction of the soviet army ie killing units.I don't recall production centers being a major part of the planning of barborosa.

Yes and no. The assumption was the Red Army could be destroyed in full west of the Dnepr, and then the Wehrmacht could exploit that and grab territorial objectives (loosely defined as everything up to the AA line.) The Germans failed to take into consideration the existence of very major reserves east of the Dnepr and the Soviet mobilization capacity. Their intelligence wasn't very good and the plan was based on very shaky assumptions.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

3. The opening Lvov and Riga gambits reduce the opening moves of WITE to a boring predictable game of chess; what is needed is to take measures to disable Riga's port function to historical levels, and as for Lvov - setup the Soviets in a historical manner or inject an element of unpredictability somehow; let the Axis recreate the Uman pocket if they can. We all know that the South was a bitch for the Axis, and if Guderian did not turn south from taking Moscow, who knows what would have happened - and this is a great choice for players to have to make.

Sorry to disagree, but..

Every game has a start where one side starts moving and the other side can do nothing in the IGUGO method. Been that way since the dawn of gaming history. With that, strategy, tactics and discussions always take place on what to do with the "opening". That is true for this game at the start of any scenario/campaign.

You can make all the changes you want to make things more "realistic", but just imposing a new set of conditions means the same exercise will take place.

Particularly in the south, all most German players are doing is send Guderian south faster than what historically took place. Most Germans may agree this is a good strategy, but there are disagreements over the fine details and that is where some variation is.

You probably hate all the Germans going for Leningrad constantly in almost every 1941 campaign. Where is the screaming about that? The fact is the game does not give enough tangible options to Axis attackers to change up their game plan that much. Freeing up the Finns is absolutely huge for the Germans. They have no other task that accomplish so much. In short there are few choices for the Axis to choose from and this is why you are seeing openings that are very close to the same. Offer more tangible reasons to go south or knock out Moscow and you will see some differences. Perhaps not on turn 1, but shortly after that.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: Marquo

3. The opening Lvov and Riga gambits reduce the opening moves of WITE to a boring predictable game of chess; what is needed is to take measures to disable Riga's port function to historical levels, and as for Lvov - setup the Soviets in a historical manner or inject an element of unpredictability somehow; let the Axis recreate the Uman pocket if they can. We all know that the South was a bitch for the Axis, and if Guderian did not turn south from taking Moscow, who knows what would have happened - and this is a great choice for players to have to make.

Sorry to disagree, but..

Every game has a start where one side starts moving and the other side can do nothing in the IGUGO method. Been that way since the dawn of gaming history. With that, strategy, tactics and discussions always take place on what to do with the "opening". That is true for this game at the start of any scenario/campaign.

You can make all the changes you want to make things more "realistic", but just imposing a new set of conditions means the same exercise will take place.

Particularly in the south, all most German players are doing is send Guderian south faster than what historically took place. Most Germans may agree this is a good strategy, but there are disagreements over the fine details and that is where some variation is.

You probably hate all the Germans going for Leningrad constantly in almost every 1941 campaign. Where is the screaming about that? The fact is the game does not give enough tangible options to Axis attackers to change up their game plan that much. Freeing up the Finns is absolutely huge for the Germans. They have no other task that accomplish so much. In short there are few choices for the Axis to choose from and this is why you are seeing openings that are very close to the same. Offer more tangible reasons to go south or knock out Moscow and you will see some differences. Perhaps not on turn 1, but shortly after that.

I have to agree with Klydon. As the Axis you have very limited strategic options that actually make an impact on the long term aspects of the game.

I know the designers of the game want it this way to keep things as historical as possible but it is starting to make for some " do this then do that" kind of games.

Every once in awhile a new thing comes along such as Peltons game vrs TDV (Sp) but things are getting pretty much etched in stone.

[marty_01]

The Soviet Black Sea Amphib rules are currently pretty silly. I'm playing the Russians in two PBEMs. I love being able to dump a corps into the Germans rear area at the drop of a hat -- every turn. But I reckon my opponent is getting pretty sick of having his right flank turned by sea movement. Twer me at really curb this capability to reflect the actual planning, loading and logistical nightmare associated with amphibious attacks.

Also agree with the turn 1 sea lift a corps of infantry to Riga gambit. Yes Ive used in one of my PBEM games as the germans but as with the above the planning loading and logistical challenges associated with big sea lifts are very poorly modeled in WiTE.

[ETF]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The STAVKA business with SUs drives me crazy as well, for whatever it is worth. I think SU transfers from HQ to HQ should be free, period.

Newbie question [8|]
Ok how does the Stavka exploit actually work?

[mmarquo]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

You probably hate all the Germans going for Leningrad constantly in almost every 1941 campaign. Where is the screaming about that? The fact is the game does not give enough tangible options to Axis attackers to change up their game plan that much. Freeing up the Finns is absolutely huge for the Germans. They have no other task that accomplish so much. In short there are few choices for the Axis to choose from and this is why you are seeing openings that are very close to the same. Offer more tangible reasons to go south or knock out Moscow and you will see some differences. Perhaps not on turn 1, but shortly after that.

I am not screaming, just commenting [:)] I have no problem with players doing anything the game engine permits - I am all for ingenuity; I am questioning what the game engine permits....

Marquo

[Klydon]

It is the same for both sides, but is used more commonly for the Russians since one of the early Russian tactics is to set all HQ support to 0 to funnel all support units up to Stavka. This helps preserve support units (who would otherwise likely get pulverized in the initial going) and also allows the Russian player to consider getting rid of some support units (disband motorcycle regiments for example) more easily. There will be plenty of new HQ units coming into the game as reenforcements and of course, they don't have any support units either. You can choose to form them in each army HQ, but getting what you started the game out with spread around more equally helps too.

At any rate, after Stavka is loaded up with support units, you start railing Stavka around to various locations of the front where you want to assign support units to after things calm down a bit. If you are close enough to the HQ you want to send the support unit to, you can transfer it for free, which is obviously a big deal for the Russians in particular.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: ETF

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The STAVKA business with SUs drives me crazy as well, for whatever it is worth. I think SU transfers from HQ to HQ should be free, period.

Newbie question [8|]
Ok how does the Stavka exploit actually work?

When you PULL SU FROM a higher HQ via the SU menu it cost you AP. When you PUSH SU TO a lower HQ from STAVKA it is free. Go to STAVKA, open the SU you want to move, and change the HQ. Now in order to do this, STAVKA has to be "close" to the target HQ thus the need to move STAVKA around the map.

FWIW, I agree with Flavio that HQ to HQ should be free but I also think it should not become effective until the next turn.

BTW, I play for fun and I am lazy as well so I don't use the "exploit" because it is too much damn trouble

[Flaviusx]

I'm cool with a delay for units transferred. The main thing for me is getting APs out of HQ to HQ SU transfers and this tedious workaround to avoid the AP hit via the supreme commands. The whole thing smacks of Rube Goldberg to me as it presently stands and is probably my biggest bugaboo about the game. (I have other nits, but this is the one that makes me rant the most.)

[davetheroad]

Ah! now i remember, the Lvov gambit is all Minsks fault.

In every east front game i have played the great debate was, can you reach Minsk in a week?

So in this game you can reach Minsk in a week, the problem is in arranging the movement costs etc you
can now also reach Rumania in a week. Possibly a unintended consequence.

A question is, could the AGS mobile forces have done this historically given the circumstances?

Would it have cost the germans historically to transfer a panzer corps to AGS at the last minute?
Would Guderian have to be sacked or go into a sulk?

to effectively trap the Lvov forces you only need to reach the rail on the y89 hex row anyway as this
means the Lvov units can't use rail to escape. Can this be done with AGS existing forces?
I would find this OK, its the driving all the way to rumania that irritates.

What would be the effect of reducing the southern panzers start morale by a point or two?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: davetheroad
A question is, could the AGS mobile forces have done this historically given the circumstances?

No. Of course not. Historically the Soviets didn't sit on their duff for seven days while only the Axis boys ran about. [:D]

Commissar Vashugin would not have been happy.

Personally I think you miss out on a lot of fun stuff with one week game turns. Just my opinion.

[Sorta]

Interesting discussion. I'm not going to use the STAVKA SU 'suck' strategy as it does seem inconsistent (pushing costs zero points but pulling costs points). Also its a chore.

With only two players it seems pretty easy to agree on house rules. Playing EIA with 7 we all manage to agree eventually.