Matrix Games Forums

We were thinking about some kind of penalties for loosing too much territory (running too fast and without order). It should be required to fight, at least for points of political importance, like Kiev for example. We lost half a million to hold Kiev as long as possible. But should be rewards as well (in manpower, new divisions, land-lease etc.) I understand this not easy to implement and not broke the balance.

The most easy additional penalty is historical - faster execution of commanders (of fronts for example).

I have been playing games for a very long time - going back to board games. I think what is being discussed here is very important. It hits right at the core of what is wrong with large strategic computer based simulations. As it always happens, players at some point discover that by playing any side that they can "game" the system. This is based on rigid rules of what really happened.

This where all creators of theatre-wide simulations go horribly wrong in their thinking.

I think the post by Big Anorak hits the nails on the head - right from the manual:

The game is an “Alternate History Creator” that focuses
on simulating the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders
on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic and
operational “What ifs” that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for
many years. As such, economic and research based “what ifs” are not the focus."

First of all it is NOT an alternate history creator - it is to a very small degree - but no matter what the Axis does, unless he gets an auto-victory - he is basically screwed. The Soviets will build up and eventually overrun him.

This is why no games are running (human to human) past early 1942.

Also by not having the what-if's imbedded in the game it does not take into consideration the most important part of the human vs human or human vs AI overall strategy - there is too much rigidity in the game. You KNOW that the Germans will have this much production in this year or that. You KNOW what replacments or units will be transferred to the front and when. You KNOW that the SU will eventually build into this big juggernaut that is unstoppable starting in the late summer of '42 or early '43.

I recently wrote a long post about this exact problem. It was blown off by a few people than got thrown into the trash of other posts - and lost.

I introduced the idea of creating a simple creation of out of theatre (and in) "what-if's". I made the mistake of listing ten or twenty of them. It was then shot down by certain posters, saying that "Ohhh.. that would have never happened". You see that was never my point. The idea put forth is WHAT IF ONE OR MORE OF THEM DID!! And they were always questionable to happen till the end of the war (i.e. simulation).

These variables would keep players playing the game to the end to my estimation.

The most important part of a strategy simulation that should be implemented is the "fog of war". I always play my games with it fully implemented. The problem is that there is not enough of a fog of war. Do you really think that the Soviets or even the Germans had the capability to "see" through the eyes of recon planes "everything" that was going on at the front - through hundreds of recon sorties. It's almost as if the Soviets and Germans had spy sattelites for pete's sake.

You know why the Ardennes Offensive (or Battle of the Bulge, if you wish) was a surprise to the Americans? Hell, they had plenty of recon planes, didn't they? It was because of the art of deception. Complete radio silence, hiding tanks in forests, moving units at night. A pretty good job by the Germans, I might say. To hide 26 Divisions and all that armor and to attack the Allies with total surprise.

I remember reading a book on the Battle of Kursk - and Zhukov heaviliy fortified his flanks and eventually defeated the massive attacks on his northern and southern flanks by SS panzers armies - bacause he said - that is what I would have done.

Also I am reminded by Hitler's quote on the Soviet Army: "All you have to do is kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".

Would he would have attempted the invasion if he had known that the Soviets would get American/British help via the Murmansk port? Or had the capacity to "move" factories east behind the Urals?

I'm getting away now from my main point. I also don't want to bore you with hundreds of "what-if's". But hopefully you get my drift.

The main thing wrong with big intricate simulations like this if that we all plunk down $60 to $80 because are intrigued by the thought of a huge intricate model of the greatest battle ever fought - the Russo-German war in the East. It is fun for awhile, but then a strategy arises from constant play by smart players to "game" the system. I am not blaming them at all. They after all find the flaws in the game - as to almost make it unplayable.

In the end I am only saying that if this game could be modeled to include historical variants it would keep the players- playing the game to the bitter end. Also it would give the players the ultimate satisfaction - "FUN".

But, companies spew out these games, like War in the Pacific (where you just move pieces around a board for MONTHS - knowing the U.S. will win the end.) Then moving on from WiTe ( after getting thier money) to designing WiTw - where again they will again get paid. With the deep design flaw is still present. After you slap down big cash for War in the West - players will eventually find a way to "game" that computer simulation. But by then they will be on to their next project..and so on..and so on.....

The thing is you don't really "fix" a game by creating dozens of patches. You don't stop the blood from severed arm with a band-aid (I know what that is all about - because I have seen it up close). You have to fix the root problem. Until that is done - I will keep my money in my pocket.

You can poo-poo my post - but in my heart and in my opinion I know I'm right.

Keep up the good fight men!

I think tying National Morale to VP (hence city occupation) levels together would give both sides an incentive to defend territory. Have the loss of a city result in a random chance to lose National Morale depending on how big the city is.  Scrap the fixed schedule of NM changes.  You can gain NM by taking cities as well.  I think this has a common sense historical basis as well.  It's very difficult IRL to keep up the morale of a retreating army.  It doesn't matter here right now.

Probably the only way to really change things as the German will be when The War in Europe is done. Which will be after WitW and WitS are finished.

I think we will be in the same "box" as we are with wite with the next 2 games.

Only when as the Axis you can build and attack when you want can you truely be out of the box.

This will add layers upon layers to a massive game, where truely no 2 games will be anything alike.

Pelton

I don't think it's about getting the Soviet player to fight forward by giving him units powerful enough to make a dent against the Panzers. Rather, it's about making the Soviet hexes valuable enough that the Soviet player HAS to fight forward.

I mean, Tullius is right: No sane Soviet player would dare attack the Germans with CVs of 1 or 2, but this attitude has to tempered with A.) the historical Soviets attacked anyway and B.) no sane Soviet general would have run away as far as we currently see. In every game of scale and of this setting, the Soviet player always runs away as far and as fast as he's allowed because he knows it's the right thing to do and because the rules let him.

Giving the Soviet player "decent" units in 1941 would try to address the former, by making a solid forward defence a feasible option, but it might not be all that realistic. Giving the Soviet player "sudden death" victory conditions would then address the latter, by forcing him to trade units for time, instead of space for time.

Of course, this may go against the idea of a game giving you "complete freedom" from political considerations and just focus on the business of making war, but the game has made quite a few concessions in that department anyway, such as locked German production, locked German formation-creation, locked initial deployment, random leader re-assignment, etc.

I personally don't think stronger Soviets would be a solution. In fact I have no idea about the ideal solution [:)] But one thing I know: "not one step back" (VPs, hold x place, use the euphemism you like) is absurd when your fighter is Stan Laurel and the other guy is a massive, almost invulnerable fighter. It's pure common sense. And every Soviet player has instinctively understood this.

The idea isn't just to give the Soviets better units, is to also emulate poor C&C . quite a few soviet units fought very hard at the divisional or corps level, but the overall coordination was a disaster. By for example having a mechanism that double or triples the cost of movement randomly for the different soviet armies, one would get this messy situation. coupled that with better units (which would be more historical) and you would get soviet players trying to make better use of their units because they don't know if they can move bakc fast enough anyway.. just an idea.

I have been reading in the last years several books on the Eastern Front showing how dumbasses Stalin and Hitler were for not ordering timely retreats, only to find here that I should be rewarded “political victory points” by following their example...

Part of the issue with 1941 Russians, and it's one touched on implicitly in the no flank attack bonus discussions, is that there is inadequate need in WitE, to flank or encircle an enemy. It's as true for the Germans in 1941 as for the Russians later, you can get by just fine by grinding forward in the historically most expensive and wasteful way, frontal attacks. The omnidirectional forts and units make breakthroughs little more than a habit from history which is fun to exercise but with quite limited practical benefit in the game. Add to that the return as shells of most lost units from 1941 and there's inadequate incentive for the Germans to behave historically in 1941, either.

I notice that when you stack units, their individual defensive CVs do not add up as in most counter games, but apparently multiply. I like this. Two divisions on a 10 mile front will be more than twice as difficult to attack than just one. But the corollary for this mechanism, the flank attack bonus to reflect the stretching of a defence, is absent.

Introducing flanking rules and unit/fort facing would allow for higher basic CVs and give another opportunity for command skills to enter the game as generals use their initiative, or not, to respond to flanking threats. It's another mechanism to promote historical play.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I notice that when you stack units, their individual defensive CVs do not add up as in most counter games, but apparently multiply. I like this. Two divisions on a 10 mile front will be more than twice as difficult to attack than just one.

I think that you're just confusing the rounding effect. The CVs for each unit are rounded down, so if you choose a couple of rounded down 1 CV units, then stack them, you may very well get a higher number for the summed CVs of the stack. In cases of adjusted CVs, from terrain, and fortification levels, this effect is even more pronounced.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I notice that when you stack units, their individual defensive CVs do not add up as in most counter games, but apparently multiply. I like this. Two divisions on a 10 mile front will be more than twice as difficult to attack than just one.

I think that you're just confusing the rounding effect. The CVs for each unit are rounded down, so if you choose a couple of rounded down 1 CV units, then stack them, you may very well get a higher number for the summed CVs of the stack. In cases of adjusted CVs, from terrain, and fortification levels, this effect is even more pronounced.

How disappointing.

I have been playing wargames since 1978. Many have been on the Eastern Front 1941-45. IMO WITE has a few key deficiencies. One a lack of a sophisicated set of victory conditions (that would include sudden death as an option). 2nd it needs to be at a slightly smaller map/time scale, say 10km per hex at 3/4 day turns (as the units movement rates are to high for both sides). 3rd no real C&C problems for the Russians in 1941. 4th the game desperately needs a AI controlled reaction (i.e reserves that actually move on the map to block/attack breakthrus). But none of that will happen. I enjoy the game anyhow and have played it more than any other PC game I have tried. But its far from the best East Front wargame I have played. I still put OCS, GMT's Barbarossa AGN/AGC/AGS and FITE/SE above it.

Sajer, it's a game. Design choices were made. You are free to keep you money and not buy it. It's not perfect. For many it is very enjoyable. I really enjoy it, but I only have time to play the smaller scenarios against other players, although I played the campaign in development against the AI. Different people look for different things from a game playing experience, so if this is not for you, I respect that.

from a previous thread

I think the problem with the strategic side of the game is that the German can squeeze 20% improvement (over historical distance covered and losses Germany suffers) out of the freedom enabled by the game in 1941, whereas the Soviet Side can squeeze about 50% improvement (speaking to losses, saved industry, and army/air force organizational efficiency improvements) out of the freedom in 1941.

Thus, to me, WitE hands Germany a net 30% disadvantage over history in 1941, and that will be leveraged into further disadvantage in subsequent years. It is a recipe for me for an unenjoyable game, and for now at least, I've started my last game. I won't play Soviet because it's still too easy. I won't play Germany again because it's just not worth the time investment for the frustrating impotence you are handcuffed with, forced to deal with watching the Soviet scurry eastward just fast enough that you can't do anything meaningful (like damage factories or capture manpower) about it.

(sorry for the poor english I'm not a native english-speaker)
I couldn't agree more: I have identified precisely the same problem

However, although I am no "german fanboy" or anything like that, I believe the "margin of improvement" to be of a very different nature for Germans and Russians. If, for the Wehrmacht, the improvement lies in strategic and operational issues, ultimately a question of decisions, for the Red Army the improvement actually implies a radically different doctrine : in other words, if playing better, as the German, consists in making better strategic and operational decisions, which is not historically implausible, and therefore fits in a simulation model, playing better as the Russian consists in mastering the principle of elastic and in-depth defence from the very beginning of the campaign, which is, according to me, historically implausible to say the least.
Indeed, the Red Army was conceived as an offensive army. Its physiognomy was determined by its offensive doctrine, that had been honed since its birth
back in the early days of the Revolution, and had know significant theoretical developemnt in the early 30's. This offensive doctrine impregnated the training of every officer, from the General Staff downwards to the platoon commander.
So I believe that the offensive disposition of the Red Army, and therefore its incapacity to implement the sort of optimum strategy that WITE players favour, is a sort of in-built, inherent, characteristic. And in the same way WITE as a simulation respects the material characteristics of the equipment and all - Sturmgeschützen don't fly - the Red Army should not be allowed to do something it was intrinsically incapable of doing: it took one full-year of experiencing disastrous counter-attacks, forced retreats and routs, and being bashed to bits before the Red Army started to integrate the principle and value of retreat as a deliberate element of its operational doctrine.
Now, all this could be splitting hairs, but I think this could provide us with a consistent reason to narrow this "margin of improvemnt" of the Red Army, that, obviously, hurts the game a little.
Indeed, I believe, and this is the only reason why I mention this, that if the German could inflict closer to reality 1941 casualties, probably by creating the large historical pockets such as are never seen in a game with a half-competent Russian player, the game would be a lot more tense, including , and maybe especially in 1942.
Now, how to constrain the strategic and operational freedom of the Red Army in game-terms?
Some have suggested fewer movemnt points (preferably a randomized reduction) and that isn't a bad idea, but it wouldn't invite to much counter-attacking anyway.
What I thought of is something like, randomly assigning (maybe modified by the pol rating of the leader) some sectors/HQ's/a mixture of both to the AI at the very beginning of the Russian turn (with the AI set on "aggressive mode"). This would account for the silly counter-attack and no-retreat orders, whose implementation, and ensuing failure, were a necessary step in the maturation of the Red Army. This would still create interesting dilemmas, such as abandoning the units that counter-attacked to their fate, or somehow try and protect them from being encircled, at the risk of suffering more. We could also include a "disobedience" sub-game, where the leader rolls his political rating in order to be freed from the obligation (failure would implie removal/execution). This, of course, could be applicable to the Germans later in the war (how else would precious leaders such as Guderian and Manstein be disposed of in a normal WITE game?)
Obviously, this "overtaking by the AI" would gradually diminish with time. But I think that allowing some premature wasting of Soviet offensive potential à la Kharkov offensive would also be beneficial to the game and to how long it can remain a tense and interesting challenge. Indeed, that fact that it seems more or less admitted (am I right?) that the best Soviet strategy is the general withdrawal without ever initiating combat, and then hoarding forces until in a position to launch an unstoppable juggernaut poses a real problem in terms of intensity and interactivity, and leads to justified comments and loss of interest such as the one I quoted
Anyway, that was just brainstorming, awaiting for the enlightened judgement of the Community...

@Joel Billings

he said:

Sajer, it's a game. Design choices were made. You are free to keep you money and not buy it. It's not perfect. For many it is very enjoyable. I really enjoy it, but I only have time to play the smaller scenarios against other players, although I played the campaign in development against the AI. Different people look for different things from a game playing experience, so if this is not for you, I respect that

.

Joel,

I understand it's a game - I have not been shot yet LOL.. Although I have been in the past and am now disabled - which gives me many, many hours in front of a computer.

"Design choices were made" ugghhh..maybe a "little" flawed. I don't know if you have been reading the posts of people that have found it virtually unplayable after 1942?? Actually it's most of the people - except for those new to the game.

"You are free to keep you money and not buy it."

To late Joel..I already bought it..

"It's not perfect. For many it is very enjoyable. I really enjoy it, but I only have time to play the smaller scenarios against other players, although I played the campaign in development against the AI."

It's not perfect..yes, I can see that - by the many patches - what are we on now 1.05.40 or something like that? I agree it's enjoyable - I was always waiting for Gary Grigsby to come out with a modern War in the East WW2 game. However I did not think it would turn into a WW1 game after the first snowfall.

Different people look for different things from a game playing experience, so if this is not for you, I respect that

I also respect you Joel - you are fair and keep a good grasp on this forum - believe me I know. I also know how it is to help design simulations. Having a few under my belt. I was also running, designing and running a fan site for a game for many, many years - it is exhausting work and people's feelings get hurt. More often than not the people that were in on the design (like you).

I am sorry I went overboard in my last paragraph of my post. But it seems my post are thrown away in the trash. Instead of patching up every month - it might be a good idea to give my post a read and at least 5 minutes of thought - instead of attacking my last few lines.

Who knows??? Maybe a solution like the one I provided just might result in another simple patch (not a whole new design) and besides it might also solve 95% of the problems that people are barking about on most of the forums.

We don't think it is unplayable after 1942. With the changes through 1.05 I think it's very playable (although the exact balance is still in doubt as the recent AARs have only just gotten to the spring/summer of 42 in most cases). I've been playing a lot of later war (43 and 44 scenarios) that we've been working on lately for a scenario disk and they are very playable and fun (very different from 1941). I've seen a lot of suggestions on this forum although there's more posts than I can read. I don't recall your specific proposals for changes, however there have been many and honestly the work involved in implementing them is too much and/or the additional effort to make sure the changes made for a better game then we have now is way too much work. A lot of this is based on the decisions we made in design to begin with. Not saying that many of them aren't good ideas, it's just not economically feasible to do many/most of them.

I think the answer is simple, even if the implementation is not.

Everyone acts logically ( at least in their own heads) and adapts their behaviours to what they see as rewards. Therefore, doing things like beefing up the Soviet army won't work unless the aim is to make it easier for the Russians to win. It would be the best way of getting more people to play Russians if that was a problem. However, it won't change most people's strategy, though it may for some who get (some of) their rewards from adopting a 'no retreat straegy' caring less about the outcome. TD might be one such ( I do not presume to put it higher than that) but why not still run away and give Germans the bashing from hell when they overextend? As is it would help to win the game.If standing still still gets you bashed,no one sane ( my reward system speaking here) will stand still. If you increase Russian strength so they can go head to head with the germans in '41 the it will be like the first time I played Avalon Hills' 3rd Reich;I failed to take Minsk. Then no one will play Russian.

The answer has to lie in the victory conditions. VPs are the main (only) reward given in this game. Although not the only reward players get from playing, they are the only reward that the designers can control directly.

This leads me to the belief that a more sophisticated VP system will have far more impact on players' strategy than anything else. It has to be designed so the risk of that final push will give rewards if it means you gain more VPs if it succeeds, because then it may be worth the downside of failure ie a weaker army which will lead to the other side gaining more objectives/ holding them for longer.

There are plenty of games that give X VPs for taking an objective and/or Y VPs for holding for every turn or every few turns so it is nothing new. The only hard part would be deciding on what the points are and the totals for victory. It may take time to balance but that would be easy to do by tweaking the odd objective or (more easily) the total for a given victory level.

FWIW.

This discussion seems to revolve around creating a vehicle for preventing the runaway strategies for both sides.

There has been voluminous posting about significant modifications to the game (reaction and idiocy rules, execution of commanders who retreat, etc.,) that based on what we have heard, is not in the cards for the small and valiant crew at 2x3 games.

So, I go back to a solution that Michael T proposed in another thread that lost its focus due to the same discussion about major modifications to the game, interpretation of history and so on.

I think the game is close to being what was intended, namely a great game.

What I suggest is to Patch (because people, me included, want an official rule not a house rule) in an OPTIONAL victory condition set that would involve sudden death victory conditions for both sides.

My proposal for the SD condition is this: if one side or the other occupies all the following cities on the 1st turn of March, 1942, they win the game: Leningrad, Rzhev Moscow, Tula, Voronezh, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov.

Let's try it and see if it doesn't eliminate the run for the hills tactics by both sides.

We have said we are willing to look at implementing an optional rule with different victory conditions (especially if they use existing mechanisms), but the few attempts by the community to come up with something have not come up with anything.

A simple rule like proposed by wadortch can easily be tracked by the players as a house rule. Of course if people used this and it gained popularity, we'd consider adding it into the code, but I don't see the need to do that now (since it can already be agreed on by the players).