Things I would like to see in "the patch"

[Disgruntled Veteran]

Sure I do, but you have to have the combat ratio reflex historical loses, the leadership #'s of SHC would have to be lowered to 1 in 90% of the army to reflex their understanding of military tactics which was zero. Most of the real generals were shot, leaving a bunch of Obama's to be generals.
Here gun
run west
shot poeple
You come back we shot your family.
OK?
If we lose battle it was Bush's fault

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

5. Historical OOB and replacements in 1941. From what V. D. Sokolovski says in his book at least 150 rifle divisions and dozens of rifle brigades are absent in the first vital 6 months of the war... can you imagine that? Roughly 200 more counters? [;)] They are lacking ergo defending like a stubborn mule (as the Red Army did) makes no sense. In fact it's a suicide.

edit: in case of doubt, ask Tarhunnas what he thought after fighting like the Red Army did, just to discover there was *nothing* left behind... And that's where these real life reserves I am mentioning are the KEY...

edit 2: and needless to say, as long as this is not fixed stubborn fights are totally out of the question: VPs, defend key places (aka die), do not retreat etc. etc.

The counter discussion shows up periodically. Counter number quoting is useless without knowing at what strength level those divisions and reserves were. Throughout the war, but especially in 41-early 42, these varied hugely for any one point in time, exacerbated by the fact that Soviets in general rather created new units instead of reinforcing existing ones to "correct" TOE strength. It's directly comparable to how paper names often bore little relation to actual strength for late war Germany (for many of the same reasons as well). The only way is to try to get the aggregate numbers of men and guns correct.

Same for the end game counter discussion. Sure, counter wise the Soviets never get close to historical numbers, but unit TOE% are of an order of magnitude higher as well, due to the way production is handled in the game with unit creation being the (artificial) limiting factor.

[Iota]

first winter rules

I would like to try out something like this:

Axis units located in a Fortified Zone can mitigate the first winter rules.

- Fortified Zone with Fort Level 1 - 0% reduction
- Fortified Zone with Fort Level 2 - 50% reduction (for one unit + Fortified Zone)
- Fortified Zone with Fort Level 3 - 100% reduction (for two units + Fortified Zone)


This should include:
- Combat Value Modifications
- Ground Element Damage and Disruption
- Unit Morale Reduction

This should not include:
- Supply Modifier

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

5. Historical OOB and replacements in 1941. From what V. D. Sokolovski says in his book at least 150 rifle divisions and dozens of rifle brigades are absent in the first vital 6 months of the war... can you imagine that? Roughly 200 more counters? [;)] They are lacking ergo defending like a stubborn mule (as the Red Army did) makes no sense. In fact it's a suicide.

edit: in case of doubt, ask Tarhunnas what he thought after fighting like the Red Army did, just to discover there was *nothing* left behind... And that's where these real life reserves I am mentioning are the KEY...

edit 2: and needless to say, as long as this is not fixed stubborn fights are totally out of the question: VPs, defend key places (aka die), do not retreat etc. etc.

The counter discussion shows up periodically. Counter number quoting is useless without knowing at what strength level those divisions and reserves were. Throughout the war, but especially in 41-early 42, these varied hugely for any one point in time, exacerbated by the fact that Soviets in general rather created new units instead of reinforcing existing ones to "correct" TOE strength. It's directly comparable to how paper names often bore little relation to actual strength for late war Germany (for many of the same reasons as well). The only way is to try to get the aggregate numbers of men and guns correct.

Same for the end game counter discussion. Sure, counter wise the Soviets never get close to historical numbers, but unit TOE% are of an order of magnitude higher as well, due to the way production is handled in the game with unit creation being the (artificial) limiting factor.

You only need to do 2 + 2 [;)] You have massive, catastrophic Soviet losses in the first 6 months of the war. And despite all of this the front was more or less stabilized by the end of the year. In game terms this means a) you have lost lots of counters (the losses) and b) the strategic reserves at your disposal kept forming a rather continous line aka the COUNTERS absent in the game.

In the game we only have a). No b).

And this was only possible because stavka HAD Strategic Reserves. I have mentioned Sokolovski but you've decided the guy is lying. Oh well... If I were you I'd try to do 2 + 2... you would necessarily discover there were er... huge reserves that allowed the stavka to stabilize the situation... Or maybe you think by the end of the year the Germans were only facing thin air (no counters, already destroyed in massive pockets, fights)...

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

5. Historical OOB and replacements in 1941. From what V. D. Sokolovski says in his book at least 150 rifle divisions and dozens of rifle brigades are absent in the first vital 6 months of the war... can you imagine that? Roughly 200 more counters? [;)] They are lacking ergo defending like a stubborn mule (as the Red Army did) makes no sense. In fact it's a suicide.

edit: in case of doubt, ask Tarhunnas what he thought after fighting like the Red Army did, just to discover there was *nothing* left behind... And that's where these real life reserves I am mentioning are the KEY...

edit 2: and needless to say, as long as this is not fixed stubborn fights are totally out of the question: VPs, defend key places (aka die), do not retreat etc. etc.

The counter discussion shows up periodically. Counter number quoting is useless without knowing at what strength level those divisions and reserves were. Throughout the war, but especially in 41-early 42, these varied hugely for any one point in time, exacerbated by the fact that Soviets in general rather created new units instead of reinforcing existing ones to "correct" TOE strength. It's directly comparable to how paper names often bore little relation to actual strength for late war Germany (for many of the same reasons as well). The only way is to try to get the aggregate numbers of men and guns correct.

Same for the end game counter discussion. Sure, counter wise the Soviets never get close to historical numbers, but unit TOE% are of an order of magnitude higher as well, due to the way production is handled in the game with unit creation being the (artificial) limiting factor.

You only need to do 2 + 2 [;)] You have massive, catastrophic Soviet losses in the first 6 months of the war. And despite all of this the front was more or less stabilized by the end of the year. In game terms this means a) you have lost lots of counters (the losses) and b) the strategic reserves at your disposal kept forming a rather continous line aka the COUNTERS absent in the game.

In the game we only have a). No b).

Or c) Real World Germany lacked the ability to teleport supplies. A continuous frontline isn't the prerequisite of a stable front, that would be the inability to conduct offensive action. By the end of the year, distance x weather x capacity limitations had induced this state for the German side.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
And this was only possible because stavka HAD Strategic Reserves. I have mentioned Sokolovski but you've decided the guy is lying. Oh well... If I were you I'd try to do 2 + 2... you would necessarily discover there were er... huge reserves that allowed the stavka to stabilize the situation... Or maybe you think by the end of the year the Germans were only facing thin air (no counters, already destroyed in massive pockets, fights)...

The advantage of the in game production system for the Soviets is that the aggregate numbers are fairly easy? to check. Total number of men at start and what was inducted in the period covered are the only real metrics needed to get a "correct" end result. "Correct" Counter numbers plus which units were real or only existed on paper etc. can all be abstracted away in this system.

A quick check, 150 x 5000 (very rough 50%TOE) corresponds to at least .75 Million men missing somewhere in that half year period. While I don't have the ability to hunt down primary sources, I seriously doubt there's such a big hole in the manpower generator. So either those units were ghosts, or the people inside are already accounted for in other units (by higher than "correct" TOE).

[Klydon]

Actually, there have been patches to lower the Russian manpower multiplier. I am guessing that originally, it may have come pretty close to being accurate for the first 6 months, but with the overall patches, this has slipped and perhaps that explains the 750k men discrepancy that MechFO mentions.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

5. Historical OOB and replacements in 1941.

I do miss the following units.
Axis
The 800 Z.Bv. Branderburger Regiment (SF)
The Hungarian Airborne Bn
The SS Jagdverbande
The 500 SS Falschirmjäger Bn

Soviet
250 Airlanding Regiment (SF/Commando's) - Raised from 250 Rifle Regiment end 1941. The first mission was on 4 January 1942.

NKVD OMSBON Independent Special Purpose Motorized Rifle Brigade (exist out 2 regiments)- Inserted from Augustus 1941 detachements behind enemy lines for raids or leading Partisan units

The special 1 to 5 omvdbr raised end 1941.
The 1 omvdbr raised in Moscow Military District
The 2 and 3 omvdbr raised in Wolga Military District
The 4 omvdbr raised in North Caucaus Military District
The 5 omvdbr raised in Stalingrad Military District

In 1945 had some armies a Special Purpose Bn

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: MechFO
A quick check, 150 x 5000 (very rough 50%TOE) corresponds to at least .75 Million men missing somewhere in that half year period. While I don't have the ability to hunt down primary sources, I seriously doubt there's such a big hole in the manpower generator. So either those units were ghosts, or the people inside are already accounted for in other units (by higher than "correct" TOE).

To Tarhunnas they were indeed ghosts (a more than competent player who tried to emulate the Red Army), as they were nowhere to be found, only the emptiness behind his back. And yet in the real thing Stavka was sending counters to stabilize the front. In the game no counter = no men = you are forced to siphon the manpower to limited counters.

I understand (as mevstedt says) it's sort of abstracted. And in the end it may work.
1) the Germans take (on average) historical losses by the end of 1941 (800k/900k)
2) the Red Army does NOT. If it did there would not be counters left in the first place
3) it also has been said the German manpower has been inflated
4) the Germans survive the winter and can strike in 1942

Ok. But if you force the Red Army to engage in a historical fashion the equation simply crumbles.

Counters, where are you? [;)]

[Bronze]

6) Adjust the upgrading routine of the AI's airforce.

After the end of my last GC in the fall of '43, I am able to look at Soviet Units (thanks for this fix). Most of the airplanes in the fighter/fighter/bomber units are of the I-15/I-16 types despite the fact that the reserves are depleted of them. There are probably on average 10 planes per max 32 unit. In the meantime, 1000s of newer, more modern, greatly superior frames sit in pools that barely possess any active units using them.

[carlkay58]

The developers probably hit the wall with the Soviet historical manpower and units because all of the playtests had the Soviets with way too many men and units left due to the lack of pockets after turn 1. If you take away just the Kiev pocket, you have over 700K less Soviet casualties. Then you notice very few Axis players doing anything similar to Operation Typhoon during the frost/snow turns between the mud and the blizzards - that adds another 500K to the historical losses that the Soviets rarely have to worry about.

How do you duplicate this in a game without 'idiot' rules? That is a difficult proposition. You can try to do things through victory points or other mechanics - but you have to be very imaginative about the whole thing. The current VP engine in the game is very basic and not up to the complications that would be necessary to deal with the incentives.

What I would like to see done is simple. Revamp the supply rules to be more restrictive. The Axis should NOT be having a surplus of fuel every turn. I don't know where in the formulas the problems are - and it would probably be extremely difficult to trace them all down - but I think there have been some wrong assumptions or overlooked factors in the entire supply engine because it does not work properly. If it did work properly, then the lack of supply would give the Soviets the edge during the 41/42 winter with only slight nerfing of Axis abilities. There should be some nerfing of the Axis - probably through attrition factors - since historically they did lose a large amount of men and equipment to the bitter cold in 41/42 that they did not lose in the later winters. But the additional attrition and poor supply situation should be sufficient penalties rather than have some additional rule / penalty enacted by the game engine.

This is important for WitW. If the supply engine is not improved for that game, the Allies will have a cake walk over the Axis. The major obstacle for the Allies is the limitations of supply - everything from port capacity to rail and truck transports had to be calculated very carefully for the Allies to be successful. The supply situation drove the entire Allied strategy in the West - from the initial reasoning behind the Normandy site to the diversion to southern France and Antwerp to improve port capacities and the creation of the Red Ball Express - which utilized almost as many men and vehicles as the front line units did. The current WitE supply engine will not do that.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58


What I would like to see done is simple. Revamp the supply rules to be more restrictive.

They are being done. But you won't see it in this game. Not until WiTE 2 IIRC.

[bednarre]

I think the current debate is really over the topic of simulation versus game. If Stalin was replaced by Zhukov, the Russians would have averted such massive disasters. If Hitler was replaced by Runstedt, the Germans would have averted massive disasters. Yet the critical factor is German manpower, not Russian manpower. Even without a Stalingrad, the German Army would have been bled to death. There will be now be more Russians than historical, in better defensive positions. The Germans will still continue to suffer significant losses attacking. Why did the Germans attack along three sectors in 1941 but only 1 in 1942, with Moscow just a few miles away? The Germans did not think they could afford the losses by taking on the prime of the Russian Army in that sector, and opted for the southern sector. The Russians had enough manpower to counter-attack at Rzheh before Stalingrad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Rzhev , causing casualties in 1942 equal to the losses at Stalingrad! There were no major breakthroughs, and the attacks there are not well known.

So what is the best compromise? For those willing to play both sides, simply play two games and compare results. It seems necessary for some time to pass before a large sample of 1.06.14 campaigns can be finished, and perhaps the victory conditions can then be re-evaluated. It still seems unreasonable for Russia to "lose" in a military sense with decent leadership at the top.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Pelton


I would think we would be looking for game balance not to make sure your side has the I win button all the time.[:-]

I don't want an 'I win every time' button as russian but this as a 'make Pelton chew carpet in frustration' button would be both entertaining and add a bit more of the historical realism you seek.

I'm just in favour of changes that make the game last longer ie not have almost every one end in 1st 12 months.

[AFV]

I would like cities to provide supply to units, which would make towns more defendable.

Also, I would like the factor used to determine isolated units CV to be changed- I think it is currently too drastic. It seems CV is reduced to 20% (maybe even more), I think 40% would be a better number.

[morvael]

I agree. It should be mostly offensive CV that's affected by supplies & weather. Defensive CV should reduce much, much slower (either from lack of supplies or weather).

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: AFV

I would like cities to provide supply to units, which would make towns more defendable.

Also, I would like the factor used to determine isolated units CV to be changed- I think it is currently too drastic. It seems CV is reduced to 20% (maybe even more), I think 40% would be a better number.

Both good suggestions I think.

Would also be nice if you could create supply dumps in towns and cities relative to their population size.These dumps could be paid for in APs.

I think the initial CV reduction for isolated units should be heavily geared towards their morale and experience.So that for example an elite SS unit with morale and experience in the 90s would initially have only a small CV reduction.At the other end of the scale, a Romanian infantry division with morale and experience in the 30s would have it's CV reduced considerably.
One of the reasons that isolated units don't fight so well is because ammo and supplies are rationed therefore I think that ammo and supply consumption should also be lowered once units are isolated.Once the levels drop far enough then CV should be further reduced and supply consumption further lowered.

[morvael]

Yeah, WitE does not have the concept of rationing supplies (before cut off). V for Victory had it solved properly (on HQ basis though, not unit basis) with several levels of supplies that player was able to choose from (except "none"): attack, general, defensive, minimal. Attack increased strength beyond 100%, general was 100%, defensive reduced attack strength, minimal reduced both. Supplies were stockpiled by HQ so several turns of saving would allow for big push using attack supply, or a long defense.

[Schmart]

It certainly would be nice to include the aspect that supplies need to be built up before offensives, rather than simply clicking a button (HQ BU) and voila!

[Michael T]

The V for Victory games were ahead of their time and its sad that many of the innovative things in those games have not been adopted by others....

Meanwhile I would advocate for some NKPS rail conversion dudes for the Soviets in 1941. My esteemed oppoonent (Pelton) has run for the hills in 1941 and I have to rely on the idiotic AI controlled rail dudes. Could they be anymore stupid?

Please please please give the Russians some sensible ability to repair track in 1941 and early 42.

[hfarrish]

+1 - Soviet rail repair management pre-NKPS is comical, and not in a good way.