The Germans must have production in WITE2

[tm1]

hi rmonical
Firstly Id like to say thank you to you and the other guys for working so hard to get WITE where it is today and support any of your recommendations
fully.
I may only play against the AI but every little bit helps.
Now to your latest proposal for additional air and ground reinforcements I don't see any issues if they need to be there fine by me ( also im a Axis player so its a bonus )how ever I just have a question.
Well I would not call myself a German OOB purist but I do like it to be as close to historical as possible.
So this might sound like a bit of strange question for this issue but what was your plans for unit ID's, the reason I ask this as a person who played Hearts of Iron for many years you seemed to be able to build Panzer/Panzer Gren divisions with unit designations that did not exist
I would like to see the unit ID's real.

Now I guess when you put this recommendation up for discussion UNIT ID's were probably the last thing on your mind so I done a bit of research on the net about heavy tank battalions/ Motorised and Panzer Grenadier Divisions that were planned but never formed but I could not find much apart from half a dozen SS Grenadier Divisions that were never formed others may have better luck however in 1943 German Motorised Divisions were renamed to Panzer Gren so there old Unit ID's could be used.
I Know this sounds like a trivial question but we don't want fantasy units in a historical game
Once again thanks for the great job you guys are doing.
On a lighter note you seem to be playing a lot of games against the AI and other players for testing but when was the last time you had a break and just played for fun
cheers
Regards TM

[RedLancer]

I agree that there is a problem that needs addressing but I don't think that allowing the Germans to produce units is the correct answer.
(I preface my remarks with the caveat that WitE2 will follow WitW and some elements of this discussion have already changed)

Firstly because of the production set up this issue is focused on AFVs and Aircraft. To clarify the problem occurs when there is a mismatch caused by a fixed ground element production rate and limited units with a corresponding slot specified in the TOE. The primary method of allocating ground elements to a unit is by the Gnd Element Number but there is also a backup which allows slots to be filled by units of a similar type (e.g. Med Tank). For reasons I don't completely understand this process doesn't work very well. In the case of Tigers I & II it is a double whammy as they are the only German Hvy Tanks. Other AFVs like the StuH 42 with low unit slot numbers have the same problem. (In my Nemesis scenario I streamlined production and aligned Veh Types, Upgrade Dates, TOEs and TOE Change Dates. As a result Unit AFV holdings are much improved and pools more balanced - i.e. I solved this issue through data changes albeit ahistoric ones.)

So what would I do to solve the issue:
- German AFV containing Support Units (Panzer, StuG and Jagdpanzer Bns) should return if destroyed like Combat Units. This ensures the total number of slots available remains more stable.
- The coding issues which allow use of AFV/Aircraft of similar types (e.g. Med Tank) should be amended to make this process easier (i.e. more likely)
- There should be a fallback option for AFVs. (i.e. if No Med Tanks available use Asslt Guns, if no Tk Destroyers use Lt Tk Destroyers, if no Hvy Tk Destroyers use Hvy Tanks).
- REFIT mode should really do what it says on the Tin. A unit in REFIT should be penalised if caught in Combat but should (logistics permitting) have a much greater call on pool items. Any Unit in REFIT conducts a TOE upgrade check which if it will pass if in Supply and Comd Range. In REFIT mode the chance of using a fallback AFV option should be greatly increased. REFIT should provide better gains in EXP to represent training and reduction in FATIGUE.
- Scrapping - If all else fails allow the player to manually scrap pool items at a cost of Admin Pts but a better return in Supplies & Armament Points (50% of build cost not 33%).

[Peltonx]

This is and has always been a game "crashing/killing" issue so to speak.

There have been fixes along the way, but still these issues SNOWBALL and in many cases make the game basicly unplayable by late 44.

The GHC army seems to simply evaporate for no reason.

Games that should have been major wins by GHC become ( 2by3 hot patch ) major SHC wins because of the SNOWBALL EFFECT. tm.asp?m=2792361
That game was the first time I pointed out something was deadly wrong with the game and it took many many months of playing to show I was right.

This has been seen in allot of AAR's

Your game with Hoooper is headed down the same old road, BUT to a lesser effect then in the past because of morveals fixes to date.

You should wait until .14 before playing on or these snowball issues will be so large that the patch will not be able to undo the damage that is being done.

As Red is pointing out these issues ARE being addressed and ALL should be fixed.

Things are not being ignored now as they were in the past, but being closely looked into.

If a player or tester raises a red flag the issue is checked into and not forgotten incase it is part of a larger issue.

[Wuffer]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


- German AFV containing Support Units should return if destroyed ... This ensures the total number of slots available remains more stable.

- The coding issues which allow use of AFV/Aircraft of similar types (e.g. Med Tank) should be amended to make this process easier (i.e. more likely)

- There should be a fallback option for AFVs. (i.e. if No Med Tanks available use Asslt Guns, ...).

- A unit in REFIT should be penalised if caught in Combat but should (logistics permitting) have a much greater call on pool items. ... REFIT should provide better gains in EXP to represent training and reduction in FATIGUE.

- Scrapping -

+ 1

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Yes, IMHO Soviet unit building should be limited somehow or steered to historical. It is not realistic that he Soviets can concentrate on the most effective units. Maybe it should be partly automated so that the Soviets get a number of predetermined new units free each turn, and then can add units at a higher cost than currently. And the cost could rise with the number of units, so it would not be possible to build insane numbers of sapper units for example.

Similarly, it would seem reasonable that the Germans could build a limited number of extra units, perhaps at rather large cost to limit abuses.

I agree with a good number of posts here but this sticks out.

I never understood the stronger side for the longer period of time being able to tailor it's force while the weaker side is anchored to past historical failures.

[rmonical]

I agree that there is a problem that needs addressing but I don't think that allowing the Germans to produce units is the correct answer.
(I preface my remarks with the caveat that WitE2 will follow WitW and some elements of this discussion have already changed)

Given the commitment to limiting the Germans to a historical OOB, it only makes sense for WITE2 to limit the Soviets to a historical OOB. Why did Soviet production and destroyed unit return ever make it into the design?

Looking at my game with Hooper, allowing Stuh42s, flampanzers and Tigers into the Panzer divisions would clear those pools very quickly.

[RedLancer]

Perhaps in WitE2 an upper limit of each soviet unit build type should be introduced (assuming it is possible) based on the historical OOB - so you can have no more than X Cavalry Corps.

[rmonical]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Perhaps in WitE2 an upper limit of each soviet unit build type should be introduced (assuming it is possible) based on the historical OOB - so you can have no more than X Cavalry Corps.

And 20 sapper regiments? Note as Soviet I have already found religion on the absurdity of sapper spam and only build sapper battalions.

[swkuh]

Indeed, as many have said Soviet force structure seems much too variable. But, what are the design team's reasons? Think there is a lot of good data on the Axis that might be lacking for the Soviets.

Agree that Axis OOB to unit level should be historical, but why not allow some TOE variables for gamers?

[darbycmcd]

ah, what do you think a realistic number of sapper units would be? Because you do know that there were quite a few IRL, right? Give the CnC limits of the game, I don't see why it is a big deal to lump bn units into regimental groups, and considering there were 54 brigades, 4 regiments and close to 450 bn elements at the end of 42, are people really spamming the system in unrealistic ways?

I think the game would be better giving the Axis the ability to create units, and really don't see any harm in it because production of the elements is fixed. And IRL unit creation is dynamic, responding to situation and resources, so it is silly to bind either side to fixed schedules. But be careful about complaining about Soviet production, because you will find that in general games vastly UNDERrepresent the units they raised.

[rmonical]

ah, what do you think a realistic number of sapper units would be?

The issue is not the number of sapper units, it is the ability to assign three regiments (243 squads) to a corps. Big difference between 81 and 243.

In addition, they are applied as SU reserves in the same way as battalions even though they are three times the size. This is a unique situation.

If you look at the late war scenarios, the sappers are almost exclusively battalions.

[M60A3TTS]

When you ask what is a realistic number of sapper units, tell me how many FZs the Axis can build. Spamming multiple layers of forts across the entire Soviet front is the one and only reason sapper spam exists.

[smokindave34]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

When you ask what is a realistic number of sapper units, tell me how many FZs the Axis can build. Spamming multiple layers of forts across the entire Soviet front is the one and only reason sapper spam exists.

I agree M60. I'm a fort spammer as its the only way to slow down the Soviets when they get rolling. The best way to combat this as the Soviets is to pump out the sappers. As an axis player I have no issues with this.

[rmonical]

When you ask what is a realistic number of sapper units, tell me how many FZs the Axis can build. Spamming multiple layers of forts across the entire Soviet front is the one and only reason sapper spam exists.

Is this fort spam?
tm.asp?m=3475585&mpage=2&key=

[darbycmcd]

and as long as the total aggregate engineering capability of the Soviet player is roughly the same as historical, it seems sort of a non-issue. You don't like that they can be focused via attachment to corps, but that is just a way for the game to give players some bit of asset management directly.
But the point is, it is the same reason why the Axis player should be allowed to create units. As long as the total capability of the force remains within reason, why not let the player distribute it how he/she pleases. You are sort of saying the Germans should be able to use whatever they want, but it is wrong for the Soviet player to do it, even though it is historical!
It is weird how attached people are to historical OB though, for instance withdraw of specific units (which happens in most operational wargames). Why should you have to pull out a specific panzer division no matter what the situation with that unit or at the front... people get very ridged thinking on these issues.
I actually think this will be a non-issue with the unified game (post WitE II) where I am guessing both players will have some production options.

[rmonical]

As long as the sapper spam proponents support Germany having the same production production system as the Soviets than we are all in agreement.

Let me ask this of the sapper spam proponents: should a sapper regiment with 81 sapper squads cost more than sapper battalion with 27 sapper squads? Say 3 APs.

[rmonical]

When you ask what is a realistic number of sapper units, tell me how many FZs the Axis can build. Spamming multiple layers of forts across the entire Soviet front is the one and only reason sapper spam exists.

Gee, if the Germans could build infantry brigades, maybe you would see fewer forts. You would in my case.

[darbycmcd]

I could see scaling costs to 1 AP per bn in general as ok, I really think it is a non-issue though. I think others have pointed out, the 'spam' is in response to actions by the germans, and the ironic thing is even as it is now, the soviets, in most games I have looked at, are still BELOW historical strength for combat engineering, as well as most other branches. So I guess I don't really get your problem with sappers. I mean that as a legit question, why do you think it is a problem?

[rmonical]

and as long as the total aggregate engineering capability of the Soviet player is roughly the same as historical, it seems sort of a non-issue.

tm.asp?m=3476979&mpage=1&key=sappers&#3476979

The Soviets ran the equivalent of about 60 sapper regiments historically. 180 battalions.

[darbycmcd]

Ah that is an interesting. May I ask your source? I was using (dammit, I can't get the Cyrillic characters to work here....) I guess in English it is "Order of Battle of the Soviet Army", which is mostly available online here
http://www.tashv.nm.ru/
It pretty clearly shows the sovs running more than 50 bde elements and never less than 250 bn pretty much from the end of 42 on..... but I would defer to a more authoritative source (than the official soviet army historical record...)