Matrix Games Forums

I started playing WitE way back in the day, playing three to four games to completion (sometimes to the bitter end, some with one or the other side surrendering). See http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2668120 for one of the games.

I missed many of the in between versions of the game, so I can only comment on the game as I see it currently. Under the newest patch, I am currently playing Soviets in a pbem game and we are in early 44. We did not do an AAR, so I can only comment on feelings and how the game seems to be going.

In our game, I survived the German 41 offensive with reasonable losses, sufficient factories, and without too much land loss.

Then we hit the summer of 42, and it was very close run thing. My opponent basically seemed to break down his infantry into regiments to hold a line in the non active places, while a big ball of mobile units and a few infantry divisions terrorized the south. It was pocket after pocket, not too big (most of the time), just painful losses turn after turn. Also, these pockets were very strong, no way they could be broken for the most part.

After the crippling soviet losses of 42, we then go into 43. It was almost a replay of 42, clearly it was harder on the Germans, but again, a big massive ball of mobile units was gobbling up my units 2-3 at a turn.

Finally in late 43, the Germans transitioned to defense and the Soviets have stabilized the front and begun pushing back.

Is this the norm for current games?

My thoughts on this effect, which seems close to other games is as follows:

1. Without more historical losses, nothing much slows the Germans. Their successes snowball into more success and they are not really worn down. The losses that do happen are to the big ball of attacking mobile units, which get replaced basically instantly. There is no moral losses for the Germans, as they are wining most of the combats. The only limitation is the rails. Plus, as the Russian lines thin due to encirclement, it gets easier on the Germans.

*Also, the Russians could not make effective counter attacks in 42, anywhere, which allows the Germans too much security in the quiet sectors. And even if an attack was successful, it can not be exploited by the soviets.

2. The supply system should not allow 4 odd panzer armies (plus an infantry army or two) to operate at full supply for the summer of 42, winter 42, summer 43 and then into the winter of 43. Supply for offensive operations for that kind of force for that prolonged of a time in the far reaches of Russia seems fanciful.

3. Now that I am counter attacking in late 43 and 44, I can basically attack with everything, every turn. Again, the supply system should not allow me to do this.

4. Fortifications also seem to not work correctly. Its hard to put my finger on exactly what the issue is here, but it feels wrong. It seems they build very quickly, and make a huge impact on the combat system. Of course entrenching is important, and troops sitting idle would be digging in, but again, something seems off and I can't tell what it is...

I have read on the forums that there is no way to increase losses. I don't understand that, but I am not a computer programmer. It seems a lot of effort was put into tracking corps sized units, down to the squad level, with machine guns and mortars and tanks being tracked, yet the losses can't be raised? Seems like it would have been better to just use strength points, and scrap the detail that looks pointless. At any rate, without more losses, I feel like the game is really being held back.

If the Germans in 42 and even into 43 are not worried by a purely defensive Soviet player, it allows tactics that seem to be out of the norm. Also, if they are not hampered by any logistical constraints, this just compounds the problem.

Finally, isolated units need to hold out longer, we are tracking their fuel and supply, let them hang in there a while without becoming helpless, this might go a ways toward fixing some things.

Thus, these two issues seem to be the ones that need focus for a patch or 2.0.

I have more thoughts on this that I will post later, but Chaos I think you need to play the Germans against a good Soviet player and see if this changes your thinking a bit about changes that need to be made. My guess is you'll have a new list of stuff from the other perspective! Will follow up later...

Scar- so far I would concur with your comments- I have found in 1942 I can attack where my best units are and his panzers arent. Since his panzers went south I have been successfully slowly grinding forward to the south of Tula- its painfully slow and I only get about 4 hexes per turn even with basically 3 entire fronts on the offensive against nothing but german infantry and axis allied units. An this is with artillery division support/total air superiority and Soviet shock armies with 10 Cav corps all at 60-70+ morale. Not to mention the 6 Guard Rifle corps in the area.

Breakthroughs are basically impossible against the Germans. Just slow grinding offensives.

Against his Panzer Ball I found the only way to slow it and break into pockets to make them last an extra turn or two was if I had at least 2 shock armies with 10 cav corps most of them guards and usually at least 2-4 tank corps at a minimum...plus some supporting infantry divisions for just a couple extra CVs.

I think by 1943 especially by the end of the Summer I should have the Germans/Pelton on the defensive as by then I will have enough Corps and artillery divisions I will be grinding his infantry down and force his panzers to start supporting them/reacting to soviet assaults.

The overall big issue is the German army is staying much to strong in late 1942....losses....is the problem as has been pointed out....if they cant fix losses then I suggest German infantry morale takes hit...maybe a 5 point drop at some point over the summer to show growing issues due to losses and lack of trained replacements like historical.

matt- very well could be, the Germans need to play a very good game indeed.....but historically they did play a damn good game and still lost is the issue.

However Pelton isnt the only player getting some very good/almost to good results out of the Germans.

Its why Im not calling me and Peltons game and going to play into LW and see if the game overbalances to the Soviets in the LW. However it seems alot/all the Soviet players are having issues surviving into late 1942 now with the changes since .8.

Aside from some frustration at how impotent the Soviet army is, me and Peltons game is going well, I think end result I hopefully can end up in Berlin lol. Since Soviet tank/mech/cav corps cost so much AP to build and in general were much more elite and well led formations than the rest of the Soviet army an additional morale bonus in 1942 would go a long way to keeping the Germans more honest and from not over extending without alot more risk of counterencirclements...esp with the morale issues for entering enemy territory even shaving off 1 MP per hex goes a long way towards keep german players alittle more cautious

Also old games/email games cant be used as a judge after all the changes to the game in .8 and the cheating issues with email games.

Suggestion:
Add +5 NM to soviet tanks in 42'. This means, they will not effect the the moral drops (stays with 45NM).
So the soviet tank corps are stronger and it makes more sense to use them or break some pockets with them.
The casualties are okay at the moment. If I storm with my infantery a fort level 2 both sides get nearly the same amount. Normal between 1-1,5k. In my game against loki, some of my tank divisions are at 80%.
I play another game as soviet and the germans didn't recover well from the first winter. So if you play against average german player as soviet and you hit him hard in the first winter, he had problems in '42. We are in mid june and the german OOB is 3,5 and I see many german infantery divisions with cv 3-6.
Pelton is one of the best and he used some tricks to max the engine. This should not be the standart for a balancing switch.
@Loki: If I will be able to kill 500k soviets in the next 6 turns, you had nearly the same OOB as chaos and after two horrible summers you will strike back. Playing the soviets in '41 and '42 is survive (with a nice counterattack in the first winter). Maybe the soviets should be able to built a FBD in december '41 to support a deep penetration in the first winter (if possible). And if you will not play the soviets, we can play a rematch with changed "colors" with .05

vigabrand- you are facing abit stronger Soviet Army than normal though due to the no- Lvov opening. Would suggest you see results from a game with the lvov opening- Soviets should lose abit more industry and will lose some manpower centers slightly faster...meaning over overall a slightly smaller Soviet force in 1942 and taking abit longer to rebuild to full strength.

I played an opener with no lvov abit ago and the German player quit very early on as even with sacrificing those forces forward it buys so much extra time the Germans cant make a good hard push early enough to matter in the south.

Unfortunately despite the unhistorical nature of the lvov opening the game has become more or less balanced towards it.

If I have time I will most likely play soviets in .05 again. I really, really want to see list of all the changes going into .05 as they have yet to really say/post what all the changes are....if all the changes are pro German may tip the game way to far towards the Axis.

.05 is heavly favors Russia.

With Russian NM in 42 getting a boost +5 and German logistic taking a major hit. The Rifle brigade exploit has been removed. There are a lot of other fixes ect, but over all a + for Russia.

Also for all the whining about things all 4 games will end with Russian wins or draws and you guys want even more? REALLY? You want 1.05 all over again with Russia on an across the front offensive in July 42?

Choas what you want was tried and was an epic failure.

The game engine is all about who is attacking there is no middle ground.
I have personally played every single patch 4+ games and a small tweak can case huge run away games for one side or the other.

1.07 was ok, but 1.08 really is about as good as it can get.

I am not in favor of some of what is in .05, but it is what the masses want. The mob is almost always wrong, because they feel first and think 2nd.

1. German offensive in 41 will be weaker
2. German offensive in 42 will be weaker.

morveal and d-man are a month ahead of you guys.

And will the germans be stronger in '43, '44 and '45 or the russian offensiv in '43, '44 and'45 weaker?

I hope so.

It is nice to have played so many games into 43+ so I have some idea of what a tweak will do.

I think M+D have done a great job addressing all the little tweaks to try and make the game as historically balanced as possible

using the current game engine

They can not make steel out of corn.

if the game could be 100% historical they would have done it a yr ago trust me.

What they have done is amazing and I did not think possible with what they are working with.

The game is 98% as balanced and historical as is possible.

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Loki- Im not saying divisions should shatter but in effect if a division take 25%+ losses its CV will reduce thus making it more apt to be successfully assaulted again in later turns. Right now a corps level assault hits a corps level defense and like 1-2 Battalions get disabled for the winner and 2-4 for the loser if they are soviets....

Higher losses equals not continuous offensives due to lack of CV and a more fluid possible frontline because the Germans then cant maintain 50+ CV across the whole frontline and still attack.

Keep in mind though even with the losses I have inflicted on Pelton he still has 3.8M men+ in the German army....so it shows no matter what the Soviet player does loss wise to the Germans the end effect is it matters very little at current.

On the air war- I pressed a strong air campaign from summer 1942 on as you can see the air losses in me and Peltons game are much higher than the other two even accounting for 3 month time difference.

During the height of the air war I was knocking out about 300 axis aircraft per turn and losing about twice that myself which I considered acceptable losses. I dont feel its a system issue though that I was able to smash the Luftwaffe- if you read my AAR you can see I feel it was how the Luftwaffe was played from 1941 on that cost Pelton the airwar in the summer of 1942 instead of more historically summer 1943.

I have played the red-airforce very aggressively got it built up to about 9K aircraft and have kept it at that level since the winter of 1941. I bomb the axis ground units almost every turn with pretty much all of my planes then during the air war I was bombing every axis airbase I felt I wouldn't be completely slaughtered bombing. Which is the reason for the massive air losses to both sides in our game lol.

The Axis with good play can avoid the worst of the Soviet airforce bombing tho IMO. As the soviet bombers have very limited range esp the fighter bombers.

Also another possible fix is maybe extend German first winter penalties into March 1942.....As every game we are also seeing a massive German assault/encirclement first thing in march 1942. This is a massive edge for German players as it effectively is giving them a month headstart on the Summer 1942 offensive.

What your asking for is not possible because 42-44 loses when Russians win a battle need to be 1000 dead Germans and 3000 to 4000 dead Russian.
We alrdy had a pissing match about this and I used the same web site to back up my historical loses for 42-44.
Yes Russian loses are 4x to low and German 1.5

The engine is based on retreat loses. M+D can not make apple pie with sticks.

IF IF the loses were historical then things would be historical, but they are not.

Historically the Reds attacked until they bleed to death and had to stop. Rested formations to full strength then
attacked until bleed dry again.

The engine is not set up to give historical loses because it based on retreat loses.

HMM

Did I say that the engine is based on retreat loses?

I think what is in .05 will make winning impossible for Germany all things being equal, but if your below average and you play me you will loss in 42 still instead of 41 ( unless your a newbie).

I think over all people will be happy if they can forget about making apple pie out of sticks.

Looking forward to seeing what LW looks like in our game. As I have said many times I want to see the LW balance in pvp. Ive played LW vs the AI but its not the same game.

1943 should be interesting to say the least based on current events in our game.

45NM for soviets in 1942 will be abit of a help....the rifle bde nerf just about balances that out tho as you in effect get 45 NM divisions from the rifle bde forming into Divisions. The big help it will be is to Soviet cav/mech/tank forces which will start out alittle better as that overall should make those units about 5-10% more effective in 1942.

An yes i agree more digital men on both sides need to die in every battle. Weird that the game engine has no tweak that can make that happen and be balanced over the long game.

But trying to make apple pie out of sticks is so fun lol [:)]

I think this is an interesting discussion but as this is a game, I think almost everyone's experience is completely colored by the person who is controlling the troops opposite them, their individual play style, strengths and weaknesses, etc.... As Pelton has played the most games, I tend to view his comments about the game with more weight than others save perhaps that he wins too much (weak opponents?) and he doesn't play the Russians.

To me, I find the game has the right balance and feel to it. Chaos thinks the Germans are too powerful in '42, but in his game the Germans have pretty much penetrated to near historical depths. And remember, his experience is also colored by playing against someone widely regarded as a top German player. So perhaps against a GHC player not as experienced, he would think differently. Almost every one of his comments talk about the Soviets being too weak and the Germans being too powerful. Yet in the end, he has a decent chance of drawing or winning against a top German player in what his first (or one of) games of WiTE. What more do you want, a crushing Soviet win in every game in 1943? I do understand that many of the comments are driven by the desire to have the game be more "historical" but it's a game and the opposing general is by far the biggest factor and it wouldn't be an interesting game at all if it were totally one sided.

In my current game as SHC it's March 19th '42 and the soviet losses are probably average (3.7m) and German losses are higher than normal (1.15 M). My guess is that I'll be over 5 million losses by end of summer and he'll be around 1.4 million or so which are low and high respectively compared to other games here. I still hold Lenningrad and Moscow and in the south, the lines are west of Kharkov and Kursk. I have tons of space to fall back, but don't really feel the need to (yet). Every turn I launch probably 25 attacks just to continue building morale and usually win most of them. I have 222 HI and 356 Armaments, so production shouldn't be an issue, though I have 7 million men OOB but another 415k in the pool because I can't arm them quickly enough despite all the armament industry.

Here is a screenshot of the entire front showing the very start of my turn. I have only done some recon and attacked one panzer division to push it forward so that I can encircle it and route it. This game is probably as typical as any other game. Without the artificial weakening of the soviets and the Germans continuing to build new forces at faster than historical rates, I probably go over to the offensive much sooner than historical. But in this game, that probably won't happen and eventually his panzer forces will rebuild and he'll drive me back to probably Voronezh by the end of the summer and that will most likely be the extent of his advance. As for German players almost always attacking in the south in '42, well who the hell wants to tangle with the ridiculous CV walls, horrid terrain, and soviet commitment to hold Moscow? The south is far more panzer friendly so all GHC are going to push there because it's also far more weakly defended than the north. In my current game I'm still waiting to see where he'll make his major push (panzers west of Moscow, west of Rostov, and west of Kharkov) and once he concentrates, i'll thin my lines in other places and shift massive force to oppose the concentration.

I point all of this out because I feel the game is balanced and doesn't need major changes. The player controlling the troops matters more than anything else and who you are playing definitely colors your perspective. Is it coloring mine - a little perhaps, but my perspective is that the SHC is just fine, takes it's lumps, but has a never ending capacity to rebuild itself and without the game settings as they currently are, GHC will never ever win a game. Look at Pelton's game v Smokeindave. He nearly pushed him off the map and there's a chance he'll lose, most likely draw. In my current game, at one point in late September my opponent finally made a major breakthrough and encircled almost the entire western front. I probably lost nearly a million men. If it weren't for the mud, Moscow may have been in trouble. But there was mud, new lines were built, and my OOB is now 7+ Million March '42 and I hammered him all winter long. I think these examples show just how hard it is to actually win as the Germans unless you win on turns 1 to 18 by knockout. Which by the way, are by far the most interesting turns in the game. After that the game settles into a slugfest of static lines and more limited breakthroughs and becomes more tedious to play. Turns 1-18 as BOTH soviet and German are tense and exciting. So given the massive size and increased power over '41 of the Soviets at the start of '42 in most games, in order for the game to be viable, the Germans need the tools currently available to them because otherwise they'll get crushed. How many times have the Germans actually won the game in 1942 after failing to deliver the knockout in '41 (by knockout I mean massive losses, capture Moscow, advance to the Volga, etc...)? It's rare in the extreme for the Germans to win if they don't essentially win the game in 1941. Chaos - you are a good player, but you complain too much over minor issues and losses that don't impact the overall result of the game. Pelton's encirclement south of Rostov in your game won't matter. It's like crushing 500 ants in a pile of 100,00 of them. Even in his follow up which my guess is that he ends up destroying a few more armies after mud in that area, it won't matter. Come '43 you'll have a massive army and will begin the long drive to the west and my prediction is at worst you'll draw and have about a 25% chance to win. So a never ending series of posts about how the Soviets are too weak and the Germans are too strong and there is no way you lose the game, at worst you'll draw, decent chance of winning. If the changes you suggest are added, it would be near impossible to play the Germans with any success. It's hard enough to play the Germans now. As you say, you need to play the game out to the end to see how it goes and perhaps if you're in Berlin in spring '45 you'll change your thinking.... But your game with Pelton is definitely one of the most tense and well matched games going right now, so obviously the game system is working on the important levels and major changes aren't necessary. Historically, the Germans totally controlled the initiative in '42 and they should in the game as well. Again, Chaos, you really need to play the Germans to get an understanding of just how challenging it is. Simply never enough stuff to accomplish what you need to accomplish in '42 and you push in one area while the Red Army hammers you mercilessly in others. Strong soviet players will begin hammering you in '41 in more quiet parts of the front as the Germans never really have enough strength to both adequately hold the length of the line AND launch the type of hell for leather high risk advances that are necessary to have any shot at winning the game.

Between equally talented players, the SHC will win probably 40% of the time, draw 50% of the time, 10% german wins. And remember, a draw is not a draw in the war, it's based on the Soviets not totally destroying the Germans and capturing Berlin by a certain date. So historically speaking, other than the 10% German victories, 90% of the time the Russians win the war. Feels about right to me...

As to my game, I have no doubt that I will face at least another 500,000 man encirclement as '42 progresses along with several other smaller ones. It's part of my play style as I don't abandon heavily fortified positions until I'm forced out of them. I don't mind losing a million men so long as it takes many many weeks to lose them and so long as I'm forcing the Germans to bash their head against high CV stacks to earn the encirclements. THe further west that is held, the more the troops build up due to tons of manpower and the more the Germans have to fight rather than just get cheap encirclements the better. So if you consider a game between two average players, which I'll say my game is (perhaps I'm on the cusp of almost being "good" as SHC), the Germans have a hard road ahead of them in just about every game, '42 included. When designing or balancing a game, I would think you have to use average play as the measuring stick, you can't use perfect play as the measuring stick. And given average play, the Germans need all the help they can get.

Just my .02 cents. Oh, and to me, Vigabrand's post regarding his game as SHC is probably similar to my game and a more accurate assessment of what is going on in most digital battlefields....

Very large map image link below!

Situation March 42

Mattp- I would say your game is already over. No matter what the German player does in your game you have won already. They didnt push near hard/fast enough in 1941. The game is alot about how well the Germans do in 1941, they can make up for abit in 1942 but if they have a very poor 1941 its already game over. Again kinda realistic.

Right now the Germans have a shot if played well to win in 1941- probably somewhat realistic.

By the end of 1942 the momentum should be turning- think the complaints are that Soviets that survive to the end of 1942 aren't seeing the initiative start to turn. We are still just seeing entire fronlines with few if any weak points to begin picking at to gain an offensive. None of us are asking to start driving back to Berlin in the summer of 1942 but to at least be able to blunt German offensives and start to turn the tide would be nice.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

.05 is heavly favors Russia.

With Russian NM in 42 getting a boost +5 and German logistic taking a major hit. The Rifle brigade exploit has been removed. There are a lot of other fixes ect, but over all a + for Russia.

Also for all the whining about things all 4 games will end with Russian wins or draws and you guys want even more? REALLY? You want 1.05 all over again with Russia on an across the front offensive in July 42?

Choas what you want was tried and was an epic failure.

The game engine is all about who is attacking there is no middle ground.
I have personally played every single patch 4+ games and a small tweak can case huge run away games for one side or the other.

1.07 was ok, but 1.08 really is about as good as it can get.

I am not in favor of some of what is in .05, but it is what the masses want. The mob is almost always wrong, because they feel first and think 2nd.

1. German offensive in 41 will be weaker
2. German offensive in 42 will be weaker.

morveal and d-man are a month ahead of you guys.

I am not sure about everyone else, but I am not advocating balance issues. I don't necessarily care which side has an advantage. I am not a fanboy advocating for one side, and playing only one side. I am certainly not saying one side needs to be able to do X or the other Y. I am suggesting the whole game can benefit from a more realistic feel, and there are two areas that can help that. Otherwise, why bother with the historical subject matter. Just call it Blue v Red game. If there is no grounding in the historical capabilities and limitations, then its fantasy land.

I am also not even suggesting historical outcomes, as it appears from the posts here on the forum that some people will never agree on even historical numbers etc. No need to even have that argument. Just make it more realistic and the other items will fall more into place. By making losses in manpower/equipment mean something, and by having actual shortages (for both sides based upon results in the game) would do wonders for the game, even without getting into the specifics of what those losses should be.

I think that almost everyone agrees, absent the super fanboys advocating for one side, that the game needs some changes. The most important seem to be:

1) increase losses - to slow down attacks, focus effort from the current attack everywhere to specific offensives, and to add the historical limitations of manpower, training time for new troops, and the resultant reduction in unit efficiency, moral and capabilities when adding numerous replacements. This change would affect both sides, and there would be no winner rus/ger. It would just require new tactics and game play. And give the game a more realistic feel.

As units take replacements from losses, moral and unit efficiency should go down. The more replacements the harder the unit should get hit. It then takes time to bring this back up. It would work against the Soviets in 41 and into 42/43. It would also work against the Germans steadily as losses mount. With the right implementation here, much of the arguments about national morale settings and unit strength etc might be fixed, and be resultant from what happens in the game rather than hard coded at certain times.

2) the logistics - the current mechanism doesn't work, and allows super gamey tactics. A fix here could in essence fix lots of other areas that people disagree upon. The German running wild in 42 issue can be limited with a better logistics model, it would focus effort into areas rather than the current attack anywhere and everywhere as the game sits now. This would also limit the Soviets later.

These two issues, supply/logistics and the losses go hand in hand, they have an effect on everything else. These need to be addressed.

Finally, I don't care who is favored. If its simulating a historical event, someone might very well be the favorite to win. Makes the upset that much more fun. But arguing for parity in the effort to make it all fair seems like the wrong thinking to me.

For all intents and purposes, it probably is over Chaos, but we're going to keep playing particularly as I want more work building the 2.0 soviet army and getting into the late war which very few games make it to.

But the point is that I bet more games look like mine given average play on both sides. The Russians can recover from mistakes, the Germans can't really. Which I why I think '42 is good just the way it is as coupled with a strong '41 as you have pointed out an equally strong '42 is the only hope the Germans have and really their chances aren't very good. And personally speaking, I'd rather play tense balanced games then potentially more historical routs. So as I said, if the Germans don't win in 41 they don't have too much chance to win in 42 anyway.

Well, a lot of discussion... But w/o any comment about best settings of balance factors. Seems that unacceptable Axis supply and transportation could be put to rest by discounting those factors. Soviets too weak, there are adjustments for that also.

Remember, the "100" value is established by the developers as representing their proposal for a "balanced" game. And ceterus paribus the Axis should loose. Its a matter of when and how badly.

You guys really need to understand that this is a game and not a simulation, and would not be very fun for the German player after the summer of 1941 if it were a simulation.

There are many things not historical in this game. For example, both the German and Soviet players have complete operational freedom to do what they like without the historical constraints placed on you by either Hitler or Stalin. You want to move an entire panzer group to a differ et army group? No problem! You want to give the Germans space to protect your troops and manpower? Abandon Kiev? No problem! You want to not waste tanks on that Soviet formation you know you won't be successful attacking? No problem!

In the final analysis, WiTE is a game that needs to balance each sides chance to "win" while still being fun, no matter what the historical outcomes and constraints were.

That's why we deal with abstractions.

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Loki,

Also no Lvov- means your game is a very different game- as you will have more industry than most other Soviet players

I want to play through the late game against Pelton and see how it goes. I personally feel the German Army in 1942 is much, much to powerful compared to what the Soviets can do. Even with massive amounts of counterattack forces you are pretty much nothing but a punching bag for the German player. This to me is complete BS compared to what the real situation was in 1942.

Many old hats at the game say you need a pathetic Soviet Army in 1942 to prevent the Germans being crushed to quickly. IDK will have to play late game and see still.

Maybe if NM stays at 40 the Soviets need a small bone thrown their way to make up for in order of Free AP units such as Tank Army HQs for free or something to reduce the AP crunch so you can rebuild and get on the offensive in late 1942 like you should be.

I can see in our game there will be no massive Soviet winter offensive 1942 in fact it already looks like Im going to lose another army or two to continued german offensives because the German army just has to much manpower in 1942 even late 1942. Its the whole fantasy game of the Germans maintaining almost 4M man armies all through 1942. Yes the Soviets are maintaining armies larger as well but it doesnt matter as much because all of the Soft factors are still crushing Soviet CV.

Also isolated units drop CV way, way to fast....4+ CV units going to 1 CV on the first turn makes breakouts almost impossible even against completely pathetic surrounding forces. This is the only game I have ever played where surrounded units collapse and become so worthless in 1 turn....which is another massive benefit to the Axis side. If the axis surround a strong soviet unit(s) it should require a decent blocking force to keep them pinned in, not a security regiment or some crap axis allied unit.

If the German infantry divisions never weaken due to lack of casualties then the Soviets cant really get counteroffensives rolling on anything near a historical timeline.

Alot of factors in the game conspire to make Stalingrad type operations impossible for the Soviets to pull off.

Also this whole disband the luftwaffe to provide manpower for the Army should come at a much higher AP cost, as it was a political impossibility.

In general im not impressed with some of the ways the game models things. Maybe supermen germans in 1941/1942 is needed to balance supermen Soviets in 1944/1945 IDK havent played that far.

Right now 1941/1942 almost feels like there isnt much of a reason to play the game as a soviet player. Your only objective is dont lose moscow 1941 and save industry....then in 1942 try not to get killed to bad but dont really challenge the German player because his counter strength alone will win out.

Like I have said in many other threads combat losses for both sides are to low, and from my understanding its an unfixable issue. So with that said not sure how much replay value the game will have for me even in pvp because the game is fixed basically.

I prefer a game where my choices and decisions matter. If I repeatedly beat back German armored units they should take enough losses to not be able to keep encirclement me turn after turn. Encirclements being the only to inflict losses means the Soviets are basically completely worthless on the counterattack in 1941/1942 as the movement penalties to get into german areas and the ability of german armor to rush 30+ hexes and still smash you makes them impossible to pull off for soviets as their units to weak and to slow moving in the current game. Even in 1943 the morale bonus wont be enough to make soviet movement into german hexes matter much for encirclements.

Morale probably needs to be removed from the hex movement equation completely and a set penalty used. This would make German players actually guard their flanks especially since the isolated penalty in this game is effectively an automatic death sentence.

So unless they can fix the casualty model to make the Germans pay in losses when attacks fail and pay when the soviet player makes good counterattacks soviet play matters very little.

My next turn ill grab some casualty screens for the soviets its never good news tho lol.

As I said though I want to see the late war game and see how it works before making a final judgement, but so far no impressed with how Soviet play matters so very little in 1941/1942. As in 1941 you are just trying to play good enough to prevent an auto loss then in 1942 trying not to be wiped out because your units are all the biggest wimps ever. Not only does that 5 Morale difference mean you defend worse but it also means your counterattack forces are worse off.

Hmm just a thought maybe adjust up Soviet tank/mech/cav corps forces another 5 points in 1942 to keep them more lethal but not the entire Soviet army....or lower German infantry morale 5 points in 1942.....that might be a thought. Something to make the German player have to worry about Soviet counterattacks/breakthroughs.

I understand many of your points and "complaints".

The soviets untis are really lame during 1941 and 1942 if we compare them to their real counterparts. Soviet horrible performance during 1941 is already taken into account with the various penalties given to the soviet side during first turn and several more (you dont get enough trucks for your army until T 4 or 5). Making the soviet units artificially lame (CV wise) make a 1941 and, partially, a 1942 game were soviet units cant do really anything, when irl that was not the case. The german player knows he can slap your face left and right with impunity.

The high cost the soviet player pays to get into an enemy hex, even when that hex is not adjacent to any enemy unit, is a bit ridiculous and it is the last nail to the coffin most encirclements mean for the 1941 and, to a lesser extent, 1942 soviet player. Again, irl the germans had to guard the pockets well, or they would break. In the game you can left security ot crappy units guarding them, because there is no way the soviet player can do to break the pockets even against security units.

I also agree the game seems a bit "fixed". No matter what you do, the end result will be the same. And I am not referring to the 1945 end result, but to every single year. You can tell, in general terms, what is going to happen in every year and you wont be mistaken by much. However, if you want to keep things realistic to some extent, there arent so many choices that can really matter, UNLESS the game changes its nature to some extent by letting you take big strategic decisions regarding production or politics. And those choices should have their pros and their cons.

One thing that I feel is completely out of reality is the replacement the axis units get. IRL most axis units never fought, after the first few months of 1941 with the TOE % they have in the game. You rarely see a german unit under 75/70 % TOE (at least during the first years), while irl it was very common after the first months (not to talk about many panzer divisions, which had just a few dozen operative tanks or even less BEFORE the winter counteroffensive began). Hitler, irl, had a strategic tank reserve, and he was very cautious about its use, he didnt want it handled as reinforcements except for operations like Typhoon. Again, these sort of decisions might be given to the player to make the game different and more interesting, having both pros and cons.

That said, I understand that things were made to keep as historical as possible WHILE keeping some "balance" (this is, giving the germans a bigger chance than they had irl). The game would be, otherwise, pointless for most players.

I agree with a lot that is said above about the powerlessness of the Soviets.

While the macro level result feels right it is also starting to feel repetitive and I'm a new player. I having been comparing my results to other players via the AARs and find the games very similar in macro level result, almost to the turn. I would prefer a game that allowed more variation in result so long as the variation is tied to my decisions, or my opponents.

It raises the old questions about all historical simulations. I'm of the school that says many things in history, particularly campaigns, would likely have very different results if we could rerun them for real.