Matrix Games Forums

One thing that perhaps should be looked into is soviet artillary production. I always find that I am strapped for artillary when playing the soviet. I am not sure if there are available factory slots but if so they should be devoted to artillary and if not then the max size of all soviet artillary factories should increase in 42. In WIR as opposed too history the Soviet forces are deficient in artillary in 42-43. But masses of artillary were a halmark of all soviet actions in 42 and 43...it may not have been very good artillary but there was a LOT of it.

Another historical thing would be that a large number of the units formed in 42 should only be Bde sized rather than full divisons. The soviets did not raise many divisions at that time since they lacked the officers to command such formations. Though this may have consiquences for the soviet player due to the limited number of units that can be in a Army so perhaps this is a bad idea or should be left to the next generation game under development.

Also is important the great lethality of the Luftwaffe (too much?).
Maybe the air attacks over cities and /or units entrenched ( level 3 at least?)would be better halved. This would give to the soviets the opportunity to defend better.

Josan.

One thing also I find important is the great lethality of the Luftwaffe( too much?).
Maybe the air attacks over cities and/or units entrenched ( level 3 at least? ) would be better halved in strenght. This would give to the soviets the opportunity to defend better.

Josan.

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
In terms of experience if the russians are at 35% (not having looked I am guessing here) than that is what the rummanians have in my game. Some rare few rummanian units are at about 50%. The question is realy one of are the russian forces uniform?

---

The Romanian initial experience ranges from 25 to 50. The Russian experience range from 20 to 35 or so (The Siberian divisions are at 50 initially). So I think there is room for some improvement of the Russian forces since I doubt that the average Red Army division would have been any worse than the average Romanian. Perhaps a 10 unit increase in experience all over would do the trick?

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
The Romanian initial experience ranges from 25 to 50. The Russian experience range from 20 to 35 or so (The Siberian divisions are at 50 initially). So I think there is room for some improvement of the Russian forces since I doubt that the average Red Army division would have been any worse than the average Romanian. Perhaps a 10 unit increase in experience all over would do the trick?

---

Mist and I were talking about this, and I plan on trying around a 15 point jump first and see. Also, we will look at pulling back some of the southern forces around Lvov to allow some to survive anyway. I don't know if it will be enough, but it will help. The biggest long term problem I saw, and maybe you all can confirm or contradict it based on the games going on now, is that the Soviets have a tough time coming up with enough infantry replacements to build up the new/replaced rifle divisions back up in time to hold a line around Rzhev and Vyazma. The Soviet replacements were reduced by some unknown amount in 1941, so there are fewer squads available, on top of everything else.

Hello All
I'm currently working on a personal project to re-write the OBWIR data. And one of the things I have found is that the Russians are lacking many of the Tank regiments that where deployed at the start of Barbarrossa. so are short about 5000 tanks (mostly T-26's). The russians are also short about 50 artillery Brigades (short aprrox. 4300 Arty). Also, there is no difference in the quality value between the excellent, good, and (Majority) mediocer Rifle divisions. I expect to be finnished my re-write in about a month, If people are interesed in trying it out. I'll make an announcement when it's ready.

Originally posted by RickyB:

Mist and I were talking about this, and I plan on trying around a 15 point jump first and see. Also, we will look at pulling back some of the southern forces around Lvov to allow some to survive anyway. I don't know if it will be enough, but it will help. The biggest long term problem I saw, and maybe you all can confirm or contradict it based on the games going on now, is that the Soviets have a tough time coming up with enough infantry replacements to build up the new/replaced rifle divisions back up in time to hold a line around Rzhev and Vyazma. The Soviet replacements were reduced by some unknown amount in 1941, so there are fewer squads available, on top of everything else.

---

RickyB,

I think the problem we now have is the starting experience versus the rate of automatic training that the Soviets get per week. In the last version, the automatic rate was 5 experience points per week without combat up to a maximum of 50. With the starting experience at 25 it only took 5 weeks to reach the maximum. Now the automatic training rate is 2, I think, so it takes 2.5 times longer to reach the same maximum and even that has been reduced to 40 instead of the old 50.

With the readiness of the Soviet forces at the start, increasing the Soviet experience to 40 is a good start but the maximum of non-combat training should be increased to at least 45 from the present 40. The reduced OPs present and the retrograde movement of Soviet forces will still leave them extremely vurnable to German attack so play balance should not be altered much for 1941. Somehow we need to be able simulate some reasonable Soviet resistance toward the end of the clear weather turns in 1941.

Svar

Originally posted by RickyB:

Mist and I were talking about this, and I plan on trying around a 15 point jump first and see. Also, we will look at pulling back some of the southern forces around Lvov to allow some to survive anyway. I don't know if it will be enough, but it will help. The biggest long term problem I saw, and maybe you all can confirm or contradict it based on the games going on now, is that the Soviets have a tough time coming up with enough infantry replacements to build up the new/replaced rifle divisions back up in time to hold a line around Rzhev and Vyazma. The Soviet replacements were reduced by some unknown amount in 1941, so there are fewer squads available, on top of everything else.

---

Rick and Mist,

Increase the experience of soviet units would can be a solution but also, I insist, ( if you allowed me ), the Luftwaffe is too much strong. Easily, with continous air attacks , and the non existence of the VVS, you can break any resistance.

Also is the issue of entrenching. Ed said me that the units would defender better in new version but again I have seen as Leningrad with 9 entrench level dropped to 1 after heavy air attacks and land assault. Also I have noticed this in other entrenchment places. Its the same I had 60 ops and Zhukov. The defensives lines can be breaked without support of the infantry corps and with minimal losses ( of course the soviets, even entrenched, lost many men when retreat if no shatter ). If the germans manages to break a defensive line they must pay the price.

I agree with you and Mist that the south is too much easy to the germans, and with good movements, is difficult to escape for the soviets. But is dangerous to redeploy units. I think the soviets must be placed in their historical places.

Josan.

Originally posted by Josan:


Rick and Mist,

Increase the experience of soviet units would can be a solution but also, I insist, ( if you allowed me ), the Luftwaffe is too much strong. Easily, with continous air attacks , and the non existence of the VVS, you can break any resistance.....
Josan.

---

Josan

And if the Luftwaffe had been used as it should (within and to its full potential) it may well have been able to break any resistance. We strive to make the best of what is given us, not to repeat the mistakes and bad planning of the historical commanders. This applies to both sides so the ballance is even. I trust that what we are given to use in the game is what existed to be used (within reasonable limits) If you feel the Luftwaffe is too stong then maybe that is just the way it was, work out new counter strategies and tactics & if they do'nt work then tough luck for the soviets. If you FEEL it is not fair then remember that FAIR exists nowhere but in the heads of people.

Nick

PS. I'm up to March '44 in a PBEM game where the luftwaffe has blown me into the weeds. Do i cry 'not fair or the luftwaffe is too strong' HA. I keep fighting. Why? Because i think it COULD HAVE BEEN THIS WAY. How many at the ALAMO complained of unfair enemy strength? And then look at roarkes drift for an example of how the 'unfair advantage' of the enemy can be cancelled. (6000+ to 100+.. HA .. no problem)

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:


Josan

If you feel the Luftwaffe is too stong then maybe that is just the way it was, work out new counter strategies and tactics & if they do'nt work then tough luck for the soviets. If you FEEL it is not fair then remember that FAIR exists nowhere but in the heads of people.

Nick

PS. I'm up to March '44 in a PBEM game where the luftwaffe has blown me into the weeds. Do i cry 'not fair or the luftwaffe is too strong' HA. I keep fighting. Why? Because i think it COULD HAVE BEEN THIS WAY. How many at the ALAMO complained of unfair enemy strength? And then look at roarkes drift for an example of how the 'unfair advantage' of the enemy can be cancelled. (6000+ to 100+.. HA .. no problem)

---

No doubt Loki I work in every game to improve myself and Im not the only one that thinks Luftwaffe is too strong but sure I will try to minimize this german advantage...

Josan.

Originally posted by Josan:


No doubt Loki I work in every game to improve myself and Im not the only one that thinks Luftwaffe is too strong but sure I will try to minimize this german advantage...

Josan.

---

Josan

Good. We are here to improve ourselves.
German advantage? Prove to me that the germans have been given an unfair advantage in the air. Prove it with FACTS(backed up by all these people that support you) that destroy the facts given to us by the designers to use in this game. Tell the designers that they are wrong!! If you can prove them wrong i will admit the luftwaffe is too strong, if you can not do this then what can i say? Poor me.. Poor Me Poor me Poor me Poor Me Poor Me.

I ask the people who designed this game to tell me that the luftwaffe is too strong. Could it do what it can do in the game? If it cannot then it is a 'game' not a simulation.

Nick

PS. And this is the edit. If this is just a game and not a simulation then i will cease playing it. What now Josan, if you are right then no more GotterDammerung or Barbarossa german version. They mean nothing, they are just a game. Monopoly would be the standard.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Lokioftheaesir ]</p>

Originally posted by Josan:
Also is the issue of entrenching. Ed said me that the units would defender better in new version but again I have seen as Leningrad with 9 entrench level dropped to 1 after heavy air attacks and land assault. Also I have noticed this in other entrenchment places. Its the same I had 60 ops and Zhukov.

---

Do you have a save game that shows this? I've tried to create quick tests, but they aren't showing anything really bad. Perhaps a save from a real game would be better?

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:


Josan

Good. We are here to improve ourselves.
German advantage? Prove to me that the germans have been given an unfair advantage in the air. Prove it with FACTS(backed up by all these people that support you) that destroy the facts given to us by the designers to use in this game. Tell the designers that they are wrong!! If you can prove them wrong i will admit the luftwaffe is too strong, if you can not do this then what can i say? Poor me.. Poor Me Poor me Poor me Poor Me Poor Me.

I ask the people who designed this game to tell me that the luftwaffe is too strong. Could it do what it can do in the game? If it cannot then it is a 'game' not a simulation.

Nick

---

Loki, be quiet, its only a opinion.
Prove with Facts? so designers all wrong till v.3.1 for you?
The lethality of Luftwaffe is more destructive than priors versions.
Mr. Grygsby thought in a two rail supply conversion.Now is 3.He mistakes?...

Prove with facts? I can show you the lethality of Luftwaffe in a game if you want <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Josan.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



Do you have a save game that shows this? I've tried to create quick tests, but they aren't showing anything really bad. Perhaps a save from a real game would be better?

---

No sorry Ed, I delete the file but I will try to speak with my opponent to know if he still have the file. If not I will try with other future saves ( another german opponent is near Leningrad and soon he will begin the attacks).

Josan.

Originally posted by Josan:


Loki, be quiet.....

Josan.

---

Josan

Be quiet?
BE QUIET....hmmmmm
BE QUIET.. BE QUIET....... BE QUIET??

......OK

Nick

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Lokioftheaesir ]</p>

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:


Josan

Be quiet?
BE QUIET....hmmmmm
BE QUIET.. BE QUIET....... BE QUIET??
Sorry. i never meant to question you. i feel so devastated that i presumed to know what you and the game designers had worked out for this GAME. Obviously the axis could never have any advantage over the soviets 'cause that would not be fair' Even if the axis in real life could stomp the shit out of the soviets, well that is not 'fair'. How could the EVIL Nazis DO such a thing!!

Nick

EDIT

Ah.. now it is 'Mr' Grisby. OK Mr Grisby your 'simulation' of the Luftwaffe is shit according to certain people. Stick up for yourself buddy!! Josan says that the Luftwaffe is too strong.

'Prove with facts? I can show you the lethality of Luftwaffe in a game if you want'
Very good Josan, the Luftwaffe exists to be lethal, if if did not it would not be lethal HAHA (duh)

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Lokioftheaesir ]

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Lokioftheaesir ]

---

Loki you have a good humour sense. I hope you play better than speak.

Originally posted by Josan:


Loki you have a good humour sense. I hope you play better than speak.

---

Josan

Do not try to turn what i say as humour. Do you realy believe the luftwaffe is too stong??

Nick

Unless you play me you will never know.

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:


Josan

Do not try to turn what i say as humour. Do you realy believe the luftwaffe is too stong??

Nick

Unless you play me you will never know.

---

Really I think so but as I said before its only an opinion (can I explain my opinion no?).

And I challenge you in a game. You can choose side if you want but if I play with germans Im sure you that the soviets will not see the end of the year . You decide. Stop talking. Now its time to the guns to talk.

Josan.

A couple of things about the changes I want to make to the 1941 set up, and the air power. Regarding the 1941 setup changes around Lvov, they will be minor but hopefully allow the Soviets to salvage some of the units. I created the current setup based on knowledge of what armies the divisions were assigned to and what frontage these armies held. However, I very limited information as to where specific divisions were deployed, including how far off the frontier they were. Thus, it would be entirely reasonable to move one or two Soviet corps back, and maybe a tweak to the Axis to prevent the Hungarians from helping on the first turn (they didn't really do much the first week or two, if anything).

Regarding air power, it is much weaker now than in the 1.x versions that were originally released. It used to be that a bombing attack by 20 planes against an unentrenched defender could frequently kill 1500 men (7500 with the new loss ratios). Try it now and you will not see losses like that. These kind of air attacks would also cause lots of disruption to the ground units, which are much rarer now. Now you can use 200 bombers and you will not cause the losses that 20 bombers could do before.

It seems to me to be more an issue of entrenchments not helping as much as before, even though they have not been changed directly I believe. It seems like one "bug" Arnaud fixed was one giving extra entrenchment levels to units in some terrain that did not make sense. Maybe this was a change on purpose from before and it is having an impact. I just am not sure, but even in this version the entrenchments do not seem to help as much as I would expect. It seems very tough from what I have seen to inflict the heavy losses on the attacker that the early versions had. I am not sure, but it is not directly the Luftwaffe causing problems, I don't believe.

The Luftwaffe played an important role in the german Blitzkrieg successes, so I think it is generally correct that in WIR the german planes cause a lot of damage. But in my opinion they are far too effective against units in good defensive positions. For instance, in a PBEM game against Lorenzo I had a strong, well entrenched army in Kharkov. He bombarded it heavily and then sent a Panzer Korps there. It already started in a low-supply hex, had to fight and plot five steps and arrived at Kharkov with only a handful of tanks left. Still it managed to shatter my garrison at the first attack. This must have happened because of the prior bombardment, but I think this is unrealistic.