Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Given that the West was Germany's "main show" it's more a case that units were diverted from East to West. Without Africa and the "Second Front" Germany would have thrown everything they had into Russia so while your argument is plausible in the abstract, concretely it doesn't really make sense.

No, you are not thinking this through. Let's make an example:

In the game the 297th Infantry Division is disbanded in June 1943. Reason is, that division was destroyed in Stalingrad and then recreated in France and then sent to the Balkans. So, now assume that division is not disbanded in the game since the player doesn't have the division destroyed in Stalingrad and it remains in the East. Does the German high command still send over let's say the 355th Infantry Division east in May/June 1943 or do they send this division to the Balkans instead?

Or, the 29th Motorized Division. Gets disbanded in May 1943 again because it was destroyed in Stalingrad, then recreated in France before getting sent to fight in Italy. If the division isn't disbanded because the player doesn't have it destroyed in Stalingrad, who is to say that the Germans wouldn't have pulled out another motorized/panzergrenadier division from the East instead once things got hot in Italy?

You can't just simply stop the withdrawals / disbandments without reconsidering the possible effects this would've had. The only way around is to use a West Front box. And if you don't use / there is no such box, you must do these kind of withdrawals or disbandments.

How do you send a destroyed division anywhere? You don't, it's just a name with a history and at best,a few thousand personnel recuperating from wounds or returning from leave. If the division wasn't destroyed and there is no name to re-create, you, assuming you have the necessary materials, create a new division.

I think it would be good idea to restrict both sides to historical units, with the option to recreate any if they are destroyed. So a unit becomes available at a given date and can be disbanded at will. Destroyed and disbanded units should be put on a list of units available for rebuild. Meanwhile other fronts should be represented by off-map boxes with CV/number need waxing and waning with time, with full freedom to select which units should go there.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Given that the West was Germany's "main show" it's more a case that units were diverted from East to West. Without Africa and the "Second Front" Germany would have thrown everything they had into Russia so while your argument is plausible in the abstract, concretely it doesn't really make sense.

No, you are not thinking this through. Let's make an example:

In the game the 297th Infantry Division is disbanded in June 1943. Reason is, that division was destroyed in Stalingrad and then recreated in France and then sent to the Balkans. So, now assume that division is not disbanded in the game since the player doesn't have the division destroyed in Stalingrad and it remains in the East. Does the German high command still send over let's say the 355th Infantry Division east in May/June 1943 or do they send this division to the Balkans instead?

Or, the 29th Motorized Division. Gets disbanded in May 1943 again because it was destroyed in Stalingrad, then recreated in France before getting sent to fight in Italy. If the division isn't disbanded because the player doesn't have it destroyed in Stalingrad, who is to say that the Germans wouldn't have pulled out another motorized/panzergrenadier division from the East instead once things got hot in Italy?

You can't just simply stop the withdrawals / disbandments without reconsidering the possible effects this would've had. The only way around is to use a West Front box. And if you don't use / there is no such box, you must do these kind of withdrawals or disbandments.

How do you send a destroyed division anywhere? You don't, it's just a name with a history and at best,a few thousand personnel recuperating from wounds or returning from leave. If the division wasn't destroyed and there is no name to re-create, you, assuming you have the necessary materials, create a new division.

Agree.. that is why instead of named units then let all withdrawals be based on CV with the size and type of units being the second decision making criteria. Ie. Turn 148, German player to withdraw 65 CV, with a minimum of 4 divisions of which 1 is to be motorised.

Furthermore, I would add an option to have the withdrawals being partially random so that the German player sometimes is surprised by the requirement to withdraw units (as in real life)

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think it would be good idea to restrict both sides to historical units, with the option to recreate any if they are destroyed. So a unit becomes available at a given date and can be disbanded at will. Destroyed and disbanded units should be put on a list of units available for rebuild. Meanwhile other fronts should be represented by off-map boxes with CV/number need waxing and waning with time, with full freedom to select which units should go there.

I like that idea too, but as per kch's point and the one I made earlier about allowing units to deploy within so many hexes of their historical locations, maybe have a margin of, say 2-5% beyond historical builds to reduce ahistorical foresight and formulaic play. Existing production limits should check some excesses but if manpower were graded for abilities like in real life, and each element were composed of different types/combinations of manpower types, you could lift artificial restrictions and let historical resources determine what each side built.

Probably one for War in Europe, if at all, but that way, varying according to national level of culture, there would for example generally be less educated recruits with specialist skills to, say, fill HQ posts, than regular cannon fodder. I can't give sources or verify any of this- perhaps someone can confirm or refute- but I read in various places, for example, that Russia didn't even have enough people trained to a sufficiently high standard in maths, to use European style artillery fire control systems. The US put a disproportionate number of their "intelligent" or highly educated recruits in the artillery, armour and paratroops came second, leaving infantry formations somewhat lacking in educated grey matter.

Generic manpower could certainly be improved upon.

Maybe this has been asked or mentioned before and in that case I apologize.

I think it would be nice (and maybe it will be the case) if you were able to buy commanders from other fronts with PP. Any plans of for this?

Are the "war in Europe" put on ice?

Speaking of which, Albert Kesselring is available in WitE after his departure to the west in November 41. WAD?

How about an map overlay that shows the historical front line at that point in time? I would like to be able to see how I am performing compared to the historical development.

ORIGINAL: kch

How about an map overlay that shows the historical front line at that point in time? I would like to be able to see how I am performing compared to the historical development.

Hi!
I dont know about the possibilities to do this in WitE-2
but WitE-1 has one.
Goran

ORIGINAL: Steelwarrior7

I think that makes many Axis players give up right now - as soon as the tide turns (because no matter how well they do, they cannot win against a good/equal or even a worse SU player, if he does not help by totally messing up - so the SU player gets to decide each time to repeat history - even if the AXIS player performance is at its best at all limits of the game)

The quitting problem is huge but your point begs the question of what a German 'win' is. If someone thinks that is a Russian surrender, then the game will (rightly) almost always disappoint anyone playing against a human. After all, IRL the war was neither a German win nor a draw. My approach has always been to decide who won by comparison to the historical outcome ie the date of the fall of Berlin. That gives the German much more of a chance than the game's much later end date.

Thanks for the update Red Lancer (John)!

Is the map going to be generally the same colors? From the looks of the AARs I'm one of the few that enjoy the original map.
I do find Jison's map fantastic but feel more comfortable with the initial release map.

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Thanks for the update Red Lancer (John)!

Is the map going to be generally the same colors? From the looks of the AARs I'm one of the few that enjoy the original map.
I do find Jison's map fantastic but feel more comfortable with the initial release map.

It's the same map as WitW but we are working on some necessary improvements. Double rail lines and how we show variable road quality (which can now be set by individual hex and not just country) are currently quite important.

The quitting problem is huge but your point begs the question of what a German 'win' is. If someone thinks that is a Russian surrender, then the game will (rightly) almost always disappoint anyone playing against a human. After all, IRL the war was neither a German win nor a draw. My approach has always been to decide who won by comparison to the historical outcome ie the date of the fall of Berlin. That gives the German much more of a chance than the game's much later end date.

I do not agree on quitting in a PBEM game at all - because it is unpolite - but the nerf bat that Germany receives - as explained above - additionally to the weaker position, is also just too much. I believe Germany could have at least acheived some kind of stalemate - also by managing the Winter better and not having Stalingrad happen as it did - actually Germany did not have that much less manpower then the SOV (check the population stats and the many children in Germany and add in Germanies allies) and the SOV would have run out of manpower at a point - if the AXIS would have continued to fight smart...it is just that the SOV did mobilize its manpower in comparison to its pop (so % wise) much more and the AXIS wasted its at times also (plus Germany was actually lighter on its own pop, by not sending women to the front - and no old and young until very late in the war - but with no Stalingrad and bad winter 41 plus some unnecessary no retreat orders and counter attacks (for example Kursk) - which a human player could do smarter - the will of the AXIS population to fight could have been much higher and by that also the mobilzed manpower) - so saying if the AXIS would have done better, like mentioned above, they could have come to a point where the mapower of the SOV was being exhausted (they did not have modern Chinas pop LOL - and additionally to the high losses at the front they had high civilian losses due to AXIS forces and crazy Stalin and his party. Now check the AARS and you will see many times more than 10 million losses for the SOV and another 10 million army - that is neither realistic nor historical - but due to the game engine giving the SOV a never exhausting MP pool) and by that a stalemate would have been enforced. What I believe many forget is - yes the SOV mobilized a huge manpower - but they could not have been mobilizing that much more - they already used women at the front...so if the AXIS could have inflicted more losses due to smarter dealing with their challenges and keeping a good defendable front and their own army intact - they may have been able to force a stalemate...not that in RL I would have wished for it ;-D But it is not impossible ;-D and should be recognized in a game like this...

Especially for a PBEM it would mean that both sides have limited offensive abilities until the end date - both can win due to smart offense and defense and losse due to bad offense and defense - that would result in a very exciting, open and dynamic campaign istead of a rather repetitive SOV grind against purely defensive AXIS from late 42 on...

Even more in an alternative scenario - Hitler is dead scenario (there were enough assasination attempts of which many failed due to bad luck) - , where the goons would not have abused the population of the Ukranians and Baltic states and the Jews and Western Europe - could have resulted in a much higher MP for the AXIS from Northern Europe, Western Europe and Baltic, Ukranian and Eastern European States...as they would have seen Stalin as the higher threat - than a German 4th Supreme Command - actually, the SOV profited mostly from the Nazis being worse than them - but they also murdered, raped, persecuted and tortured (remember aggressive wars like Finnland, Poland, Baltic States and claims on Romania? All before Barbarossa...) - just a little less than the Nazis...

Add in all the bad decisions done differently - which can be mostly directly linked to crazy Hitler and his high ranking Nazi buddies - more interceptors to defend the industry and manpower, better ressource management - due to being aware it is a long war - and the growing technological advantage and there is a stalemate in the West (due to a highly risky invasion - the intact, stronger German army could have defeated an invasion) and in the East - as the SOV run out of manpower for constant grinding costly attacks...it would still mean both are possible - invasions in the West and succesful offenses in the East - but AXIS player could punish a bad execution of these up to the point of being able to push back...
No NM script nerf bat, no more and more nerfed supply situation for the AXIS, real gains possible manpower and industry wise and not an unending manpower for the SOV and we should see quite a different picture...then VPs would need to get rebalanced maybe...
Again especially PBEMs would profit from a more dynamic, exciting, creative, free and open campaign...instead of a one sided, repetitive grind most of the time...the 4th Supreme command has been done already for WitW so why not for WitE? Just dreaming ;-D

Not to be misunderstood - I appreciate the effort of all devs - it still is the best War in the East game (I also own WitW and WitP AE - they are all best and most detailed of their theatre) and alone the number of patches and time of support is impressive - but there could be some improvements ;-D

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Thanks for the update Red Lancer (John)!

Is the map going to be generally the same colors? From the looks of the AARs I'm one of the few that enjoy the original map.
I do find Jison's map fantastic but feel more comfortable with the initial release map.

It's the same map as WitW but we are working on some necessary improvements. Double rail lines and how we show variable road quality (which can now be set by individual hex and not just country) are currently quite important.

Am I looking forward to that!

One way to encourage early war Russian aggression might be to separate experience in attack from that in defence. The logistics and tactics of attack are quite different from those of defence. Yet it is possible for the Russians to keep running east all year, often gaining experience only in defence, then magically counter-attack when the weather turns as if they have somehow learned how to attack over the summer. This can extend into 1942, with the hindsight enabled player defending until they have accumulated sufficient numerical superiority to go over to the offensive and win.

Experience in attack and defence could be hooked to national morale as well as the units involved in each battle, it's level perhaps being pegged, along with other factors, to the lowest 'pool' of the two experience types.

Given that we learn at least as much from failure as from success, I'd suggest that experience be derived from all combat, not just wins. This would also encourage a forward defence.

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Given that we learn at least as much from failure as from success, I'd suggest that experience be derived from all combat, not just wins. This would also encourage a forward defence.

+1

I haven't played WitE in a while. I started playing mainly as the Soviets to learn the game, but got tired of opponents abandoning the game and quit playing.

I've been playing WitW over the last year, and the main concern I've developed with respect to how this game/logistics engine will function on the Eastern Front is how crippled panzer formations are by the loss of vehicles.
I'm yet to find a way to reliably rectify this, even when I have a motor pool over 30k+.

If HQBU is going to be dropped, I think a method for the player to focus vehicle replacements into motorized units will be a must.

I've posted several AARs, and have been able to conduct plenty of mobile warfare, but once you get the motorized units more than 3 hexes from depots (inside of which they can use 'organic' transport instead of trucks) the logistics engine seems to rob a lot of vehicles from the unit to supply the unit. Quickly MPs are reduced into the 30s, and good luck ever getting them back up.

I've had units on refit for a year in France, and they can't fill out their vehicle TOE.

I'm having trouble seeing how the Barbarossa and Case Blue type offensives won't falter on this point.

Looks like a bug / WAD but bad. Motorized units should hold to their motorized supply columns.

To be fair, motorization was a serious problem with the Wehrmacht throughout the war. The German Army in France had units rebuilding from early 1944 and by June, they were still 40-75% short of authorized motor vehicles even though they were stuffed with armored fighting vehicles. The two SS Panzer Divisions struggled to get their units to Normandy because of this issue.

I agree that being able to prioritize vehicle replacements is important and replacement priorities is something me and Pavel are talking about.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I haven't played WitE in a while. I started playing mainly as the Soviets to learn the game, but got tired of opponents abandoning the game and quit playing.

I've been playing WitW over the last year, and the main concern I've developed with respect to how this game/logistics engine will function on the Eastern Front is how crippled panzer formations are by the loss of vehicles.
I'm yet to find a way to reliably rectify this, even when I have a motor pool over 30k+.

If HQBU is going to be dropped, I think a method for the player to focus vehicle replacements into motorized units will be a must.

I've posted several AARs, and have been able to conduct plenty of mobile warfare, but once you get the motorized units more than 3 hexes from depots (inside of which they can use 'organic' transport instead of trucks) the logistics engine seems to rob a lot of vehicles from the unit to supply the unit. Quickly MPs are reduced into the 30s, and good luck ever getting them back up.

I've had units on refit for a year in France, and they can't fill out their vehicle TOE.

I'm having trouble seeing how the Barbarossa and Case Blue type offensives won't falter on this point.

To be fair, motorization was a serious problem with the Wehrmacht throughout the war. The German Army in France had units rebuilding from early 1944 and by June, they were still 40-75% short of authorized motor vehicles even though they were stuffed with armored fighting vehicles. The two SS Panzer Divisions struggled to get their units to Normandy because of this issue.

Not questioning the historical accuracy of German vehicle shortages in the war, just think a point of focus in testing should be this change introduced with WitW to determine MP in part by vehicle allotment. It's going to have a much bigger impact given the scope of the Eastern Front.

I agree that being able to prioritize vehicle replacements is important and replacement priorities is something me and Pavel are talking about.

Can I provide a case in point for some indication of how best within the way the game works now to address this prioritization?

The 9th SS is a fat and happy little unit that has been resting in Vienna and now Milan (both national supply sources) for a few weeks (moved only by rail in the last month).



Aside from a few items their TOE is blessed.



This is an EF box game, which should inflate the number of trucks you see in the depots, but I'm showing a motor pool of 30k trucks.



As the player, what can I do to draw down that truck motor pool and get 9th SS Panzers vehicle allotment at least at a point it isn't crippling their mobility?

I could spend AP on a non-motorized unit and draw trucks from the pool into that unit. Some kind of function like that might be needed for arm/mech/mot units. When you combine the truck loss from movement itself and then add in the losses from resupply (20.1.7.1. Emergency Use of Vehicles) I think the historical panzer pace would be hard to match without something like that.

"In July 1941, Balck became Spar-kommissar at the Office of the Director of Army Equipment in Berlin. His task was to make up for vehicle losses in Russia. Over a four-month period, he stripped 100,000 vehicles and their crews from uncommitted units and transferred them to the combat forces."

ORIGINAL: Steelwarrior7

The quitting problem is huge but your point begs the question of what a German 'win' is. If someone thinks that is a Russian surrender, then the game will (rightly) almost always disappoint anyone playing against a human. After all, IRL the war was neither a German win nor a draw. My approach has always been to decide who won by comparison to the historical outcome ie the date of the fall of Berlin. That gives the German much more of a chance than the game's much later end date.

I do not agree on quitting in a PBEM game at all - because it is unpolite - but the nerf bat that Germany receives - as explained above - additionally to the weaker position, is also just too much. I believe Germany could have at least acheived some kind of stalemate - also by managing the Winter better and not having Stalingrad happen as it did - actually Germany did not have that much less manpower then the SOV (check the population stats and the many children in Germany and add in Germanies allies) and the SOV would have run out of manpower at a point - if the AXIS would have continued to fight smart...it is just that the SOV did mobilize its manpower in comparison to its pop (so % wise) much more and the AXIS wasted its at times also (plus Germany was actually lighter on its own pop, by not sending women to the front - and no old and young until very late in the war - but with no Stalingrad and bad winter 41 plus some unnecessary no retreat orders and counter attacks (for example Kursk) - which a human player could do smarter - the will of the AXIS population to fight could have been much higher and by that also the mobilzed manpower) - so saying if the AXIS would have done better, like mentioned above, they could have come to a point where the mapower of the SOV was being exhausted (they did not have modern Chinas pop LOL - and additionally to the high losses at the front they had high civilian losses due to AXIS forces and crazy Stalin and his party. Now check the AARS and you will see many times more than 10 million losses for the SOV and another 10 million army - that is neither realistic nor historical - but due to the game engine giving the SOV a never exhausting MP pool) and by that a stalemate would have been enforced. What I believe many forget is - yes the SOV mobilized a huge manpower - but they could not have been mobilizing that much more - they already used women at the front...so if the AXIS could have inflicted more losses due to smarter dealing with their challenges and keeping a good defendably front and their own army intact - they may have been able to force a stalemate...not that in RL I would have wished for it ;-D But it is not impossible ;-D and should be recognized in a game like this...

Especially for a PBEM it would mean that both sides have limited offensive abilities until the end date - both can win due to smart offense and defense and losse due to bad offense and defense - that would result in a very exciting, open and dynamic campaign istead of a rather repetitive SOV grind against purely defensive AXIS from late 42 on...

Even more in an alternative scenario - Hitler is dead scenario (there were enough assasination attempts of which many failed due to bad luck) - , where the goons would not have abused the population of the Ukranians and Baltic states and the Jews and Western Europe - could have resulted in a much higher MP for the AXIS from Northern Europe, Western Europe and Baltic, Ukranian and Eastern European States...as they would have seen Stalin as the higher threat - than a German 4th Supreme Command - actually, the SOV profited mostly from the Nazis being worse than them - but they also murdered, raped, persecuted and tortured (remember aggressive wars like Finnland, Poland, Baltic States and claims on Romania? All before Barbarossa...) - just a little less than the Nazis...

Add in all the bad decisions done differently - which can be mostly directly linked to crazy Hitler and his high ranking Nazi buddies - more interceptors to defend the industry and manpower, better ressource management - due to being aware it is a long war - and the growing technological advantage and there is a stalemate in the West (due to a highly risky invasion - the intact, stronger German army could have defeated an invasion) and in the East - as the SOV run out of manpower for constant grinding costly attacks...it would still mean both are possible - invasions in the West and succesful offenses in the East - but AXIS player could punish a bad execution of these up to the point of being able to push back...
No NM script nerf bat, no more and more nerfed supply situation for the AXIS, real gains possible manpower and industry wise and not an unending manpower for the SOV and we should see quite a different picture...then VPs would need to get rebalanced maybe...
Again especially PBEMs would profit from a more dynamic, exciting, creative, free and open campaign...instead of a one sided, repetitive grind most of the time...the 4th Supreme command has been done already for WitW so why not for WitE? Just dreaming ;-D

Not to be misunderstood - I appreciate the effort of all devs - it still is the best War in the East game (I also own WitW and WitP AE) - but there could be some improvements ;-D

Lots of people promise not to quit and then do so as soon as they don't think they can win, especially on the german side when they realise that they won't get an automatic victory. Probably not much anyone can do about that. I read a game review in PC Gamer recently where the author complained about so many quitting part way through when they think they are losing - even though each game only lasts for 5 minutes!

I think that a lot of your ideas would be good as an alternative history scenario - but as a Russian player I would not be very keen unless there were changes for me too. To have these changes in the vanilla game starts to get closer to Hearts of Iron territory. WiTE needs to keep it's historical purity wherever possible. The real problem is that the Germans only did so well in '41 because of crass ineptitude on the russian side. No player will be as stupid with the russians, nor will any german replicate Hitler's idiocies: insofar as they can be controlled in-game.

Progress and/or results in AARs are almost always measured by comparison with historical events/figures and I can't see that changing. The challenge is therefore to have a game (sic) which somehow gives some sort of approximation with history (with evenly matched players when those same players are armed with knowledge of historical events and how the game works) and for the game to be flexible enough to be able to handle things in the same way that a good counterfactual book would.The NM issue is a classic example of a mechanism that works very well in terms of helping a game to reflect history a bit better. However,as many have said,it does not work when looked at from a counterfactual perspective because the factors that NM is designed to replicate were so heavily influenced by how the war developed historically.

Hmmm I seem to have fallen into the typical lawyer's response to a client asking what they should do - giving a boring analysis of the problem without actually answering the client's question. Perhaps I should just end by writing what I was taught as as an undergraduate scientist to put at the end of every essay - 'more research is needed'.

Perhaps more will help.