Matrix Games Forums

Theoretically German units at Stalingrad were in static mode, all horses were sent as far back as Rostov, to conserve "freight" space for fodder. At the same time they were attacking. So one has to reconsider also what static means. Correct term would be demotorization (and dehorsing?), imobbilizing them (unless they want to lose their artillery) but being able to fight on foot.

Then what was it they dug up and made soup of the bones[;)]

I was talking about the period when they still weren't cut off, but were trying to capture the city, while theoretically static (one of the reasons it was hard to give order to retreat once Uranus started - all artillery would be lost).

ORIGINAL: morvael

I was talking about the period when they still weren't cut off, but were trying to capture the city, while theoretically static (one of the reasons it was hard to give order to retreat once Uranus started - all artillery would be lost).

I was being humorous[:D] They ate quite a VARIETY of things.

How does- would- the Battle of Stalingrad play out in game terms?

It Doesnt. Either Germans surround a city and then take it by storm with little to no losses- or its stormed in a 1 week assault again with light losses. Is why the game is a complete failure for simulating city fights.

Even the the only stance offered to defenders was hold at all costs would be good IMO. Keep combat as it is now, and add a hold at all cost order.

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

The key thing would be hold at all costs should be make deliberate assaults against the location much more costly for both sides since neither wants to give up.

Static mode may be a good simulation of this---just make it affect the combat results as well. Kind of hard to retreat with no motorization and only enough horses to move supplies.

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

Or they hold till morale breaks or forced out.

Like in history. As long as there is no opportunity to encircle the place (and the Germans were in no position to do it, being overstretched) it's only about the willingness to trade blows and throw more bodies to the furnace (and Soviets excelled at this, Germans had no resources).

Obviously my design is rough and could be refined to allow all-out defense to stay in place unless overwhelmed with a 5:1 ratio or left without forts at the end of combat. Anyway, this should mainly depend on ability to suffer losses and replenish them. Battle of materiel is what it was, and these have different rules than battles of maneuver.

ORIGINAL: KWG

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

Or they hold till morale breaks or forced out.

Or could be restricted to hexes with dense terrain. Including those from level 3 forts. Unless you can encircle it or butcher through there is no way to take it.

Static mode may be a good simulation of this---just make it affect the combat results as well. Kind of hard to retreat with no motorization and only enough horses to move supplies.

Some way of having some opposing adjacent units that have done battle against each other have a chance of becoming "Locked in combat" therefore causing extra movement points to disengage and move. also suffers higher attrition rates while locked.

ORIGINAL: chaos45

It Doesnt. Either Germans surround a city and then take it by storm with little to no losses- or its stormed in a 1 week assault again with light losses. Is why the game is a complete failure for simulating city fights.

Even the the only stance offered to defenders was hold at all costs would be good IMO. Keep combat as it is now, and add a hold at all cost order.

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

The key thing would be hold at all costs should be make deliberate assaults against the location much more costly for both sides since neither wants to give up.

Static mode may be a good simulation of this---just make it affect the combat results as well. Kind of hard to retreat with no motorization and only enough horses to move supplies.

The WitW (and therefore WitE2.0) set up is different as units can feed from depots. This makes surrounded units much more resilient.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: chaos45

It Doesnt. Either Germans surround a city and then take it by storm with little to no losses- or its stormed in a 1 week assault again with light losses. Is why the game is a complete failure for simulating city fights.

Even the the only stance offered to defenders was hold at all costs would be good IMO. Keep combat as it is now, and add a hold at all cost order.

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

The key thing would be hold at all costs should be make deliberate assaults against the location much more costly for both sides since neither wants to give up.

Static mode may be a good simulation of this---just make it affect the combat results as well. Kind of hard to retreat with no motorization and only enough horses to move supplies.

The WitW (and therefore WitE2.0) set up is different as units can feed from depots. This makes surrounded units much more resilient.

Oh YEA.. Ive noticed thats a BIG change with the depot system. Self-Sustaining. Surrounded units sitting on well stocked depots are difficult to defeat.

What is that German word for that Hitler called for surrounded pockets turned into fortresses,... Ingelstadt... nein?

Agreed.

Of course, it is a game, and the german player must have a real chance to win, but the balance shouldnt be 100% historic. Playing Germany should be difficult (if you achieve to win) but lets give the german player a chance.

I agree, and you are never ever, in our lifetimes at least, going to get something that approaches a true "simulation." All I was saying is that performance against the historical outcomes is an absolutely fine way to judge German success AND it is not the case that post-1941 (if ever) the argument could be made that Germany had a real opportunity to "win" the war of attrition.

That doesn't mean I'm against historical variants (like a May 15th start!). I will point out though that WiTE is already an ultimate "variant" scenario. For example, the player is given free reign to pursue the war however they like, changing their objectives and even moving whole panzer groups to different AGS.

In some ways I'm really impressed with what decisive campaigns has done by giving mechanics to the operational constraints of the Wermacht placed there for political reasons, and I really believe that historically this was the biggest variable in how Barbarossa (summer 1941) concluded.

Can I add a wish list?

Most of my thoughts about making the game better involve how information is displayed to the player .

1. A much easier way to click a button to see which HQs are over limit as far as subordinates go, and under limit. Clicking back and forth a dozen times is burdensome. (Quality of Life)
2. I need a screen where I can easily assign and re-assign aircraft. You can keep the mechanic of "hours flown," without the "transfer air unit" command, which makes it hard for me to tell which airfield has what, etc.
3. When I click on a corps HQ I want to see a separate color for it and it's units.
4. Instead of just "show isolated units" I'd like an overlay showing gradation of supply. I want to know which units are pulling full supply from the railhead, partial supply, little, etc.

Features:

Features I'd find interesting, though not everyone's cup of tea I'm sure:
1. Finer control over production like the Japanese in WITP. I.e. I want the be able to modify what equipment is being produced.
2. Integrating meta economics to the extent above. I would like to see the capture of my oilfields (and their repair!) mean more oil, and captured factories (and their repair!) mean a possible increase in TOE or armament production.
3. InclusIon of Norway, the Northern Russian parts.
4. Real modeling of the naval war. To ambhibious assault, I want to have to buy old a task force. I want to be able to intradict Murmansk lend-lease convoys.

REAL wishful thinking:
1. Option to play with Hitler and Stalin inference and political consequences (the DE:B system isn't perfect but I'm so glad some Me has done it). Make the player have to listen to politicians. They set goals, and total failure can lead to loss by replacement! Give players a reason why sending Panzers north or South *might* be a bad idea. Give Soviet players a reason to not just abandon Kiev right away.
2. Soviet/Balitic states collaborationist units (more of them). Up to a 1/3rd of German manpower in the East was former Soviets.
3. Dynamic modeling of the West. The better the Germans do East, the least well the Western allies do, to some extent... Altering withdrawal tables, etc.

Are you playing WitW? WitE2.0 is a development of WitW and not WitE. Some things are already in game and others are in train (no clues on which is which).

I am playing War in the East--just started actually. My suggestions were just based on ways a WITE2 might be improved quality of life wise over WITE based on my impressions as a new player to the title(s).

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Are you playing WitW? WitE2.0 is a development of WitW and not WitE. Some things are already in game and others are in train (no clues on which is which).

1. Option to play with Hitler and Stalin inference and political consequences (the DE:B system isn't perfect but I'm so glad some Me has done it). Make the player have to listen to politicians. They set goals, and total failure can lead to loss by replacement! Give players a reason why sending Panzers north or South *might* be a bad idea. Give Soviet players a reason to not just abandon Kiev right away.

+1 I suggested this when I first started playing as a way to make the game more historical. Would be cool as an optional rule.

Something out of left field... some kind of ingame battle planer would be nice or a function where I can put notes on the map or let me color some hexes. Little stickies, something like this.

The problem is, if life interrupts it is really difficult for me to get back into the bigger scenarios I started to play. Further more drawing some arrows and seeing if I can follow my plan would make the game much more comprehensible and easier to manage.

ORIGINAL: uw06670

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Are you playing WitW? WitE2.0 is a development of WitW and not WitE. Some things are already in game and others are in train (no clues on which is which).

1. Option to play with Hitler and Stalin inference and political consequences (the DE:B system isn't perfect but I'm so glad some Me has done it). Make the player have to listen to politicians. They set goals, and total failure can lead to loss by replacement! Give players a reason why sending Panzers north or South *might* be a bad idea. Give Soviet players a reason to not just abandon Kiev right away.

+1 I suggested this when I first started playing as a way to make the game more historical. Would be cool as an optional rule.

It could be interesting to have, as an optional rule, some strategic objectives linked to some hexes (like for example Kiev) that the players have to achieve in order to gain/avoid some bonus/penalities (to morale? to AP?).
E.G. for the Soviet Player, keep Kiev untill a certain date/turn.

ORIGINAL: kosmoface
The problem is, if life interrupts it is really difficult for me to get back into the bigger scenarios I started to play. Further more drawing some arrows and seeing if I can follow my plan would make the game much more comprehensible and easier to manage.

As a workaround, you can also do an AAR: it's funny and helps you to remember your plan

Haha, thanks for the suggestion, but I have not enough time to play alle the games I want to play. An AAR takes away too much time and all I want is more time for playing. And getting right back into it, without having to ponder much, would help.

Expanded map North to include Murmansk, northern Norway to simulate operation Silver Fox and to try and stop Murmansk lend-lease.