Game Suggestions:

[Der Lwe]

You should ad the possibility to "attack" empty hexes. If an inf have two or motorized have tree movement points left, it can take controll of an adjecent hex by attacking the enemy in that hex. It should be even easier to take possesion of an empty hex by "attacking" it using two or tree movement points.

[Attack]

I wrote this in another post, about the 1.05, but I can´t find it.

First: this is the best wargame I´ve never played in the last 30 years (before the computer age).

Sugestions to do it still better:

-The home rules means that a program fails. In a perfect game, there are not home rules. So, if possible, insert the consensus home rules in the program (Riga gambit, bomb airports and cities after turn one, disembarks in the south, static units in 1941...)

-The fall of Moscow should have some penalitation for the Soviets. I.E. some sort of moral and AP damage until reconquered.

-The rout units should not to cross converted hexes when they flee.

-The factories should take some time to be moved. I.e: 2-3 weeks after the order to be "packed" in trains, if  in this time the rail is cut or the city falls, then the factorie can´t travel. A factory can´t be dismanteled and packed in a single week. This way, the factory movement will be more challenging (and more historic). And the Russians will be weak in 1942.

-It will be good to can supply the partisans (but without marks for the Germans) manually. This way, the Russian player can priorize the supply work.

-As said before in others post, it will be good to see all the units of a pile, changing order.

-The isolated units should be penaliced only when supply and/or ammo leves are low.

-And my letter to Santa Claus: To have defensive stands. "Normal" defensive stand. "Delaying" defensive stand: the unit will retreat when attacked, without fight, with half losses than usually. "No step back": the unit will not retreat, it will fight till the end in a place, and it will shatter or be destroyed (if isolated) if defeated. This will give flexibility to defense, but I don´t know if there is too much change in the program.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
By way of Lannister at www.puntadelanza.es, a couple requests/suggestions:

1. Something that would add some chrome to Wite would be the ability to add their historical badges to Axis units.

That's cute! I like version 2 better.

But why restrict it to Axis units? Admittedly Soviet badges would be either Guards or not I suppose, but still. Or were the Soviet branches of service badges used already during WW2?

I'm not an expert on WW2 Soviet memorabilia, but I think Red Army formations didn't had anything like distinctive badges, common on Western Armies. Given the nature of the Soviet state, symbols of "esprits de corps" such as badges, I think such things would be frowned upon (or worse). What I actually think they had were banners, in the tradition of the 1918-1920 Civil War.

[chasman]

It would be nice if the historical enmity between Hungary and Romania were enforced, preventing this for example:

[wpurdom]

4. Do not let the Finns attack south of the no attack line. This would still let the finns move south if the Germans clear the way for them, which I think is generous when considering the historical situation. Historically, I think it would have been extremely doubtful if one single finn would have stepped over that line even if the Germans had captured Leningrad three times over and made it into a parking lot.

I was exchanging email with a Finn some years back who felt that their only goal in the Continuation War was to regain what they lost in the Winter War, and nothing more. He felt that they wouldn't have moved one inch further than they did, no matter how well the Germans did. This is reinforced by the general disgust the Finns felt for what the Nazis were doing in the captured territories.

Of course, if there was a chance to gain territory and wealth, perhaps the Finns might have been lured out anyway. Hard to say. The Germans likely would have had to do MUCH better than they did historically before they would risk angering the Soviet Union (because they didn't take anything more, or doing anything nasty, the Soviets were willing to let the Finns quietly exit the war - unlike the Germans who they were going to kick until it wasn't fun any more, and then do it a while longer anyway).

Most games have the Finnish front as an "its there" type thing, but little more - you have to keep enough forces there to keep the Finns in check, but that is it. Although most games also feel that if the Germans captured Leningrad, the Finns would have moved further out.



Armies don't generally march on something just because its there. There is a reason to take it. It may be strategic (a cross road, a fortification, a good location to secure the flank from), it may be industrial (the real goal of war is not to shoot the other guy's troops, it is to destroy his ability to make war against you, his troops want to do that to you, and stop you from doing it to him), it may be resources (that was why the Japanese invaded in the Pacific, and the Germans looted as many resources as they could - inefficiently, but they did it), it could be wealth (the Germans looted billions from the conquered territories to help pay for the war), or it could simply be on the way to one of the above, but there is a reason.

That's the Finnish story and they're sticking to it, but it turns out not to be the case - though I'm sure it's what your friend was taught by his parents and school. Look at Finland's War of Choice by Henrik Lunde.

Maintaining this story was very important to Finnish independence during the Cold War.

North of Lake Lagoda, the Finns advanced to the 1939 border with light losses, destroying 2 Soviet divisions - the 54th and 27th as well as a NKVD regiment. Then in September, while the Germans were approaching Leningrad, they engaged in fierce battles involving heavy casualties to penetrate the 1939 line north of Lake Lagoda to take Petrozavodsk and the Murmansk-Volkov line, destroying the Soviet 3d division and another divisional equivalent (marine brigade and 2 regiments). Thereafter in November and December they drove northwest to the northern end of Lake Onega and the town of Medvezhyegorsk taking and inflicting further heavy losses. The also drove across the Svir taking bridgeheads, including one 100 kilometers by 20 km.

In this early 1941 phase of the war the Finns suffered 25,000 killed out of total casualties of 75,000, a few more than in the Winter War and half of their losses in the Continuation. In the Continuation War, the Finns estimate that the Soviets lost 270,000 killed and 550,000 wounded.

The Finns had their own divisions about the Continuation War, the Social Democrats mostly felt they should stop at the 1939 borders, while there were substantial portions of the military and political leadership which saw the attractions of a "Greater Finland" to include Soviet Karelia (which though ethnically related had never been part of the Duchy of Finland) and to achieve lasting security by the breakup of their historic adversary. President Ryti stated in a note to the Germans that he wanted the entire Kola Penisula for Finland though later he had second thoughts if it involved a common border with a Russian or Soviet state. Mannerheim's General orders early in the war, one broadcast over Finnish radio called for the liberation of Karelia and freedom for a greater Finland that included Karelia.

It does seem that Mannerheim made a conscious decision not to help bring about a conquest of Leningrad - that front went quiet at the beginning of September and the Soviets were able to transfer 2 of their 6 divisions to the German front. In terms of further offensives northeast of Lagoda, however, the Finnish offensive went on as we have seen and stopped as much due to logistics and manpower issues as anything - the Finns initially put 16% of their population into the army and like the Brits in late 1944 were overcommitted in manpower - they needed to and planned on reducing the size of their army, and demobilized a divsion for replacements. And when pressed for offensive action by the Germans, Mannerheim promised to renew the offensive on the Svir line as soon as Leningrad fell - hence the rule in WITE.

Actually, on the Finnish front, the WITE rule is too kind to the Soviets. To somewhat mimic their situation, the 23rd army should have its own no-move line to not pass the Narva or Volkov in 1941 and the 7th should freeze after it crosses the no attack line until the end of the year. Even that doesn't duplicate the reasoning that led the Soviets to sacrifice numerous forces north of the no attack line.

I don't want to sound too harsh to the Finns. They were caught between the sword and the wall. They explicitly sought Soviet approval of annexation by Sweeden with the 1940 boundaries and a commitment to neutrality and the Swedes were willing, provided the Finns promised no new war with Stalin, but Stalin blocked it by threatenting attack. A big mistake by Stalin as it turned out. They also needed someone to allow importation of grain - which had to be the Germans or the Soviets, and the Soviets weren't interested in an accomodation with the Finns before July 1941. But they didn't fight a defensive war or confine themselves to the 1939 border either - which the UK and US told them was what they needed for continued support diplomatically vis-a-vis the Russians.

Finally, in terms of quietly exiting the war, initially Stalin was willing to return to the 1939 boundaries, an for some concessions if they simply stopped at the 1939 lines but didn't exit the war. After their late 1941 offensive, that went out, but right up until the end of 1943 Stalin was prepared to let them out on the final peace terms, essentially, maybe a little better. Then as he prepared the 1944 offensive, those terms came off the table. The Finns somehow were caught totally unprepared for the 1944 offensive and lost heavily in the early stages and Stalin seemed to reconsider annexing Finland. But then the resistance stiffened and the Soviets got bogged down, taking heavy casualties, so Stalin decided he didn't want to delay rolling into East Europe trying to finish the Finns, so he went back essentially to his pre-offensive peace terms. If the Finns were that hesitant to tee off the Soviets they wouldn't have gone past the 1939 borders at very heavy cost to both them and the Soviets.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

That's the Finnish story and they're sticking to it, but it turns out not to be the case - though I'm sure it's what your friend was taught by his parents and school. Look at Finland's War of Choice by Henrik Lunde.

Maintaining this story was very important to Finnish independence during the Cold War.

North of Lake Lagoda, the Finns advanced to the 1939 border with light losses, destroying 2 Soviet divisions (snip)

Good and informative post! But please, it should be Ladoga.

[randallw]

I hope something is done about the 27k aircraft limit for the Soviets.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Der Löwe

You should ad the possibility to "attack" empty hexes. If an inf have two or motorized have tree movement points left, it can take controll of an adjecent hex by attacking the enemy in that hex. It should be even easier to take possesion of an empty hex by "attacking" it using two or tree movement points.

I have wanted this rule since playing War In Europe on an 8' by 8' table with Mike and Brian back in High School.

[HCDawson]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: Der Löwe

You should ad the possibility to "attack" empty hexes. If an inf have two or motorized have tree movement points left, it can take controll of an adjecent hex by attacking the enemy in that hex. It should be even easier to take possesion of an empty hex by "attacking" it using two or tree movement points.

I have wanted this rule since playing War In Europe on an 8' by 8' table with Mike and Brian back in High School.

Such a rule would well represent clearing too small to represent screening forces or pounding 'suspected' enemy positions that would make it easier for other forces to advance.

[Djouk]

There 's a lack of realism in the fact that a city may only be destroyed when enemy units are in or with using air force. Historically, at many occasions Axis destroyed cities when they had not really totally occupied them (The best examples are Leningrad and above all Stalingrad). In one game i m playing, Axis other player is just leeching Moscow and even dont try to attack because city is well defended and fortified, and all industries are still intacts: not even a factory has been destroyed. That's not that i want to loose [:)] but in reality Axis had at last used some artillery to siege the city and to destroy some areas making rumbles. I would then agree that theses rumbles could at least increase defensive abilities like a counterpart of the actual rule if axis would like to attack after this (rumbles of stalingrad are often described like a cimetery for axe and leading a rats war).

As a consequence a player who intend to capture a city should have the choice of only using artillery with no attacking making only damages in the city... or at the opposite trying to capture a city without using artillery for example if this city i not well defended making easier capture of factories but may be increasing looses for attacker.
(But I wouldn't like a rule that allow to destroy all factories just with an enemy unit in ZOC of the city and then making no interest to enter in the city !)
In fact i dont see all theses historical mechanisms that had their importance.

When playing big scenarios where i have to put in reserve many units i find fastidious to click on small box (click.. click... click...), it would help if there was a touch for reserve mode, ready and refit mode for a single unit choosen.

[delatbabel]

I think one thing that does need adjusting is the victory conditions. There's a huge gap between the VPs required for a Soviet victory and the VPs required for a German victory.

The whinging of many aside, the game is reasonably historically accurate in portraying the industrial war between the Soviets and their lend-lease allies and the Germans; and it's getting closer over time. Given that situation, any result less than the capture of Berlin by the Soviets before May 1945 should be a German victory.

[Captain B]

I too would like to see some different weather conditions. bjmorgan had some good ideas. And I thought that the reason for the 4 weather zones was to allow different weather conditions in each zone...so say that the north soviet zone gets mud first, then the central soviet next turn, then the south soviet next turn and finally the European zone....have them clear up in the opposite order.

Also, the crimean peninsula should not have a blizzard that lasts as long as the rest of the soviet union. I would much rather be down there on the black sea than up near the baltic...certainly the temperature is typically warmer there than elsewhere.

Along with clear, maybe Hot/Humid/Drought...slow down the foot soldiers and speed up the motorized units.

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Add in a few levels of bad weather with different effects than what you have now.

I would suggest a "thunderstorm" event that occurrs only in the summer. (No more mud turns in Summer). This level would reduce the motorized units movement, but much less so leg units. Some effects on supply.

Then add a light mud. This level would have about half of the effect of the current mud turns. I see this as a way to slowly increase the effects of mud in the fall, then slowly return them to normal in the spring.

The same thing for snow. Add "flurries," and "light snow" to the game. Have a turn or two of these leading up to a full snow turn. Have blizzard turns randomly, but not consistently, in the winter. Say a 40% probablility. (Perhaps 60%, or something, the first winter.) The snow effects can slowly go away as spring approaches.

Then, carefully craft probabilities of when all the events will begin and end, but in a much more realistic way than we see now. If this is done correctly, the the 'historical" weather option would not be necessary. The problem is that in the variable weather, events are sudden and seemingly sometimes out of place, in my opinion.

[glvaca]

Perhaps these suggestions have already been posted before but if not, maybe this can be added at some point in the future:
1. When in recon mode, display the hexes already been reconned as currently is the case when F11 (show battle sites is selected). This makes it a lot easier to keep track of where you have flown recon. I have a bad memeory [;)]
2. Display total contruction value for a stack of units when hovering with the mouse over a friendly stack. Nice to know when setting up forts.
3. A key combination to only highlight units outside HQ range (ie. 6+)
4. And easier way to re-attach units to an HQ.
Perhpas the following could be considered:
Select HQ to re-attach too.
Hold ctrl or alt.
Select unit and a re-attach button appears top left in the unit window. (not detailed window) which can be clicked to re-attach.
5. Display win/Loss ratio in the detailed window of units/HQ's so you do not have to go to the commanders report to find this info.
6. For SU's, in the overview of Corps/Armies/etc... a default button next to SU's to re-assign the SU to Stavka/OKH without having to manually select and then re-assign said SU. This would save a lot of time if you want to micro manage a bit. Sort of simular to SU's attached to Divs to send them back to Corps/Armies.
7. Same as above for air groups but then for moving to reserve. Now you have to open each air group individually and move to reserve. If this could be done on the airbase overview that would save many clicks.

[cherryfunk]

A key combination to only highlight units outside HQ range (ie. 6+)

This would be excellent. Also, a combination to highlight units that will be withdrawn soon would be useful.

Also, in the event log, you should be able to click on a newly arrived unit and be taken right to it.

[randallw]

I don't seem to have the disband option for air units when they are in the national reserve.  Can this be changed?

[cherryfunk]

ORIGINAL: morvael

The Axis withdrawal/reinforcement is too scripted and rigidly historical in that always the same units will be withdrawn at the same time, completely disregarding their current situation and overall situation on the front. The same with reinforcements - they come when Axis fared badly on the front in reality (like SS divisions to rescue AG "A" in early 1943 used so well by Manstein) and not when the player has big trouble. Soviets have quite flexible play with the ability to buy units as they like. I propose that:
1) withdrawals be re-made in such a way so when OKW needs some divisions moved to other fronts they will ask "we want 2 infantry divisions" and the player will have the option to specify which divisions (sometimes those scripted to withdraw are in the most important parts of the front, while others that could be easily withdrawn are not called by high command)
2) allow to use AP to postpone withdrawals (20-30AP for 2-3 turns for a single unit, so the player would be unable to delay many units, but some in the most critical times)
3) allow to use AP to request reinforcements, with random chance if and what will come (up to the historical limits or with rising cost with each successful request).

That would offer more ways to use AP (currently they are used mainly for HQ buildup) which would be good and make the Axis play less scripted.

Apparently this suggestion has already been shot down, but it is an excellent one. The current system, by being too rigidly historical, is actually highly ahistorical -- that is, OKH would not pull out a division holding a key defensive position from the Russian Front to reinforce Sicily, for example. The basic idea that units would be pulled is sound, but by totally divorcing this mechanic from the history of the unfolding game you actually diminish the experience and pull the player out of the game's alternative world.

The designers should really should rethink this, and consider something along the lines of what morvael proposes above.

[cherryfunk]

In addition to my above point, the current 'historical' weather is in fact ensuring ahistorical play, since both sides know exactly when the weather will turn.  So again, the design is doing the exact opposite of its intention.  Simply adding a +/- 1 or 2 turn variance to when each weather type occurs would mitigate this enormously.

And a simple (hopefully) UI change -- it should be possible to toggle Ground Support on/off by clicking directly on the 'GS ON'/'GS OFF' indicator on the menu bar, rather than having to remember that 'X' is the hotkey and switching focus to the keyboard.  The more stuff in the UI that can be clicked, the better.
 

[cherryfunk]

Another tweak that I'd love to see -- to get the unit details box to come up, rather than left clicking the stack on the map, then moving the mouse across my monitor to the unit box and right clicking on the unit, then mousing back to center to interact with the unit details info, it would be much simpler if simply right-clicking a unit directly on the map brought up the details box. 
 

[KenchiSulla]

Add "supply interdiction" to the game. During axis logistics phase soviet planes with milage left have a chance to interdict truck movement resulting in damaged and destroyed vehicles, and less supply and fuel delivered.

[lastdingo]

How about allowing the Axis player at least the re-creation of destroyed formations?