Matrix Games Forums

I agree with 76mm on the CP change. It seems backward for the command limits to actually decrease as time goes on just to replicate IRL late-war C&C. Or at least, it seems awkward for your limit to start off high, then become smaller even as your army supposedly gets better.

76mm, that's only part of it.

For the tank armies they never should have been allowed to get so big to begin with. This one really is a no brainer. 3 corps was the standard. They simply didn't run around with 6+ mobile corps.

The combined arms thing, well, that one is trickier. Generally speaking late war combined arm armies tended to have 3-4 corps (not always rifle, sometimes including a mobile corps) and various odds and ends. But there were many exceptions. It was felt that the command model should aim at the average here. The "shrinkage" is in part due to the distortions caused by the shift from divisions to corps. The command costs associated with these are not linear, bear in mind. Corps are more efficient in terms of command load than 3 divisions. So that gets you some of the perceived shrinkage.

The developers also didn't like the fact that very large Soviet armies meant that with fewer armies running around, Soviet leadership was too high and they could largely run the Red Army without having to resort to bad leaders. Me, I think this is piffle. You will of course concentrate your best leaders in that portion of the front that matters (almost certainly in the Ukraine), even under this system, but there you go. The junkier leaders will simply go to the quiet parts of the front. Even with this system I think there's enough 5 point guys out there to man all the armies and avoid having to use the absolute stinkers. And the average leadership drop here isn't that big, given that Soviet leadership wasn't that amazing to begin with.

Mostly, and to be cynical for a moment, the combined arms change is kind of a new AP tax on the Sovs.

I haven't built an new HQ in 1943 before, but they now seem to arrive with a dozen SU's of random and of varied usefulness.

I'll keep playing; but it will create big problems for me. I just completed the first February 42 turn as the Russians in a close pbem game. Not only are almost all my at the Front Armies loaded at 24, I just this turn (before reading about this patch) disbanded 3 of my STAVKA Army HQs thinking I needed their manpower more than I needed them. I only have about 100 APs in the kitty so I won't have anywhere near enough to build more Army HQs, assign decent Leaders to these Army HQs and transfer units out of the overloaded Armies to the new Armies. Not to mention that I have to use some APs to build new units (I merged a lot of brigades into divisions to keep my Blizzard Offensive going) and still save some to build Tank Corps come April.

On the other hand, at least his March Snow Offensive will be blunted somewhat by the patch.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I'll keep playing; but it will create big problems for me. I just completed the first February 42 turn as the Russians in a close pbem game. Not only are almost all my at the Front Armies loaded at 24, I just this turn (before reading about this patch) disbanded 3 of my STAVKA Army HQs thinking I needed their manpower more than I needed them. I only have about 100 APs in the kitty so I won't have anywhere near enough to build more Army HQs, assign decent Leaders to these Army HQs and transfer units out of the overloaded Armies to the new Armies. Not to mention that I have to use some APs to build new units (I merged a lot of brigades into divisions to keep my Blizzard Offensive going) and still save some to build Tank Corps come April.

On the other hand, at least his March Snow Offensive will be blunted somewhat by the patch.

Guys, I think that is is quite feasible and possible to have old EXE (with old rules) together with new EXE (with new rules) at the same time!


How to do that?


Simple!


Just copy the previous WitE v1.05.53 "WarInTheEast.exe" to "WarInTheEast-53.exe" (or whatever you like) and then install the latest WitE v1.05.59!

This way you will have two EXEs in your WitE folder and you can use old EXE for games in progress (the new data settings are not applicable to existing old games anyway) and new EXE for new games!



Leo "Apollo11"

Sure I will keep playing. But the bias towards the Soviets may see me play only Russia in the future if the bias continues. If Germany is battered down so much that there is no chance of winning in 1941/42 then why bother invading in the first place?

Michael,

I think you will find a way. OTOH, you were winning way too easy [;)]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Michael T
<SNIP>

...there is no chance of winning in 1941/42 then why bother invading in the first place?

Guys, as we all were told you many times, Gary Grigsby wargames were always trying to be as realistic and as historic as possible - they were never "Historic Science Fiction"!


Thus the idea of winning as total victory in 1941/1942 for Germans is not realistic against capable adversary - just as historic Germans in WWII didn't actually had a chance of winning in the Eastern Front (no modern historian supports that idea - that was simply not possible)!!!

The winning in WitE is to be better than history!

The same principle applies to UV ("Uncommon Valor"), WitP ("War in the Pacific") and WitP-AE ("War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition) - Japan didn't have historic chance of winning - Japanese player in those game doesn't have chance of winning as total victory as well...


Leo "Apollo11"

Thus the idea of winning as total victory in 1941/1942 for Germans is not realistic against capable adversary - just as historic Germans in WWII didn't actually had a chance of winning in the Eastern Front (no modern historian supports that idea - that was simply not possible)!!!

This is rubbish and a view I don't subscribe to. If 2By3 really think that Germany had no chance of winning the war against Russia they should be upfront about it and clearly state that is a design intention. Then people who think otherwise can avoid their products.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Thus the idea of winning as total victory in 1941/1942 for Germans is not realistic against capable adversary - just as historic Germans in WWII didn't actually had a chance of winning in the Eastern Front (no modern historian supports that idea - that was simply not possible)!!!

This is rubbish and a view I don't subscribe to. If 2By3 really think that Germany had no chance of winning the war against Russia they should be upfront about it and clearly state that is a design intention. Then people who think otherwise can avoid their products.

You are, of course, entitled to your own view - but your own view should never negate other people's view (including the view all prominent historians share)...


The fact is that Germany lost the WWII the very second they attacked Soviet Union!

Same fact is that Japan lost the WWII the very second they attacked Pearl Harbor!


Initial victories mean nothing in the long run... in the long run both Germany and Japan simply didn't have a chance...

Soviet Union was not France - it was huge country with determined and large population and big industry...


Leo "Apollo11"

Apollo11


The fact is that Germany lost the WWII the very second they attacked Soviet Union!

Wow.

Are You serious? Just asking, to make sure it isn't joke.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Thus the idea of winning as total victory in 1941/1942 for Germans is not realistic against capable adversary - just as historic Germans in WWII didn't actually had a chance of winning in the Eastern Front (no modern historian supports that idea - that was simply not possible)!!!

This is rubbish and a view I don't subscribe to. If 2By3 really think that Germany had no chance of winning the war against Russia they should be upfront about it and clearly state that is a design intention. Then people who think otherwise can avoid their products.

Michael, I personally don't think that the Germans had no chance to win the War against Russia and I don't think that the Germans in WITE have no chance to win the War either. But I do think that historically the Germans "outplayed" the Russians, particularly in the first 18 months of the War. Simply put the Russians made far more mistakes than the Germans, but they still won the War! Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

If you disagree than obviously we will just have to agree to disagree. But if you agree, than I submit that it is logical that if an historically accurate game (in terms of force sizes, combat model, logistics, weather, etc) is made of the War in Russia and this game is played by two equal opponents that the Russian Player is probably going to win the War (and probably the game) almost every time.

Put another way, if there is a hell and in that hell the Russian and German forces are made to refight the entire War in Russia over and over again but with complete memories of what happened in the real war and the previous umpteen times they have refought it and the freedom to act as they think best (which is basically what we are doing with this game) who do you think is going to win the War probably 99 times out of a 100.

But don't despair, because not all players are created equal; and from what I have read on the AARs I'm sure you have won and will continue to win far more games than you will lose. Of course, the Germans can win the game and still lose the War.

Its not rubbish

As soon as they opened a "second front", they had had it.

Ok, a lot easier to see with hindsight, but still true.

I have to agree with Apollo 11.

When Germany went into Russia, they had to win. In one campaign season.

But they could not.

They woefully underestimated the Red Army. (....we figured on 200 divisions. We've counted 360. ........ we destroy a dozen divisions, a dozen more show up..... Hadler.)

Their logistics were not the greatest. (Hmmm, do we send food and ammo, or winter clothing?)

Unlike in Western Europe, the Soviets had lots of room to retreat. (Trade space for time.) And the front didn't get smaller as the Axis advanced, it got wider.

Their economy certainly wasn't acting like it was in a war. (1942, 30 million tons of steel produced, only 8 million for military use.) http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Apollo11

The fact is that Germany lost the WWII the very second they attacked Soviet Union!

Wow.

Are You serious? Just asking, to make sure it isn't joke.

Of course I am serious - every modern respected historian agrees with this fact as well!

There was no chance for Germany to win in the Eastern Front in one quick campaign (and that was all Germany was capable of at that time)!!!

The Soviet Union was not France - it was huge huge country with large and determined population and big industry - the Soviets traded space for time and even if they lost Leningrad and/or Moscow in 1941 they would have never surrendered...


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Apollo11

The fact is that Germany lost the WWII the very second they attacked Soviet Union!

Wow.

Are You serious? Just asking, to make sure it isn't joke.

Apollo11


Of course I am serious - every modern respected historian agrees with this fact as well!

There was no chance for Germany to win in the Eastern Front in one quick campaign (and that was all Germany was capable of at that time)!!!

The Soviet Union was not France - it was huge huge country with large and determined population and big industry - the Soviets traded space for time and even if they lost Leningrad and/or Moscow in 1941 they would have never surrendered...

I disagree, but it is not right thread for this discussion.

You guys should try telling a few vet's that Germany had no chance of winning the war.

I am not going to get hung up about it. I don't have the time or interest to debate such narrow minded views. But a game that only offers one side a reasonable chance of winning seems wrong to my thinking.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You guys should try telling a few vet's that Germany had no chance of winning the war.

I am not going to get hung up about it. I don't have the time or interest to debate such narrow minded views. But a game that only offers one side a reasonable chance of winning seems wrong to my thinking.

Which Vets are you talking about? My father was a Vet (RCAF Bomber Command), my father-in-law was a vet (RCN) and I have spoken with many other Vets over the years (including a trip of a lifetime I took with some vets to Normandy in 2004). During the early years of the War many were worried about losing the War, but by early 43 they knew they had the Germans licked. Except for some I talked to that fought the 12thSS in Normandy, they all had nothing but respect for the Germans as soldiers. But I really don't think the views of these Vets, while very interesting, has anything to do with the issue at hand.

In any event, I hope you are not lumping me in with the "guys" with the "narrow minded views". I personally believe that so long as the Germans didn't make any major mistakes and the Russians did the Germans had a good chance to win the War in Russia. I believe this is true of the real war and should be the case with the game. The problem, of course, is that historically the Germans did start making mistakes and the Soviets started making fewer. Where I believe we disagree is that in my opinion if the Germans do not "outplay" the Russians they should have very little if any chance of winning the war; but they should still have a chance to win the game. My opinion is based on the premise that historically the Germans did outplay the Russians and still lost the War. So how is it that you believe that they can win the War if they do not even outplay the Russians by as much as they did historically? In mismatched games where the German player is superior to his Russian opponent the German player will probably often win both the War and the game (as you and Pelton have proved many times). In games with equal players the German should, in my opinion, very seldom if at all win the War, but should still win 1/2 the games.

I agree with you that a game that does not offer one side a reasonable chance of winning is wrong. Indeed I would go further and say that a game that does not offer both an equal chance of winning is wrong. But are you talking about winning the War or winning the game? I don't think enough games have been played through to the end yet to determine if one side or the other is going to win more often. If it turns out that one side does win more often than something should be done to balance the game. I suspect we will disagree as to what that something shoudl be.

Harry I don't think your narrow minded.

I think both sides should have an equal chance of winning the game. That is not the case right now. Russia is clearly the side to play if you simply want to win a game.

I like to be challenged. Playing Russia in WITE is no challenge in so much as ultimately winning the game. I would like to be challenged no matter which side I play.

As far as the war goes. Yes I agree the most likely outcome was Russia winning especially once the US got going in 1943. But I beleive, from what I have read over the past 40 years and from what I have heard first hand from interviews done with the protagonists that Germany had a chance (the size of which is debateable) of defeating Russia in 1941/42 outright. How are we to know what may have occured had Moscow been taken or a succesful Fall Blau? My mind is open to any number of what if scenario's. Apparently the Soviets were interested in a negoiated peace as late as early 1943.

Why is it that people can accept (in game terms) that France should be able hold out in 1940 but not that Russia could lose in 41/42? It seems they are quite prepared to accept some what if's but not others. Will the France WITW game be designed around the premis that France cannot win because historically it did not happen?

If the game(s) are to be limited to strictly historical outcomes what is the point in playing them at all?