Fix the TB replacement system!

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: xhoel
@maly: This has been changed and now rebuild units arriving in the reserve arrive at TOE set to 0. So you can change it when you like, but it allows the Soviets to use their manpower and equipment for the field army.

Wrong! This only applies to restored units. There are a lot more new units and they will still take most of the replenishment.

[AlbertN]

Various good solution have been already proposed. A percentage slider can do. Easy to add as special condition that a TB having less than 90% of their needed stuff overrides the player determine % of max replacements. Ie. Disaster happens and suddenly West TB is at 50%. That TB will suck practically all replacements til it is at 90% again. {plate too can transfer units to help}.

[FriedrichII]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

... If this were War in Europe, you could decide where the men went to, but it's not, ...

Is there any chance War in Europe is going to happen, or DLCs for WitE2 which unlocks theaters boxes to be able to play them on map? For example a Finnland or North Africa DLC?
Thanks in advance! I hope you can give us a hint about that.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

Wrong! This only applies to restored units. There are a lot more new units and they will still take most of the replenishment.

That is what we are trying to change.

[ShaggyHiK]

Let's understand the essence of the process. Let's say the German player has 100k recruits per turn. For the sake of simplicity, let's not get distracted by the armaments industry, delivery issues through and to warehouses and to troops, checks on commanders and other variables.
So there is 100k per turn.
By priority, now up to 80% of replenishments come to the reserve and other TB.
Because of this, the German losses rushing on the map somewhere in the 15-20k man per turn are significant.
That is, if the German player's logistics system is disgusting and the loss rate for some reason increases, the troops on the map will begin to lose their ToE, because the loss rate is higher than the replenishment rate. If 80% of the 100k starts to arrive on the map, then the Soviet army, even potentially carrying out serious attacks and inflicting high losses during the game from the very beginning, will not be able to overcome the level of replenishment of the German troops. Even jumps in losses of the German army from 20-30k to 50-60k will not affect the number of troops on the map.

But in order for the German player to bear such losses, the Soviet player must inflict a huge number of blows along the entire front line. And bear the corresponding losses.

What I want to draw attention to.

Now there is some balance of the game, I don't want to say that it is perfect or that it is disgusting, but with the vision of such a player-adjusted system, we will inevitably swing the scales of the balance to the side and I doubt that it will be successful if the change is not thought out in depth.

Just like Malykhin says, there is a problem that new parts devour the replenishment pool thoroughly, but this is a different look at the mechanics.


I think that such a priority really looks strange, while in the East the fate of the war in 41-42-43 is being decided, the huge number of replenishments during this period for the western front on the French coast seems stupid.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

I think that such a priority really looks strange, while in the East the fate of the war in 41-42-43 is being decided, the huge number of replenishments during this period for the western front on the French coast seems stupid.

Yes it does. That is the point of the discussion.

The example you used above is however incorrect but I´m not bothered to go into it again since I already explained to you how the system works.

[xhoel]

Bump.

[xhoel]

So my game has now reached mid April 1945 and with the Soviets at the gates of Berlin everything is being thrown East to stop or at least stall the Soviet advance.

No, just kidding, all ground forces in the East only received 4.6k men last turn. To contrast that, 2 Flak Regiments in the West got around 7k men and multiple other units in the WE got plenty of replacements. This is just absurd. How can 2 regiments in the West get assigned more manpower than the entire Eastern Front combined???





This system has so many issues so let me break them down one by one:

-Because of the priority system, the only way to refit units is to either send them to an NSS or to the Axis reserve. Nothing else will work, even if you put them in a depot full of freight and stacked with a HQ. This basically nullifies the whole supply system when it comes to replacements. It literally hinders another feature of the game from working and makes refitting units and absolute chore.

So now you are probably thinking: Whats the issue with refitting on an NSS?

-You are limited by the game to how many units you send to and stack on a NSS. There is a City Fort in both Berlin and Prague and both cities need forces to defend them in case the Soviets breakthrough. So at most I can refit 4 divisions by using the NSS. Every other unit on the map has to starve for manpower because they are not getting anything.

So if NSS is not the solution why not the Reserve? I dont like that the game forces the player to send forces to the reserve. I do not like sending units to the reserve. I want to refit them on map and then get them to the front. Why am I not a fan of the Reserve?

1) The process takes too long. Here is a usual rundown example:

T10: Send to reserve.
T11: Unit arrives, is set to refit, cant be moved.
T12: Unit is filled up, ordered to move to map.
T13: Unit arrives on map, to the rear, will need to be moved forward.

2) The units that arrive from the reserve usually come with very few trucks and with low supplies. This means they will need to both be supplied by air drops and also have to sit on an NSS to get trucks. Sitting them on a normal depot usually doesnt work. Since the NSS option is out of the question, the player is again forced to commit them to combat the way they are.

The lack of trucks also means they have low MPs on arrival and if they are attacked, they lose a lot of equipment. Because they arent sitting on a depot that lack of trucks will continue to follow them around the whole time, causing the same low MPs and other issues.

-It completely breaks realism and immersion to see units in the West at 80-100% TOE and constantly getting replacements when the Eastern Front is starved at unbelievable levels. Almost all of my HQs East are at 65% TOE. In the West they are at 80-100%. So while I am missing a bunch of rolls due to a lack of support squads, the Western HQs are sitting at such high levels and they dont even need them, because there are no rolls for TBs.

Here is another interesting piece of information to see how great the divide is:

-There are 862 units in the East (excluding Air Bases). Of those 343 have a TOE of 0-55%. That is 40% of all units.
If we exclude SUs, there are 313 units and of those, 142 have a TOE of 0-55%. That is 45%.

-There are 301 units in the West (excluding Air Bases). Of those only 6 have a TOE of 0-55%. That is just 2% of all units.

So we are in a situation where basically half of the Eastern Front has a TOE of 55% at best, while in the West, only 2% of the forces have such low TOEs. This is so off the mark that I am honestly just stunned that is being treated as WAD.

WE Front Armored, Infantry and Mechanized forces TOE:



Same units in the East:



And all of these issues could be avoided if you make a simple tweak:

Reserve a portion of the manpower and equipment for the Eastern Front. Then the TBs can get what they need.

Devs, please, please take a look at this. This isnt just me seeing this as an issue. Multiple posters in this thread have also stated the same. I can guarantee you that as more games move into the later war this issue will be raised again. Lets fix/change this now before more games are affected by it.

Thank you!

[Stamb]

If we look at the title of the game - it says Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2. Not Europe, not West, nor Africa, nor any other TBs.

You did a great job of showing current replacement system flaws.

I would also like to see no Reserve TB
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5140797

Moreover units on a map must be priority №1 for replacements, as they are doing something useful (otherwise - why they are on a map?). If player is setting unit to a refit - it means that he really needs this unit to be refitted. And if there is enough manpower/other equipment and freight in a depot, not only NSS, unit must get those replacements.
It means that part of a replacements should be reserved not to the eastern front itself, but to a other TBs, so they can refit units too, as eastern front is the main battlefield. It must get most replacements and not to be the last in the list.

I would propose to have on map units as the highest priority for replacements, if Reserve TB is not removed then it should be 2nd in the list, then TBs.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Imo there should be an interface where ypu can precisely define the replacement distribution in % between on-map, theatre boxes and national reserve.

If players can get an advantage by starving other theatre boxes, then there is a problem in the theatre boxes model that should be fixed there, not via a crude replacement distribution workaround.

Example: If players starve the West of replacements, then the West should collapse so quickly that this strategy is punished ingame. But starving the West should be possible if you can live with the consequences.

[Stamb]

I also wonder about this line from patch v01.02.14 – 10th January 2022:
*Theater boxes (including the reserve) are now limited during the logistics phase in that they will never use more than 2/3 of the trained pilots that begin the replacement phase in the pool. 1/3 of the trained pilots are reserved for air units on the map, which receive their replacements after the theater boxes.

If I have all air groups in TBs on normal and only on map units have TPI, then this 2/3 of the trained pilots are sitting in the pool, or they still can be used in an on map formations?

[Teo41_ITA]

I don't recall the manual, but is it possible to adjust the TOE of units in other TBs?

[Stamb]

No, which is a problem. If you forgot to change unit's TOE before sending it to TBs then you are stuck with that value until you move it again to a map/reserve, which takes multiple turns to do.

And if somebody plays with locked TBs... Poor neighbors

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

If I have all air groups in TBs on normal and only on map units have TPI, then this 2/3 of the trained pilots are sitting in the pool, or they still can be used in an on map formations?

AFAIK, TBs get priority in receiving Trained Pilots. Its why the change was added. So no, TBs will get that 2/3 unless they have all the pilots they need. You only get 1/3.

ORIGINAL: Teo41_ITA

I don't recall the manual, but is it possible to adjust the TOE of units in other TBs?

Its not.

@EvK: I would be fine with a simpler solution honestly. The simpler the change, the faster it will be available and will probably bring less bugs/issues with it. I dont think the devs would be open to the adjustment proposal as it may lead to gamey moves.

[Teo41_ITA]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

Its not.

@EvK: I would be fine with a simpler solution honestly. The simpler the change, the faster it will be available and will probably bring less bugs/issues with it. I dont think the devs would be open to the adjustment proposal as it may lead to gamey moves.

I get your point. The Axis player may just set everything to 50%, in order to have all the divisions in the East at full strenght.

Then I fully support the option to set a % of supplies and reinforcements to both the map and the TBs, with a minimum treshold below which the player cannot go.

[mikael333]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

This is WAD. The system may be crude, but we've done things for a reason to prevent players from exploiting the TBs. You are at the point where Germany is beginning to be overrun in the west, so it's reasonable for there to be a large commitment of forces there. Adding more controls on the TBs will likely end up with adverse consequences. If this were War in Europe, you could decide where the men went to, but it's not, and this scenario is set up so as to not allow the WE to take Berlin before the end of the scenario. Given that, any additional controls would lead the player to rob from the west even more than they already can.

I completely get your point. But why did you then include the theatre box control in the first place (except the reserve theatre box which I like and use a lot)? I play with enhanced TB control off, because I want to deal with whatever the overall German high command gives me for the Eastern front. Still the system gives me plus or minus 1 VP (mostly minus) in many turns. I simply feel that the AI is not doing its job then because I never interact with with the TBs. Should I pull more forces to the Eastern front? Or restrict myself with less? Either way feels gamey, because I do not control the other fronts and the only difference is in victory points deducted or added. Since this is so abstract, it does not feel, I am earning these VPs in the same way, as when I conquer a city. For example it could be a fun thing to bring Rommel to the Eastern front. But how much VPs would that cost? I could just try it but if the answer is, very little, I feel like gaming the system. If the answer is a lot, it would be stupid to do it. My guess is that War in Europe is in the making, and you wanted to give us a little appetizer here. But I can see no benefit in moving forces from and to theatres, I have not the slightest control over.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Teo41_ITA

...
I get your point. The Axis player may just set everything to 50%, in order to have all the divisions in the East at full strenght.

Then I fully support the option to set a % of supplies and reinforcements to both the map and the TBs, with a minimum treshold below which the player cannot go.

not sure why, can only speak from my personal experience but I've not had an issue with refits in the TB pulling assets from the map and I have an Axis vs AI game that ended in Jan 45 and a HtH into Oct 43.

ORIGINAL: mikael333


...Still the system gives me plus or minus 1 VP (mostly minus) in many turns. ....

or this, I always play with TB control off and tend to pick up a slow stream of positive VP and the occasional 'delay'

In reality in the campaign your performance in the TB mirrors on map. Simple eg, the post-Stalingrad transfers to France were in reality the shell of the divisions that surrendered and started to refit from low TOE mostly using men who were in hospital etc when Stalingrad was cut off. So if you get to send them at a decent TOE you get 3 advantages

- higher % in the TB = VP
- less resources going to the TB = more on map (esp important as you also get the manpower bonus to fit them out)
- which in combination gives you a few more VP (say the time bonus for a city) and a stronger on map presence

Xhoel is making a lot out of his experience with VtB, I'd suggest that even with locked control the system in the campaign is neat, easy to manage and broadly rewards how you manage the on map dynamics.

I do tend to send a few bits to the theatres to help out, esp Italy, even if I can't pull them back later.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: loki100

Xhoel is making a lot out of his experience with VtB

I dont understand why these comments are needed. I have presented evidence and arguments that support my case that the current system is not only extremely flawed but also unrealistic and affects game balance and immersion. The talk is and has been about the effects in the late game.

VtB is one of the three main campaigns of the game. As a player I expect it to have a system of replacements that works and is not completely out of touch with historical evidence and plain common sense and one that doesnt mess up the supply system that is in place.

And this isnt just me seeing these issues. You are a Beta tester and have access to the dev forums. Look at the StB campaign that Chris and Randy played from 1942 to May 1945. Randy (Axis Player) which is probably the most experienced Axis player for the late war game says the same thing that I said about the TBs: That the priority system in its current form is wrong and that too much is going west. So this isnt just an issue with VtB, its an issue with the late war game.

I look forward to seeing your game and other HvH games go into the late war. My VtB campaign will be done in a few turns and all in all its a campaign that only goes for 20 turns so I am posting here with the hope that this gets fixed for other games as its too late for my game.

Its better to get a fix for this soon and see the StB and CG 41 games have a smooth late war game than to wait months until these games reach that point and the same complaints are raised again. Cant imagine being an Axis player that has put in 180 turns and who is screwed in the end because of a flawed system.

[Searry]

It's absolutely true that this system needs to be changed. Prioritising the TBs just means you need to start doing stupid shuffling of units so you get fresh troops into the front line but it just takes more turns than a saner system would. The current system doesn't solve any exploits since when you realize the system prioritises TBs, you just shuffle the units in a certain manner so you have fresh troops for the east.

[Jeff_Ahl]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

And all of these issues could be avoided if you make a simple tweak:

Reserve a portion of the manpower and equipment for the Eastern Front. Then the TBs can get what they need.

Devs, please, please take a look at this. This isnt just me seeing this as an issue. Multiple posters in this thread have also stated the same. I can guarantee you that as more games move into the later war this issue will be raised again. Lets fix/change this now before more games are affected by it.

Thank you!

+1