Matrix Games Forums

I think that was in the original WIR, but have not played that in years.

The more I think about it, maybe attrition should be tied to fort level outside city/towns. You still have to get rid of the auto CV slash. But from experience, what I consider level 3 forts and above, is connected trench lines, bunkers with overhead protection, covered guard bunkers along the trench
line should offer a lot of protection. Because in extreme weather, even the guards will only do 15 out and 45 in. Everyone else will be hunkered in the bunkers around fires/heaters.

If the German side really has NO chance of winning why bother playing the Germans? Bragging that you won because Germany lost the war in June 45 instead of May 45 seems kind of pointless to me. There has to be a 'reasonable' chance for the Germans to win before talking about counting victory point.

The same applies to the Russians. If the Russians have an I win button then bragging that you won the war in April 45 instead of May 45 is again pointless as the Germans can't win regardless of what they do.

Why Play at all? [&:]

This is my first post, so wish me luck.

In regard to play balance, someone should set up a Dec 5, 1941 scenario and play that head-to-head with various users and then compare to historical results in regard to losses, frost bite cases, etc.


The following points are relevant:

1) The Germans could not dig foxholes/trenches (Level 1 forts?) in the winter in Russia.

The the ground was frozen solid.
Thus the German Army was not destroyed in December 1941 because of a lack of fortifications.


2) The German Army did suffer massive frost bite cases, but this was without fortifications, which should have dramatically
reduced them.

Read accounts of the Battle of the Bulge in winter 1944. Attacking and thus coming out in the open
resulted in frostbite cases, but the Armerican troops tried to build shelters at all times in defensive positions.


3) In regards to relating the Level of the fortications with actual fortification types, there are alot of questions in my mind.

Military fortications start with foxholes, then trenches, proceeding to wooden cover, concrete bunkers covering just a small amount of the units coverage, and finally proceeding to the infamous Maginot Line type. Why don't all units go to the last type? It takes a great deal of time, manpower, and scare resources as one progresses farther up the fortification latter. While foxholes (generally) only require a few hours and a shovel, the Maginot Line took years to construct and was never finished due to its expense. In Italy there were only two concrete fortification lines built, and the difficulty in supplying attacking troops in the mountains there was the biggest problem. Now imagine trying to create a bunker fortication line over a thousand mile front (or longer if not in multiple lines) which has some operational impact on the attacker. Estimating one bunker every 1000 yards, thats about 2000 bunkers per line. If an engineering company could complete each in 1 month, it would take about 75 "engineer divisions" to complete the task in 4 game turns (per line)! Even wooden cover over this frontage would require a tremendous amount of wood, only practical in a forested area. But even if acheived, the line could be penetrated in a few key places (especially in rough, forested, or urban areas) and the line rendered useless. 75+ divisions would have been wasted, a not small force even for the Russians.


4) So how did the German army survive?

The key were villages, small towns, and Russian supply. The Germans would hold the first two with FANATICAL zeal since a loss meant enduring the bitter cold. The Russians did like wise. There is ony story of a Russian unit to failed to do so, and was stiff the next morning. The Russians would generally fail taking these "strong points" since they tended to attack in mass out in the open, and working German MGs took a stiff toll. The Russians then proceeded to bypass them and go farther down the roads/trails. The problem was the Russian carts and trucks could not move off the roads, and thus re-supply was very limited. The Russian attack fizziled dramatically at this point. Thus the Russians penetrated deep into the German rear areas, the Germans held the town (center of the hex), and the Russian became un-supplied. In the winter, not getting updates to rations every day is worse than running out of ammo or fuel. In game terms, this can only be easily simulated by reducing the probability of the German unit vacating the hex and dramatically reducing the Russian unit supply rate.


5) The increase in Russian CV is very interesting.

Other games tend to give the Russians more CV compared to the German CV in the 1941 frame. WitE tends to model the ratio closer to the War in the East SPI game. This allows early campaign overruns and rapid territory advancement. To over come this, SPI changed to a different combat results table in the winter (not really a good idea). WitE both increases the Russian CV and reduces the Germain CV, both by more than a factor of 2, in winter. Perhaps the designers should consider some type of command and control limitation on the Russian Army and bring the CV ratios closer together (including the winter). It seems the game is overly concerned with the "integer" odds in an attack, instead of the exchange of weaponry. The chess like control of wargaming armies leads to excessive casualty prediction compared with reality.


6) Has anyone tried mimicking Stalin's 1941 mistakes and seeing how the campaign progresses?
I am assuming the actual German generals are well represented by a player, but anticipate that the results will be an easy axis victory. But it was not! This may be another reason for reducing the German/Russian CV ratio. On the other hand, a re-tuned combat result system would also tone down the German losses in the winter.

You are talking concrete bunkers. I am talking field bunkers. Those are a hole dug into the ground with logs thrown on top and then those are covered with sand bags/dirt. Most logs will be 6 inches thick or more for roof cover. Dirt/sand bags will add another 1-3 feet on top of that. They are very sturdy except against direct hits. Construction by a squad will be 3-4 days max. Figure 2 bunkers per squad with each holding 4-6 men. 2 of those men will be manning fighting/sentry positions at all times. Really harsh weather will see 1 man per bunker on sentry for 15 min and then back inside for 45 min or so.

And that construction time is just using the squad and shovels/axes for the work. Heck I built my 1st bunker as a 13 year old kid with 3 friends in a week that was 6 feet deep, 10 feet on each side with 4 inch logs and 2 feet of dirt on top of that. We had the hole dug in 2 days, the other 4-5 days or so was cutting and dragging trees back etc. It was still there 8 years later. We then started the trench line that ran for 10 yards was 4 feet deep and about 3 feet wide out the back side and covered that too. It ran to a tunnel we dug thru a creek bank behind some heavy bushes we used as an "escape" route. Or secret entrance. Dang I miss those days.

If I could do it as a kid, I know the same thing was done by soldiers in WW2 in the same time or less.

Try just holding the towns, and you will lose every unit to surrender. There is no 1 month hold out waiting for relief or even the attempted break out in this game. Once you are cut off, you are doomed. Period.

But welcome to the forum.

In regard to play balance, someone should set up a Dec 5, 1941 scenario and play that head-to-head with various users and then compare to historical results in regard to losses, frost bite cases, etc.

To me this the bases for why some people are just off about the game. Who's trying to recreated what happen? That's like telling me if I play axis I have to recreate Stalingrad in late 42.

So I can't even read your post onward, because it's based on a silly premise. The game needs to allow for 'historical realism' as much as it can. I really wish people would not try and compare my games loses in blizzard to historical. I have played axis twice into blizzard (one AI and one human). In both games I did little or no attacking from Oct onward. That is completely the opposite of what happened 'historically'. But in both games I was screwed with the same darn loses (and more in human game) than historical. Do I have an issues with this, your darn right!

If testers want to try and recreate historical paths to help determine if game is living up to historical standards, that's another story. But as players, we'll take other routes and those need to be considered and still fall under the premise of realistic parameters.

Blizzard is way too severe and the months of Jan and Feb are just wrong in terms of attrition, yes wrong. About time the developers took a long hard look at blizzard and how it's turning off a lot of players from deciding to play axis because the blizzard turns somewhat ruin the game for them after 20 or so turns.

Once again, I'm not asking for axis to have a decent chance to conquer the Soviet Union. Not at all. But as the game stands (beta 3,4,5 have not changed blizzard or forts -too quick) I'm guessing the axis are doing to be not advancing in 42 much and probably best hope for a draw in vic points.

From what I understand the German supply network could not handle all the needs of the frontline troops, so priority was given to the basics, and cold weather gear could not have been moved in major quantities without a decrease in something else flowing forward.

This brings up a topic that hasn't really been talked to death yet: the game models supply problems if you outrun a working railhead, but there's no supply decrease within a railhead based on distance.  That is, the amount of supply on a railhead hex maybe 20 hexes from a permanent supply point is the same as a railhead hex 80 hexes away.  Does it work like that in real life?  Hell, I dunno.

Technically, no it would not work that way. A shorter haul would allow the supply to be unloaded and the train used again. So say, a train goes 200 miles, 20 hexes (about 10 hours travel at 20 mph), figure 1-2 days unloading, 10 hours back, 2 days to load, another 10 hours to get back, and another 2 days to unload.

But a train going 600 miles, at 20 mph, 30 hours travel, 2 days to unload, 30 hours back. So it cannot make the same amount of trips in the same time.

But to simulate the "could not support full ops" that is why I offered the changes I would like. 5 div sitting till for 2-4 turns are not advancing/combat, less supply needed forward, so a train could be used to deliver winter gear. The Russian now faces less combat power in the attack from the German, hence the German is rewarded but the Russian is not penalized. Fair trade IMO.

1) Why try to see how game winter losses compare to historical?

Every game or simulation needs to be calibrated, especially if alot of work has been done in detail in other areas. Sometimes the significant work in the details (leaves) result in one being lost in the overall effect (forest). In the simulation world, this is called "validation". I realize this is just a "game", but most gamers appreciate a certain level of fidelity. The fact that the Germans had successfull offenses up to March 43 indicates they were a signifcant challenge to the Russian Army. Also, alot of "calibration" is currently being done with the various game mods and tweaking of adjustment factors. The problem is that the Russian player will be much more effective than the Russian Army in 1941, so even starting with the Typhoon scenario will greatly change the Dec 5, 1941 conditions. It is much quicky, and thus easier, to just play the winter 3 or 4 months. This allows more "tweaking" to be done. Otherwise global tweaks can significantly imbalance the game in unintended ways, which have caused alot of gamer (formized) dissatisfaction. Once good winter performance is acheived, the earlier time period will still be about the same. Most gamers seem to be satisfied with the first 3 or 4 months of the campaign.


2) Wooden, overhead Fortifications

I did not mean to imply this type would not provide shelter, and using your 1 week estimate for construction, about 20 "engineer divisions" would be required per line. Normally this would involve the use of engineers due to the required special tools and transportation for the logs. A regular squad could do it fulll time over a week, perhaps, but only if the area was not in the combat zone. Otherwise you are talking about some special night operation, the trick of which is to not make too much noise. It would be interesting to see if there are any articles about construction time for those in the Ardennes. The American Army has a large supply of specialized engineers, both for cutting timber, as well as construction, and were well equipped with power tools and trucks. I have never read any mention of these shelters being construction AFTER the Battle of the Bulge started. The recent "Band of Brothers" series shows the airborne troops in simple fox holes (with blankets). If any unit needed stronger fortifications, it was this unit!


3) What are interesting German victories?

This appears to be the "big picture" question currently in game development. From what I know of the entire war, it was very unlikely for German to flat out win the war (both theaters). If Germany had not declared war on America, America would have soon declared war on Germany. However, with better strategic/political efforts, Germany could certainly have forced the Allies into some type of peace settlement, perhaps paving the way for World War III. In regards to WitE, perhaps there needs to be some conditions where Germany can ask Russia for an armistice, and possibly obtain it. This would make bleeding the Russian Army more than historical (1942 thru 1945) a possible game victory for the Germans. This could be independent of any territory controlled. Another possibility is to award Germany victory if the German Army is at least a certain size(s) by a certain date(s). The idea would be that Germany could have transferred more troops to the West at an earlier date, and did significantly betters than historical. An example would be if Germany had avoided Stalingrad and sent a panzer corps to Sicily in early 1943. These ideas only involve adding checks for additional victory conditions. The units would not actually be withdrawn.

What most gamers want is a "realistic" simulation where Germany has some fair chance to conquer Russia, that is, to do what Germany expected to have happened. Apparently the game designers wanted this version of the game to focus more on the actual, historical situation both sides got themselves into (starting forces, replacements, production, etc.), than "what if" possibilities. Perhaps this can only be currently acheived via scenario modification. The key is to get the game designers version working well as an interesting game and a good simulation first!

No, those were not constructed after the start. They were in close contact. The Ardennes was considered a quiet zone and not heavily dug in. They used it to get newly arrived units used to being in a combat zone. If not under attack, you could use 3 squads up front digging etc, 1 squad cutting and hauling. A BN could  have 3 companies on line and 1 cutting. A regiment, 2 BN on line, 1 cutting, Div, 2 reg up and 1 cutting. Things add up quick.

It could be done. Det Cord is very handy for bringing down trees, 1 guy can drop a bunch in short order. Simple explosives can drop trees. A WW2 half track could drag quite a few trees at one time. Probably not done, but could have been.

In most of my games, I have a section of line that has been totally stagnant for up to a month. Very little if any combat. So, dedicated engineers are not needed.

I disagree with last section, most of us here want the entire game. But get pretty frustrated after Blizzard 41 when no matter when you start digging in, I have halted in Sept 41 and just dug, your army just gets destroyed. My line held for exactly 2 turns before holes started appearing, by turn 4 huge holes appeared. And then the fun really started. I do not think any game has gotten into 42 that was started after Beta 3, but I am just now hitting Blizzard next turn, so I expect to get clobbered because I was dumb and continued to push forward and not do a massive turtle.

Not the last section, but the most gamers want first 3-4 months.

ORIGINAL: bednarre

5) The increase in Russian CV is very interesting.

.... WitE both increases the Russian CV and reduces the Germain CV, both by more than a factor of 2, in winter. .....

Actually I thought so as well, but upon further study, I discovered something very, very interesting that I think few people have actually realized.

The doubling of the Russian CV value during winter is a display item only. The actual CV values themselves don't change in combat.
It's done this way to reflect the impact on REDUCTION of German CV values during winter, which is the real CV value modification that is done during combat.

Citing section 22.3.1 in the manual:

Non-Finnish, non-mountain and non-ski Axis attacking units have their modified combat value (CV) divided by 3 and possibly more if they fail certain leader rating checks (divided by 4 if admin check fails, and divided by 4 if Infantry or Mech Combat rating check fails). Non-Finnish, non-mountain and non-ski Axis defending units CV are divided by 2 and possibly by more if they fail leader infantry or Mech combat or admin checks (Once again, divided by 4 for each failed check). Because of these modifiers and to better reflect the unit’s current status, Axis units will have their normal printed CV divided by three, and their defense CV divided by two, with values rounded down. The leader checks that can reduce CV’s further will still occur, but the printed CV values only account for the definite reduction in CV. To better reflect their impact, the displayed CV values for Finns, Soviets, and Axis mountain and ski units are doubled during first winter blizzard turns to account for the first winter surprise effects on other units. This is a display item only, as the actual CV values themselves don’t change in combat

I realize was wrong in one of my earlier posts in assuming the visible doubling also meant a real russian combat CV doubling. [X(]
So it seems that Russian units don't actually have any modifiers to reflect their better preparedness for winter warfare.
Could be they baked it into the German modifiers?

ORIGINAL: randallw

From what I understand the German supply network could not handle all the needs of the frontline troops, so priority was given to the basics, and cold weather gear could not have been moved in major quantities without a decrease in something else flowing forward.

The more I read about the winter '41/ '42 .. the more I'm realizing what an important role the German supply situation played in everything. I'm starting to lean towards the theory that most of germany's biggest problems in the winter can be traced back to this.

Without doubt the lack of winter preparedness as well as other topics discussed here did influence, but I think they made such a huge impact as there were already some critical issues the germans were having with supply.

Based on what I'm reading the supply situation was close to collapse. F.ex. the drive for moscow, apart from the troops being far out from railheads, there were also some serious issues with the railroad supply system by itself.

Germans precision locomotives had delicate parts that froze up during the harsh 41/42 winter conditions. As a consequence, only 20% of all of 'winterized' locomotives were operational in late 41. In total 70-80% of all german locomotives deployed on the eastern front became inoperable. Germans later borrowed from russian construction techniques and removed all precision parts until the severe weather receded.

As an example, the number I read state that in early '42 only 19 military supply trains per day could be dispacted from Poland to serve the needs of the entire German Army in the east. In some cases, only 1/3 of the daily needed trainloads to maintain only minimum capabilites could be dispatched.

So it's understandable that the Germans prioritized bringing forward much needed supply & ammo, instead of winter clothing. Substantial clothing were available in stock, but there was no capacity to bring it forward.
If the German supply situation had been fully operational, and winter clothing apart from neecesary replacements & ammo had been brought forward as needed it would have been very interesting to see what impact the winter would have had on the troops.

So IMHO I starting to think I would be worthwhile to take a second look at what supply the germans are receiving in the game during the winter, and tie this more into the winter rules.. i.e. the impact of the winter rules worsening depending upon the supply situation.

Blizzard is way too severe and the months of Jan and Feb are just wrong in terms of attrition

I have yet to see a screenshot or receive a save from turn 53 that shows the Axis start the 1942 campaign with less men, tanks and aircraft than they had in June 1942. The problem has been that the Divisions' morale and experience levels have been lower, and resulted in an average 1.1 CVs per infantry division shortfall, and this is what the patches have aimed to fix, and if anyone has saves for T24, T39, and T53 for a game played under v5, we will be able to see if the changes have had the desired effect.

I am about to enter the Blizzard as The SU for the first time, so I get to see the other side of the coin, and hopefully get a balanced perspective on the Blizzard.

As to whether the blizzard is turning people off from playing the game, I can only comment from my personal point of view, in that I saw the Blizzard as a challenge that I was not going to let get on top of me, particularly after my first blizzard experience in which AGS evaporated in 4 turns. After 2 further attempts, I figured out a plan that would achieve my objectives, and managed to execute them against the AI and PBEM. The results of my attempts have been documented in the Field Marshal Noob AAR, and I have posted selected AAR pictures of my PBEM game in one of the many other Blizzard threads.

For me, the problem with winter is not the impact it has on the Germans, it is the way it does so. During non-snow-turns, the game does a good job of simulating what goes on. Then during snow turns, things are suddenly totally unrealistic.

The game as it is now will never result in the see-saw fighting in the Rzhev bulge during the winter of 1941-1942! Things like Demyansk or Kholm will simply not happen, cut off German corps will be crushed. German counterattacks like the Zhizdra-Sukhiniki-operation will simply never happen! AGN will never surround and stop 2d Shock army! Instead the Soviets will simply push the Germans back along the entire front and no German player in his right mind will try to hold out or even try some sort of counterattack! And all this is a pity, as the situation during the winter fighting is actually very tense and interesting and a good subject for nail biting and intense simulation, where both sides have opportunities. In effect after the december shock (which happened almost entirely in AGC), the capabilities of the two sides should be about equal, not the Germans being without any chance at all.

As the game simulates it now, we have 17 turns of the Germans bashing the Soviets using maneuver, and then 13 turns of the Soviets bludgeoning the Germans. My problem is that the latter wasn't the way it happened, and instead of simulating an interesting part of the campaign, the game does something dull and predictable. I really like this game, it is really fun to play PBEM, but I am afraid the winter rules as the stand now are something of a game-breaker to me. Most games now seem to be about "how far can Jerry get before winter" and after that the result is more or less a foregone conclusion.

Just to ground claims here. Remember that while Rzhev did see a lot of see-saw fighting, but the stabilization came late.  The mop up of Soviet elements was in March and April (into June), when the "recovery" is in full swing.
 
The 2nd Shock Army is often cited, but remember it attacked in late January/early Feb where it made good gains (in game terms it should), and stalled by the end of February. It was cut off in March/April, destroyed in June as well.
 
Both show to me that the Soviets should be able to smash up the lines at certain points (not all along the line, I don't like that bit of command and control they show), but they the uncoordinated attacks, while locally devastating will run out of steam and likely be fatal if they try for too much.

I meant the initial cutting off of 2d shock, that was IIRC in late february, the supply route was subsequently reopened by the Soviets, but I don't have my books at hand now to check the dates. And I meant the limited German counterstrokes in the Rzev salient during january-february, not the final crushing of the Soviet penetrations. Anyway, my point is that none of this will ever happen in the game, there will be no Soviet contained penetrations to mop up during june, there will be one more or less straight front, because the effects of winter will not create any salients, in contrast to what's likely to occur in the game during other seasons.

ORIGINAL: bednarre


What most AXIS gamers want is a "realistic" simulation where Germany has some fair chance to conquer Russia, that is, to do what Germany expected to have happened. Apparently the game designers wanted this version of the game to focus more on the actual, historical situation both sides got themselves into (starting forces, replacements, production, etc.), than "what if" possibilities. Perhaps this can only be currently acheived via scenario modification. The key is to get the game designers version working well as an interesting game and a good simulation first!

Bolded is my insert because I don't think most gamers want what you suggest. While I don't have WITP and have never followed the boards over there, I think the gaming community recognizes that any strategic Pacific war will feature Japan "losing" just about every time. ("Losing" defined as not conquering your opponents and/or forcing peace upon them). This is not something tied just to WITP, but goes way back to board game days where victory conditions revolved around how long Japan could hold out.

I don't think the gaming community holds the same view with WITE and many more feel that it was possible for the Axis to defeat Russia and they think in those terms. In their eyes, any game that doesn't give the Axis a fair chance (I think less than 50/50 is acceptable, but something like 10% is too low in their eyes) has issues. They are not willing to fight it out for "victory" like a Japanese player would.

Now, I do believe it was far more likely for the Axis to beat the Russians than for the Japanese to win any war, but the chance for an outright Axis win in Russia should be low, especially in 1941. I think the Axis best chance was in 1942 and after that, the chance to "win" the war was beyond their grasp.

From what I have seen so far with the AAR's, the Axis simply can't get through the winter in good enough shape to recreate a 1942 campaign between not being able to destroy enough Russian forces in the 1941 campaign (not possible to recreate the 1941 Russian losses against a good Russian opponent) and how badly they get smashed by the blizzard. The ebb and flow of 1942 never takes place for the most part and 1942/43 should probably be the funnest part of the game for most players as 1941 features the Axis kicking the snot out of the Russians and 1944 generally features the Russians kicking the snot out of the Axis.

ORIGINAL: Angelo

If the German side really has NO chance of winning why bother playing the Germans? Bragging that you won because Germany lost the war in June 45 instead of May 45 seems kind of pointless to me. There has to be a 'reasonable' chance for the Germans to win before talking about counting victory point.

The same applies to the Russians. If the Russians have an I win button then bragging that you won the war in April 45 instead of May 45 is again pointless as the Germans can't win regardless of what they do.

Why Play at all? [&:]

It's the same mindset as WITP. Japan will lose 99/100 times (lose being not getting auto victory in 42) but they can WIN by holding the allies longer then historical. And the thinking is ok i'm going up against the behemoth of the united states so if you can hold out you are really doing something right and are a defensive mastermind.

Of course in WITP the japanese have the harder job and also have the flexibility. The flexibility of controlling their production to follow a-historic options to give them a better chance to win. I'd enjoy seeing the same thing for germany in wite. In this game the germans have the harder option but have none of the flexibility.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Blizzard is way too severe and the months of Jan and Feb are just wrong in terms of attrition

I have yet to see a screenshot or receive a save from turn 53 that shows the Axis start the 1942 campaign with less men, tanks and aircraft than they had in June 1942. The problem has been that the Divisions' morale and experience levels have been lower, and resulted in an average 1.1 CVs per infantry division shortfall, and this is what the patches have aimed to fix, and if anyone has saves for T24, T39, and T53 for a game played under v5, we will be able to see if the changes have had the desired effect.

I am about to enter the Blizzard as The SU for the first time, so I get to see the other side of the coin, and hopefully get a balanced perspective on the Blizzard.

As to whether the blizzard is turning people off from playing the game, I can only comment from my personal point of view, in that I saw the Blizzard as a challenge that I was not going to let get on top of me, particularly after my first blizzard experience in which AGS evaporated in 4 turns. After 2 further attempts, I figured out a plan that would achieve my objectives, and managed to execute them against the AI and PBEM. The results of my attempts have been documented in the Field Marshal Noob AAR, and I have posted selected AAR pictures of my PBEM game in one of the many other Blizzard threads.

+1 thats what i'm thinking too bigA. I think the patch will help germany and people need to just play a new game out to T53 to see how it is. I'm starting a new game with mehring and i think he's going to AAR. And i know i'll at least get photos so we should have some data for you in a month or so. I won't be able to keep up the pace i kept with ara since we were two crazy mofos playing day and night for weeks at a time. Baby will be here in T minus 22 days (+/- a week or so) so i've been busy helping the wife "nest".

I'd probably take up the german role but i know i'm traditionally a little worse on attack since i either go too aggressive and leave myself open. Or i go too cautious and can't get where i need to go in time. I just have a poor sense of reading the situation offensively. Hell even defensively it's taken 4 (i think) years of ara beating my ass in everything to learn to be a little more on my toes defensively.

ORIGINAL: bwheatley



Of course in WITP the japanese have the harder job and also have the flexibility. The flexibility of controlling their production to follow a-historic options to give them a better chance to win. I'd enjoy seeing the same thing for germany in wite. In this game the germans have the harder option but have none of the flexibility.

Yes, they can change a/c production and accelerate/shut down ship construction/convert some. But then again, unlike WiTE, the Japanese are not fighting off map either.

The Russians don't have the same flexibility the Germans have in BTR, or the Japanese in WiTP either.