RELOADS and HQ Build Up

[BletchleyGeek]

Well, perhaps I didn't contribute much to the discussion, by just making "abstract" remarks. Let me try to fix that and make a concrete proposal.

What would happen if the vehicle pool, rather than being something which is a bit like the Holy Ghost - it's everywhere and nowhere - was allocated on a per Army Group basis?

So let's say you got 40k vehicles, and you have 3 Army Group Commands with the following priorities (similar to those of air doctrines):

* AGN - 60
* AGC - 110
* AGS - 130

During the Logistics Phase, vehicles are allocated to each of the resupply "tasks" beneath each Army Group command according to these priorities. This would have quite an impact, since rather than being vehicles drawn from the global pool for these tasks, now it is restricted from a much more small "basket".

The other change in the supply mechanics would be that only towns and Army Group HQ's are allowed to draw supply directly from a railhead, on-map units are forced to do so exclusively from their HHQ or a town, unless they're attached to the OKH/STAVKA and within 30 miles of a valid railhead.

It would have - I think - the effect that supply efficiency for AGN units operating far from the railhead would be severely impaired, while units in AGC or AGS operating far from the railhead would be faring "much better", but still worse than they do now. For the Soviets, the same concerns would apply whenever they're operating far away from a railhead.

I'd also review - very critically - the rates at which generic supply is turned into ammo. And ammo shortages influence in combat as well (just in case).

Now, to build ups. Say you build up a PanzerKorps. I would change build up mechanics in the following way:

* There's no "wait turn" to build up again an HQ.
* Build up now requires an amount of supply, fuel and vehicles proportional to 200% of the needs of units under the command of the HQ.
* Vehicles and supplies and fuel can only come from nearby towns or from HHQ's depots.
* If Vehicles, Supply and Fuel available for the build up don't reach the requirements, build up still happens, but the MP bonus is proportional to the degree these requirements are met.

This would change the game in a dramatic way, for both sides. And I also think it would be much more enjoyable.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Ron

I think Pelton continues to raise some very important points even in his over the top style. After reading the WitE boards since release I have come to realize he is necessary and a natural outgrowth, foil if you will, to the 'Russian fanboy' POV prevalent in the game. No doubt games have been German-centric in the past and WitE has definitely changed that. However, after playing one game as Russia early on it was pretty evident to me it was a Russian fan's wet dream. Now with 1.05 trying to inject some balance into the Russian juggernaut after several months of player 'testing', we immediately have calls to remove the Lvov pocket, HQ buildup, German Army too large-advances too fast etc without ever playing the games past the first blizzard or looking at the overall context. There are many things requiring fine-tuning in this game, but is nerfing German capabilities really one of them?

Any kind of attempt to create a balanced, objective game like this is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

The plain fact of the matter is a lot of folks have real problems dealing with the Soviet Union. We're mostly a bunch of old farts and relics from the Cold War. In the back of our minds, the reds are the enemy. A few of us are Russophiles (as opposed to commie sympathizers) but that was definitely a minority taste back in the day.

You never saw this kind of problem with the WitP game. You will not see it in WitW, either. You're going to see it here and in any other game of this type.

I'm going to be quite honest here: I don't think Germany had a very good chance to win the war in the east. I think the game is if anything far too forgiving of the Germans, at least early on. (It is too forgiving for the Soviets later on. The game engine is systemically biased towards the offense, mostly due to logistics.) The krauts bit off way more than they could chew. The more recent scholarship in the Glantz era just reinforces this.

We're never going to satisfy a large number of people playing this game because they have utterly unrealistic expectations about the Axis and aren't willing to give the Soviets a fair shake. It probably cannot be otherwise given the subject and the game's demographic.

History schmistory, I'm talking gameplay and game design.

A sizable majority of game design decisions benefitted the soviet side far more the axis side, and more significantly to my arguments, far more than history did. These game design decisions have nothing to do with historical representation or abstraction (think: basically every division coming back for free in 1941).

Folks are right, about supply being an too easy for both sides.

People overlook how much pressure a German player is under for the first 17 turns.

How many GC'41s were abandoned because the German player realizes on Turn 13 "I screwed up on Turn 8 when I moved that panzer group there, and I'll never make up for it before mud? **Resign**

These resignations aren't because the Soviet did something novel or excellent, but rather because the German side must always walk a razor's edge of strategic tradeoffs, while simultaneously, game mechanics babysit the Soviet in 1941 such that no failure to manage the army, no abdication of concentration, will ever make too big a difference.

I've hated wasting my opponent's time with my 4 or 5 resignations, but frankly there are two different games here: an easy one, and a very hard one. One is a relaxed, "It's never too big a deal" game in which you can always recover, and the other is a "Damn! now I'll never unbalance the other guy enough to make a difference."

Until the Soviets have to make some strategic decisions that have meaningful tradeoffs, I'm going to vociferously object to how simple Soviet gameplay is. I'm particularly interested in playing Soviet again, but I can't see it even being fair right now for a German player with everything stacked against them. I'm debating trying to find a German player who will accept handicap help just to prove how easy it is for the Soviet to neuter the German in 1941.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Sillyflower, I'm pretty sure I had Pelton's number in our game.

As I have stated months ago.

This game is set up by design so that the German player can only take what is given to him by the russian player.

So if you know what your doing as the Russian player you should never lose a single game as MT has stated.

MT plays BOTH sides as me and Flaviusx play one basicly.

It is more then clear that if you lose as a russian player is because you lack playing skills. Lack of skills doesn't mean your stupid or have a lower IQ then a monkey, it means you dont know how to best play the Russian side.

All things being equal If I knew what or how to play the russian side as good a say Kamil/Flaviuxs ect ect I would win 100% of the time playing as the russian player.

That is basicly how the game is designed as per 1.05.

So endlessly nerfing the German side at this point is simply stupid, because all things being equal the russian side is going to win every time.

Pelton

[Encircled]

Sorry Pelton, I've forgotten, but you must have mentioned it.

How many games have you played till 1945?

It must have been loads to come out with that conclusion

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

@Pelton, one day your may wake up and realise that WITE is not about winning and/or losing, it is a game to be enjoyed by two players who use each turn to provide their opponent with various intellectual challenges and puzzles to figure out how to solve them. Many people find those challenges to be intellectually stimulating and fun and do not give a toss whether they "Win" or "Lose" the game.

The sooner you lose your fixation with winning and start enjoying the game for what it is, the sooner we will see you stop making such pathetic posts as you have made in this thread and elsewhere.

Trying to match the level of challenge each player faces to reflect the historical challenges the historical participants faced in the different phase of the Russian Front 1941-45, is very difficult given the myriad of game rules and game mechanics that have to integrate to reflect some very abrupt changes e.g. the first winter. Some rules and mechanics can be exploited to unbalance the challenges players face (Lvov, HQBU etc.), and some undiscovered bugs can have a similar impact (47mm AT guns).

1.05 is a BETA and although Matrix does not cover itself in EULAs and other terms of use documents that players need to agree to, most players know that a BETA is not the finished article. I am hoping and praying that there are no "game-stoppers" lurking in the games that I am currently playing under 1.05, as I have got further, and am having far more fun than I ever did as a tester, because too many bugs were game stoppers. If the games do stop because a major change is made to the rules or a bug makes it unplayable or less fun for either player, then I am grown up enough to accept it is because I played a beta version of a game.

Bro get off your moral high horse, come down with the little poeple and smell the roses.

how do you magicly know how I feel?

I have or am playing 18 games and I enjoy every single one. So I am guessing I have enjoyed more then you or allot of poeple here.

I play them into 43 atleast. Unlike most I play, that quit in 41. I have had 4 games make it to 43 or are on going in 43.

Again how many games have you played into 43?

I think I enjoy playing more then anyone I know playing.

Actions speak louder then BS.

Again don't refute anything I say, but make some pissy personal bitch.

I play allot and ENJOY PLAYING ALLOT. Are you even playing dude?

Pelton

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Sorry Pelton, I've forgotten, but you must have mentioned it.

How many games have you played till 1945?

It must have been loads to come out with that conclusion

I have or had 4 get into 43.

How many games have you played into 43?

I personally dont know of a single person on these boards that have had more then 2 games past turn 100.

How many games have you played past turn 100 smart ass?

I am losing several games but I am still playing hoping to use the games to show devs issues late in games as the flying pig rule 1v1=2v1.

Sure I have had 12 russian quit, but to be 100% honest atleast 6 of them should have kept going and probably would have won, but most russians think they had to hold moscow or leningrad. If they dont they resign.

Most russian players are very thinned skinned and quit way way to early into the game.



Pelton

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
A sizable majority of game design decisions benefitted the soviet side far more the axis side, and more significantly to my arguments, far more than history did. These game design decisions have nothing to do with historical representation or abstraction (think: basically every division coming back for free in 1941).

I don't quite understand why you think that re-building Russian divisions for free is un-realistic. Historically, the Russians did rebuild 90% of destroyed Rifle Divisions, and sometimes had to do it 3 or 4 times over for a single division. What is unrealistic in WitE is the Russian player being able to build his own army any way he likes. It should be a historical OOB, with 75% of units re-built automatically for free (some units the Russians didn't re-build historically, namely Cavalry and Mountain Divisions, and certain armoured formations).

[Peltonx]

1.05 is about right as it was or atleast we will not 100% know until we get into 44.

The Russian player should win all things being equal as Flaviusx has stated and I argee 100%.

Thats basicly historical as this game should be designed.

I think the issue now is if as the German I have historically out played the Russian player badly, but I am still going to lose in late 44! WTH gives!

I like to see all things being equal the German player can atleast make the Russian player work his ass of with skilled game play.

I love playing this game win or lose. I am losing 2 games now in 43, but I am still playing unlike 12 other Russians who quit very early on.

Pelton

[karonagames]

Are you even playing dude?

If you could be bothered to read what I actually wrote you would know the answer.

Again how many games have you played into 43?

Answered in my post as well.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'm going to be quite honest here: I don't think Germany had a very good chance to win the war in the east. I think the game is if anything far too forgiving of the Germans, at least early on. (It is too forgiving for the Soviets later on. The game engine is systemically biased towards the offense, mostly due to logistics.) The krauts bit off way more than they could chew. The more recent scholarship in the Glantz era just reinforces this.

We're never going to satisfy a large number of people playing this game because they have utterly unrealistic expectations about the Axis and aren't willing to give the Soviets a fair shake. It probably cannot be otherwise given the subject and the game's demographic.

As with many of your postings containing reference to the historical event, your conclusions are very-very debatable. You have a statistical sample of 1 on which to base your arm chair quarterback assessment -- i.e. there was one real war in the east with one outcome. The path to the historical conclusion is based upon an infinite number of decisions and a huge array of variables. In a simulation environment -- also with an extremely large number of variables and seemingly infinite numbers of player decisions, numerous possible outcomes should be both realistically possible from a historical context as well as statistically possible.

I'm going to be quite honest here: Unfortunately what many players of WiTE may take away from your above posting is that it's pointless to play as the Axis as the simulation is being “rigged” from those on the "inside" of WiTE. I'm not particularly keen on the whole fan boy nonsense that's become the routine on this forum, but your opinion might be easily extrapolated or misconstrued to mean that we the "public" players of WiTE should only ever expect one outcome to this simulation.

[Encircled]

 So thats none then

 All I needed to know

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: marty_01
I'm going to be quite honest here: Unfortunately what many players of WiTE may take away from your above posting is that it's pointless to play as the Axis as the simulation is being “rigged” from those on the "inside" of WiTE. I'm not particularly keen on the whole fan boy nonsense that's become the routine on this forum, but your opinion might be easily extrapolated or misconstrued to mean that we the "public" players of WiTE should only ever expect one outcome to this simulation.

Unfourtunately, WitE is NOT a simulation. Simulation implies using data that is as accurate as possible. Considering that the Russian OOB and force structure is widely customizable by the human player, I'd suggest the term 'simulation' be used sparingly. It's a game based on history, but not a simulation.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
A sizable majority of game design decisions benefitted the soviet side far more the axis side, and more significantly to my arguments, far more than history did. These game design decisions have nothing to do with historical representation or abstraction (think: basically every division coming back for free in 1941).

I don't quite understand why you think that re-building Russian divisions for free is un-realistic. Historically, the Russians did rebuild 90% of destroyed Rifle Divisions, and sometimes had to do it 3 or 4 times over for a single division. What is unrealistic in WitE is the Russian player being able to build his own army any way he likes. It should be a historical OOB, with 75% of units re-built automatically for free (some units the Russians didn't re-build historically, namely Cavalry and Mountain Divisions, and certain armoured formations).

Again, the history is completely immaterial to the game design.

To create divisions in game, Soviets need AP. For some reason, they have to pay a horrible penalty to build them in the first 20 turns. But then, to get around that 'constraint' in every meaningful way, during the same time period they get baby-sat with the safe knowledge that literally every division destroyed in this period doesn't need to be thought of again. Like hydra-teeth, they sprout up just when they're needed most.

Why have BOTH rules in effect? The free-units trump the need to think about the complexities of AP budgeting. If you enforced the mechanic that all units must be created through the expenditure of AP by Soviets. That would require adjustment of APs, to be sure, but the 1-size-fits-all of 50 AP per side throughout the game is another decision that says "throughout the game, both sides' C&C was roughly equal." Clearly that is not how historians view it... Not that I'm invoking history here to help my argument (I will only use history to undermine others' arguments).

The Soviets ALSO get to save FURTHER AP in that all these divisions arrive attached to Stavka, and can be seamlessly put into the line with complete efficiency like a NATO 1986 air-lifted defense. This is what I refer to as the double-punishment of Germany. They save AP, and any need to think of strategic tradeoff because they come back for free. They save AP again, without needing to think of strategic tradeoff, that these units can be attached to the closest/easiest/best spot for free (which is further compounded by the fact that Soviet divisions are 1/3 to 1/2 as expensive to transfer between HQs).

Soviet reinforcements in 1941 arrive in pristine C2 shape and can be easily slotted in perfect dispersal, perfect layering in depth, perfect organization of command. On the other side of the front line, the side that ACTUALLY trained to seize initiative, to act boldly from corps commander down to unterscharfuehrer, can't move a depleted division from the corps command to its parent army command for Rest and Refit without it costing 3-to-7 AP to move them (or more than 5% of their AP per turn, minimum for 1 division). Corps between armies is worse. And while Flavius and others will say that this is because Germany gets an extra layer of command for die rolls, etc., I say this: It doesn't matter, because the Germans have to pay more in leadership costs and AP costs to maintain that level of Command and Control. Soviets don't have to worry about moving corps between armies (AP savings) or moving divisions within corps (AP savings) or assigning leaders to corps (AP savings).

Many game design decisions that might appear to hurt the Soviet Union are undermined by rules or mechanics making up for it, as in the 'punitive cost to create units in 1941' being undermined by 'free units in 1941 for Russia YAY!'. To name another easy one, Soviet national morale is low, but it's far easier to recover morale at rest when your NM is low - bonus!). Meanwhile, Germany's high-morale starting army is hard-coded to pull Germany down regardless of what's happening on the map, in the losses column, or in the pools.

Other aspects of game design artificially assign parity to the two armies. The Soviet Union gains that benefit of easy re-assignment of newly arriving units, but Germany cannot HOPE to unwind its command mess in AGC and AGS until 1942. Why, when Germany was at its highest strength, is it forced by artifice to behave on parity with the Soviets?

Over and over again, game design shows favoritism to the Soviet side.

The ultimate, is of course, unit creation, which I won't even go into, because if you can't readily discern how big an advantage that is, I got nothin for ya.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The ultimate, is of course, unit creation, which I won't even go into, because if you can't readily discern how big an advantage that is, I got nothin for ya.

Frankly, I don't even know why we're arguing, because I'm suggesting that Russian OOB capabilites be reduced precisely the way you are stating them. I've created a guide for to build the Russian army along historical lines. I've done this for my own knowledge (what the heck am I suppose to build in the first place!?), and historical accuracy (I'm a history buff that's moved into games, not a gamer that happens to play historical games). I've thought about making my guide suitable for the gaming community, but I'm now thinking about taking it a step further and modding a 41-45 grand campaign with a historical Russian OOB and little or no unit creation.

[Aurelian]

The Russian colossus...has been underestimated by us...whenever a dozen divisions are destroyed the Russians replace them with another dozen. August 1941, from "The World at War" - Page 129 - by Mark Arnold-Forster - World War, 1939-1945 - 1981----Franz Hadler quote.



http://warandgame.com/2007/08/20/russo- ... lans-1941/

"On the first day of the war, 22 million Soviet citizens were called up. By mid-August, a shaken Halder was writing that the German Army, which had expected to face fewer than 200 Soviet divisions, had already identified 360 such divisions on the fighting front. Within a year, and despite having suffered the worst mili­tary disasters in history, the Red Army had attained a marginal superiority over the enemy in manpower and weapons and had stabilized the front."

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Like hydra-teeth, they sprout up just when they're needed most.

Aurelian beat me to it, but ironically, that's exactly how the German Army felt historically [:)]

[Flaviusx]

We only have one sample of the pacific war and only one sample of the war in the west. Yet in neither case does much controversy arise. Only in the east is this matter of a single historical sample become an issue and the desire for counterfactuals become enormous. This kind of selectivity is most curious.

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

History schmistory, I'm talking gameplay and game design.

A sizable majority of game design decisions benefitted the soviet side far more the axis side, and more significantly to my arguments, far more than history did. These game design decisions have nothing to do with historical representation or abstraction (think: basically every division coming back for free in 1941).

Folks are right, about supply being an too easy for both sides.

People overlook how much pressure a German player is under for the first 17 turns.

How many GC'41s were abandoned because the German player realizes on Turn 13 "I screwed up on Turn 8 when I moved that panzer group there, and I'll never make up for it before mud? **Resign**

These resignations aren't because the Soviet did something novel or excellent, but rather because the German side must always walk a razor's edge of strategic tradeoffs, while simultaneously, game mechanics babysit the Soviet in 1941 such that no failure to manage the army, no abdication of concentration, will ever make too big a difference.

I've hated wasting my opponent's time with my 4 or 5 resignations, but frankly there are two different games here: an easy one, and a very hard one. One is a relaxed, "It's never too big a deal" game in which you can always recover, and the other is a "Damn! now I'll never unbalance the other guy enough to make a difference."

Until the Soviets have to make some strategic decisions that have meaningful tradeoffs, I'm going to vociferously object to how simple Soviet gameplay is. I'm particularly interested in playing Soviet again, but I can't see it even being fair right now for a German player with everything stacked against them. I'm debating trying to find a German player who will accept handicap help just to prove how easy it is for the Soviet to neuter the German in 1941.

Agreed -- you hit the nail on the head for many of my own feelings about WiTE and how it "feels" while playing the game.

Having played the Russians in a number of PBEMs, I'll say that it's not a complete romp in the park. But the "fear" moments playing as the Russians have for me always been far more limited than when playing as the Axis. Against a good German player it's challenging as the Russians between about turn 6 to about turn 15 or 16. It's far less scary since the 19-MP/20-MP limit on HQ Build-UP occurred. Although I have yet to play anyone who's glommed onto the HQ-Build-Up chain\mule bandwagon yet. I think a lot of folks including myself -- hope that the chain\mule thingy somehow gets sorted out and schwaked by 2by3 sooner rather than later. Any solution to HQ-Build and chaining or muling or mulling – or whatever we are calling it this week -- has to be tempered so as not to completely eliminate Axis maneuver capability.

For anyone who cares, I've actually gotten to 1943 playing as both the Russians and Germans. Although it's rare as many players are conceding pretty early. Against a mediocre German player, the game is a romp in the park from pretty much turn 2 or 3 onward. Conversely when facing a mediocre Russian player even a good Axis player is still -- as you say -- walking the razors edge from turn 1 onward.

Perhaps using the word player "fear" is off the beaten path in describing perception of how a game is proceeding, but it's what I'm going to run with. I don't buy into the relative disparity in player "fear" that the current game portrays. It may be on the mark for folks playing the Axis. But I think correlation to the historical event and "fear" is poor when I'm playing the Soviet side. I think -- and this is certainly arguable for some -- but for me I believe that the historical event was a far tighter match than what is currently being portrayed in WiTE and the current "fashionable" interpretation of the War in Russia. Player "fear" should be much more evenly distributed between both the Axis and Soviets sides of the game. [:D]

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

 So thats none then

All I needed to know

Regarding getting to 1943(+) in WiTE -- it's interesting and can be fun and all. But what does it really mean? And what does this very lengthy, time consuming journey really tell us about the game? The game goes through so many changes so quickly as a result of the rapid fire beta patches, what are we really learning about game flow as a whole?

There are too many aspects of the game which are not held constant as a result of the rapidity of patching. Anyone that's gotten to 1943(+) can attest to this. It appears that we will be seeing the same in the future. So what are we really driving at when we say -- oh just wait till you get to 1943 -- than it all gets turned around and the Soviets will have to suffer this or that or the other thing. Really? By the time a couple dudes get to 1943 in their PBEM or server game the stuff we thought might be important by that point in the game has been completely turned upside down as a result of patching. We are realistically only testing game flow in very small snippets -- four or five turns of stability -- than another patch is introduced. Do we start over? Do we press on? If we start over -- we are again limiting our play experiences and conclusions regarding game flow to a handful of “stable” turns. If we press on, than our baseline "constants" have been changed as a result of unknowns introduced from new patches. Our constants are actually becoming variables. Conclusions we attempt to draw about game flow aren't particularly valid as the model's parameters are in a constant state of flux.

[Aurelian]

All this nonsense of how the game is rigged in favor of the Russians by designer/devs. How they have a nanny.

So should I inform my three opponents that there's no point iin continued play, as I can't lose.

Even though I have yet to win.