Game Set Match: End of Realism, Supply and Run Discussion

[mmarquo]

Tours,

As others have stated above, many ARs amply demonstrate that the logistical mechanic in this game is fantasy in so far as air supply, and mostly fuel supply of forward units, is concerned. This thread concerns the generality of what the game allows. The type of aerial resupply shown in the image below from our game is but one example of fantasy air supply fairies at work. Now, if you have any credible reference or source which demonstrates effective use of aircraft in the East Front during WW2 to refuel panzer corps operating hundreds of kilometers ahead of the logistical tether or behind enemy lines to enable sustained mobile operations please share.

Thanks [:)]




[/quote]

[mktours]

Mark,
Is this picture shows I "Flying bomber fairies fueling marauding panzer corps 500 km behind the front"?
I really didn't see it. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Marquo


Tours,

As others have stated above, many ARs amply demonstrate that the logistical mechanic in this game is fantasy in so far as air supply, and mostly fuel supply of forward units, is concerned. This thread concerns the generality of what the game allows. The type of aerial resupply shown in the image below from our game is but one example of fantasy air supply fairies at work. Now, if you have any credible reference or source which demonstrates effective use of aircraft in the East Front during WW2 to refuel panzer corps operating hundreds of kilometers ahead of the logistical tether or behind enemy lines to enable sustained mobile operations please share.

Thanks [:)]

[/quote]

[SigUp]

double post

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: mktours

Mark,
Is this picture shows I "Flying bomber fairies fueling marauding panzer corps 500 km behind the front"?
I really didn't see it. [:)]

If his information is correct for the distance of the HQ from the railhead it is close to 200+ km. The HQ is 27 MPs away, that's about 120 miles, or 190 km. Considering the Panzers are a few hexes ahead, you get 200+ km.

[SigUp]

triple post

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

Katukov is correct, but he is being a bit kind. Both major air supply operations used fixed airfield and group support elements.

That supply missions took place, successful or not, means that an historical simulation must allow them. I assume what you mean by 'fixed airfield' are those with concrete runways and heated hangers, among other facilities. I raised the issue of their not being represented soon after game release. They are a glaring omission from the air and logistical systems.

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
Jahn is correct, air drop supply was used, rarely, to support grand tactical objectives by divisional subunits... basically things that happen below the scale of the game.

The counter you see on the map cannot represent the entire division in one place. It has to be an abstraction of units that are possibly strung out over tens of miles, particularly in an advance. The counter fighting the battle, then, may well be a regimental battle group, concievably supplied by air.

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
Logistic problems are a MAJOR feature of an historic based East Front game.

We live in hope.

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
Trying to horsetrade game flaws is unhelpful and actually sort of odd. The blizzard is a separate issue, morale is a separate issue.

I disagree. The game has to work in its entirety and a balance of cheese is better than a one sided game. Resolving one problem impacts on the rest of the game which has then to be re-evaluated. What most of us want, though, is as close to an historical simulation as a game system can deliver.

[Michael T]

I disagree. The game has to work in its entirety and a balance of cheese is better than a one sided game. Resolving one problem impacts on the rest of the game which has then to be re-evaluated. What most of us want, though, is as close to an historical simulation as a game system can deliver.

+1

[swkuh]

Maybe some would want something beyond "an historical simulation." Historical accuracy is very nice and is an attractive feature of this "war game," but good playing technology, good game play, and interesting variations might be compromised by overreaching historicity. (Hmmm... lets model camouflage schemes and see what that does to the date Berlin falls, or Moscow is reached-NOT!)

How about some strategic and tactical evaluation reports/maps/panels? Simpler and easier to use Commanders' Reports? New color schemes? Useful user manuals (editor, game, scenarios?)

Besides "historicity" there is game play and breadth of interests that attract the customers.

Also, note katukov's recent post under "game suggestions."

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I disagree. The game has to work in its entirety and a balance of cheese is better than a one sided game. Resolving one problem impacts on the rest of the game which has then to be re-evaluated. What most of us want, though, is as close to an historical simulation as a game system can deliver.

+1

+1 again.

It appears many are confusing game and historical reality. I don't think anyone can argue the historical Luftwaffe was capable of doing what WitE allows, then again the same can be said for the VVS or a host of other things currently allowed in the game from both sides. The question should be - as a WitE mechanic is it over the top currently implemented? Or does it allow, or is it necessary for a competitive game? Based on my own experience and from posted AARs I lean more towards it allows for a better, more competitive game.

The mktours-Marquo match is not typical; it is an outlier. mktours seems to have developed a certain mathematical precision, not only with fuel drops but also getting rolls for MPs, planning successive moves etc. That in combination with Marquo's inexperience in dealing with such a player snowballed the overall effect. And snowballing either one way or the other is what WitE excels at.

Michael T's play is also an outlier. Trying to balance or design the game based on these sorts of extremes is not the answer. My .02.

[mktours]

SigUp,
I think the meaning of the sentence is that "fueling to the units sit 500 km behind the front line".
my english is very poor.

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: mktours

Mark,
Is this picture shows I "Flying bomber fairies fueling marauding panzer corps 500 km behind the front"?
I really didn't see it. [:)]

If his information is correct for the distance of the HQ from the railhead it is close to 200+ km. The HQ is 27 MPs away, that's about 120 miles, or 190 km. Considering the Panzers are a few hexes ahead, you get 200+ km.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Ron

The question should be - as a WitE mechanic is it over the top currently implemented? Or does it allow, or is it necessary for a competitive game? Based on my own experience and from posted AARs I lean more towards it allows for a better, more competitive game.

Unfortunately the current air supply system is totally over the top. Should it be left unchanged in order to allow for a more fun and competitive game? I don't think so. Currently the WITE players are affected by many history based contrains. Just from the top of my head: the Finnish no attack line, the units withdrawing to other fronts, or being arbitrary disbanded, pre set production, Italin surrender and many more. You could argue that the game would be better and more dynamic, if the those constrains could be negated by the actions of the players. Currently it is not the case, so the fantasy air supplying system is quite incomprehensible. Appart from faulty strategy, the logistic was probably the single, most important factor that caused the Axis defeat on the Eastern Front. And since the game is called War in the East, not Fantasy General, many players expect to represent it in an accurate way.

The Demyansk airlift operation was the first of it's kind in the history of the warfare. Having said this the air supply by air was in it's infancy during the WW2 and the German experience was developed and implemented on a larger scale only after the war. The first instance of a successful air supplying of the advancing mechanized spearheads was the Israeli Sinai campaign of 1967.

[mmarquo]

"It appears many are confusing game and historical reality. I don't think anyone can argue the historical Luftwaffe was capable of doing what WitE allows, then again the same can be said for the VVS or a host of other things currently allowed in the game from both sides. The question should be - as a WitE mechanic is it over the top currently implemented?"

Yes, it is undeniably over the top; and once again, excusing one flaw because it perhaps counterbalances a completely different flaw is a poor excuse IMHO. [:)]

[Ron]

Katukov - Yes I agree historically, I'm certainly not arguing that, however in context regards WitE I think you missed the point of myself and the quoted text.

Marquo - No question, I think you have stated your views several times now. In theory two wrongs do not make a right, however it appears to me WitE is a collection of wrongs trying to make a right. And while in this case the flying fuel is your pet one, it certainly doesn't stand alone as a wrong.

[Michael T]

it certainly doesn't stand alone as a wrong.

Nor is it the worst 'wrong'. I think the blizzard would take that mantle.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Ron

Katukov - Yes I agree historically, I'm certainly not arguing that, however in context regards WitE I think you missed the point of myself and the quoted text.

If I understood correctly, you were saying that the WITE supply may be unrealistic but it also may balance other gameplay isses and work well within the whole imperfect system, right?

What I meant is that it would be great to see a new, reworked, realistic supply in the game. And of course there other "wrongs" in the system that would need to be addressed aswell. I fully appreciate that this would be a titanic work for the developers but is I'm not mistaken, WITE2 is supposed to be kind of a new game?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

it certainly doesn't stand alone as a wrong.

Nor is it the worst 'wrong'. I think the blizzard would take that mantle.

I'd call them equally bad myself, and mirror images of each other. But this is quibbling.

[SuluSea]

It looks like average players are frustrated by superior players tactics and/or players that seek an *historical type game are frustrated by gamers.. The developers have given the ability to players to adjust settings to level the playing field . I play the AI so have no dog in the fight but I do hope the squeeky wheels don't mess up the game for the AI players.


Asterisk by historical games because it's been my experience players requesting an historical game play by their concept of historical what ifs...

[Flaviusx]

Salusea, it's more a question of sensible players being irritated by cheese. There's some deeply silly things going on in this game, utterly indefensible. You seem reluctant to get into the particulars here; that's very wise of you, because if you did, you'd find it impossible to defend them yourself. So please spare us the lecture.

Mucking around with the settings is poor substitute for flawed design.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Salusea, it's more a question of sensible players being irritated by cheese. There's some deeply silly things going on in this game, utterly indefensible. You seem reluctant to get into the particulars here; that's very wise of you, because if you did, you'd find it impossible to defend them yourself. So please spare us the lecture.

Mucking around with the settings is poor substitute for flawed design.

Hi, not to worry I may not be posting long here, reading it looks like there's some venom between the two sides in this part of the forum.


Both sides are able to exploit capabilities and use historical knowledge to fight a better war. The Soviets have the initiative longer so they are able to use historical knowledge to pursue fighting a better war. Both sides being equal players............. Keep in mind the definition of the term "historical type fight" differs for every member in this forum. Gamers will always push the engine to it's limits. The developers have to strike a balance between game play and historical abilities. I believe the developers have done just that and provided a fine product.

[Flaviusx]

Oh, absolutely there is cheese to spare on both sides.

The game works fine for solo (you can avoid the cheese, and indeed, handicap yourself and help the AI,) and you are a solo player so none of this affects you, but it is wrecking PBEM. I myself no longer PBEM as a result.

Changing the settings around isn't really much of a solution in PBEM. For starters, you are locked into those settings for the entirety of the game in PBEM, and in my estimation that will not work in PBEM. For example, in order to tame the blizzard, you need to do things that won't work in any other part of the game. Against the AI, I find 125 settings across the board just about do the trick and let the AI get into 1942 in reasonable shape.

In a PBEM match that would be way too much. But the blizzard is so over the top that any adjustments made to deal with it will blow up in your face outside of it.

Then there is the whole business of running away, which both sides do, which really can't be dealt with in the existing game engine at all. It can only be addressed, if at all, with house rules of some sort.

Then there is the air supply stuff. The air model in general has many problems and can be exploited in numerous ways. (This model is being abandoned in WITW, happily.)

If you're just going to play solo, then you can ignore all this chit chat and do what you're doing, as none of it affects you. But telling people to just change the settings isn't the answer to multiple design issues that become glaringly obvious in a PBEM context. Those settings are both too strong, too inflexible, and too limited in scope to deal with these matters, which are many.