Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: jubjub

I have played both sides and my experience is a bit different.

@#2 para = Logistics is tearing me apart in my current game. (Even in my earlier games Logistics were eating me up) My casualty rate has skyrocketed, most units don't have full ammo or fuel. Keep killing any type of logistics for the Germans and the Germans will be down to bow and arrows that they make from wood on the land.... now to find out where I can produce the string from for the bow....

@#3 Para = to fill up TOE on a German Division that starts with a 49 TOE is 3-4 turns(still was in low 90's when I needed to move it forward). I know, I just did it with one of my Divisions that got murdered during fighting and I am still semi close to western Europe supply. That is "not" easy when you are also trying to supply your Army.

From my experience, ID and motorized divisions can typically be refit to 90% or more in 1-2 turns if they are placed on a depot with an HQ boost. This is more on a static front though. Panzer divisions take time get back above 90% TOE even refitting in the reserve.

Yup, to fill up(100% ToE) takes time depending on what it is. My point exactly since the last 10% is harder because you can be running into equipment shortages & other factors that affect supply on the map. Refit doesn't live in its own microcosm that is for sure.

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: jubjub

I have played both sides and my experience is a bit different.

@#2 para = Logistics is tearing me apart in my current game. (Even in my earlier games Logistics were eating me up) My casualty rate has skyrocketed, most units don't have full ammo or fuel. Keep killing any type of logistics for the Germans and the Germans will be down to bow and arrows that they make from wood on the land.... now to find out where I can produce the string from for the bow....

@#3 Para = to fill up TOE on a German Division that starts with a 49 TOE is 3-4 turns(still was in low 90's when I needed to move it forward). I know, I just did it with one of my Divisions that got murdered during fighting and I am still semi close to western Europe supply. That is "not" easy when you are also trying to supply your Army.

From my experience, ID and motorized divisions can typically be refit to 90% or more in 1-2 turns if they are placed on a depot with an HQ boost. This is more on a static front though. Panzer divisions take time get back above 90% TOE even refitting in the reserve.

Yup, to fill up(100% ToE) takes time depending on what it is. My point exactly since the last 10% is harder because you can be running into equipment shortages & other factors that affect supply on the map. Refit doesn't live in its own microcosm that is for sure.

So, getting back to the original post the easy refit isn't so easy for the Germans, especially deep in the Soviet Union the 1st year. PZ Divisions are horrid to get back up. (Soviet Armor Divisions are another difficult one to bring up because of many different reasons)

Personally I feel logistics are far from being generous, the opposite.

Sorry but if Germans are let's say about Kiev - logistics should be excellent in summer for sure (and sorted by winter).

The fact on the other hand that the Germans struggle when they're at let's say Stalino or Kharkov - well one can take it as they want. Yes it is okay that they struggle.
Can the logistic system here allow for Axis to retain these 'eastward' cities in Winter?

If the answer is 'Not really' or along these lines certainly it is not generous, but the opposite.

This is a digression from the main topic - on which anyhow I expressed myself already in abudance previously in this thread.

LOL, I love the game and may take another one to get punished by another Soviet. Yes, I know what I wrote But gotta put in the effort to get results even if I am going to get my ass handed to me.

Working out the details but the Soviet player is asking for full use of Assault HQ's. The flip side is using a form of Motorization for the Germans.

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Personally I feel logistics are far from being generous, the opposite.

Sorry but if Germans are let's say about Kiev - logistics should be excellent in summer for sure (and sorted by winter).

...

but they weren't. AGS had to delay its part of the Kiev encirclement as it didn't have enough fuel

And do you feel you always have enough fuel to do what you need in the game?

I do not. At times I cannot even close a tiny pocket due to being -1- hex short.
That before Kiev.

Then that may be well due to the fact that Soviet just -run- the hell away and do not fight.
Germany struggles already to catch up.

Anyhow I assume we agree to disagree there on the perception of present logistic system for what concerns the Axis.
As per usual I worry to see how the Soviet Army is well supplied and attacks across the whole front in Winter '41.

I've a game in late 42, fighting half way to Saratov and finally I can't get my motorised units into the mid-30 MP. None of the feeling of the real axis campaign in the Caucasus where they were cannabilising vehicles just to get enough fuel into a few.

If that feeling comes across - the whole game will go down the toilet.

It is baseline design concept.

IF you struggle to fuel and supply your own forces there, how can you expect to extract and get home the fuel from Caucasus?
You'd have to -supply- your own troops there AND bring home the raw oil.

That feeling should not be there, should not be mirrored in the game. I've not read in depth tomes and I doubt the effect of 'cannibalizing' veichles there goes beyond the 'trucks lost' due to depot to unit movement.

BUT if a player even remotely sniffs that 'I go in Caucasus, I cannot get my oil and I self trash my own veichles' gets to have the same business of the current state of some air missions.
Oh, I fly. I self immolate my planes due to absurd operationa losses.

I simply won't.

Dang.
Caucasus can be removed from the game.

I'm sorry but that answer worries me. You seem to want a sandbox game where the hyper-powerful Axis can do as they wish? Lets ignore the historical constraints, mostly logistical, that so badly hampered their efforts?

If you are having the problems you report, I'd suggest sit down with one of the AARs that discuss logistics and work out how to meld that to your preferred variant.

There is a huge difference between sending fuel to combat formations in location x and repairing and sending fuel/oil that can be extracted at location x. I really can't see the design flaw?

edit - we are all agreed that there is a problem with play balance in 1941, It could be:

a) assault fronts as suggested in this thread
b) it could be that Soviet players have worked out their side quicker
c) it might be something else that over-states Soviet capacity in 1941

I really don't think the solution is to remove all realistic constraints on the Axis side.

I've not said to remove the constrain - right now I do not have an issue (yet eventually) with logistics. For the Axis.
Just I do not feel them 'generous'.

I do agree there is a problem on Soviet end in '41 presently - inflating their operational capabilities - (and other problems that may or may not be shared).

One of the selling point (for me) of WITE2 is the 'railroad capacity' - that should dictate how many troops can be supplied adequately (that does not mean lavishly) in remote campaigns.
I am used to tabletop games - that in general have a binary system (or tertiary at best with some limited / partial supply status but that is often for oversea stuff). Either in Supply or Out of Supply.

But my gaming philosophy is 'history dictates the average' not the 'maximum or best'.
And player merits should bundle in - within boundaries.

ORIGINAL: loki100

I'm sorry but that answer worries me. You seem to want a sandbox game where the hyper-powerful Axis can do as they wish? Lets ignore the historical constraints, mostly logistical, that so badly hampered their efforts?

If you are having the problems you report, I'd suggest sit down with one of the AARs that discuss logistics and work out how to meld that to your preferred variant.

There is a huge difference between sending fuel to combat formations in location x and repairing and sending fuel/oil that can be extracted at location x. I really can't see the design flaw?

edit - we are all agreed that there is a problem with play balance in 1941, It could be:

a) assault fronts as suggested in this thread
b) it could be that Soviet players have worked out their side quicker
c) it might be something else that over-states Soviet capacity in 1941

I really don't think the solution is to remove all realistic constraints on the Axis side.

Definatly "A"
Not "B" since "B" is tied to "A"
Not "C" since "C" is also tied to "A"

edit - we are all agreed that there is a problem with play balance in 1941, It could be:

I'm not agreed with this statement, last time I played Soviets in '41 I got totally trashed and frankly if it was played switching sides would expect Axis to win again.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5020609

However am also not disagreeing, I just don't know. Will probably have more of an opinion after my present Campaign game has got a bit further.

ORIGINAL: tyronec

edit - we are all agreed that there is a problem with play balance in 1941, It could be:

I'm not agreed with this statement, last time I played Soviets in '41 I got totally trashed and frankly if it was played switching sides would expect Axis to win again.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5020609

However am also not disagreeing, I just don't know. Will probably have more of an opinion after my present Campaign game has got a bit further.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5020609

The link is a scenario. Do you have an AAR or a game where you played against or with the Soviets using Assault HQ's in 41 grand campaign? Granted I am not a scenario guy and you probably have assault HQ's in that scenario, I don't know. But what makes it different is that the campaign 41 has units you can min/max a great deal more and funnel those two Soviet Assault HQ's where they are needed. When I am talking Assault HQ's I am specifically referencing the 41 campaign game and a Soviet using the Assault HQ.

In my game it has been rough but am doing OK. At least I think I am. But if I didn't get behind VL I would have been in for a much rougher time I believe. I am sure Jubjub is using Assault HQ's because pretty much everything I attack is looking to be beefy and big and when those units retreat they take a great deal less losses. Couple this with the Soviet retreating 4-5 hexes a turn and the Germans barely get within fingers reach. That is the the thing to do in my opinion. Only Leningrad and Moscow will the Soviets have to stand and fight. Can pretty much delay the Germans the whole way if done correctly. It isn't an easy task for the Soviets by any means but the added benefit of the command control, less losses, and have the 2 assault HQ's where you need them makes the Germans fight a very difficult battle that was not present in WITE1. At this point I think just putting the command capacity of Assault HQ's to normal levels, meaning no added command capacity at the start would work. If the Soviets require bigger ones later in the war then up that capacity as was the case in real life.

In wite1 soviet side before the blizzard was “unplayable” becouse no mather what you build in the first weeks, it would get smashed. Holding Leningrad was imposible and playing as the soviets was harder. But in wite2, finnaly soviet forces now have some balance and axis player can feel the supply problems and now playing german side is hard too. In wite1 making small mistakes as soviets were often result in losing many divisions to pockets. Now german players must also be preceise about their actions especially in the first weeks. As i see from many AARs that gameplay in 41 is fairly balanced (Gameplay can shift drastically to both sides).

I think for the assaults HQs,

Additional cap can be removed and soviet shock armies can have increased capacity.

Divisions that assigned to asaault hqs can not have construction value. So they will stage their offensives from prepared defenses and must pull other formations to consolidate their gains or remove their assaults status.

There is a bug in the game that Gary has just attempted to fix. The units in assault HQs were getting their bonuses even when the HQs 2 or 3 levels up the chain of command were overloaded or outside of command range. That means for the German Assault HQs, they could have the Army HQ overloaded but as soon as the corps were not overloaded, all the units in the Army would get their bonuses. So yes, you could dramatically overload an Assault HQ or spread it out and not lose the benefits of AHQ. I suggest until the fix for this is released, players agree not to overload any HQ in a AHQ formation, including the AHQ itself. This may not solve the issue being discussed, but clearly the rule was subject to extra abuse.

In an off forum game, I am discussing this with my opponent. One of the things in discussion is just how soon the real Germans lost what we would think of as a "game mechanics" edge and started to commit to major operations that required the commitment of almost theater wide assets if they wanted to get anywhere. It's really, really, early.

The NW front evaded being pocketed and withdrew and AGN reported resistance and local counterattacks driving them to a near standstill on or around 08 July. The release of a panzer corps from AGC helped get things moving again around 10 August. Or, in other words, the real AGN couldn't count on "gameplay mechanics" winning for them by T4. They required a "player decision".

AGC was unable to close a pocket with two committed PGs by 18 July, and then Yelnya began 19 July. So, T5 or so and the ability to counter shuffle your way to victory as the Germans is already done.

Of course, simultaneous to these discoveries panzergruppe 1 is reporting that it has had to assume a defensive posture due to Russian counterattacks on or around 15 July. The situation near Kiev will cause Hitler to divert PG2 and the 2nd army to the Kiev encirclement.

And then Taifun of course required all 3 PGs to reconverge. So basically from T6 plus the "game balance" of the war is that the Germans are only scoring big where they can mass forces at the expense of other fronts, and that this is largely a result of "player decision" wins where those massed forces can pull off some astounding pockets(which, to be fair, you can do with multiple PGs in AGS) rather than having the "right game mechanics" which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer.

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

rather than having the "right game mechanics" which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer.

Nice write up and seems to be following what is happening in my game. BUT... I give up & have to ask. What is the "right game mechanics which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer" you are talking about???? The developers aren't budging from current ruleset until more testing. Plus, the only recommendation I made was that Assault HQ's should "not" give a benefit of extra command points over what a normal Corps or Army could command, "for both sides". Then ramp it up for the Soviets later in the war if that was the case in real life. Is this the mechanic which is creating some mythical tide of unstoppable panzers you are referencing?

The link is a scenario. Do you have an AAR or a game where you played against or with the Soviets using Assault HQ's in 41 grand campaign?

Not to my knowledge, that is why I am saying I don't know where the game balance lies.

Although, I am off playing other stuff ... GG got too much staff work for me. I just want to blow sh*t up!

I wanted to say small development and beta teams are tough.

You don't get a professional SQA department and staff. This means you don't get commercial tools for regression testing, diagnostic collections, and 300 PCs which autoplay every night.

You get betas. And who are the betas? They are your hardcore players with lives and jobs. So, in many ways, they are not representative of the casual customer base. I have beta'd seriously for over 10 years, and I never saw any beta play on the training wheel noob options. We all tended to play on max settings.

I did have one shorter scenario I replayed every build. It was the best way to get a gut sense of impact of changes. But even that was iffy, since the game was supposed to not just be an OPFOR script.

(Now, imagine the '41 game ... even an expert will take months to complete it.)

All I can say is cut people some slack. I know a lot of small game developers, but not GG, but I have no doubt he is no PDS HOI4 Johan laughing all the way to the bank how cut/paste made, him rich, yet another $25 USD/DLC for 110 total EU4 DLCs. And the betas, well their people and also your forum support staff.

In an entire Internet, I can name a few unique individuals who if they didn't do it and associated teams, you could not have it any price. (Also, the price here is very reasonable for what you get.)

I am sure all of this is being discussed internally. You don't want to make knee jerk changes in anything this complex. Believe the law of unintended consequences will definitely make itself known in such complex systems.

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...