Matrix Games Forums

Yes, the Wehrmacht is way way way too far forward north of the Pripyet. You desperately need to shorten your lines and create reserves.

I'd be wary about a huge withdrawal down south, though. What you need to do more of is gradual step by step withdrawals, always looking ahead to the next fallback line, and avoid getting bagged.

Once the Soviet forces Romanian surrender, things blow up down there. You really want to put that off as long as possible.

the terrain in the south is clear and looks like he does want to attack there, is it possible you can start giving ground in the north and withdraw an army to the south as a reserve, i would worry alot more about him breaking out in thee south than the north

Turn 162. July 20th 1944. Sorry for the delay in reporting, there seems to have been some kind of commotion at Fuhrer headquarters.

Fortress Dnepropetrovsk has fallen, and 6 divisions have surrendered. Not as bad as it might seem as a division is around 4000 men, and a couple of them were Hungarian, but still...

The front is under heavy pressure from Kalinin down south.

Yes, a withdrawal in the North is definitely a good idea. There are fortified positions along the Neva and north of the Ladoga, as well as along the major river lines. Not that forts seem to have all that much effect, I really doubt if it is worth tying down manpower in digging them, as they are immediately blown away when the enemy reach them.

Disband the fort units when the enemy approaches and you've got them occupied by other units. And dial down their TOE to 50%.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Disband the fort units when the enemy approaches and you've got them occupied by other units. And dial down their TOE to 50%.

Yep. It would be nice if you could merge those fort units into foot infantry units though ....

That's actually a rule change I could get behind, Baelfin.

That's actually a rule change I could get behind, Baelfin.

+1

I doubt that would be historical. The amount of fortress zones the Axis tend to create is ahistorical to begin with.

The amount of fortress zones the Axis tend to create is ahistorical to begin with.

This has only been forced on players due to the new entrenchment rules - I can't tell if lvl2 entrenchements in the rear is going to be enough with the +1 bonus removed.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I doubt that would be historical. The amount of fortress zones the Axis tend to create is ahistorical to begin with.

You can't dig in anymore unless you start way ahead of time.

Plus you NEED those fort units to get up to level 3 and 4.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

That's actually a rule change I could get behind, Baelfin.

Yeah the only element thats different in the ToE's are the labor squads. I have no idea how hard it would be to code or to implement.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I doubt that would be historical. The amount of fortress zones the Axis tend to create is ahistorical to begin with.

I am not so sure about that. The Germans did use volountary or forced labor to dig extensive field works, though I must admit I am uncertain as to what extent it would have in game terms.

Forced labour that was afterwards not just absorbed by a nearby infantry division, which is what Baelfiin is proposing.

If there's anything the first year of WitE as a released game has shown, it's that one (arbitrary) rule to fix the problems of another rule is a bad way to balance the game. It shouldn't even be considered. You either fix the first rule, or remove it. You don't add another rule to compensate for the problems of the first.

If you with draw asap 20 hexs in the north his railheads will be to far from the front and his units will be out of supply. This will give your units time to gain back some TOE and dig.

Making a big withdrawal right before mud hits is the best time. No hex on map is safe because hes got tons of planes, guns and sappers. So I would not bother with strong points as per the last 50 turns.

You need to change over to delaying tactics, conserve your manpower, because once he gets you under 2.3 million men things will fall appart very very quickly.

Pelton

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Forced labour that was afterwards not just absorbed by a nearby infantry division, which is what Baelfiin is proposing.

If there's anything the first year of WitE as a released game has shown, it's that one (arbitrary) rule to fix the problems of another rule is a bad way to balance the game. It shouldn't even be considered. You either fix the first rule, or remove it. You don't add another rule to compensate for the problems of the first.

Sounds reasonable! Forts are a bit underpowered now in my impression. They take too long to build, but it also seems to me the Soviets can build whatever they need in sappers and artillery, so they are not really bothered by forts.

Turn 163. July 27 1944.

Soviet pressure is growing in the central sector, and the German line is bending westwards. I still have some mobile formations that can counterattack his spearheads, but they are growing fewer and weaker. Soviet heavy formations are cutting through my weakened infantry like hot knives through butter.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

If you with draw asap 20 hexs in the north his railheads will be to far from the front and his units will be out of supply. This will give your units time to gain back some TOE and dig.

Yes, but I am not really under pressure up north at all, and the Finns are in reasonable shape and holding a line that is at least twice as long as the minimum north of Ladoga + Leningrad front, and I am not in any danger of being encircled up there, so right now I think a big retreat up north would actually free up more Soviet units than Axis. I am bending back north of Moscow, but only to the extent of keeping my Northern front aligned on the Center.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Forced labour that was afterwards not just absorbed by a nearby infantry division, which is what Baelfiin is proposing.

If there's anything the first year of WitE as a released game has shown, it's that one (arbitrary) rule to fix the problems of another rule is a bad way to balance the game. It shouldn't even be considered. You either fix the first rule, or remove it. You don't add another rule to compensate for the problems of the first.

Sounds reasonable! Forts are a bit underpowered now in my impression. They take too long to build, but it also seems to me the Soviets can build whatever they need in sappers and artillery, so they are not really bothered by forts.

This is true for both sides, Tarhunnas. We solved the fort spam problem. But we may have created new problems in doing so. It's extremely difficult to get forts up in a timely fashion, particularly during inclement weather -- and with engineering support they may as well not even exist anyways. The Soviets infamously spam their sapper units, but the Germans too have more than enough pioneers to load up their spearhead armies and crash through level 2s as if they weren't there. (At least in clear. Level 2 forts in bad terrain are noticeably more effective.) So things are rough right now for the defending side generally, whoever that is. And the fact that rivers do not disrupt engineering SUs committed to battle by reserve doesn't help, either.

To which can be added that engineering values are not affected when a Hasty is morphed to a scouting attack. I'm surprised that we have not seen that used systematically to crack hexes, but maybe it's not needed.