Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

[gargoil]

This is what I want:

Balance - No.
Historical posibilities - Yes.

[daft]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

My comments were not meant as any sort of personal attack on anybody. Just trying to be frank about where I believe the priorities should be to make the game better. Only an opinion, but since I purchased the game I think it gives me a right to have an opinion. Don't you?

To be fair, the game has been out for almost 9 months. In that time I still surprised the combat engine lacks a certain amount of historical flavor. Especially when so many people have expressed concern with it and documented it's shortcomings. Where is the disconnect for the developers to fix what is core to a game that features ground/air combat on the eastern front? Just don't understand???[&:] But I'm very willing to hear the reason behind where the devs priorities fall.

In the big picture, I know the devs really owe us nothing. They made a good game and we bought it, maybe they've just spoiled us with continuing to make it better and thus tainted our expectations. I could be coming across as pushing and selfish, but my desire is to help WitE get better... really.

Well, software development is an inherently complex undertaking, especially a system such as this with lots of moving parts. It is a very precise thing as well. You need to know exactly what and where the fine tuning should be done, which isn't as straightforward as one might think. Even for the original devs. In order to pinpoint the issues you need to replicate and identify the contributing factors, which is easier for the tangible issues, less so for the more emotionally based arguments. Finding an erroneous calculation (1 + 1 = 3) is a very different thing to fixing something people feels "a bit out of whack". This is a process that even big boys such as Microsoft spend quite a bit of time on. Just imagine what it must be like for the Grigsby Boys.

[daft]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

This is what I want:

Balance - No.
Historical posibilities - Yes.

Reasonable request I think. Although it is worth pointing out that, within certain loosely defined limits, what constitites a historical possibility is a matter of opinion. I think it could, for example, be argued that a German draw (or stalemate) on the eastern front was at best a pipe-dream. I'm not making that argument at the moment, but still. It's a difficult issue to be sure.

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: daft

ORIGINAL: jzardos

My comments were not meant as any sort of personal attack on anybody. Just trying to be frank about where I believe the priorities should be to make the game better. Only an opinion, but since I purchased the game I think it gives me a right to have an opinion. Don't you?

To be fair, the game has been out for almost 9 months. In that time I still surprised the combat engine lacks a certain amount of historical flavor. Especially when so many people have expressed concern with it and documented it's shortcomings. Where is the disconnect for the developers to fix what is core to a game that features ground/air combat on the eastern front? Just don't understand???[&:] But I'm very willing to hear the reason behind where the devs priorities fall.

In the big picture, I know the devs really owe us nothing. They made a good game and we bought it, maybe they've just spoiled us with continuing to make it better and thus tainted our expectations. I could be coming across as pushing and selfish, but my desire is to help WitE get better... really.

Well, software development is an inherently complex undertaking, especially a system such as this with lots of moving parts. It is a very precise thing as well. You need to know exactly what and where the fine tuning should be done, which isn't as straightforward as one might think. Even for the original devs. In order to pinpoint the issues you need to replicate and identify the contributing factors, which is easier for the tangible issues, less so for the more emotionally based arguments. Finding an erroneous calculation (1 + 1 = 3) is a very different thing to fixing something people feels "a bit out of whack". This is a process that even big boys such as Microsoft spend quite a bit of time on. Just imagine what it must be like for the Grigsby Boys.

Yes, I agree and understand what you are saying. However, you only have so much time in a software *iteration* or whatever time frame WitE devs work with. I'm just saying let's get the priorities straight as to what should be worked on for the continuing improvement of WitE. IMO certain issues such as play balancing WitE is just a 'rabbit hole' for development time. And really who has the definitive say as when it is balanced? It would seem to make more sense to move away from the religious like philosophy of "we can't introduce even the simple 'realistic' changes changes because it will disturb play balance". That is a fallacious comment in itself.

Once again, focus on making the game an epic historical recreation (NOT simulation) of the east front campaign. Attempt to make it fun throughout and re-playable for both sides as it's a game too.

[KenchiSulla]

Although I agree with some of the comments in this post I think hiding behind that fact that you "love" a game to be able to bluntly behave like an arse is actually not (I imagine) a motivating thing for the team working on the game...

Be at peace...

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I think part of the issue that makes it tough to balance the game is the Russian player is simply not going to repeat the Russian mistakes. In addition with the support units, while the historical Russians built a wide variety of support units, the typical Russian player is only going to build a pile of support units that seem to do the best in the game, so most players are not building motorcycle units, crappy anti-tank units, etc. I am not saying they should be forced to build those, but simply that it means the Russians are that much better by concentrating on just the very best support units and turning them out en-mass. (And no, this is not the sole reason there are issues with the game [;)] )

I don’t see SU's this important as I rather make extra rifle divs and refit rifle divs full strength faster rather than make large number of SU's. More SU's Soviet players make more manpower and arms they drain away from pool witch make it slower refitting rifle divisions and building units.

Is there sense for making SU's at all? Probably as SU's gives small bonus in combat beyond stacking limitations especially early years of war but that’s all they give. After Soviet side gets ability to merge divisions to form combat corps, make artillery divisions and sapper brigades they really don’t even need SU’s anymore and can do fine just disbanding all of them so SU’s manpower and arms can be released to build corps and artillery divisions faster.

Only construction and rail repair SU’s are needed all the way to end but Soviet side makes well even without them as they advance so slow most of time that it is easy to repair rail lines with those repair units anyway.

Sapper brigades are not worth it. Regiments that can be assigned to corps are much better imo. Assign them and you know they will participate in the battle.

The thing that SU's give the Russians is more concentration of firepower in a given hex. Take a 10 CV infantry corps. Add 3 sapper regiments and it likely turns into a 13 CV infantry corps. That type of concentrated increase in firepower simply can't be ignored (or taken for granted). I would also remind people of the new rules about units that "may" take the battle off due to over stacking issues in a given battle. That would argue for more support units and fewer larger formations.

The Russians are usually swimming in tanks. Seems to me a good way to get more of those into battle in a economical way (IE not consuming a ton of trucks) is through support units. Certainly Cav corps gain a big combat increase with 3 tank regiments (or even the early tank battalions for that matter).

I don't disagree with what you are saying from a manpower perspective, but the Russians want to try to increase the concentration of firepower over a given section of the front. They can't really do that with a ton of formations that count against the stacking limit vs a lot of formations that don't count but can be attached to units in the line. I also think you can disband crappy support units to help the manpower situation as well.

Don't get me wrong in terms of building tons and tons of support units. I just think players are going to focus on a couple of support units that seem to work the best, crank tons of those out while totally ignoring 75% of the other support units they could have built and that the Russians fielded in the actual campaign. This results in a stronger than historical Russian.

[KenchiSulla]

Now we are having this discussion.. Is it an idea to limit support units the same way you limit guards units? As it stands now it is an TOE enhancer... This would force the player to make some tough decisions .... This could be considered balancing ofcourse which is a touchy subject..

Or perhaps make changes to how many support units you can attach to a Division/Corps?

[jzardos]

Yes, there's certain Soviet SUs which I believe are just window dressing. The forum has already been circulating what is worth building for Soviet SUs and what is a waste of manpower and armaments.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04



I give the devs much credit. This is the best eastern front PC game I've ever played and one of the best PC wargames I've ever played. Fire in the East it is not, unfortunately. It lacks the realism of the best cardboard wargames, which is not a crime.

I do think that the term 'game balance' means different things to different people. From my perspective, you can't have true game balance by my definition while the Soviet gets to create whole units out of nothing but AP, and the German is scripted to have everything occur exactly as it did historically. Again, by my definition of 'game balance' you can't have game balance in such an asymmetrical system, and it will always sour WitE for me.

The mechanical kinks in the game, whether they're over-run mechanics, or massive and perfect rail evacuation by the Soviets, or the command and control disparity that the human Soviet has over his counterpart in history - those could be worked out and still make me happier with the game. I'm very hopeful of 1.05 and future work.

Totally agree. Assuming average luck, what should be the expected outcome of the campaign? Everyone as states that the Soviets should do at least as well because they can avoid the mistakes of history. Why cant the Germans do the same thing? Couldnt they be able to hunker down before Winter of 41? Avoid having entire armies encircled in so-called Festngs? How about using retreats as a springboard to unleash a smackdown on a Soviet offensive thrust?

But more fundamentally - isnt it more FUN to play as the Red Army? As the Germans, there is some critical decision making to be had in 41, but thereafter doesnt it devolve to a method of retreating banged up formations to refit, and plugging these holes with progressively weaker and weaker units? I dont know how fun that is. I have a played a few PBM campaigns, and inevitably, when 1943 hits, and the Dneiper bend has already been cleared, Minsk captured, and the Courland pocket formed, its not much fun for the Germans. If it aint fun to play, I dont care if you think it is a true simulation which is historically accurate - you wont play that side.

Now, playing the Soviet side - especially during 41 and 42 - thats some awesome gaming. Many critical decisions to be made in defense. Dramatic and tense gaming. Then as the tide turns, the logistical and material puzzle along with complete freedom of offensive action to be made throughout every front allows one to experiment with a variety of different offensive strategies. The downside, is that there really is no risk to the Soviets from late 1942 onward. The Axis dont have the strength to mount Operation Citadel let alone the operational masterpiece of Mansteins Backhand against Kharkov.

Maybe some house rules can be set up or something - I dont know.

[Schmart]

What about putting a hard cap on the number of SU's a Soviet player can create? X limit of Art Regts, Y limit on Sapper Regts, etc. Once the Soviets reach their Art Regt limit, the player can't create any more, and then needs to decide if they want to use their pool of material to beef up the army with lesser SU's, or use the pool to funnel more replacements to on map units.

[Joel Billings]

Well our priorities are on improving the game in a reasonable time frame without risking screwing it up and making things worse. Why are we not focused on the ground combat system? Basically because looking at the big picture, we think it gives us mostly reasonable results, while the time involved in making changes to this system that could be tested sufficiently could be many months, and the risks are that we'd screw up the game worse for quite some time before we make it better. Aside from a few targeted issues we are looking at, we just feel our time on the game is better spent elsewhere. We do have some ideas on what would ultimately improve the combat engine, but these bigger/riskier changes are going to wait until War in the West where we have some time to test the changes without forcing the public into what could be a very painful process (for what may be marginal gain). We do now have some additional interface in the game that gives our testers a much better idea of exactly what is going on during combat. This was an essential first step in order to be able to fine tune the combat engine. The combat engine isn't perfect, but it does a lot of things right and at the macro level is not all that far off. We are working on many changes that will impact 42 and beyond. Here's what's been done so far on 1.05 (and there's more in to come):

• New Features and Rule Changes

1) New Rule - Air groups in the national reserve may now be disbanded.
2) New Rule - Unit counters no longer show SS/Elite/LW/Guards status (coloring) if their detection level is lower than 5.
3) New Rule - Air recon will not increase an enemy air base’s detection level above 5.
4) New Rule - Static units no longer lose their static status when they are retreated or routed.
5) New Rule - Units may not enter static mode in 1941.
6) New Rule – Ports are now unusable for naval transport on the turn they are captured.
7) New Rule – Admin and Initiative checks are twice as hard to make for isolated units.
8) New Rule – NKVD Border Regiments never get replacements.
9) New Rule – NKVD Border Regiments check for disbanding each friendly logistics phase starting in July 1941. The chance the unit will be disbanded is as follows:
July 1941 – 100% - %TOE of the unit
August 1941 – 80%
September 1941 and later – 95%
10) New Rule – Air supply. Isolated air units may be changed to beach/air supply status (same as old beachhead status) under certain conditions. If a player flies in supplies to an air base in a pocket, the supplies will immediately be distributed amongst all of the isolated units that can trace to the air base. If the amount received during the turn at some point equals 5% or more of the total needs of the unit, then the unit will be immediately set to beach/air supply status (it will display in orange instead of red when toggle unsupplied units is toggled on). The total needs are the supply+fuel+ammo needs listed for the unit. So a division with total needs of 1100 tons of s/f/a have at least 55 tons flown in and delivered to the unit, it will have its supply status changed from isolated to beach/air supply status. This will last until the next friendly logistics phase. Units with beach/air supply will always pay penalties for being short of ammo, so there is a disadvantage in combat to be in beach/air supply (but it's better than being isolated where there are additional penalties). The air base must be in a clear or light woods hex. When in Beach/Air supply, the unit detail screen will show the information: Air Head Supply 400 / 20 (5%) which indicates the total amount of supplies+fuel+ammo the unit needs, the amount it has received via air resupply, and the total percentage of needs that has been met. When in Air Transport mode, the player can left click on an air base and then bring up that unit’s detail screen to see a full list of all isolated unit that can trace to the air base, the total need of each unit, and the amount of supplies that have been sent to the unit. On the right side of that screen is a line that reads Air Supply Range: 10. By clicking on this line, the player may enter a different number from 1 to 10. Only units within the state range in hexes of the air base will be sent supplies that are airlifted to this air base. Air base units may be moved before supplies are delivered to it, but once it receives supplies for isolated units, it will not be able to move and then receive additional supplies for isolated units. Units that are merged or divided track the amount of air head supplies received, so they can lose their supplied status if no longer over the 5% threshold.
11) Changes to Production Rules
a. Changed Soviet Manpower multiplier in 1942 to 40 (from 45).
b. Changed Soviet Armaments multipliers in 1942-1945 to 130 (from 200).
c. Items produced in Poland and Czech cities now added to the "built" German stats.
12) Changes to Morale Rules
a. The following units receive bonuses to their National Morale: All Cavalry, Mountain Airborne and Air Landing units, and Axis Allied motorized units +5, German Motorized Units +10, Soviet Motorized Units (from Sept 1942-August 1943) +5, Soviet Motorized Units (Sept 1943-end of war) +10.
b. Soviet National Morale has been changed to 50 in June 1941. One point is subtracted each month after this in 1941 (so it is 44 in Dec 41). In 1942 it is set to 40, with one point being added each month starting in September 1942 (so 44 in Dec 42). This continues in 1943 and 1944 until the Soviet National Morale reaches its maximum of 60 in April 1944.
c. Build morale now equals national morale in all cases (there is no separate build morale table anymore.
d. Changed rule so that the morale gain from refit when under 50 morale is only gained when the unit in refit is at least 10 hexes from a supplied enemy unit (similar to the current gain if less than morale 50 and 10 or more hexes from enemy unit).
e. If an element’s experience is less than half of the unit’s morale, then the automatic +1 gain in experience each turn becomes +3.
13) Changes to Fortification Rules
a. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 5 - Only will be built in port hexes that have a fort unit. Once built, the fort unit is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in a swamp hex.
b. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 4 - Must have a fort unit in the hex. Once built, the fort unit is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in swamp hex.
c. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 3 - Must be adjacent to an enemy hex, be an urban or city hex, or be in or adjacent to a fort unit. Once the level 3 is reached, the condition does not have to continue to be met to keep the level 3 fort.
d. Fort levels that have reached their maximum fort level for the hex may continue to build up to 10% towards the next fort level.
e. Building forts in mud now uses a .25 modifier (instead of .33).
f. Doubled the rate of fort decay.
g. Increased decay rate of low level forts, based on the weather.
Extra decay percentage:
Fort Weather
Level clear snow mud/blizzard
0 20 40 80
1 12 14 48
2 4 8 16
g. Added supply cost for fort construction as follows:
fort 0->1 1 tons per fort point (no cost for isolated units, construction rate is halved)
fort 1->2 2 tons per fort point (no cost for isolated units, construction rate is halved)
fort 2->3 20 tons per fort points
fort 3->4 200 tons per fort points
fort 4->5 2000 tons per fort points
*note each fort point represents 2% toward the next fort level
14) Changes to Naval Movement Rules
a. Amphibious landings are not allowed west of x coordinate 76 (Rumania) until 1944.
b. Added Naval/Amphibious movement capacity limits as follows:
Axis
Lake Ladoga – 3000
Baltic Sea – 10000
Black Sea – 4000
Sea of Azov – 1000
Soviet
Lake Ladoga – 4000
Baltic Sea – 8000 (decreases by 1000 each year)
Black Sea – 10000 (decreases by 1500 each year)
Sea of Azov – 4000 (decreases by 500 each year)
Caspian Sea – 5000
Black Sea Amphibious Movement – 2500 (decreases by 100 each year)
Sea of Azov Amphibious Movement – 1000 (decreases by 100 each year
c. Amphibious movement cost per hex is x4 before 1943 and x3 from 1943-45 (reduces the range of an amphibious assault).
d. Set shading for valid naval destinations during naval movement. This doesn’t mean the current unit can reach the hex, just that it is a valid hex for the appropriate type of naval movement. Yellow shading indicates an enemy hex; green shading indicates a friendly hex.
e. Decreased “retreat losses” caused by the transport sunk event during interdiction attacks on naval/amphibiously moving units.
15) Rule change – Ice levels no longer go up by 4 during a blizzard in all areas. The amount of increase is dependent on the weather zone as follows:
Europe Zone +1
South Soviet Zone +2
Central Soviet Zone +3
North Soviet Zone +4
16) Rule change – Major rivers are not considered frozen until the ice level is at least 8 (used to be 5). At ice levels 5-7, the extra cost due to icing is 8 when moving into an EZOC, and 4 when not moving into an EZOC.
17) Rule change – Lowered the disabled return rate for the Soviets to ½ percent (from 1%).
18) Rule change – Entrained units may not move via naval or amphibious movement.
19) Interface change – The production filter ON now shows active elements that are built by the “on demand” production system (so not just AFVs and aircraft).
20) New Message – Added logistics event messages for the automatic disbanding of Soviet Corps HQ’s and NKVD Regiments.
21) Formula change – Units in beachhead/Air head supply will not suffer more than a 33% reduction in CV due to supply shortages (used to be it could be up to a 75% reduction in CV).

• Bug Fixes

1) Fixed a bug causing escorts for air transport missions to too often not fly during blizzard weather.
2) Fixed a bug where partisan units could construct forts for the Axis.
3) Fixed a bug where brigades landing amphibiously were improperly taking control of adjacent hexes.
4) Fixed a bug where battle sites were active if hidden behind the battle report window.
5) Fixed a bug where depleted units can be located next to an enemy unit at the completion of the logistics phase.
6) Fixed a bug where Motorized units were being shown as available to move amphibiously.
7) Fixed a bug with Guards promotion of Soviet Armies.
8) Fixed a display bug that occurs when exiting the city information window.

• Data and Scenario Changes

1) Fixed Unit ID 333 - Fin. Commando Battalion used Hungarian Support Squads
2) Changed the ending date for the SS Motorized Brigade (OB 283) from 9/43 to 9/44 to correct typo.

[Ketza]

Wow. Thank you for the update. I can hardly wait to start a new GC.

[Klydon]

That is a lot of stuff there for sure.

Thanks for the update Joel.

[Schmart]

Thanks for the update, Joel. That's quite an extensive list!

[gradenko2k]

The big standouts from that list are:

1. Not being able to see if you're facing SS / Guards without recon, which would otherwise be a big precusor for a possible offensive
2. Units not losing static mode on a retreat / rout. This should make it MUCH more feasible to launch offensives in quiet areas of the front, such as AGN / AGC in the 1942 start, since you're no longer giving your opponent free activations.
3. Riga gambit eliminated from the new same-turn naval transport rule
4. NKVD supermen getting disbanded faster and earlier - that should most of the complaints for that particular item
5. Air supply rules! Being able to recover your 66% of your base CV or more I'd consider rather huge for keeping pockets alive.
6. Some rather sizable reductions in Soviet manpower and armaments production in the later years
7. Sizable increases to National Morale values, particularly for German panzers, although I wonder how it'll work insofar as bringing them back UP to that level for the 1942 campaign
8. Soviets lose a full 5 points of National Morale in 1942, from 45 now to 40 in this patch. That'll probably be huge for a 1942 campaign when combined with item #7's 75 morale German units
9. Build morale always equal with National Morale? This would mostly affect the Soviets, right?
10. Lots of fort changes! Cross-country level 3+ forts no longer possible, with tons of supplies needed to build them up. Definitely something to keep the Soviets from digging in everywhere in 1942. Of course, the counter-point being the repercussions for the Germans come 1943 onwards, although they'd have the Admin Points to burn on Fort units anyway

[Tarhunnas]

Thanks for the update Joel. This seems awesome!

[NavalNewZ]

.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

13) Changes to Fortification Rules
a. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 5 - Only will be built in port hexes that have a fort unit. Once built, the fort unit is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in a swamp hex.
b. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 4 - Must have a fort unit in the hex. Once built, the fort unit is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in swamp hex.
c. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 3 - Must be adjacent to an enemy hex, be an urban or city hex, or be in or adjacent to a fort unit. Once the level 3 is reached, the condition does not have to continue to be met to keep the level 3 fort.
d. Fort levels that have reached their maximum fort level for the hex may continue to build up to 10% towards the next fort level.
e. Building forts in mud now uses a .25 modifier (instead of .33).
f. Doubled the rate of fort decay.
g. Increased decay rate of low level forts, based on the weather.
Extra decay percentage:
Fort Weather
Level clear snow mud/blizzard
0 20 40 80
1 12 14 48
2 4 8 16
g. Added supply cost for fort construction as follows:
fort 0->1 1 tons per fort point (no cost for isolated units, construction rate is halved)
fort 1->2 2 tons per fort point (no cost for isolated units, construction rate is halved)
fort 2->3 20 tons per fort points
fort 3->4 200 tons per fort points
fort 4->5 2000 tons per fort points
*note each fort point represents 2% toward the next fort level

Thank you for the update! Awesome fort changes: you have addressed most - if not all - the concerns discussed by the community.

[Rasputitsa]

Thanks for the info, a lot to look forward to.[:)]

[glvaca]

Joel,

Okay, I'll take the bullit and be the first to offer some constructive critism. If that doesn't get me on the black list, I don't know what will [;)]

Certainly, there are changes in there we all look forward too. But, to state they address all the concerns of the community, and more specifically, the ones which have been discussed in this tread, is quite simply not true. Off course you didn't say that but others did, there that's off my chest.

More specifically, my concerns are:
1. Very easy to lose morale through combat and first winter. Much more difficult to regain morale. The +10 for the Axis on their national morale of 65 (I.e. to 75) isn't really going to be of any help. If you're that low that you actually need it, you can just as well give up then and there.
RESULT: Soviet will get more out of this than the German as Infantry will be weak and 75 morale for Axis mot. is just not enough. The extra morale for the Russian mech, etc... OTOH is a nice bonus they don't actually need as is.
SUGGESTION: roll back to the first morale rules of losing/gaining morale and put maximums for groups of units you don't want to become "supermen". However, since the Whermacht DEPENDS on it's high morale/experience (ie quality) to get anywhere, it should be possible that a carefull German player gets his army in a very high morale state.
If that is to much, then I would propose to seriously reduce the chanc e of LOOSING morale after a hasty attack. That at least would give the German player something to work with.

2. Am I the only one who goes hhhummmmm, but! concerning the new fort rules?
Building of forts is reduced in mud, level 3 only with forts in or adjacent. 3+ only with forts. In addition, a new supply element is thrown in. So:
a. this actually means it will become a LOT more difficult for the German to dig in as preparation for the winter of 41-42. As a result, he will again recieve more casualties and, through combats lost, lose more morale, etc...
b. As a result, the German army will again be weak in 1942.
c. Come 1943+ the German is going to have an even more difficult time to dig in and defend.
d. On Forts.
1. These cost AP's. 4 for the Axis, 16 for the Russian. Are they costs going to be reduced?
2. They suck manpower, and common wisdom has it not to build too many of them to avoid sucking your pool dry. So this new rule is actually forcing the Germans to suck their pools dry and spend AP's, both of which they don't have enough as it is.
3. Expenditure of supply. Come digin time 1941, the German is not going to be in a very good supply situation. Unless he stops at the dnepr that is. So how will this affect the German ability to dig in?
RESULT: The German player is probably going to have again a very hard time come winter 41.
CONCLUSION: Advantage Soviet player. Or perhaps to the side which is on the defensive generally as the advancing side _should_ have a bigger problem getting supplies forward which then would give some "hope" of a backhand blow. That is, if you still have an army with enough morale to actually organize an offensive against Soviet rifle corps.

3. Tanks efficiency. There is no persuit or chase element included. A major issue of discussion. There is no mention of making Panzer divs more effective in the defense.
CONCLUSION: Remains issue.

4. Conversion of hasty attacks to scouting improved. No.
CONCLUSION: Remains issue.

5. Retreat attrition for the Germans units remains the same.
CONCLUSION: Remains issue.

6. 1:2 rule changed. NO.
CONSLUSION: remains an issue.

7. Generally modelling the vastly superior doctrine, leadership and quality of the german army. No improvement.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

8. Making it more difficult to run away as the Russian player? NO.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

9. Armament reduction: YES.
CONCLUSION: Unknown effect. But should hurt the Soviet.

10. Huge importance of artillery, even in 1941 when the Russian army had no such capability, remains.
At the same time, German divisions can't have extra arty attached which would at least provide some balancing. But, magically, forts can have arty attached. Still interested to hear the difference.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

11. Disabled experienced soldiers returning experience 30. No change.
At the same time, the superior training of the German replacements versus the non existence of training for the Russians is still not modelled. German replacements should arrive at Exp. 50 or 60 (or in that order) to reflect historical reality.

12. Super Cav Corps and Rifle Corps, the secret weapons of WW2. Strangly enough, and despite millions of books on the subject, also previously undocumented. Sorry if that was sarcastic but I'm running out of soft ways to make the point.
Resolved: NO.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

13. The AP system. Attachements of SU's for free. NO.
Rediculous prices to re-attach German divisions: NO
Rediculous prices to re-attach Armies/Corps: NO
If there's one thing that really, _really_, REALLY aggravates grognards its that. You only have to open a serious book (like Glantz) to understand this system has no basis on reality whatsoever. Corps/divisions, where re-attached all the time. Specially in the German army but also in the Soviet army. Just read Barbarossa Derailed and it's filled with examples.
Furthermore, it makes it almost impossible to just do what you need to do to keep your command structure in any form of order.
It's unbelievable this hasn't been changed/fine-tuned over the last 9 months.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

There's a lot more but I'll stop here. My point in all this, as you noted, I and others, write because we care. Because we see the game we have been waiting for all these years fall short of what it could be. And the really frustrating bit is that our sceam to be heard and change things is (appart from one notable tester) being ignored, rediculed, argued against but not discussed.

Secondly, it's very clear all these limitations are actually being kept per design. It's almost if (and I know its not true) or seems like, you're trying to annoy us to stop playing the game. Seriously, why do I play? To have fun. What provides me as a grognard with fun, being able to do better than history and having some flexibility to organize my army (within reason). But the current design doesn't allow that for the German. Nope. Whatever you do, you're going to end up with a low morale crap army which you know in advance you can't do the job with. And that in exchange for 17 turns of glory in a 200 turn game is a steep price to pay. Apart from being totally unrealistic.

In short, the game is scripted and thow shall be kicked around. Live with it.

People are hanging in there because, again, this is a the best thing around, but all I see is some antibiotics being given every now and again to a seriously ill patient that actually needs operating on. And even the changes done are often more to the disadvantage of the German player then actually addressing the problems.
The good news, it doesn't take serious surgery to make it healthy. Morale is the key and frustratingly, morale was on the money in the first installment. Giving the German player at least the ability to regain morale through combat relatively easily would go such a long way to keeping the game enjoyable for the German player, it cannot be overstated.

I have to say that GG and the design team really took some serious risks in the design. You certainly didn't follow the majority of the games of this scope that gone before. But this also means that you open yourself to sceptical looks and strongly worded opinions. Certainly this is one, but like so many tohers on this forum, it is also an informed opinion. We're not the beer and prezzles type. And however you can twist, shake and turn, this is a grognards game addapted for the beer and prezzles gamer for commercial reasons. I really hope it sells well and that all who have made this game can earn a good living because you've earned it. If you would only realize that the grognards are the ones who contribute and write AAR's, who test, who make this game live and as such perhaps listen to what they have to say, life would be just grand and we could all just play instead of spending time writing rediculously long messages on a forum and getting worked up over a game.

I live on hope...

Respectfully,
Glenn