Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

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...

The ASHQ seems to just encourage such reorg chaos on the eve of battle as its reward is greater. But assume you got rid of ASHQ tomorrow, it would still be in your best interest to pack the best HQs and units into armies, and leave the dregs to just act as a rear guard. You can do this quite readily as you can make 50 reassignments in a single turn. It seems odd that to replace an officer costs AP, but to totally reorg HQs cost nothing but some disarray in the current turn.

I have no service experience; just management. But you would not launch a major project by completely changing the org chart. Granted the new org chart might be superior, but disruption which could result might well be disastrous. Now, perhaps military folks are more professional than corporate, but I can tell you in the business such a wholesale shake up might still be causing issues after 6 months.

Of course, I realize one of the sandbox aspects of the game is your are in control of organization, SUs, supply, and strategy. To constrain you to only a minimum of changes consistent with the behavior of real armies removes one of your sandbox dimensions.

So, I think this is an independent issue. The ASHQ just gives you more incentive to go do it.

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

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...

Placing everything under assault HQ's is an obvious optimization move that anyone can figure out after their first game or two, and has very little to do with HYLA's exceptional success. His success derives from his skill and experience that allows him to create pockets out of nothing and dismantle defenses that others can only bludgeon their way through. He's also very adaptable, and has an amazing command of the Luftwaffe. These are skills that can't be replicated easily and must be trained and learned.

Tyronec is on turn 3 in his AAR, and all we've seen is the Soviets run for the hills, so I'm not sure how you are drawing conclusions from his game.

I agree that emptying armies to fill up the 6 assault HQ's is very gamey and unrealistic tho, and I've already shared my thoughts on how the assault HQ's should be allowed per year.

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

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. ...

Historically the Pzr Grps were subordinated to the relevant infantry army till late in 41. Hence a lot of the stushies and strops from Guderain et al.

Now the game needs some clear rules so they appear (as they de facto were) as independent armies. I'm not sure its a massive issue but one solution could be to have them like the Soviet Tank Armies on a variable scale of CP. So say 20 up to Nov 41 and then the normal army loads thereafter?

But like a lot of complications, probably really not worth it.

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...

Some infantry in the Panzer armies is historical, as many people have said over sized assault HQs are not.
As to whether that is significant and if it is going to cause an Axis victory is an open question.

Whatever issues there are with the game, and there are always going to be many, I do not go along with the view that it is seriously broken. Better play is gaining an advantage most of the time and if there are things that are not right, like the assault HQs, it still takes good play to make use of them. For me the game is eminently playable as it is and I would hope it will continue to be going forwards.

I think assault HQs for the Soviets, combined with the need to consistently and constantly perform well as Germany, leads to a soviet dominated game more often than not. If the German player fails to find the pockets needed to drain the red army, then things very quickly reach an essential standstill in many parts of the front. The soviet ability to create immense walls of units is pretty staggering, in particular I remember one game where by campaign season of 42 I had the entire red army sitting on full TOE (more or less), on level 3 forts, with multiple lines of depth, under the best commanders. My opponent could not break the lines.

I am a very mediocre player though, but there's my two cents.

Also, the manual states that one of the new styles of play for the Germans is that it not necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. You can drive them back very hard and take advantage of no combat delay and retreat/route attrition.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

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.

Joel,

As this is such a key aspect to play, could you provide some graphic indicator or border color for the counter so that one can know the ASHQ is broken due to failure to conform to the rules?

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Also, the manual states that one of the new styles of play for the Germans is that it not necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. You can drive them back very hard and take advantage of no combat delay and retreat/route attrition.

That's where I would disagree, it absolutely is necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. Grinding can do massive amounts of damage, I've noticed, especially if the Soviets keep unready units on the front, but the fact that these units exist - which they wouldn't if they were surrendered (for a bit anyway) - is a huge boost, because even in unready shell states they exert ZOC and will force an attack if placed well.

When you combine this with liberally retreating in most places, a wall of chaff does a pretty great job of protecting the actual core of the red army because combat delay is only mitigated with 10-1 odds on a hasty. Keeping the unit cards on the map is a massive benefit.

So long as the units aren't actually shattering, which is common enough unless they are genuinely literal shells, routing units en masse just doesn't work long-term. I think, anyway. [:(]

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Also, the manual states that one of the new styles of play for the Germans is that it not necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. You can drive them back very hard and take advantage of no combat delay and retreat/route attrition.

That's where I would disagree, it absolutely is necessary to pocket huge numbers of the Red Army. Grinding can do massive amounts of damage, I've noticed, especially if the Soviets keep unready units on the front, but the fact that these units exist - which they wouldn't if they were surrendered (for a bit anyway) - is a huge boost, because even in unready shell states they exert ZOC and will force an attack if placed well.

When you combine this with liberally retreating in most places, a wall of chaff does a pretty great job of protecting the actual core of the red army because combat delay is only mitigated with 10-1 odds on a hasty. Keeping the unit cards on the map is a massive benefit.

So long as the units aren't actually shattering, which is common enough unless they are genuinely literal shells, routing units en masse just doesn't work long-term. I think, anyway. [:(]

You aren't going to get shatters on units in Assault HQ's. Matter of fact those units will be well lead, high CCP, and retreat with about the same losses the Germans take if not less on the attacks. Which pretty much the whole area the Germans will be fighting will have Soviets in Assault HQ's. Major problem. On top of that the Supply system for the Germans exacerbates that as much as the Soviets Fan-bois cries the logistics is too great for the Germans. I can tell you it sucks from this side. I rarely use my airforce and when I do it is in limited quantity.

You would have to get 5,000,000 men surrendered to even come to a decent amount eliminated for the Germans. You just are NOT going to get it in current ruleset.

At this point I have NO IDEA why anyone in their right mind would want to play the Germans against a player in H2H in current ruleset when playing against a BEEFED up late 1942 Soviet Army in 1941 with Assault HQ's. At this point I am questioning my own sanity and thinking I should just reclaim my time from this game and move on.

HLYA,

Why not simply discuss with your opponents about house ruling 1941 and 42 Soviet assault HQ's until it is patched?

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

HLYA,

Why not simply discuss with your opponents about house ruling 1941 and 42 Soviet assault HQ's until it is patched?

Current game there is no hope

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

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...

Correct, very well said. It is fantasy. It is for both sides on Assault HQ's that is the main item. Loki is probably right that there are more too being a very complex game.

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

I think assault HQs for the Soviets, combined with the need to consistently and constantly perform well as Germany, leads to a soviet dominated game more often than not. If the German player fails to find the pockets needed to drain the red army, then things very quickly reach an essential standstill in many parts of the front. The soviet ability to create immense walls of units is pretty staggering, in particular I remember one game where by campaign season of 42 I had the entire red army sitting on full TOE (more or less), on level 3 forts, with multiple lines of depth, under the best commanders. My opponent could not break the lines.

I am a very mediocre player though, but there's my two cents.

I am not a very good player too and I will have the exact same thing in my game. The Soviets are the dominate, as the Soviet fan-boys say they are and should be the whole war.

ORIGINAL: tyronec

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...

Some infantry in the Panzer armies is historical, as many people have said over sized assault HQs are not.
As to whether that is significant and if it is going to cause an Axis victory is an open question.

Whatever issues there are with the game, and there are always going to be many, I do not go along with the view that it is seriously broken. Better play is gaining an advantage most of the time and if there are things that are not right, like the assault HQs, it still takes good play to make use of them. For me the game is eminently playable as it is and I would hope it will continue to be going forwards.

I disagree that it takes good play to use Assault HQ's. Actually it doesn't take much of anything to throw a unit into the HQ to gain all the great benefits of this.

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

HLYA,

Why not simply discuss with your opponents about house ruling 1941 and 42 Soviet assault HQ's until it is patched?

Current game there is no hope

Erikbengtsson,

I have negotiated with my new game on Assault HQ's and Motorization. I haven't started yet but I need to go back to my opponent for another clarification on one of the rules before starting. Don't get me wrong, I love the game from both sides and try and look objectively as such and try and give information freely. I do agree with Tryonec that the game is very playable but not at the 100% mark at the moment.

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
....

You aren't going to get shatters on units in Assault HQ's. Matter of fact those units will be well lead, high CCP, and retreat with about the same losses the Germans take if not less on the attacks. Which pretty much the whole area the Germans will be fighting will have Soviets in Assault HQ's. Major problem. On top of that the Supply system for the Germans exacerbates that as much as the Soviets Fan-bois cries the logistics is too great for the Germans. I can tell you it sucks from this side. I rarely use my airforce and when I do it is in limited quantity.

...

strong personal preference would be to avoid the 'fanboys' discourse that became such a (depressing) feature of the WiTE1 forum

FWIW I prefer to play the Soviets but as in WiTW, WiTE2 rewards playing both sides, hence my flurry of axis games.

I do think the logistics system is forgiving for the axis but that is just my view. My worry is we find someway to reduce the Soviets to their hand to mouth 1941 existence and then they have to face 40 MP+ Pzrs. There were major shifts in WiTE1 that produced just that and its as uninteresting as the current situation.

If I play the Soviets in 1941, I want to open a turn wondering what fresh crises I have to deal with, not to review a stately controlled absorption of the last embers of the Axis offensive. If I play the Axis I want that fantasy lure of a big win that is almost always out of reach (like when my cats decide to start hunting the local bat population).

At the moment, I don't think either side gets that experience, but I'd be very much into piecemeal solutions (as you said earlier, don't implement multiple system wide changes all at once)

Roger

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
....

You aren't going to get shatters on units in Assault HQ's. Matter of fact those units will be well lead, high CCP, and retreat with about the same losses the Germans take if not less on the attacks. Which pretty much the whole area the Germans will be fighting will have Soviets in Assault HQ's. Major problem. On top of that the Supply system for the Germans exacerbates that as much as the Soviets Fan-bois cries the logistics is too great for the Germans. I can tell you it sucks from this side. I rarely use my airforce and when I do it is in limited quantity.

...

strong personal preference would be to avoid the 'fanboys' discourse that became such a (depressing) feature of the WiTE1 forum


Roger

Noted.

In general the less house ruling is there, the better it is.
Even because one will never know if the other player really stick to it or not.

In some games I've the impression things are in a way, I ask with the opponent, and they give me an answer that is not what I believe.
It leaves an odd feeling.

For instance I feel Disband needs limits, and to cost AP for Soviets too. I see in many games that the fortified positions disappear (And if they're disbanded that's a lot of recycled stuff that they save). - The ones in Odessa sector, or the ones in the Pripet, etc.
It is just easier to have a string of code that forfeits Disbanding if Enemy Unit is within 10 hexes or so, at the start of the turn and not on the spot.

So often house rules are not entirely checkable.
And thus it is better to have things coded.

Ultimately - as per in some other games - if the company releasing the game is not too keen to PvP balance, Mods can be done.
I know of a few of games where PvP games happens regularly with mods, ultimately because players doing PvP tend to get to know better the ins and out, and confronting themselves vs other humans they tend as well to discover the wider array of tactics, countertactics, and solutions and innovations and so on; whilst the players keeping vs the AI ... well the AI operates in a specific way, it has its scripts and its patterns. Also the AI does not complain either!

Re: HYLA and unstoppable fury.

It's a more general observation about two common axis balance views.

1st, there is a common, if wildly inaccurate, position taken that basically goes (with some hyperbole) "the German army was an unquenchable meat grinder advancing to victory everywhere, so if I can't, it must be broken".

There is also a second, more refined, camp. It basically holds that while the relative combat power of the units shouldn't be adjusted lightly (Through means direct or otherwise), the highest value in the game is tactical/technical excellence. If you can be technically excellent with units and still can't win, they would say, then the balance must be off.

I think both positions miss the idea that WITE, far more than it's predecessor, is a game about big decisions. It's not immediately apparent, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you can rarely tactical your way out of a wrong call operationally, or only at great cost in time and readiness. That is frankly a pretty good representation of the east..it shouldn't matter if you're Tyrone or an average player, a single panzer corps trying to do ballet should be a battered, broken thing that fails.

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

Re: HYLA and unstoppable fury.

It's a more general observation about two common axis balance views.

1st, there is a common, if wildly inaccurate, position taken that basically goes (with some hyperbole) "the German army was an unquenchable meat grinder advancing to victory everywhere, so if I can't, it must be broken".

There is also a second, more refined, camp. It basically holds that while the relative combat power of the units shouldn't be adjusted lightly (Through means direct or otherwise), the highest value in the game is tactical/technical excellence. If you can be technically excellent with units and still can't win, they would say, then the balance must be off.

I think both positions miss the idea that WITE, far more than it's predecessor, is a game about big decisions. It's not immediately apparent, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you can rarely tactical your way out of a wrong call operationally, or only at great cost in time and readiness. That is frankly a pretty good representation of the east..it shouldn't matter if you're Tyrone or an average player, a single panzer corps trying to do ballet should be a battered, broken thing that fails.

Was it not you that had the "unstoppable fury" about hasty attacks in Beta Glorious Ruse? That "unstoppable fury" was deep. It is the same passion & breed from the same mother.

So, I guess you are right in your first sentence, "Re: HYLA and unstoppable fury". But you have not a clue why since your next two para's tells me what you think. I will tell you why. I love the game, both sides! I love to see more people playing and progressing in the game. I post what I post for others to further their thinking and get more involved. I don't have to spends hours on end during the day to post AAR's comments and pictures for my health. Personally, I don't give a rats rear end if I lose or win. I even said so at the very beginning of my AAR that I was going to lose but I was going to try anyway to win because I like to win, as anyone should. I try and give hope to either side when there is little in the game to new players. I did this in WITE1 taking up the Soviet side to show it can be done. Maybe I am naive and just should slink back into my hole and not help anyone with my 2 cents worth of comments in my AAR. So yea, I have an "unstoppable fury" to try and make suggestions to a game that is enjoyable for both sides no matter what the side they play giving insight into what I do either right or wrong and suggestions on what could be wrong in current ruleset for people to learn from.