Matrix Games Forums

The German units in Yugoslavia are abstracted and I am sure you could see why. Units that get sent to Yugoslavia are put on the withdrawal schedule like any other unit that gets sent to another theater. Also, the 2nd Panzer Army that arrives from Yugoslavia to participate in the Eastern Front fighting in Northern Yugoslavia/Hungary arrives in Nov/Dec 1944 for usage by the player.

Trey

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Are German units in Yugoslavia abstracted/do units that get send to Yugoslavia from the Eastern Front disappear from the map even though they technically remain on-map?

I am glad that the 2nd Panzer army will appear in Nov/Dec '44. My question its release do to the time or will certain action trigger its release? I would also like to know if it is just the 2nd Panzer army HQ's that is released or will it contain those units that were under its command at the time? I do have the OOB of that army for that time period if you guys need it.

The combat units under the 2nd Panzer Army get released as well and they are released on a timeline as opposed to a trigger. I don't have the units memorized but I believe there was a mountain division, SS Cavalry Division, the 92nd PzG Bde, and maybe some Jager units in there as well.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus

I am glad that the 2nd Panzer army will appear in Nov/Dec '44. My question its release do to the time or will certain action trigger its release? I would also like to know if it is just the 2nd Panzer army HQ's that is released or will it contain those units that were under its command at the time? I do have the OOB of that army for that time period if you guys need it.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Not sure why anybody would be so hot on starting Barbarossa in May as the Axis. Historical weather in the east was mud; but if you want to waste the surprise attack turn on a mud march, be my guest, I'd be perfectly delighted with that as the Soviet player. It was the weather as much as anything else that precluded an attack before June.

Why would you assume that if you'd already want to play a hypothetical scenario start, you'd want to do so with historic weather? I actually like this idea, early start+random weather. Sound like another interesting "what-if" scenario to see how differently things could have been under varied circumstances. Nothing wrong with that.

Historic scenarios with historical positioning, TOE's, targets, weather etc. do have their charm, but it's nice to have alternatives to "research" once you get bored by replaying a scenario for the n.th time. More options -- more potential.

Janh, all this seems to me like an excuse to pile on all the chances in favor of one side while leaving everything the same for the other. Doesn't strike me as very sporting or interesting. You might as well, say, delay US entry in the European war and dabble with all sorts of other alternate history what ifs.
 
I could come up with a similar list of things for the Soviet side, but, why bother?
 
I doubt I'd ever find a PBM opponent willing to play with such blatant and lopsided handicaps against him, nor would I want to play under such handicaps myself.

There is nothing wrong with trying out hypothetical scenarios. You have to understand that everything is by chance and WWII didn't have to happen as it did. Just playing it by the historical situation with maybe some minor tweaks would be interesting but if this is all you could do game after every game would pretty much be like an endless re-run. This game would lose its play ability. I, myself would like to play like I was Hitler, or Stalin in charge and not be subordinate like the OKH or Stavka just following the orders. I believe the play ability of this game will depend on how much freedom the player has to fulfil his wishes. I also like to play the underdog, not because I like having my arse kicked, but because of the challenge and the thrill of seeing how long I can last If you are looking for an opponent to fight blatant and lopsided handicaps agaist him, than I am your man. I might get my arse kicked, but I will try my best to bloody your nose![:D]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Janh, all this seems to me like an excuse to pile on all the chances in favor of one side while leaving everything the same for the other. Doesn't strike me as very sporting or interesting. You might as well, say, delay US entry in the European war and dabble with all sorts of other alternate history what ifs.

I could come up with a similar list of things for the Soviet side, but, why bother?

I doubt I'd ever find a PBM opponent willing to play with such blatant and lopsided handicaps against him, nor would I want to play under such handicaps myself.

Janh, all this seems to me like an excuse to pile on all the chances in favor of one side while leaving everything the same for the other. Doesn't strike me as very sporting or interesting. You might as well, say, delay US entry in the European war and dabble with all sorts of other alternate history what ifs.

I could come up with a similar list of things for the Soviet side, but, why bother?

I doubt I'd ever find a PBM opponent willing to play with such blatant and lopsided handicaps against him, nor would I want to play under such handicaps myself.

May is an unlikely month to start the campaign, March would be more likely so that's snow/mud in many regions.

In the case of an early Barbarosa, I don't really see why you're saying that it's not very interesting if the Soviets are caught in an unprepared state (you suggest it favours the Germans), as that's exactly the state they will be in during the historical first few months too. Do you also suggest that is uninteresting and should be changed? That would mean it wouldn't be Barbarossa. I can think of little to no historical evidence supporting the case that, somehow, the Soviets would've been better prepared for Barbarossa in March 1941 than in June 1941.

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus


There is nothing wrong with trying out hypothetical scenarios. You have to understand that everything is by chance and WWII didn't have to happen as it did. Just playing it by the historical situation with maybe some minor tweaks would be interesting but if this is all you could do game after every game would pretty much be like an endless re-run. This game would lose its play ability. I, myself would like to play like I was Hitler, or Stalin in charge and not be subordinate like the OKH or Stavka just following the orders. I believe the play ability of this game will depend on how much freedom the player has to fulfil his wishes. I also like to play the underdog, not because I like having my arse kicked, but because of the challenge and the thrill of seeing how long I can last If you are looking for an opponent to fight blatant and lopsided handicaps agaist him, than I am your man. I might get my arse kicked, but I will try my best to bloody your nose![:D]

It may be an unfounded assumption on my part but the desire for hypothetical scenarios seems to be coming from people have not played the monster board war games of the 1970s. Anyone familiar with those games knows that replay value is the least of one's concerns with a game the size of WitE. You have to remember that WitE is an IGOUGO with HUNDREDS of units that have to manually moved or in some way attended to each turn. This game eats up your time like you wouldn't believe (many marriages/relationships are going to be collateral damage of this game). Even a "quite" Mud turn can require a half hour of micromanaging and the very people who are clamoring for hypotheticals are likely to be the most extreme micromanagers. If only Gary and Joel would be so fortunate that you would play this game so much you would exhaust its replay value. It is far more likely that advances in computer technology and artificial intelligence will obsolete WitE long before you find yourself wishing for non-historical what ifs.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Janh, all this seems to me like an excuse to pile on all the chances in favor of one side while leaving everything the same for the other. Doesn't strike me as very sporting or interesting. You might as well, say, delay US entry in the European war and dabble with all sorts of other alternate history what ifs.

I could come up with a similar list of things for the Soviet side, but, why bother?

I doubt I'd ever find a PBM opponent willing to play with such blatant and lopsided handicaps against him, nor would I want to play under such handicaps myself.

May is an unlikely month to start the campaign, March would be more likely so that's snow/mud in many regions.

In the case of an early Barbarosa, I don't really see why you're saying that it's not very interesting if the Soviets are caught in an unprepared state (you suggest it favours the Germans), as that's exactly the state they will be in during the historical first few months too. Do you also suggest that is uninteresting and should be changed? That would mean it wouldn't be Barbarossa. I can think of little to no historical evidence supporting the case that, somehow, the Soviets would've been better prepared for Barbarossa in March 1941 than in June 1941.

It's not very interesting to me from a competitive PBEM standpoint.

In a huge monster game like this, it's difficult enough to find an opponent without having to negotiate alternate history conditions on top of it. All this has the tendency to lead to accusations of bad faith. Quite frankly, any German player who starts telling me that he wants fair weather and an early start and who knows what else is somebody who I'm going to suspect of Nazi fanboyism. This stuff is wildly ahistorical for any number of reasons. He would be and should be equally suspicious of me if I made it a precondition of play to get early Siberian reinforcements, a free opening setup, and other such handicaps.

Stop gaming the system and play the game. This genre of operational level monster games isn't really conducive to alternate history anyways.

A long time ago, back in my Europa days, I actually did a platest for GRD of a Viktor Suvorov Icebreaker scenario, btw. The experience rather soured me on alternate history experiments for games of this sort. (I also happen to think Suvorov is full of shit, but that's another rant.) The strategic conditions were such that it more or less amounted to an automatic win for the Soviets. So you can contrive these matters in such a way to grossly favor the Soviets just as easily as the Germans. In the end, it's just not worth the trouble.

I think it is very difficult to simulate these types of densities can drive and work rules are periodic stacking situations well enough, but not sure how to take account of the circumstances in which the Soviets had a chance to create a solid bridge.
Arianna, Sibiu

In a huge monster game like this, it's difficult enough to find an opponent without having to negotiate alternate history conditions on top of it. All this has the tendency to lead to accusations of bad faith. Quite frankly, any German player who starts telling me that he wants fair weather and an early start and who knows what else is somebody who I'm going to suspect of Nazi fanboyism. This stuff is wildly ahistorical for any number of reasons. He would be and should be equally suspicious of me if I made it a precondition of play to get early Siberian reinforcements, a free opening setup, and other such handicaps.

Stop gaming the system and play the game. This genre of operational level monster games isn't really conducive to alternate history anyways.

That's an odd statement. After one move, you're already creating your own alternate history. Moving every heavy gun in the German arsenal to Leningrad to take it in 1941 is OK, but starting Barbarossa in, say, March (with all the weather problems I might add, I'm only talking about an earlier start date) is suddenly "wildly ahistorical" and people who suggest that are "Nazi fanboys"? Your argument doesn't make much sense.

That's a general problem I have with people who complain that adding alternate start dates or troop setups, dates and setups which would have been possible historically, to such a game isn't a good thing. The Soviets could theoretically be in Berlin in 1943, but potentially changing the start date of Barbarossa or some other fixed notion is the work of the devil. The game's going to be more or less completely ahistorical from the first move, yet people cling to the opening date/setup as being the only proper date/setup.

It's an odd statement, but one I'm going to stick to based on my own playing experience.
 
Most gamers, myself included, draw a real distinction between what happens after a game starts, and what happens before. When you start altering pregame strategic conditions they will necessarily have a dramatic and disproportionate effect on the flow and even outcome of a game. These games involve a huge time and energy commitment and very few people are interested in going into one playing under ahistorical handicaps. Somebody, after all, is going to be on the wrong end of such alternate history changes, and it will be very easy to tell who that is and whoever that is will naturally be unenthusiastic about it.
 
They will bow out and look for an opponent willing to play under the game's original (and presumably historical) design.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I can agree with most of that, but I'm not sure you should interpret something like an earlier start date as purely a handicap for the Soviet player. The weather will be mediocre or bad in the Soviet Union and the Soviets will have fewer units near the border, which in turn limits their losses somewhat. Due to the weather, the Soviets also have time to dig in until the spring/summer campaign season hits. I'd say there's a good chance the Germans wouldn't reach Moscow with an earlier start date. I agree that too many changes would probably ruin the balance, but something like an earlier start would not necessarily destroy the balance of the game.

I also tend to have more difficulty with approving gameplay issues that require houserules because they can be exploited rather than stuff I can prepare for, such as an earlier start. In the case of an earlier start, both players know what will happen. Contrary to wildly ahistorical and/or gamey decisions during the game itself. In a game like WitP:AE, the decision to bomb Manilla instead of Pearl Harbor on turn 1 is something I could agree with, but some gamey tactics during the game, such as crippling the Chinese army by bombing the light industry is not something I would agree with. As said, I generally frown more at issues that require some sort of houserule to avoid exploitation than a different start of the game.

IGOUGO games of WitE's scale can also quickly become problematic if both sides are evenly matched, as the player who strikes first on turn 1 has a substantial advantage. In this case, however, the Sovies can compensate for the ~1 million men they're going to lose in encirclements without much they can do about it. The Axis and the Soviets essentially play two completely different 4 or 7 day turns. The longer the turns, the greater that problem can become, but luckily WitE seems to be able to cope with it. "Gaming the system" is also something that I can guarantee will be a part of virtually every PBEM of WitE, there's always some questionable gameplay decision somewhere, no matter how small.

ComradeP, give me mud, and I'd happily take the early start as the Soviet. If not, not. The opposite applies for the German player.
 
This seems like a pretty shaky basis to start a game and is a recipe for trouble. Somebody is going to wind up very unhappy.
 
I'm leaving aside entirely the questionable idea that the German could totally ignore events in the Balkans. That's not even an operational decision within the parameters of this game, it's something at the head of state level and most definitely takes us into weird and ahistorical places.
 
This game really isn't designed to deal with that kind of thing, and I'd just as soon not open up a can of worms that turns WitE into some sort of open ended game editor where people can torture the Eastern front to accomodate whatever strategic and diplomatic circumstances they wish to toy with. I've already mentioned the Icebreaker scenario. You'll just get people insisting that their particular hobbyhorse be catered to.
 
I'm pretty sure the game developers aren't going to go down this road. Perhaps post release some folks with create various mods for this.

ComradeP, give me mud, and I'd happily take the early start as the Soviet. If not, not. The opposite applies for the German player.

This seems like a pretty shaky basis to start a game and is a recipe for trouble. Somebody is going to wind up very unhappy.

Yes, but it will be the Axis player that will be unhappy after an early start, which is what most people who prefer an earlier start seem to forget. They want to change other historical parameters too, but that creates an ahistorical fantasy as you already said. An earlier start date would be fine by me, an earlier start in fair weather is rubbish.

I'm leaving aside entirely the questionable idea that the German could totally ignore events in the Balkans. That's not even an operational decision within the parameters of this game, it's something at the head of state level and most definitely takes us into weird and ahistorical places.

As I said earlier: I'm not too sure about that. If the earlier start date would be March, there wouldn't be a lot going on in the Balkans. The Germans could send a mountain division or two to Albania and make the Greeks and Italians guarantee they won't violate eachother's borders again. Mussolini will protest, but without German help Africa is lost so there isn't a lot he can do. The British don't have the men for both a campaign in Africa and a campaign in the Balkans and it's questionable whether they would ever have the men for a campaign in the Balkans to begin with. The capture of Greece was convenient for the Germans in a number of way, but there was little strategic need to do so in 1941, as I don't think there would've been a significant effect on anything other than the African campaign and maybe not even on that (doomed to fail in any case, it might even be better if it failed earlier).

The "no campaign in the Balkans in 1941" alternate reality is a lot more credible than, say, "America never enters the war" or "Sealion worked in 1940-1941 and the British moved their government to the colonies". Those lead to wild and ahistorical circumstances, a no campaign in the Balkans mostly leads to some curiosities and some problems later on in the campaign for the Axis, but not in 1941.

This game really isn't designed to deal with that kind of thing

That's the best argument, which is why I'm happy the spokespeople for the developers are using that argument. People might want Murmansk, an earlier start date or a campaign in Yugoslavia later on, but the game isn't designed for that and that's that.

-

There is one thing that has been troubling me, well the theory in any case as naturally I haven't touched the game yet. The 7 day turns, which are basically 14 day turns as first the Axis play their 7 days without the Soviets being able to respond and after that the Soviets play their 7 days without the Axis being able to respond, could create some problems in the first few months, possibly in 1942, but perhaps especially when the Soviet counteroffensive starts (if there will be one). The main problem I'm seeing is encirclements.

We know isolated units can't disband, which is a good thing, but player units that start the player turn in a pocket, but can trace supply after some player actions are, if I'm interpreting the AAR's correctly, no longer isolated. That would mean they can disband. In the dead units thread, there's no mention of what happens to disbanded units. If the Axis disband units, and they indeed don't get them back as they're not "destroyed or shattered and have not surrendered", that could be a problem for them. The Soviets, on the other hand, can build now units. Some Soviet units seem to return after being automatically disbanded, and if all pre-November 1941 Soviet units return after being disbanded, the Soviet player has little reason not to disband units in a pocket if he can.

The Axis player might cry foul and will interpret it as a gamey strategy, even though the fact that he created the pocket in 7 days worth of moves which the Soviet player couldn't respond to probably isn't gamey in his opinion. The pocket that will form west of Minsk is probably unreachable in most cases, but perhaps supply can be restored to smaller pockets.

Personally, I'd be fine with the Soviet units disbanding as it would model the historical problems the Axis had with sealing a pocket with insufficient forces. Soviet units would escape in small groups and reform later. Isolated units in a pocket will tend to surrender with most of their manpower, so the Axis player already gets the benefit that there's a slim chance as many men will escape from pockets as they did historically.

When the Soviets are attacking, the problems might also apply to Axis. If units formerly in a pocket, but in supply during the player turn can disband, I'm guessing a houserule would be needed to decide whether they can, as it can seriously annoy the other player if nothing was officially agreed on and it happens.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP



There is one thing that has been troubling me, well the theory in any case as naturally I haven't touched the game yet. The 7 day turns, which are basically 14 day turns as first the Axis play their 7 days without the Soviets being able to respond and after that the Soviets play their 7 days without the Axis being able to respond, could create some problems in the first few months, possibly in 1942, but perhaps especially when the Soviet counteroffensive starts (if there will be one). The main problem I'm seeing is encirclements.

We know isolated units can't disband, which is a good thing, but player units that start the player turn in a pocket, but can trace supply after some player actions are, if I'm interpreting the AAR's correctly, no longer isolated. That would mean they can disband. In the dead units thread, there's no mention of what happens to disbanded units. If the Axis disband units, and they indeed don't get them back as they're not "destroyed or shattered and have not surrendered", that could be a problem for them. The Soviets, on the other hand, can build now units. Some Soviet units seem to return after being automatically disbanded, and if all pre-November 1941 Soviet units return after being disbanded, the Soviet player has little reason not to disband units in a pocket if he can.

The Axis player might cry foul and will interpret it as a gamey strategy, even though the fact that he created the pocket in 7 days worth of moves which the Soviet player couldn't respond to probably isn't gamey in his opinion. The pocket that will form west of Minsk is probably unreachable in most cases, but perhaps supply can be restored to smaller pockets.

Personally, I'd be fine with the Soviet units disbanding as it would model the historical problems the Axis had with sealing a pocket with insufficient forces. Soviet units would escape in small groups and reform later. Isolated units in a pocket will tend to surrender with most of their manpower, so the Axis player already gets the benefit that there's a slim chance as many men will escape from pockets as they did historically.

When the Soviets are attacking, the problems might also apply to Axis. If units formerly in a pocket, but in supply during the player turn can disband, I'm guessing a houserule would be needed to decide whether they can, as it can seriously annoy the other player if nothing was officially agreed on and it happens.

This really isn't as big an issue as you might think it is. Pockets work both ways. It takes the attacker units to contain and eliminate pockets which costs time and slows the advance. While you never want to get units pocketed (surrendered men never come back), once units are pocketed you want them to extract as much time and lives from the enemy as possible. The men and equipment you might save disbanding a unit are usually worth less (speaking from the Soviet side) to you than slowing the advance of even a single German unit. For the German player the situation is a little different since you ultimately have less of everything but surprisingly not that much different.

As the attacker I find pockets fun to create but annoying to reduce. Whenever possible I try to eliminate all the pocketed units either in the turn I pocket them or the turn immediately after. A pocket that persists more than one turn is a real pain in the you know what.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

<SNIP>

There is one thing that has been troubling me, well the theory in any case as naturally I haven't touched the game yet. The 7 day turns, which are basically 14 day turns as first the Axis play their 7 days without the Soviets being able to respond and after that the Soviets play their 7 days without the Axis being able to respond, could create some problems in the first few months, possibly in 1942, but perhaps especially when the Soviet counteroffensive starts (if there will be one). The main problem I'm seeing is encirclements.

We know isolated units can't disband, which is a good thing, but player units that start the player turn in a pocket, but can trace supply after some player actions are, if I'm interpreting the AAR's correctly, no longer isolated. That would mean they can disband. In the dead units thread, there's no mention of what happens to disbanded units. If the Axis disband units, and they indeed don't get them back as they're not "destroyed or shattered and have not surrendered", that could be a problem for them. The Soviets, on the other hand, can build now units. Some Soviet units seem to return after being automatically disbanded, and if all pre-November 1941 Soviet units return after being disbanded, the Soviet player has little reason not to disband units in a pocket if he can.

The Axis player might cry foul and will interpret it as a gamey strategy, even though the fact that he created the pocket in 7 days worth of moves which the Soviet player couldn't respond to probably isn't gamey in his opinion. The pocket that will form west of Minsk is probably unreachable in most cases, but perhaps supply can be restored to smaller pockets.

<SNIP>

Few explanations...


WitE is IGYG (I Go - You Go) type of game. Turn is 7 days but for EACH player (thus there is no 14 days turns)!


Let me explain: The starter of scenario (Axis in the case of Barbarossa scenario) plays first and makes his moves and combat. Then the other side plays (but the turn is still the same and the date is still the same)!

In order to help defending side (in another player's turn) there is "Reserve" option that can help attacked units to receive automatic help (via many rules and randomness of course) when attacked.

Thus, for example, if it is Axis turn and the Axis attacks the Soviets are not just "sitting ducks" - their defensive lines can be helped via "Reserve" option by units positioned in the rear (and air units can also help with fighter "intercept" missions, "Close Support" missions and "Interdiction" missions) !


Similar thing is with encirclements.

What you see in one side turn is not entirely true.


Let me explain: the enemy unit is considered truly encircled only if it is still truly encircled in both enemy's turn and player's own turn!

Thus, for example, even if Axis player visually encircles the Soviet units in his own turn - the Soviet units are not considered encircled in their own turn (i.e. they can break through or outside units can come to their rescue) without "encirclement penalty" kicking in!



Leo "Apollo11"

This really isn't as big an issue as you might think it is. Pockets work both ways. It takes the attacker units to contain and eliminate pockets which costs time and slows the advance. While you never want to get units pocketed (surrendered men never come back), once units are pocketed you want them to extract as much time and lives from the enemy as possible. The men and equipment you might save disbanding a unit are usually worth less (speaking from the Soviet side) to you than slowing the advance of even a single German unit. For the German player the situation is a little different since you ultimately have less of everything but surprisingly not that much different.

As the attacker I find pockets fun to create but annoying to reduce. Whenever possible I try to eliminate all the pocketed units either in the turn I pocket them or the turn immediately after. A pocket that persists more than one turn is a real pain in the you know what.

Pockets tend to slow only the few infantry divisions that mop them up judging by the AAR's and historical pockets. I'm guessing isolated units won't usually take more than a hasty attack to remove, due to the massive penalties they would be getting from being isolated, having low morale and low experience as well as not being in a fortified area.

Early on, the main problem for the Soviets will be to make sure the German mobile elements don't penetrate Soviet territory to such an extent that building a defensive line isn't possible. Due to that, there might be situations where saving 200k men and some 1000 guns and some 500 AFV's from a pocket is worth more than letting the Germans reduce the pocket, slowing down a number of their infantry divisions. There's also the fact that troops from a pocket tend to die for the Motherland due to starving in POW camps, not from being in a line slowing the Germans down. There are situations where I'd prefer them to be in a line.

Some players also have a tendency to think that they absolutely have to remove pockets in 1 or 2 turns, whilst that pocket might be sitting in useless terrain far away from any important strategic assets and the player thus doesn't really need to be in a hurry to clean it up with the first wave of infantry formations.

I guess the Soviet player will indeed need to thinking about whether sacrificing tens of thousands of men to slow down a handful of German units is worth it. There are situations where it could be, but there are also situations where it isn't worth it, such as situations where the pocketed units are not sitting on rail lines or in a city, where they can also be a strategic nuisance to the Axis.

WitE is IGYG (I Go - You Go) type of game. Turn is 7 days but for EACH player (thus there is no 14 days turns)!

I know the turns are one week, but due to way IGOUGO works, players play a different 7 day period (as the first player already made his move), so there are essentially two 7 day periods in one turn. In a WEGO game, turns are the same for both players.

As to reserves: for that to work, reserves would have to be available and strong enough to slow down the attacker. In the first few months, that's unlikely to happen for the Soviets. It's mostly something that will save a few Soviet and German lines later on in the game.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

WitE is IGYG (I Go - You Go) type of game. Turn is 7 days but for EACH player (thus there is no 14 days turns)!

I know the turns are one week, but due to way IGOUGO works, players play a different 7 day period (as the first player already made his move), so there are essentially two 7 day periods in one turn. In a WEGO game, turns are the same for both players.

Nope... it works just as I described in my first message... [;)]


Thus the dates are the same for the very same turn!


This is excerpt of the savegames from one of my tests (I will post list here only for turns until start of 1942):

Save turn 001 6-22-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 001 6-22-1941 So.sav
Save turn 002 6-26-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 002 6-26-1941 So.sav
Save turn 003 7-3-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 003 7-3-1941 So.sav
Save turn 004 7-10-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 004 7-10-1941 So.sav
Save turn 005 7-17-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 005 7-17-1941 So.sav
Save turn 006 7-24-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 006 7-24-1941 So.sav
Save turn 007 7-31-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 007 7-31-1941 So.sav
Save turn 008 8-7-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 008 8-7-1941 So.sav
Save turn 009 8-14-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 009 8-14-1941 So.sav
Save turn 010 8-21-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 010 8-21-1941 So.sav
Save turn 011 8-28-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 011 8-28-1941 So.sav
Save turn 012 9-4-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 012 9-4-1941 So.sav
Save turn 013 9-11-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 013 9-11-1941 So.sav
Save turn 014 9-18-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 014 9-18-1941 So.sav
Save turn 015 9-25-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 015 9-25-1941 So.sav
Save turn 016 10-2-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 016 10-2-1941 So.sav
Save turn 017 10-9-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 017 10-9-1941 So.sav
Save turn 018 10-16-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 018 10-16-1941 So.sav
Save turn 019 10-23-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 019 10-23-1941 So.sav
Save turn 020 10-30-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 020 10-30-1941 So.sav
Save turn 021 11-6-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 021 11-6-1941 So.sav
Save turn 022 11-13-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 022 11-13-1941 So.sav
Save turn 023 11-20-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 023 11-20-1941 So.sav
Save turn 024 11-27-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 024 11-27-1941 So.sav
Save turn 025 12-4-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 025 12-4-1941 So.sav
Save turn 026 12-11-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 026 12-11-1941 So.sav
Save turn 027 12-18-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 027 12-18-1941 So.sav
Save turn 028 12-25-1941 Ax.sav
Save turn 028 12-25-1941 So.sav
Save turn 029 1-1-1942 Ax.sav
Save turn 029 1-1-1942 So.sav

As to reserves: for that to work, reserves would have to be available and strong enough to slow down the attacker. In the first few months, that's unlikely to happen for the Soviets. It's mostly something that will save a few Soviet and German lines later on in the game.

And this is how it should be... the Soviets were in bad shape in 1941 and Germans had the upper hand... but Russia is huge and time is limited... war is hard and no player should expect easy road to victory in WitE... [:)]



Leo "Apollo11"

Nope... it works just as I described in my first message...

I'm guessing there must be a miscommunication somewhere.

The nature of the IGOUGO system means that each turn is essentially twice as long than the turn indicator says it is, because each player has the ability to move his units in such a way as would be possible in the time limit per turn, in this case 7 days. That means that there are essentially 14 days in every 7 day turn, because first the Axis player makes 7 days worth of moves and then the Soviet player does the same thing.

The turn dates will naturally indicate the same date for both players, but due to the system the second player is always 1 turn's moves behind the first player whenever the second player opens a turn. That's why when the Soviet player opens the June 22nd turn, the Axis are not at the border but in or near Minsk and Riga.

In a WEGO system, the Axis would be at the border at the start of the first turn for both sides, as both sides act at the same time.