Withdrawls

[Smirfy]

The game looks great and I commend the developers to opening up their game to so much scrutiny so early in its life but a doubt I have is about the withdrawl and arrival system coupled with the refiting of divisions. The withdrawls and arrivals are well documented but surely will lose meaning and there maybe even the possibilty of exploit. Surely rather than specific divisons withdrawn it should be a specific weight of division (s) withdrawn. Surely the player should have the choice ie Führer headquarters demand 3 PZ divisions withdrawn of a certain total weight and within a certain time and the player chooses which ones to make the criteria and moves them to a railhead. If several Historically withdrawn units were destroyed in game surely their historical destination front would collapse?
I also believe a feature of units that headed west for a refit left alot of their equipment behind for remaining units picking up new stuff back in France in Germany or whatever dead sector they went to and this was the principle way German formations recieved new equipment

[karonagames]

It is an interesting idea, and I know that the design team check the forum, but my guess is that we we are too close to beta to consider adding a large new amount of code that would require a fair bit of testing time.

If unit scheduled to withdraw is destroyed it goes into a holding area as an empty shell and stay there until it reaches a TOE threshold at which time it leaves the map. So the equivalent resources are removed from the Game.

And I think the point that I made in another thread is that you can't make everything variable - some things have to be fixed. The current system is working - everyone spotted the division that was scheduled to withdraw in PD's AAR.

Of course I have made the noobie mistake of not turning the borders on, and then wondering why I had a gap in my line!

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

The game looks great and I commend the developers to opening up their game to so much scrutiny so early in its life but a doubt I have is about the withdrawl and arrival system coupled with the refiting of divisions. The withdrawls and arrivals are well documented but surely will lose meaning and there maybe even the possibilty of exploit. Surely rather than specific divisons withdrawn it should be a specific weight of division (s) withdrawn. Surely the player should have the choice ie Führer headquarters demand 3 PZ divisions withdrawn of a certain total weight and within a certain time and the player chooses which ones to make the criteria and moves them to a railhead. If several Historically withdrawn units were destroyed in game surely their historical destination front would collapse?
I also believe a feature of units that headed west for a refit left alot of their equipment behind for remaining units picking up new stuff back in France in Germany or whatever dead sector they went to and this was the principle way German formations recieved new equipment

The subject of arrivals and withdrawals has already been discussed before and I refer you to the Q&A thread for greater detail but I will review this subject again in brief.

The only units that withdraw in the game are those that either premanently left the Eastern Front and spent the rest of the War fighting on another front or those that withdrew, re-organized while off the Eastern Front, and then returned. I will give you three examples to illustrate:

1) The 29th Motorized Division was destroyed in the battle of Stalingrad, re-built and then spent the rest of the War fighting in Italy. In the game it withdraws around the time it is re-building (no destruction at Stalingrad requirement) never to return.

2) The 1st Cavalry Division withdraws and is re-organized and returns as the 24th Panzer Division.

3) Das Reich SS Motorized division withdraws, is re-organized and returns Das Reich SS Panzergrenadier Division, withdraws again and re-organizes and returns as 2nd SS Panzer Division.

Any unit that withdraws must be at 80% of its TOE to do so or it is frozen on the western map edge until it re-builds to 80% strength before being withdrawn.

[janh]

I add my weight: The withdrawal concept implemented presently doesn't seem a good choice and will surely be mentioned in quite a few of the reviews that gamer sites and journals will do as a major drawback. I understand the logic you used to approximate this "feature", but as for example in PD's AAR, it is extremely unlikely and unlogic that Totenkopf would have been ordered to withdraw if the Germans were about to encircle Moscow. I'd rather expect a quick rush of additional reinforcements instead.

I add to the petition to rework this system. Maybe have a Combat Value based withdrawal system, or bring back the old Western and Southern Fronts. Even though you argued that these would bring about erratic behavior, I think having had them in WiR added a lot to the fun, depth and possibilities of the game. I cannot believe this would be so much code to add since you guys should have the source of WiR. It would be sad for any lost feature which cuts down the strategic possibilities and replay value of what could become a gem and gold standard if executed without so many compromises. And I consider the withdrawal system more important to be there than the production, though I think also with that you guys decided to loose a lot of potential in this game and a lot of interest from more casual potential buyers.

[Great_Ajax]

Its been discussed at length along with many of the other topics that are discussed here (Finnish line is a favorite . Decision has been made to go with this system and we've moved on. Eventually you have to release a product and if you keep adding/changing features, this game will never get released. I liked the front system myself but it isn't happening for release. Once the game comes out and there is an outcry for certain features, I am sure the developers will listen to those merits again but we are trying to lock down the data and rules so that we can move to Beta real soon and get the best damned Russian front game out there available for the players.

Trey

ORIGINAL: janh

I add my weight: The withdrawal concept implemented presently doesn't seem a good choice and will surely be mentioned in quite a few of the reviews that gamer sites and journals will do as a major drawback. I understand the logic you used to approximate this "feature", but as for example in PD's AAR, it is extremely unlikely and unlogic that Totenkopf would have been ordered to withdraw if the Germans were about to encircle Moscow. I'd rather expect a quick rush of additional reinforcements instead.

I add to the petition to rework this system. Maybe have a Combat Value based withdrawal system, or bring back the old Western and Southern Fronts. Even though you argued that these would bring about erratic behavior, I think having had them in WiR added a lot to the fun, depth and possibilities of the game. I cannot believe this would be so much code to add since you guys should have the source of WiR. It would be sad for any lost feature which cuts down the strategic possibilities and replay value of what could become a gem and gold standard if executed without so many compromises. And I consider the withdrawal system more important to be there than the production, though I think also with that you guys decided to loose a lot of potential in this game and a lot of interest from more casual potential buyers.

[Beetle]

I agree with el hefe's good point about the continual adding of features that may keep the game from getting released.  Any potential future changes requested by the rank and file and agreed to by the development team could come in a future update. 

[british exil]

I think no matter when the game will be released you'll always find something in the game that can be improved. There'll also be certain aspects where complaints will be made. But as el hefe said the game has to at some point be released, bug free is the main aspect at the moment. Front movements can always be changed with some kind of patch.
I understand the logic you used to approximate this "feature", but as for example in PD's AAR, it is extremely unlikely and unlogic that Totenkopf would have been ordered to withdraw if the Germans were about to encircle Moscow. I'd rather expect a quick rush of additional reinforcements instead.
This does seem logic, why move units around when you are about to take a major city or stratigic point. But then again I'm a player that gets beaten by the AI on simple, so I think there are a few people, with a bit more brains, who have sat down and thought about these things.

Mat

[PyleDriver]

Well Mat, the way I look at is they knew the Western Allies were growing in strenght and reserves were needed back home...

[janh]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver
Well Mat, the way I look at is they knew the Western Allies were growing in strenght and reserves were needed back home...

I would say this is a too simple look at this situation, and even a military starter like Hitler would probably have delayed Totenkopf by 2-4 weeks until the crucial moment east has passed. It is winter 1942, and there is really no need in France, Italy, Greece or anywhere else on the European continent that would be in dire need of reinforcement. Remember where the fighting is presently -- Africa and the East. And Totenkopf was never scheduled to fight in the desert. If my recollections are correct, this withdrawal of Totenkopf was historically planned to outfit it as tank division in France at a time where things were boiling around Stalingrad, but the division was far north and kind of spend.

It really doesn't make any logical sense to use historical withdrawal dates to me, which would seems totally then out of sync with the fighting on the eastern front. And might serve as very "useful" but gamey trick for a russian player. Sounds like I should better wait and see whether lots of reviews and other players ask for the missing features, and hope they'll be added in a couple of patches. For me, they are kind of crucial. I get the impression you guys are wasting a huge "sales potential" by cutting out those extremely nice features that players of WiR gotten so used to. But of course WiR developed over time, and this one will perhaps too.

[karonagames]

I don't understand why you are so concerned about something that represents less than .5% of the Axis combat strength available on the map. You will lose more than that if you do not have an HQ positioned correctly in relation to the nearest railhead to supply the troops that are capable of capturing your objectives..

This game focuses on what is going on on the map, not what is happening off it.

It may not seem logical to you, but the current systems works and the developers are busting a gut to give you all a game that works.

Is a soviet player really going to worried if less than .5% of axis combat strength is entering or leaving the map? I think he will have many, many other things to worry about.

[Hard Sarge]

Janh

why is Totenkopf being pulled ?

you forget the next upgrade step it went though, it is a Motorized Div now, it still has to become a PZG Div, and later a PZ Div, it is being pulled out to upgrade it

I know what you are trying to say, but, if that was the case, none of the units would ever of upgraded, there was always something importent going on, that they could be needed for

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: janh

I add my weight: The withdrawal concept implemented presently doesn't seem a good choice and will surely be mentioned in quite a few of the reviews that gamer sites and journals will do as a major drawback. I understand the logic you used to approximate this "feature", but as for example in PD's AAR, it is extremely unlikely and unlogic that Totenkopf would have been ordered to withdraw if the Germans were about to encircle Moscow. I'd rather expect a quick rush of additional reinforcements instead.

I add to the petition to rework this system. Maybe have a Combat Value based withdrawal system, or bring back the old Western and Southern Fronts. Even though you argued that these would bring about erratic behavior, I think having had them in WiR added a lot to the fun, depth and possibilities of the game. I cannot believe this would be so much code to add since you guys should have the source of WiR. It would be sad for any lost feature which cuts down the strategic possibilities and replay value of what could become a gem and gold standard if executed without so many compromises. And I consider the withdrawal system more important to be there than the production, though I think also with that you guys decided to loose a lot of potential in this game and a lot of interest from more casual potential buyers.

I can recall a game of WAR IN RUSSIA in which the Axis player sent the "green" 22nd and 27th Panzer divisions (stiffened with a few infantry divisions) to North Africa so he could use the experienced 15th and 21st Panzer divisions on the Eastern Front. Do you actually think that makes more sense than the untimely withdrawal of Totenkopf from Russia in an AAR of an alternative strategy that would have been defeated by any competent human Russian player long before the Germans were anywhere near Moscow?

Any game system that is not a full blown War In Europe with all aspects of the War modeled to the same degree of detail is going to be subject to abuse in one way or another. WitE is an OPERATIONAL game of the EASTERN FRONT designed only to model the events on that front. The withdrawals are like the weather; they just happen and you have to plan for them accordingly. Giving players a fixed withdrawal schedule makes managing these withdrawals considerably easier than a system like WIR where an off map front could shatter and you suddenly had to find divisions to restore the situation.

When WitE is finally released and you have the opportunity to play it you will find that the comings and goings of individual units are practically insignificant to the play of the game. The detail of this game is beyond anything anyone has ever done before and just mastering the conduct of operations on the Eastern front is all consuming.

[Zovs]

It really doesn't make any logical sense to use historical withdrawal dates to me, which would seems totally then out of sync with the fighting on the eastern front.

Well if you have ever played GDW Fire in the East/Scorched Earth board war game it makes perfect sense. Regardless of the game situation on the map you are really not the Leader, but instead are essentially in charge of either the O.K.H. or Stavka HQ. Your directing the operations in the field in this case the Eastern Front. We all know how irrational and insane (especially from 1943 onwards) Hitler was/is and how idiotic Stalin was prior to late 1942. We have some basic strategic goals but there is (for the Germans) at least two to three other theaters of war.

I think your making a far bigger issue of this then it really is, as Bob has said it's like 5% (or less) of the total OOB. Its actually a pretty neat way to both hit the game side and the historical side and has jaw has said unless your playing War in Europe this is not the decision at this level your going to make.

[british exil]

As I mentioned in my post,I do think people have sat down and discussed the withdrawl aspect of the the game the pros and cons etc.

But does the player get a kind of timetable when units are withdrawn to be upgraded and when and where they will return?

Mat

[Helpless]

But does the player get a kind of timetable when units are withdrawn to be upgraded and when and where they will return?

Yes

[british exil]

At least we can plan for a decent farewell party and give the leaving troops some post for the wives and gf's at home in the Reich.[:D]

Mat

[Helpless]

Btw, anyone who disagrees with logic of withdrawals can always change it in editor. It is not hardcoded.

[molchomor]

Thank you for the editor. An important aspect for me personally (and since my friends do the same in their games it seems I still have retained my sanity heh) is that I tend to get attached to certain units that you try to nurse (experience/equipment etc.) throughout your campaign. I don't see this as unrealistic, after reading some WW2 books the RL generals behaved the same, only trusting "unproven" units with critical tasks when no other options were available.  This is one major aspect of strat. gaming immersion to me - so thanks again for the editor where such withdrawals hopefully can be edited. As has been pointed out there is also a more "logical" reason for being able to edit this - from turn 1 this is an a-historical game and why should units that were pulled back / reformed due to historical reason (e.g. Stalingrad) be done so in my game where I don't even attack this city ?

Btw, for the Soviets, are units that were e.g. destroyed historically, withdrawn & reformed in the same manner in the game?

==> My feeling is that an editor is nice to have but I personally still feel that the the way it was handled in SF/WiR is superior still, i.e. you could yourself decide which units to withdraw to top-up the other fronts with the required strength. Ergo, with this proven system the PD "Totenkopf" issue would most likely not occur (the player would most likely opt to pull back units from a "quiet" section of the front instead, like perhaps all those Romanian divisions PD have sitting idle . Ah well, this is not a gamebreaker...but rather a question...why break something that worked.

[Great_Ajax]

Units are not withdrawn in the game because they were destroyed historically. They are only withdrawn in the game if they were shipped to a different theater. For example, both the 22nd and 27th Panzer Divisions were destroyed in early 1943 in Army Group South and never reformed. They are not withdrawn from the game. You will not see them in subsequent campaign games however. There were several infantry divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad, reformed, and shipped to Italy in the late summer of 1943. These units will be withdrawn about a month prior to their re-deployment (July 1943) as opposed to when they were destroyed (Mar 43).

Trey

ORIGINAL: molchomor

Thank you for the editor. An important aspect for me personally (and since my friends do the same in their games it seems I still have retained my sanity heh) is that I tend to get attached to certain units that you try to nurse (experience/equipment etc.) throughout your campaign. I don't see this as unrealistic, after reading some WW2 books the RL generals behaved the same, only trusting "unproven" units with critical tasks when no other options were available.  This is one major aspect of strat. gaming immersion to me - so thanks again for the editor where such withdrawals hopefully can be edited. As has been pointed out there is also a more "logical" reason for being able to edit this - from turn 1 this is an a-historical game and why should units that were pulled back / reformed due to historical reason (e.g. Stalingrad) be done so in my game where I don't even attack this city ?

Btw, for the Soviets, are units that were e.g. destroyed historically, withdrawn & reformed in the same manner in the game?

==> My feeling is that an editor is nice to have but I personally still feel that the the way it was handled in SF/WiR is superior still, i.e. you could yourself decide which units to withdraw to top-up the other fronts with the required strength. Ergo, with this proven system the PD "Totenkopf" issue would most likely not occur (the player would most likely opt to pull back units from a "quiet" section of the front instead, like perhaps all those Romanian divisions PD have sitting idle . Ah well, this is not a gamebreaker...but rather a question...why break something that worked.

[molchomor]

Thanks for the clarification!