Matrix Games Forums

I love this game, but I'm beginning to have a bit of a philosophical dilemma with it. You see my personal philosophy is that I want a game that gives me as historically accurate a simulation as possible, but then gives me complete control and flexibilty in the decision making. In other words, I want to be Stalin and STAVKA or Hitler and OKH (without the megolomania) and see if I can do better than they did historically. I therefore don't generally have a lot of empathy for players who make comments like "the Soviets/Germans shouldn't be able to do this or that because Stalin/Hitler would never have allowed it." Since I want to be totally in command (maybe I am a megolomaniac) I don't want to be restricted by what Stalin or Hitler may or may not have allowed.

The problem with applying this philosophy to WiTE is that historically, IMHO, the Soviet High Command in the first year of the War (and especially in the first few months) stumbled from one big blunder to another. The most obvious (but certainly not only) example of which was to allow 600,000 men plus their equipment to be captured in the Kiev pocket. IMHO had the Soviet forces been properly handled they would have been able to avoid the big pockets and thus preserve a much larger army for the Winter offensive than they did historically. This would have caused a chain reaction allowing them to inflict more casualties on the Axis forces. Come spring/summer 42 a good Russian player would probably realize that his forces are still not a match for the Germans and, instead of launching a Kharkov type offensive would sit tight in his fortifications. Accordingly,the Axis would not have made anywhere close to the advance in the summer of 42 that they did historically and the tide of war would turn much earlier than it did historically.

So if I am correct in my opinions, than in most cases an historically accurate simulation of the War in Russia fought between two capable opponents who have freedom of movement (that is to say they are not restricted by what their historical counterparts did) will probably result in the Axis having at best only a limited offensive in the summer of 42, followed by a Soviet offensive beginning earlier than historical. Of course, the Axis player will proably not make the mistake of having an entire army surrounded (as historically happened at Stalingrad) and will not be handcuffed by Hitler's "No Retreat" Order, However, the end result will probably be a quicker end to the War.

Because of my philosophy I am not moved by the cries of the German Players who complain that the Russian Players are running away and they are not inflicting the 3 million+ casualties on the Russians that were achieved historically. I mean did you really think that your opponent was going to (or should be forced to) make the same stupid mistakes as his historical counterpart? If this is what you want than play the less capable Russian Players (which perhaps even include me) who are more likely to make these mistakes. On the other hand, if the Soviet RR capacity is still larger than historical than this should be fixed. Also if historically the evacuation of HI was important and if in the game it is not, than this should also be fixed.

Having said this, I want the game to be challenging for both sides and accordingly I want the Axis to have as equal a chance to win as the Soviets. This is my dilemma, how can this be accomplished without offending my philosophy. The options as I see them are:

1. Change the Victory Conditions so that the Axis only have to hold Berlin until January 45 (or such other date as playtesting determines is fair).
2. Change the Victory Conditons as is being proposed by Michael T (see his post).
3. Change the Victory Conditions so that VPs are awarded for holding certain cities for certain periods of time (I understand this may be difficult or impossible to implement).
4. To hell with my philosophy and give the Axis some ahistoric advantage to "balance" things out. Such as not nerfing HQ Chaining (yes I know the Soviets can do it too but it is not the same) or not fixing the railhead repair bug, or perhaps a nuclear warhead or two.

One thing that is often missed with the current crop of gnashing of teeth from the German side is that the war was not 'winnable' in really any sense historically for the Germans. Even the A-A line represented what they believed would end the Soviet ability to prosecute the war, not force surrender.

What seems to be missed is that the game is 41-45. The game, just as the historical war, is about one thing from the first moment, when does Berlin fall? That is the real victory condition. Some people want only to think about the first year or 18 months, but that is just the opening. So when they complain about soviets running for the hills, they sort of forget that they will be looking to do the same (ahistorical) thing in turn.

So when people opine that there is no reason to attack after the first season as the Germans, they are just thinking in far too narrow terms. You attack because it is easier to kill Soviets early rather than later. You move E. because that gives you more room to trade for time.

And when they complain that the Red war machine is overwelming in 43 on, well, that is what the war was like, deal.

But the designers did actually design the game this way, look at the victory conditions. It is just that there are a few (actually very few) but quite vocal players that want to play a game where the germans can 'win' by .... well no one really knows what a 'win' condition would be because frankly it is sort of absurd.

I agree with these comments. Although Axis made huge mistakes, the Soviets "played the game" far worse in 1941. And I personally think the Germans didn't play it all that badly until Stalingrad It's not the game's fault that it is hard to win for the Whermacht. That's the way it was. Might have been different without lend lease.

It seems to me that it's a little like the "Lost Cause" school of Confederate history (if only Stonewall had lived etc.). In the end the team with the most guys wins.

Wrong thread

I think there are other options. One would be for random command control problems to infect both sides, representing high command interfering with the operations. For example, imagine a Soviet Front suddenly having its movement cut to 3 hexes/turn for a month to reflect a no-retreat order? Do you sit still behind the river, or still try to run? The same problems could infect the Germans later in the war.
 
I've long suggested that GG games need to incorporate short-term objectives worth large numbers of bonus victory points. The Germans could be ordered to take Moscow, and have to decide whether they want to try or lose a bunch of points for failure. The same could happen to the Russians, both on defense and offense. Military operations are always political in nature, and these simulations tend to ignore that fact. The big problem I have with WITP-AE is that there is never an incentive for the Allies to try something like the Doolittle raid, or the Japanese to raid the US west coast cities to earn a huge number of poltically-based victory points.  

Since I want to be totally in command (maybe I am a megolomaniac) I don't want to be restricted by what Stalin or Hitler may or may not have allowed.

The cry of generals throughout the war. Alas, that wasn't how it worked. [;)]

The best and most exciting system I ever had the pleasure of playing for units doing what YOU want and the actual reality of good and bad leaders and chain-of-command is in the game War Between the States Designed by Irad Hardy Published by Simulations Publications, Inc. (1978)  I believe it would have worked very well with some minor tinkering in this game.

Here is how it works:
After each Strategic Turn there are four Player Turns, each one representing a week of real time. At the start of the Player Turn each player draws a chit. This tells them who has the initiative (goes first) and how many movement commands they may issue (the number on the chit). In the first year the chits are numbered 0, 1, 2, and 3. The chits are adjusted from time to time. From May 1863 until October 1863 the mixture of the initiative chits is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. This means that at some periods the war will speed up and have more armies being active while at other times the pace of activities will slow down.

Which ever player has drawn the higher numbered chit will go first. During the Movement Phase they will active a number of armies up to the number on the chit (e.g. if they drew a ‘3’ chit they would activate three armies for movement). After the movement commands have all been used you may try to activate other leaders by rolling a die and comparing it to the leader’s Initiative Rating (Grant and Lee have a rating of ‘4’ which means they would activate under their own initiative two-thirds of the time). As many leaders have low initiative this means that, each turn, many and perhaps most of your troops will not be moving. You need to decide which moves are the most crucial and issue commands to those leaders.

source; http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/303855/ ... ster-games

Since I want to be totally in command (maybe I am a megolomaniac) I don't want to be restricted by what economics or logistics may or may not have allowed. The cry of Hitler before and throughout the war. Alas, that wasn't how it worked.

And had Germany not been suffering strangulating economic problems, the nazi's never would have been placed in power by the establishment and there never would have been a WW2. In my view, as I like simulation, a game should recreate the real problems faced by commanders but not create artificial game system problems. The more complex the reality being simulated, the taller the order.

ORIGINAL: Kronolog

Since I want to be totally in command (maybe I am a megolomaniac) I don't want to be restricted by what Stalin or Hitler may or may not have allowed.

The cry of generals throughout the war. Alas, that wasn't how it worked. [;)]

If your view of the game (ie your philosophy of the game) is that you are only able to make the decisions available to the real war Generals than you are correct. But again, my philosophy is that I am Stalin/Hitler and the high command and for that matter the lower command from Divisional Leaders on up. Otherise you have to put all sorts of restrictions into the game; including ones that will adversely affect the Axis later on.

I'm not saying your philosophy is wrong, just that it is not what I personally want to see in a game.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Kronolog

Since I want to be totally in command (maybe I am a megolomaniac) I don't want to be restricted by what Stalin or Hitler may or may not have allowed.

The cry of generals throughout the war. Alas, that wasn't how it worked. [;)]

If your view of the game (ie your philosophy of the game) is that you are only able to make the decisions available to the real war Generals than you are correct. But again, my philosophy is that I am Stalin/Hitler and the high command and for that matter the lower command from Divisional Leaders on up. Otherise you have to put all sorts of restrictions into the game; including ones that will adversely affect the Axis later on.

I'm not saying your philosophy is wrong, just that it is not what I personally want to see in a game.

Are you really saying that Hitler and Stalin were unconstrained by any consideration? Truly you need to penetrate the facade of absolutism to find the impotence that lies behind.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
But again, my philosophy is that I am Stalin/Hitler and the high command and for that matter the lower command from Divisional Leaders on up. Otherise you have to put all sorts of restrictions into the game; including ones that will adversely affect the Axis later on.

I'm not saying your philosophy is wrong, just that it is not what I personally want to see in a game.

In WITE you are NOT playing Hitler or Stalin. You are playing a fictional Theater Commander. You command the eastern/Russian front for a side of your choosing. You are then (for the most part) handed the units, formations, and equipment to carry out your loyal duty to the one person above you in the chain of command: Hitler/Stalin.

If you want more totalitarian control, better to play War in the Pacific or wait until War in Europe is released. Those games deal with a more detailed overall war-effort level. WITE is restricted to one front only, hence you cannot control everything.

Actually I would argue that you play the Eastern Theatre Commander for the Axis but you are Stalin for the Soviets. This explains the control the Soviets have over their war production, etc. This is really the only active theater for the Soviets so it is easier to allow them the complete control.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Are you really saying that Hitler and Stalin were unconstrained by any consideration? Truly you need to penetrate the facade of absolutism to find the impotence that lies behind.

That is not what I am saying at all. I want the game to contain every constraint on the German Leadership and the Russian Leadership that they historically had to deal with. But then let me as that Leader decide how to employ the resources available to me. So I don't, for example, want the Russians to be able to move more men, equipment and factories by rail than they could historically. Just give me the historical capacity and I'll decide how to use it. Similarly, as the Germans, I want to face the exact (or as exact as the simulation can make it) logistical problems that the Germans faced.

What I personally don't care for is when, for example, someone complains that the Russians are running away and they shouldn't be allowed to do that because Stalin would have had the generals shot if they did. If running away is the best Russian strategy (and I'm not saying it is) then I say let him go ahead and run. If you or others feel that there should be consequences for that running, then those consequences can be discussed.

My main point though is that if you give the Soviets and the Germans the same freedom of action they both had historically (which is what I want) then, assuming good players on both sides, the Soviets should win the game. The reason for this is that to win all they have to do is match history and historically they made more mistakes than the Germans.

ORIGINAL: Schmart

In WITE you are NOT playing Hitler or Stalin. You are playing a fictional Theater Commander. You command the eastern/Russian front for a side of your choosing. You are then (for the most part) handed the units, formations, and equipment to carry out your loyal duty to the one person above you in the chain of command: Hitler/Stalin.

As the Soviets I do have more control than even a Theater Commander would have in that I have limtied control over production and complete control over what factories get evacuated and when. But I get your point. I have no problem taking the role STAVKA or GHQ, so long as the game allows me the freedom to do whatever could have been done without my political boss interfering. To date WiTE allows this and so I am fine with the game as it is.

But again my main point is this:
1. Historically the Soviets made more mistakes (especially early in the War) than the Germans.
2. Historically the Russians captured Berlin in May 45.
3. With equal opponents the Russians will generally not make more mistakes than the Germans. In particular they will not lose 3.5 million men (with equipment) in 1941.
4. Therefore, if the game properly models the real war, the Russians should do better than they did historically. Which means capturing Berlin before May 1945.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

If you disagree, why?

If you agree, what, if anything, do you think should be done about it.

I think the problem with the strategic side of the game is that the German can squeeze 20% improvement (over historical distance covered and losses Germany suffers) out of the freedom enabled by the game in 1941, whereas the Soviet Side can squeeze about 50% improvement (speaking to losses, saved industry, and army/air force organizational efficiency improvements) out of the freedom in 1941.

Thus, to me, WitE hands Germany a net 30% disadvantage over history in 1941, and that will be leveraged into further disadvantage in subsequent years.  It is a recipe for me for an unenjoyable game, and for now at least, I've started my last game.  I won't play Soviet because it's still too easy.  I won't play Germany again because it's just not worth the time investment for the frustrating impotence you are handcuffed with, forced to deal with watching the Soviet scurry eastward just fast enough that you can't do anything meaningful (like damage factories or capture manpower) about it.  The game positions Germany as a support player to the Soviet orchestra.

The fact that combat engine has already been abandoned for War in the West doesn't really inspire me to believe that its effects are working out evenly between German and the Soviets, either. 

It does look like WitE is something of a Panther D, possibly destined for much greater things if developed further. We were the guinea pigs, but unlike some real dogs I've bought, I can't say I haven't enjoyed the ride.

I think the problem with the strategic side of the game is that the German can squeeze 20% improvement (over historical distance covered and losses Germany suffers) out of the freedom enabled by the game in 1941, whereas the Soviet Side can squeeze about 50% improvement (speaking to losses, saved industry, and army/air force organizational efficiency improvements) out of the freedom in 1941.

Thus, to me, WitE hands Germany a net 30% disadvantage over history in 1941, and that will be leveraged into further disadvantage in subsequent years. It is a recipe for me for an unenjoyable game, and for now at least, I've started my last game. I won't play Soviet because it's still too easy. I won't play Germany again because it's just not worth the time investment for the frustrating impotence you are handcuffed with, forced to deal with watching the Soviet scurry eastward just fast enough that you can't do anything meaningful (like damage factories or capture manpower) about it.

(sorry for the poor english I'm not a native english-speaker)
I couldn't agree more: I have identified precisely the same problem

However, although I am no "german fanboy" or anything like that, I believe the "margin of improvement" to be of a very different nature for Germans and Russians. If, for the Wehrmacht, the improvement lies in strategic and operational issues, ultimately a question of decisions, for the Red Army the improvement actually implies a radically different doctrine : in other words, if playing better, as the German, consists in making better strategic and operational decisions, which is not historically implausible, and therefore fits in a simulation model, playing better as the Russian consists in mastering the principle of elastic and in-depth defence from the very beginning of the campaign, which is, according to me, historically implausible to say the least.
Indeed, the Red Army was conceived as an offensive army. Its physiognomy was determined by its offensive doctrine, that had been honed since its birth
back in the early days of the Revolution, and had know significant theoretical developemnt in the early 30's. This offensive doctrine impregnated the training of every officer, from the General Staff downwards to the platoon commander.
So I believe that the offensive disposition of the Red Army, and therefore its incapacity to implement the sort of optimum strategy that WITE players favour, is a sort of in-built, inherent, characteristic. And in the same way WITE as a simulation respects the material characteristics of the equipment and all - Sturmgeschützen don't fly - the Red Army should not be allowed to do something it was intrinsically incapable of doing: it took one full-year of experiencing disastrous counter-attacks, forced retreats and routs, and being bashed to bits before the Red Army started to integrate the principle and value of retreat as a deliberate element of its operational doctrine.
Now, all this could be splitting hairs, but I think this could provide us with a consistent reason to narrow this "margin of improvemnt" of the Red Army, that, obviously, hurts the game a little.
Indeed, I believe, and this is the only reason why I mention this, that if the German could inflict closer to reality 1941 casualties, probably by creating the large historical pockets such as are never seen in a game with a half-competent Russian player, the game would be a lot more tense, including , and maybe especially in 1942.
Now, how to constrain the strategic and operational freedom of the Red Army in game-terms?
Some have suggested fewer movemnt points (preferably a randomized reduction) and that isn't a bad idea, but it wouldn't invite to much counter-attacking anyway.
What I thought of is something like, randomly assigning (maybe modified by the pol rating of the leader) some sectors/HQ's/a mixture of both to the AI at the very beginning of the Russian turn (with the AI set on "aggressive mode"). This would account for the silly counter-attack and no-retreat orders, whose implementation, and ensuing failure, were a necessary step in the maturation of the Red Army. This would still create interesting dilemmas, such as abandoning the units that counter-attacked to their fate, or somehow try and protect them from being encircled, at the risk of suffering more. We could also include a "disobedience" sub-game, where the leader rolls his political rating in order to be freed from the obligation (failure would implie removal/execution). This, of course, could be applicable to the Germans later in the war (how else would precious leaders such as Guderian and Manstein be disposed of in a normal WITE game?)
Obviously, this "overtaking by the AI" would gradually diminish with time. But I think that allowing some premature wasting of Soviet offensive potential à la Kharkov offensive would also be beneficial to the game and to how long it can remain a tense and interesting challenge. Indeed, that fact that it seems more or less admitted (am I right?) that the best Soviet strategy is the general withdrawal without ever initiating combat, and then hoarding forces until in a position to launch an unstoppable juggernaut poses a real problem in terms of intensity and interactivity, and leads to justified comments and loss of interest such as the one I quoted
Anyway, that was just brainstorming, awaiting for the enlightened judgement of the Community...

Aaah the control thing again =). I love this argument. Spent years designing the perfect AI to combat it.
lets address the salient points:
1. Complete control of strategy.
Even in a game like WITE its perfectly doable but you would need one of the crazies from Blitz wargaming to draw up the mod. Basically you start the game and are presented with a menu that presents choices for strategy. By strategy i mean colonization, division into ethnic regions, limited objective - ( ukraine, baltics, oilfields, mideast ) or total conquest, etc...
This generates your victory conditions and the length of the game.
Follow this by selecting tactics which will in turn set up your force composition and industry.
Finally choose your objectives from the list given when you chose victory conditions. This helps the AI to set up assuming the AI hasnt been asleep during your planning. The AI will respond to all your choices and select a counter strategy. All done go play.

Guru for a guy who doesn't speak English as his first language, that was well-reasoned and clearly expressed.

Hello

I have been reading this thread with interest before deciding whether to spend £61 (ouch!)on this game. The game certainly seems to be the "daddy". I acknowledge Harrybanna's conceptual conundrum but I am fine with a game that sets me up as a theatre commander, rather than as supreme commander. The points made about the opportunity for either side's improvement on historical performance by player action are particularly interesting.

The difference between actual historical 1941 actions and those of a sensible player are stark. I recall being faced with the same problems when playing AH's Russian Front board game many years ago. AH tried to solve the problem by requiring the removal from play of all original 1941 units by X date; or that they be replaced by a reinforcement unit which cost replacement points. I don't suggest these method as being directly applicable.

What I do suggest as a possible method for dealing with the problem of 1941 counter-doctrinal Soviet flight, is that units remain within a given area (military district) until a given date. Ending a turn (or two) outside of their military district would result in losses and/or destruction.

Is this just a 1941 problem? In other words, it isn't relevant if you start in 1942 onwards?

Cheers