Matrix Games Forums

During the war, it was a common practice for the Germans to dismantle some divisions and attach them to those battered divisions, like the 281 Security Division absorbed into the 281 Infantry Division. When some divisions were battered so badly, they were withdrawn from the front line. However, there were not enough equipment to replenish the loss. Thus they were reorganized to a completely different TOE, like 5, 8, 28 Infantry Divisions becoming Jager Divisions.

Situations prevail choices.

Once the first die is rolled, it can be guaranteed that the situations in the game will be completely different from the history. I play much better than Hilter. Risk and casualty are weighted. 5,8,28 Infantry Divisions will not be badly damaged. If it is played by computer vs computer of which it is programed, it may have a slim chance to duplicate the history. The exact is still questionable.

It would be much better if the player has the authority to redesignate the TOE to any on-map units, to refuse the withdrawal or perhaps allowing alternatives, to rename the unit as needed, to control the production, to initiate the waves rather than by scripts. The scripts may be used. Allow the player to say no, perhaps. It will save me a lot of time.

I play much better than Hilter.

What an odd thing to say

I've sung that concept since a while - and one of the main reasons for which I refrain to play without TB management.

In my current game as Russians the 'Crimean Front' is going to get removed or disbanded because ... well historically Crimea fell in '42 to the Germans.
But in that game the Crimean is still firmly in Russian hands as of now!
Given - in the game itself I can simply put there the 'Stalingrad Front' and it is not really relevant but it gives the idea.

One of the 'deal breakers' for WITE-1 for me it was the forced withdrawals of units that were ... withdrew due to historical conditions.
Exactly as if a Stalingrad pocket happens 1 month earlier - from the logical viewpoint the transport planes would make way there 1 month earlier.
But everything is stupidily rigid to what was historical - and somehow it is forgotten on the path of game designing that the 'historical conditions' that led to some decisions to be taken ... may not be there at all.

AlbertN wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 3:52 pm ....

One of the 'deal breakers' for WITE-1 for me it was the forced withdrawals of units that were ... withdrew due to historical conditions.
Exactly as if a Stalingrad pocket happens 1 month earlier - from the logical viewpoint the transport planes would make way there 1 month earlier.
But everything is stupidily rigid to what was historical - and somehow it is forgotten on the path of game designing that the 'historical conditions' that led to some decisions to be taken ... may not be there at all.

its quite feasible to create a conditional set of rules in the editor for these, if you had the time you could sit down with pretty much every reinforcement and removal for both sides, identify the historical reasons why that unit was moved and create a rule that mirrored that situation.

individuallly, these would be fairly easy, you can use the Finnish/Leningrad rules as your template.

now, there are a lot of them, each set of rules would need to be tested both for internal accuracy, that it doesn't fire at an equally 'unrealistic' time or utterly unbalance the game (and here, as ever, I mean 1941-45 not T1-10). So its probably best done as a mod as development time is seriously limited but I'm sure if well done it could be picked up and many people would use it.

Its like a lot of the suggestions around conditionality. its interesting, in theory I think its the way to go, the capacity in the editor definitely is there. It allows something more than VP to be in play if a given location is taken early or late, or the Western Allies stall or accelerate etc. But its time - time to do, time to test, time to make sure its not setting off more hares than it resolves?