So I've been playing this game relatively consistently since release. I was brought into WITE1 by a friend at the end of it's lifecycle pretty much, played a couple of games but not to the extent of WITE2. WITE1 and WITE2 have numerous differences, I believe a new engine, all the whistles and bells too like a different weather system and whatnot. One of the biggest differences is supply.
Regarding WITE1's supply, I'm not going to attempt to explain the underlying mechanics, certainly I don't understand it even after reading the errata manual - and it's been years! The same basic principle is shared between both games, though - you repair railheads and keep repairing railheads to reach the front. There were no single or dual tracks, it was all just one big rail if I recall. Certainly reopening the game and looking at the map seems to confirm this. It was relatively simple at first, though I believe further updates limited rail capacity and made it a finite number, but I'm not sure this had much of an impact on supply as far as I can see.
Anyway. It was a simple, straightforward system. As long as the rail wasn't cut and you didn't go too far from it, it looks like supply was green across the board. HQ Buildups contributed to this - essentially being like WITE2 super depots, but localised to a singular HQ (any corps could do it, and panzer armies could also do it with the occasional non-panzer army being able to, too) and it's attached units. These also let the units build up a truly humongous amount of supply and fuel. The downside is the units and HQ are locked in place, but if timed well it lets you sustain massive advances. We see an evolution of this in WITE2. Super depots, of course, are a thing, but all units themselves will accrue additional requirements beyond the needs up to I believe 150%. This is based off CPP.
In short, it was an in my opinion an effective if a bit simple system. Partisans randomly cutting rail could ruin your game, for sure, though. I do not miss those!
Which brings us to WITE2's system. As we all know, it is a vastly more complicated system involving depots and the ever unit priorities. I am constantly asking for advice when playing as axis because it's so confusing.
I have played tens of Soviet games at this point, and quite a fair few axis games. I'm hardly the most attentive player, so I lose my axis games more often than not. My soviet games however, to date, I have not lost a single one - ever. A big part of that is skill differences of course, and I have quite a lot of experience even if much of it is questionable experience. In all my hours on both sides, one of the key things I've noticed about axis player performance is that it's directly correlated with how well they can manage supply.
Now part of that is obviously a player who can manage supply is more likely to be a better player on average, as those who can't manage it will likely mismanage other things. But one of the major issues this game faces, in my opinion, is just how high that skill ceiling becomes as a result. In war in the east 1, your main focus is simply repairing rail and not getting the rail cut. This produces absolutely satisfactory results. You can, and I did, go games where that's basically all I did for supply. If you want to get fancy you can introduce air transport and HQ buildups - probably even more tricks beyond those. As a baseline however, this sufficed for the axis to maintain a consistent and steady push through the soviets.
This is not the case in war in the east 2. Firstly, you must repair the dual track rails instead. Single lines are vastly less important in 41. This in and of itself isn't really a big deal in my opinion, though I think people can certainly underestimate just how much you need to stick to the dual tracks. Occasionally you might veer off to pick up a level 2 railyard. This is another consideration.
Railyards mattered in WITE1 insofar as increasing the global rail cap (I believe) for unit movement but I don't believe this had much, if any, effect on supplies. In WITE2 level 2 railyards (not level 1, of course!) directly impact both your unit movement and supply. I could be wrong about WITE1's railyard effect, though. The manual states this, and while I personally find it a bit odd it's whatever.
The next consideration is depots. From what I understand, the optimal way to do things is to spam the everloving shit out of depots. Most of your AP as axis should go to depot spam. K62's "effective german logistics in 41" war room post states in point 3 that you should build a depot on every single town or village on the rail you're repairing. One of the most common repair routes is Lvov to Dnepropetrovsk. This line has around 23-25 towns/villages. Perhaps K62 didn't mean it quite literally, but certainly I agree with his statement that you should be building a lot of depots.
Unit priorities are the next consideration. The manual states "Setting all Units and Depots to Priority Level 4 will not make your logistical challenge simpler as there is never going to be enough for everyone to get everything."
With regards to depots, that seems to be true - though every frontline area should have prio 4 depots. It influences demand, I believe, so it's not like you put one depot in one frontline area on level 4 so it receives the majority of the supply or has some sort of preferential treatment - something I think is counter-intuitive. I'm pretty sure if you have the entire map on depot priority 1 the NSS sends out much less freight than if you had everything on 4, which seems backwards to me.
With regards to units, however? Half true. You absolutely shouldn't have every unit on priority 4. At most it'll be your Panzer corps, and prolonged use will lead to quite a bad truck loss. Probably worth it if you're careful and don't just flip it on forever. K62 argues for Panzers on 4, the rest on 3. Some others argue for Panzers on 3, the rest on 2. However which way you spin it though, certainly every unit shouldn't be on priority 4... as the Axis. The Soviets are a totally different story. Which brings me to my core issue with this supply system - it is not remotely equal, and I believe there should be an option to turn off the axis logistics penalties they start with.
My first action in all my soviet games is to crank that bad boy up to priority 4 for every unit. In my most recent Soviet game, I lost a grand total of 7753 trucks to this over Barbarossa. That's not an insignificant amount, but it's a minuscule price to pay to not have to worry about supply in the early soviet turns. Before my winter offensive (turn 26), I had 386 units on map with 14 marked as low supply. By turn 30 this had increased to 12340 truck losses, and 88 marked as low supply. Not ideal, but it's a small price to pay for good supply - certainly if you're conscious of this you just reduce it when you launch your offensive. Supply is not an issue for the soviets past the initial early turns, all the way until you start getting truck hog units and start making serious offensives. Depending on the game, you can literally flip supply priority 4 for years and not worry. The axis do not have this same luxury.
The difference between well-managed supply and poorly managed supply is quite frankly astounding, and I don't think the game does itself any favours for new axis players.
- 1477.png (338.2 KiB) Viewed 487 times
- 1478.png (662.95 KiB) Viewed 487 times
- 1479.png (635.4 KiB) Viewed 487 times
- 1480.png (802.96 KiB) Viewed 487 times
This isn't a foolproof method to determine how well the opponents supply is by any means - frankly if you're not taking casualties then there's not much to replace! But looking deeper at the freight demand we can see a stark difference.
The differences in experience really irks me, and it's no small factor in why I decided to primarily play just the Soviets. The intensity of the axis demands that you get good real fast if you're playing an opponent of equal skill, or better than you. I don't think it's possible for an axis player who's mastered all the systems to actually lose a game of WITE2, assuming they manage things well and don't make major blunders. This is a very brutal skill floor and ceiling. Of all these systems, I think the supply system (arguably CPP management, though) is the most important.
The Soviets, comparatively, have a massively lower skill floor and a slightly lower skill ceiling. At least for the early war. Supply is trivialized by supply priority 4, and far from "First man takes the rifle, second man takes the ammunition" we have Soviets wining and dining by turn 10.
I think any major changes to supply is too much of an ask at this stage of the games life, but to cut a very long winded point short - I would like to reiterate a humble request for a setting which removes the axis supply penalties for 41. In practically every game of the Soviets I've ever played, the Germans ALWAYS falter because of poor supply into a bad blizzard offensive. Blizzard conditions deserve their own thread though. I think if such an option were added, it'd certainly be a very generous axis buff that would make games a lot more competitive assuming both sides are somewhat familiar with the systems. Further house rules could limit supply priorities for both sides (though it has no real effect on the soviets from what I've noticed) to compensate, though that's not really relevant to the request.
I would be interested to hear other's thoughts. Personally I'd prefer games go the distance, and while axis players certainly quit prematurely often (lord knows I did it a lot) it's also generally obvious when the writing is on the wall. 41 blizzard is the great axis filter, and that's in large part because of supply being constrained.
