Assault HQ's (no new games for me until addressed)

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

Re: HYLA and unstoppable fury.

It's a more general observation about two common axis balance views.

1st, there is a common, if wildly inaccurate, position taken that basically goes (with some hyperbole) "the German army was an unquenchable meat grinder advancing to victory everywhere, so if I can't, it must be broken".

There is also a second, more refined, camp. It basically holds that while the relative combat power of the units shouldn't be adjusted lightly (Through means direct or otherwise), the highest value in the game is tactical/technical excellence. If you can be technically excellent with units and still can't win, they would say, then the balance must be off.

I think both positions miss the idea that WITE, far more than it's predecessor, is a game about big decisions. It's not immediately apparent, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you can rarely tactical your way out of a wrong call operationally, or only at great cost in time and readiness. That is frankly a pretty good representation of the east..it shouldn't matter if you're Tyrone or an average player, a single panzer corps trying to do ballet should be a battered, broken thing that fails.

Was it not you that had the "unstoppable fury" about hasty attacks in Beta Glorious Ruse? That "unstoppable fury" was deep. It is the same passion & breed from the same mother.

So, I guess you are right in your first sentence, "Re: HYLA and unstoppable fury". But you have not a clue why since your next two para's tells me what you think. I will tell you why. I love the game, both sides! I love to see more people playing and progressing in the game. I post what I post for others to further their thinking and get more involved. I don't have to spends hours on end during the day to post AAR's comments and pictures for my health. Personally, I don't give a rats rear end if I lose or win. I even said so at the very beginning of my AAR that I was going to lose but I was going to try anyway to win because I like to win, as anyone should. I try and give hope to either side when there is little in the game to new players. I did this in WITE1 taking up the Soviet side to show it can be done. Maybe I am naive and just should slink back into my hole and not help anyone with my 2 cents worth of comments in my AAR. So yea, I have an "unstoppable fury" to try and make suggestions to a game that is enjoyable for both sides no matter what the side they play giving insight into what I do either right or wrong and suggestions on what could be wrong in current ruleset for people to learn from.

References:

Glorious Ruse on "Hasty Attack" in Beta (only accessible if you have BETA access (don't get me wrong this was a very good discussion same that we are having here). https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4963130

Me trying to show how a Soviet can try and win in WITE1. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4309050

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I have taken up a 2nd challenge and I will be posting our game settings in a new AAR thread. We will be using Motorization with a twist & Assault HQ's for both sides in current talks. My opponent proposed an idea of Soviets getting Assault HQ's after certain events take place on the field of battle. He is posing that question to others at the moment to get feedback on a forum. I.E. Soviets get first Assault HQ when Smolensk or Kiev falls or both at the same time if Smolensk and Kiev falls at the same time. We are still working out the details but this may be an option. Currently the Assault HQ's are still full use from the get go.

[GloriousRuse]

In this case the "unstoppable fury" is a reference to it as a game mechanic. Not an actual poster's emotional state. As in "unstoppable panzer fury"; (the last word I now see is not in my original post) - it's a bleed over from e-mail conversations where I've used "unstoppable panzer fury" to be shorthand for a camp that believes so long as the panzers are handled well, they should be able to execute a reasonably continuous blitzkrieg regardless of reasonable correlation of forces or soviet execution. Specifically, it was a topic call to answering this:

What is the "right game mechanics which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer" you are talking about????

Not as in "HYLA has unstoppable fury". Rather "For HYLA, re: the game mechanic of unstoppable fury."

As for stacked hasties, I still think they are bad for the game, but that would look something like "Re: HYLA and Triple Hasties"

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

In this case the "unstoppable fury" is a reference to it as a game mechanic. Not an actual poster's emotional state. As in "unstoppable panzer fury"; (the last word I now see is not in my original post) - it's a bleed over from e-mail conversations where I've used "unstoppable panzer fury" to be shorthand for a camp that believes so long as the panzers are handled well, they should be able to execute a reasonably continuous blitzkrieg regardless of reasonable correlation of forces or soviet execution. Specifically, it was a topic call to answering this:

What is the "right game mechanics which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer" you are talking about????

Not as in "HYLA has unstoppable fury". Rather "For HYLA, re: the game mechanic of unstoppable fury."

As for stacked hasties, I still think they are bad for the game, but that would look something like "Re: HYLA and Triple Hasties"

Oh, thank you for clarifying I didn't think about the old post. But yeah you aren't going to have a continuous Blitz & you do have to weigh you options in WITE2 which makes it a very nice game. We will have growing pains for sure.

Again thank you for clarifying this for me.

[guctony]

Hii I would like to discuss Assault HQ Moderation here as I guess most people will provide input faster than new features page.

Currently I am the candidate for Hard Luck Yet Again's a.k.a.(HLYA) new game.

We kinda sorted out Motorization with neat House rules and now looking ways to House Rules for Assault HQs.

I first like to suggest that Assault HQ's should be considered as a part of National Will of respective countries. Even this is not defined/Intended by Developers. The best way to define Assault HQ is in my opinion.

In this regards a national will might sometime might over come local difficulties such as logistics etc. In this regards German Assault HQ's represent German Soldier/Army will to achieve a quick Victory. Where as Soviet Assault fronts Represent Soviet Army/Country will to Survive. So I come up with a suggestion where the Capture of Smolensk or Kiev to trigger first Assault HQ. As Soviets realized that this is going to be hard war so their tenacity went up. This is something really hard to impose in to a game. I am not Russian But I have spend quite a bit of time there for work and I can tell you There are the most easy going people up to point But if you cross a certain line their are unimaginable Beast To deal with. I respect this before I went there and I now respect even more.

So for the second Assault HQ I also suggest that we make a 20x20 hex square around Moscow As a Boundary where if German units reach this Boundary it will activate the second Assault Front. Also Capture of Leningrad should also activate 2nd assault front.

And Finally When Shock fronts arrived For sure Assault HQ's should be both available.

What do you thinks guys.

By The way Additional to above arrangement I also strongly consider that Germans 5th Assault HQ should be link to Capture of Kiev And Smolensk, and the 6th Assault HQ should be link to capture of Moscow or Leningrad.

[AlbertN]

I'd leave Germans with 6 Assault HQ, but with the limit of 27 Command Point. (I'd review the Command Point in general and equalize the cost of Division to 2 though, be it Division or 3 Regiments as part of the same division).

You can give it a go with the Soviet ones that way. But I'd suggest a longer line of 'targets' than Smolensk and Kiev (Litterally a 'line' of cities going from north to south), and make that Germany requires X targets out of Y.
Otherwise the Axis could deliberately avoid taking Kiev and besiege it and rush onward toward DneprCity and Stalino for instance. Etc.

Soviet Assault HQs too should be consrtained to their regular (non Assault) Command Capacity.

I am not expert enough though but I feel Soviets should not have 2 Assault HQ in '41. And only 1 in '42.
But I am severely affected by some AARs I see where the Panzer divisions are just pins in the game of bowling of the Soviets.

[guctony]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I'd leave Germans with 6 Assault HQ, but with the limit of 27 Command Point. (I'd review the Command Point in general and equalize the cost of Division to 2 though, be it Division or 3 Regiments as part of the same division).

You can give it a go with the Soviet ones that way. But I'd suggest a longer line of 'targets' than Smolensk and Kiev (Litterally a 'line' of cities going from north to south), and make that Germany requires X targets out of Y.
Otherwise the Axis could deliberately avoid taking Kiev and besiege it and rush onward toward DneprCity and Stalino for instance. Etc.

Soviet Assault HQs too should be consrtained to their regular (non Assault) Command Capacity.

I am not expert enough though but I feel Soviets should not have 2 Assault HQ in '41. And only 1 in '42.
But I am severely affected by some AARs I see where the Panzer divisions are just pins in the game of bowling of the Soviets.

I would prefer 4 Assault HQ for Germans until they capture Smolensk or Kiev. Yes they might delay the
capture of these cities but it will hurt them more than Soviets. Both city is desperately needed to push forward. Dnepr or Stalino would not justify Delay on Kiev. If Germans pick up Dnepr or Stalino early on their time table for Kursk or Tula will never work in terms of Railroad repair. But Early capture of Kiev or Smolensk is bells ringing for Moscow and Kursk Basin.

I don't agree to limiting Command capacity of Assault HQ's. For me its about creating one advancing party and one resting party within the Assault HQ. I think the Successful German commander is the one utilizing this method all along Panzer Groups. That's why I assume Command capacity of Assault HQ is almost double. We need to learn playing in interlaying layers in Attack. This is extremely historical. and necessary for success.

[Karri]

Since Assault HQs are specialised units, wouldn't it make sense to use APs to attach and detach units to them? That would limit any exploits of switching out worn-out units to fresh ones on the fly. It would also make Aps useful, as right now they just pretty much accumulate with no use (even for Soviets who need to use them to build units).

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...

Some infantry in the Panzer armies is historical, as many people have said over sized assault HQs are not.
As to whether that is significant and if it is going to cause an Axis victory is an open question.

Whatever issues there are with the game, and there are always going to be many, I do not go along with the view that it is seriously broken. Better play is gaining an advantage most of the time and if there are things that are not right, like the assault HQs, it still takes good play to make use of them. For me the game is eminently playable as it is and I would hope it will continue to be going forwards.

Nice reasoning above and on the mark for what is currently a very unrealistic mechanic in the game, IMO.


What is the reasoning for Assault HQ getting a Command over load bonus? Does that respective HQ all of a sudden have better control, and the limits of Command no longer apply and magically the Commander and Staff can plan and organize better. This is totally unrealistic. I still ask, what exactly are these two concepts meant to represent? If it is planning time/organization, I can understand that to a certain degree, but not the massive increases in Command and Control and Combat Power CCP gives a HQs and units.

The limits of effective Command and Control (C2) should be on an exponentially sliding scale, the more subordinates you have, the less effective Command and Control (C2) will be/is. Doctrinally in NATO countries, 3-4 Combat Units is ideal, beyond this you start to see a degradation of effective C2. The reason C2 is degraded, (and I would say exponentially degraded) is as you increase beyond 4 or 5 units the overwilling complexity in controlling/managing that organization becomes too much for the organization to effectively support, and control. (BTW, for the record, Military C2 is nothing like civilian management where you may have one "manager" over many more people or organizations than 3 or 4.) So the bonus that Assault HQs gives is unrealistic in expanding C2.

Last more to the point of this thread, why do the Russians even have access to Assault HQs in the Summer and Fall of 41 at all? Last few books I read, I do not recall any Soviet Front Offensives that were coordinated to the degree the bonus of Assault HQs and CCP would give a Soviet Front HQ. In July 41 there are several examples of Soviet Fronts HQs that had no idea where their subordinate units were, much less plan a well coordinated Offensive. yes they launched many attacks, some even were effective near and around Smolensk, but not well coordinated Front level Offensives.

[Zemke]

Heck , if you wanted a realistic game machinic, the Soviets should not even be able to C2 a certain % of units due to very poor Command and Control in June and July. This is why you see them abolish the Corps and consolidate divisions at Army level command, and this is not exactly an ideal solution either, as this puts those Armies at the limits of their own effective C2 capabilities. There were just not enough trained Commanders and Staff Officers to effectively C2 those Corps. This was due to several factors most here are aware of, the huge increases in the Soviet Army prior to the war, (Calling up over 1 million reservists), lack of enough experienced Officers, killing 30+% of your Officer Corps does not help, and the purge only reinforces a lack of initiative. It becomes common for Leadership up and down the Chain of Command to NOT take any risks and pass the decision on to higher, which leads to very slow decision making and planning and a tendency to ask permission for even the simplest decisions. This C2 problem within the Soviet Army only contributes to the ability of the Germans to encircle those Soviet forces. The Soviet Soldiers fought very bravely but were let down by very poor leadership at all levels of command. You can be very brave and fight to the end, which does have a certain effectiveness, but is not a substitute for being well trained and well lead.

[RedJohn]

I really like the proposed idea of tying assault HQs/fronts to the taking of key cities. This also ties in with the VP system quite well. Combine that with some adjustments and I think we have a far more equitable arrangement for everyone.

[glenhope]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Heck , if you wanted a realistic game machinic, the Soviets should not even be able to C2 a certain % of units due to very poor Command and Control in June and July. This is why you see them abolish the Corps and consolidate divisions at Army level command, and this is not exactly an ideal solution either, as this puts those Armies at the limits of their own effective C2 capabilities. There were just not enough trained Commanders and Staff Officers to effectively C2 those Corps. This was due to several factors most here are aware of, the huge increases in the Soviet Army prior to the war, (Calling up over 1 million reservists), lack of enough experienced Officers, killing 30+% of your Officer Corps does not help, and the purge only reinforces a lack of initiative. It becomes common for Leadership up and down the Chain of Command to NOT take any risks and pass the decision on to higher, which leads to very slow decision making and planning and a tendency to ask permission for even the simplest decisions. This C2 problem within the Soviet Army only contributes to the ability of the Germans to encircle those Soviet forces. The Soviet Soldiers fought very bravely but were let down by very poor leadership at all levels of command. You can be very brave and fight to the end, which does have a certain effectiveness, but is not a substitute for being well trained and well lead.

This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

[guctony]

ORIGINAL: glenhope

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Heck , if you wanted a realistic game machinic, the Soviets should not even be able to C2 a certain % of units due to very poor Command and Control in June and July. This is why you see them abolish the Corps and consolidate divisions at Army level command, and this is not exactly an ideal solution either, as this puts those Armies at the limits of their own effective C2 capabilities. There were just not enough trained Commanders and Staff Officers to effectively C2 those Corps. This was due to several factors most here are aware of, the huge increases in the Soviet Army prior to the war, (Calling up over 1 million reservists), lack of enough experienced Officers, killing 30+% of your Officer Corps does not help, and the purge only reinforces a lack of initiative. It becomes common for Leadership up and down the Chain of Command to NOT take any risks and pass the decision on to higher, which leads to very slow decision making and planning and a tendency to ask permission for even the simplest decisions. This C2 problem within the Soviet Army only contributes to the ability of the Germans to encircle those Soviet forces. The Soviet Soldiers fought very bravely but were let down by very poor leadership at all levels of command. You can be very brave and fight to the end, which does have a certain effectiveness, but is not a substitute for being well trained and well lead.

This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

Hii I think a part of the argument is coming from that we are only discussing Objective part of game and History. Where as Subjective part of the History is Hard to infuse in to game. Its even hard bring these Historical Facts with solid statistics.

For Subjective titles, Consider Soviet Patriotisms in individual level, Soviets capacity to defend positions against all odds, Their way of life is used to hardships and hard conditions, level of communist Dogma infused it to their system. These subjects can never be scientifically infused in to game/simulation.

Same can be told for Germans They are not patriots but instead they are Nationalistic in my point of view. They are organized, capable of bringing order and initiative over critical situations in individual level.

I will define this subjective title as National will of respective countries.

Consider this if German Soldiers were not to be in belief in their Leaders and National Goals could they really wonder in to Soviet Russia in 1941 in such effectiveness. Do we need to believe human factor is out of the table and in reality a simulation can simulate all these effects.

Many books and memories recall the one single persons decisive action changing course of war bit by bit.

Anyways in short I assume or imagine Assault HQ are reflection of National Will in some way even if the DEV's wont agree with me.

Also Like some other people mentioned If people want to repeat 1941 to 45 as historically as possible they should watch movies or read books. This is a game/Simulation and any smallest deviation from original path will bring completely different Results.

I don't assume Its DEV's responsibility bring the Game/Simulation in to such a pre-organized Scrip that every time we have reach in to same result. This is no longer a simulation/game.

They give us the tools to make whatever we like the rest is something between opponents open discussion and DIALOGUE. These will bring better results and fair competition.

If you don't want to fight against a Sir Robin declare it before hand. But at the same time If you find a Sir Robin try to beat him/Her in his/Her own game until you succeed.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: glenhope

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Heck , if you wanted a realistic game machinic, the Soviets should not even be able to C2 a certain % of units due to very poor Command and Control in June and July. This is why you see them abolish the Corps and consolidate divisions at Army level command, and this is not exactly an ideal solution either, as this puts those Armies at the limits of their own effective C2 capabilities. There were just not enough trained Commanders and Staff Officers to effectively C2 those Corps. This was due to several factors most here are aware of, the huge increases in the Soviet Army prior to the war, (Calling up over 1 million reservists), lack of enough experienced Officers, killing 30+% of your Officer Corps does not help, and the purge only reinforces a lack of initiative. It becomes common for Leadership up and down the Chain of Command to NOT take any risks and pass the decision on to higher, which leads to very slow decision making and planning and a tendency to ask permission for even the simplest decisions. This C2 problem within the Soviet Army only contributes to the ability of the Germans to encircle those Soviet forces. The Soviet Soldiers fought very bravely but were let down by very poor leadership at all levels of command. You can be very brave and fight to the end, which does have a certain effectiveness, but is not a substitute for being well trained and well lead.

This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

Incompetent enough to simplify the command structure, like removing corps. And keep Leningrad and Moscow.

Shall we force German incompetence as well? Like diverting AGC's two panzer groups north and south by Directive 33 issued on July 19th 1941?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: guctony

Also Like some other people mentioned If people want to repeat 1941 to 45 as historically as possible they should watch movies or read books. This is a game/Simulation and any smallest deviation from original path will bring completely different Results.

This this and more this. I didn't buy this game only to have people want to force the Soviet players to play like Stalin while not playing like Hitler. Or the opposite.

Already have the books that tell me how it played out in history. Why spend $80 on a game to get the same result as a $40 book?

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: guctony

Also Like some other people mentioned If people want to repeat 1941 to 45 as historically as possible they should watch movies or read books. This is a game/Simulation and any smallest deviation from original path will bring completely different Results.

This this and more this. I didn't buy this game only to have people want to force the Soviet players to play like Stalin while not playing like Hitler. Or the opposite.

Already have the books that tell me how it played out in history. Why spend $80 on a game to get the same result as a $40 book?

In fairness, when I first got the game I was struggling to meet the minimum against the AI as Axis. I can now do that easy enough, although winter is still something of a mess, but getting better at managing that. I learned how the logistics system worked, pretty much have that down. Playing the Soviets against the AI seems, well not as hard as the Germans frankly, the few times I have played them.

I hope with time maybe I can get better against a Human, but I doubt it. People are smart, and are going to fall back, get their Assault HQs on the main axis of advance, bleed the Germans. Playing 3 HvH games as Germans and against various skill levels players, all have pretty much done the same general thing, because that is the logical thing to do. That seems rather scripted to me if three different people are doing the same thing generally. Soviet players fall back, preserve combat power and men as much as possible, which is smart. Not sure I will be able to stop an early loss in all three games, we will see.

My point is the game is already scripted, by it's very nature it will be. Soviets using their Ast HQs is the logical smart move, every game. To the main point of the this thread, if you want a balanced game, then changes need to be made. I am only stating that IF changes are made, make them realistic and fact based.

WitE2 kind of feels like the Russians in 41 are what they were in WitE1 in 42, and playing the AI, the Russians in 42 feel like WitE1 in 43, and by 44 I am hard pressed to hold the Russians at all, despite inflicting much higher loses than historically took place. So something is off, is all some of us are saying. How the designers address it, if they do, is up to them. I would just prefer a realistic approach. However I KNOW the designers will not scrap the Ast HQ system or CCP, it is central to the entire WitE2 core system.

But...the following seem easy adjustments that are historical.

1. Take away Soviet Ast HQs at the start of the game. Give them their first one in Dec 41. (Seems Historical)
2. Reduce German Ast HQs to 4. (Like I have said, still not sure what these Aslt HQs represent, but whatever)
3. Increase German Exp and Moral at the very start, June 22 1941 to compensate for the two lost Ast HQs.
4. I think this would be interesting and historical, (but doubt it would get implemented). No perfect Command and Control (C2). If you think in real war, that units move when and where you want every time, you are mistaken. To move or control a unit, it would have to make a C2 check, based on the distance of the HQ to the unit, the moral and fatigue of the unit, the Commander's various ratings and date during the war. For example in June and July, the Soviets would have a much higher chance of this happening, and as time went on, less for the Soviets, while increasing for the Germans.

Concept #4 would inject a bit of randomness, (that is realistic and historically based) that alone could change (for the better IMO) the entire complexion of the game. No longer could a player reliably plan perfect moves or retreat all units in. In during the Winter of 41, some German units could just and retreat on their own, which did happen. Lots so possibilities with something like this.

However all the above said, I do understand that with this game, changes in one place can and do bring second and third order effects elsewhere in the programing, and often will mess something else up, so changes take time to implement and test.

Last, it is not like I do not like this game, just the opposite, I LOVE this game. I just want it to be the best war game / simulation it can be for the Eastern Front in WW II at the level it represents. I want it to be as good as "War in the Pacific: AE" is, that good. WitP:AE sucks you in so many ways. I want WitE2 to be like that, like Loki was saying, the just beyond reach feeling when you do each turn.

[guctony]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: guctony

Also Like some other people mentioned If people want to repeat 1941 to 45 as historically as possible they should watch movies or read books. This is a game/Simulation and any smallest deviation from original path will bring completely different Results.

This this and more this. I didn't buy this game only to have people want to force the Soviet players to play like Stalin while not playing like Hitler. Or the opposite.

Already have the books that tell me how it played out in history. Why spend $80 on a game to get the same result as a $40 book?

In fairness, when I first got the game I was struggling to meet the minimum against the AI as Axis. I can now do that easy enough, although winter is still something of a mess, but getting better at managing that. I learned how the logistics system worked, pretty much have that down. Playing the Soviets against the AI seems, well not as hard as the Germans frankly, the few times I have played them.

I hope with time maybe I can get better against a Human, but I doubt it. People are smart, and are going to fall back, get their Assault HQs on the main axis of advance, bleed the Germans. Playing 3 HvH games as Germans and against various skill levels players, all have pretty much done the same general thing, because that is the logical thing to do. That seems rather scripted to me if three different people are doing the same thing generally. Soviet players fall back, preserve combat power and men as much as possible, which is smart. Not sure I will be able to stop an early loss in all three games, we will see.

My point is the game is already scripted, by it's very nature it will be. Soviets using their Ast HQs is the logical smart move, every game. To the main point of the this thread, if you want a balanced game, then changes need to be made. I am only stating that IF changes are made, make them realistic and fact based.

WitE2 kind of feels like the Russians in 41 are what they were in WitE1 in 42, and playing the AI, the Russians in 42 feel like WitE1 in 43, and by 44 I am hard pressed to hold the Russians at all, despite inflicting much higher loses than historically took place. So something is off, is all some of us are saying. How the designers address it, if they do, is up to them. I would just prefer a realistic approach. However I KNOW the designers will not scrap the Ast HQ system or CCP, it is central to the entire WitE2 core system.

But...the following seem easy adjustments that are historical.

1. Take away Soviet Ast HQs at the start of the game. Give them their first one in Dec 41. (Seems Historical)
2. Reduce German Ast HQs to 4. (Like I have said, still not sure what these Aslt HQs represent, but whatever)
3. Increase German Exp and Moral at the very start, June 22 1941 to compensate for the two lost Ast HQs.
4. I think this would be interesting and historical, (but doubt it would get implemented). No perfect Command and Control (C2). If you think in real war, that units move when and where you want every time, you are mistaken. To move or control a unit, it would have to make a C2 check, based on the distance of the HQ to the unit, the moral and fatigue of the unit, the Commander's various ratings and date during the war. For example in June and July, the Soviets would have a much higher chance of this happening, and as time went on, less for the Soviets, while increasing for the Germans.

Concept #4 would inject a bit of randomness, (that is realistic and historically based) that alone could change (for the better IMO) the entire complexion of the game. No longer could a player reliably plan perfect moves or retreat all units in. In during the Winter of 41, some German units could just and retreat on their own, which did happen. Lots so possibilities with something like this.

However all the above said, I do understand that with this game, changes in one place can and do bring second and third order effects elsewhere in the programing, and often will mess something else up, so changes take time to implement and test.

Last, it is not like I do not like this game, just the opposite, I LOVE this game. I just want it to be the best war game / simulation it can be for the Eastern Front in WW II at the level it represents. I want it to be as good as "War in the Pacific: AE" is, that good. WitP:AE sucks you in so many ways. I want WitE2 to be like that, like Loki was saying, the just beyond reach feeling when you do each turn.

I would like to you to kindly consider Changing Word Historical with Balanced. What you might suggesting is about balancing the Game. Not history.

Historical story is very simple Soviets did not retreat made a lot of meaningless Attacks and get Surrounded/Destroyed. Until we have an exact same run of the historical context in game we will never know what options are really Historical or not. So before having made at least 5 runs I guess we cant assume what is Historical or not.

But on the other hand we can discuss what is Balancing. First of all Sir Robin is very unbalancing. If Soviet players is a careful retreater. No matter how much you change the rules it will be always a Un-balanced game. I think only very few exceptional German players can balance Sir Robin act. But lets not consider rules that will balance Sir Robins but disbalance Soviet players with forward defense logic.

I tried in my first games the Sir Robin act. Just to understand if it was possible. And it is very easy and requires little strategic mind to perform. Now I am trying to find better opponents so not to go for Sir Robin Act. In the end if a Actor is keep playing the same Act over again and again something is wrong.

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: glenhope
This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

I disagree with you! For example, according to the plan, only a few hours were allotted to the destruction of the border guards, but many border posts held out for several days and retreated only by order. Similarly, German plans to capture many key points were thwarted. A large number of unforeseen delays in the implementation of the Barbarossa plan led to the fact that instead of a quick defeat of the Red Army in the summer, the Germans had to fight in the fall and winter, when they had problems with supplies. If it were not for the heroic resistance of the perishing in the encirclement of Soviet troops, the Germans would have fulfilled the Barbarossa plan on time and no problems with supplies and General Frost would have been terrible for them! According to the plan, in winter, German troops were to return to Germany, and not freeze without warm clothing near Moscow! Before the start of the war, no one thought that the war in Russia would drag on so long!

[AlbertN]

Because right now it is no brainer to play 'Sir Robin'.
All to gain and none to lose.

Factory evactuation is scripted, and if factories are caught - they just suffer extra damage. (Soviets are not short of constructions units to speed up repairs too).
VPs are non relevant except for specific timestamps.
The tossing troops at the enemy is non existant here due to the Logistic Limits doing it. Not to fuel some form of resistance and keeping to throw cadets, levies, untrained forces and anything you can get a hold of against the advancing enemies.

But I feel there is way more than that - Cameron made interesting points elsewhere (Which I share for the most).

The general vibe I've to the game is that it is soaked with a Pro-Soviet mindset, by a huge and far shot presently.

Which to me is simply alienating to the game.

[guctony]

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

ORIGINAL: glenhope
This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

I disagree with you! For example, according to the plan, only a few hours were allotted to the destruction of the border guards, but many border posts held out for several days and retreated only by order. Similarly, German plans to capture many key points were thwarted. A large number of unforeseen delays in the implementation of the Barbarossa plan led to the fact that instead of a quick defeat of the Red Army in the summer, the Germans had to fight in the fall and winter, when they had problems with supplies. If it were not for the heroic resistance of the perishing in the encirclement of Soviet troops, the Germans would have fulfilled the Barbarossa plan on time and no problems with supplies and General Frost would have been terrible for them! According to the plan, in winter, German troops were to return to Germany, and not freeze without warm clothing near Moscow! Before the start of the war, no one thought that the war in Russia would drag on so long!

I am sure He meant the incompetent leaders and high command because of the purges. I personally think the patriotism of soviet/Slav foot soldier is/was never under questioning. But for a certain period of time the leadership was.