Please fix Soviet morale in 1941, its broken.

[Michael T]

Yes I agree, rail thru Rumania before they activate should be nerfed.

[Gabriel B.]

Except Romania was not neutral , that is why you can bomb soviet airbases in turn 1.

http://www.worldwar2.ro/operatii/?language=en&article=4

[mktours]

In fact, you could not rail to Romania in T1, the rail was blocked in the border of Hungry, but one could load the troops on train, so they could reach romania with more Mp left in T2, and could have full MP in T3 as they has been unloaded from train in T2. Attacking from Romania before T3 isn't a good idea as it release the soviet troops there one turn earlier than the German troops.

ORIGINAL: Toidi

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I should have some info to post by the end of this week.

That is excellent news Joel. Thanks...

And good luck with the fix!

T.

P.S. I would humble suggest to think about rail transport of German divisions through neutral Romania on turn 1... That may need to be addressed too... As well as the conditions under which the Romania & southern Soviet units wake up. I do not think that the blitz in the south (being recent favourite Axis opening) is justified, Lvov extended pocket opening is honestly bad enough...

T.

[mktours]

In my opinion, attacking from Romania before T3 isn't a good idea as it release the soviet troops there one turn earlier than the German troops. better wait for T3, so it is not a sneak attack, but a reinforced attack only, but would do more damage.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Yes I agree, rail thru Rumania before they activate should be nerfed.

[Gabriel B.]

If ags is heavily reinforced from Agc , it is very hard to outrace that, except maybe by rail .

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/542/4vh5.png/

[mktours]

the shortcoming of heavily reinforce AGS with 2PzG is that if the SHC react correctly, it could steady the situation and would benefit from it in the long run.
my suggestion for the SHC against this is to guard the Dnepr as the first line, no matter what the situation is in the west of the river, move as much troops as one can to the east bank of the river in T1, try to hold the Dnepr line as much as possible.
there is no need to nerf this opening, it is a double edge sword for the GHC.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: mktours

the shortcoming of heavily reinforce AGS with 2PzG is that if the SHC react correctly, it could steady the situation and would benefit from it in the long run.
my suggestion for the SHC against this is to guard the Dnepr as the first line, no matter what the situation is in the west of the river, move as much troops as one can to the east bank of the river in T1, try to hold the Dnepr line as much as possible.
there is no need to nerf this opening, it is a double edge sword for the GHC.

The entire first turn is deeply silly as is, and this makes it even sillier.

It's utterly indefensible. If you have a shred of historical integrity, you'd want to see it go. The south ought to see, and never does, a series of encounter battles and a grinding forward progress by AGS. This simply does not happen and Axis players have gotten so used to this preposterous state of affairs that the original Lvov opener is seen as being quite tame and they are now trying to leverage the badly designed surprise attack to bag two entire Fronts before they even activate.

It's dumb and gamey and has nothing to do with a historical wargame. Gamers and min maxers are killing the integrity of this design. It's very sad.

[darbycmcd]

I tend to agree with you. It is a problem. I wonder why this game community is so different from the WitP one. There I think players are looking for a MORE historical game experience. Players there have house rules to be more true to life, and have a general philosophy that playing in an historical way gives a more satisfying game experience. Any calls for changes are backed by, you know, evidence. Something about the East Front topic brings a more "game-ist" oriented player base. Like the current call for morale changes. Now maybe it is justified, I am not sure. But there hasn't been ANY use of historical precedent to justify it, just game play.

[mktours]

Flaviusx,
The point is, this opening does have its shortcoming, I believe MT and Saper222 could both defend it properly, I could defend it properly as well. If the SHC do correctly, then 2PZG would be locked in the south for a long time, and this is not good for the GHC in the long run.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: mktours

the shortcoming of heavily reinforce AGS with 2PzG is that if the SHC react correctly, it could steady the situation and would benefit from it in the long run.
my suggestion for the SHC against this is to guard the Dnepr as the first line, no matter what the situation is in the west of the river, move as much troops as one can to the east bank of the river in T1, try to hold the Dnepr line as much as possible.
there is no need to nerf this opening, it is a double edge sword for the GHC.

The entire first turn is deeply silly as is, and this makes it even sillier.

It's utterly indefensible. If you have a shred of historical integrity, you'd want to see it go. The south ought to see, and never does, a series of encounter battles and a grinding forward progress by AGS. This simply does not happen and Axis players have gotten so used to this preposterous state of affairs that the original Lvov opener is seen as being quite tame and they are now trying to leverage the badly designed surprise attack to bag two entire Fronts before they even activate.

It's dumb and gamey and has nothing to do with a historical wargame. Gamers and min maxers are killing the integrity of this design. It's very sad.

[Flaviusx]

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

[Gabriel B.]

I would not do it, becuse i want all PG 2 armor in the center, but for fun I tried that opening playing against myself .



Personaly, I think the soviets should fight there as foward as posible , streching german infantry to breaking point trying to fill the gap behind the panzers.

[Gunnodayak]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

I completely agree with you, and it's a pity that some things are the way they currently are, because from many points of view this game is getting closest possible to my idea of a very good WWII strategy game simulation. I may be wrong, but I believe that with some good will from the developers, some things can be corrected (Lvov pocket, morale issue, etc.).

[PMCN]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

The first time I saw an AAR with this my thought was "any german general who proposed this would be shot." My view on playing a historical wargame has been and will always be if the answer to the question "would this work in real life?" is "not on your effing life" then what are you doing it for?

The point is to re-create the situation that existed and to enjoy the challenge of experiencing (at second hand) the difficulties experienced managing the combat not to find gamey ways to "win" in my view.

I tried once playing War in the East (the PC precurser to this one) PBEM...when I found that the entire DAK had been re-equipped with italian self propelled coffins I stopped. I don't want to play fantasy battles, or fantasy general...I want a simulation of the east front or the pacific front or what have you. I don't want tactics II with blue fighting red.

Consider this just support for your point of view. Frankly because you can do something in a game like this is not always a justification for actually doing it.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

The point is to re-create the situation that existed and to enjoy the challenge of experiencing (at second hand) the difficulties experienced managing the combat not to find gamey ways to "win" in my view.

This is one way of playing the game. But I don't understand why so many people are trashing Axis players who try to think out of the box. Playing the game your way is fine but in my opinion it gets boring very quickly. Why not adept to the Axis strategy and come up with a counter? Isn't that what the game is all about.

[gingerbread]

There is a counter strategy: Run.

That's why there are so many posts about Stopping the run, Making the Soviets fight forward, Freezing the factories, etc.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

The point is to re-create the situation that existed and to enjoy the challenge of experiencing (at second hand) the difficulties experienced managing the combat not to find gamey ways to "win" in my view.

This is one way of playing the game. But I don't understand why so many people are trashing Axis players who try to think out of the box. Playing the game your way is fine but in my opinion it gets boring very quickly. Why not adept to the Axis strategy and come up with a counter? Isn't that what the game is all about.

I'm sure there is a counter to it. But at this point we've moved on to a fantasy game, not a historical wargame, and my own sense of immersion will be gone. None of what's going on is believable to me.

What's boring imo is this entire dynamic the game has fallen into: blow up the south as the Axis, the Soviets run like hell until mud. The Germans run like hell in the blizzard. Yawn. Not historical and not very interesting. There's no tension here at all, it's become rote and predictable without even the saving grace of knowing that you are experiencing the same flow of events that happened in real life.

Gamers and simulationists just won't see eye to eye here, plainly.

[Schmart]

I agree with Flavius that there can be a bit too predictable and too much gaming the system in WITE. I think that the biggest factors that need to be nerfed for 2.0 are the Lvov opening and the horribly unrealistic 1941 panzer drives by some players, and the Russian carpet defence along with the ability to maximize a fantasy Russian Army.

Players should absolutely have options and not be forced into little historical boxes. However, real life events/decisions have pros and cons, and some of the standard strategies now have little negative effect. In reality, a Lvov pocket may have been plausible, at the expense of severely limiting AGC supply for months. One Panzer Army might be able to get east of Moscow in Aug 1941, but only by stripping all transport from the other 3 Panzer Armies. The Russians might have been able to put together a smart co-ordinated defence in depth in 1941, had there been no political interference. The Russian Army OOB might have looked different if Zhukov had sat in an office the whole war instead of in the field saving Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. There just doesn't seem to be that "gee, if I do this I will suffer that" strategic option feel to WITE.

Part of the problem with as complex a game as WITE is that there can be a lot of gamey loopholes to close...

[EisenHammer]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But at this point we've moved on to a fantasy game, not a historical wargame,

This is the way I feel about it. And also the reason way I don't really play it anymore.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But at this point we've moved on to a fantasy game, not a historical wargame,

This is the way I feel about it. And also the reason way I don't really play it anymore.

I still do, but only against the AI. No Lvov. No running. No silly house rules.

Till I get bored and go back to Civ5

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

I agree with Flavius that there can be a bit too predictable and too much gaming the system in WITE. I think that the biggest factors that need to be nerfed for 2.0 are the Lvov opening and the horribly unrealistic 1941 panzer drives by some players, and the Russian carpet defence along with the ability to maximize a fantasy Russian Army.

Players should absolutely have options and not be forced into little historical boxes. However, real life events/decisions have pros and cons, and some of the standard strategies now have little negative effect. In reality, a Lvov pocket may have been plausible, at the expense of severely limiting AGC supply for months. One Panzer Army might be able to get east of Moscow in Aug 1941, but only by stripping all transport from the other 3 Panzer Armies. The Russians might have been able to put together a smart co-ordinated defence in depth in 1941, had there been no political interference. The Russian Army OOB might have looked different if Zhukov had sat in an office the whole war instead of in the field saving Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. There just doesn't seem to be that "gee, if I do this I will suffer that" strategic option feel to WITE.

Part of the problem with as complex a game as WITE is that there can be a lot of gamey loopholes to close...

You are forgetting that horribly unrealistic 1941 blizzard. Actually I think WITE against the AI with some house rules for the human player is a very enjoyable game. In my current game I had a very realistic 1941. The only drawback was the blizzard, I set Soviet morale at 60, for me to be able to defend forward. But below 110 the AI lacks aggressiveness, so it did nothing in the Moscow sector, despite its units being more than enough to push me far back. On the other hand on 110 I would have been forced to run, which would be even more ridiculous. Oh, and the combat system needs a revamp. It's ridiculous to see post-43 Soviet combat victories. Losing only 1000 out of 100.000+ while the German loses 1200 out of 10.000 men with regularity.