Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
This new patch gives a huge advantage to the Russian player.

1. The Russian army will be 1.25 million men larger by late June.
2. It will have 4 months to build forts
3. It will be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

This sets the game back to pre 1.05 where it will be fort belts, the russian player has more then enough counters on the map, they do not need to build fort zones.

Also the combat loss ratio for the Germans was hit with a NERF BAT to make up for the lose of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I don't think you have played the Soviet at all Pelton

Trust me, you won't have the AP's to build the forts

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
This new patch gives a huge advantage to the Russian player.

1. The Russian army will be 1.25 million men larger by late June.
2. It will have 4 months to build forts
3. It will be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

This sets the game back to pre 1.05 where it will be fort belts, the russian player has more then enough counters on the map, they do not need to build fort zones.

Also the combat loss ratio for the Germans was hit with a NERF BAT to make up for the lose of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

Pelton, I don't agree with you on some of your points. The four months of entrenching are almost meaningless, Level 2 forts are nearly worthless now, and the Sovs can only get higher if they spend the AP for FZs, which I think few will do. Properly set up attacking forces (German or Sov) can go through level 2 forts like a hot knife through butter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Forts make attacking from one side of the front to the other impossible after 1941.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Eh?

You won't get above level 2 unless the German player just sits there.

Again, the incentive is all on the Germans for a '42 offensive

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
In your game vs Katza if forts were worthless you beable to attack at any point, but we both know you can't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Forts make attacking from one side of the front to the other impossible after 1941.

Er, yes, but are you suggesting that it should be otherwise? I don't think that either side should be able to launch front-wide offensives during 1942-1943, they should have to make selective attacks.

quote:

Nothing is done to one side and proudly stated to be historically possible.While the other is hammered time and time again for doing things that are clealry historically possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

Nothing is done to one side and proudly stated to be historically possible.While the other is hammered time and time again for doing things that are clealry historically possible.

Ummm.. you post your commiserations to 76mm because he has stopped playing the game because of changes made that affect the Soviet side and yet you still say stuff like this. Please learn how to construct well-reasoned arguments with convincing evidence.

It is such a shame that the man who came up with the armaments factory raiding strategy that was so cool and scared so many Soviet players into surrender, cannot come up with a possible solution to a problem that has not been proved even exists!

quote:

Pelton

Its clear that patch has

Flaviusx said"You alrdy see that 1942 will be a stalemate, The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- "

1. be bigger then 1.05 by 1.25 million men
2. have 4 months to build forts
3. be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

Those are the facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it’s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that’s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi

It seems to me that now:
- thanks to relatively safe winter/spring of '42 SU can get back to the trench warfare in '42 (I'm pretty sure I can do it with some effort & engineering armies)
- Reduced armies capability is going to hurt in the long turn, but not as much as people are fearing; I have no problem with it
- vehicles are going to hurt much more than the armies reduction; even 10k reduction in vehicles in '43 for SU is hurting; fair enough
- impact of making shock/guards armies a window dressing only (as +1 admin is really not that important imho) will affect the game; maybe it is a good idea
- it seems to me that now chances for major victory for German are nil again; chances for draw are probably same or higher
- impact of weather on reinforcements (especially in blizzard) will hurt Germany a lot. This change will lead to a much more difficult blizzard defense, especially for those who like to fight in blizzard (which was pretty much achievable, not sure anymore); it is the only change I like a lot (as it removes inconsistencies), but I think it may backfire badly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

As the combat system won't be overhauled for the moment, that means the oddities of the combat system (like retreat losses probably being too high for smaller attacks and too low for big ones and wildly fluctuating Soviet losses when attacking) will be there for the future, and they can't be balanced because the problem is with the combat system, not something that's easier to balance like replacements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

March Madness is a side effect of the too permissive logistics in WITE.

IMO the current March Madness is a result of overextended Soviets low on supply meeting well supplied Blizzard-sheltered Germans. The results are not unreasonable. "March-Madness" isn't occurring with German units that had to man the line, that would be unreasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colberki

I just hope WITE does not end up like many games especially those from Russian or Eastern European developers where the Germans (in the game) are destined to lose. It maybe not politically correct for the Germans to win but this is a game. But this new rule reducing German CV during the winter of 1941-42 is feeling like the last straw for me. And I have been enjoying playing both German and Soviet sides - seems GG is giving in the the ever vocal minority on the forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil


I think these changes will lower dynamics of fighting in '42. Germans will be less able to attack, but it will take more time to mount serious offensive by Red Army. So both sides will grow grow and grow while front remain static.

I hope I am wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sj80

I think Kamil and Pelton are right. 1942 will become much more static now.
I fear this patch is a half step backwards in WITE "evolution".

It will become now much more important to run as Axis backwards during blizzard to save morale and manpower. Without a snow offensive during winter 1942 the Sovjet strength and the fort levels will increase much. Axis offensive actions in 1942 will become weaker now.
I'm really waiting for the patch that prevents Axis retreats during blizzard with high equipment losses. I think it's only a matter of time until the last loophole for the Axis player is closed.
Pelton is also right with naming the major problem: Germany is bound to historic results, Sovjets are free. It seems there are too few Axis fanboys and too many Sovjet fanboys out there.

sj80

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

This game has not been developed by looking at two sides, but is overly influenced on one side.

I am tired of the Axis players being driven away with insults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

I share this perception. Pelton takes his hits for his style but I think many of his point are on point. What is the ultimate goal for the game if both sides play a "perfect" game? I would think a draw. What I sense is that the Soviet play testers who I believe are exerting a bias on the game seek is Soviet win which may be historically supportable and proper for a simulation but makes for a lousy GAME.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I don't necessarily disagree with you to a point. My issue is there is nothing really important to fight for that a player, especially a Russian, will make a stand for. Both sides play run away (Russian in the summer/fall, German during the winter, Russian during the spring/summer) and the whole thing essentially becomes a counter shoving match back and forth rather than seeing a lot of fighting going on. The fort changes have been a tremendous beneficial change.

Part of the issue is there isn't the ability to have a real good give and take slugging match. The Russians can very rarely counter attack in 1941 and the Germans still can't counter attack without taking casualties that are far too favorable to the Russians from 42 on, no matter what the odds are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Another huge game-changing patch which screws up on-going games. ... So, I'm in 1943 after playing a campaign game for over a year, and most of my armies have almost 30 CPs so are now massively overloaded. It will take about a million APs to fix that small problem. Unless Ketza agrees to play without this patch, that game is over.

I have had it with investing tons of time into this game only to have massive changes introduced which make it difficult or impossible to continue.

And I didn't see any explanation for why CP caps should DECREASE over time as the Soviets, so I guess it is just a hack to introduce more "balance"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

I bought this game when it came out, but after following the discussions in the form, I always hesitated to really start a long campaign.
So I have to say, that my experience here is very low. But it is my feeling, that Pelton is really trying to make things better with the experience he has.
And regarding his comment, that the game should not be developed parallel to "historical" timeline, but be influenced by the user made decisions and the impacts of these, he is ABSOLUTELY right.
I remember, that I had the same impression in the old days of WItP. From a cerain point in time, the Zero-fighters lost there capabilities suddenly. Or japanese invasions were nearly impossible due to a certain date. The time was triggering something and not the flow of the game.
If Pelton, with his big experience, is claiming this, he should not be attacked personally for this. I understand his point...

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I think the German players hands are tied quite enough already. Cannot create support units, cannot decide what unit withdraws, cannot spend AP's to winterize units prior to winter, cannot control armor assignments within reason even though they might have 1000 tanks in the pool (note I said within reason, as fun as it would be, I don't want 300 Tigers in a division), forced to suffer historical morale loss no matter the situation due to dates, forced TOE changes per history even though the German may be doing much better, forced withdraws of units that got mauled during history yet might be full strength in our game, no control over when a unit TOE upgrades or who (on this date everyone starts changing) instead of allowing the German to spend AP's to keep the unit a certain TOE setup.

Sorry for the last rant, but I really, really hate having my hands tied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

During march most germans pocket 20 to 30 units on average. which is 325ish AP points. Thats your math not mine.

This will require the Russian player to spend the next 6ish turn buying back units. But before then its clear weather and I can pocket 10 to 15 more again keeping the size of the russian machine in check and the ap's low as per your email

Plus the german player can push past the forts.

now we have your nerf bat patch 1.06

None of this is possible now.

Can you please refer us to the history book(s) that details this historical German ability to pocket 30 Russian divisions in March 1942?

Of course the Germans could not pocket Russian divisions in March of 1942 historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I'm gobsmacked by the number of people here who are defending this March stuff. It's blatantly ahistorical. Nobody should be surprised to see attempt to bring it in line. It is every bit as indefensible as the 1.04 Maginot line business -- nor does getting rid of it mean that we are going back to 1.04. This isn't a binary solution, folks.

Flaviusx, first a big premise: thank you and the devs team for this patch. Thank you all for the outstanding support.
It's not about defending march madness. I do not like the solution to this problem ("artificial" reduction of German units CV's).
I cannot see an historical reason to this (why only the germans? Why only in 1941?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


One has to admit that 2ndACR has hit the nail on the head. Frankly I believe that until some of these issues are settled especially the morale and late war TOE 'upgrades' are settled, it will be difficult to really play as Axis to win in the long run. To the list I'd add the fact that Axis allies cannot recreate destroyed units and that they cannot have SU attachments (both of which are not historical in any way).

Mayebe these issues will be solved when a total war in europe title comes out, combining all fronts, with the Germans having to make decisions on where and how to allocate units and possibly even affect war production. Maybe one day it will happen...

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

We can do with a little less beating on Pelton and a little more focus on what's been presented to us in the latest version.

My current PBEM opponent is often his own worst enemy in the way he expresses his frustration, but I really appreciate him as a player. He knows the game, plays it exceptionally well and gets turns back in a short time span. Recently he offered me the chance to quit our game if I wasn't having fun. You can't ask any more than that as a Soviet player.

76mm- I feel your pain, these latest changes have put me in the same boat as you with overloaded armies. With these latest changes if I had to look into a crystal ball, I'd predict my game with Pelton ends up about where Terje's will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron

You know Flaviusx, you would have some credibility if you applied your selective historical criteria to the Russian side as stringently you do the German.

As it stands, yet again the Germans are handcuffed if they show any sort of what-if capability. I'm surprised by the subtle brakes put on the initial '41 offensive - it's not like Russian isn't capable of running fast enough or relocating industry or preserving a huge army already. I'm also surprised this has come out so quickly after the last set of changes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

To let you know I have a Soviet game going where I have already started the grinding offensive in June 42. As I conduct my attacks each turn and push around hapless Panzer divisions who try to plug the holes I keep telling myself this is wrong on so many levels :) That game is now on the Oct 1 turn and I have been pushing all summer.

I truly appreciate the devs and their hard work. I also appreciate the passion of the players who post here.

Its always a good read!

quote:

Ignoring the facts does not make them untrue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Any chance of any evidence to back up your statement, based on actual gameplay?

The self-balancing of WITE can be very subtle, and if you look very closely at all the rule and formula changes, you can see some of the swings and roundabouts that creates new challenges for both sides.

The so-called "March Madness" had to be addressed - if Axis players are honest with themselves they know that the strength of the recovery tipped the balance too far. Personally, I felt almost embarrassed by the number of units I was pocketing and the amount of territory I took back. The .59 changes can be worked around with skilled play and the Axis can still get to the summer of 1942 stronger than they were historically and at a start line that will enable a better than historical Case Blue. There is absolutely no evidence that the soviets can build a 4 deep wall of lvl4 entrenchments as seen in 1.04. They will be slightly stronger than earlier versions of 1.05, but there will be plenty of opportunity for the Axis to have a good 1942.

The challenge for the Axis remains judging when to stop attacking, and deciding how much real estate they can hold with what size of army, until attrition causes the tipping point to occur, and defence turns into delay. The Axis have plenty of attrition management tools and the new .59 Static/replacement rules will reduce some of the micromanagement that has been driving me nuts.

.59 does introduce more challenges for Soviet players due to the CC and manpower multiplier changes. Having 1m fewer men in more armies with a dilution of leader quality is a new problem that will require clever solutions.

I think everyone needs to read all the changes very carefully, play the game, and get creative in solving any perceived problems, because signs are this is the version we have to work with for the foreseeable future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The four months of entrenching are almost meaningless, Level 2 forts are nearly worthless now, and the Sovs can only get higher if they spend the AP for FZs, which I think few will do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The four months of entrenching are almost meaningless, Level 2 forts are nearly worthless now, and the Sovs can only get higher if they spend the AP for FZs, which I think few will do.

They won't get to level 3 even doing that. Digging a level 3 fort in mud/snow is damn near impossible even with generous engineering support. The only reason to drop FZs in spring is to prevent fort decay -- if you're actually planning on getting level 3 forts, that's not going to happen until weather clears.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

During march most germans pocket 20 to 30 units on average. which is 325ish AP points. Thats your math not mine.

This will require the Russian player to spend the next 6ish turn buying back units. But before then its clear weather and I can pocket 10 to 15 more again keeping the size of the russian machine in check and the ap's low as per your email

Plus the german player can push past the forts.

now we have your nerf bat patch 1.06

None of this is possible now.

Can you please refer us to the history book(s) that details this historical German ability to pocket 30 Russian divisions in March 1942?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I think the German players hands are tied quite enough already. Cannot create support units, cannot decide what unit withdraws, cannot spend AP's to winterize units prior to winter, cannot control armor assignments within reason even though they might have 1000 tanks in the pool (note I said within reason, as fun as it would be, I don't want 300 Tigers in a division), forced to suffer historical morale loss no matter the situation due to dates, forced TOE changes per history even though the German may be doing much better, forced withdraws of units that got mauled during history yet might be full strength in our game, no control over when a unit TOE upgrades or who (on this date everyone starts changing) instead of allowing the German to spend AP's to keep the unit a certain TOE setup.

Sorry for the last rant, but I really, really hate having my hands tied.

quote:

Sounds like fighting windmills. One question would be what Pelton's wishes for an ideal design along his wishes would be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

During march most germans pocket 20 to 30 units on average. which is 325ish AP points. Thats your math not mine.

This will require the Russian player to spend the next 6ish turn buying back units. But before then its clear weather and I can pocket 10 to 15 more again keeping the size of the russian machine in check and the ap's low as per your email

Plus the german player can push past the forts.

now we have your nerf bat patch 1.06

None of this is possible now.

Can you please refer us to the history book(s) that details this historical German ability to pocket 30 Russian divisions in March 1942?

Of course the Germans could not pocket Russian divisions in March of 1942 historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I'm gobsmacked by the number of people here who are defending this March stuff. It's blatantly ahistorical. Nobody should be surprised to see attempt to bring it in line. It is every bit as indefensible as the 1.04 Maginot line business -- nor does getting rid of it mean that we are going back to 1.04. This isn't a binary solution, folks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
At any rate, I'm going to play it out and see how it works out. I have some ideas on how to manage the change. It's going to be a real pain in the neck, but it's not a game killer imo, if you're willing to accept that perfect C&C just isn't going to happen all the time.

Are you talking about new games or on-going games? I don't have a problem with the changes for new games, but it sure seems like a game killer for on-going games--I would have to devote every AP for the rest of the war to creating new HQs and transferring units from one HQ to another, in the meantime all of my armies would be crippled because they would be almost 100% overloaded...

2x3's complete lack of regard for players that have invested so much time beta-testing, I mean playing, their game really turns me off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

76mm, I am truly sorry for the pain the patch is inflicting on your game and others like it. The command change was the one item we knew was going to be very painful to current players because they had no time to adjust to it (unlike a new game, or one still in 1941). For cases like this we recommend that you consider keeping two copies of WitE on your system. The older version can be used to finish out the current game, while the newer version could be used for new games. Studying the later war scenarios it became obvious we missed a major factor with the size of the Soviet Armies, and we wanted to make the adjustment now while we were also fixing Stavka and making the other changes. All in all we think the patch is fairly balanced, but it will tend to net out as a hit to the Germans early, and then net out hitting the Soviets later on. We just didn't see a way of avoiding this issue. Fewer, large Soviet armies run only by the best Soviet leaders just wasn't right. We are at the point where we don't want to be making a lot of rule changes going forward, but will try to keep an eye on how the game is doing and try to make more subtle corrections as needed. Having worked on the Don to the Danube scenarios, we've had a better view of some of the later war issues and we think the biggest changes are behind us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I just discovered the same problem in our team game Za Rodinu. I think the change is good, and in our case the effect will be manageable, but it still hurts to pay APs to rearrange the command structure when every AP is needed to build new units. Just a thought, a one time AP grant when first starting an old game saved on an earlier version might have solved the problem, but maybe that wasn't possible. But in cases as 76mm, couldn't you consider doctoring his save file and giving him an AP compensation? Provided Ketza agrees of course.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I have read all of the posts in this thread, I have been away for awhile but still playing the AI, I have been watching alot of the AAR's and have to agree with Klydon, March Madness is done with basically 20 FRESH, full strength, high morale units that spent the entire winter back home with their families and not getting butchered by the blizzard or the Russians. Yet those troops faced Russians who HAD been fighting all winter long. So they got slaughtered.

I have not played the new patch yet, so will defer harsh judgement until I have. As one who went thru the release blizzard massacres, the TOE upgrade bug from hell, 1.04 and the forts from hell, I really hope this patch does not return the game back to WW1 in the east.

I do feel that trying to stop the March madness with this code across the board is a mistake though. I can see the rule if it only concerned troops outside the initial German start lines as of say Feb 15 42 or so. But the German players have worked really hard to come up with ways to survive the blizzard and such but also give them an iron fist come spring. Now that has been removed from their play book.

I have stated before that I am not one of the "it did not happen in history, so cannot happen here types". If I want history, I will read a book. I think the German players hands are tied quite enough already. Cannot create support units, cannot decide what unit withdraws, cannot spend AP's to winterize units prior to winter, cannot control armor assignments within reason even though they might have 1000 tanks in the pool (note I said within reason, as fun as it would be, I don't want 300 Tigers in a division), forced to suffer historical morale loss no matter the situation due to dates, forced TOE changes per history even though the German may be doing much better, forced withdraws of units that got mauled during history yet might be full strength in our game, no control over when a unit TOE upgrades or who (on this date everyone starts changing) instead of allowing the German to spend AP's to keep the unit a certain TOE setup.

Sorry for the last rant, but I really, really hate having my hands tied.