Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Thanks for the update Red Lancer (John)!

Is the map going to be generally the same colors? From the looks of the AARs I'm one of the few that enjoy the original map.
I do find Jison's map fantastic but feel more comfortable with the initial release map.

quote:

The quitting problem is huge but your point begs the question of what a German 'win' is. If someone thinks that is a Russian surrender, then the game will (rightly) almost always disappoint anyone playing against a human. After all, IRL the war was neither a German win nor a draw. My approach has always been to decide who won by comparison to the historical outcome ie the date of the fall of Berlin. That gives the German much more of a chance than the game's much later end date.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Thanks for the update Red Lancer (John)!

Is the map going to be generally the same colors? From the looks of the AARs I'm one of the few that enjoy the original map.
I do find Jison's map fantastic but feel more comfortable with the initial release map.

It's the same map as WitW but we are working on some necessary improvements. Double rail lines and how we show variable road quality (which can now be set by individual hex and not just country) are currently quite important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Given that we learn at least as much from failure as from success, I'd suggest that experience be derived from all combat, not just wins. This would also encourage a forward defence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I haven't played WitE in a while. I started playing mainly as the Soviets to learn the game, but got tired of opponents abandoning the game and quit playing.

I've been playing WitW over the last year, and the main concern I've developed with respect to how this game/logistics engine will function on the Eastern Front is how crippled panzer formations are by the loss of vehicles.
I'm yet to find a way to reliably rectify this, even when I have a motor pool over 30k+.

If HQBU is going to be dropped, I think a method for the player to focus vehicle replacements into motorized units will be a must.

I've posted several AARs, and have been able to conduct plenty of mobile warfare, but once you get the motorized units more than 3 hexes from depots (inside of which they can use 'organic' transport instead of trucks) the logistics engine seems to rob a lot of vehicles from the unit to supply the unit. Quickly MPs are reduced into the 30s, and good luck ever getting them back up.

I've had units on refit for a year in France, and they can't fill out their vehicle TOE.

I'm having trouble seeing how the Barbarossa and Case Blue type offensives won't falter on this point.

quote:

To be fair, motorization was a serious problem with the Wehrmacht throughout the war. The German Army in France had units rebuilding from early 1944 and by June, they were still 40-75% short of authorized motor vehicles even though they were stuffed with armored fighting vehicles. The two SS Panzer Divisions struggled to get their units to Normandy because of this issue.

quote:

I agree that being able to prioritize vehicle replacements is important and replacement priorities is something me and Pavel are talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelwarrior7

quote:

The quitting problem is huge but your point begs the question of what a German 'win' is. If someone thinks that is a Russian surrender, then the game will (rightly) almost always disappoint anyone playing against a human. After all, IRL the war was neither a German win nor a draw. My approach has always been to decide who won by comparison to the historical outcome ie the date of the fall of Berlin. That gives the German much more of a chance than the game's much later end date.

I do not agree on quitting in a PBEM game at all - because it is unpolite - but the nerf bat that Germany receives - as explained above - additionally to the weaker position, is also just too much. I believe Germany could have at least acheived some kind of stalemate - also by managing the Winter better and not having Stalingrad happen as it did - actually Germany did not have that much less manpower then the SOV (check the population stats and the many children in Germany and add in Germanies allies) and the SOV would have run out of manpower at a point - if the AXIS would have continued to fight smart...it is just that the SOV did mobilize its manpower in comparison to its pop (so % wise) much more and the AXIS wasted its at times also (plus Germany was actually lighter on its own pop, by not sending women to the front - and no old and young until very late in the war - but with no Stalingrad and bad winter 41 plus some unnecessary no retreat orders and counter attacks (for example Kursk) - which a human player could do smarter - the will of the AXIS population to fight could have been much higher and by that also the mobilzed manpower) - so saying if the AXIS would have done better, like mentioned above, they could have come to a point where the mapower of the SOV was being exhausted (they did not have modern Chinas pop LOL - and additionally to the high losses at the front they had high civilian losses due to AXIS forces and crazy Stalin and his party. Now check the AARS and you will see many times more than 10 million losses for the SOV and another 10 million army - that is neither realistic nor historical - but due to the game engine giving the SOV a never exhausting MP pool) and by that a stalemate would have been enforced. What I believe many forget is - yes the SOV mobilized a huge manpower - but they could not have been mobilizing that much more - they already used women at the front...so if the AXIS could have inflicted more losses due to smarter dealing with their challenges and keeping a good defendably front and their own army intact - they may have been able to force a stalemate...not that in RL I would have wished for it ;-D But it is not impossible ;-D and should be recognized in a game like this...

Especially for a PBEM it would mean that both sides have limited offensive abilities until the end date - both can win due to smart offense and defense and losse due to bad offense and defense - that would result in a very exciting, open and dynamic campaign istead of a rather repetitive SOV grind against purely defensive AXIS from late 42 on...

Even more in an alternative scenario - Hitler is dead scenario (there were enough assasination attempts of which many failed due to bad luck) - , where the goons would not have abused the population of the Ukranians and Baltic states and the Jews and Western Europe - could have resulted in a much higher MP for the AXIS from Northern Europe, Western Europe and Baltic, Ukranian and Eastern European States...as they would have seen Stalin as the higher threat - than a German 4th Supreme Command - actually, the SOV profited mostly from the Nazis being worse than them - but they also murdered, raped, persecuted and tortured (remember aggressive wars like Finnland, Poland, Baltic States and claims on Romania? All before Barbarossa...) - just a little less than the Nazis...

Add in all the bad decisions done differently - which can be mostly directly linked to crazy Hitler and his high ranking Nazi buddies - more interceptors to defend the industry and manpower, better ressource management - due to being aware it is a long war - and the growing technological advantage and there is a stalemate in the West (due to a highly risky invasion - the intact, stronger German army could have defeated an invasion) and in the East - as the SOV run out of manpower for constant grinding costly attacks...it would still mean both are possible - invasions in the West and succesful offenses in the East - but AXIS player could punish a bad execution of these up to the point of being able to push back...
No NM script nerf bat, no more and more nerfed supply situation for the AXIS, real gains possible manpower and industry wise and not an unending manpower for the SOV and we should see quite a different picture...then VPs would need to get rebalanced maybe...
Again especially PBEMs would profit from a more dynamic, exciting, creative, free and open campaign...instead of a one sided, repetitive grind most of the time...the 4th Supreme command has been done already for WitW so why not for WitE? Just dreaming ;-D

Not to be misunderstood - I appreciate the effort of all devs - it still is the best War in the East game (I also own WitW and WitP AE) - but there could be some improvements ;-D

quote:

Seminole - how many damaged trucks/vehicles are awaiting repair and how many are repaired per turn?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelwarrior7

quote:

The quitting problem is huge but your point begs the question of what a German 'win' is. If someone thinks that is a Russian surrender, then the game will (rightly) almost always disappoint anyone playing against a human. After all, IRL the war was neither a German win nor a draw. My approach has always been to decide who won by comparison to the historical outcome ie the date of the fall of Berlin. That gives the German much more of a chance than the game's much later end date.

I do not agree on quitting in a PBEM game at all - because it is unpolite - but the nerf bat that Germany receives - as explained above - additionally to the weaker position, is also just too much. I believe Germany could have at least acheived some kind of stalemate - also by managing the Winter better and not having Stalingrad happen as it did - actually Germany did not have that much less manpower then the SOV (check the population stats and the many children in Germany and add in Germanies allies) and the SOV would have run out of manpower at a point - if the AXIS would have continued to fight smart...it is just that the SOV did mobilize its manpower in comparison to its pop (so % wise) much more and the AXIS wasted its at times also (plus Germany was actually lighter on its own pop, by not sending women to the front - and no old and young until very late in the war - but with no Stalingrad and bad winter 41 plus some unnecessary no retreat orders and counter attacks (for example Kursk) - which a human player could do smarter - the will of the AXIS population to fight could have been much higher and by that also the mobilzed manpower) - so saying if the AXIS would have done better, like mentioned above, they could have come to a point where the mapower of the SOV was being exhausted (they did not have modern Chinas pop LOL - and additionally to the high losses at the front they had high civilian losses due to AXIS forces and crazy Stalin and his party. Now check the AARS and you will see many times more than 10 million losses for the SOV and another 10 million army - that is neither realistic nor historical - but due to the game engine giving the SOV a never exhausting MP pool) and by that a stalemate would have been enforced. What I believe many forget is - yes the SOV mobilized a huge manpower - but they could not have been mobilizing that much more - they already used women at the front...so if the AXIS could have inflicted more losses due to smarter dealing with their challenges and keeping a good defendably front and their own army intact - they may have been able to force a stalemate...not that in RL I would have wished for it ;-D But it is not impossible ;-D and should be recognized in a game like this...

Especially for a PBEM it would mean that both sides have limited offensive abilities until the end date - both can win due to smart offense and defense and losse due to bad offense and defense - that would result in a very exciting, open and dynamic campaign istead of a rather repetitive SOV grind against purely defensive AXIS from late 42 on...

Even more in an alternative scenario - Hitler is dead scenario (there were enough assasination attempts of which many failed due to bad luck) - , where the goons would not have abused the population of the Ukranians and Baltic states and the Jews and Western Europe - could have resulted in a much higher MP for the AXIS from Northern Europe, Western Europe and Baltic, Ukranian and Eastern European States...as they would have seen Stalin as the higher threat - than a German 4th Supreme Command - actually, the SOV profited mostly from the Nazis being worse than them - but they also murdered, raped, persecuted and tortured (remember aggressive wars like Finnland, Poland, Baltic States and claims on Romania? All before Barbarossa...) - just a little less than the Nazis...

Add in all the bad decisions done differently - which can be mostly directly linked to crazy Hitler and his high ranking Nazi buddies - more interceptors to defend the industry and manpower, better ressource management - due to being aware it is a long war - and the growing technological advantage and there is a stalemate in the West (due to a highly risky invasion - the intact, stronger German army could have defeated an invasion) and in the East - as the SOV run out of manpower for constant grinding costly attacks...it would still mean both are possible - invasions in the West and succesful offenses in the East - but AXIS player could punish a bad execution of these up to the point of being able to push back...
No NM script nerf bat, no more and more nerfed supply situation for the AXIS, real gains possible manpower and industry wise and not an unending manpower for the SOV and we should see quite a different picture...then VPs would need to get rebalanced maybe...
Again especially PBEMs would profit from a more dynamic, exciting, creative, free and open campaign...instead of a one sided, repetitive grind most of the time...the 4th Supreme command has been done already for WitW so why not for WitE? Just dreaming ;-D

Not to be misunderstood - I appreciate the effort of all devs - it still is the best War in the East game (I also own WitW and WitP AE) - but there could be some improvements ;-D

Lots of people promise not to quit and then do so as soon as they don't think they can win, especially on the german side when they realise that they won't get an automatic victory. Probably not much anyone can do about that. I read a game review in PC Gamer recently where the author complained about so many quitting part way through when they think they are losing - even though each game only lasts for 5 minutes!

I think that a lot of your ideas would be good as an alternative history scenario - but as a Russian player I would not be very keen unless there were changes for me too. To have these changes in the vanilla game starts to get closer to Hearts of Iron territory. WiTE needs to keep it's historical purity wherever possible. The real problem is that the Germans only did so well in '41 because of crass ineptitude on the russian side. No player will be as stupid with the russians, nor will any german replicate Hitler's idiocies: insofar as they can be controlled in-game.

Progress and/or results in AARs are almost always measured by comparison with historical events/figures and I can't see that changing. The challenge is therefore to have a game (sic) which somehow gives some sort of approximation with history (with evenly matched players when those same players are armed with knowledge of historical events and how the game works) and for the game to be flexible enough to be able to handle things in the same way that a good counterfactual book would.The NM issue is a classic example of a mechanism that works very well in terms of helping a game to reflect history a bit better. However,as many have said,it does not work when looked at from a counterfactual perspective because the factors that NM is designed to replicate were so heavily influenced by how the war developed historically.

Hmmm I seem to have fallen into the typical lawyer's response to a client asking what they should do - giving a boring analysis of the problem without actually answering the client's question. Perhaps I should just end by writing what I was taught as as an undergraduate scientist to put at the end of every essay - 'more research is needed'.

Perhaps more will help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

One way to encourage early war Russian aggression might be to separate experience in attack from that in defence. The logistics and tactics of attack are quite different from those of defence. Yet it is possible for the Russians to keep running east all year, often gaining experience only in defence, then magically counter-attack when the weather turns as if they have somehow learned how to attack over the summer. This can extend into 1942, with the hindsight enabled player defending until they have accumulated sufficient numerical superiority to go over to the offensive and win.

Experience in attack and defence could be hooked to national morale as well as the units involved in each battle, it's level perhaps being pegged, along with other factors, to the lowest 'pool' of the two experience types.

Given that we learn at least as much from failure as from success, I'd suggest that experience be derived from all combat, not just wins. This would also encourage a forward defence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
One way to encourage early war Russian aggression might be to separate experience in attack from that in defence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
One way to encourage early war Russian aggression might be to separate experience in attack from that in defence.

I think the hated 1:1->2:1 rule was supposed to do that. Of course it was a crude tool, quite abstract, unlike a separate "tech trees" for offensive and defensive doctrines/tactics/training would be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think the hated 1:1->2:1 rule was supposed to do that. Of course it was a crude tool, quite abstract, unlike a separate "tech trees" for offensive and defensive doctrines/tactics/training would be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think the hated 1:1->2:1 rule was supposed to do that. Of course it was a crude tool, quite abstract, unlike a separate "tech trees" for offensive and defensive doctrines/tactics/training would be.

If I remember it correctly the original rule applied to the Soviets for the entirety of the war. It was then step by step taken out. I don't think it was ever supposed to specifically encourage early Russian counterattack. Frankly, I think the rule was just not thought out well. With the combat engine already giving a de-facto bonus to the side with more elements the Soviets are already in a position where they can expect a win with CV parity with reasonable chance. That's already something like a +1 rule.

The main problem I see with the engine is that it's too dependent on wins. Soviet counterattacks in 1941 took a toll on the German units but rarely were they able to outright dislodge the Germans from their positions prior to late 1941. So going by this there were only very few Soviet wins in WitE terms. The fluctuation of morale around the wins and losses is also problematic especially with the impact of morale on CV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Coordinating attacks was a big problem for soviet forces in 1941. I like your idea of units being commited only if they pass and admin check. To compensate, soviet units shouldnt be so lame in 1941. Several of them put the germans in real trouble, someting you rarely see in the game if you play with no attack bonus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelwarrior7

quote:

The quitting problem is huge but your point begs the question of what a German 'win' is. If someone thinks that is a Russian surrender, then the game will (rightly) almost always disappoint anyone playing against a human. After all, IRL the war was neither a German win nor a draw. My approach has always been to decide who won by comparison to the historical outcome ie the date of the fall of Berlin. That gives the German much more of a chance than the game's much later end date.

I do not agree on quitting in a PBEM game at all - because it is unpolite - but the nerf bat that Germany receives - as explained above - additionally to the weaker position, is also just too much. I believe Germany could have at least acheived some kind of stalemate - also by managing the Winter better and not having Stalingrad happen as it did - actually Germany did not have that much less manpower then the SOV (check the population stats and the many children in Germany and add in Germanies allies) and the SOV would have run out of manpower at a point - if the AXIS would have continued to fight smart...it is just that the SOV did mobilize its manpower in comparison to its pop (so % wise) much more and the AXIS wasted its at times also (plus Germany was actually lighter on its own pop, by not sending women to the front - and no old and young until very late in the war - but with no Stalingrad and bad winter 41 plus some unnecessary no retreat orders and counter attacks (for example Kursk) - which a human player could do smarter - the will of the AXIS population to fight could have been much higher and by that also the mobilzed manpower) - so saying if the AXIS would have done better, like mentioned above, they could have come to a point where the mapower of the SOV was being exhausted (they did not have modern Chinas pop LOL - and additionally to the high losses at the front they had high civilian losses due to AXIS forces and crazy Stalin and his party. Now check the AARS and you will see many times more than 10 million losses for the SOV and another 10 million army - that is neither realistic nor historical - but due to the game engine giving the SOV a never exhausting MP pool) and by that a stalemate would have been enforced. What I believe many forget is - yes the SOV mobilized a huge manpower - but they could not have been mobilizing that much more - they already used women at the front...so if the AXIS could have inflicted more losses due to smarter dealing with their challenges and keeping a good defendable front and their own army intact - they may have been able to force a stalemate...not that in RL I would have wished for it ;-D But it is not impossible ;-D and should be recognized in a game like this...

Especially for a PBEM it would mean that both sides have limited offensive abilities until the end date - both can win due to smart offense and defense and losse due to bad offense and defense - that would result in a very exciting, open and dynamic campaign istead of a rather repetitive SOV grind against purely defensive AXIS from late 42 on...

Even more in an alternative scenario - Hitler is dead scenario (there were enough assasination attempts of which many failed due to bad luck) - , where the goons would not have abused the population of the Ukranians and Baltic states and the Jews and Western Europe - could have resulted in a much higher MP for the AXIS from Northern Europe, Western Europe and Baltic, Ukranian and Eastern European States...as they would have seen Stalin as the higher threat - than a German 4th Supreme Command - actually, the SOV profited mostly from the Nazis being worse than them - but they also murdered, raped, persecuted and tortured (remember aggressive wars like Finnland, Poland, Baltic States and claims on Romania? All before Barbarossa...) - just a little less than the Nazis...

Add in all the bad decisions done differently - which can be mostly directly linked to crazy Hitler and his high ranking Nazi buddies - more interceptors to defend the industry and manpower, better ressource management - due to being aware it is a long war - and the growing technological advantage and there is a stalemate in the West (due to a highly risky invasion - the intact, stronger German army could have defeated an invasion) and in the East - as the SOV run out of manpower for constant grinding costly attacks...it would still mean both are possible - invasions in the West and succesful offenses in the East - but AXIS player could punish a bad execution of these up to the point of being able to push back...
No NM script nerf bat, no more and more nerfed supply situation for the AXIS, real gains possible manpower and industry wise and not an unending manpower for the SOV and we should see quite a different picture...then VPs would need to get rebalanced maybe...
Again especially PBEMs would profit from a more dynamic, exciting, creative, free and open campaign...instead of a one sided, repetitive grind most of the time...the 4th Supreme command has been done already for WitW so why not for WitE? Just dreaming ;-D

Not to be misunderstood - I appreciate the effort of all devs - it still is the best War in the East game (I also own WitW and WitP AE - they are all best and most detailed of their theatre) and alone the number of patches and time of support is impressive - but there could be some improvements ;-D

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I was also thinking that base CV for 41 Russians is too low. So in a situation where effective leadership is less important, they would indeed be likely to cause the Germans trouble.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I was also thinking that base CV for 41 Russians is too low. So in a situation where effective leadership is less important, they would indeed be likely to cause the Germans trouble.

No, CV is sufficient. Put them in good terrain with forts and they are a hard nut to crack. Now with the adjustments regarding the isolation impact on CV the Soviets are in a good enough state CV-wise in 1941. Give them more CV and you'll start to see German units getting grinded down by constant successful Soviet counterattacks. Remember, for the Soviets to successfully push back the Germans they only need CV parity, even without the +1 rule. Increase Soviet CV in 1941 and you are in effect re-introducing the +1 rule.