Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

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

All I can say to this is no, unless in addition to abstracting the German operational situation out of the context of the reality that was Hitler, you also assume that:

1. Germany was not at war with the U.K.
2. Germany did not declare war on the U.S.
3. Germany was not at war with 2/3rds of the productive capacity of the world in 1945
4. As the result of the above, Germany had access to the oil it needed to fly it's airplanes and drive it's tanks
5. Germany had free (as in uninterrupted) access to the raw materials needed to conduct the war
6. The German population had the same "will" to continue an offensive war in the Soviet Union to the point it's manpower was exhausted as the Soviet Union's people were in defense of their homeland.
7. All of the Germany's secondary allies felt the same investment in depleting their country of everything to do the same
8. All of Germany's allies were also only at war with the Soviet Union
9. That German industry was placed on a total war footing prior to Barbarossa
10. That Germans had adopted efficient vehicle design (eg the t-34) so that they could actually match Soviet production
11. Etc, etc, etc.

In other word the Germans had one chance in 1941 maybe through 1942 (I doubt it) to beat the Soviet Union. So in a game like this German meta-defeat is almost always a for gone conclusion, and the players' victories measured against historical outcomes. It's for these reasons in WiTW a German player can lose the war in July 1945 instead of May and get a Major Axis Victory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

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

All I can say to this is no, unless in addition to abstracting the German operational situation out of the context of the reality that was Hitler, you also assume that:

1. Germany was not at war with the U.K.
2. Germany did not declare war on the U.S.
3. Germany was not at war with 2/3rds of the productive capacity of the world in 1945
4. As the result of the above, Germany had access to the oil it needed to fly it's airplanes and drive it's tanks
5. Germany had free (as in uninterrupted) access to the raw materials needed to conduct the war
6. The German population had the same "will" to continue an offensive war in the Soviet Union to the point it's manpower was exhausted as the Soviet Union's people were in defense of their homeland.
7. All of the Germany's secondary allies felt the same investment in depleting their country of everything to do the same
8. All of Germany's allies were also only at war with the Soviet Union
9. That German industry was placed on a total war footing prior to Barbarossa
10. That Germans had adopted efficient vehicle design (eg the t-34) so that they could actually match Soviet production
11. Etc, etc, etc.

In other word the Germans had one chance in 1941 maybe through 1942 (I doubt it) to beat the Soviet Union. So in a game like this German meta-defeat is almost always a for gone conclusion, and the players' victories measured against historical outcomes. It's for these reasons in WiTW a German player can lose the war in July 1945 instead of May and get a Major Axis Victory.

Agreed.

Of course, it is a game, and the german player must have a real chance to win, but the balance shouldnt be 100% historic. Playing Germany should be difficult (if you achieve to win) but lets give the german player a chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

Why should the Rusisans be required to fight forward

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

Why should the Rusisans be required to fight forward

I don't think they should required, but coaxed to, by not being wiped out in year 1 if they do, and paying a price if they don't. Carrot and stick.

Political and economic considerations have no CV but are real enough as to be the cause of war in the first place. Likewise, when Germans lose Nikopol, the entire war economy should be on a timer to shut down. If we're to have such a detailed game as this without making historical options playable and subjecting players to economic realities , it fails as a simulation at the highest level.

quote:

Likewise, when Germans lose Nikopol, the entire war economy should be on a timer to shut down. If we're to have such a detailed game as this without making historical options playable and subjecting players to economic realities , it fails as a simulation at the highest level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I don't think they should required, but coaxed to, by not being wiped out in year 1 if they do, and paying a price if they don't. Carrot and stick.

Political and economic considerations have no CV but are real enough as to be the cause of war in the first place. Likewise, when Germans lose Nikopol, the entire war economy should be on a timer to shut down. If we're to have such a detailed game as this without making historical options playable and subjecting players to economic realities , it fails as a simulation at the highest level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I don't think they should required, but coaxed to, by not being wiped out in year 1 if they do, and paying a price if they don't. Carrot and stick.

Political and economic considerations have no CV but are real enough as to be the cause of war in the first place. Likewise, when Germans lose Nikopol, the entire war economy should be on a timer to shut down. If we're to have such a detailed game as this without making historical options playable and subjecting players to economic realities , it fails as a simulation at the highest level.

I would suggest something entirely else, increase offensive losses. I always had a problem with the artificial blizzard penalty. The Wehrmacht didn't drop from juggernaut to punching bag in a single week due to the weather. Soviet success in the Winter 41-42 was largely due to absolute exhaustion and overextension of the German units. And how did they exhauste the German forces? By fighting. December 41 was actually the month with the lowest German losses until April 42. Meanwhile the Heer really bled from July to October 41. The 195.000 men lost in August 41 wasn't surpassed until July 43.

Ideally I would prefer that the Soviet player faces this choice: a) fight forward, risking your frontline units, with the gain being the attrition of the Wehrmacht, leading to a more vulnerable Heer in winter b) save his army by retreating, however, then face the possibility of a much stouter Wehrmacht in winter and far fewer gain in winter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

I can see fighting forward enough to save factories to be moved and to slow the Germans so the Russian can build up defenses. Seems like not fighting forward can be just as bad.

Tactical/strategic advantages to both stay or run, The biggest being the bigger Russian manpower pool if they run. Seems there could be naturally occurring things to offset that

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I don't think they should required, but coaxed to, by not being wiped out in year 1 if they do, and paying a price if they don't. Carrot and stick.

Political and economic considerations have no CV but are real enough as to be the cause of war in the first place. Likewise, when Germans lose Nikopol, the entire war economy should be on a timer to shut down. If we're to have such a detailed game as this without making historical options playable and subjecting players to economic realities , it fails as a simulation at the highest level.

I would suggest something entirely else, increase offensive losses. I always had a problem with the artificial blizzard penalty. The Wehrmacht didn't drop from juggernaut to punching bag in a single week due to the weather. Soviet success in the Winter 41-42 was largely due to absolute exhaustion and overextension of the German units. And how did they exhauste the German forces? By fighting. December 41 was actually the month with the lowest German losses until April 42. Meanwhile the Heer really bled from July to October 41. The 195.000 men lost in August 41 wasn't surpassed until July 43.

Ideally I would prefer that the Soviet player faces this choice: a) fight forward, risking your frontline units, with the gain being the attrition of the Wehrmacht, leading to a more vulnerable Heer in winter b) save his army by retreating, however, then face the possibility of a much stouter Wehrmacht in winter and far fewer gain in winter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I don't think they should required, but coaxed to, by not being wiped out in year 1 if they do, and paying a price if they don't. Carrot and stick.

Political and economic considerations have no CV but are real enough as to be the cause of war in the first place. Likewise, when Germans lose Nikopol, the entire war economy should be on a timer to shut down. If we're to have such a detailed game as this without making historical options playable and subjecting players to economic realities , it fails as a simulation at the highest level.

I would suggest something entirely else, increase offensive losses. I always had a problem with the artificial blizzard penalty. The Wehrmacht didn't drop from juggernaut to punching bag in a single week due to the weather. Soviet success in the Winter 41-42 was largely due to absolute exhaustion and overextension of the German units. And how did they exhauste the German forces? By fighting. December 41 was actually the month with the lowest German losses until April 42. Meanwhile the Heer really bled from July to October 41. The 195.000 men lost in August 41 wasn't surpassed until July 43.

Ideally I would prefer that the Soviet player faces this choice: a) fight forward, risking your frontline units, with the gain being the attrition of the Wehrmacht, leading to a more vulnerable Heer in winter b) save his army by retreating, however, then face the possibility of a much stouter Wehrmacht in winter and far fewer gain in winter.

Since I don't disagree with any of that I can't see how it's entirely different, rather complementary. To attrite the wehrmacht over summer and have a realistic chance of surviving as historically, is a carrot. We all know losses are too low all round and this generally favours the Germans. If the unattrited Wehrmacht threatens the viability of a deep defence, there's the stick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I don't think they should required, but coaxed to, by not being wiped out in year 1 if they do, and paying a price if they don't. Carrot and stick.

Political and economic considerations have no CV but are real enough as to be the cause of war in the first place. Likewise, when Germans lose Nikopol, the entire war economy should be on a timer to shut down. If we're to have such a detailed game as this without making historical options playable and subjecting players to economic realities , it fails as a simulation at the highest level.

I would suggest something entirely else, increase offensive losses. I always had a problem with the artificial blizzard penalty. The Wehrmacht didn't drop from juggernaut to punching bag in a single week due to the weather. Soviet success in the Winter 41-42 was largely due to absolute exhaustion and overextension of the German units. And how did they exhauste the German forces? By fighting. December 41 was actually the month with the lowest German losses until April 42. Meanwhile the Heer really bled from July to October 41. The 195.000 men lost in August 41 wasn't surpassed until July 43.

Ideally I would prefer that the Soviet player faces this choice: a) fight forward, risking your frontline units, with the gain being the attrition of the Wehrmacht, leading to a more vulnerable Heer in winter b) save his army by retreating, however, then face the possibility of a much stouter Wehrmacht in winter and far fewer gain in winter.

Playing vs AI you should be in Moscow by turn 7-12 if your not you really don't have a handle on 1.0

vs humans lacking and understanding of rulesets Moscow is possible in 41 vs someone who understands the rulesets Peltonx vs BrianG

Player understanding of the rulesets or not makes for completely different games.

WAD can mean allot of different things.

The Germans had fought almost nonstop, conquering a lot and territory and Russian troops and still the Germans pressed on through the mud and snow, stringing units out and sapping what strength was left.

Playing as Germans against the AI I start digging in when the mud hits, making some line corrections and can do ok even with harsh winter.

Is track being laid too fast in game?

Will the new supply system change the first few turns? And any of the game's offensives.

Playing as Allies and as Germans in WitW, it's different for each side; as in majority offensive compared to majority defensive.




< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/8/2016 1:35:57 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to KWG)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I don't think they should required, but coaxed to, by not being wiped out in year 1 if they do, and paying a price if they don't. Carrot and stick.

Political and economic considerations have no CV but are real enough as to be the cause of war in the first place. Likewise, when Germans lose Nikopol, the entire war economy should be on a timer to shut down. If we're to have such a detailed game as this without making historical options playable and subjecting players to economic realities , it fails as a simulation at the highest level.

I would suggest something entirely else, increase offensive losses. I always had a problem with the artificial blizzard penalty. The Wehrmacht didn't drop from juggernaut to punching bag in a single week due to the weather. Soviet success in the Winter 41-42 was largely due to absolute exhaustion and overextension of the German units. And how did they exhauste the German forces? By fighting. December 41 was actually the month with the lowest German losses until April 42. Meanwhile the Heer really bled from July to October 41. The 195.000 men lost in August 41 wasn't surpassed until July 43.

Ideally I would prefer that the Soviet player faces this choice: a) fight forward, risking your frontline units, with the gain being the attrition of the Wehrmacht, leading to a more vulnerable Heer in winter b) save his army by retreating, however, then face the possibility of a much stouter Wehrmacht in winter and far fewer gain in winter.

quote:

Playing vs AI you should be in Moscow by turn 7-12 if your not you really don't have a handle on 1.0

vs humans lacking and understanding of rulesets Moscow is possible in 41 vs someone who understands the rulesets Peltonx vs BrianG

Player understanding of the rulesets or not makes for completely different games.

WAD can mean allot of different things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Russian loses are far to low which favors Russia not Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I thought I'd add some observations from a development perspective as it is not quite as easy as some might think.

- Pelton is correct in that the new logistics system will have a huge impact.
- Losses should be historical - but the caveat is that only if history is followed. Ratios do provide a guide but to get a combat result ratio that changes over time you must have a lever in the game data to affect that change. At the moment that is essentially the changing TOE/Ground Elements and National Morale. There are other levers to generate losses like attrition rates and the blizzard rules but can be seen as artificial.
- The offset to this is if you do better than history should you suffer due to preset limits imposed to try and replicate historical losses? There is no easy answer without creating a yet more complicated system. Every additional complication adds more development time to both add and test.
- I've spent a lot of time looking at losses given the comments I see. A large number of casualties are hidden within the current system as they are automatically recycled within the logistics phase. Those heading to the disabled pool are essentially the VSI which make up only 20% of casualties (See Diagram which shows approximate historical casualty behaviour). Also as the game does not model all the manpower on the battlefield total losses are very difficult to estimate.
- This is where it comes back to the logistics system. WitE1 has railheads with essentially limitless capacity. So assuming you fulfilled the range rules, had enough trucks and materiel in the pools and passed the rolls then you would receive supply. This keeps units artificially well supplied and supported compared to history. WitE2 is very different in this regard as railheads require depots and what they can deliver is constrained by their freight holdings. This impacts not only on supply but also replacements. There is no way that I can imagine that Axis units in WitE2.0 will be in a better shape at the end of 1941. As logistics are difficult to manage then making the gains in 1941 to get to the gates of Moscow and Leningrad may be arguably more difficult.
- Taking that a stage further - assuming that the Axis are weaker in Dec 41 then the special 1941 blizzard rules could be weaker (or not required at all). All this is yet to be seen as the WitE2.0 systems are still not up and running enough for more detailed tests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Casualties per battle is the issue---especially for fighting in Terrain.

To me the game battle results basically only simulate combat in open areas---basically where once one side gains a local advantage the other side most likely just retreats so line of sight due to few hills or whatnot causes a quick change to the tactical situation.

Losses for combat in any type of bad terrain are much to low especially city/urban or even major towns. If you read about fighting on the eastern front even small towns were often turned into virtual fortresses that often involved heavy fighting to take if they werent just given up due to flanking.

Read up on the attrition losses 6th Army suffered in Stalingrad even after the major fighting was done.----typically over 1k men per day from attrition alone with no major operations going on. would be hard to do in the game unless being adjacent to the enemy in certain terrains increased attrition losses---but one key fix would be to make all fighting in terrain increase losses as it should. City fights should be bloodbaths for both sides if the city is heavily defended...not 1-2k losses per side then the other side runs for it. Commanders for both sides would be executed on the spot for surrendering cities after taking so few losses to give them up or give up fighting for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

"You cannot issue a "hold/take at all costs" order, which, assuming the units involved are compliant, is going to result in significantly higher loss than an encounter in terrain that either or both sides considers unessential to theiroperation or strategy."

18. An "all--out" effort by one side raises loss rates for both sides.

So the critical factor is not the terrain but the determination of the belligerents to hold or take it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Another caveat---difficult terrain does not explain urban terrain. City/urban terrain is a completely different animal for modern combat WW2 to current.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
3) When preparing to launch deliberate attack cursor icon should indicate if there are units in the target hex in "hold at all cost" stance, to warn attacking player that he will perform an "all-out assault".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


I agree but the question is whether adding more combat stances is worth the effort. I'd like to see a delay stance and even I am not sure that we can include this.

Is a deliberate attack not already an attempt to fight at all costs? You can always attack again if you want to and have MPs. Should static mode include an element of hold at all costs (no trucks to escape in)?