Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/19/2016 11:21:42 PM

nedcorleone1

Posts: 162
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline

Currently tracking a full campaign game as the Axis player. The Russians get roughly 150k men per turn consistently (as indicated by the Russian manpower OOB number). Currently at the winter of 42 (around Turn 68). At this point in time, the Russians started with about 5 million men. The Axis player has currently inflicted 10 million casualties, yet the Russian OOB indicates that they still have 5 million men. How can this be? Will the replacements continue to come in at this rate for the rest of the game? If so, I don't see how the Axis player could ever win even with a continuous string of major combat victories.

Post #: 1

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/19/2016 11:40:23 PM

chaos45

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline

welcome to the real war. An yes historically the Soviets put even more men/women in arms than the game allows for replacement rates lol.

(in reply to nedcorleone1)

Post #: 2

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/19/2016 11:48:25 PM

nedcorleone1

Posts: 162
Joined: 4/26/2011
Status: offline

Just looked it up (should have done it sooner). 34 million men fielded by the Soviets in WWII. So, is it worthwhile for the Germans to maximize casualties or go for strategic locations instead?

(in reply to chaos45)

Post #: 3

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/20/2016 6:51:55 AM

mrchuck

Posts: 165
Joined: 8/4/2011
Status: offline

Unfortunately you need to do both.

(in reply to nedcorleone1)

Post #: 4

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/20/2016 3:39:20 PM

Balou

Posts: 841
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

Exception: you manage to capture/destroy enough armament factories. In which case the soviets may eg accumulate "men" without beeing able to arm them.

(in reply to mrchuck)

Post #: 5

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/20/2016 10:21:12 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Actually the game through numerous mechanisms consistently has Soviet units at over strength. IIRC historically Soviet ID averaged around 6-8K in strength. And many times, especially late war they were down to 3-4K. Same with tank numbers. Yet in the game we see mostly units at full TOE.

So yeah, generally Soviets are over rated in WITE. Hence that's why they win all the time when player skill is equal. No great claim to fame by winning as Soviet in this game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Balou)

Post #: 6

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 12:41:57 AM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

The devil is in the details. Those 'various mechanisms' include human judgment. What players do in their games dictates their own history. While it invites comparisons to other 'histories' including the real life war, it shouldn't be used as a general rule to be applied to everybody since every game is a different history.

Seems to me that what is happening is people concentrate their Russians more. Instead of having 400-500 understrength divisions, they will have 200-300 full strength ones. Still the same amount of manpower. Still the same number of tanks....just more concentrated.

The Germans do the same. Disband things to concentrate the manpower into the fighting units. Disband fighting units to make the front line stronger as it shrinks.

In the real war, leaders obsessed over the number of divisions on paper. Instead, we obsess over CV.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 7

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 1:08:00 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

No they have more front line manpower and tanks in the game. In the real war many less than portrayed in WITE. In 1944 the Soviets could not attack across the whole front, they had to concentrate in certain areas and remain defensive in others. Fact. In the game by 1944 they can attack right across the front. Fact.

What people on this board always neglect is that the pure OOB numbers ARE NOT front line fighting troops. How many out of the 34 million cited were actually non combat people?

It's the front line combat numbers that matter. For example a Soviet ID TOE is 11K. But combat troops would equate to 9 x 350 men battalions plus other specialists. So ~ 3000 front line fighters out of 11000. Millions upon Millions of those 34 million were support people. Never fired a shot, never saw an enemy soldier.

There is a disconnect somewhere between what happened in reality and what happens in the game numbers wise. Losses are too easily replaced and not enough are KIA/WIA/MIA in combat. Same for both sides.

Personally I would much rather just see combat troop numbers represented in the game. Adding in non combatants just muddies the water and makes it difficult to compare apples with apples.

_____________________________

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 8

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 4:31:32 AM

chaos45

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline

Well also how often do you see a German OOB of less than or around 2 million? as by 1944...pretty sure that was around their frontline strength.

So good for the goose- IE lower loss rates for Soviets works for the Germans to.....

The low casualty rates for both sides is a horse thats been beat to death for years and the only with 2.0 will it possibly be fixed as 1.0 system can handle higher losses without the game engine breaking down.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 9

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 4:52:04 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Even though the problem affects both sides, its should be quite obvious, due to results shown in AAR's that the issue is more a problem on the Soviet side. Blind freddy can see that. Part of the problem, from day one is that the developers have been unduly influenced by impartial views. So, as predicted years ago by players like Pelton, myself and many others who left the scene we are left with a game inherently flawed. It has a massive bias toward Soviet only players.

For those who play both sides or German only we are left with a hiding to nothing post 42.

I surly hope for something better come WITE 2.0

We need some objective and impartial input. Not the constant Red eyed view we get here.

Keep that up and you will end up with more of the same. A walk over rather than a contest, and subsequently many less players willing to go the distance as German.

_____________________________

(in reply to chaos45)

Post #: 10

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 6:26:02 AM

SeriousCatNZ

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/18/2013
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline

Even with the unrealistically high Russian reinforcements, the main issue is the ability for the Soviets to supply their entire army on a general offensive across the entire front, whereas in reality most of their forces were holding forces. The precious little supply they did have was concentrated in their best units (e.g. Guards Rifles, Guards Cavalry, Guards Armour). It's a lot cheaper to defend than it is to attack in this era, given the low percentage�to�hit and percentage�to�kill ratios; e.g. it costs less artillery ammunition to fire at a predefined killing area your enemies are funnelled into during an attack, than to shell a large but localised area to aid in a breakthrough.

Soviet units in this game are absolutely deadly. I like to play Soviets and Axis, and I'm having an easy time as the Soviets once German bonuses wear off. Sure, I may give much ground, but as Russia I have strategic depth to give. And winter is coming.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 11

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 8:20:18 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Even though the problem affects both sides, its should be quite obvious, due to results shown in AAR's that the issue is more a problem on the Soviet side. Blind freddy can see that. Part of the problem, from day one is that the developers have been unduly influenced by impartial views. So, as predicted years ago by players like Pelton, myself and many others who left the scene we are left with a game inherently flawed. It has a massive bias toward Soviet only players.

For those who play both sides or German only we are left with a hiding to nothing post 42.

I surly hope for something better come WITE 2.0

We need some objective and impartial input. Not the constant Red eyed view we get here.

Keep that up and you will end up with more of the same. A walk over rather than a contest, and subsequently many less players willing to go the distance as German.

accepting you are basically right - both sides field unrealistically strong formations across a game of WiTE, do you really believe that after the failure of their 1942 summer offensive the Germans could have 'won'.

I mean yes there are ways the war could have taken longer to end (and shorter for that matter) but given the nature of the Soviet-German conflict there was no victory for either side short of the total defeat of the opposition. This wasn't a 19C war for a province or a colony.

Now in game turns this creates a problem typical of many wars. You often have an inherently weak side that starts off with a short lived advantage. This erodes and they are then on the way to defeat. So making it fun to play and worthwhile for both players is a genuine challenge as otherwise you get the currently common situation of axis players ending the game around T15 when its clear they are not going to 'win'. Pity but there we are.

Now so far in WiTE2 we have combat that costs manpower. We have limited supply on certain sectors. We have a global supply shortage (Soviets) or a failure of supply delivery (axis). I'm seeing a lot 6,000 man Soviet rifle divisions in 1941. Not quite sure how this fits with your fears that the reds under the beds are distorting the game development? Equally why is it bad for the developers to have 'impartial views'?

< Message edited by loki100 -- 7/21/2016 8:24:29 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 12

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 8:27:34 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

How would you assess the losses in WitE2 vs WitE1 (per battle, per turn totals)?

< Message edited by morvael -- 7/21/2016 8:30:24 AM >

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 13

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 8:40:45 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

How would you assess the losses in WitE2 vs WitE1 (per battle, per turn totals)?

At the moment more as an issue of individual battles. I've seen major set piece battles such as storming Odessa cost each side 8-10,000. Its common to see over 1,000 for both sides from a large battle.

Problem is that gameplay is becoming different so hard to compare. Movement matters for more, Lvov pocket etc is now impossible and both sides are developing new game strategies.

My last game of WiTE was against Stef78 and losses for the opening phase were (totals are the running total):

(shown axis-soviet)

T1 - 9k/330k
T2 - 28k/580k
T3 - 42k/620k
T4 - 58k/840k
T5 - 74k/980k
T6 - 88k/1100k (of these 800k as prisoners)

From the current WiTE2 PBEM

T1 - 16k/110k
T2 - 30k/392k
T3 - 49k/637k
T4 - 69k/773k
T5 - 88k/856k
T6 - 104k/940k (of these 650k as prisoners)

So given its different games and in one I was the Soviet side and the other the Axis etc, Soviet combat losses are much the same but axis losses are up. This is reflecting that the attacker now suffers losses in a battle as well.

There is then the important set of changes that restrict replacements - in effect manpower for that are competing with other parts of the supply delivery system and any movement to the front of fresh formations.

_____________________________

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 14

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 8:52:45 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

1000+ is not that uncommon I'd say (counting destroyed + damaged). But I guess too many of damaged are soon repaired.

However, the difference is not drastic I'd say. I already increased losses for the attacker by adding post-battle attrition even if you win (but added counterattack/fighting withdrawal modifiers to post-battle attrition to improve loss ratio). So it may be more the effect of replacements being too easy to get in WitE on the frontlines. They are reduced for units far away (in terms of MP) from railhead, but I guess it would be possible to apply other modifers that affect supplies to replacements as well to reduce them a bit further.

edit: however, manpower is still a constraint for the Germans. In my PBEM my motorized units have 30-40% of TOE of motorized infantry squads for a long time (vs 80% of tanks, and average 65% for regular infantry).

< Message edited by morvael -- 7/21/2016 8:56:34 AM >

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 15

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 9:55:25 AM

Hunter63

Posts: 28
Joined: 6/14/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Actually the game through numerous mechanisms consistently has Soviet units at over strength. IIRC historically Soviet ID averaged around 6-8K in strength. And many times, especially late war they were down to 3-4K. Same with tank numbers. Yet in the game we see mostly units at full TOE.

So yeah, generally Soviets are over rated in WITE. Hence that's why they win all the time when player skill is equal. No great claim to fame by winning as Soviet in this game.

Very true.

At start they were sent to front with days training and at 40%-60% ToE and only 80% of the trucks they needed at those low ToE levels.

So you should see a SEA of Russian units with 1-2 CV in 41 and 43+ 5-6 CV Corps level units.

The problem is this simply does not work when your designing a game,
because the Germans would easily win because Russian simply would never be able to attack.

So 2by3 has to have less stronger then historical units, which is fine.

BUT the real problem with the game is they give the Russians the same logistics system as Germany which is simply not historical in the least.

The reason Russia field so many units/men was because they only had 2 men getting supplies to front per man at front.
The WAs and Germany had 3-4 pushing supplies to front for everyone at the front,
so they could push more supplies to front 1.5-2.0x as fast as the Russian system.
So they could stock depots quicker and push a greater distance then Russians. Russians were tied to railheads and WAs and Germany could operate a far greater distance from railheads.

Russia only produced 1/3 of the trucks they needed, even after invasion before US entered the war with zero plans to make more before they new WAs would be supplying 2x as many as they produced.

The figured men and tanks win wars not trucks, basically WW I thinking. They planned on using trains to deliver men and supplies to front.

Hoping this issue gets addressed in 2.0

This is where WitE is missing the boat historically so to speak, one size does not historically fit all.

< Message edited by Hunter63 -- 7/21/2016 10:09:15 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 16

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 9:59:06 AM

Hunter63

Posts: 28
Joined: 6/14/2016
Status: offline

2x post

< Message edited by Hunter63 -- 7/21/2016 10:03:01 AM >

(in reply to Hunter63)

Post #: 17

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 10:21:21 AM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

The soviets didn't supply the front the same way as the Germans but they also didn't have to push as many supplies forward. The Soviets would not try and maintain the entire front, but would instead supply a few areas of penetration...with the rest of them on subsistence level.

At any given moment you have only a couple fronts attacking....with a couple more sitting quiet....or about a third of your entire army on low supply. Within an attacking front, the Russians would use one breakthrough army...with a another to exploit..while a couple more do holding attacks or just sit.

The exploiting army would only be expected to push up to 100km-150km forward...so they would need fewer trucks.

Depots in WitW cover this nicely..you can set supply priorities down to the Corp HQ level. You can set the Depots to different priorities as well....You wont have enough vehicles to supply the entire army, but you will be able to allow a smaller percentage to maintain an offensive.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to Hunter63)

Post #: 18

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 10:50:59 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

quote:

Not quite sure how this fits with your fears that the reds under the beds are distorting the game development? Equally why is it bad for the developers to have 'impartial views'?

If you are going to quote me at least try to understand what I said. Which is not what you infer above.

Actually I can make no sense of what you wrote and how it relates to what I said. As I have relayed to you before. If you can't comprehend what I have stated please do not quote me.

_____________________________

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 19

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 12:11:08 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

I thought I'd provide some clear evidence on how things are changing. As always there is a strong health warning as we have so very far to go.

The screen shots are a comparison of the same opening attack setup from the Op Mars scenario both in 1 and 2. (I moved the WitE1 units in the editor to provide a more similar comparison.) I've not posted a map as they are quite different but roughly the same forces are involved although Tk Bdes are no longer on map. It's not until I went back and played WitE for the first time in almost a year that I realised how much we have moved forward.

The data is shown from the same attacks to deliver a German retreat. I've quickly summarised numbers at the bottom.

Finally I'll state this unequivocally - there is no conspiratorial pro Soviet or anti Axis bias in the development team.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 20

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 1:05:56 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

With two combats against 1, I'd say you have to add totals. So it would be 1192 Axis men lost and 5338 Soviets in WitE2. The ratios are 6.43 in WitE1 and 4.47 in WitE2 (5.57 in first combat, 2.95 in second combat). The Germans did a fighting withdrawal in WitE1 (as denoted by (W)), which reduced their retreat losses considerably. They were also fighting in better fort, and had just one combat. No doubt losses in WitE2 are higher (especially from shooting in combat), but it's not a problem to dial them up in WitE1 (as many players ask for). Now that the replacement system is working properly (as far as WitE1 innards allow it to), by prioritising fighty elements over support, it shouldn't be a problem at all (other than enforcing more pauses in combat due to evisceration of combatants, especially when coupled with making harder to get replacements on the frontlines).

Edit: I would also gladly reduce CV multipliers in combat to WitW/WitE2 levels... which makes combat more predictable.

< Message edited by morvael -- 7/21/2016 1:13:50 PM >

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 21

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 5:10:44 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

I did factor that into my spreadsheet which is why there are two WitE2 loss columns. I didn't put in ratios as I felt that in a single combat too much inference my be drawn.

My post was not an implied criticism of WitE but rather to highlight differences between the systems.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 22

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 6:57:26 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

MT, you are just a bit off base on this issue. LiquidSky is correct, and it relates to the OB flexibility issue you brought up on another thread. The Soviets have the ability to optimize their OB in a way that the Germans don't, which means, just as LS pointed out, that most players will push replacements into fewer formations. They will not raise not only a couple hundred rifle divisions, but also the dozens of NKVD divisions, the masses of engineer, artillery, independent armor and other combat support troops. I believe, although I don't care enough to go look it up, that the Soviets used a cadre system similar to the Germans, where units were worn to a nub an then rebuilt, rather than the US system which fed in replacements. Which means you end up with those masses of hollowed out units but even more masses of units! Players typically won't do this, which makes for a late game RKKA which looks fairly ahistorical.

Your tooth to tail argument is somewhat incoherent, I think you are saying that the massive manpower mobilized by the Soviets shouldn't count in the game? Or because they had combat support and combat service support (CSS) cadres, something something everyone loves the reds.... ? The funny thing is, because the Germans had a higher percentage of troops in CSS the game is more likely to overstate the combat force of their army as function of total troops, but I guess you don't care to think about that.

Here is the deal, German players that whine about the large soviet army generally don't understand that you see in the game is SMALLER than what they were able to raise historically, not only in terms of formations but also in total number of troops. Seriously, get over that frustration and STOP ACCUSING THE DEVELOPERS OF BIAS. Deviation from ignorant beliefs is not a sign of bias.

I think that one of the major problems in discussing this game is that there are two lines of thought, some people who really really want the Germans to be able to win the war and those who prefer more historical approaches. You do have a decent argument for the historical people however that the ability of the Soviet player to make the decision to have a smaller than historical OB leads to a non-historical 'flavor', but your red-scare tantrums are not persuasive.

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 23

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 10:09:02 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

You are just another Red fanboi. Ignore button engaged.

_____________________________

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 24

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/21/2016 11:37:58 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You are just another Red fanboi. Ignore button engaged.

Yes more of the coin has one side stuff bro.

Last time I checked a coin had 2 sides not one.

Now your starting to understand all my time outs?

I got a time out for calling someone a Red fanboy - was the national moral is not working debate 99 vs Pelton

and yes I was right :)

That bane was worth it for sure

morveal proved me right

< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/21/2016 11:43:48 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 25

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/22/2016 12:47:50 AM

EwaldvonKleist

Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline

I will never unterstand why people can't be as friendly and respectful on the Internet as in their real life.
Few discussions have ever been won by ignoring one side.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 26

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/22/2016 1:07:15 AM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

In WitW...the Germans are given an historical OOB. So are the allies. That doesn't stop you from 'tailoring' your OOB to make an ahistorical stronger fighting force.

For example, in the beginning, I will disband HQ's and the infantry multi-role regiments.

Then I will disband all the Russian Ost Battalions. And all the fortification units (WestWall, Italian Alps)

By 1944, I will disband LW Divisions. All motorized regiments and the Panzer Brigades are also disbanded...mostly for the trucks...put the panthers are nice. If I have to I will put sections of the front on static for trucks.

1945 I disband any unit reinforcing from the Russian front.

The result is I keep my panzer/SS divisions near full strength for counterattacking. The front line infantry divisions at around 75% strength.....time is on my side, so anything that can slow the allied advance is good.

But my army will not resemble the paper armies that the Germans fielded in 1945.

The same thing will happen for the early game Russians. And for the late war Germans in WitE2 and it's 'historical' OOB. Just because you start with an historical OOB doesn't mean you are going to end with one.

NOTE: They have changed some of the rules to prevent the more obvious abuses...like disbanding Ost Battalions and HQ's.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)

Post #: 27

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/22/2016 2:06:44 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

I will never unterstand why people can't be as friendly and respectful on the Internet as in their real life.
Few discussions have ever been won by ignoring one side.

Here they are ALWAYS won by data.

I am generally a disrespect ass hat - but I win in the end because 1+1=2 No matter how much of an ass hat I am explaining it.

Basicly like Putin and Trump.

Pink Hat people just die, they are nice and PC, but don't provide data and always lose in the end.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)

Post #: 28

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/22/2016 2:08:28 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

In WitW...the Germans are given an historical OOB. So are the allies. That doesn't stop you from 'tailoring' your OOB to make an ahistorical stronger fighting force.

For example, in the beginning, I will disband HQ's and the infantry multi-role regiments.

Then I will disband all the Russian Ost Battalions. And all the fortification units (WestWall, Italian Alps)

By 1944, I will disband LW Divisions. All motorized regiments and the Panzer Brigades are also disbanded...mostly for the trucks...put the panthers are nice. If I have to I will put sections of the front on static for trucks.

1945 I disband any unit reinforcing from the Russian front.

The result is I keep my panzer/SS divisions near full strength for counterattacking. The front line infantry divisions at around 75% strength.....time is on my side, so anything that can slow the allied advance is good.

But my army will not resemble the paper armies that the Germans fielded in 1945.

The same thing will happen for the early game Russians. And for the late war Germans in WitE2 and it's 'historical' OOB. Just because you start with an historical OOB doesn't mean you are going to end with one.

NOTE: They have changed some of the rules to prevent the more obvious abuses...like disbanding Ost Battalions and HQ's.

Good stuff, but the logistic is more important.

Yes yes your my 1 loss WitW - exploiter :)

Pot calling the kettle black I know

< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/22/2016 2:11:58 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 29

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn? - 7/22/2016 3:12:42 AM

EwaldvonKleist

Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

I will never unterstand why people can't be as friendly and respectful on the Internet as in their real life.
Few discussions have ever been won by ignoring one side.

Here they are ALWAYS won by data.

I am generally a disrespect ass hat - but I win in the end because 1+1=2 No matter how much of an ass hat I am explaining it.

Basicly like Putin and Trump.

Pink Hat people just die, they are nice and PC, but don't provide data and always lose in the end.

I fully support your data approach but your style of discussion does not really help to win. Why not say "you are wrong" instead of "you are wrong and dumb"?
Until we enter the terrain of mathematics, data can be intrrpreted in different was.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 30