RE: Full Motorization

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Full Motorization

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 2 >> RE: Full Motorization

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Full Motorization - 11/7/2021 6:34:32 PM

Zemke

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

We, as a community, continue to ask for this or that game mechanic change that will fix the game. I say 90% of the problem with WitE2 is we as players have too much control and perfect hindsight. There are no Stalin or Hitler orders involved. We, as the player, answer to no one. I think a game is more exciting and realistic when there is uncertainly and risk. I also think uncertainty and risk are a more accurate portrayal of actual war. Certain board games (like Dark Valley. GMT games) do a better job than this game of introducing uncertainty and risk. Currently, there is no uncertainty or danger to either side due to perfect knowledge if you have played a few games. The Germans are not going to "risk it all" and push their units to their limit to take Moscow (not that they really can anyway in this game against a human). The Soviet player will NOT stand and fight as long as there is no risk of sudden loss (and use teleportation to move units from the South to Leningrad front through the Theater Box system. Also, based on several tests, changes to fix 1941 for the Germans unbalanced the game in 1942 and 1943 for the Russians.

This perfect hindsight creates low casualties on BOTH sides in 1941, which has significant effects in 1942 and beyond. IMO this is the KEY to everything, low losses by both Germany and Russia in 1941.

Players SHOULD have to answer to a higher authority. That is historic and realistic. I propose a game optional that could be checked for those of us who do want a historically based game, where we have to answer to Hitler and Stalin. How could this work? For the Germans in 1941, they have to hit certain objectives or Commanders start getting fired, which is what happened. For the Russians, a certain number of counter-attacks HAVE to be made each turn by certain units, or their leaders get executed or fired, and so on. Failure to continually ignore the Supreme Leader will result in YOU getting fired. Maybe a sliding bar that shows your favorability with Hitler or Stalin and if the bar goes all the way down, the game for you is over. This one change would make the game much more interesting and realistic.

If you this is not your bag, then you would not have to check the option.

(Disclaimer: This is NOT my idea, but a friend who is also deeply involved in this game, but I love the idea.)

< Message edited by Zemke -- 11/7/2021 6:38:34 PM >

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to Dreamslayer)

Post #: 31

RE: Full Motorization - 11/7/2021 7:01:02 PM

RedJohn

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

The complete lack of interference from Hitler and Stalin has always been odd to me. Sometimes Hitler will dismiss a leader and it'll be annoying, but that's the extent of his influence on the eastern front.

Stalin will sometimes shoot Dmitry Pavlov, and the odd air commander- but he will not demand I hold Kiev, or Kursk, or Orel, or Pskov, or... He will sometimes also remove a commander like Hitler, but again that is it.

The lack of needing to work within the hierarchies of both nations is very much felt in the strategies employed by both sides. I can send the entire southern/south western front to reserves and redeploy them to Moscow and Leningrad, and suffer no repercussions. Equally I can divert the entirety of PZG2 to AGS and nobody will complain.

It's a hard thing to add in - interference - whilst still being fun and engaging. But I think it's something that should be implemented in a greater form than we already have, which right now is essentially non-existent.

(in reply to Zemke)

Post #: 32

RE: Full Motorization - 11/7/2021 7:20:11 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

Motorization should take a turn or more to achieve.

When I sim... I am Hitler... I am Stalin.

_____________________________

(in reply to RedJohn)

Post #: 33

RE: Full Motorization - 11/7/2021 9:24:41 PM

GibsonPete

Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

Zemke's proposal of Uncertainty and risk would create some interesting results and frustration. I have seen this in other games and it can be a nightmare or godsend. For following/accomplishing the higher directive you receive 'something' and failure you lose 'something'. Again to prevent an uproar making it an option would be best.

_____________________________

�Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.�

(in reply to MakeeLearn)

Post #: 34

RE: Full Motorization - 11/8/2021 11:29:57 PM

DeletedUser44

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

Motorization should take a turn or more to achieve.

When I sim... I am Hitler... I am Stalin.

I am inclined to feel the same. (I mean, it takes a full turn to de-motorized...)

Someone else posted a reply regarding being used in a non-combat role, simply for behind the front-lines transport. More of an ad-hoc rail-transport-like feature. That may be worth exploring.

Outside of the US, was large-scale adhoc motorization ever actually employed in WWII? Troubles me that I cannot find any historical references to it.

But the way it is implemented now, it seems like allows German to create 4-6 fully motorized combat infantry divisions, on-the-fly. (and who knows how many Soviet Rifle Corps, once their industry and lend-lease get really cranking!)

This is a bit over-the-top. If Germany really had the ability to do that at the onset of Barbarossa, they would have.

----

And for those that are concerned about 'Sir Robin', I assert that is a different matter. Personally, I would look at what, historically, kept the Soviet Army from not running away? (outside the NKVD troops strategically placed behind the front-lines. :) )

1. Soviet Army could not immediately run away.

Up until the end of 1941, the Soviet logistical and transport networks were in complete disarray (not to mention tactical leadership). Soviet unit-level supply system was, in some case, even worse off than the Germans.

Full movement points for Soviet units should not be immediately fully restored, but incremented over time.

quote:

Nearly sixteen million Soviet civilians and over 1,500 large factories were moved to areas in the middle or eastern part of the country by the end of 1941.

This is not really modeled well in the game. It was not magic or teleportation, but came at a tremendous burden on the Soviet transportation and logistical networks. There is noway this occurred without the hindrance of military movement as well. For example, consider the following regarding the 1942 evacuations, which was minor in comparison to 1941 -

quote:

Even with this authority, the GKO could not entirely avoid disruptions that hindered military operations. An Evacuation in the Trans-Caucasus region during 1942 clogged the rail lines and �deprived [the Soviets] of the ability to maneuver troops and restricted the arrival of supplies.�

Given the massive evacuation of civilians and industry...

quote:

One natural facilitator of the evacuation with regard to the military was the general movement of troops from the east to the west. Railcars full of soldiers dropped off their cargo at the front and loaded the empty cars with freight and passengers heading east

A mass exodus of a "run away" Soviet ground force (from West to East) as well would have been impossible.

2. Preservation of the Soviet industry.

The mass evacuation of the Soviet industrial production was not a foregone conclusion or auto-magic. for example -

quote:

As monumental as this effort proved, it still fell short of all available industry. In the Donets Basin, for example, 64 steel facilities came under threat in 1941, but the Soviets only managed to salvage 17 of them. It was not only facilities that were lost; huge stockpiles of raw materials or refined materials were also abandoned, and areas that produced strategic resources were taken by the enemy. The year 1942 saw the production of steel and coal at rates roughly half of what they had been in 1941

It came at a cost to the Soviet ground forces as well...

quote:

The Soviets, driven by the existential threat to their existence west of the Urals, endured the massive sacrifice of Soviet troops, civilians, and war equipment, enabling the evacuation of industry, material, and manpower east of the Urals.

In essence, it was not the preservation of the Soviet Army that led to their victory, but the preservation of their industrial capacity!

Until this is appropriately modeled by WiTE2, thus giving ample reason for Soviets to stand their ground, the "Sir Robin" strategy will prevail.

(in reply to MakeeLearn)

Post #: 35

RE: Full Motorization - 11/8/2021 11:49:28 PM

RedJohn

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

They had permanent destruction of industry in WITE1, and it exists if you take out cities that historically never fell in 2, but has otherwise - to my knowledge - been removed. Now it just gets damaged but will inevitably repair back in full.

WITE1 also had at first a combined railway usage system for both industry and troop movement, which meant you needed to balance the two each turn or risk either not being able to ferry troops to the right places, or be unable to evacuate industry from advancing axis forces. This was later changed to, I believe, a separate capacity for industry movement and troop movement so one didn't impact the other.

According to the manual industry evacuation uses up some rail capacity.

(in reply to DeletedUser44)

Post #: 36

RE: Full Motorization - 11/9/2021 12:53:51 AM

Sammy5IsAlive

Posts: 514
Joined: 8/4/2014
Status: offline

I think a lot of the issues re. political/industrial concerns can be dealt with via the VP system without needing the introduction of extra game mechanics.

I think we need to wait to see the effects of the recent changes to the combat engine/air war before we can draw any conclusions on where the 'base game' balance is at.

I'm happy to be corrected by the Devs but my impression of the game design re. VPs and Auto Victories is that the late 41/early 42 victory thresholds are set up to end games where there is a big mismatch in terms of player skill and that the 'game-design expectation' is that matches between fairly evenly matched players will not have an outcome until much later in the war (which means that the consequences of player decisions on either side in 1941/42 are not immediately apparent until much later down the line).

If I was one of the development team reading the feedback on the forums my conclusion would be that there is a significant proportion of players who don't really want to play into 1943, let alone 1944/45 (just to be clear - I don't attach any value judgement to that statement - for me as far as possible people should be empowered to play the game the way they want to play it). With that in mind I'd be looking at setting up a campaign scenario with much more 'volatile' early victory conditions. So for example I'd have an Axis auto-win check date at the end of August that would force the Soviets to fight forwards; an Axis auto-loss check at the beginning of December that forces the Axis player to attack in bad conditions 'against their better judgement' and then a further Axis auto-win check at the end of January that forces the Soviet player to be much more proactive in attacking through December/January despite taking really heavy losses.

In terms of the OP and motorisation, my 2c would be that for me the whole mechanic should be removed as being ahistorical and the wider game should be balanced around that solution.

(in reply to DeletedUser44)

Post #: 37

RE: Full Motorization - 11/9/2021 1:54:24 AM

GibsonPete

Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

~ As I have posted several times let the player(s) decide to use the tools provided. If they want to use or not use Temp motorization let them. If they desire to reallocate SU's prior to turn 01 allow them. If they desire to change the Air Directives let them. If Soviet player runs away that is a choice they should make without additional consequences. If the Axis stops short and digs in because he knows winter is coming he should be allowed to do so. If the player introduces flying pigs let them. Let's not forget this is a game.

~ Would I like to be able to destroy or capture factories before they are evacuated? Absolutely. Is it essential to the game? No.

~ Does a Soviet motorized Rifle Corps scare me? A bit. Would it add uncertainty and risk to a game? Yes.

~ Would I like to impact Lend Lease? Sure. Would it change the outcome? Not a chance.

~ Do I expect the Axis to lose no matter how many tweaks are made? Yes. People that think differently are the same ones who think the Imperial Japanese Army could have defeated the Allies.

_____________________________

�Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.�

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)

Post #: 38

RE: Full Motorization - 11/9/2021 7:25:03 AM

metaphore

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
Outside of the US, was large-scale adhoc motorization ever actually employed in WWII? Troubles me that I cannot find any historical references to it.

Actually, early in the War, this was kinda the way large "motorized" units were being setup. They didn't have trucks in their respective TOE but were coupled with independant transportation companies that moved their infantry from point A to point B, sometime also using civilian motor vehicules (like city or commercial buses).

During the 1940 campaign, the French Army had 9 of such motorized Infantry divisions coupled with 9 large trucks units -that could be used for other tasks- while all 9 operational BEF Infantry Divisions were also using non-organic transport units to move their infantry around (but capacity was lacking in order to move everyone at once).

Otherwise, all those divisions had fully motorized support units with orgnanic vehicules, including for their Artillery Regiments (but it was also largely the case for most of the Field and Corps/Army Artillery of the French Army, where guns that weren't towed were most of the time carried on top of trucks).

Even the Germans partially motorized their 1st wave Infantry Divisions during Fall Gelb and, at the time of Barbarossa, all those bounty trucks captured during the 1940 campaign formed the backbone of the German Army transportation units.

(in reply to DeletedUser44)

Post #: 39