quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Where is the benefit for the player?


(answer most hoped for: some generals are good at supply, some good at defense and some good on the attack. If the player places the right general in the right place the units beneath him gain a bonus on either the attack, or the defense or in supply. The amount of bonus each general can provide will go up and down over the game based upon how he performed his last mission)


-

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

.....but as mentioned above they do get promoted or dismissed based on performance.

quote:

Is the promotion / dismissal done by the player or done automatically?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

you cannot move 35millian workers out of Moscow, Don basin and Lennigrad and the North!

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

So I would hope that the losses of these areas would essentially curtail the masses of Red army infantry to a managable amount?
How does the game model the relief from the West? Does it increase or decrease via options or on board performance? The US lend, cough, lease greatly helped, or is that outside the realm of the game? I cannot imagine a US LL plan in 42 43 44 against a Russia without Moscow.. can U? Just my 2 cents worth..
FYI THis looks GREAT!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain

On the main topic itself, I would not want to see arbitrary political decisions put in, I would rather have political realities reflected by victory points, (for example: the USSR loses if the Axis has captured Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad by 1/1/42, to prevent the Soviet player from just retreating and coming back in force in 43).

In this type of game, I see the player as wearing many hats, from Hitler/Stalin down to corps commander. You want to be able to explore various options without being tied to solely the historical outcome.

Everyone always assumes that they will do a better job than Hitler or Stalin. Now is your chance to find out...[;)]

quote:

I've read a lot of historical research that shows the Soviet factory evacutation to be mostly a myth of wartime propaganda

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Please remember that we're still in alpha so this is subject to change. You can see von Bock's ratings below. Leaders affect movement, combat, morale, and logistics. So yes there is a big benefit to having good leaders in key positions. The ratings don't change but as mentioned above they do get promoted or dismissed based on performance.

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/WitEleader.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shupov

[In addition to Victories and Defeats another performance measurement could be "Attacks". In the early part of the war Stalin put heavy pressure on his generals to attack regardless of their situations. Generals who did not attack were branded as cowards and dismissed (or worse).

Both Hitler and Stalin loved aggressive commanders! In the game, Russian (and German?) leaders who don't attack should have a higher risk for dismissal. Leaders who do attack should gain chance for promotion regardless of outcome.

This factor would simulate the political reality the generals faced. Without this penalty smart Russian players will withdraw from the frontier as quickly as possible to avoid encirclements. There is no question the Russian attacks in the summer of 1941 were disasters, so why repeat history?

Counting Attacks should be simple to program into WitE. I know many players don't want any interference from political sources, so I suggest this feature should be selectable by the players, or part of play-balance.

quote:

The tracking of victories and defeats is designed to reward competency not aggressiveness. You, the player, determine how aggressive your forces will be.

As for the historical Russian counterattacks, these mostly occurred within the first turn of the game. They are "simulated" by the Russian forces being in the path of the German advance. By the time it gets around to the Russian player's turn one there is nothing much left to counterattack with (a little to withdraw also).

From the Russian player's perspective you pick up history on turn two as you try to put some sembalance of a front line back together again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shupov


In the event, Stalin and Hitler both removed generals for lack of aggressiveness. Even Zhukov was temporarily demoted for recommending the abandonment of Kiev. This proposal would simulate a political reality the generals faced. Assuming the current effect for Victory and Defeat is +/- 1.00 political point, attacking or defending could act as a modifier by the following schedule:

Attack and Victory +1.50 (or +2.00)
Defend and Victory +1.00
Attack and Defeat -0.50
Defend and Defeat -1.00

Will WitE ever remove Guderian or Zhukov for lack of competency? Both were relieved for wanting to withdraw instead of attacking or standing fast.

Again this could be an optional feature that could be turned off by players not wanting irrational Dictator oversight!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Tell that to Manteuffel! Started off as a divisional commander and ended commanding an army in the East. I'd love to have the ability to promote generals as it would give added flavour and also create a realistic need for good generals. If I'm right, generals will be present from corps upwards, so there won't be that many in the field. Will there be a pool of generals which we can see and appoint? And will the Luftwaffe have its own generals? Will some generals withraw to be assigned elswhere (von Arnim and Kesserling come to mind)?

Frankly having a crazy dictator interfering would be a real pain in the neck. For, I am that crazy dictator! [:D]

quote:

There is currently nothing in the rules about officers withdrawing

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

We've discussed some possible "irrational dictator" rules but frankly there are more important core game mechanics that are still being developed and tested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

There is currently nothing in the rules about officers withdrawing

There is. Leader could be dismissed during the supply phase based on the previous performance.

quote:

Interesting. Therefore if there is a leader which really did badly in the last couple of turns, he could be dismissed by the player? Or is it the AI which dismisses him?

quote:

BTW in this thread someone mentioned lend lease. I'm not going to dispute its relative importance or not, but its main throughfares. LL came through the Soviet Pacific territories, Murmansk and the north and the Caucasus. The former 2 options are out of the purview of this game but if I'm correct, the Caucasus is part of the game. So would LL remain at the same level or would it be curtailed if the Axis conquered the Caucasus? Somewhere I read that the south would be attractive to the Axis player, so the Caucasus could become a natural target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

There is currently nothing in the rules about officers withdrawing

There is. Leader could be dismissed during the supply phase based on the previous performance.