RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!!

RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

Schmart -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/5/2012 7:51:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball How realistic though would it be to have a large amount of AFVs in 1945? Because the biggest problem was the Germans didn't have gas for the AFVs they actually had, let alone any extras they might have saved through more judicious combat. It's an admittedly artificial cap to reflect decreases in Wehrmacht AFVs, maybe because the fuel system doesn't provide the problems that it should for the Germans Fuel was the real problem for the Germans; not lack of AFVs I agree. But if they have more AFVs in 43-44, then most likely the front lines are further away from Germany, Rumania falls later, the Allies are (debatably) putting more resources into the ground war (as opposed to the airwar/strategic bombing), which all means that the German fuel supply drop off is delayed... There is an easy solution to the TOE upgrade issue: It's a very easy change in the editor to modify a unit TOE upgrade path.

IdahoNYer -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 2:42:50 AM)
Some interesting comments guys.... Bottom line from my foxhole is that I still love this game, and we're driving on with the PBEM to the end. I just don't think, as currently designed, the late war period has been playtested thoroughly to support a German player who is doing better than history. The historical events that drove the task org changes may or may not be relavent in a player game, and this was not considered enough in development. So I ask that it be relooked. Any of you remember War in Russia? If I remember correctly that "western map edge" ended at Warsaw and the game ended at the end of 1944 - I think to preclude some of these very issues I'm tripping over. One aspect I miss from that game was the ability of the German to move forces to the west to stem the western allies. But that would only open up another can of worms...

Update -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 5:53:18 AM)
Now, the situation is not as bad as it could be for Germans. The Dev's did not follow official KstN listings for the late war infantry (Infanterie-Division N.A.) that would kick in around 11/43. Why? Well, my quess is that even they did not dare to pull out the rug that badly from underneath German player. [:D] What, for example, we should have for Infanterie-Division (N.A.) is only 189xinfantry squad (27 of these would be bicycle squads) for the whole division ,+ 9x bicycle squads from Rgt. HQ Coy's. (3squad/platoon, 3x platoon/Coy, 3xCoy/Bn, 7xBn for the division= 189x squads) We have been given whopping 288 squads for now in the game. As for the reasons why Germans went for these reductions, they actually RUN OUT OF MEN to fill in their divisions! If the manpower would have been available, the reduction would not have taken place. The upgrade changes in firepower would have happened and the late war (1944-) Infanterie would have been a force to recon with, instead of just something that would be smashed out of the way. How would that affect the fight in the other fronts? Very badly for the Allies, Overlord might not have been possible nor landings in southern France. Well, until we have the whole Europe we cannot be sure. Anyway, as they always point out, there is the editor for us to fix things! [:'(]

Wild -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 5:53:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Treale quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 This community doesn't care that the German army is hard-coded to suck at precise points on a time line irrespective of the historical nature of the Wehrmacht's evolution or the performance in game of the German player. By the same token, the design decisions of WitE enable optimization of the Red Army to ridiculous levels, and has redundant fail-safes that enable the Soviet to always stay better than his historical predecessor. Whether or not Stalingrad happens, or Demyansk, or Bagration, units disappear according to the events of those battles. As Flavius said to me when last I read a post of his, they just don't care about differing opinions, and they have no intention of fixing any of it (unless you count buying a future re-designed product a 'fix'). They feel that their are enough people who are happy with the product (or at least who paid full price, giving them the illusion that they are happy with it) that criticisms are irrelevant. As I noted for them in history, Mythic Entertainment and Sid Meier himself have all followed their own sense of infallibility to the loss column of the business ledger, despite a flurry of magazine-publisher glad-handed, 'critical acclaim' reviews. It should be noted that this TOE nuke of the German army happened before, with the 1942 TOE changes. Only then, the TOE changes forced the Wehrmacht to conscript morale levels as soon as they switched. This was after Beta (well, if you assume beta ever ended on this product, prior to announcement of War in the West). It's only now, 16 months after the release of an $80 program that players are reliably able to get to 1945. I myself never made it to 1943 before abandoning all hope, as either side. Your stoicism is to be commended. Do we have to listen to you "Trash Talking" again? He happens to be correct. We live in a free country and he paid his money for the game. If you don't like what he says quit reading it.

hfarrish -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 10:30:49 AM)
He "happens to be correct" except for the insane notion that if the Germans were doing better than historical in the East that not one additional man or tank would have been shifted to the west. Look, it seems clea that the abrupt TOE change mechanism is not ideal and could use some modification, but it's fantasy world to just think that the German army should not degrade over time even if the Eastern Front isn't the disaster it was historically.

janh -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 11:10:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer I just don't think, as currently designed, the late war period has been playtested thoroughly to support a German player who is doing better than history. The historical events that drove the task org changes may or may not be relavent in a player game, and this was not considered enough in development. So I ask that it be relooked. Any of you remember War in Russia? If I remember correctly that "western map edge" ended at Warsaw and the game ended at the end of 1944 - I think to preclude some of these very issues I'm tripping over. One aspect I miss from that game was the ability of the German to move forces to the west to stem the western allies. But that would only open up another can of worms... I would state more generally "The design has not included situations far out from the average course." Your situation, which may also be rather common for any Axis player -- Soviet AI game, is certainly one case. I do also wonder whether it is correct to assume, that if the Axis had truly managed to take all of Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov, Kursk and sites along that line, and beat the Soviet Army that badly, the Lend-and-Lease and Allied assistance wouldn't have received a boost. Among all effects a such tremendous German success could have had, I believe this ought to be considered to help the Soviets to regain balance given that this outcome has turned out to be realistically achievable in more than just a few games. I guess a simple boost of the pools or increasing factor applied to lend-and-lease rates would do. I hope they will ensure WitE2 will cover more such "what-if" possibilities. As with regard to the ToE swaps -- why not allow it, optionally. Or even introduce the manual changes like for the air mode. The general coding framework ought to be transferable. If people want it, let them have it and deal with any negative consequences at their own responsibility. Perhaps just make it an "untested, unsupported beta feature, not recommended to use". As for the fronts. WiR had a few things to offer, which I really miss in WitE. WitE followed a quite different design philosophy, but maybe it would have been better to improve the (minor) issues like the fronts or the production model in WiR had, rather then to cut them entirely. Something that will hopefully return with the next titles. PS. I do also understand arguments like the constraint fuel situation Q-Ball brought out, which is probably true. Also Schmarts argument may hold some truth. Hard to say without actually having it explicitly in the game (... War in Europe). Ultimately the logistics & (fuel) production seems like a different issue to address, though. Perhaps fuel could be shortened by editing the GC data, i.e. the cutting "Fuel production" and/or "Oil production" by say 1/5 and see where that leads? Even if fuel were to be short, a large armor force could still be sustained assuming it is not moved too much?

AFV -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 2:38:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hfarrish He "happens to be correct" except for the insane notion that if the Germans were doing better than historical in the East that not one additional man or tank would have been shifted to the west. Look, it seems clea that the abrupt TOE change mechanism is not ideal and could use some modification, but it's fantasy world to just think that the German army should not degrade over time even if the Eastern Front isn't the disaster it was historically. You happen to be "incorrect" for your insane notion that he suggested the words you are putting in his mouth. You disagree, fine. However, I challenge you to show me where helio said the German army should not (ever) degrade over time, and where he even mentioned at all where and how much forces would have been shifted west if the historical course had not been taken. For accuracy, lets read it again, shall we? quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 This community doesn't care that the German army is hard-coded to suck at precise points on a time line irrespective of the historical nature of the Wehrmacht's evolution or the performance in game of the German player. By the same token, the design decisions of WitE enable optimization of the Red Army to ridiculous levels, and has redundant fail-safes that enable the Soviet to always stay better than his historical predecessor.

Toby42 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 2:47:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wild quote: ORIGINAL: Treale quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 This community doesn't care that the German army is hard-coded to suck at precise points on a time line irrespective of the historical nature of the Wehrmacht's evolution or the performance in game of the German player. By the same token, the design decisions of WitE enable optimization of the Red Army to ridiculous levels, and has redundant fail-safes that enable the Soviet to always stay better than his historical predecessor. Whether or not Stalingrad happens, or Demyansk, or Bagration, units disappear according to the events of those battles. As Flavius said to me when last I read a post of his, they just don't care about differing opinions, and they have no intention of fixing any of it (unless you count buying a future re-designed product a 'fix'). They feel that their are enough people who are happy with the product (or at least who paid full price, giving them the illusion that they are happy with it) that criticisms are irrelevant. As I noted for them in history, Mythic Entertainment and Sid Meier himself have all followed their own sense of infallibility to the loss column of the business ledger, despite a flurry of magazine-publisher glad-handed, 'critical acclaim' reviews. It should be noted that this TOE nuke of the German army happened before, with the 1942 TOE changes. Only then, the TOE changes forced the Wehrmacht to conscript morale levels as soon as they switched. This was after Beta (well, if you assume beta ever ended on this product, prior to announcement of War in the West). It's only now, 16 months after the release of an $80 program that players are reliably able to get to 1945. I myself never made it to 1943 before abandoning all hope, as either side. Your stoicism is to be commended. Do we have to listen to you "Trash Talking" again? He happens to be correct. We live in a free country and he paid his money for the game. If you don't like what he says quit reading it. You guys slay me. You sound more like Anarchists than wargamers! It's a free country. He paid for it, so he can say what he wants! HAHA....

AFV -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 3:14:42 PM)
You're still here Tony? I thought you were leaving.

Toby42 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 3:22:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AFV You're still here Tony? I thought you were leaving. Not sure that I understand your comment?

marty_01 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 4:09:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Schmart My suggestion is to freeze any TOE reductions starting in 1943 (any TOE increases or additions should still take effect). Any shortcomings in men or guns or vehicles should then be controlled by the player, through the use of in game modified TOE percentages (which many players are already doing anyways). I like this suggestion...so +1. But...and it's a big butt...given the current issues with auto-upgrading of aircraft and equipment by the AI, I wonder how practical this approach would end-up being. The various hard-coded unit TO&E changes -- while not ideal given the 1100 panzer loss thingy -- do result in guaranteed equipment upgrades. I still agree with the 1943 freeze on TO&E "upgrades" (or something similar and along this same line of logic), but it would have to go hand-and-hand with revisiting the game coding that is currently associated with AI invoked equipment upgrades. I mean equipment upgrades outside the realm of those invoked by Formational TO&E changes.

marty_01 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 4:25:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball How realistic though would it be to have a large amount of AFVs in 1945? Because the biggest problem was the Germans didn't have gas for the AFVs they actually had, let alone any extras they might have saved through more judicious combat. It's an admittedly artificial cap to reflect decreases in Wehrmacht AFVs, maybe because the fuel system doesn't provide the problems that it should for the Germans Fuel was the real problem for the Germans; not lack of AFVs Yes, but if Axis Players are managing the war in the East better than their historical counterparts, it is possible that Axis players could maintain control of various critical resources...like holding Ploesti late into the war. Why than should the Axis TO&E be artificially hammered based upon Fuel shortages? Makes little sense. The game has fuel and oil built into it already. Unfortunately with the current game system fuel and oil are a lot like Soviet HI. Moreover, fuel & oil, has little real impact on WiTE play because of the huge glut in stores of fuel and oil that accumulate during the game. This is sort of a different issue, but Fuel as an artificial limit on Axis AFV numbers was brought-up. Fix the fuel and oil aspect of the game and late war Axis lack of fuel\oil and its potential impact upon Axis AFVs will take care of itself.

EisenHammer -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 4:44:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Treale quote: ORIGINAL: AFV You're still here Tony? I thought you were leaving. Not sure that I understand your comment? It was wild who said he was leaving. A real nice goodbye. I am never coming back. Whining post.... a while ago.

AFV -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/6/2012 4:55:13 PM)
Tony said: Do we have to listen to you "Trash Talking" again? As was pointed out, he does not have to. He can leave. Apparently, he wants to listen to the "trash talking", since he has not left.

DBeves -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 12:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hfarrish Don't you have something better to do with your time? Blah blah blah, $80, debs don't listen, blah blah blah. There are a lot of players who have made constructive criticisms that have majorly improved the game (blizzard impact reduction, fort reduction, HQ buildup limitation etc.). Maybe changing TOE rules will be one of those, maybe not. But sitting aroun to complain about how you spent $80!!!!! For the 9000th post gets wearisome. If you're that hard up maybe you should spend less time whining on game boards. Just gets annoying in the midst of actual discussion. [&o] Wow - now there is a reasoned argument. Of course - you forget to mention the fact that he is absolutely right - and what the game does IS ridiculous. Having paid $80 myself and being reasonably affluent I still feel I have a right to complain. The game has glaring problems - not picked up by all those glorious reviews simply because those reviews were written five minutes after the game came out. People blindly stating the game is the best thing since sliced bread when its clearly not also gets annoying. Even this one thread is a littany of all the things that dont work in the game.

hfarrish -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 2:25:02 AM)
I think all of my posts have noted that the game DiD/DOES have issues, and that in many cases the criticisms levied HAVE improved the game. Constructive criticism, such as that by the OP, is helpful. What is annoying are those who have sat on the board for a year jumping on every thread to run it into a forum for simply rehashing their gripes that the game is totally broken and the developers don't care. If you already feel like you wasted and/or were cheated out of 80 bucks, why keep wasting more time on it? Speaking of "reasoned arguments" I dont think anyone on this thread said te game was "the greatest thing since sliced bread" or anything close to that.

LiquidSky -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 3:35:04 AM)
This game is the greatest thing since sliced bread.. Really. I mean, I have no trouble toasting sliced bread. The bread just cant cut it. But I can cut the bread. Once you breach the crust, its a soft gooey interior. If you leave the bread alone long enough, its defenses get moldy.

Farfarer61 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 4:10:39 AM)
I like the idea of selecting global TOE changes. It would be an enhancement of some features already in embrionic form in the Commanders Report. There could be a 'window' of acceptance for say switching to Volksgrenadier Divisions, converting to Pz Grenadier and such. When playing Russian, the ability to craft a designer Army is fun. The Axis is not.

Toby42 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 4:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AFV Tony said: Do we have to listen to you "Trash Talking" again? As was pointed out, he does not have to. He can leave. Apparently, he wants to listen to the "trash talking", since he has not left. Gee whiz Tex. Just when I thought that we were starting to "bond"!!!

colberki -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 5:19:54 PM)
Yes, it seems ridculous in games where the Germans are doing well with ample manpower to press the war in the East and are stymied by the auto TOE downgrades from 1943 forced upon the Germans. For the Soviet army, its up all the way. Cant help me think that this game should have been titled the Great Patriotic War.

mariandavid -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 6:00:42 PM)
What seems to have been forgotten is that the massive armoured unit OB's changes (largely redcutions) that start from late '44 on are political in origin. And therefore have to be hard-coded. Hitler (and his mindset is all that matters) had fallen in love with the 'more units the better - even if weaker' syndrome, one that affected many, many dictators. Since the All-Highest has decided that lots of weak SS divisions and lots of unsupported panzer brigades are to be the future, it follows that the world-wide Wehrmacht (including us whining East Front commanders) will have to accept it. And as for the lost 1,100 panzers - those in Germany are being added to numerous (and often imaginary) PG divisions and in the west to ineffectual panzer brigades. Now I could accept the addition of a German 'unit creation' system, matching that of the Russians; but only operative at dates matched to major unit OB amendments. In other words - precious tanks are removed from panzer divisions, but one-half enter the pool. And at the same time the 'units ready to be built' fill up with new brigades, PG divisions etc that can absorb them.

hfarrish -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 6:28:53 PM)
There are really two issues bring discussed here. One is a technical issue that needs to be fixed, namely a (ridiculous) one time force reduction to reflect the negative drag on German strength via years of warfare. There must be a better way of handling this. The second seems to be a bizarre assumption by many that every man you don't lose in the east relative to historical should stay in the east, and that the German army in the east should just continue to operate at 41/42 levels of effectiveness regardless of developments elsewhere. If anything, the game is generous to the German on this point, since "unlost" troops remain in their pools. The reality of this assumption is that the Germans would just allow the West to be overrun rather than shifting troops from the "successful" eastern front. Whether or not the designers intense the game to reflect this, it's current state (minus the technical issue noted above) is far more realistic than the fantasy world where the Easten army keeps all its resources in the Ukraine or Russia (depending on how well the player is doing) while Patton marches across the Rhine. A better way to deal with this would probably be an additional drain on resources towards the west (plus increased German VPs on a per turn basis, which would require a revamp of the vp system, which has been suggested and i would support)if the German player keeps the Reds out of Greater Germany after a certain point. Just a thought.

wosung -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 7:29:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hfarrish The reality of this assumption is that the Germans would just allow the West to be overrun rather than shifting troops from the "successful" eastern front. IRL, from 1944 on the East front was stripped of reinforcements: The rationale was to hit the Wallies hard and deny them a second front. The second rationale was the need to play it offensively on the Western front so to avoid mass desertion into comparatively "comfortable" western POW camps. Hitler knew the down stripped Ostfront would keep on the desparate fight because just no German soldier wanted to be in Russian captivity. Best regards

gradenko2k -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/7/2012 9:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hfarrish The reality of this assumption is that the Germans would just allow the West to be overrun rather than shifting troops from the "successful" eastern front. I disagree. The grand campaign already extends to Oct 1945, which is longer than even the Japanese surrender date, which means that as long as the Eastern Front doesn't collapse, then it would appear as though the West is not and will not be overrun. Whether the German player is barely getting by or beating the Soviets handily, the 1945 TOE changes always kick in, but the game still extends to Oct 1945 regardless. You can't justify the TOE change as being necessary for the game to run as long as it does, when the opposite is untrue. That is, the game still runs as long as it does anyway even if the German is up against the wall and the TOE change barely frees up any extra troops relative to OTL.

KamilS -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/8/2012 12:54:14 AM)
Don't get me wrong, it is great game and I like playing it very much. Unfortunately WitE is full of flaws, and this is one of them.

kg_1007 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/8/2012 4:04:41 AM)
In reference to the original poster, I agree. I think something needs to be done to account for if the German player is able to avoid the historic mistakes, he should not still pay their penalty. That said, I am playing alot in the editor, mostly with TOE, and trying to make up for the fact that in my first time of playing, I avoided making most of the mistakes made historically by the Germans, yet still paid for them with units leaving, etc. This far, it seems to work well..if I do not make the mistakes, I can keep my manpower from falling off, and manage to survive, and keep full strength divisions..so mostly what I did was change TOEs to make later divisions less weak, and add some divisions....while if I do fall to the same things, I will have many weakened divisions, as they did historically. In short, this game is great in that it does give us the opportunity to tinker, but I still would like it if the designers would look at this and try to fix what IS an issue. If the entire idea is just "replay WW2 in Russia" then it is not a fun game, we already know how it turned out..the entire fun of gaming it, is to see if you can "do better" even though, of course, WE already know, for example, that the first winter really will suck, etc lol..information THEY did not know until it happened.

LiquidSky -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/9/2012 7:35:15 AM)
It occurs to me that if you reach the point where the game wants you to take the lesser TOE, but you are doing so well that you dont need to...havent you already won? And if not, if you know that this TOE change is coming, and you have some sort of excess of panzers. Shouldnt you have been counterattacking to slow the Russians down earlier? You get an incredible ahistorical hindsight into the future in this game, is it really the game designers fault if you don't use it? I would be curious to know if the original poster actually lost his game because of this TOE change.

kg_1007 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/9/2012 7:53:46 AM)
Well..in my campaign for example...I had taken Leningrad and Stalingrad both, while the Soviet (AI) kept a steady stream of spoiling attacks in the middle, and defended Moscow quite well. My losses were from 1941-1944 only about 30% of what they were historically, and only about 17% of what Soviet losses were. Somehow the Soviet side, despite that I held most of the population centres and had almost immediately in 1941 overrun the factory areas for most of their T-34 production areas, etc..still kept enough in front of me, not to beat my side on offense, but enough to stop my otherwise powerful juggernaut from taking Moscow..and the campaign still goes on to the end. The really poor argument(sorry, no offense) that we should have already won, or that the tanks would have been used in the west, etc etc..all are conjectures that have nothing to do with the original posting, which IS an issue...if your side does better than the historic record the game is set to play, there should be a way to keep the game from assuming that you lost those battles at Stalingrad, Leningrad, or even Moscow. For myself, I have already changed it in the editor, and it works great now. Without changing it, I would have put the game down, and not played it anymore, as I do not like a game that just assumes I will lose battles, and automatically punishes me for it, while at the same time assuming that the other side will win the battles, and keeps helping them keep up the manpower, etc, that if you do well, they also should lose. Still..I do not intend this as a complaint, I love this game..but mostly, I hope they still look at some items like this...but I love that they did give us the ability to make changes in it, to give each of us a game we like.

gradenko2k -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/9/2012 8:07:35 AM)
Just because it's survivable doesn't mean it's excusable. The only time you'd hand-wave away something like this would be in consideration of effort involved, but we don't really have a say on what is and isn't worth the developers' time and sweat - we can only voice what we think are (and aren't) legitimate issues, and this one seems to be a rather genuine concern.

ETF -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/9/2012 1:10:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer On 1 Mar 1945 the new '45 Panzer MTOE comes into effect. And it gutted my Wehrmacht panzers. Compare the panzer strengths in the screen shot. Most Pz Divs had 150+ panzers, now....111. This ain't right guys. [image]local://upfiles/32782/95270CBBB02741F9848E84606DCCDA55.jpg[/image] Hmm 45 and your Panzer Divisions have 150 + tanks in each. Wow. Much Much better than historical.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.40625