RE: War in the West

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: War in the West

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 >> RE: War in the West

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 8:04:36 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer

Jaw: Units that withdrew. Trouble is that some that never withdrew in reality, are still withdrawn in game. Eg: 29th Motorized division. Destroyed at Stalingrad. New division with same name formed.IE new equipment, new personnel, a new division, same number, and sent to Sicily. In WITE world, 29th withdraws. Reality, had it not been destroyed = 2 motorised divisions. WITE = 1 division.

Same for most of the Stalingrad divisions. New divisions built and went elsewhere, in WITE, original unit sent. 2 separate divisions treated as a single by the game.

Same applies to many support units, etc.

As it currently stands in the world according to WITE, the Yorktown class Yorktown and the Essex class Yorktown were the same ship.

To begin with, let me say that what I'm trying to do when I comment is to explain the design decisions and the reasoning behind them. Whether you except those decisions or not is your choice but at least I hope I've given everyone a better understanding of the game design.

Your 29th Motorized division example is a good one because it exemplifies the withdrawal philosophy of WitE. The 29th is NOT withdrawn because the historical division was destroyed at Stalingrad. The 29th is withdrawn because a motorized division from the Eastern Front re-building in the West was sent to Italy. In WitE terms what happened at Stalingrad has nothing to do with the 29th's withdrawal. If you check the withdrawal date you will note that the 29th does not withdraw when its historical counterpart surrendered at Stalingrad. The 29th withdraws when it was re-built and sent to Italy.

We could have taken the approach of the old SPI WAR IN THE EAST board game and only had withdrawals or reinforcements when the net strength of the German Army in the East changed. The problem with that approach however is that it doesn't work very well when units can fluxuate in strength as the do in WitE. If a message popped up saying "withdraw one motorized division to the West" what Axis player isn't going to send the weakest division he has to fill the requirement?

What you are asking for is full War In Europe game where you are Hitler and you determine what goes where when. Unfortunately that game is still a few years off.

What Baron said, the only the only common thing between the destroyed and the new unit is the name, if the old unit hadn't been destroyed, it would have gotten a new name. It should be treated as a new unit. 29. Mot B or whatever.

The Yorktown example is an excellent analogy BTW.

As to the Artillery, thanks for taking it up, but I must be honest and say I think you guys are being needlessly complicated. The mechanism is already perfectly implemented in game....the % setting. It's exactly what they did, and what players already do, if needed.

BTW...in another thread you said Trey was the guy to moan to about late war Nbw Abteilungen being used instead of Regiments. How do I reach him?

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/25/2012 8:10:16 PM >

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 151

RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 8:08:54 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
Even the old system with pseudo-fronts in WiR wasn't much worse, and would have been easy to refine (nationality criteria agains too many Rumanians out West etc).

Agree, the old WIR system, for all it's abuse potential, really was better in this respect. Put a nationality lock on the boxes...presto, eliminates lots of problems.

It just occurred to me, the functionality, or something close to it already in game with the Romanian,Hungarian surrender events. Obviously it can check it certain unit nationalities are on certain hexes...have to few units....surrender chance for Italy or something like that.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/25/2012 8:15:44 PM >

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 152

RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 8:09:33 PM

Baron von Beer

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline

In the case of the "second" 29th, it was originally being formed as the 345th Motorized Infantry division, but ended up reusing the title of 29th Motorized Division.

The unit that is withdrawn holds absolutely zero relation with the unit that was sent to Italy. It was an entirely different division, no more in common with the 29th that is withdrawn than with the 60th, or 1st SS Panzer. In this case there should be no withdrawal to begin with.

Same with all the infantry divisions lost in Stalingrad, they were formed using regiments that had been raised to form new divisions, but instead used the numbers of those destroyed. Those new divisions that ended up on other fronts result with the original in-game division that happens to share the same number also being withdrawn, so effectively 2 divisions are sent to Italy, Yugoslavia, etc, instead of the one that was actually sent.

To further add to the irony, in some cases these new divisions wound up on the Eastern Front. eg the 76th ID was destroyed at Stalingrad. A new division was in the process of being formed in early '43 and designated 76th ID and ultimately ended up on the Eastern front in late 1943. The WITE 76th does not withdraw but again the second, new division does not exist in the game. The original 76th ends up representing both the original and new formation, while they were entirely different entities.

< Message edited by Baron von Beer -- 2/25/2012 9:45:27 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 153

RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 9:45:27 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer

In the case of the "second" 29th, it was originally being formed as the 345th Motorized Infantry division, but ended up reusing the title of 29th Motorized Division. The unit that is withdrawn holds absolutely zero relation with the unit that was sent to Italy. It was an entirely different division, no more in common with the 29th that is withdrawn than with the 60th, or 1st SS Panzer. In this case there should be no withdrawal to begin with.

Same with all the infantry divisions lost in Stalingrad, they were formed using regiments that had been raised to form new divisions, but instead used the numbers of those destroyed. Those new divisions that ended up on other fronts result with the original in-game division that happens to share the same number also being withdrawn, so effectively 2 divisions are sent to Italy, Yugoslavia, etc, instead of the one that was actually sent.

To further add to the irony, in some cases these new divisions wound up on the Eastern Front. eg the 76th ID was destroyed at Stalingrad. A new division was in the process of being formed in early '43 and designated 76th ID and ultimately ended up on the Eastern front in late 1943. The WITE 76th does not withdraw but again the second, new division does not exist in the game. The original 76th ends up representing both the original and new formation, while they were entirely different entities. In this case we actually end up short a division.

Your post before you edited was correct, the unit used to rebuild was the 345. Inf Div after it had been forming for half a year. So was fairly complete by that stage.

And to add insult to injury, the 345. Inf Div was originally supposed to be sent East.

Aufgestellt am 24. November 1942 auf dem Truppen�bungsplatz Wildflecken im WK IX als Kriemhilde-Einheit. Am 26. Dezember 1942 erhielt die Division den Befehl, sofort je ein Panzergrenadier-Bataillon und eine Sturmgesch�tz-Batterie f�r die Verwendung im Osten bereitzustellen. Diese erhielten die Nummern 393.Der Abtransport nach Burg b. Magdeburg zur Endausstattung sollte f�r die Sturmgesch�tz-Batterie am 31. Dezember 1942 und f�r das Panzergrenadier-Bataillon 393 am 7. Januar 1943 erfolgen. Ab 9. Januar 1943 sollte der Abtransport an die Ostfront erfolgen. Die Zuf�hrung des neu aufgestellten Brigadestabs und der Heeres-Flak-Artillerie-Abteilung 272 zur Bildung der geplanten Sturm-Brigade 1 sollte dann an der Front erfolgen, ist aber letztendlich nicht durchgef�hrt worden. Die urspr�nglich f�r den Osten bestimmte Division wurde im Januar 1943 nach Frankreich verlegt und am 1. April 1943 zur Wiederaufstellung der 29. Infanterie-Division verwendet.

The 29th is called Infanterie here because the correct designation is Infanterie (mot.).

Edit; sorry just saw why edited, it was of course forming as Motorized Division. My bad.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/25/2012 9:51:52 PM >

(in reply to Baron von Beer)

Post #: 154

RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 10:16:09 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

Another funny case.

Example:

The 217. Inf Div is destroyed in Russia in November 43. The very few survivors are sent home, and used as a nucleus for the 349. Inf Div in early December. After half a year (half a year seems to be about the standard time allotted for forming a new Div, at least until Bagration) they get sent East and get destroyed in Bagration. New Division gets set up as the 349. Volksgren Div, by renaming what used to be the 567. Volksgren Div. The 349. Volsgren Div was again used in the East in Oktober 44.

So in total we have 3 separate units. The 217, 349 Inf and the 567 Volksgren->new 349 Volksgren.

In game you only find the 217 Inf and 349 Inf, the 349 Volksgren is missing though it is an entirely separate unit.

Again, the Germans lose a Division. If all similar cases are handled like this in WITE, the Germans are missing boatload of Divisions (what their effective strength was is a different matter, at least in the late war cases, but that's a seperate discussion).

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/25/2012 10:17:18 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 155

RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 10:30:49 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
...
I'm usually keen to hear what people would do with German production if they had the chance.
...
I have no objection to a little tinkering a la WITP
...

I guess that is what most people would wish for. Nothing that is so dramatically different to break out of the realm of realistically-doable or historically plausible courses, but a little leeway a la R&D and production in AE to at least have some fun with it if you like, or chose historical R&D and production instead if you prefer the fixed pictures (would be best if all involved sides were treated the same then).

A few months R&D advance of certain elements that you decide to focus on (robbing peter to pay paul, so to say), e.g. the 262 as fighter by skipping the period it was initially tried to develop it to a fast bomber/CAS aircraft.

I have no issues with anything if I can see a plausible and realistic historical possibility for it. However, you hit problems with any of this stuff. Of 1400 ME262s produced, only a couple of hundred saw active service because of fuel and maintenance issues. Therefore, if someone wants this option, fine, but remember these things had engines that required scarce raw materials and the engines lasted about ten hours each. Therefore, if you want them in 1943, be prepared to see the fleet attrit to nothing by mid 1944.

quote:

Or halt the production of certain types of vehicles like the Tiger II, for whatever reason you could come up with, and use the freed resources to expand facilities and production rates for something else instead.

But this entirely depends on how flexible you want it. It isn't that easy for a tank factory to re-tool to start making other AFVs, never mind start making aircraft, or artillery pieces.

Likewise, German production often dispersed and fragmented rather than expanded in situ because of the bombing. Production of things like the ME262 could never be cranked up (even if you magically cooked up the raw materials) simply because many were built in forest clearings, or in bunkers etc. You can't crank up cottage production because it doesn't suit modern production methods, which is where the real increases in productivity are derived.

Also for research, stopping research into the Maus doesn't mean you're going to get the ME262 any earlier by diverting R&D points to it. No engineer working on the Maus would ever have been useful to the V2 program, or the 262 program.

quote:

Where you take your assumptions from that never having seen a Panther (meaning people in your game wouldn't even know about it or its performance), and focusing on the advanced Panzer IVH,G,J series, which could cope sufficiently with the T-34s, should translate into a 10 point NM loss, is not clear. There is no unambiguous reason for that.

I disagree. The Panzerwaffe were shocked by the KV and T34. By 1944 they were facing the IS, T34/85 and a series of monster SP guns. Asking them to do that with long barrelled MKIVs when better designs were available to produce would have hit morale hard. You only have to look at the evidence from Normandy to see what a perceived disparity in equipment can have on morale.

The Panther answered a problem that was raised by units in Russia. Ignoring their concerns and providing souped up MKIVs is going to annoy them.

I can live with allowing people to stop the Maus and Tiger II (although I think the effects of such should be fairly minimal) but you're leaving reality when you want anything which quickens the arrival of anything. Stopping research on the Tiger II should not provide the Panther any earlier. I see no historical method by which the two would be connected.

quote:

Also, keep in mind that the Panzer V series and the Panzer IV had a very different fuel consumption. Roughly speaking, each Panther (730 l => ca 170 km range on roads) need twice as much as a Panzer IVH,G (470 l => ca 200 km range on roads) or J (680 l => ca 300 km range on roads). So from the perspective of fuel usage, the Panzer IV was more sensible. Looking at kills/per loss statistics, that is little different.

But your extra Tanks are presumably housed in extra Panzer divisions. A Panzer Division in 1944 would have carried four battalions of mechanised/motorised infantry, a recce battalion, 3 battalions of motorised artillery, a battalion of Mech/motorised pioneers, butchers, bakers, battalions of motorised anti-tank and flak artillery, a truck column. All of this requires vehicles the Germans simply couldn't find. They never had enough rubber for tyres for one thing and so your extra range gets eaten up because you have hundreds maybe thousands of other vehicles to fuel, or field infantry free Panzer Regiments which should be theoretically vulnerable to any medium sized Russian infantry unit they happen along.

quote:

But you are certainly in general right about fuel being in most cases limiting factor for what R&D and production should allow a player to sensibly do if he wants to avoid running dry, but that's some risk there should be. In AE that certainly is quite acute of a risk.

Building no Panthers over extra MKIVs essentially means a host of factories retooling from the plant that made the Panther to the armaments plant that now needs more 75/48s rather than 75/70s. Fiddling around with aircraft production is pointless since it was lack of fuel and trained pilots, not lack of aircraft that did for the Luftwaffe.

To me, I have no issue making upgrades user controlled. Giving the Panther to the most experienced units you have first seems reasonable etc, but Germany didn't lose because of Hitler's meddling in production or scant resources being wasted on V weapons design. As such, playing with production essentially becomes a bit of chrome, and one that would be difficult to implement with any accuracy.

Regards,
ID

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 156

RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 10:58:42 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Again, the Germans lose a Division. If all similar cases are handled like this in WITE, the Germans are missing boatload of Divisions

What matters is the number of squads and material that Germans or Soviets created. There is an issue if there will be more corps and divisions if less units are not destroyed but that is about it

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 157

RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 11:16:01 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Again, the Germans lose a Division. If all similar cases are handled like this in WITE, the Germans are missing boatload of Divisions

What matters is the number of squads and material that Germans or Soviets created. There is an issue if there will be more corps and divisions if less units are not destroyed but that is about it

From 2nd half 44 onward I agree with you, the rebuilds are from the abstracted Easts share of production, so don't really matter, but before that, West production % is too high if we are not counting all the "new" divisions.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 158

RE: War in the West - 2/26/2012 12:48:23 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
But this entirely depends on how flexible you want it.

This is true, "on how flexible you want". Since this kind of "PDU on" game mode would surely not please those that would like to stick to simulating historical production and availabilties under the condition that e.g. the air war against germany is always entirely unaffected by developments on the Easter Front, the designers would have to determine their "flexibility", or ask for the customers wish on that.
Given that most WitP:AE games seem to use flexible R&D and production rules, though, I would not be surprised if in the Axis theater also that would become the norm if it were available. The AE system works quite well, surely could be transferred in some manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
To me, I have no issue making upgrades user controlled. Giving the Panther to the most experienced units you have first seems reasonable etc, but Germany didn't lose because of Hitler's meddling in production or scant resources being wasted on V weapons design. As such, playing with production essentially becomes a bit of chrome, and one that would be difficult to implement with any accuracy.

Like in AE's historical setup "scenario 1", even toying with R&D and production is probably only chrome, but for the underdog player who will get beaten on for many long turns by Allied with all their fancy new planes, ground units and ships, it is a source of motivation and perhaps hope -- not to change the outcome, therefore it is too limited in possibilities (R&D advances by hardly a few months, never years, and production limited by resources and on deployment, supply), but hope to inflict some stingy little counterstrikes that are just bold and noteworthy gameplay, rather and make a big difference.

In fact, the limits on the Japanese production are so tricky, that starting players are recommended to play with fixed production since it is easy to derail the economy on the first try with to aggressive expansion plans, or too much focus on certain platforms (like switching all production over to Me262, Panthers or Tigers probably could lead to here).

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
It isn't that easy for a tank factory to re-tool to start making other AFVs, never mind start making aircraft, or artillery pieces.

Good point. So there ought to be distinguishment/penalties for factories to retool from one production line to a very different equipement. I possibly would not allow ground vehicle factories to modify to anything but ground vehicle factories. But perhaps within limits, new builds of factories could be allowed (using some kind of total worker pool or such things).
Factories that just continue along the development of one type (say PzIV series or T-34 series, instead of switching to SPWs, Panthers or KVs) should suffer lower decreases of production rate when switching models. In AE that is modelled by loss of production on switching models too drastically, and it is very time and resource consuming to rebuild (retool) the factories. Factories that are "new builds" and require new machinery anyway, not retooling, are time and resources anyway. Sound like the AE model could be indeed applicable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
However, you hit problems with any of this stuff. Of 1400 ME262s produced, only a couple of hundred saw active service because of fuel and maintenance issues. Therefore, if someone wants this option, fine, but remember these things had engines that required scarce raw materials and the engines lasted about ten hours each. Therefore, if you want them in 1943, be prepared to see the fleet attrit to nothing by mid 1944.

True, and I hope to recognize that in a good model. We already have operational losses and that links to supply needs for keeping stuff operational. If supply and fuel would be more limited pools also in WitE, and influence who often and who far players can move their tank/mot. divisions, or how many squadrons to keep active at the front, things like a big fleet of 262 interceptors or divisions of Tiger IIs would be impossible to sustain in a very realistic manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Also for research, stopping research into the Maus doesn't mean you're going to get the ME262 any earlier by diverting R&D points to it. No engineer working on the Maus would ever have been useful to the V2 program, or the 262 program.

Fully agree, an R&D facility for ground vehicles should remain one. One switching type lines should also reduce the R&D output much more than continuing development on the R&D of that type.
If you consider that often development cycles were lenghtend by researching or engineering in the wrong direction for some while (like the gear box issues with the Tigers, or the Me-262 being too late being recognized as a superior interceptor by the decision makers rather than pushing it as a fast level-bomber), adding some more "heads" added to the development teams might bring in "new ideas" and change this direction, or fill "reseacher-hour" deficits for some "routine" design issues, thus, reduce the delay in the availability. But that mechanic could also work the other way, so and kind of R&D progress could also be further delayed if you bring in the wrong ideas. So perhaps there could be a dice roll also for further delay, not only for an acceleration?

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Where you take your assumptions from that never having seen a Panther (meaning people in your game wouldn't even know about it or its performance), and focusing on the advanced Panzer IVH,G,J series, which could cope sufficiently with the T-34s, should translate into a 10 point NM loss, is not clear. There is no unambiguous reason for that.

I disagree. The Panzerwaffe were shocked by the KV and T34. By 1944 they were facing the IS, T34/85 and a series of monster SP guns. Asking them to do that with long barrelled MKIVs when better designs were available to produce would have hit morale hard. You only have to look at the evidence from Normandy to see what a perceived disparity in equipment can have on morale.

What I meant here was to assume that in your game (alternate pathway) the Panther was perhaps never introduced of you didn't decide to build it, or may not even research it. Then the front line troops could still get pounded by the Soviet T34 and KVs, and suffer more defeats and resultant moral losses. But they would never have drop from not having available a piece of equipement they never knew existed, or that never had proven superior qualities in the field. It could be different if you shelved the Panther after using him a few month with great success in your game, though? But maybe that kind of detail and rule would be too much while other things seem to be more pressing. Here I could live with a lot of abstraction, since the "PDU" rule already requires some more flexibilty for the sake of more fun.

Regarding what to do if you build say 150% PzIV rates at he cost of shutting down the PzV programm before it launches, well again, would people wish to be allowed to build extra Panzer Divisions, or extra support units with them, but within the limits of their manpower and truck pools? And at the risk of running those down?
I'd say "why not", although the latter will limit the whole effect to "chrome and fun" again.
With PDU, I would make sense to allow the ToEs to be modified within reason: Not only switching out older models of the same category, but you could also allow for e.g. Stugs to be replaced by tanks or tank destroyers as happend in a few cases, or you could allow to switch out a light tank slot against another tank type, if your pools are fuller of that.
People could also come up with an "enhanced Iron Man" scenario with greater resources for the Axis, just for fun like in AE, in which production changes also have bigger impacts.

It could be even more fun if WiEurope one day arrives, and with the opening of Polish campaign in a "PDU" game you can start to tune up the German war economy, pilot training etc. like you essentially do in AE. Since it would be GCs started under the mutual agreement of "PDU" and neglect of fixed producion, it could be just fine and to me, certainly sounds like big fun and much increased replay-value.

But great comments, ID! I can clearly see why GG and team didn't introduce this already -- sizable chunk of developement time, debugging and closing loopholes, I guess. I still hope they start to introduce something like that stepwise until a WiEurope arrives that is on par with AE in this respect.
Jan

< Message edited by janh -- 2/26/2012 12:51:43 PM >

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 159

RE: War in the West - 2/26/2012 10:49:32 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer

In the case of the "second" 29th, it was originally being formed as the 345th Motorized Infantry division, but ended up reusing the title of 29th Motorized Division. The unit that is withdrawn holds absolutely zero relation with the unit that was sent to Italy. It was an entirely different division, no more in common with the 29th that is withdrawn than with the 60th, or 1st SS Panzer. In this case there should be no withdrawal to begin with.

Same with all the infantry divisions lost in Stalingrad, they were formed using regiments that had been raised to form new divisions, but instead used the numbers of those destroyed. Those new divisions that ended up on other fronts result with the original in-game division that happens to share the same number also being withdrawn, so effectively 2 divisions are sent to Italy, Yugoslavia, etc, instead of the one that was actually sent.

To further add to the irony, in some cases these new divisions wound up on the Eastern Front. eg the 76th ID was destroyed at Stalingrad. A new division was in the process of being formed in early '43 and designated 76th ID and ultimately ended up on the Eastern front in late 1943. The WITE 76th does not withdraw but again the second, new division does not exist in the game. The original 76th ends up representing both the original and new formation, while they were entirely different entities.

This is starting to sound like a STAR TREK movie.

Look, there are a lot of different approaches we could have taken such as nothing withdraws but destroyed units don't come back or only units that WEREN'T destroyed and rebuilt for use elsewhere are withdrawals, etc., etc. but the bottom line is that only a multi-front game would truely satisfy you and that game is in the future. WitE is an operational level game with strategic overtones but still an operational game. If you can get past the restrictions of the design concept, you can still enjoy playing the game for what it is while you wait for the ultimate monster to come.

(in reply to Baron von Beer)

Post #: 160

RE: War in the West - 2/26/2012 11:34:43 PM

Baron von Beer

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline

Damnit I'm a doctor, not a.. hey wait, I'm not even a doctor!

You keep using the term rebuilt, when none of the mentioned divisions were rebuilt, reformed, reinforced, nor anything else linking them in any way. This was not the case with the 29th Motorized, nor any of the divisions destroyed at Stalingrad. Their formation was already underway, they simply reused names of previously destroyed formations to fill in the holes numerically.

This is not the case of something like a panzer division getting worn to the nub in Normandy and then being sent back to refit, drawing from general replacements. These divisions were already being raised as new divisions while the fighting was going on in Stalingrad. They simply would have had different numbers had things not gone tits up on the Volga.

The method currently in use in the game states that 1+1=1, instead of 1+1=2. The loss or non-loss of the divisions in question is irrelevant. One did not bring about the other, both would have existed had the former not been destroyed. The new (345th renamed to 29th) division that was sent to Italy is not being accounted for in the method the game uses, and the original name sake is also being withdrawn to fulfill the role that the newly created one historically filled.

Theater control is irrelevant here. It is said that other theaters are assumed to progress historically. Historically, the 345th was being raised. While it was forming, the 29th bought the farm. The 345 then changed it's name to 29th, and went to Italy. So why is the original 29th being withdrawn? It has absolutely no connection, no cause-effect chain, no tie to the division that went to Italy. It should not be withdrawn, full stop.

To use the Yorktown again, the Essex class Yorktown was not the original Yorktown class ship rebuilt. It was already being built, as the Bon Homme Richard. It then had its name changed to Yorktown after the original was sunk. The 345th was already being raised as a new division, the 29th got destroyed... And the same for the rest of the "resurrected" 6th army divisions.

< Message edited by Baron von Beer -- 2/27/2012 12:52:22 AM >

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 161

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 1:21:43 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

I get the Yorktown analogy but remember the Essex class Yorktown wasn't sent to the Atlantic while the 29th Panzergrenadier was sent to Italy.

Since there will be no official revision to change the replacement system, my suggestion to you is to determine what units you want to see stay on the Eastern Front and remove their withdrawal dates from the 41 Campaign scenario file. You won't be able to use any new "official" updates without redoing the whole process but at this stage most changes happening are rather cosmetic anyway. It is not an ideal solution but it will at least answer the question of whether having these units makes any difference to the outcome.

(in reply to Baron von Beer)

Post #: 162

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 2:33:07 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

I get the Yorktown analogy but remember the Essex class Yorktown wasn't sent to the Atlantic while the 29th Panzergrenadier was sent to Italy.

In WITE world, if Essex Yorktown goes to the Atlantic, Yorktown Yorktown goes as well.

Sorry jaw, but you are being disingenuous here. I can't believe you are not seeing this obvious a point.

I get that you guys don't want to open any potential (big) can of worms, but then just say that and leave it at that.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 163

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 3:47:43 PM

Zebedee

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

Will WitW be a tad more friendly to modders than WitE? Can appreciate that there's a desire to protect the 'engine' as you expand upon it, but could it be done in a way which allows modders a little more latitude without hitting hardcoded features and the 'redo every patch' issues which make WitE a nightmare to even begin to play about with?

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 164

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 4:58:53 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

We try to get as much into the editor as we can, but that takes time and programming resources. Also, there is often a tug of war between the desire to have a good AI and the desire to make things moddable. Sometimes, hard coding things makes programming the AI considerably easier. I've seen the advantages of having a good editor and trying to make things moddable, but it's too early to say exactly how much will be moddable in WitW. My opinion is that 2/3 of our customers are primarily interested in AI play, so that's something we have to take seriously.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 165

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 5:33:47 PM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer
These divisions were already being raised as new divisions while the fighting was going on in Stalingrad. They simply would have had different numbers had things not gone tits up on the Volga.

I think that you're giving these newly formed 'divisions' too much credit. Kinda like Hilter in the later stages of the war looking at maps and seeing all his 'divisions' (many of which were little more than bloated regiments) and thinking: "Cool, look at my huge army!". Yes, there were many new divisions formed after the early waves (one might even say that on paper the Germans had an entire panzer army sitting in Germany), but few survived in their own right, and many (if not most) were broken up or used for replacement and/or training cadres. It may be cool or even easy to track the history of an individual panzer or motorized division, but go through the list and you will drive yourself nuts trying to track ALL of the obscure divisions formed. Then you need to determine what these paper divisions represented in reality. This 345th Motorized Division, was it a full strength combat ready division, or a training cadre of regimental strength, equiped with PzIIs and captured French WW1 artillery? Now, try to translate all this into a nice and neat OOB for a wargame, and in order to retain your sanity, some abstraction is required with a game of limited scope such as WitE. I've been there, and done that. German and Russian WW2 OOBs aren't as clear cut and dry as it was for the western allies (even the British aren't that easy to figure out. Frankly, only the Americans had a pretty straightforward WW2 OOB). I promise that you'll become crazy trying to sort it out

The other alternative to this whole issue, would be to not have any historical withdrawls, but at the same time not rebuild any destroyed units. The destroyed units would represent or 'cancel out' the historical withdrawls to some extent. However if destroyed divisions cancel out withdrawls, in the big picture nothing has really changed all that much, and we're right back to square one.

Let's say the 29th Motorised Division isn't destroyed, and let's suppose the 345th Motorised Division survives, is built to full strength and fights in Italy. Where do the Germans get the men and equipment for the 345th? Thin air? The men and equipment used to build-up the 345th are men and equipment that can't be sent to the Russian Front. Since we are supposing that the 29th survives, that's one extra division in the east to support. Where do the Germans get the extra men and equipment to replace it's loses over 43-45, as well as those for the 345th? Again, thin air? Now they have 2 divisions to replace loses, where historically they only had one, and now have fewer reinforcements for the east as they have to support the 345th. The Germans haven't created any extra divisions, they've just shifted men and equipment around.

If you're worried about having the Russian Front stripped even though you saved historically destroyed divisions, the game will reward such results. Your army will be bigger than historically. Many (most?) AARs are showing German strength above 3 million through 1942 and 1943. IIRC, the Germans didn't get back above 3 million in the east until around Kursk, only to drop back down shortly after.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 2/27/2012 6:01:34 PM >

(in reply to Baron von Beer)

Post #: 166

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 6:06:06 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

In WITE world, if Essex Yorktown goes to the Atlantic, Yorktown Yorktown goes as well.

Sorry jaw, but you are being disingenuous here. I can't believe you are not seeing this obvious a point.

I get that you guys don't want to open any potential (big) can of worms, but then just say that and leave it at that.

No, here is how it would work: If the Essex Yorktown had gone to the Atlantic, it would never exist in WitE world.

I realize that you object to the Axis player being penalized for the Stalingrad defeat by having the few units lost at Stalingrad that did not return to the Eastern Front removed from the game when the Axis player may never suffer a similar defeat but this rather minor loss in strength is offset by getting many more divisions as reinforcements for "free" without having to build them from scratch. On the balance I think the Axis player comes out ahead.

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 167

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 7:04:59 PM

Baron von Beer

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline

Right, the Essex would not exist in WITE, just as the 345th Inf (Mot) doesn't exist in WITE, yet you are still withdrawing the Yorktown class because the Essex was in the Atlantic, just as you are withdrawing the 29th because the already existing 345th was renamed and sent to Italy. You are using A to model the actions of B based solely on the fact that B later changed it's name to A.

In other cases (Like the 76th) A isn't touched, but while historically B (which was already being raised while the original 76th was still fighting on the Volga) also arrived in the East in the fall of 1943, it never exists in WITE because it changed its name to A, and there's already an A. Had A not historically been destroyed, B would have had a unique name instead and thus would be a reinforcement in WITE.

< Message edited by Baron von Beer -- 2/27/2012 7:25:02 PM >

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 168

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 7:45:30 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer
These divisions were already being raised as new divisions while the fighting was going on in Stalingrad. They simply would have had different numbers had things not gone tits up on the Volga.

I think that you're giving these newly formed 'divisions' too much credit. Kinda like Hilter in the later stages of the war looking at maps and seeing all his 'divisions' (many of which were little more than bloated regiments) and thinking: "Cool, look at my huge army!". Yes, there were many new divisions formed after the early waves (one might even say that on paper the Germans had an entire panzer army sitting in Germany), but few survived in their own right, and many (if not most) were broken up or used for replacement and/or training cadres. It may be cool or even easy to track the history of an individual panzer or motorized division, but go through the list and you will drive yourself nuts trying to track ALL of the obscure divisions formed. Then you need to determine what these paper divisions represented in reality. This 345th Motorized Division, was it a full strength combat ready division, or a training cadre of regimental strength, equiped with PzIIs and captured French WW1 artillery? Now, try to translate all this into a nice and neat OOB for a wargame, and in order to retain your sanity, some abstraction is required with a game of limited scope such as WitE. I've been there, and done that. German and Russian WW2 OOBs aren't as clear cut and dry as it was for the western allies (even the British aren't that easy to figure out. Frankly, only the Americans had a pretty straightforward WW2 OOB). I promise that you'll become crazy trying to sort it out

Forming up time is a good indicator for strength. Pre early-mid 44 6-7 months seem like the standard time that a Division was given to form up and train. Post Bagration/Normandie, this falls down to 2-3 months or even less. That's where all your kooky Divisions come from.

Germany is though to keep track of because they kept on losing units but kept the names of those units active by just assigning the name of a destroyed division to a new one. But go through the 300 numbered Divisons and you'll find quite a few that were reflagged.

In the 345th example, it had been forming for about 5 1/2 months before it was reflagged. Then the unit as is was sent to Italy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
Let's say the 29th Motorised Division isn't destroyed, and let's suppose the 345th Motorised Division survives, is built to full strength and fights in Italy. Where do the Germans get the men and equipment for the 345th? Thin air? The men and equipment used to build-up the 345th are men and equipment that can't be sent to the Russian Front. Since we are supposing that the 29th survives, that's one extra division in the east to support. Where do the Germans get the extra men and equipment to replace it's loses over 43-45, as well as those for the 345th? Again, thin air? Now they have 2 divisions to replace loses, where historically they only had one, and now have fewer reinforcements for the east as they have to support the 345th. The Germans haven't created any extra divisions, they've just shifted men and equipment around.

The replacements to support the 345th and the other units in the West would come from the same place as now.. the 30-40% that's already subtracted from production.

The replacements for the original 29th, plus all the other ones which should be in would come from the same place as before...your share of the production.

Production stays the same. The number of containers differs, the Germans don't lose 150'000 or so in fake withdrawals and they get to decide how to use the available pool of production.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
If you're worried about having the Russian Front stripped even though you saved historically destroyed divisions, the game will reward such results. Your army will be bigger than historically. Many (most?) AARs are showing German strength above 3 million through 1942 and 1943. IIRC, the Germans didn't get back above 3 million in the east until around Kursk, only to drop back down shortly after.

It's about Units being arbitrarily withdrawn, right now the game doesn't reward keeping them alive because you arbitrarily lose the unit and most of the men anyway. In effect Stalingrad can be delayed, but not prevented.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
The other alternative to this whole issue, would be to not have any historical withdrawls, but at the same time not rebuild any destroyed units. The destroyed units would represent or 'cancel out' the historical withdrawls to some extent. However if destroyed divisions cancel out withdrawls, in the big picture nothing has really changed all that much, and we're right back to square one.

An example of a historically withdrawn unit is the 10th Pz Division. An active unit actively withdrawn and sent somewhere else. The units Baron and I are talking about were never ever withdrawn, their names were given to somebody else and those units were in turn used on a different front. Two very different things.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/27/2012 7:59:40 PM >

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 169

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 7:57:11 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

In WITE world, if Essex Yorktown goes to the Atlantic, Yorktown Yorktown goes as well.

Sorry jaw, but you are being disingenuous here. I can't believe you are not seeing this obvious a point.

I get that you guys don't want to open any potential (big) can of worms, but then just say that and leave it at that.

No, here is how it would work: If the Essex Yorktown had gone to the Atlantic, it would never exist in WitE world.

I realize that you object to the Axis player being penalized for the Stalingrad defeat by having the few units lost at Stalingrad that did not return to the Eastern Front removed from the game when the Axis player may never suffer a similar defeat but this rather minor loss in strength is offset by getting many more divisions as reinforcements for "free" without having to build them from scratch. On the balance I think the Axis player comes out ahead.

What Baron said. Right now, WITE enforces a causality between the Essex Yorktown and the Yorktown Yorktown.

If the Essex Yorktown goes offmap, the Yorktown Yorktown must follow. If the Yorktown Yorktown already exists on map, the Essex Yorktown can not exist. The Essex Yorktown doesn't just get a different name, it's as if it was never built.

That kind of link never existed, and I don't see a rational reason why it should exist.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/27/2012 8:03:20 PM >

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 170

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 8:59:36 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Another thing is that such units, when they are withrawn, are at least 75% strong TOEwise. Therefore they do represent a drain on forces/replacements on the player. It should also be noted that in the late war arrivals for the Germans, quite a number of weak Pz divisions arrive, ready for expansion or removal depending on the players' whim. In fact these were mostly made up of school and training personnel and were of a rather limited value, but present in the game.

So having said that I really do not see why a unit destroyed at the real Stalingrad has to be withrawn on the premise that whatever substituted it was later on sent to Italy. I do not see a need to bring the 345 on map, but neither do I see the need for the removal of the Stalingrad division from the map.

A similar case is the withdrawal of the 60 motorised (presumably another Stalingrad destroyed unit) which never comes back. The substitute division in this case is the Feldherrenhalle. But honestly, if the 60th was not destroyed in Stalingrad (a fate that most players avert) why should it be removed from the OOB and why should the Feldherrenhalle not be formed at least in brigade strength considering that the parent unit (ie 60th) was still around while the cadres of Felherrnehalle came from the SA.

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 171

RE: War in the West - 2/27/2012 9:36:32 PM

Zebedee

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We try to get as much into the editor as we can, but that takes time and programming resources. Also, there is often a tug of war between the desire to have a good AI and the desire to make things moddable. Sometimes, hard coding things makes programming the AI considerably easier. I've seen the advantages of having a good editor and trying to make things moddable, but it's too early to say exactly how much will be moddable in WitW. My opinion is that 2/3 of our customers are primarily interested in AI play, so that's something we have to take seriously.

Fair enough Joel. Didn't think of the impact upon the AI. And I'm definitely primarily one of the 2/3s of customers who play the AI.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 172

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 12:28:54 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

So having said that I really do not see why a unit destroyed at the real Stalingrad has to be withrawn on the premise that whatever substituted it was later on sent to Italy.

Yes. No unit that was destroyed IRL should be taken from game.

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 173

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 3:03:46 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I'm incredibly discouraged that there is a group of people who can't get this from the German player's perspective.

29 Motorized must withdraw and take at least 75% TOE with it when it leaves. Thus, irrespective of the disaster at Stalingrad, this unit leaves the eastern front whether its fate matches history or not.

The percentage of replacements devoted to non-East Front theaters was being used to fill a historical 345 Infantry is still going to the historical 345 Infantry. Germany will lose 75% of the TOE of the historic 29 Motorized, and 100% of the non-East Front replacements used to build the historic 345 Infantry. Thus, Germany's overall war effort is short (compared to the historical outcome) the 75% TOE removed from the map when 29 Motor leaves.

If 29 Motor were not required to leave, nothing is changed regarding Non-Eastern Front replacements. Meanwhile, the only thing that changes on Eastern Front replacements is that they must be allocated amongst one more division than history, with the worst consequence the Soviet would face being an additional combat unit (while all on-map combat units are competing for the same East Front replacement pool).

The blindness and deafness of the Sovie-o-phile community and designers continues.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 174

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 3:37:20 AM

Baron von Beer

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline

heliodorus,

Would it be too much to remove the last line, to preserve the civility of the thread?

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 175

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 5:32:07 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

The blindness and deafness of the Sovie-o-phile community and designers continues.

What a load of unsubstantiated, purile, nonsense.

8. Rule Change (section 7.6.2.2) - Changes to Command Capacity:
a. Stavka and OKH now have infinite command capacity (they will never be considered overloaded). This is shown on screen as a command limit of 999.
b. Soviet Army Command Capacity is changed as follows: 6/41-8/41 � 24 9/41-3/42 � 21 4/42-9/45 � 18
c. Soviet Tank Army Command Capacity is changed to 15.
9. Rule Change (section 21.1.10.1) - The Soviet Manpower Multipliers in 1943, 44 and 45 are reduced by 5 (so they are now 35, 30 and 15 respectively). Including changes in previous versions, the Soviet manpower multiplier table should now read 50,40,35,30 and 15.
10. Rule Change (section 7.6.4) - The Command Range of Soviet Army HQs is now 10 (was 15).

Fort caps too. Sure is a great time for the Sovie-o-phile community and designers.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/28/2012 7:22:53 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 176

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 1:21:21 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

So having said that I really do not see why a unit destroyed at the real Stalingrad has to be withrawn on the premise that whatever substituted it was later on sent to Italy.

Yes. No unit that was destroyed IRL should be taken from game.

Can we all agree to disagree on this subject? We are NOT going to change the withdrawal schedule to keep those few divisions that were destroyed on the Eastern Front and not returned there to not withdraw. End of discussion on that topic.

When and if we do a War in Europe game withdrawals will be a non-issue and if we do a WitE 2.0 we can revisit this issue then.

Finally let me say again that you have the power with the editor to change or eliminate the withdrawal date of any unit in the game. Ignoring support units which are almost insignificant in the game, how many units are we arguing about here, 5, 10? Even if you have to go back and make this change over and over again with each "official" update, it can't take more than a few minutes to do. I can think of a dozen things I would like to see different in the game but have no control over. Withdrawals are one thing a player can change.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 177

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 1:54:10 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer

heliodorus,

Would it be too much to remove the last line, to preserve the civility of the thread?

I do not believe that telling the community of Soviet players and the designers that a certain category of customer (one with a substantive market share, I assert) that their design decisions are obviously slighting Germany of stuff it needs to make the game competitive (and the game is not competitive in PvP play).

If that's uncivil, you might consider adding me to your list of blocked posters, no disrespect intended.

Now...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

The blindness and deafness of the Sovie-o-phile community and designers continues.

What a load of unsubstantiated, purile, nonsense.

8. Rule Change (section 7.6.2.2) - Changes to Command Capacity:
a. Stavka and OKH now have infinite command capacity (they will never be considered overloaded). This is shown on screen as a command limit of 999.
b. Soviet Army Command Capacity is changed as follows: 6/41-8/41 � 24 9/41-3/42 � 21 4/42-9/45 � 18
c. Soviet Tank Army Command Capacity is changed to 15.
9. Rule Change (section 21.1.10.1) - The Soviet Manpower Multipliers in 1943, 44 and 45 are reduced by 5 (so they are now 35, 30 and 15 respectively). Including changes in previous versions, the Soviet manpower multiplier table should now read 50,40,35,30 and 15.
10. Rule Change (section 7.6.4) - The Command Range of Soviet Army HQs is now 10 (was 15).

Fort caps too. Sure is a great time for the Sovie-o-phile community and designers.

First, congratulations on your purchase of a new thesaurus, but the word you're looking for is "puerile." And I will now rebut:

8a is a rule change that advantages neither side in practice, but benefits the Soviet side more than the German (because the Soviet actually had far greater ability to over-load STAVKA than Germany did OKH). Strategically, this advantages the Soviet (over the status quo ante).

8b is a change I'm happy with, but it misses the root of the problem with Soviet operations, which is that Germany pays, on average, 5 to 7 AP to change units between HQs, whereas the Soviet pays on average, 1 (I can prove this again with maths, if necessary for anyone). This is a humongous advantage in AP efficiency, and the fact that command structure changes occurred does not obviate the advantage.

The 8b disadvantage the Soviet a-historical capability to put many divisions in one Army HQ with a excellent Commander. Putting the commander in place would cost roughly 10-11 AP, which costs the same in AP as putting 10 Soviet divisions into that HQ. In the status quo ante, Soviet players had a de facto command advantage because they could put more divisions in one great command HQ, and as the divisions were eaten up, it was advantageous to cheaply move divisions in and out of the good HQ rather than do what the Soviets did historically, which is move armies in whole forward and back from the line as refit was necessary. The combined effect of needing fewer HQs and cheaper re-assignment costs meant many more APs available.

Now with the 8b situation, it's true that command limits make this feature less exploitable, it's still an significant administrative advantage for the Soviet. Whether your army HQ has 4 divisions or 10, the point is that your great commander can simply swap out fresh divisions for a fraction of the cost, and keep a great commander in the field forever with fresh units.

Germany does not have the flexibility and operational agility that was the hallmark of its war effort until 1943. If you don't understand that, again, I really can't explain it any clearer for you.

8c was the same as 8b, but more significant a restriction on the Soviet than 8b.

9 presents the problem with the root game in WitE: the combat engine isn't very realistic. And because it's too late to change the dumb parts of the combat engine, the only thing the designers can do is to put the Soviet Union on 'history rails' the way it puts Germany on 'history rails' that limit one's options for gameplay (national morale, unit withdrawls, etc.). A good change for Germany, true, but not a significant one.

10 is an immaterial change, really. In practical terms, Soviet players had a nice handicap (one of their many) with 15 hex range, but in practice, this change won't affect the Soviet play style much at all.

So this is where I say tone deafness and blindness comes from.
People don't think things through, they're Sovie-o-philes or 2b3-philes, and they don't understand their own game's gameplay, particularly from the German perspective.

_____________________________

(in reply to Baron von Beer)

Post #: 178

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 2:56:35 PM

Omat

Posts: 2414
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline

Welcome on my Ignore list

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

If that's uncivil, you might consider adding me to your list of blocked posters, no disrespect intended.

_____________________________

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 179

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 3:44:03 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

When and if we do a War in Europe game withdrawals will be a non-issue and if we do a WitE 2.0 we can revisit this issue then.

Finally let me say again that you have the power with the editor to change or eliminate the withdrawal date of any unit in the game. Ignoring support units which are almost insignificant in the game, how many units are we arguing about here, 5, 10? Even if you have to go back and make this change over and over again with each "official" update, it can't take more than a few minutes to do. I can think of a dozen things I would like to see different in the game but have no control over. Withdrawals are one thing a player can change.

Well when these 5 or 10 divisions are some of the most mobile and powerful chesspieces in the German arsenals, they do make a difference especially in a situation where they cannot be made good. At least I believe so and so do some others

I hope that when War in Europe is done, an element of flexibility would be introduced for the Axis side. It is important that some slack be given to the Axis and not just Germany (Italy's industrial/military potential was never really realised, some regional allies are not present like Croatia/other Ygoslavian groups and Ukranians and some flexibility should be afforded to the militaries of the minor axis allies like for example being able to attach 1 SU instead of 3 to minor allied divisions)

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 180