Slitherine

quote:

The lesson of WW1 is that arty & infantry cannot prevail against deep trenches and machine guns. So trying to make the point that Soviet infantry corps don't need tanks in support or that tanks didn't decisively contribute in offensive operations as a weapon is, in my opinion not correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

So what I'm reading here is that the following actions should be taken to improve the game:

1. Artillery should have no effect.
2. Except German artillery. Any Soviet unit attacked by German artillery should be eliminated.
3. Soviets should be limited to stacking 3 brigades in a hex, or 2 divisions, or 1 corps. This is because a Soviet brigade is equivalent to a German division in terms of stacking ability.
4. Any Soviet unit attacked by a Panzer regiment should be immediately eliminated.
5. Any Soviet unit attacked by a German unit should be immediately eliminated.
6. Any lower morale unit attacked by a higher morale unit should be immediately eliminated.
7. Closely related, German attacks that fail should not be counted as a defeat.
8. Any German unit that is attacked should hold its ground at all costs.
9. German units recovering from the disabled pool should have 100% morale and 100% experience due to them being veterans.
10. The 1941 scenario should be modified to move all Soviet units to the border line. No Soviet unit should be allowed to move from its starting position.
11. Soviet industry shouldn't be able to be railed out, and shouldn't be able to produce anything.
12. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that the Germans capture a Soviet held city.
13. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that any Soviet factory is damaged or captured.
14. In any case, the game ends with a German victory on the first turn of July 1941.

That'd make a better game for some, I'm sure. The rest of us have already stopped taking the princess pills.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
LOL! That was funny!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
However, I do think there is some merit to many of the points raised by the OP. Then if that should be called "Bias" is debatable. I do think the game definitely needs some tweaking to get things right from 1942 and onwards. There are lots of indications in AARs and in my own games that the Soviets are too strong, or the Germans too weak.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
(Imagine if factories relocated according to the calendar they were moved historically, the same way German divisions are withdrawn!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
A game where the Soviets can build any type of unit and support unit that they desire, while the Axis may not do likewise, is most assuredly biased in favor of the Soviets.  All that is necessary is to figure out which units are superior in quality to others (for example mortars and rifle corps) and build more of those to leverage the mathematical advantage.

This issue alone means the Soviet will always retain an advantage over the German side, all else held equal.

But, alas, not all else is held equal.  The Soviets also have +1 odds shift, the ability to create new HQ units, the stacking advantage of multiple corps stacking, and complete control over factory movements (Imagine if factories relocated according to the calendar they were moved historically, the same way German divisions are withdrawn!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Not a very good analogy; factory evacuations should obviously be based on what is occuring within the Russian theater (ie, under player control), while German unit withdrawals are determined by events happening in different theaters (ie, outside of player control). Don't you think that is a significant difference?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
(Imagine if factories relocated according to the calendar they were moved historically, the same way German divisions are withdrawn!).

Not a very good analogy; factory evacuations should obviously be based on what is occuring within the Russian theater (ie, under player control), while German unit withdrawals are determined by events happening in different theaters (ie, outside of player control). Don't you think that is a significant difference?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
What you have in this game is one side that has an invested capability to be strategic in gameplay terms (the Soviet can build ALL TYPES of units, move production centers, let certain production centers die at the expense of others) and one side absolutely does not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
With any game, players will find the incentives built into the system that are disproportionately effective and leverage them to maximum advantage. Mortars are the classic example right now. Once mortars are balanced, the Soviet players will move on to the next best leveraged unit or SU as determined by trail and error. Maybe it's tank brigades. Maybe it's cavalry corps. Whatever it is, the Soviet can stack their OOB with those types of units and leverage the advantage. There's no need to produce anything but what is maximally favored by the combat engine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The German player is stuck with the toys that history gave him, and nothing more. Where the Soviet can see his Pools totals and build spare units around surpluses, the German can't even get Pool tanks into the front line units that need tanks...

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm not saying this to 76mm, but to anyone: if you can't see how this system creates a bias in favor of the Soviets, I don't know how to help you understand it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

But many 1942 withdrawals, such as those of SS units, occurred because the 1941 winter required units to be replenished which was historically chosen to occur in France. If Das Reich doesn't take Demyansk Pocket style casualties, Das Reich STILL withdraws. (If my memory is wrong and it's not Das Reich, please substitute the appropriate unit).

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

With any game, players will find the incentives built into the system that are disproportionately effective and leverage them to maximum advantage. Mortars are the classic example right now. Once mortars are balanced, the Soviet players will move on to the next best leveraged unit or SU as determined by trail and error. Maybe it's tank brigades. Maybe it's cavalry corps. Whatever it is, the Soviet can stack their OOB with those types of units and leverage the advantage. There's no need to produce anything but what is maximally favored by the combat engine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I agree with this: there's an asymmetry in gameplay.

quote:


The issue with mortars you bring up is unclear to me. There are indeed observations on mortars being incredibly effective in the defense, not on the attack. As far as I know, you cannot attach Mortar Bn's to combat units (they qualify as artillery units).
So exploiting this seems to me a bit hard, since arty SU commitment is chance-based (and capped to a max of 6 SU's by eligible HQ). The thing is that rifle corps feature a massive amount of mortars in its TOE, it's just the TOEs of three regular Rifle or Guards Rifle divisions added up together. Therefore, "exploiting" this mortars thing would mean to invest massively on Rifle Corps (which seem to be what every Soviet players do sooner or later). The question is whether WiTE allows Soviet players building too many Rifle Corps (or too many Mortar Bn's, or too many Tank Bn's, or too many Sappers) too soon rather than questioning the feature itself.

quote:


If you're referring to the massive Tiger tank pools one accumulates by early 1943 the answer was already given: they account for the equipment of "future" units not present ones.

quote:


Actually I'm not finding much trouble for Panzer Divisions in 1943 to get tank replacements. What I miss is the ability of focusing arrival of the best equipment to units with the best morale. An example: I got 20 PzDiv badly mauled after eight weeks of nearly constant combat. So badly, it's now featuring a morale in the high 60's. I certainly don't want that unit to as likely to receive PzIVh and Panther D's as, say, 16 PzDiv, which has morale of 90. I grudgingly accept that the motorized divs which are almost elite have to fight back hordes of T-34 with a mix of PzIIIj and PzIVf2.

quote:


There asymmetry in strategic & logistics options indeed, but the thing is, as Mynok very clearly states, that until the issues that have come up during this year in the tactical combat simulation, fortification and national morale aren't ironed out, it's unclear whether more freedom at the higher level aspects of the game would make any difference whatsoever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
With any game, players will find the incentives built into the system that are disproportionately effective and leverage them to maximum advantage. Mortars are the classic example right now. Once mortars are balanced, the Soviet players will move on to the next best leveraged unit or SU as determined by trail and error. Maybe it's tank brigades. Maybe it's cavalry corps. Whatever it is, the Soviet can stack their OOB with those types of units and leverage the advantage. There's no need to produce anything but what is maximally favored by the combat engine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland
This asymmetry can be leveraged by a player to ensure unbalanced effects while playing. Personally I dont understand a system in which a Soviet formation is allowed to create ad hoc formations while restricting this capability from the Axis. It does not jibe with the actual flexibility of these two opponents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

quote:


The issue with mortars you bring up is unclear to me. There are indeed observations on mortars being incredibly effective in the defense, not on the attack. As far as I know, you cannot attach Mortar Bn's to combat units (they qualify as artillery units).
So exploiting this seems to me a bit hard, since arty SU commitment is chance-based (and capped to a max of 6 SU's by eligible HQ). The thing is that rifle corps feature a massive amount of mortars in its TOE, it's just the TOEs of three regular Rifle or Guards Rifle divisions added up together. Therefore, "exploiting" this mortars thing would mean to invest massively on Rifle Corps (which seem to be what every Soviet players do sooner or later). The question is whether WiTE allows Soviet players building too many Rifle Corps (or too many Mortar Bn's, or too many Tank Bn's, or too many Sappers) too soon rather than questioning the feature itself.

If you knew that mortars were effective, would you build any howitzer, gun, or arty formations? Why would you? Players will always attempt to minmax a system (maximize effect at minimum cost- six or more mtr SU's surely would fit that, correct?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

quote:


There asymmetry in strategic & logistics options indeed, but the thing is, as Mynok very clearly states, that until the issues that have come up during this year in the tactical combat simulation, fortification and national morale aren't ironed out, it's unclear whether more freedom at the higher level aspects of the game would make any difference whatsoever.

That may be true. How much combat power is gained or lost for changes in morale? I will need to look at the manual a bit to see if there is a description that documents this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Talking about asymmetries: has anybody ever found himself needing to use HQ buildup on a Soviet HQ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Talking about asymmetries: has anybody ever found himself needing to use HQ buildup on a Soviet HQ?

Very very rarely. And only late in the war once the Red Army is perfected or you are closing in on the kill. Not a whole lot of people seem to have played the game to this point.

It's a highly inefficient use of APs from the Soviet standpoint before that point. The Germans start with their perfect army, the Soviets do not, and getting their perfect army comes well before dumping APs on buildups.

To put this in another way: I can get a rifle corps or two or a tank or mech corps for the price of a build up. And those aren't one shot deals.

The other reason to avoid buildups: the Red Army is starved for trucks. You won't be in a position to burn them recklessly until late in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The possibility for bagging a German army will arise when you've dramatically improved the Red Army. It doesn't naturally occur merely by spending APs on buildups.

No matter how you slice it, improving the Red Army is very much more a priority than buildups. APs simply play a different role for the two sides. Germans can afford to spend APs recklessly and also burn their trucks recklessly. The Red Army is in no position to do either for a long time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

So what I'm reading here is that the following actions should be taken to improve the game:

1. Artillery should have no effect.
2. Except German artillery. Any Soviet unit attacked by German artillery should be eliminated.
3. Soviets should be limited to stacking 3 brigades in a hex, or 2 divisions, or 1 corps. This is because a Soviet brigade is equivalent to a German division in terms of stacking ability.
4. Any Soviet unit attacked by a Panzer regiment should be immediately eliminated.
5. Any Soviet unit attacked by a German unit should be immediately eliminated.
6. Any lower morale unit attacked by a higher morale unit should be immediately eliminated.
7. Closely related, German attacks that fail should not be counted as a defeat.
8. Any German unit that is attacked should hold its ground at all costs.
9. German units recovering from the disabled pool should have 100% morale and 100% experience due to them being veterans.
10. The 1941 scenario should be modified to move all Soviet units to the border line. No Soviet unit should be allowed to move from its starting position.
11. Soviet industry shouldn't be able to be railed out, and shouldn't be able to produce anything.
12. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that the Germans capture a Soviet held city.
13. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that any Soviet factory is damaged or captured.
14. In any case, the game ends with a German victory on the first turn of July 1941.

That'd make a better game for some, I'm sure. The rest of us have already stopped taking the princess pills.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

This is not a bad suggestion - and on the face of it makes some sense. Why not let the German player create new support units in the fashion the Soviet player does?

However, I would argue against it - although I will also admit straight up that my argument is very subjective.

But here it is...

One thing I really like about WitE is that opening up the game as the German player is *vastly* different than opening it up as the Soviet player. The two sides are ridiculously asymetrical - almost to the extent that you are playing two different games.

Playing the Germans, you are handed this incredibly well designed, capable, and powerful tool, and then expected to achieve some pretty amazing results with that tool. The tool (the Wehrmacht) is very powerful, but also very precise. You do not have much flexibility in how it is organized, or how it is designed. The challenge is to make it work the best way possible, but within the rather severe limits that the tool is designed around.

And there is kind of a problem - the tool is really freaking awesome, but it isn't quite the *right* tool for the job. Seems the guys who made the tool didn't exactly understand the task that it was designed to solve. So while the tool is powerful, resilient, and well organized, it doesn't quite fit the task at hand. Your challenge is making it work anyway.

The Soviets are totally different. Here your tool is a piece of ****. It doesn't work at all! It is unwieldy, has all the moving parts in the wrong place, most of the moving parts don't even move, and it breaks every-time you try to do something with it.

But...you have a huge workshop at your disposal. You have lots and lots and lots of war material, and while the tool you have is almost certainly going to be destroyed, you get to try to organize, design, and deploy a new tool, one better suited to the task at hand. THAT is the challenge of playing the Soviets - how do you make the Red Army actually work?

So that is why I don't want to see the German player be allowed to create new units in the manner the Soviet player can - it would take away what I personally see as the unique challenge of each side. The Germans already have an incredibly potent war machine - letting the player tweak and over-optimize it is just going to make them that much more powerful, and in a fashion that fundamentally changes what makes the German job so hard, despite their incredible army.

The Soviets get that capability, but then, they are starting with utter crap. Turning their crap army into something that actually works is the entire fun of playing the Soviets - why play them if the Germans get a better army, AND can turn around and fix its flaws as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I think a very good argument was made about the assymetric nature of the German and Soviet sides in WitE a while back. I will quote it:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

This is not a bad suggestion...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Historically, the Soviets experimented with quite a few types of units as they were undergoing a very bloody and costly learning process. They got right the basic idea of deep operations, but coming up with the *right* formations for the job took some time. WiTE allows Soviet players to try out their own solution to the problem of defeating the Wehrmacht.

Now, going to the Axis, I don't think there was at all any kind of "experimenting" with formation and doctrines at the operational level. On the contrary, I would dare to say that the Wehrmacht didn't really "embrace change" as its Soviet and American counterparts did. There's that thing with late war Panzer Brigades - a concept which is very similar to present day Brigade Combat Teams - but my opinion is that they were more a child of necessity than an actual shift in doctrine. I might be wrong, of course.

quote:

I suspect the root cause of the difference is simply that it is impossible to find an accurate OOB for all Soviet support units

quote:

ORIGINAL: elxaime
In WITP, you tend to see less complaining about the Japanese ultimate doom because, I suspect, US gamers more readily accept the notion that the USA Arsenal of Democracy really could not have been beaten. I think the edge is narrower, but a similar expectation should be placed on Soviet resistance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elxaime

We don't necessarily accept this because a lot of post-WW2 historiography is heavily influenced by the self-justification of the German generals who placed all the blame on Hitler and his mad leadership. "If only we professionals had been free to do X or Y..." the story goes, the Germans could have won. This is quite unlikely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elxaime
So before trying to tilt the field more, the designers need to keep these facts in mind. Trying to add to the German possibility of success may make for a better game, as it would if you tried to buff up the Japanese so they could invade California. But would it be historically justifiable?