RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

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: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

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: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 12:41:36 AM

Joel Billings

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

Well our priorities are on improving the game in a reasonable time frame without risking screwing it up and making things worse. Why are we not focused on the ground combat system? Basically because looking at the big picture, we think it gives us mostly reasonable results, while the time involved in making changes to this system that could be tested sufficiently could be many months, and the risks are that we'd screw up the game worse for quite some time before we make it better. Aside from a few targeted issues we are looking at, we just feel our time on the game is better spent elsewhere. We do have some ideas on what would ultimately improve the combat engine, but these bigger/riskier changes are going to wait until War in the West where we have some time to test the changes without forcing the public into what could be a very painful process (for what may be marginal gain). We do now have some additional interface in the game that gives our testers a much better idea of exactly what is going on during combat. This was an essential first step in order to be able to fine tune the combat engine. The combat engine isn't perfect, but it does a lot of things right and at the macro level is not all that far off. We are working on many changes that will impact 42 and beyond. Here's what's been done so far on 1.05 (and there's more in to come):

� New Features and Rule Changes

1) New Rule - Air groups in the national reserve may now be disbanded.
2) New Rule - Unit counters no longer show SS/Elite/LW/Guards status (coloring) if their detection level is lower than 5.
3) New Rule - Air recon will not increase an enemy air base�s detection level above 5.
4) New Rule - Static units no longer lose their static status when they are retreated or routed.
5) New Rule - Units may not enter static mode in 1941.
6) New Rule � Ports are now unusable for naval transport on the turn they are captured.
7) New Rule � Admin and Initiative checks are twice as hard to make for isolated units.
8) New Rule � NKVD Border Regiments never get replacements.
9) New Rule � NKVD Border Regiments check for disbanding each friendly logistics phase starting in July 1941. The chance the unit will be disbanded is as follows:
July 1941 � 100% - %TOE of the unit
August 1941 � 80%
September 1941 and later � 95%
10) New Rule � Air supply. Isolated air units may be changed to beach/air supply status (same as old beachhead status) under certain conditions. If a player flies in supplies to an air base in a pocket, the supplies will immediately be distributed amongst all of the isolated units that can trace to the air base. If the amount received during the turn at some point equals 5% or more of the total needs of the unit, then the unit will be immediately set to beach/air supply status (it will display in orange instead of red when toggle unsupplied units is toggled on). The total needs are the supply+fuel+ammo needs listed for the unit. So a division with total needs of 1100 tons of s/f/a have at least 55 tons flown in and delivered to the unit, it will have its supply status changed from isolated to beach/air supply status. This will last until the next friendly logistics phase. Units with beach/air supply will always pay penalties for being short of ammo, so there is a disadvantage in combat to be in beach/air supply (but it's better than being isolated where there are additional penalties). The air base must be in a clear or light woods hex. When in Beach/Air supply, the unit detail screen will show the information: Air Head Supply 400 / 20 (5%) which indicates the total amount of supplies+fuel+ammo the unit needs, the amount it has received via air resupply, and the total percentage of needs that has been met. When in Air Transport mode, the player can left click on an air base and then bring up that unit�s detail screen to see a full list of all isolated unit that can trace to the air base, the total need of each unit, and the amount of supplies that have been sent to the unit. On the right side of that screen is a line that reads Air Supply Range: 10. By clicking on this line, the player may enter a different number from 1 to 10. Only units within the state range in hexes of the air base will be sent supplies that are airlifted to this air base. Air base units may be moved before supplies are delivered to it, but once it receives supplies for isolated units, it will not be able to move and then receive additional supplies for isolated units. Units that are merged or divided track the amount of air head supplies received, so they can lose their supplied status if no longer over the 5% threshold.
11) Changes to Production Rules
a. Changed Soviet Manpower multiplier in 1942 to 40 (from 45).
b. Changed Soviet Armaments multipliers in 1942-1945 to 130 (from 200).
c. Items produced in Poland and Czech cities now added to the "built" German stats.
12) Changes to Morale Rules
a. The following units receive bonuses to their National Morale: All Cavalry, Mountain Airborne and Air Landing units, and Axis Allied motorized units +5, German Motorized Units +10, Soviet Motorized Units (from Sept 1942-August 1943) +5, Soviet Motorized Units (Sept 1943-end of war) +10.
b. Soviet National Morale has been changed to 50 in June 1941. One point is subtracted each month after this in 1941 (so it is 44 in Dec 41). In 1942 it is set to 40, with one point being added each month starting in September 1942 (so 44 in Dec 42). This continues in 1943 and 1944 until the Soviet National Morale reaches its maximum of 60 in April 1944.
c. Build morale now equals national morale in all cases (there is no separate build morale table anymore.
d. Changed rule so that the morale gain from refit when under 50 morale is only gained when the unit in refit is at least 10 hexes from a supplied enemy unit (similar to the current gain if less than morale 50 and 10 or more hexes from enemy unit).
e. If an element�s experience is less than half of the unit�s morale, then the automatic +1 gain in experience each turn becomes +3.
13) Changes to Fortification Rules
a. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 5 - Only will be built in port hexes that have a fort unit. Once built, the fort unit is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in a swamp hex.
b. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 4 - Must have a fort unit in the hex. Once built, the fort unit is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in swamp hex.
c. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 3 - Must be adjacent to an enemy hex, be an urban or city hex, or be in or adjacent to a fort unit. Once the level 3 is reached, the condition does not have to continue to be met to keep the level 3 fort.
d. Fort levels that have reached their maximum fort level for the hex may continue to build up to 10% towards the next fort level.
e. Building forts in mud now uses a .25 modifier (instead of .33).
f. Doubled the rate of fort decay.
g. Increased decay rate of low level forts, based on the weather.
Extra decay percentage:
Fort Weather
Level clear snow mud/blizzard
0 20 40 80
1 12 14 48
2 4 8 16
g. Added supply cost for fort construction as follows:
fort 0->1 1 tons per fort point (no cost for isolated units, construction rate is halved)
fort 1->2 2 tons per fort point (no cost for isolated units, construction rate is halved)
fort 2->3 20 tons per fort points
fort 3->4 200 tons per fort points
fort 4->5 2000 tons per fort points
*note each fort point represents 2% toward the next fort level
14) Changes to Naval Movement Rules
a. Amphibious landings are not allowed west of x coordinate 76 (Rumania) until 1944.
b. Added Naval/Amphibious movement capacity limits as follows:
Axis
Lake Ladoga � 3000
Baltic Sea � 10000
Black Sea � 4000
Sea of Azov � 1000
Soviet
Lake Ladoga � 4000
Baltic Sea � 8000 (decreases by 1000 each year)
Black Sea � 10000 (decreases by 1500 each year)
Sea of Azov � 4000 (decreases by 500 each year)
Caspian Sea � 5000
Black Sea Amphibious Movement � 2500 (decreases by 100 each year)
Sea of Azov Amphibious Movement � 1000 (decreases by 100 each year
c. Amphibious movement cost per hex is x4 before 1943 and x3 from 1943-45 (reduces the range of an amphibious assault).
d. Set shading for valid naval destinations during naval movement. This doesn�t mean the current unit can reach the hex, just that it is a valid hex for the appropriate type of naval movement. Yellow shading indicates an enemy hex; green shading indicates a friendly hex.
e. Decreased �retreat losses� caused by the transport sunk event during interdiction attacks on naval/amphibiously moving units.
15) Rule change � Ice levels no longer go up by 4 during a blizzard in all areas. The amount of increase is dependent on the weather zone as follows:
Europe Zone +1
South Soviet Zone +2
Central Soviet Zone +3
North Soviet Zone +4
16) Rule change � Major rivers are not considered frozen until the ice level is at least 8 (used to be 5). At ice levels 5-7, the extra cost due to icing is 8 when moving into an EZOC, and 4 when not moving into an EZOC.
17) Rule change � Lowered the disabled return rate for the Soviets to � percent (from 1%).
18) Rule change � Entrained units may not move via naval or amphibious movement.
19) Interface change � The production filter ON now shows active elements that are built by the �on demand� production system (so not just AFVs and aircraft).
20) New Message � Added logistics event messages for the automatic disbanding of Soviet Corps HQ�s and NKVD Regiments.
21) Formula change � Units in beachhead/Air head supply will not suffer more than a 33% reduction in CV due to supply shortages (used to be it could be up to a 75% reduction in CV).

� Bug Fixes

1) Fixed a bug causing escorts for air transport missions to too often not fly during blizzard weather.
2) Fixed a bug where partisan units could construct forts for the Axis.
3) Fixed a bug where brigades landing amphibiously were improperly taking control of adjacent hexes.
4) Fixed a bug where battle sites were active if hidden behind the battle report window.
5) Fixed a bug where depleted units can be located next to an enemy unit at the completion of the logistics phase.
6) Fixed a bug where Motorized units were being shown as available to move amphibiously.
7) Fixed a bug with Guards promotion of Soviet Armies.
8) Fixed a display bug that occurs when exiting the city information window.

� Data and Scenario Changes

1) Fixed Unit ID 333 - Fin. Commando Battalion used Hungarian Support Squads
2) Changed the ending date for the SS Motorized Brigade (OB 283) from 9/43 to 9/44 to correct typo.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to jzardos)

Post #: 91

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 1:11:53 AM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

Wow. Thank you for the update. I can hardly wait to start a new GC.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 92

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 3:36:47 AM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

That is a lot of stuff there for sure.

Thanks for the update Joel.

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 93

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 4:01:50 AM

Schmart

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

Thanks for the update, Joel. That's quite an extensive list!

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 94

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 4:18:49 AM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

The big standouts from that list are:

1. Not being able to see if you're facing SS / Guards without recon, which would otherwise be a big precusor for a possible offensive
2. Units not losing static mode on a retreat / rout. This should make it MUCH more feasible to launch offensives in quiet areas of the front, such as AGN / AGC in the 1942 start, since you're no longer giving your opponent free activations.
3. Riga gambit eliminated from the new same-turn naval transport rule
4. NKVD supermen getting disbanded faster and earlier - that should most of the complaints for that particular item
5. Air supply rules! Being able to recover your 66% of your base CV or more I'd consider rather huge for keeping pockets alive.
6. Some rather sizable reductions in Soviet manpower and armaments production in the later years
7. Sizable increases to National Morale values, particularly for German panzers, although I wonder how it'll work insofar as bringing them back UP to that level for the 1942 campaign
8. Soviets lose a full 5 points of National Morale in 1942, from 45 now to 40 in this patch. That'll probably be huge for a 1942 campaign when combined with item #7's 75 morale German units
9. Build morale always equal with National Morale? This would mostly affect the Soviets, right?
10. Lots of fort changes! Cross-country level 3+ forts no longer possible, with tons of supplies needed to build them up. Definitely something to keep the Soviets from digging in everywhere in 1942. Of course, the counter-point being the repercussions for the Germans come 1943 onwards, although they'd have the Admin Points to burn on Fort units anyway

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 95

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 9:27:48 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

Thanks for the update Joel. This seems awesome!

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to gradenko2k)

Post #: 96

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 10:12:08 AM

NavalNewZ

Posts: 118
Joined: 8/19/2009
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

.

_____________________________

..there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 97

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 11:07:21 AM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

13) Changes to Fortification Rules
a. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 5 - Only will be built in port hexes that have a fort unit. Once built, the fort unit is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in a swamp hex.
b. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 4 - Must have a fort unit in the hex. Once built, the fort unit is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in swamp hex.
c. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 3 - Must be adjacent to an enemy hex, be an urban or city hex, or be in or adjacent to a fort unit. Once the level 3 is reached, the condition does not have to continue to be met to keep the level 3 fort.
d. Fort levels that have reached their maximum fort level for the hex may continue to build up to 10% towards the next fort level.
e. Building forts in mud now uses a .25 modifier (instead of .33).
f. Doubled the rate of fort decay.
g. Increased decay rate of low level forts, based on the weather.
Extra decay percentage:
Fort Weather
Level clear snow mud/blizzard
0 20 40 80
1 12 14 48
2 4 8 16
g. Added supply cost for fort construction as follows:
fort 0->1 1 tons per fort point (no cost for isolated units, construction rate is halved)
fort 1->2 2 tons per fort point (no cost for isolated units, construction rate is halved)
fort 2->3 20 tons per fort points
fort 3->4 200 tons per fort points
fort 4->5 2000 tons per fort points
*note each fort point represents 2% toward the next fort level

Thank you for the update! Awesome fort changes: you have addressed most - if not all - the concerns discussed by the community.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 98

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 11:40:21 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

Thanks for the info, a lot to look forward to.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/25/2011 5:59:20 PM >

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

�A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything� - Napoleon

�Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 99

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 3:26:33 PM

glvaca

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

Joel,

Okay, I'll take the bullit and be the first to offer some constructive critism. If that doesn't get me on the black list, I don't know what will

Certainly, there are changes in there we all look forward too. But, to state they address all the concerns of the community, and more specifically, the ones which have been discussed in this tread, is quite simply not true. Off course you didn't say that but others did, there that's off my chest.

More specifically, my concerns are:
1. Very easy to lose morale through combat and first winter. Much more difficult to regain morale. The +10 for the Axis on their national morale of 65 (I.e. to 75) isn't really going to be of any help. If you're that low that you actually need it, you can just as well give up then and there.
RESULT: Soviet will get more out of this than the German as Infantry will be weak and 75 morale for Axis mot. is just not enough. The extra morale for the Russian mech, etc... OTOH is a nice bonus they don't actually need as is.
SUGGESTION: roll back to the first morale rules of losing/gaining morale and put maximums for groups of units you don't want to become "supermen". However, since the Whermacht DEPENDS on it's high morale/experience (ie quality) to get anywhere, it should be possible that a carefull German player gets his army in a very high morale state.
If that is to much, then I would propose to seriously reduce the chanc e of LOOSING morale after a hasty attack. That at least would give the German player something to work with.

2. Am I the only one who goes hhhummmmm, but! concerning the new fort rules?
Building of forts is reduced in mud, level 3 only with forts in or adjacent. 3+ only with forts. In addition, a new supply element is thrown in. So:
a. this actually means it will become a LOT more difficult for the German to dig in as preparation for the winter of 41-42. As a result, he will again recieve more casualties and, through combats lost, lose more morale, etc...
b. As a result, the German army will again be weak in 1942.
c. Come 1943+ the German is going to have an even more difficult time to dig in and defend.
d. On Forts.
1. These cost AP's. 4 for the Axis, 16 for the Russian. Are they costs going to be reduced?
2. They suck manpower, and common wisdom has it not to build too many of them to avoid sucking your pool dry. So this new rule is actually forcing the Germans to suck their pools dry and spend AP's, both of which they don't have enough as it is.
3. Expenditure of supply. Come digin time 1941, the German is not going to be in a very good supply situation. Unless he stops at the dnepr that is. So how will this affect the German ability to dig in?
RESULT: The German player is probably going to have again a very hard time come winter 41.
CONCLUSION: Advantage Soviet player. Or perhaps to the side which is on the defensive generally as the advancing side _should_ have a bigger problem getting supplies forward which then would give some "hope" of a backhand blow. That is, if you still have an army with enough morale to actually organize an offensive against Soviet rifle corps.

3. Tanks efficiency. There is no persuit or chase element included. A major issue of discussion. There is no mention of making Panzer divs more effective in the defense.
CONCLUSION: Remains issue.

4. Conversion of hasty attacks to scouting improved. No.
CONCLUSION: Remains issue.

5. Retreat attrition for the Germans units remains the same.
CONCLUSION: Remains issue.

6. 1:2 rule changed. NO.
CONSLUSION: remains an issue.

7. Generally modelling the vastly superior doctrine, leadership and quality of the german army. No improvement.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

8. Making it more difficult to run away as the Russian player? NO.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

9. Armament reduction: YES.
CONCLUSION: Unknown effect. But should hurt the Soviet.

10. Huge importance of artillery, even in 1941 when the Russian army had no such capability, remains.
At the same time, German divisions can't have extra arty attached which would at least provide some balancing. But, magically, forts can have arty attached. Still interested to hear the difference.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

11. Disabled experienced soldiers returning experience 30. No change.
At the same time, the superior training of the German replacements versus the non existence of training for the Russians is still not modelled. German replacements should arrive at Exp. 50 or 60 (or in that order) to reflect historical reality.

12. Super Cav Corps and Rifle Corps, the secret weapons of WW2. Strangly enough, and despite millions of books on the subject, also previously undocumented. Sorry if that was sarcastic but I'm running out of soft ways to make the point.
Resolved: NO.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

13. The AP system. Attachements of SU's for free. NO.
Rediculous prices to re-attach German divisions: NO
Rediculous prices to re-attach Armies/Corps: NO
If there's one thing that really, _really_, REALLY aggravates grognards its that. You only have to open a serious book (like Glantz) to understand this system has no basis on reality whatsoever. Corps/divisions, where re-attached all the time. Specially in the German army but also in the Soviet army. Just read Barbarossa Derailed and it's filled with examples.
Furthermore, it makes it almost impossible to just do what you need to do to keep your command structure in any form of order.
It's unbelievable this hasn't been changed/fine-tuned over the last 9 months.
CONCLUSION: remains an issue.

There's a lot more but I'll stop here. My point in all this, as you noted, I and others, write because we care. Because we see the game we have been waiting for all these years fall short of what it could be. And the really frustrating bit is that our sceam to be heard and change things is (appart from one notable tester) being ignored, rediculed, argued against but not discussed.

Secondly, it's very clear all these limitations are actually being kept per design. It's almost if (and I know its not true) or seems like, you're trying to annoy us to stop playing the game. Seriously, why do I play? To have fun. What provides me as a grognard with fun, being able to do better than history and having some flexibility to organize my army (within reason). But the current design doesn't allow that for the German. Nope. Whatever you do, you're going to end up with a low morale crap army which you know in advance you can't do the job with. And that in exchange for 17 turns of glory in a 200 turn game is a steep price to pay. Apart from being totally unrealistic.

In short, the game is scripted and thow shall be kicked around. Live with it.

People are hanging in there because, again, this is a the best thing around, but all I see is some antibiotics being given every now and again to a seriously ill patient that actually needs operating on. And even the changes done are often more to the disadvantage of the German player then actually addressing the problems.
The good news, it doesn't take serious surgery to make it healthy. Morale is the key and frustratingly, morale was on the money in the first installment. Giving the German player at least the ability to regain morale through combat relatively easily would go such a long way to keeping the game enjoyable for the German player, it cannot be overstated.

I have to say that GG and the design team really took some serious risks in the design. You certainly didn't follow the majority of the games of this scope that gone before. But this also means that you open yourself to sceptical looks and strongly worded opinions. Certainly this is one, but like so many tohers on this forum, it is also an informed opinion. We're not the beer and prezzles type. And however you can twist, shake and turn, this is a grognards game addapted for the beer and prezzles gamer for commercial reasons. I really hope it sells well and that all who have made this game can earn a good living because you've earned it. If you would only realize that the grognards are the ones who contribute and write AAR's, who test, who make this game live and as such perhaps listen to what they have to say, life would be just grand and we could all just play instead of spending time writing rediculously long messages on a forum and getting worked up over a game.

I live on hope...

Respectfully,
Glenn

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 100

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 3:30:54 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

What is an 'air base' in the context of an isolated unit?

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 101

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 4:44:48 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

What is an 'air base' in the context of an isolated unit?

An airbase unit, inside the pocket.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 102

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 4:54:53 PM

jzardos

Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline

I have to agree 100% with glvaca. Although I'm always very grateful when WitE patches come out to fix issues, I just don't see the upcoming changes in v1.05 doing much to help the axis situation in 42 and helping make the game more historically accurate.

Joel stated that they want to be careful what they changed as to not ruin the game. Not sure what that really means, because I'm confident they have test/qc in place when making any changes to assure this does not really happen. Given that many of us in the community have determined certain aspects of the way WitE reflects concepts on the eastern front are just not working as was historically. Now if people want to argue the problem points that were brought up that is one thing. But from my perspective if something is broken (combat engine, airfield attacks, forts, German C&C, morale lose, etc) why can't steps be taken to fix it..even if it takes a while? If the premise is that broken parts can't be fixed because it will ruined the entire game, well then nothing would ever even be attempted to be fixed?

What frustrates me is that people have documented, myself included, these issues for months now. Not only has there been nothing to refute that these issues are non-issues, but no tracking from what I can see has been done to start correcting them.

I agree that playing axis means you kick around the Soviets for several months and then a avg Soviet opponent who has retreated his army in decent order will be able to almost complete take the strategic initiative from mid 42 until the rest of the game. We can all agree, those that don't I suggest picking up a book and doing some reading on eastern front, that the Germans had the initiative until about mid 43.

Here's the real kicker. For those that have done some research, it's fairly easy to conclude that the main reason for the axis to have had so many setbacks was due to Hitler's catastrophic decisions.. starting with splitting AG south into A and B. BUT, if WitE is suppose to allow the players to make these types of decisions, the German army should be able to be in a lot better shape than what it was in late 42 an onward (just one case).

Sorry, but I just don't see playing the axis in WitE allowing for a true experience reflecting what advantages the German army possessed in 42 onward. With a some changes to more reflect accurate historical modeling to to morale, exp, and C&C, I believe the CG41 campaign could be more realistic in 42 and onward.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 103

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 4:57:55 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
Certainly, there are changes in there we all look forward too. But, to state they address all the concerns of the community, and more specifically, the ones which have been discussed in this tread, is quite simply not true. Off course you didn't say that but others did, there that's off my chest.

I was referring to the concern - and very interesting discussion we had here a few weeks ago - about forts.

_____________________________

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 104

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 5:09:45 PM

Joel Billings

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

Our games are no stranger to skeptical looks and strongly worded opinions.

We seem to bring out the passion in wargamers (at least the grognards), and will hopefully continue to do so.

Your list of problems is long, which argues that we can't deal with everything on your list at once as there would be too many moving parts (and of course we don't agree with all your points and as you say many of the items were intentionally designed a certain way). I will say that the way that morale recovery is being done now, that German Motorized units can have their morale recover to as high as 90 (although it's not likely to go that high, and for infantry it could theoretically recover to 85 -- originally German units wouldn't recover past 75, although at some point recently tthat was changed to 85, but I'm not sure exactly when that was done). Only time and testing will show us whether this provides enough recovery after the first winter. As for the first winter, the lower Soviet recovery rate of disabled troops will help keep their army size down for the first winter, along with the lower manpower rate in early 42. Of course there are so many changes that we can't say yet exactly how things will work out, but we think the changes go a long way to improving 1942.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 105

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 5:18:02 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
2. Am I the only one who goes hhhummmmm, but! concerning the new fort rules?
Building of forts is reduced in mud, level 3 only with forts in or adjacent. 3+ only with forts. In addition, a new supply element is thrown in. So:
a. this actually means it will become a LOT more difficult for the German to dig in as preparation for the winter of 41-42. As a result, he will again recieve more casualties and, through combats lost, lose more morale, etc...
b. As a result, the German army will again be weak in 1942.
c. Come 1943+ the German is going to have an even more difficult time to dig in and defend.
d. On Forts.
1. These cost AP's. 4 for the Axis, 16 for the Russian. Are they costs going to be reduced?
2. They suck manpower, and common wisdom has it not to build too many of them to avoid sucking your pool dry. So this new rule is actually forcing the Germans to suck their pools dry and spend AP's, both of which they don't have enough as it is.
3. Expenditure of supply. Come digin time 1941, the German is not going to be in a very good supply situation. Unless he stops at the dnepr that is. So how will this affect the German ability to dig in?
RESULT: The German player is probably going to have again a very hard time come winter 41.
CONCLUSION: Advantage Soviet player. Or perhaps to the side which is on the defensive generally as the advancing side _should_ have a bigger problem getting supplies forward which then would give some "hope" of a backhand blow. That is, if you still have an army with enough morale to actually organize an offensive against Soviet rifle corps.

a. I haven't ever heard any Axis player complaining about digging in during 1941 to be too difficult. The hard part is to get the timing to start laying up defenses right. Besides that, now the Soviet player will have a really hard time to setup level 3 - 4 fortifications. Reaching these levels has been essential to defend Moscow, Leningrad and Kharkov from determined Axis attack in all my games. In the 1941 GC I'm playing right now, my ability to setup level 3/4 lines around those cities was of paramount importance. Without them I'd have lost the three cities above, rather than only Leningrad. At 16 AP's each FZ's now the Soviet will have harder time to syphon replacements out of Corps HQ's, reorganizing C&C - attachments and leader appointment, and building SU's. The consequences of this should be obvious to anybody.

b. Not necessarily.

c. You need to get numbers for that. The problem is not the amount of supply, but how hard is to push it forward towards the front lines.

d.
2. 50 FZ's are about 100,000 men. That should be more than enough to build a double line from Tallin to the Black Sea (the level 3 capability is granted to neighboring hexes). Such an investment in manpower looks pretty reasonable to me: just compare it to the resources buried on the West Wall. Disbanding 3 FBD's and some RHG HQ's would account for that manpower.

3. That's an exaggeration.

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 8/25/2011 5:38:51 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 106

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 5:29:10 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Soviet fortification costs go down to 4 APs in 1942 and remain there for the rest of the war.

All I can say is the new fortification rules are having a significant impact in my own playtesting.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 107

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 6:15:47 PM

Commanderski

Posts: 927
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Thanks for the update info! Lot's of stuff and great support as always.

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 108

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 6:29:24 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

2. 50 FZ's are about 100,000 men. That should be more than enough to build a double line from Tallin to the Black Sea (the level 3 capability is granted to neighboring hexes). Such an investment in manpower looks pretty reasonable to me: just compare it to the resources buried on the West Wall.

Just thought I'd point out that if you set the max TOE % to 50 when you first build them, your manpower outlay is even more reasonable. Essentially, you just want the shell there, to grant the construction ability, and to perhaps attach construction SUs to, in order to speed the fort building in the hex.

The AP outlay is the more pressing concern for the Soviets in 1941, since until November, the costs are x4, making the 16 AP hit a very tough decision. Later in the war, when the Axis will really need the forts, they should be awash in APs.

The 1.05.xx fort rules are a MAJOR benefit to the Axis. They will open up 1941 even more for the Axis, and make things much more interesting for 1942.

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 109

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 6:54:15 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Great list! Thanks for the support!

A number of rules here figure to really help the Germans. The FORTS as JAM points out are pro-Axis, for the simple reason that Axis have plenty of APs to spend on Fort Units, and the Soviets don't.

The Armament change to 130 will mean that Armament Factories are the most important to move; more important than all others.

I also wouldn't underestimate the Morale rule changes; that is a boon for the Axis early on, and help the Soviets in 1944, when they should be rolling

_____________________________

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 110

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:09:55 PM

Pawlock

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline

Some very big changes there which I think some dont really see. Im a bit concerned with how the fort changes will effect 1941 soviets pre blizzard as I though 1941 was more or less good now? Defending Moscow will be near impossable and many major cities and areas make the Germans unstoppable in 1941.
I can understand the need in mid 42 onwards but I fear with this change you could be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

My premonition you will see runnaway wins in 41 very common for Axis.

A good axis player in 41 can already take Lenningrad and Moscow, it beggars belief what they will achieve now.

The rest of the changes will also have big impact and I look forward to seeing how they will work.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 111

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:14:29 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

2. 50 FZ's are about 100,000 men. That should be more than enough to build a double line from Tallin to the Black Sea (the level 3 capability is granted to neighboring hexes). Such an investment in manpower looks pretty reasonable to me: just compare it to the resources buried on the West Wall.

Just thought I'd point out that if you set the max TOE % to 50 when you first build them, your manpower outlay is even more reasonable. Essentially, you just want the shell there, to grant the construction ability, and to perhaps attach construction SUs to, in order to speed the fort building in the hex.

That's a golden piece of advice. Thank you James.

_____________________________

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 112

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:15:08 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

Looks like allot of good changes so far. As with every up-date thks

The game is good from 41 to mid 42, then it is really off the mark if the oppossing players are eveny matched.

Joel you say you guys are worried about the game being screwed up. I and many others including yourselfs know the game is screwed up from mid 42 to 45.

I was hoping something would be done as far as the 1v1=2v1 rule goes or something to help out German moral and high loses caused by it.

The lowering of the manpower % and arm output will surely help. The river taking longer to freeze will also help out. Again great game thanks for hard work and monthly patchs that are improving an alrdy uber game from 41 to mid 42. Also AI is best ever

BUT

The 1v1=2v1 is a huge game changer. It is what is 80% screwing the game up after mid 42.

1. Its causes what would have been light German loses to high German loses because of the forsed retreat. loses causes lower CV
2. Its causes German moral to drop instead of hold and Russian moral to go up instead of drop. Moral dropping causes low CV.

I am very happy with everything in the patch so far, but they really do little to off set the unrealisticly huge jump in German loses and moral that are being caused by a fairytale rule.

Again thks for the great game an all the hard work being put into it, but your limited time as you pt out would get way more bang for the buck if you guys simply dumped this rule that is totally imbalanceing the game in favor of the Red army.

Small tweaks to forts and moral levels are never going to make up for a fantasy based rule that is causing huge loses in moral and manpower/guns/tanks for the Germans.

I know there are more changes in the works, but they will all simply be window dressing until the pigs can fly rule is dumped.

Thank you very very much for the hard work can great game.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 8/25/2011 7:16:01 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 113

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:21:23 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Pelton, the rule is under review. Don't assume this list Joel laid out is final or complete.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 114

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:33:36 PM

jzardos

Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline

I almost forgot about the 1:1 rule, but do agree there needs to be something done in terms of making it go away for certain yr(s) or optional.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as ungrateful or disrespectful to all those involved in the design, development, testing of WitE. Was not my intend nor do I feel like WitE does not live up to all the hype.

My underlining purpose for my posts and scrutiny of certain aspects of WitE is only to allow for sustainable playability beyond 41 and to help offer suggestions to what I know about historical modeling and my hrs upon hrs of playing and testing WitE.

I'm frustrated by some of the yet to be reached potential of WitE, but I need to understand that all the changes, once determined valid, can't happen overnight. But I think it's important to have players passionate and with ideas to improve any product. That type of feedback if used properly can be an extremely important tool for any business.

So please don't put me in some category of a disgruntled or disappointed purchaser of WitE. I'm just somebody that wants to help it reach that next level in war gaming on the eastern front.

< Message edited by jzardos -- 8/25/2011 7:35:26 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 115

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:34:22 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

I like the idea of restricting the level 3 and 4 forts and making them cost something. Right now, they grow like weeds, especially for the Russian side. This will also make it a bit tougher for the Germans to dig in during 1941 for winter, but I don't have an issue with that because of the logistics issues the Germans were undergoing during the fall and winter of 1941/42.

One thing is clear to me and that is the Russians will have to rethink how they conduct their defense. It should be very tough in 1941 for them from a realistic standpoint of view and in game it is fairly easy to conduct a Russian defense that leaves a strong Russian army intact to launch a punishing winter offensive. I have faith that the community will adapt new tactics to the situation and the result should be a more interesting 1941 from the standpoint that it will likely be more than Russians run away and then the Germans slam into a wall of fortified Russians in late September in most cases.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 116

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:36:43 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Like the look of the changes, though as a Soviet player, its going to make '41 an even bigger struggle than it is already.

Time will tell at a guess

_____________________________

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 117

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:44:25 PM

jzardos

Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline

quote:

This will also make it a bit tougher for the Germans to dig in during 1941 for winter, but I don't have an issue with that because of the logistics issues the Germans were undergoing during the fall and winter of 1941/42.

I'm sorry but this type of statement is purely subjective to what the Axis player has done with his 41 advance. It to me is the ROOT of many misconceptions and in differentiating my wanting a dynamic game with historical premisses rather than just a simulation of what actually did happen on the eastern front for either side.

Sure if the axis player pushed his supply line (abusive on HQ buildup) troops far from rail-heads, it would be possible to find oneself in the same issues the Germans had late in 41. But that's not what this game is about, is it?

Here it is in a nutshell. Players need to be rewarded for making good choices and not be punished on a broad level for bad historical choices that we(players) should now have control over. Case and point. The Soviets have a free-hand to retreat troops to wherever they want, when historically this was far from the case considering Stalin's demands. Yet, because of Hitler's moronic decision not to send winter equipment to troops in late fall, I have to suffer as an Axis player by this choice. It's so idiotic that I've seen posts where the game is trying to get historical figures to be an average template for all players? What? That's nonsense, why in the world should players have to always be bucketed in severe loses for winter41-42 as axis players? Don't we have some choices, at the expense of maybe less offensive actions, to better prepare for the winter? Why not? Nobody HAS EVER come up with any points to make the sensible. Other than well, the axis suffered loses in winter because they were unprepared. I say, do you know why they were unprepared??? If not do the research and you'll see that the POTENTIAL for the Germans to be better prepared for that winter was there. Would they still have had some issues, sure. But not at the level for which the state of the Germam army was in 41 because of BAD HIGH level choices. These choices need to be more in the players control. Sorry, this topic is just madness to try and make all winters for all players as harsh regardless of what choices they make in 41. Just madness...

Just wanted to point out that I don't agree with this thinking about having to deal with all the ISSUES a side had when a player could make choices to avoid those problems. To me that is the essence of why it's a game and makes it fun to player because of all the possibilities.

< Message edited by jzardos -- 8/25/2011 7:54:21 PM >

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 118

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:46:55 PM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Like the look of the changes, though as a Soviet player, its going to make '41 an even bigger struggle than it is already.

Time will tell at a guess

That�s it looks like and also new chances force Soviet side turtle longer all away from 41-43. It remains to be seen if losing Leningrad and Moscow at 41 in every AAR comes to new norm and not losing them rare happenings.

Soviet side has to stop doing counter attacks as many chances weaken Soviet ability to do those counter attacks they did historically. There is simply no incentive to do those as incentive to make them was weak from the beginning but that�s probably what those German players lobby for and won�t be happy until they get their I win button.

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 119

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? - 8/25/2011 7:53:31 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

I disagree about the counterattacking. If anything, it is even more important to do this now.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 120