RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

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: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

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: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 4/30/2012 11:34:32 PM

misesfan

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

I tend to think of building divisions and artillery brigades and managing the APs to do so as a chore, not "fun." I guess we all have different definitions, however.

How about the husbanding of all those cavalry divisions in 1941 to form an esprit de corps of Cavalry corps size units that will start rampaging in Dec? That's a very good gaming moment, at least for me. Its cool - forming big beefy units that are able to maul the enemy. Realistic or not, its fun.

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 61

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 12:05:24 AM

Flaviusx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

I fail to see how anyone can argue that getting reinforcements on a set timetable is more fun than building your own army.

I don't want the "freedom" to build an inferior Red Army. That's not very fun, nor free.

If I want to have some real fun building up a Red Army from scratch, I fire up Hearts of Iron (which is a bad game in a lot of respects, but is fun in this way at least.) Or, really, any grand strategy title that has an actual working economic system to play with. APs are not such a system. This game is operational in nature and the jury rigged AP purchase system is merely annoying to me. I know how to work it and optimize it, but fun? No.

Give me a historical reinforcement schedule please, and let me spend APs the way the Axis does and stop forcing it to perform many roles badly.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to AFV)

Post #: 62

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 12:13:24 AM

Flaviusx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

You are comparing the Red Army (game) to Red Army (actual). That's not what is being argued, unless I am missing the point entirely. The point is, the Wehrmacht does not possess the ability to have this kind of flexibility which the Red Army enjoys throughout the game.

I mean really, do you think that the Germans are as much to fun to play as the Russians - even given the challenging aspect of the contest?

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to misesfan)

Post #: 63

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 12:21:03 AM

glvaca

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

You are comparing the Red Army (game) to Red Army (actual). That's not what is being argued, unless I am missing the point entirely. The point is, the Wehrmacht does not possess the ability to have this kind of flexibility which the Red Army enjoys throughout the game.

I mean really, do you think that the Germans are as much to fun to play as the Russians - even given the challenging aspect of the contest?

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

I'm not sure where the world is going too, but I'll have to say again I totally agree with Flav. I'd rather spend those AP's on reassigning div, Corps, Armies, etc... then spending it all on building Corps, and SU's of all kinds and having none left for the really fun part.

I do think that manual TOE's would be a VERY good option. For both sides, however...

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 64

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 12:33:14 AM

misesfan

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

I would ask what you would spend the AP's on, but I really dont think it matters. You 'envy' the German's historical OOB and their ability to use AP's on operational matters - in this case I would assume you mean moving leaders around, shuffling around SU's, changing unit echelons, and HQ buildups.

I would say your envy is misplaced, and simply point to the dearth of constructive German strategies enumerated in the forums. Muling is the best operational plan the German players can devise? If you want to look at operations, the Soviet capabilities cannot be denied throughout the war. Realistic, historical, or whatever (which I would personally disagree) but the Germans are bound to a trench warfare state in operations throughout most of the game.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 65

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 12:40:24 AM

misesfan

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I'm not sure where the world is going too, but I'll have to say again I totally agree with Flav. I'd rather spend those AP's on reassigning div, Corps, Armies, etc... then spending it all on building Corps, and SU's of all kinds and having none left for the really fun part.

I do think that manual TOE's would be a VERY good option. For both sides, however...

I dont remember anybody talking about completely reinventing the TOE of the Wehrmacht or the Red Army. Perhaps I missed the post. Anyways, there have been many operational and strategic level wargames designed in which the production is used to reinforce units or to create units from whole cloth. But this is the first I have seen in which only one side has that capability.

And note - the flexibility of the AP system isnt the only issue with balance within the game. As someone else stated, the artificial morale levels, removal of units due to events that never happen, etc.. are pretty bogus as well.

Dont get me wrong, I like the game, and consider my $80 well spent. But the game, especially the heavy-handed BS regarding the Wehrmacht, is not above criticism.

< Message edited by pwieland -- 5/1/2012 12:41:46 AM >

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 66

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 12:45:57 AM

glvaca

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

I would ask what you would spend the AP's on, but I really dont think it matters. You 'envy' the German's historical OOB and their ability to use AP's on operational matters - in this case I would assume you mean moving leaders around, shuffling around SU's, changing unit echelons, and HQ buildups.

I would say your envy is misplaced, and simply point to the dearth of constructive German strategies enumerated in the forums. Muling is the best operational plan the German players can devise? If you want to look at operations, the Soviet capabilities cannot be denied throughout the war. Realistic, historical, or whatever (which I would personally disagree) but the Germans are bound to a trench warfare state in operations throughout most of the game.

Yes, quite. Paying 50+AP's for moving around an Army, of which you have plenty, is something to envy for sure.
Moving a Cav Corps, 16AP, is something to pround and happy off.
Building a couple of FZ, 4 a pop. But wait, they only have 6 sapper squads. Meaning zit digin ability. So you have to assign RR brigs, another 3AP's. 7 total. No problem you think. Wrong. Because you need to save to pay for all those SU's and for building Corps at 20AP's a pop. Oh, and then you need to move in SU's, 3AP's a pop. And wait, there's more, then you need build new HQ's, to put the buggers in, 25AP's a pop.

Seriously, both sides have advantages and dissadvantages. It's well thought out and balanced. Both sides will never be even, that's part of an historical game. If you prefer the Sovs, good for you, great.
I enjoy both sides for what they are...different.

< Message edited by glvaca -- 5/1/2012 12:46:19 AM >

(in reply to misesfan)

Post #: 67

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 1:07:17 AM

misesfan

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Yes, quite. Paying 50+AP's for moving around an Army, of which you have plenty, is something to envy for sure.
Moving a Cav Corps, 16AP, is something to pround and happy off.
Building a couple of FZ, 4 a pop. But wait, they only have 6 sapper squads. Meaning zit digin ability. So you have to assign RR brigs, another 3AP's. 7 total. No problem you think. Wrong. Because you need to save to pay for all those SU's and for building Corps at 20AP's a pop. Oh, and then you need to move in SU's, 3AP's a pop. And wait, there's more, then you need build new HQ's, to put the buggers in, 25AP's a pop.

Seriously, both sides have advantages and dissadvantages. It's well thought out and balanced. Both sides will never be even, that's part of an historical game. If you prefer the Sovs, good for you, great.
I enjoy both sides for what they are...different.

I note the sarcasm but at what, dude? If you think the game is balanced and fun for both sides with no modification, then cool. I think playing the Soviets is a much richer experience because of game mechanics, not the situation.

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 68

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 2:19:48 AM

Farfarer61

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

No way would I want a historic Soviet reinforcement schedule. You can build a superb Red Army and have great fun. As Axis, I really would like just a little control on the SU's, principally the ability to combine the sub-units into the main unit, or spend APs to build SU's if I have 'stuff' in the pool. That's it.

If you want to get dreamy, add in "AGS may now convert to AGA and AGB for 150 AP's".

WITE has served it's prime purpose, a revenue stream to enable the production of interesting follow on games ( and I am happy to have contributed to that revenue :)

(in reply to misesfan)

Post #: 69

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 2:25:48 AM

AFV

Posts: 435
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

One thing for sure I agree with Flav on is that APs being spent for both building SU and other units and transfering units to different commands, is rather clunky. It works, is about the best thing I can say about it.

(in reply to misesfan)

Post #: 70

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 12:47:22 PM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

I would ask what you would spend the AP's on, but I really dont think it matters. You 'envy' the German's historical OOB and their ability to use AP's on operational matters - in this case I would assume you mean moving leaders around, shuffling around SU's, changing unit echelons, and HQ buildups.

I would say your envy is misplaced, and simply point to the dearth of constructive German strategies enumerated in the forums. Muling is the best operational plan the German players can devise? If you want to look at operations, the Soviet capabilities cannot be denied throughout the war. Realistic, historical, or whatever (which I would personally disagree) but the Germans are bound to a trench warfare state in operations throughout most of the game.

Yes, quite. Paying 50+AP's for moving around an Army, of which you have plenty, is something to envy for sure.
Moving a Cav Corps, 16AP, is something to pround and happy off.
Building a couple of FZ, 4 a pop. But wait, they only have 6 sapper squads. Meaning zit digin ability. So you have to assign RR brigs, another 3AP's. 7 total. No problem you think. Wrong. Because you need to save to pay for all those SU's and for building Corps at 20AP's a pop. Oh, and then you need to move in SU's, 3AP's a pop. And wait, there's more, then you need build new HQ's, to put the buggers in, 25AP's a pop.

Seriously, both sides have advantages and dissadvantages. It's well thought out and balanced. Both sides will never be even, that's part of an historical game. If you prefer the Sovs, good for you, great.
I enjoy both sides for what they are...different.

Sure can do alot with 60 APs. Should I transfer that Army? Even with the work around I use? Should I transfer SUs to those Corps? Spend them rebuilding the six trashed armies I have. (Only six divs at a time, and they take awhile to fill up and train.) Convert those 9 Mech/Mot/Tank brigades to Corps? Build SUs in the hope that I can add them to said Corps? On and on and on.

As for trench warfare, that's what I've been doing. Much safer than Panzer punching with tiny Tank Armies.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 71

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 12:50:54 PM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I'm not sure where the world is going too, but I'll have to say again I totally agree with Flav. I'd rather spend those AP's on reassigning div, Corps, Armies, etc... then spending it all on building Corps, and SU's of all kinds and having none left for the really fun part.

I do think that manual TOE's would be a VERY good option. For both sides, however...

I dont remember anybody talking about completely reinventing the TOE of the Wehrmacht or the Red Army. Perhaps I missed the post.

There's been quite a few actually. Much acrimony because those who cause it want 2by3 to fix it, (something that's been said over and over iis a no go.), rather than use the editor to do it themselves.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to misesfan)

Post #: 72

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 5:58:37 PM

Schmart

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

I fail to see how anyone can argue that getting reinforcements on a set timetable is more fun than building your own army.
Screw which one is better, that is irrelevent to this discussion.

The reason being, that building the Russian Army the first couple times is fun and cool and a novelty. After that, it becomes a chore and a waste of time. I'd much rather spend my time and energy on operational matters and PLAYING the game. It's a wargame, not a spend-half-your-time-building-the-red-army-game.

quote:

Again, years from now, when this game consists of 90% of us playing the Soviet side vs the AI, and a dead forum, no one wanting to play the Axis side, do not be surprised.

People only play the game to win? I guess I'm getting old. I thought wargaming was about challenging oneself. Which is why I prefer playing the Axis. It's much more of a challenge, and success is therefore much more gratifying.

This is not directed at you AFV, just an impersonal rant:

I think many players have gotten lazy. They're trying to 'game the system', rather than actually 'command' an army. There's plenty of AARs showing the Russians getting their butts kicked. I don't think it's coincidental that in those games, the German side has shown a great deal of imagination and creativity. In games where the Germans do poorly, there is quite often a noticeable lack of imagination by the German player, little outflanking, unhinging, or feints. I always assumed these were basic wargaming principles. Whatever happend to springing a trap on your enemy? I think many players are relying far too much on HQ build-ups and direct assaults. They want big fancy encirclements and then a steamroller into Moscow. What they really need, is a little more von Manstein or Guderian spirit in them...

(in reply to AFV)

Post #: 73

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 10:00:23 PM

heliodorus04

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

You are comparing the Red Army (game) to Red Army (actual). That's not what is being argued, unless I am missing the point entirely. The point is, the Wehrmacht does not possess the ability to have this kind of flexibility which the Red Army enjoys throughout the game.

I mean really, do you think that the Germans are as much to fun to play as the Russians - even given the challenging aspect of the contest?

It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

May I remind you, you hypocrite, that when I suggest that we change the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get, you counter in two ways. One, you say that the APs don't matter to Germany (so why now do they matter to the Soviet?) and Two, you say that if that happened, you'd have to adjust the amount of APs that the sides get.

So let me understand you, you're arguing that in your ideal AP system, the Soviets STILL get 50 per turn AND don't have to spend anything on units? Do they still get the super cheap cost to transfer divisions?

I'm relatively sure that's what you're arguing, because you've jumped the reservation into Aurelian-land, but it's still interesting to note that you see no problem hypothesizing about the candy-land sh1t that the Soviet should get.

_____________________________

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 Flaviusx)

Post #: 74

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 11:28:34 PM

Schmart

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get...

Whenever you shout out this point, you always seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps you aren't aware of the historical realities) that a Soviet 'Division' for the most part was, in regards to combat power and strength, typically little more than a reinforced German Regiment. Far more comparable to a German Division, would be Soviet Corps level units (Tank, Mech, Cav, and Rifle). These 'Corps' (but in reality more on par with German 'Divisions') cost between 8-16 APs to transfer. Considering the state of Soviet leadership, more often than not it costs the full 16 APs. Considering the state of German leadership and that they generally make the die roll to get the full discounted transfer price, it is actually the Soviets who are typically paying a 400% penalty to transfer equivalent units.

The above is still a selective argument, so to be fair if we considered 3 Rifle Divisions to be the equivalent of a German Infantry Division, it still only costs the Soviets 3 APs to transfer them all. Then again, more Soviet Divisions get destroyed, there's more units to shift around, so there is far more frequency to the transfering of units by the Soviets. All in all then, I'd say it evens out in the end.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 75

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 11:41:50 PM

AFV

Posts: 435
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

People only play the game to win? I guess I'm getting old. I thought wargaming was about challenging oneself. Which is why I prefer playing the Axis. It's much more of a challenge, and success is therefore much more gratifying.

Personally, my comments are meant more for having enjoyment. Perhaps winning adds to that, but by no means (at least for me) is it the only factor. More people enjoy playing the Soviet side, I am one of them, and its mainly due to the flexibility you get. And yes Flav, you can hang yourself with that flexibility. I guess that is a challenge- and so Schmart, I think you are right, it is the challenge. But there still has to be a fun factor.

< Message edited by AFV -- 5/1/2012 11:58:59 PM >

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 76

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/1/2012 11:45:57 PM

misesfan

Posts: 73
Joined: 3/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get...

Whenever you shout out this point, you always seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps you aren't aware of the historical realities) that a Soviet 'Division' for the most part was, in regards to combat power and strength, typically little more than a reinforced German Regiment. Far more comparable to a German Division, would be Soviet Corps level units (Tank, Mech, Cav, and Rifle). These 'Corps' (but in reality more on par with German 'Divisions') cost between 8-16 APs to transfer. Considering the state of Soviet leadership, more often than not it costs the full 16 APs. Considering the state of German leadership and that they generally make the die roll to get the full discounted transfer price, it is actually the Soviets who are typically paying a 400% penalty to transfer equivalent units.

The above is still a selective argument, so to be fair if we considered 3 Rifle Divisions to be the equivalent of a German Infantry Division, it still only costs the Soviets 3 APs to transfer them all. Then again, more Soviet Divisions get destroyed, there's more units to shift around, so there is far more frequency to the transfering of units by the Soviets. All in all then, I'd say it evens out in the end.

Or the Soviets could combine those three infantry divisions into a Rifle Corps unit. Before everyone yells about the AP cost involved, please note that I am simply looking at this from a gaming point of view, and stating that the choice involved is good.

I understand that others would rather not have this choice based on the previous replies in this thread, but I think it actually adds to the game.... at least for one side.

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 77

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 2:05:26 AM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

Yes, but most Soviet units come onto the map, including HQs, assigned to Stavka, and cost NOTHING to transfer. So as long as you've planned out your organization to a degree, it costs very little to organize the Soviet Army, until you want to build corps.

< Message edited by vicberg -- 5/2/2012 2:06:15 AM >

(in reply to misesfan)

Post #: 78

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 3:22:02 AM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get...

Whenever you shout out this point, you always seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps you aren't aware of the historical realities) that a Soviet 'Division' for the most part was, in regards to combat power and strength, typically little more than a reinforced German Regiment. Far more comparable to a German Division, would be Soviet Corps level units (Tank, Mech, Cav, and Rifle). These 'Corps' (but in reality more on par with German 'Divisions') cost between 8-16 APs to transfer. Considering the state of Soviet leadership, more often than not it costs the full 16 APs. Considering the state of German leadership and that they generally make the die roll to get the full discounted transfer price, it is actually the Soviets who are typically paying a 400% penalty to transfer equivalent units.

The above is still a selective argument, so to be fair if we considered 3 Rifle Divisions to be the equivalent of a German Infantry Division, it still only costs the Soviets 3 APs to transfer them all. Then again, more Soviet Divisions get destroyed, there's more units to shift around, so there is far more frequency to the transfering of units by the Soviets. All in all then, I'd say it evens out in the end.

Looking at my PBEM game, transferring a Mech Corps is 12-15. The Tank Corps next to it is 12-17. A Cav Corps two hexes behind the lines ran the same as the Tank Corps. Random checks of Rifle Corps showed 12-15. Since a Sov Corps is about equal to a German div..... Where is this 500% discount helio claims?

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 79

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 3:25:39 AM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

Or the Soviets could combine those three infantry divisions into a Rifle Corps unit. Before everyone yells about the AP cost involved, please note that I am simply looking at this from a gaming point of view, and stating that the choice involved is good.

I understand that others would rather not have this choice based on the previous replies in this thread, but I think it actually adds to the game.... at least for one side.

They can, but then it cost alot more to transfer a Corps.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to misesfan)

Post #: 80

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 8:29:59 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

This conversation is very sad. Like many before on the same theme. It eventually boils down to some players hoping for change for the axis side, the majority of them for the perfectly respectable aim of having fun, and others saying that there is no point in doing those changes, the game is fine as it is and those changes that can be made by the player should be made through the editor.

I don't want to get confrontational again so I will just say this : WITE is a wargame that due to its scope, the fact that it covers a single continuous front, has a lot less replayability than WITP-AE (or just WITP for that matter). I would hope that for the long term sake of the game the developper would not lose sight of the important enjoyment and fun factor, to ensure a long life to the game.

Some of the suggested changes and adaptations for the german side (toggles or manual changes to the TOE, more possibilities regarding SUs, including potentially building some) might be, in the long run, nothing more than chrome, not altering the general dynamic of the game... Great! In games quite often many features are mainly chrome and do not have much of an effect, but players love chrome, because it is part of the fun and immersion. Some players are saying that giving those abilities to the axis would either :1/ Not change anything, the german players don't realise how tedious/useless those features are or 2/ change the balance of the game, alter it too much, creat more trouble.

Faire enough I suppose, but again in the end the goal for the developpers should be to make their game long living and enjoyable for both players. I am saddened that this objective doesn't appear to be at the heart of the current support of the game from the devs. It means that WITE has a considerably shorter life expectancy on my hard drive than WITP and AE. And that I am sure wasn't the objective.

There might not be changes to WITE anymore because of other projects. Fair enough,

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 81

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 8:38:54 AM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It's not flexible and it's not fun. Axis envy of Soviet "liberty" is woefully misplaced. I'm envious of the Axis. If you gave me a historical reinforcements I'd take it in a heartbeat and drop unit purchases like a bad habit and be free to spend all my APs on operational matters as God intended.

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.
I think both player should have only the ability, paying an appropriate AP cost, to rebuild their destroyed units (maybe only once per game) and to create SU. I have 100 tigers in the pool, I build 2 heavy panzer regiment and assign them where needed.
I do not think this would unbalance the game and a lot of Axis player will be happier.
Reinforcements should be the historical ones for both sides.
Giving max freedom to only one side was a bad design decision. The whole AP sistem, as represented in WITE, it does not work well. Why I have to pay 50+ AP to transfer an Army to a Front to another?
Flexibility come always with a cost and often will lead to unhistorical situations: in WITP if you tweak your production, Japan could overcome the USA in fighter production in 41-43.
I love WITP, but this is wrong for a game that want to be an accurate "simulation" of the Pacific War.
My 2 cents.

Bye.

< Message edited by invernomuto -- 5/2/2012 8:47:02 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 82

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 2:41:33 PM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

As I read the first post here I am struck a few thoughts.

As a friend of mine said when we started up a game against the AI, the challenge of playing the Germans (or the Japanese) is to do better than historically. To know that in the future you will the underdog and to deal with that situation when it comes. But looking at the situation I don't see where the soviet player gains that much from being able to tailor the military force of the Red Army. A lot of the early purchases are in SU because you start with nothing near what you need while the German player starts with a large number of them. But would it harm the game if the German player could build some extra ones? Hard to say without testing would be my comment.

Allowing the player to tinker with the economy was in WIR and from my experience it simply allowed people to do gamey crap that didn't improve the gameplay at all. I still recall the one time I tried a PBEM game with someone I didn't know personally...I looked in the DAK and found the german panzer divisions had been swapped to italian tanks. When I think about advice you can find in HOIx the bulk of what I ever recall seeing was optimizations and gamey exploits. Mixed in with that is the odd bit of sensible advice such as "check out your port size" or "don't overwhelm your supply network." The same is true of research, in the end it will just be another exploit if allowed unless it essentially pointless.

I think maybe perception plays a major role, because you can material effect things as japan by having more resources and such then you feel like you have more options. What about allowing allowing the German player to pay APs to delay the removal of units? Or to get decision questions...Hitler concentrates on Jet Fighter Development OR Hitler demands a Jet Bomber. A little like in HOIx. The example I gave is a bad one since who would not want to have jets but there must be other things that could be implemented that would be more balanced. Hitler authorizes the formation of the Luftwaffe felddivionen OR Hitler demands the excess Luftwaffe personnel go through basic. One gives you more divisions now while the other gives you more replacement later. That sort of thing would go a long way towards giving a feeling of agency to the player. Probably not possible in the game but maybe it would be worth considering for the next one.

Also it depends on what you play the game for. If you play to win then you are mostly concerned with "balance" and what you can do to "win." I could call that gamey exploits and gamey tactics but that isn't always true and isn't likely to be always fair but at the core of it is what you can do or must do to win. If winning is best accomplished by evacuating singapore you do so. If running for the urals is the best thing to do you do so. I don't play for this reason and so it is hard for me to understand this mindset, to me if it would not work in real life it has no business in the game. But at the end of the day I don't see how anyone can expect a battle recreation to be balanced except via victory conditions rather than winning or losing a la chess.

I also don't see how people who finess their way from germany to the romanian border in a week have any grounds to complain about what the soviet player does. If you want to do things that make no logical sense or defy reality then your oppenent should be free to do so as well. But a lot of things that are done in games because they are just treated as a game, without the context of the time. That is at times good since no player likely would have condemed the Canadian's to the defence of Hong Kong or the Russian armour to the counter attack at Pispesk (or however that is spelt). But at the same time removing the context simply reduces you to playing Tactics II or the modern equivalent.

I'm with Flavius in saying that I don't see what harm a historical reinforcement schedule would do to the Soviet side. Fiddle faddling around building SUs and such is not that much fun. The only problem may be dealing with 42 where your builds are likely more to be in reaction to losses, but that is also the issue for the Germans (units removed that may not have been lost). If it balances out is something that would need testing to determine.

That the logistics is essentially broken probably is also a contributing factor to all this balance debate.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 83

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 3:02:41 PM

Tarhunnas

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

Half the fun in playing the Soviets in WITE is being able to basically build your own army. However, the system now gives the player too much leeway to build what is most effective, especially support units. If there could be some way to restrict the choices more, then I think it would make the game more fun as the Germans to be able to build your own support units, and tinker with the OOBs if it could be done in a manner that would avoid exploits.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 84

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 4:38:54 PM

Flaviusx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Half the fun in playing the Soviets in WITE is being able to basically build your own army. However, the system now gives the player too much leeway to build what is most effective, especially support units. If there could be some way to restrict the choices more, then I think it would make the game more fun as the Germans to be able to build your own support units, and tinker with the OOBs if it could be done in a manner that would avoid exploits.

Give me the historical SUs, I genuinely don't give a damn. Building swarms of sapper regiments doesn't get my blood pumping. And I'd get more SUs and of a larger variety if I actually got them for free via a historical schedule, too.

Fundamentally, I want to get APs out of the unit construction business altogether. If we're going to have unit builds, design a proper economic system for this and leave APs out of it.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 85

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 6:11:38 PM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

A lot of the early purchases are in SU because you start with nothing near what you need while the German player starts with a large number of them. But would it harm the game if the German player could build some extra ones? Hard to say without testing would be my comment.

If there are balancing concerns about the possibility for Axis player to build SU, it could be introduced as an optional rules (like "Axis SU building" option at game start menu).
Let the players play and test it.
A little more tactical flexibility for the Axis player...
You do not need in 1941 but later on when you URSS is pushing away your units on the map.
Even in WITP they gave us an optional player defined upgrades for Air Units. More options (even useless ones) to the players = more fun.

Bye.

_____________________________

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 86

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 6:29:07 PM

heliodorus04

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
...the cost to transfer German divisions to other HQs to be comparable to the 500 percent discount that Soviets get...

Whenever you shout out this point, you always seem to conveniently forget (or perhaps you aren't aware of the historical realities) that a Soviet 'Division' for the most part was, in regards to combat power and strength, typically little more than a reinforced German Regiment. Far more comparable to a German Division, would be Soviet Corps level units (Tank, Mech, Cav, and Rifle). These 'Corps' (but in reality more on par with German 'Divisions') cost between 8-16 APs to transfer. Considering the state of Soviet leadership, more often than not it costs the full 16 APs. Considering the state of German leadership and that they generally make the die roll to get the full discounted transfer price, it is actually the Soviets who are typically paying a 400% penalty to transfer equivalent units.

The above is still a selective argument, so to be fair if we considered 3 Rifle Divisions to be the equivalent of a German Infantry Division, it still only costs the Soviets 3 APs to transfer them all. Then again, more Soviet Divisions get destroyed, there's more units to shift around, so there is far more frequency to the transfering of units by the Soviets. All in all then, I'd say it evens out in the end.

I understand the principal of your counter-argument. The problem is that using history to define game engine mechanics is pointless because there is hypocrisy to go around for every nationality (separately) in the game.

We also hear that the abundance of brigades in the late 1941 reinforcement schedule appear (historically) as a reaction to the fact that the Soviets found brigades more easy to command in maneuver warfare. But if you look at the cost to transfer Soviet brigades within the command system, you find that the Soviet brigade costs exactly as much to transfer as the Soviet division (i.e., 1 AP). So something is missing from the history on that end: Why are divisions not more expensive to change for the Soviet side?

Why aren't German divisions cheaper (which is really the point I wish to correct via future patching)? Germany was a proven, agile army in command. If you look at the France 1940 campaign, certain divisions changed HQs three times in a week.

I bring up this singular point so often because it's the easiest for any player to see in terms of the a-historic advantage that the Soviet gets, and the unavoidable rails of doom that the German side is tied to starting in December 1941 and lasting forever for the rest of the game.

Again and again and again, War in the East gives the Soviet side failsafes that make his defense much easier to plan and execute than his historical counterpart could have dreamed of. I have said before that Stalin would have ejaculated to see the capabilities in his army that War in the East gives him.

The game design is punitive to the player who enjoys the historical challenge of playing Germany. Further, speaking for myself, I have never lost a game as the Soviet, and I have never felt close to being challenged when playing the Soviet. It is the quintessential definition of an 'easy mode' game.

My AP cost argument will remain a "don't-buy-this-game-or-war-in-the-west" argument because anyone who has read a little history about the doctrines of the respective armies can see that this is a precise example of bullsh1t game design. The skeptics about buying such awful titles will see that Germany is prevented from realizing its doctrine by handcuffs in game design, and the Soviet design allows that side to competes with the equivalent of 1986 NATO command and control.

_____________________________

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 87

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/2/2012 6:36:10 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.

"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict

One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to invernomuto)

Post #: 88

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/3/2012 8:39:22 AM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.

This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...

I do not mind to surpass historical Red Army.
I had fun preparing for winter offensive, assembling shock Armies and preparing the winter offensive in 1941. I built just a few on map units, I created many SU to "equip" my Shock Armies.
I like micromanagement so it was "fun" at least for me. Maybe after I do it for 10-20 times I'll find it boring, but who knows... That's an option that the axis player does not have.
It was the only fun part of the game after the initials turns where I was laying checkerboards and carpets to slow the Axis offensive. Not a fun part of the game for me, too much thinking about how to make him losing his MPs than using Soviet units to do proper counteroffensives.

quote:

Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.

Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk

I and my oppenent where not experienced players. Expecially him with the Axis. He resigned at the beginning of jenuary 1942 after I annhilated his winter defensive line.

_____________________________

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 89

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE - 5/3/2012 6:28:48 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto
I do not mind to surpass historical Red Army.
I had fun preparing for winter offensive, assembling shock Armies and preparing the winter offensive in 1941. I built just a few on map units, I created many SU to "equip" my Shock Armies.
I like micromanagement so it was "fun" at least for me.

So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical. Not the Soviets's fault if a) the Soviets had huge reserves (backed by an industry which could arm them) and b) if the Germans started a war without the necessary strategic reserves... for a long war that is. No wait, the Soviets were supposed to collapse before the winter. Reserves? Who needs stinking reserves?

Morale of the story? The USSR was too big for Germany

In WitP we could assume that the "Yamatos" idea was thrown overboard. This is plausible (in the Twilight Zone though)... but the human reserves (and German industrial capacity) are simply arithmetics.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to invernomuto)

Post #: 90