Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

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

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland
You may state that it was a mathematical certainty that Russia would win the war, others may agree with you. However, I would say that you are incorrect, but more importantly state that its irrelevant.

quote:

The point being - if it isnt competitive, then why do you even play?

quote:

Why would you expect anyone to even play the Germans against your superior army and its mathematically ensured victory? Maybe thats the point in others voicing concern about the balance issues....

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

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

What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).

Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.

On to your other post, though:

quote:

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.

The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.

By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.

You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.

I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."

The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.

Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.

Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


The correct conclusion would be that the attack on the USSR was pure adventurism... Based on a pre-conceived assumption: "we will utterly destroy them before Christmas". IF this assumption proves to be false, what have you got to pursue a long war? NOTHING. This is called -again- adventurism. Germany in ruins, the consequence.

The game -as far as I know- it is not supposed to explore what ifs. Unless I'm a clown I should be advancing towards the general direction of Berlin. In fact, after my disastrous PBEM Soviet summer 1942 defensive I might not even get to Berlin, so...

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland
You prove the point that the original poster was making. That is, why doesnt the inferior side get some of the love regarding game mechanics like WITP? Unfortunately, when game mechanics are brought up, the inevitable Russian counterattack ensues regarding realism and inevitable conclusions and whatnot. If it werent about winning or losing then why do people argue about allowing both players to have the same capabilities in regards to game mechanics?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

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

What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).

Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.

On to your other post, though:

quote:

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.

The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.

By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.

You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.

I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."

The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.

Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.

Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).

I used very incorrectly the APs I bought many diggers... when the forts mattered. Then a patch changed that. Whatever, now I know you only have to be a Spartan: buy the minimum assets.

As I said, Some of you forgot (and this is critical) that the Red Army is on the ropes in the first half of the war. This means the APs are needed to merely survive. You German players have lovely units with high experience (and good commanders). The Soviets don't... You might be forced (every single turn) to bring fresh units (aka spend APs) to replace depleted/low morale units, which are reassigned to let's say Stavka, to avoid overloading that front HQ... This, the Germans CAN avoid it. The Soviets can't You have a shabby army, and even if you use many APs to replace demorailised units the army will be shabby the same. The truth is I will badly need APs to upgrade to the Red Army v2.0. Will I do it in time? It's a tough struggle (keep the head above the water etc.).

And thanks for the compliment, but no, I am not "the best WitE player out there", not even close My 1942 summer defensive campaign is the proof on my book

As I see it (AARs), German players are currently surpassing their historical counterparts, so I still don't get it.

quote:



In the first half of the war, it is the Soviets who are "on rails."

To quote jaw:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

IIRC Russian ground support is hardwired to, in a nutshell, suck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Pompack's post is spot-on IMO, and probably one of the main differences between this engine and WITP-AE.

Playing both games, I have to say that giving Japan extra help seems "right" to me, and not giving the Germans a ton also seems "right". I can't explain 100%, but generally intelligence and risk plays a much greater role in WITP-AE than it does in WITE.

1944-45 turns into a grind either way, so whether that grind in on the Dnepr, or the Polish border, or the Oder, doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of playability. I think future versions of the engine may have more depth to include "what-ifs", but WITE is the first crack at it.

Remember, WITP-AE is now in it's 8th year as an engine. 8 years of 2 additional releases, countless patches, mods, all kinds of stuff. It was fun along the way, but just great now. I bet as the engine develops, you'll be more pleased with it. It takes time. Stick with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:



In the first half of the war, it is the Soviets who are "on rails."

To quote jaw:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.

IIRC Russian ground support is hardwired to, in a nutshell, suck.

I wish my current games were AARs (if only I had the time...). Maybe the very, very best Soviet players (Tarhunnas, Flav, et al) can really whip the Soviet army into shape in 41 but as one who played the game a lot in 2011 pre-fort nerf and now playing multiple games today, I can't see what any complaining is about. The Soviets are nigh on impossible in 41...I am now questioning the fort nerf, because (a) it makes the Soviets ridiculously weak in 41 and (b) it will exacerbate late war problems (if anyone ever gets there) because the Germans will get creamed. I would wholeheartedly endorse eliminating brigade ZOCs (which don't matter in 41) and the ability of brigades to build forts (a lot of the problem in 42 and beyond) for a restoration of some level of entrenching ability in 41...

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents

Add my two cents. You couldn't have summed it up in better way.

I can't recall a balance discussion for AE, the only discussions there focus on (technical) capabilities that are overestimated by the game engine. There rest is matched against history (i.e. Scen 1), and the only balance there is between 1 year offensive phase for the Japanese player with limited assets versus 3 years for the Allied player. And yet, it is extremely fun and exciting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonso

I realize some in this community are quite polarized but are they really saying flexibility isn't fun or Russia in WitE isn't flexible??? I have played the Russian side and maybe you can't do everything you want, but you can definitely tweak and change things to shape the Army to your likeing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Perhaps because it is fun to play? Perhaps many of us don't care at all about winnning or losing? Perhaps it's all about enjoying the whole journey (as I'm doing)?

Given that this thread mentions the WitP-AE game it is interesting to note (just en passant) that NO wargame player is MORE doomed than the Japanese player... And yet the forum is well alive, and yet Japanese players are not lacking. Perhaps, as I said it's about enjoying the journey (a looooong journey by the way).

While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

I dont think the OP was talking about balance. It was about which side was more fun to play (at least how I read it). In its current form, Germany is not as fun to play as the Soviets. The Soviets have many more choices and more flexibility with their OOB than the Germans. Thus, the preferred side playing WITE is the Red Army. I think its fairly obvious, but perhaps I am mistaken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Here’s a suggestion. For PBEM players looking to add some pressure to the early game, and looking for victory conditions that make it easier for both sides to end the game before summer of 1945, use the victory conditions from the AH game Russian Campaign. Players could email their sudden death objectives to a neutral party before the game. The victory conditions are:

German: Take AA line (285 victory points in WitE).
Soviet: Take Berlin, Bucharest, Breslau, Helsinki and all cities east of these.

If by end of June no one has won, it’s a draw unless sudden death has occurred.

Sudden Death:

Before the game each side secretly picks an objective for start of each year from 42-45 from a list. If either player controls both sides’ objectives at the start of a year, they win. Objectives must be picked from this list:

Axis Objectives:
1942: Dnepropetrovsk, Bryansk, Leningrad
1943: Leningrad, Kharkov, Maikop
1944: Sevastopopl, Riga, Kiev
1945: Warsaw, Lvov

Soviet Objectives:
1942: Sevastopol, Kalinin, Kharkov
1943: Voronezh, Moscow, Stalingrad
1944: Leningrad, Rostov, Kursk
1945: Bucharest, Berlin

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

While this has been a very interesting thread, I think there is an important point that has not been explicityl discussed.

To wit: there is a MAJOR filtering process on-going among the actual AE players. First, the Japanese CANNOT "win" in the way most of the WitE community considers winning. Second, while the Allies WILL win, for the first year or two OF REAL TIME the Allies are pummeled, mangled, and generally trashed. After several years of this, the ONLY people who play AE are those who are there for the journey. People who want to "win" won't play the Japanese (who can't "win") and they don't enjoy playing the Allies because they "lose" for literally YEARS before they are able to start "winnin"

So I observe that people who enjoy AE can also enjoy playing either side of WitE because "the journey is the thing". The people who feel most strongly about "balance" in WitE and "winning" simply would not enjoy AE. And people who play AE have a difficult time understanding the problems and issues with play balance discussed so often in the WitE forum.

Just my two cents

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Good victory conditions and games as history are not two opposites. On the contrary, victory conditions are often needed in a wargame to reward and encourage historically reasonable gameplay. In WITE a VP system that encourages both the Soviets and the Germans to try to hold terrain for as long as possible is a must, otherwise players are operating totally outside the boundaries that constrained the historical armies and generals. Having the Red army just run eastwards isn't history, that is pure fantasy! No Soviet commander could ignore decisions on to to stand and fight, and the same for the German commanders later in the war. And the German commanders were under severe pressure to capture their objectives before the winter of 1941. That should be reflected in VPs not just to make a playable game, but to reflect the historical constraints and imperatives.