Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WITE 2.0 OOB?

 
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 >> WITE 2.0 OOB? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/7/2016 11:40:04 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Would be nice if we could get an historical OOB for the Soviets in WITE 2.0

We have Germany with an historical OOB

But the Soviet’s can build whatever size/type of army they like. Apart from just naturally preferring an historical OOB, I think it’s inherently unfair to shackle one side and let the other have a free hand. It also opens up exploits. For example a Red army horde of cavalry units is a bit nuts. They can create havoc in WITE 1.0.

My argument would be to either have both sides allowed to build their own OOB (like the current Soviet freedom) or restrict both sides to an historical OOB.

Allowing just one side total freedom is asking for trouble.

So how is WITE 2.0 heading in this regard?


_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 2:30:49 AM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Would be nice if we could get an historical OOB for the Soviets in WITE 2.0

We have Germany with an historical OOB

But the Soviet’s can build whatever size/type of army they like. Apart from just naturally preferring an historical OOB, I think it’s inherently unfair to shackle one side and let the other have a free hand. It also opens up exploits. For example a Red army horde of cavalry units is a bit nuts. They can create havoc in WITE 1.0.

My argument would be to either have both sides allowed to build their own OOB (like the current Soviet freedom) or restrict both sides to an historical OOB.

Allowing just one side total freedom is asking for trouble.

So how is WITE 2.0 heading in this regard?


Or give the option to players to pick whether they want to play a historical or a fantasy game.
I am old enough to have followed the evolution of this game & when it was being designed
according to burbs at the time, was to recreated & fight the German invasion & if my memory serves
correctly, there was no option to create units, you received certain units @ certain times for
both sides.
Probably the best example is Chaos super duper cavalry ( check his various thread for info on composition) & good on him, he turn this unit into the queen of the battle field. Now, according
to various sources the Russian army had up to,80, so called cavalry divisions hastily formed to
give the Russian army mobility after the enormous loss of armor in 41, but as the armor came available these units were transferred over & became the armor brigades that the Russian suddenly
appears throughout 42.
But, in our game there are no such adjustments, the Russians get to have them all...what is worst
they are all Guards units...so imagine facing in 42, 80 plus Guard Cavalry, plus the same number
of armor brigades. It keeps us German players on our toes.






(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 2
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 3:39:26 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Historical OOB is fine by me. Provided this includes free rebuilds from the deadpile.

Contrary to popular opinion around here, this isn't to the Soviet disadvantage. I think if German players knew what the actual Red Army looked like they might not be asking for this. The well known optimizations players have perfected merely offset the inability to build a historical Soviet OOB due to AP constraints.


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 3
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 4:08:54 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		I concur the Soviet Army was huge....and in fact the game as I pointed out many times in the past gives the Soviets a far smaller army than they deployed historically....as the combat system simply cannot in WITE 1 couldnt handle dealing with a real sized Soviet OOB. If the Soviets got the true numbers of troops the Germans would quickly lose from the lack of ability to eliminate them with the current combat system.

Also as to Soviet cav divisions....many were destroyed and then not rebuilt...they didnt suddenly get turned in tank BDEs. It was the standard Soviet tactic of well we got them all killed build new divisions instead of rebuilding them.

Also the super heavy losses of 41/42 depleted Soviet Horse stocks esp the 42 Caucasus campaign as the far drive south captured or destroy many soviet horse breeding area if I remember correctly. The soviets actually had massive military horse breeding operations still ongoing at the start of WW2.

As to more and more soviet mobile formations over horses....well you can blame the USA for that lol.

Also ICE---in our game I built very few of those cav divisions the Soviets get most of those as standard OOB...the key is just not to get them destroyed in pockets and save them for a huge winter counterattack. I calculated it up if you can save all or most the soviet cav divisions you auto get you can easily mass 15-20 cav corps with just the standard OOB...the key is not getting them wiped out.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 4
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 4:39:41 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Great, bring it on. Let's get an historical OOB for both sides. Apparently the combat system in WITE 2.0 is much improved so we might see more realistic loss rates.

Get the replacement rates right and all will be good.

_____________________________


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 5
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 7:08:56 AM   
Dinglir


Posts: 620
Joined: 3/10/2016
Status: offline 		Personally, I think both sides should be able to create units, IF the resources needed are available. I also think horses should be considered a resource in this respect and have a "horse pool". Horses could then be drawn from this to both logistics (ie in german infantry divisions) or to forn cavalry units.

I don't like the idea that either side could potentially have all resources needed for unit formation in their pools, but still be bound by some "history" law that is clearly "off". Would Stalin refrain from creating more units in 1941 if he had the manpower and the weapons to do so?

However, I think at least 80% or so of unit requirements (in both armament points and manpower) whould be available in order to create units, and MaxTOE should be bound to at least 80 for such created units. This is to avoid exploits of creating a bunch of "shell" units designed entirely to delay the germans. Such units should (as historically) be drafted as "full size" conscript units from the surrounding contry side (with a modifier to manpower in the region for some turns to come).

One interesting compromise would be to allow both sides to create only conscript/volksturm units and then let the regular units be bound by historical OOB. Another would be to let forming regular units cost AP, while forming conscript/volkssturm is AP free. Obviously, the germans should not be able to create volkssturm until 1944 or whenever those units were formed historically.

Those ideas appeal to me, because the player would have a degree of freedom, while still being somewhat bound by history.

_____________________________

To be is to do -- Socrates
To do is to be -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Do be do be do -- Frank Sinatra

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 6
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 7:30:01 AM   
RKhan


Posts: 315
Joined: 1/17/2016
From: My Secret Bunker
Status: offline 		I wouldn't describe what the Soviets do as "building" an OOB so much as customising it. I don't see any Soviet players building large numbers of new units, at least as a proportion of the overall army.

But setting that aside, I think both sides should have the option as a game setting.

While we're at it, I would also like to see an ability to modify slightly the initial setup. The perfect knowledge problem makes the first few turns seem very artificial and choreographed.

_____________________________

RKhan

(in reply to Dinglir)
Post #: 7
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 7:37:28 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		I just want a level playing field primarily.

First preference is an historical OOB. But I am fine with 'extras' as long as both sides can do so.

_____________________________


(in reply to RKhan)
Post #: 8
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 7:42:36 AM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline 		I know Wikipedia is suspect, but what the heck

Corps and time of formation

Disbandment dates are from Bonn, Slaughterhouse.

1st Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 16 December 1941, disbanded c. March 1942.
2nd Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - March–November 1941, then converted to 1st Guards Cavalry Corps, second formation 23 December 1941, disbanded June 1942.
3rd Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 20 November 1941, converted to 2nd Guards Cavalry Corps.
4th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 18 March 1941, disbanded May 1943.
5th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - March 1941-December 1941, then converted to 3rd Guards Cavalry Corps, second formation 1 January 1942, disbanded July 1943.
6th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - March 1940-July 1941, second formation 30 November 1941, disbanded May 1942.
7th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 26 December 1941, converted to 6th Guards Cavalry Corps, January 1943
8th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - January 1942, converted to 7th Guards Cavalry Corps, 14 February 1943.
9th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 1 January 1942, disbanded 11 April 1942.
10th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 12 January 1942, disbanded 3 February 1942.
11th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 12 January 1942, disbanded 8 August 1942.
12th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 12 January 1942, disbanded 3 February 1942.
13th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 20 January 1942, disbanded July 1942.
14th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 23 January 1942, disbanded April 1942.
15th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 1 January 1942, disbanded May 1945.
16th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - 4 January 1942, disbanded? March 1942.
17th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - June–August 1942, converted to 4th Guards Cavalry Corps.
18th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - August 1942, disbanded August 1943.
19th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union) - February 1943, disbanded July 1943.

In connection with the great vulnerability of cavalry from artillery fire, air strikes and tanks, the number of 1 September 1943 and was reduced to 8.
Guards Cavalry Corps (Gv.kk)

1st Guards Cavalry Corps - 26 November 1941 and (2nd Cavalry Corps)
2nd Guards Cavalry Corps - 25 December 1942 (3rd Cavalry Corps)
3rd Guards Cavalry Corps - 25 December 1941 (5th Cavalry Corps)
4th Guards Cavalry Corps - 27 August 1942 (17th Cavalry Corps) - operated with Cavalry mechanized groups in 1944-45, destroyed as part of Cavalry-mechanized Group Pliyev at the Battle of Debrecen, fought during Budapest, Bratislava-Brno, and Prague Offensives.
5th Guards Cavalry Corps - 20 November 1942 - created at Kizlyar by an order of the Stavka VGK for inclusion in the Transcaucasus Front. Consisted of the 11th Guards 'Don' Cossack Cavalry Division, 12th Guards 'Don' Cossack Cavalry Division, and 63rd Cavalry Division.[2] Participated in Iassy-Kishinev Offensive, Battle of Debrecen, Budapest Offensive, and Vienna Offensive.
6th Guards Cavalry Corps - 19 January 1943 (7th Cavalry Corps)
7th Guards Cavalry Corps - 14 February 1943 (8th Cavalry Corps)

& in regards to the infantry (not from Wikipedia)

And that is how the overall situation looked on 1st July 1943:
4 rifle divisions had from 3 to 4 thousands men
20 divisions 4-5 t.
43 divisions 5-6 t.
107 divisions 6-7 t.
132 divisions 7-8 t.
75 divisions more than 8 thousands
Data taken from V.Zamulin's The turn at Kursk ("Курский излом" - in russian)
The figures are given for the rifle divisions of Active Forces. There are total 381 divisions in the list, evidently the figure includes airborne divisions - according to the handbook "The combat coposition of Soviet Army" there were 376 rifle and 5 airborne divisions in Soviet Active Army on 1st July 1943, the sum is the same 381 divisions. There average strangth as can be seen from the table was about 7 thousands men.
Of course, it should be taken into account that on 1st July 1943 the average strength of the Soviet division was on one of the highest, may be simply the highest, level during the war.

We all know that the Soviets, broke down & rebuilt their infantry divisions, so the figures of 560
divisions could be correct...but should there be a limit imposed on the size of the (R) infantry division ?








< Message edited by Ice -- 7/8/2016 8:10:33 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 9
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 12:51:11 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Yep, the source I dont think is that far off....but remember most of those disbands in 1942 were due to casualties.....The Germans towards the end of the winter offensive of 1941/1942 actually managed to encircle and virtually destroy many of those cav corps....thus the reason for the disbands in 1942. So that really depends on game play IMO...you dont get them encircled and destroyed then they are still around.

Basically the Soviets used the cav corps as exploitation units in the winter and got several deep into German lines....then as the germans recovered over the winter they managed to seal them off and slowly wipe them out. In game play termd the Soviet player drove them to far behind german lines....they got encircled and destroyed.

(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 10
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/8/2016 9:42:17 PM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline 		Finally again from Wikipedia is the number of Russian tank corps raised during the war..(remember that a corp is approx a German panzer div)

Eastern Front of World War II

Tank Corps were reformed in March 1942 on a smaller scale than the pre-war Tank Corps. At first they consisted of two Tank Brigades and a motorised rifle brigade, with some Corps elements such as reconnaissance, anti-tank, or pioneers added in. This made them essentially a division size formation with ca. 120 to 180 tanks. The formation was slightly weaker than a German Panzer division at this stage in the war. It was determined that this was too weak, and a third tank brigade was added to increase the offensive power. The final organisation as published in 1944 included an additional heavy tank or heavy self-propelled gun regiment, plus a medium and a light self-propelled gun regiment.

A total of 31 tank corps were formed during the war, with 12 of them earning the designation of a Guards Tank Corps. Due to the destruction of the 21st Tank Corps at the Second Battle of Kharkov and the use of some tank corps to form mechanised corps, no more than 24 of them actually saw combat.

The tank corps were the basic building block of the Tank Armies (see List of Soviet armies#Tank Armies).

Most tank corps were converted to Tank Divisions in 1945-6. See List of Soviet Army divisions 1989-91.
List of Tank Corps

1st Tank Corps
2nd Tank Corps
3rd Tank Corps – renamed 9th Guards Tank Corps after Battle of Radzymin (1944).
4th Tank Corps – March 42 – Feb 43 – converted to 5th Guards Tank Corps
5th Tank Corps – formed April 1942. Equipped largely with British-built Valentine tanks, 5 TC was badly handled in the early stages of the 1943 Smolensk operation, being mauled both from the air and from the ground. However the deflection of German units necessitated by the sacrifice of 5 TC meant that Spas Demensk fell on 13 August 1943.[1]
6th Tank Corps – see 11th Guards Tank Corps
7th Tank Corps
8th Tank Corps – Formed May 1942 in the Moscow Military District. Assigned to Western Front for virtually its entire career. After being nearly destroyed the brigades were reassigned and the Corps HQs used to form 3rd Mechanized Corps in September 1943.[2]
9th Tank Corps – the 9th Tank Division can trace its history back to 12 May 1942 when the 9th Tank Corps (ru:9-й танковый корпус (СССР)) was formed in the Moscow Military District.[3] It took part in the Battle of Kursk, then across Ukraine with the Central, Belorussian, and 1st Belorussian Fronts. It ended the war in Berlin. As part of the occupation forces, it was assigned to the 1st Guards Tank Army (also 1st Guards Mechanised Army). In 1957, it was reorganized into a Heavy Tank Division and re-designated the 13th Heavy Tank Division. This lasted until 1965, when it was returned to its original 9th Tank Division designation. This it retained until its withdrawal from the GDR in 1991 when it was disbanded. Its divisional headquarters was at Riesa.
10th Tank Corps (Soviet Union)
11th Tank Corps
12th Tank Corps
13th Tank Corps – began in April 1942 with 65th, 85th, and 88th Tank Brigades and 20th Motor Rifle(?) Brigade. In July 1942 brigades assigned were the 85th, 158th, and 167th Tank and 20th Motor Rifle(?) Brigade. It was "an oddball in the Soviet Army. 13th Tank Corps had been so shot up that most of its tank brigades were removed in September–October 1942, and when Mechanised Brigades were substituted at the beginning of November, it should have been redesignated as a Mechanised Corps with a new number, as had happened to other tank corps in similar situations. Instead, the corps retained the number '13' and even the Soviet sources get confused on what to call it: a tank corps or a mechanised corps. It had the subordinate units of a mechanised corps when it went into battle in late November and December 1942. It fought as a mechanised corps with 57th, 51st and 2nd Guards Armies during December in the mobile battles against German Panzers south of Stalingrad, and in recognition of its actions there on 9 January 1943 the 13th Mechanised Corps was redesignated as the 4th Guards Mechanised Corps."[4] See ru:13-й танковый корпус (СССР). Later 4th Guards Mechanised Division, and 4th Guards Motor Rifle Division.
14th Tank Corps
15th Tank Corps – fought in Battle of Grodno 1939 during Invasion of Poland. Became 7th Guards Tank Corps
16th Tank Corps – was part of 2nd Tank Army on formation. Became 12th Guards Tank Corps (1943) and 12th Guards Tank Division (1946).[5]
17th Tank Corps – became 4th Guards Tank Corps after Operation Little Saturn.
18th Tank Corps
19th Tank Corps
20th Tank Corps – the 20th Tank Division can trace its history back to 12 December 1942 when the 20th Tank Corps was formed in the Moscow Defense Zone. It took part in the counter-offensives in the winter of 1942/43 and the summer 1943 offensives in the southern Ukraine. After taking part in the offensives in 1944 and early 1945, it was in Stavke Reserves when the war ended. It was allocated to the Northern Group of Forces by Directive No. 11096, where it remained through the Cold War. In later 1945, it was reorganized into the 20th Tank Division. Between 1949 and 1955, it was known as the 7th Tank Division, although as a cadre unit. IN 1955, it was restored to full strength and renamed the 20th Tank Division. It would remain in southern Poland until 1991 when it was disbanded.
21st Tank Corps
22nd Tank Corps
23rd Tank Corps
24th Tank Corps (see also http://stalingrad.ic.ru/s22tcorp.html for 22nd Tank Corps)
25th Tank Corps – formed June 1942 in the Moscow Defence Zone. Originally formed previously as 25th Mechanised Corps in Kiev MD, 1941. Participated in the 'Liberation of Western Ukraine” and fought at Stalingrad, Kursk, Belgorod-Kharkov, Zhitimir-Berdichev, Rovno-Lutsk, Lvov, Vistula-Oder, Czestochowa, Berlin, Prague and other operations and actions.[5] Converted to 25th Tank Division after the end of the war. Postwar assignment to 4th Guards Mechanised Army in the 1940s and 1950s; Withdrawn From Group of Soviet Forces, Germany/ Western Group of Forces, 20th Guards Army. Regiments (formerly brigades) designated “Novogorod.” Deactivation site: Kiev MD.
26th Tank Corps
27th Tank Corps – formed in the Moscow Defense Zone. The 27th was never committed to combat, but instead on 8 September 1942 it was reorganized into the 1st Mechanised Corps.
28th Tank Corps
29th Tank Corps
30th Tank Corps[6]
31st Tank Corps – eventually became 31st Tank Division. Raised in the Moscow Military District, 1943. Associated with 1st Tank Army.[5] Participated in fighting at Kursk, Belgorod-Kharkov, Lvov-Sandomir, Carpathian-D.khmk,y, Sandomir bridgehead, Vistula-Oder, Prague and other operations and actions. Withdrawn From Central Group of Forces, Czechoslovakia. Eventually amalgamated with 47th Guards Tank Division at Mulino to become 3rd Motor Rifle Division after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Guards Tank Corps

1st Guards Tank Corps
2nd Guards Tank Corps
3rd Guards Tank Corps
4th Guards Tank Corps – now 4th Guards Tank Division
5th Guards Tank Corps
6th Guards Tank Corps – Raised in the Baltic MD, 1941, re-formed in Moscow MD, 1942. Formed as 12th Tank Corps and successively redesignated as 6th Guards Tank Corps (1943) and 6th Guards Tank Division (1946). Participated in fighting at Kursk,[citation needed] Omogozkk, Rmsosh, Warkov, Kmsncgrad, Kursk, Gel and other operations and actions. Past-war assignment to 3rd Guards Mechanized Army in the 1940s and 1950s. Honorifics and Awards included 'Kiev' “Berlin,”[citation needed] Orders of Lenin, Red Banner, Suvorov and Bogdan KJdem’nmku. Withdrawn from Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, 1st Guards Tank Army in 1982.
7th Guards Tank Corps – Withdrawn from Group of Soviet Forces in Germany Western Group of Forces, 1st Guards Tank Army.[5] Raised: Initially in L3elormswmMD, 1938; broken up and re-formed in Moscow MD, 1942. Initially designated as 15th Tank Corps, becoming successively the 7th Guards Tank Corps (1943) and 7th Guards Tank Division (1946). Participated in "Liberation of Western Ukraine" and fighting at Gstrogozhsk. Rm.msh, Kharkov, Kursk, Gel and other operations and actions. Postwar assignment to 3rd Guards Mechanised Army in the 1940s and 1950s. Honorifics and Awards: "Kiev." "Berlin," Order of Lenin, Twice Red Banner, Suvurov and Kummv. Deactivated in the Moscow MD.
8th Guards Tank Corps
9th Guards Tank Corps – 3rd Tank Corps was formed at Tula in the Moscow Military District. It took part in the winter counter-offensives in 1942/1943, the Battle of Kursk, then across Ukraine and then the summer offensive in 1944, Operation Bagration, with the Central, Belorussian, and 1st Belorussian Fronts. On 20 November 1944, after the Battle of Radzymin, it was awarded ‘Guards’ status and re-designated the 9th Guards Tank Corps.
10th Guards Tank Corps: ex 30th Tank Corps. Now 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division.
11th Guards Tank Corps – The 11th Guards Tank Division can trace its history back to 10 April 1942 when the 6th Tank Corps was formed in the Moscow Defense Zone.[3] It took part in the Battle of Kursk, then across Ukraine with the Central, Belorussian, and 1st Belorussian Fronts. On 23 October 1943, it was awarded ‘Guards’ status and redesignated the 11th Guards Tank Corps. It ended the war in the Berlin area. As part of the occupation forces, it was reorganized as the 11th Guards Tank Division and assigned to the 1st Guards Tank Army (also called 1st Guards Mechanised Army during 1946–1957). For the occupation period and post-war era, it was mainly uneventful until 1968 when it took part in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. In 1992 it was withdrawn from Germany and landed in Slonim the newly independent Belarus. It would eventually be reorganized into the 11th Guards Mechanised Brigade. Division Headquarters was at Dresden in the 1980s.
12th Guards Tank Corps – former 16th Tank Corps. 16 TC was formed on 1 June 1942 in the Moscow Defense Zone. On 20 November 1944, it was awarded ‘Guards’ status and re-designated the 12th Guards Tank Corps. In later 1945, it was reorganized into the 12th Guards Tank Division.

If we go back & check AAR they all deal with the composition of the German forces on Eastern front,
none about the composition of the Russian army...so what you have is a Historical German army
facing a non historical Russian Army.

I know the arguments about conserving forces & I have no problems with it...BUT IF YOU TO FIELD
A NON HISTORICAL ARMY, THE SAME SHOULD APPLY TO THE GERMANS.
So, it comes back to what type of war you want to fight, I, for instance want to refight the actual
41-45 with the units fielded by both sides, while others would like to play "what if".

Lets just hope that the developers give us players both the options.



< Message edited by Ice -- 7/8/2016 10:42:06 PM >

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 11
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 3:47:53 PM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline 		Believe both sides developed force structures in response to national capabilities, objectives and realities at the fronts. The historical model (accurate?) is one clear way of implementing the game, but believe its distorted when there is significant deviation from historical outcomes. Example, the Axis did not go to 100% war economy until '43/'44. For Axis, surely there would be differences in appearance of units and their equipment.

The model used in the game yields great play and interest, but there could be some "what ifs." Note that there are what ifs for weather, Soviet defense/offense factors, and balance, and with editor one can build a wide range of scenarios. Where would it end?

(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 12
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 4:27:32 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		I see people quoting the Axis economy not going to full war until 1943/1944....this is a deceptive viewpoint.

The simple fact is Hitler went to war before Germany was ready for war. This is true for the German Army, Navy, and even military production standpoints.

Speer performed a miracle of fixing and streamlining German military production as it was truly a massive mess when he took over. Whats even more amazing he managed not to get executed after the war when he was perhaps one of the most responsible individuals for the war lasting as long as it did--keep in mind he only took over because Todt? if I remember right died in a plane crash---possible political murder as he had several enemies in the Nazis party.

Not going to say I have a doctorates on the subject matter but I did a fairly in-depth study of it as one of my final college projects and basically the German economy was in no way ready for the Start of WW2. Each campaign they fought in 1939/1940 burned more resources than the German produced. So only the fact that both campaigns vs Poland and France ended quickly did the Germans do so well as they burned more supplies during even those short campaigns than the German economy was replacing. So they were constantly dipping into reserve stockpiles. So when the Soviet campaign went on longer than anticipated it began to exhaust German reserve stockpiles- esp the level of fighting that was going on---artillery ammunition and other stocks were actually somewhat limited and thus the reasons for periodic shortages of those stocks during the campaign.

Also German heavy industry was one of the biggest limits on actual military production and this was understood by most high ranking german officials. Which is one reason their tank/aircraft/heavy equipment production was so limited in the early years of the war. They simply didnt have enough large scale production facilities to produce war equipment to the level of most of the allied nations---partly because of the economic wreck german had been after WW1.....Germany made up for this shortfall by stripping lots of equipment from captured countries and integrating them into the German war economy...however this takes time...thus the "War Production" myth of 1943+ it was really taking that time to get all the captured machine capabilities brought back to Germany and integrated in the German economy. Capturing France was a huge boon to the eventual German war economy as well as the Czechs.

Keep in mind if you study the German economy they were effectively bankrupt at the start of WW2....one of the reasons Hitler may have pushed for war earlier than the German military and economy was truly ready. The German finance organs had been doing a shell game with debt and re-payment for years prior to the start of the war and the subterfuge was about to be figured out and revealed the country was bankrupt and be plunged into another depression when the currency crashed. Basically Hitler built what army he had by the start from debt never figuring on paying it back, planning to resort to war and pillage to make up for all the debt...and well crushing many of the countries Germany owed money to.

So could the German economy have done slightly better earlier in the war--maybe....however lack of money, infrastructure, heavy industry would still have only made full military employment only a moderate to small improvement of real military equipment. Even the De-mob of part of the German army at the end of the 1940 campaign was critical to keeping German production as high as it was.......then when the Soviet campaign went bad...they had to pull all these men out of the economy again and put them in the military to replace losses.....

Only the pillage and slave labor instituted by Speer in late 1942 on got the German war economy humming like it did in the late war. So as you can see its alot more than just declare a war economy in 1941 instead of 1943.....as by 1943 the Germans also had more pillaged machine equipment from the Soviet Union and the vast slave labor from the Soviet union to reach this full "war production"

At least this my understanding from my research on the subject. Is alot more to it and the problems the Germans had when you look into how and why what happened, happened. You can say historical is almost the best case situation for the Germans short of delaying going to war longer to build up their war production infrastructure....which then you have economic issues with a country with lots of debt and soon to be currency solvency issues.

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 13
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 6:10:58 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline 		@Chaos: The Speer Miracle is controversial. Some also say that he massively benefitted from measures which began before his time. He for sure was a very good organizer.

The thing with total war is: How hard do you want your population to work?

You can make 14 years old children work 14 hours per day. You can take away everything except food and clothing. But Hitler feared a Revolution of his population which was not that happy about a new war.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 14
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 7:05:28 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Agree you can make people work longer, however you only have so much heavy machinery and factories to put them to work in. This was the true limiting factor on German War production in the early years of the war from my understanding.

I forget the source as it was years ago I did my research...but machined parts and factory tools for machining were a huge shortfall in German industry, and by capturing France and pillaging as well as using several French factories this helped make up for the initial shortfalls internal German industry had available. Again tho moving factories and even integrating a conquered population takes time....thus the reason for the boom in 1943+....also dont underestimate the surrender of Italy.....it was actually found that Italian industry had been specifically working against the facist government and when they surrendered and were occupied by German units and government oversight after the surrender a great amount of raw materials and war materials were discovered and shipped/added to the German stockpile. This in turn kept the German war economy humming much better than was anticipated as until the inspections by the new german occupation gov these stockpiles hadnt been known about.

As to Speer and his miracle I agree it is debated, he brought one thing to the table Todt didnt though which was his personnel connection and pull with Hitler. This in turn allowed him to overrule many Nazis party elites and actually get stuff done Todt hadnt been able to do. As any time he got resistance he could actually get an audience with Hitler and get the resistance overruled. This was one of the key things to Speer's power in the party/system. He didnt lose this power until i think it was like later 1944 early 1945 when he tried to make Hitler confront reality that the war was lost and the economy couldnt continue the war effort much longer.

Todt had started alot of the movements that Speer benefited from but again it was his personal pull with Hitler that allowed much of his changes to go forward over party objections.

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 15
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 7:11:23 PM   
Farfarer61

 

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Taking 12 O Clock High/BTR lessons learned with full Axis control of production. As "God Emperor" you order every company to produce only two aircraft engines, even if they are those of your major competitors. Then you proceed to annihilate the 8th Air Force and Bomber Command with FW190A and shortly Me109K, and He 219 regardless of P51s and Mosquitos. Jets never needed. All R+D on anything outside these three lines, which would of course need different engines than having the entire economy concentrate on two, is converted by diktat.

So in WITE terms, what would one do ? It depends on if you can decide the composition of Units, principally Infantry and Panzer divisions, or not. I suppose anything with the word "Porsche" in it would never be built, no Anti Tank Rifles, ATGs less than 75mm, get rid of PzKw variants less than IVg or maybe entirely convert production to Panther A? Bother building Tigers at all ?

The same optimization is done by Japan players in WITP Gold BTW. Anyhow, didn't want to start a thread on how to build the best German Army fast and efficiently, just illustrate the complexity and opportunities when you have complete control of production.

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 16
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 9:08:01 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Real life isnt as easy as a fantasy game......You can say you can just click buttons and make all that happen...however factory machines have to be made and machine tools for all those parts created. This was the huge issue the Germans had.

Machine tools and large factory machinery were the main reason they didnt build bigger tanks than MK IIIs and weakly armoed MK IVs for the first couple years......also it takes years even under forced labor to build new large capacity factories......

Which is why the Skoda works and PZ 38T chassis were used throughout the entire war by the Germans. Hetzer--designed at the end year of war was specifically designed to keep using the PZ 38T hull because it was hull they could easily still build without spending time they didnt have shutting down the factory lines and completely re-doing all the machinery to bigger tanks.

Military infrastructure takes time....in modern times its almost worse due to cost and really slower to augment despite huge improvements in technology over the years. Like when Iraq and Afghanistan were in full swing- small arms ammunition world wide almost/did become an issue because mass production facilities dont have the capacity anymore for large wars. Building up capacity takes alot of capitol investment and time to implement.

Fantasy of making whatever you want is great- completely not realistic nor doable in the real world...esp for most WW2 nations based on their economic capabilities. Lets not forget politics lol.....German production was very closely tied to politics and what company had closer ties to the Nazis Party.

The USA had similar issues but was basically smarter about it...when the competing trademarks issues came up in the USA the gov forced individuals/companies to comply with the war production plan and "take" the $ per item produced the gov decided. Germany really never got to this level of forced compliance with several of their major companies. Also the USA wasnt being bombed nor did they initially have massive pressure for continued war production to make up front line losses.

So the USA had more time to actually plan and implement a real war economic effort that wasn't based on immediate needs to supply war fronts.

I suggest if its something your really interested in it do the research its quite interesting in a dry history nerd sort of way that no-one in the modern world cares about anymore lol. Other than drawing comparisons to the past and how things are going wrong in the modern world lol.

An lets not even talk of the basket case Japan's economy was in WW2....they effectively lost the war before they even started it. Its why the USA went with a Europe first strategy because economically Germany was the only real threat.









< Message edited by chaos45 -- 7/9/2016 9:11:01 PM >

(in reply to Farfarer61)
Post #: 17
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 10:26:42 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		CKD/BMM couldn't produce anything larger/heavier than the Pz 38t chassis up to ~12-15t due to structural weight limits of locations and cranes used to move equipment/material around.
I have always been in favor of some hard limits for certain unit types so no floods of cav divs and/or sapper support units.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 18
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 10:51:41 PM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline 		I think it was in the book "The Struggle For Europe" by Wilmot ..where it was pointed out that Germany industry had peaked & couldn't product any more iron prior to the invasion of France & after the fall it ability had doubled (?)...its been a long time since I read it.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 19
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 11:25:06 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		The topic of the post is OOB, not production. I do not want production to change or come under player control.



_____________________________


(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 20
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/9/2016 11:49:12 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		So I am building the WitE 2 OOB and it basically an expanded version of WitE with some nice and new features. Please keep in mind that these features are not complete and the design could still change in the future. But this is what I have built so far.

1. Historical units for Germans throughout BUT there is some flexibility not seen in previous versions as I have been receptive to some changes to spice things up. First of all, as per WITE, units are not disbanded on their historical dates unless the units were merged into new units. All theaters are represented separately by a theater box (Western Front, Italy, Balkans, North Africa, Norway, Finland-Murmansk, and the Axis Strategic Reserves (Germany). These boxes are all populated with Axis forces (air and ground) according to their historical dates. When using the theater boxes, players can move air and ground units around as needed but there will be consequences to stripping a theater of forces with events. These events haven't been reviewed or added yet. There are also units that were partially formed that never saw combat deployment because they ended up being renamed for destroyed units at Stalingrad and North Africa. These units are now available for the player to do with what he wishes and some examples include the West Schnelle Division and the 345th and 386th Motorized Divisions.

2. The rename function allows units to rename and change OBs many times throughout their life without requiring the unit to withdraw from the front and a fresh (and fully equipped) unit replacing it as a reinforcement. Now, we can properly simulate units being upgraded seamlessly. An example of this is the 373rd Wallonian Infantry Battalion that begins in the Western Theater Box. On Turn 104 (Summer 43), it upgrades to the 5th SS Walloonian Motorized Brigade and on Turn 174 (Fall 44), it upgrades to the 28th SS Wall. Grenadier Division.

3. "Free Production" or having units arrive fully kitted is now out. Now, units arrive without equipment when they were officially established and must rely on the production system to equip them. The 501st Heavy Panzer Company, for example, arrives in February 1942 without any tanks in the Axis Reserves box. The intent is to make the Axis and Soviet Strategic Reserves box a way to "store" units off the map to allow for priority refits. The production system has been re-calibrated to allow for historical production.

4. The Soviet system is going to be similar to what WitE did but they will have a historical OOB through 1941. Their new units will also arrive as shells without equipment. To give you a taste of what a true historical Soviet OOB would look like through 1941, I have added the following historical units to the Soviet Strategic Box in 1941 only that didn't exist in WITE:

a. 30 Engineer-Sapper Brigades (Construction)
b. 10 Separate Tank Regiments
c. 6 Motorcycle Regiments
d. Over 100 Anti-Tank Regiments
e. 80+ Artillery/Gun/Howitzer Regiments
f. 5 AA Regiments
g. Over 100 Separate Tank Battalions
h. Over 200 Engineer-Sapper Battalions (Construction)
i. 6 Heavy Mortar Battalions
j. 17 Guards Light Rocket Regiments
k. 11 Mortar Battalions
l. Over 100 AA Battalions

Trey


_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 21
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 1:14:15 AM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline 		I don't know about anyone else, but you have completely wet my appetite....stopped my bitching...and
created a longing to see this game...so the big question is .....WHEN?

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 22
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 1:16:18 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Why can't we have an historical Soviet OOB post 1941?

I mean the historical shells arrive in the box you speak of and then they get filled out if production has the capacity?

So the historical OOB becomes the absolute limit. But you may not have enough men and equipment to flesh them out.

If you have excess then then perhaps an option exists to build additional units (available for both sides).

For example if the Soviet's had 31 Tank Corps that's all I really want to see. If some players want the ability to build more then make this an option. But again it should also be available to the Germans as well if you go down that path.

_____________________________


(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 23
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 3:53:06 AM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		That's a design decision above my pay grade. Historical OOBs are possible of course.

There was discussion of putting caps on Soviet units based on the maximum number of those types of units that were historically created.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Why can't we have an historical Soviet OOB post 1941?

I mean the historical shells arrive in the box you speak of and then they get filled out if production has the capacity?

So the historical OOB becomes the absolute limit. But you may not have enough men and equipment to flesh them out.

If you have excess then then perhaps an option exists to build additional units (available for both sides).

For example if the Soviet's had 31 Tank Corps that's all I really want to see. If some players want the ability to build more then make this an option. But again it should also be available to the Germans as well if you go down that path.



_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 24
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 4:04:19 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

There was discussion of putting caps on Soviet units based on the maximum number of those types of units that were historically created.


That would get my vote.

Thanks for the info BTW

_____________________________


(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 25
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 5:28:52 PM   
Farfarer61

 

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

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

There was discussion of putting caps on Soviet units based on the maximum number of those types of units that were historically created.


That would get my vote.

Thanks for the info BTW


This seems simple enough :)

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 26
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 6:29:50 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		As a practical matter, how many players build 31 tank corps? Damn few I suspect. Ditto the 12 or so mech corps, the 40 odd artillery divisions, etc.

This is why I'd strongly prefer a historical OOB for the entire war. Most people will probably wind up getting a better army as a result, albeit a less optimized one.

The real constraint here should be replacements, not APs or whatever currency is used to buy or upgrade units.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Farfarer61)
Post #: 27
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 9:12:48 PM   
Peltonx


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

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

As a practical matter, how many players build 31 tank corps? Damn few I suspect. Ditto the 12 or so mech corps, the 40 odd artillery divisions, etc.

This is why I'd strongly prefer a historical OOB for the entire war. Most people will probably wind up getting a better army as a result, albeit a less optimized one.

The real constraint here should be replacements, not APs or whatever currency is used to buy or upgrade units.


Logistics is the key as we have exchanged in personal emails in the past.

I have them saved do you?

A massive / historical Red army

logistically was a ball and chain for Russia as Chaos has stated and he is right historically.

MT pushing for a historical Russian OOB is the right thing to do.






_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 28
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 9:55:30 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		The problem with Soviet historical OOB is that it was very loss-driven and different formations may die/survive each time in the game, whereas German OOB is mostly static with very few units lost until 1945 when it no longer matters. So I would think custom/auto building but up to historical limits for given quarter of year would be the best compromise.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 29
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/10/2016 10:59:15 PM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline 		Historical OOBs (both sides) would IMHO be best for the starts of all scenarios, any length. As the game proceeds there could be variances from history based on each sides performance. How these might be determined is problematic in the extreme, and maybe undeterminable. Who would you want running this war anyway? Adolph/Joe, Stavka/GHQ, Rommel/v. Manstein/Khruschev/Zhukov/??? And could the game code reflect this?


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> WITE 2.0 OOB? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.816