Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

HLYA,

Why not simply discuss with your opponents about house ruling 1941 and 42 Soviet assault HQ's until it is patched?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

I think assault HQs for the Soviets, combined with the need to consistently and constantly perform well as Germany, leads to a soviet dominated game more often than not. If the German player fails to find the pockets needed to drain the red army, then things very quickly reach an essential standstill in many parts of the front. The soviet ability to create immense walls of units is pretty staggering, in particular I remember one game where by campaign season of 42 I had the entire red army sitting on full TOE (more or less), on level 3 forts, with multiple lines of depth, under the best commanders. My opponent could not break the lines.

I am a very mediocre player though, but there's my two cents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...

Some infantry in the Panzer armies is historical, as many people have said over sized assault HQs are not.
As to whether that is significant and if it is going to cause an Axis victory is an open question.

Whatever issues there are with the game, and there are always going to be many, I do not go along with the view that it is seriously broken. Better play is gaining an advantage most of the time and if there are things that are not right, like the assault HQs, it still takes good play to make use of them. For me the game is eminently playable as it is and I would hope it will continue to be going forwards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

HLYA,

Why not simply discuss with your opponents about house ruling 1941 and 42 Soviet assault HQ's until it is patched?

Current game there is no hope

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
....

You aren't going to get shatters on units in Assault HQ's. Matter of fact those units will be well lead, high CCP, and retreat with about the same losses the Germans take if not less on the attacks. Which pretty much the whole area the Germans will be fighting will have Soviets in Assault HQ's. Major problem. On top of that the Supply system for the Germans exacerbates that as much as the Soviets Fan-bois cries the logistics is too great for the Germans. I can tell you it sucks from this side. I rarely use my airforce and when I do it is in limited quantity.

...

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
....

You aren't going to get shatters on units in Assault HQ's. Matter of fact those units will be well lead, high CCP, and retreat with about the same losses the Germans take if not less on the attacks. Which pretty much the whole area the Germans will be fighting will have Soviets in Assault HQ's. Major problem. On top of that the Supply system for the Germans exacerbates that as much as the Soviets Fan-bois cries the logistics is too great for the Germans. I can tell you it sucks from this side. I rarely use my airforce and when I do it is in limited quantity.

...

strong personal preference would be to avoid the 'fanboys' discourse that became such a (depressing) feature of the WiTE1 forum


Roger

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

Re: HYLA and unstoppable fury.

It's a more general observation about two common axis balance views.

1st, there is a common, if wildly inaccurate, position taken that basically goes (with some hyperbole) "the German army was an unquenchable meat grinder advancing to victory everywhere, so if I can't, it must be broken".

There is also a second, more refined, camp. It basically holds that while the relative combat power of the units shouldn't be adjusted lightly (Through means direct or otherwise), the highest value in the game is tactical/technical excellence. If you can be technically excellent with units and still can't win, they would say, then the balance must be off.

I think both positions miss the idea that WITE, far more than it's predecessor, is a game about big decisions. It's not immediately apparent, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you can rarely tactical your way out of a wrong call operationally, or only at great cost in time and readiness. That is frankly a pretty good representation of the east..it shouldn't matter if you're Tyrone or an average player, a single panzer corps trying to do ballet should be a battered, broken thing that fails.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

Re: HYLA and unstoppable fury.

It's a more general observation about two common axis balance views.

1st, there is a common, if wildly inaccurate, position taken that basically goes (with some hyperbole) "the German army was an unquenchable meat grinder advancing to victory everywhere, so if I can't, it must be broken".

There is also a second, more refined, camp. It basically holds that while the relative combat power of the units shouldn't be adjusted lightly (Through means direct or otherwise), the highest value in the game is tactical/technical excellence. If you can be technically excellent with units and still can't win, they would say, then the balance must be off.

I think both positions miss the idea that WITE, far more than it's predecessor, is a game about big decisions. It's not immediately apparent, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you can rarely tactical your way out of a wrong call operationally, or only at great cost in time and readiness. That is frankly a pretty good representation of the east..it shouldn't matter if you're Tyrone or an average player, a single panzer corps trying to do ballet should be a battered, broken thing that fails.

Was it not you that had the "unstoppable fury" about hasty attacks in Beta Glorious Ruse? That "unstoppable fury" was deep. It is the same passion & breed from the same mother.

So, I guess you are right in your first sentence, "Re: HYLA and unstoppable fury". But you have not a clue why since your next two para's tells me what you think. I will tell you why. I love the game, both sides! I love to see more people playing and progressing in the game. I post what I post for others to further their thinking and get more involved. I don't have to spends hours on end during the day to post AAR's comments and pictures for my health. Personally, I don't give a rats rear end if I lose or win. I even said so at the very beginning of my AAR that I was going to lose but I was going to try anyway to win because I like to win, as anyone should. I try and give hope to either side when there is little in the game to new players. I did this in WITE1 taking up the Soviet side to show it can be done. Maybe I am naive and just should slink back into my hole and not help anyone with my 2 cents worth of comments in my AAR. So yea, I have an "unstoppable fury" to try and make suggestions to a game that is enjoyable for both sides no matter what the side they play giving insight into what I do either right or wrong and suggestions on what could be wrong in current ruleset for people to learn from.

quote:

What is the "right game mechanics which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer" you are talking about????

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

In this case the "unstoppable fury" is a reference to it as a game mechanic. Not an actual poster's emotional state. As in "unstoppable panzer fury"; (the last word I now see is not in my original post) - it's a bleed over from e-mail conversations where I've used "unstoppable panzer fury" to be shorthand for a camp that believes so long as the panzers are handled well, they should be able to execute a reasonably continuous blitzkrieg regardless of reasonable correlation of forces or soviet execution. Specifically, it was a topic call to answering this:

quote:

What is the "right game mechanics which created some mythical tide of unstoppable panzer" you are talking about????

Not as in "HYLA has unstoppable fury". Rather "For HYLA, re: the game mechanic of unstoppable fury."

As for stacked hasties, I still think they are bad for the game, but that would look something like "Re: HYLA and Triple Hasties"

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I'd leave Germans with 6 Assault HQ, but with the limit of 27 Command Point. (I'd review the Command Point in general and equalize the cost of Division to 2 though, be it Division or 3 Regiments as part of the same division).

You can give it a go with the Soviet ones that way. But I'd suggest a longer line of 'targets' than Smolensk and Kiev (Litterally a 'line' of cities going from north to south), and make that Germany requires X targets out of Y.
Otherwise the Axis could deliberately avoid taking Kiev and besiege it and rush onward toward DneprCity and Stalino for instance. Etc.

Soviet Assault HQs too should be consrtained to their regular (non Assault) Command Capacity.

I am not expert enough though but I feel Soviets should not have 2 Assault HQ in '41. And only 1 in '42.
But I am severely affected by some AARs I see where the Panzer divisions are just pins in the game of bowling of the Soviets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

Hyla and now Tyronnec are showing in their aar's that the way to succeed as germany is to transfer infantry divisions out of the infantry armies and into the assault panzer armies, leaving those infantry armies as shells, to take advantage of the higher command capacity and bonuses of assualt hq's. Efficient and smart? absolutely. Realistic and representative of the realities of the war? Not at all. Imagine a german field Marshall of an infantry army giving all his divisions to a panzer group leader willingly, and any panzer group leader doing better with the added burden? And i don't think anyone would dispute that one of the germans greatest advantages going into barbarossa was unit cohesion and having trained and fought together as units, not something that would be enhanced by breaking those organizations up on the first week of the war. Current state of the game is more like hearts of iron than war in the east...

Some infantry in the Panzer armies is historical, as many people have said over sized assault HQs are not.
As to whether that is significant and if it is going to cause an Axis victory is an open question.

Whatever issues there are with the game, and there are always going to be many, I do not go along with the view that it is seriously broken. Better play is gaining an advantage most of the time and if there are things that are not right, like the assault HQs, it still takes good play to make use of them. For me the game is eminently playable as it is and I would hope it will continue to be going forwards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Heck , if you wanted a realistic game machinic, the Soviets should not even be able to C2 a certain % of units due to very poor Command and Control in June and July. This is why you see them abolish the Corps and consolidate divisions at Army level command, and this is not exactly an ideal solution either, as this puts those Armies at the limits of their own effective C2 capabilities. There were just not enough trained Commanders and Staff Officers to effectively C2 those Corps. This was due to several factors most here are aware of, the huge increases in the Soviet Army prior to the war, (Calling up over 1 million reservists), lack of enough experienced Officers, killing 30+% of your Officer Corps does not help, and the purge only reinforces a lack of initiative. It becomes common for Leadership up and down the Chain of Command to NOT take any risks and pass the decision on to higher, which leads to very slow decision making and planning and a tendency to ask permission for even the simplest decisions. This C2 problem within the Soviet Army only contributes to the ability of the Germans to encircle those Soviet forces. The Soviet Soldiers fought very bravely but were let down by very poor leadership at all levels of command. You can be very brave and fight to the end, which does have a certain effectiveness, but is not a substitute for being well trained and well lead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glenhope

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Heck , if you wanted a realistic game machinic, the Soviets should not even be able to C2 a certain % of units due to very poor Command and Control in June and July. This is why you see them abolish the Corps and consolidate divisions at Army level command, and this is not exactly an ideal solution either, as this puts those Armies at the limits of their own effective C2 capabilities. There were just not enough trained Commanders and Staff Officers to effectively C2 those Corps. This was due to several factors most here are aware of, the huge increases in the Soviet Army prior to the war, (Calling up over 1 million reservists), lack of enough experienced Officers, killing 30+% of your Officer Corps does not help, and the purge only reinforces a lack of initiative. It becomes common for Leadership up and down the Chain of Command to NOT take any risks and pass the decision on to higher, which leads to very slow decision making and planning and a tendency to ask permission for even the simplest decisions. This C2 problem within the Soviet Army only contributes to the ability of the Germans to encircle those Soviet forces. The Soviet Soldiers fought very bravely but were let down by very poor leadership at all levels of command. You can be very brave and fight to the end, which does have a certain effectiveness, but is not a substitute for being well trained and well lead.

This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glenhope

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Heck , if you wanted a realistic game machinic, the Soviets should not even be able to C2 a certain % of units due to very poor Command and Control in June and July. This is why you see them abolish the Corps and consolidate divisions at Army level command, and this is not exactly an ideal solution either, as this puts those Armies at the limits of their own effective C2 capabilities. There were just not enough trained Commanders and Staff Officers to effectively C2 those Corps. This was due to several factors most here are aware of, the huge increases in the Soviet Army prior to the war, (Calling up over 1 million reservists), lack of enough experienced Officers, killing 30+% of your Officer Corps does not help, and the purge only reinforces a lack of initiative. It becomes common for Leadership up and down the Chain of Command to NOT take any risks and pass the decision on to higher, which leads to very slow decision making and planning and a tendency to ask permission for even the simplest decisions. This C2 problem within the Soviet Army only contributes to the ability of the Germans to encircle those Soviet forces. The Soviet Soldiers fought very bravely but were let down by very poor leadership at all levels of command. You can be very brave and fight to the end, which does have a certain effectiveness, but is not a substitute for being well trained and well lead.

This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony

Also Like some other people mentioned If people want to repeat 1941 to 45 as historically as possible they should watch movies or read books. This is a game/Simulation and any smallest deviation from original path will bring completely different Results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony

Also Like some other people mentioned If people want to repeat 1941 to 45 as historically as possible they should watch movies or read books. This is a game/Simulation and any smallest deviation from original path will bring completely different Results.

This this and more this. I didn't buy this game only to have people want to force the Soviet players to play like Stalin while not playing like Hitler. Or the opposite.

Already have the books that tell me how it played out in history. Why spend $80 on a game to get the same result as a $40 book?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony

Also Like some other people mentioned If people want to repeat 1941 to 45 as historically as possible they should watch movies or read books. This is a game/Simulation and any smallest deviation from original path will bring completely different Results.

This this and more this. I didn't buy this game only to have people want to force the Soviet players to play like Stalin while not playing like Hitler. Or the opposite.

Already have the books that tell me how it played out in history. Why spend $80 on a game to get the same result as a $40 book?

In fairness, when I first got the game I was struggling to meet the minimum against the AI as Axis. I can now do that easy enough, although winter is still something of a mess, but getting better at managing that. I learned how the logistics system worked, pretty much have that down. Playing the Soviets against the AI seems, well not as hard as the Germans frankly, the few times I have played them.

I hope with time maybe I can get better against a Human, but I doubt it. People are smart, and are going to fall back, get their Assault HQs on the main axis of advance, bleed the Germans. Playing 3 HvH games as Germans and against various skill levels players, all have pretty much done the same general thing, because that is the logical thing to do. That seems rather scripted to me if three different people are doing the same thing generally. Soviet players fall back, preserve combat power and men as much as possible, which is smart. Not sure I will be able to stop an early loss in all three games, we will see.

My point is the game is already scripted, by it's very nature it will be. Soviets using their Ast HQs is the logical smart move, every game. To the main point of the this thread, if you want a balanced game, then changes need to be made. I am only stating that IF changes are made, make them realistic and fact based.

WitE2 kind of feels like the Russians in 41 are what they were in WitE1 in 42, and playing the AI, the Russians in 42 feel like WitE1 in 43, and by 44 I am hard pressed to hold the Russians at all, despite inflicting much higher loses than historically took place. So something is off, is all some of us are saying. How the designers address it, if they do, is up to them. I would just prefer a realistic approach. However I KNOW the designers will not scrap the Ast HQ system or CCP, it is central to the entire WitE2 core system.

But...the following seem easy adjustments that are historical.

1. Take away Soviet Ast HQs at the start of the game. Give them their first one in Dec 41. (Seems Historical)
2. Reduce German Ast HQs to 4. (Like I have said, still not sure what these Aslt HQs represent, but whatever)
3. Increase German Exp and Moral at the very start, June 22 1941 to compensate for the two lost Ast HQs.
4. I think this would be interesting and historical, (but doubt it would get implemented). No perfect Command and Control (C2). If you think in real war, that units move when and where you want every time, you are mistaken. To move or control a unit, it would have to make a C2 check, based on the distance of the HQ to the unit, the moral and fatigue of the unit, the Commander's various ratings and date during the war. For example in June and July, the Soviets would have a much higher chance of this happening, and as time went on, less for the Soviets, while increasing for the Germans.

Concept #4 would inject a bit of randomness, (that is realistic and historically based) that alone could change (for the better IMO) the entire complexion of the game. No longer could a player reliably plan perfect moves or retreat all units in. In during the Winter of 41, some German units could just and retreat on their own, which did happen. Lots so possibilities with something like this.

However all the above said, I do understand that with this game, changes in one place can and do bring second and third order effects elsewhere in the programing, and often will mess something else up, so changes take time to implement and test.

Last, it is not like I do not like this game, just the opposite, I LOVE this game. I just want it to be the best war game / simulation it can be for the Eastern Front in WW II at the level it represents. I want it to be as good as "War in the Pacific: AE" is, that good. WitP:AE sucks you in so many ways. I want WitE2 to be like that, like Loki was saying, the just beyond reach feeling when you do each turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glenhope
This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

quote:

ORIGINAL: glenhope
This. The Soviets were incompetent in '41. It was logistics that held up the invasion, not the Russians.

I disagree with you! For example, according to the plan, only a few hours were allotted to the destruction of the border guards, but many border posts held out for several days and retreated only by order. Similarly, German plans to capture many key points were thwarted. A large number of unforeseen delays in the implementation of the Barbarossa plan led to the fact that instead of a quick defeat of the Red Army in the summer, the Germans had to fight in the fall and winter, when they had problems with supplies. If it were not for the heroic resistance of the perishing in the encirclement of Soviet troops, the Germans would have fulfilled the Barbarossa plan on time and no problems with supplies and General Frost would have been terrible for them! According to the plan, in winter, German troops were to return to Germany, and not freeze without warm clothing near Moscow! Before the start of the war, no one thought that the war in Russia would drag on so long!