Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Seems to me like the same problem of design existed in WitE 1. Hindsight greatly advantages the Soviet side more than the German given the game design. It's easy to say that there is no pro-Soviet bias in design by intent. But wait, WitE(1) had these issues, especially early on after initial release.

Remember that the Soviet "plan" called for annihilating the 1941 Axis Army west of the 1939 Soviet border. Soviet officers had the infamous "Red Packets" that were unseen orders to be opened upon war with German and executed without question. In the first 72 hours of Barbarossa the Soviets in the center and north did exactly what the Germans wanted and planned for.

In 1941, the Red Army could only re-organize by accident of fate (saved either by German inaction or ideal defensive terrain). In the games I still like to play, like Dark Valley, the mechanic favored for its simplicity is to require a certain number of Soviet attacks be conducted regardless of circumstance. I was hoping that WitE 2 and its auto-victory conditions would be simple to adjust and force the Soviet to hold positions that by definition would require the Soviet player to risk its precious army for a place on a map....

Raise your hand if you think simplicity is an essential principle of engineering?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeteJC

Apologies if this was addressed in the posting. I have only skimmed through this so maybe I missed it.

Is the issue more of a multi-player issue or is it also an issue if playing as German against the AI. I play Axis against the AI and find it extremely difficult to win. I am fine with that. It should be near impossible for the Axis to win. With that said, I have just started a new game under the updated patch/release (all others were the original version) and I have found it even more difficult. Some very strong Soviet lines as early as turn 5. Did the new patch/update create the excessive Assault Front issue or was it always this way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

And if we're going to use books to make a point, well, instead of naming them all, just read any book that covers 1941-45 in the east. No matter how many you read, the outcome is the same. Russia won. History based you know.

I didn't buy a game to recreate history. It's a history based game. You can't say "The Russians are not playing like they did in history", and ignore how unhistorical the Axis play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

And if we're going to use books to make a point, well, instead of naming them all, just read any book that covers 1941-45 in the east. No matter how many you read, the outcome is the same. Russia won. History based you know.

I didn't buy a game to recreate history. It's a history based game. You can't say "The Russians are not playing like they did in history", and ignore how unhistorical the Axis play.

Just one further question please. Do you only play the Soviet side of this game? Thank you in advance for your answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

And if we're going to use books to make a point, well, instead of naming them all, just read any book that covers 1941-45 in the east. No matter how many you read, the outcome is the same. Russia won. History based you know.

I didn't buy a game to recreate history. It's a history based game. You can't say "The Russians are not playing like they did in history", and ignore how unhistorical the Axis play.

Just one further question please. Do you only play the Soviet side of this game? Thank you in advance for your answer.

Just started playing the Axis side.

Assault HQs as they stand could use some adjustment. Certainly they should not be overloaded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

The most interesting thing is that at the beginning of the war, the 3rd tank group, for example, was operatively subordinate to the commander of the 9th army! And in the game, on the contrary, the 9th army is easier to disband and subordinate all the troops to the 3rd tank group.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

Returned from a vacation and have just found a few minutes to review the numerous points of view on the topic above. It seems to me HLYA is catching some heat for pointing out some obvious facts (or flaws) concerning the the game we all love and the way some players are using certain game mechanics. He is not, and IMHO has never told anyone how to play. He does draw lines on how he plays. Why that triggers others I do not understand. Assault HQ's is not yet perfected and is only one of several game mechanics that needs to be examined. An examination of the facts not preference is what is needed. HYLA please keep up the good work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

The most interesting thing is that at the beginning of the war, the 3rd tank group, for example, was operatively subordinate to the commander of the 9th army! And in the game, on the contrary, the 9th army is easier to disband and subordinate all the troops to the 3rd tank group.

It does seem odd that there is no difference between a panzer group and a panzer army besides the name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005

And what's your proposal to force the same foolishness on the Axis. Why do you want to force the Soviets to play the way you want, yet let the Axis do what you want?

A more realistic game????

Why do you say "foolishness".

No one is forcing anyone to play any certain way. Only making adjustments that balance the game which are based in history facts.

What changes would you make for the Germans based on historical precedent that would add balance to the game?

Another very easy change would be to the victory locations and / or the points awarded for victory locations. This change could be made with zero impact on other game mechanics.

You don't want a game based on historical facts. You want a game that satisfies wannabe Guderians.

You want something based on historical facts?

1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks.

Those are all historical facts. So what adjustments are you going to make based on those historical facts?

Now I don't recall asking to change the Axis side. Nor have I seen anyone, especially those who keep wanting to force "historical" play on the Soviets because they can't get the historical loos rate, seek to impose those same loss rates on the Axis. Or force the Axis to only encircle Leningrad/forgo Moscow. Or even better, force them to get to the A-A Line.

Like I said, foolishness.

And if we're going to use books to make a point, well, instead of naming them all, just read any book that covers 1941-45 in the east. No matter how many you read, the outcome is the same. Russia won. History based you know.

I didn't buy a game to recreate history. It's a history based game. You can't say "The Russians are not playing like they did in history", and ignore how unhistorical the Axis play.

Just one further question please. Do you only play the Soviet side of this game? Thank you in advance for your answer.

Just started playing the Axis side.

Assault HQs as they stand could use some adjustment. Certainly they should not be overloaded.

Great! Ya, playing both sides will enhance your understanding tremendously :) Then take that experience and play your favorite side. Good luck to you Sir!