Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!!

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: AFV

Personally, I am glad Heliodorus speaks out. Shame on others who want to suppress. I don't believe in suppression. If you do, then we can agree to disagree on that, and you can attempt to suppress me also.

I am all for people speaking out when they are actually pointing out changes to be made to the game that might be useful (i.e. Idaho's original post). What gets annoying is follow on posts that have no purpose and no substance other than to just reiterate complaints like "I was cheated out of $80 by this game and its broken" which don't identify any kind of issue for improvement and are simply rehashed griping. The game obviously has had issues, many of which have been fixed, many of which still could use work.

As to this one, I still think people are probably overblowing how much different the German army would have looked were they more successful in the East. Any "leftover" tanks / infantry / planes would have been simply consumed in a more ferocious effort in the West. That said, that's an issue people are free to disagree on, so having optionality as to how two players want to implement TOEs could be a good thing.

[Scook_99]

Interesting, it's a one way TOE problem. When you increase the strength of a panzer TOE, it does not immediately receive all it's tanks, it has to go through replacement phases. This process immediately truncates the panzer strength, even though it would be a HUGE logistical problem to remove all those tanks. The divisions would realistically hold onto the tanks and only adjust to the new TOE if and when they lost the tanks in combat. That would make the transition fairly seamless and gradual.

Well, if a division were pulled off the line and refit, it would lose the tanks then, also. But, it is 1945, and all vacations have been cancelled until further notice.......

Didn't catch this intially......

I'm posting this to beg to make the MTOE changes optional to the players. If the game is moving along historical lines, it would make sense to adapt the historical changes. But if a German player is doing better than historical, he shouldn't be saddled with an internal gutting of his formations. This panzer MTOE change is especially costly - having husbanded and conserved the panzers only to see Herr Speer take away over 1100 in a single week is criminal. IF nothing else, allow the excess overages to remain in overstrength units until attritted down by combat.

What he said!

[RCHarmon]

I am no expert, but in my readings I have never seen an instance where tanks were removed from the eastern front. The units when sent west left their tanks behind and those tanks were incorporated into existing armored formations.

Maybe my reading is limited and correct me if I am wrong.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: RCH

I am no expert, but in my readings I have never seen an instance where tanks were removed from the eastern front. The units when sent west left their tanks behind and those tanks were incorporated into existing armored formations.

Maybe my reading is limited and correct me if I am wrong.

You are no doubt correct about this...but then this gets into the difficulty of doing an unknown unknown. I agree with a prior post that it is highly unlikely that 1000+ tanks would simply be pulled from the Eastern Front as part of a de-strengthing of units...as a prior poster noted, it would probably be more likely that replacements would just be less forthcoming over time or more units would get pulled (as it would also be highly unlikely that the Germans would just sit around and say "hey, we can hold Ukraine so we won't send any additional troops to protect the Western Front" thus letting Germany be overrun for the sake of maintaining ground in the East). No easy answers I suppose.

[Q-Ball]

How realistic though would it be to have a large amount of AFVs in 1945? Because the biggest problem was the Germans didn't have gas for the AFVs they actually had, let alone any extras they might have saved through more judicious combat.

It's an admittedly artificial cap to reflect decreases in Wehrmacht AFVs, maybe because the fuel system doesn't provide the problems that it should for the Germans

Fuel was the real problem for the Germans; not lack of AFVs

[vinnie71]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: AFV

Personally, I am glad Heliodorus speaks out. Shame on others who want to suppress. I don't believe in suppression. If you do, then we can agree to disagree on that, and you can attempt to suppress me also.

I am all for people speaking out when they are actually pointing out changes to be made to the game that might be useful (i.e. Idaho's original post). What gets annoying is follow on posts that have no purpose and no substance other than to just reiterate complaints like "I was cheated out of $80 by this game and its broken" which don't identify any kind of issue for improvement and are simply rehashed griping. The game obviously has had issues, many of which have been fixed, many of which still could use work.

As to this one, I still think people are probably overblowing how much different the German army would have looked were they more successful in the East. Any "leftover" tanks / infantry / planes would have been simply consumed in a more ferocious effort in the West. That said, that's an issue people are free to disagree on, so having optionality as to how two players want to implement TOEs could be a good thing.

That is only a possibility - another could be that the Wehrmacht overwhelmed the allied landings in Normandy and... well anyone can imagine what would have heppened.

The point here is that the German army gets shafted automatically for the sake of historicity, something that's thrown out of the window by turn 2. I would not be in favour of having Tigers in '39 but unfortunately TOE conversions which happen automatically do tend to punish the German army in late '44. No Pz div can really take the field as an offensive force without being beefed up with SUs.

it is important to point out that if a German player launches 2 successful offensives in '42 and '43 I believe that he would effectively cripple the Red Army. Therefore there is a tendency to accumulate AFVs and aircraft in '44 when the production really kicks in while losses are essentially fewer due to the player. So why would the German Army reduce its TOEs? It doesn't make sense. I would be glad to trade off the reduced TOEs with doing away with Panzer Brigades or the later named Pz Divisions of '45 to keep at full strength (say the '43 TOE) those available at the front. To be honest, I've never managed a game till '45 (they all ended before) and as Germany (not the other axis allies) I normally had a comfortable reserve of AFVs and a massive one of airplanes by early '44.

[Schmart]

Interesting topic...

Alternatively, the game does not reflect the reduced late war Russian rifle TOEs. A typical 'full-strength' late war Rifle Division (even Guards) was at little more than 60-70% strength. The Russians had official TOEs for Rifle units from anywhere from 40-100% of 'maximum' TOE. The game code should reduce the TOE for Russian Rifle units to an average of 67% in early 1944.

Generally, later war reduction of TOEs (for any country) was not so much an actual reduction in the strength of the unit (tanks, guns, men, etc were rarely pulled out of a unit), but a reflection of the ACTUAL capable strength of most units (even then, the reduced TOEs were more strength than most units could muster anyways). If the German tank strength or the Russian Rifle strength is more carefully husbanded by a player in the game, he should be rewarded for it. The Player should not be punished by removing 1,000 German tanks from the front line, nor 1,000,000 men from Russian Rifle Divisions/Corps. In reality, if the Germans had an additional 1,000 tanks or the Russians an extra 1,000,000 men, TOE reductions would not have followed the historical path. They may still have been reduced, but not the same extent.

My suggestion is to freeze any TOE reductions starting in 1943 (any TOE increases or additions should still take effect). Any shortcomings in men or guns or vehicles should then be controlled by the player, through the use of in game modified TOE percentages (which many players are already doing anyways).

Another (most likely unintended) by-product of this hard coded TOE reduction, is that in the case of AFVs, any obsolete tanks will vanish into the pools and not be used, as the first tanks to go will be those that are no longer in production. As an extreme example, the German player could have 100's of Panther Ds still in Panzer units, but with a TOE reduction most would go to the pool and not be used, as they are no longer in production in 1945 and therefore are considered to be 'obsolete', because unfourtunately the AFV (and aircraft) replacement/upgrade routines are not fine tuned (nor adaptable to in game realities). The game would only accept Panther Gs as acceptable replacements in 1945. Just another argument for allowing manual upgrades/changing of AFVs by the player.

[entwood]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

As I have mentioned in the past, German ToE changes should be tied to losses and what is available. Those are the two primary reasons they changed ToE's as the war went along, not because of some date. Unfortunately that would take some programing to fix and we all know that isn't happening anytime soon.

To some of the other issues. I paid money like everyone else. I have not played and probably won't play this game again for a long time if ever again. It simply isn't worth the time investment to start a game up, then have a big patch come out in the middle of it and/or find something else like Idaho did. I got my entertainment's worth out of the game. I got plenty of other games that I have paid for, played, enjoyed and now rest on the book case and won't be played again.

I'm almost, but not quite at this point, I won't play vs. human, just AI for fun, still too much that needs to be addressed, although I heartily encourage continued patching.

I still think there are solutions; Just create the Admiral's Edition or "Field Marshal's Edition" and, perfectly acceptable, charge 15-20 dollars. Add in a nice layer of grognard-type changes and those customers can get more of what is still badly needed changes and the company gets more revenue on the business side. There is a demand for changes and business should seek to satisfy it.

(I really do want to play vs human, but I feel some further changes are still needed before a big time investment; this TOE issue is a good topic and there are other topics as well)

[gradenko2k]

While I consider this a totally legit issue, would it be enough just to be able to temporarily suppress the TOE change so that not all of the formations change all at the same time, or are we clamoring for a full "no TOE change at all if Germany isn't doing that badly"

[AFV]

I always assumed that the German TOE changes were done because they simply did not have enough men to fill out full divisions. Which, in the game, if it runs "historical" (ie, German casualties are near historical levels), it would be impossible to fill out all your divisions to near 100% late in the war.
Which leads me to believe that if German casualites had been significantly lighter, any TOE changes would have been different.

Qball has an excellent point regarding fuel- which is a variable independent of German casualties.
Schmart will likely be convicted of heresy, even suggesting Russian TOES be reduced late war. Good point but brace yourself man.

However, I still think TOE changes should be affected by units taking normal attrition, getting down to the new TOE levels.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

How realistic though would it be to have a large amount of AFVs in 1945? Because the biggest problem was the Germans didn't have gas for the AFVs they actually had, let alone any extras they might have saved through more judicious combat.

It's an admittedly artificial cap to reflect decreases in Wehrmacht AFVs, maybe because the fuel system doesn't provide the problems that it should for the Germans

Fuel was the real problem for the Germans; not lack of AFVs

I agree. But if they have more AFVs in 43-44, then most likely the front lines are further away from Germany, Rumania falls later, the Allies are (debatably) putting more resources into the ground war (as opposed to the airwar/strategic bombing), which all means that the German fuel supply drop off is delayed...

There is an easy solution to the TOE upgrade issue: It's a very easy change in the editor to modify a unit TOE upgrade path.

[IdahoNYer]

Some interesting comments guys....

Bottom line from my foxhole is that I still love this game, and we're driving on with the PBEM to the end.

I just don't think, as currently designed, the late war period has been playtested thoroughly to support a German player who is doing better than history. The historical events that drove the task org changes may or may not be relavent in a player game, and this was not considered enough in development. So I ask that it be relooked.

Any of you remember War in Russia? If I remember correctly that "western map edge" ended at Warsaw and the game ended at the end of 1944 - I think to preclude some of these very issues I'm tripping over. One aspect I miss from that game was the ability of the German to move forces to the west to stem the western allies. But that would only open up another can of worms...

[Update]

Now, the situation is not as bad as it could be for Germans. The Dev's did not follow official KstN listings for the late war infantry (Infanterie-Division N.A.) that would kick in around 11/43. Why? Well, my quess is that even they did not dare to pull out the rug that badly from underneath German player. [:D]
What, for example, we should have for Infanterie-Division (N.A.) is only 189xinfantry squad (27 of these would be bicycle squads) for the whole division ,+ 9x bicycle squads from Rgt. HQ Coy's. (3squad/platoon, 3x platoon/Coy, 3xCoy/Bn, 7xBn for the division= 189x squads)
We have been given whopping 288 squads for now in the game.

As for the reasons why Germans went for these reductions, they actually RUN OUT OF MEN to fill in their divisions! If the manpower would have been available, the reduction would not have taken place. The upgrade changes in firepower would have happened and the late war (1944-) Infanterie would have been a force to recon with, instead of just something that would be smashed out of the way.

How would that affect the fight in the other fronts? Very badly for the Allies, Overlord might not have been possible nor landings in southern France. Well, until we have the whole Europe we cannot be sure.
Anyway, as they always point out, there is the editor for us to fix things! [:'(]

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Treale

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

This community doesn't care that the German army is hard-coded to suck at precise points on a time line irrespective of the historical nature of the Wehrmacht's evolution or the performance in game of the German player. By the same token, the design decisions of WitE enable optimization of the Red Army to ridiculous levels, and has redundant fail-safes that enable the Soviet to always stay better than his historical predecessor.

Whether or not Stalingrad happens, or Demyansk, or Bagration, units disappear according to the events of those battles.

As Flavius said to me when last I read a post of his, they just don't care about differing opinions, and they have no intention of fixing any of it (unless you count buying a future re-designed product a 'fix'). They feel that their are enough people who are happy with the product (or at least who paid full price, giving them the illusion that they are happy with it) that criticisms are irrelevant.

As I noted for them in history, Mythic Entertainment and Sid Meier himself have all followed their own sense of infallibility to the loss column of the business ledger, despite a flurry of magazine-publisher glad-handed, 'critical acclaim' reviews.

It should be noted that this TOE nuke of the German army happened before, with the 1942 TOE changes. Only then, the TOE changes forced the Wehrmacht to conscript morale levels as soon as they switched. This was after Beta (well, if you assume beta ever ended on this product, prior to announcement of War in the West).

It's only now, 16 months after the release of an $80 program that players are reliably able to get to 1945. I myself never made it to 1943 before abandoning all hope, as either side. Your stoicism is to be commended.

Do we have to listen to you "Trash Talking" again?

He happens to be correct.
We live in a free country and he paid his money for the game. If you don't like what he says quit reading it.

[hfarrish]

He "happens to be correct" except for the insane notion that if the Germans were doing better than historical in the East that not one additional man or tank would have been shifted to the west. Look, it seems clea that the abrupt TOE change mechanism is not ideal and could use some modification, but it's fantasy world to just think that the German army should not degrade over time even if the Eastern Front isn't the disaster it was historically.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
I just don't think, as currently designed, the late war period has been playtested thoroughly to support a German player who is doing better than history. The historical events that drove the task org changes may or may not be relavent in a player game, and this was not considered enough in development. So I ask that it be relooked.

Any of you remember War in Russia? If I remember correctly that "western map edge" ended at Warsaw and the game ended at the end of 1944 - I think to preclude some of these very issues I'm tripping over. One aspect I miss from that game was the ability of the German to move forces to the west to stem the western allies. But that would only open up another can of worms...

I would state more generally "The design has not included situations far out from the average course." Your situation, which may also be rather common for any Axis player -- Soviet AI game, is certainly one case. I do also wonder whether it is correct to assume, that if the Axis had truly managed to take all of Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov, Kursk and sites along that line, and beat the Soviet Army that badly, the Lend-and-Lease and Allied assistance wouldn't have received a boost. Among all effects a such tremendous German success could have had, I believe this ought to be considered to help the Soviets to regain balance given that this outcome has turned out to be realistically achievable in more than just a few games. I guess a simple boost of the pools or increasing factor applied to lend-and-lease rates would do. I hope they will ensure WitE2 will cover more such "what-if" possibilities.

As with regard to the ToE swaps -- why not allow it, optionally. Or even introduce the manual changes like for the air mode. The general coding framework ought to be transferable. If people want it, let them have it and deal with any negative consequences at their own responsibility. Perhaps just make it an "untested, unsupported beta feature, not recommended to use".

As for the fronts. WiR had a few things to offer, which I really miss in WitE. WitE followed a quite different design philosophy, but maybe it would have been better to improve the (minor) issues like the fronts or the production model in WiR had, rather then to cut them entirely. Something that will hopefully return with the next titles.

PS. I do also understand arguments like the constraint fuel situation Q-Ball brought out, which is probably true. Also Schmarts argument may hold some truth. Hard to say without actually having it explicitly in the game (... War in Europe). Ultimately the logistics & (fuel) production seems like a different issue to address, though. Perhaps fuel could be shortened by editing the GC data, i.e. the cutting "Fuel production" and/or "Oil production" by say 1/5 and see where that leads? Even if fuel were to be short, a large armor force could still be sustained assuming it is not moved too much?

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

He "happens to be correct" except for the insane notion that if the Germans were doing better than historical in the East that not one additional man or tank would have been shifted to the west. Look, it seems clea that the abrupt TOE change mechanism is not ideal and could use some modification, but it's fantasy world to just think that the German army should not degrade over time even if the Eastern Front isn't the disaster it was historically.

You happen to be "incorrect" for your insane notion that he suggested the words you are putting in his mouth.

You disagree, fine. However, I challenge you to show me where helio said the German army should not (ever) degrade over time, and where he even mentioned at all where and how much forces would have been shifted west if the historical course had not been taken.

For accuracy, lets read it again, shall we?

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

This community doesn't care that the German army is hard-coded to suck at precise points on a time line irrespective of the historical nature of the Wehrmacht's evolution or the performance in game of the German player. By the same token, the design decisions of WitE enable optimization of the Red Army to ridiculous levels, and has redundant fail-safes that enable the Soviet to always stay better than his historical predecessor.

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Wild

ORIGINAL: Treale

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

This community doesn't care that the German army is hard-coded to suck at precise points on a time line irrespective of the historical nature of the Wehrmacht's evolution or the performance in game of the German player. By the same token, the design decisions of WitE enable optimization of the Red Army to ridiculous levels, and has redundant fail-safes that enable the Soviet to always stay better than his historical predecessor.

Whether or not Stalingrad happens, or Demyansk, or Bagration, units disappear according to the events of those battles.

As Flavius said to me when last I read a post of his, they just don't care about differing opinions, and they have no intention of fixing any of it (unless you count buying a future re-designed product a 'fix'). They feel that their are enough people who are happy with the product (or at least who paid full price, giving them the illusion that they are happy with it) that criticisms are irrelevant.

As I noted for them in history, Mythic Entertainment and Sid Meier himself have all followed their own sense of infallibility to the loss column of the business ledger, despite a flurry of magazine-publisher glad-handed, 'critical acclaim' reviews.

It should be noted that this TOE nuke of the German army happened before, with the 1942 TOE changes. Only then, the TOE changes forced the Wehrmacht to conscript morale levels as soon as they switched. This was after Beta (well, if you assume beta ever ended on this product, prior to announcement of War in the West).

It's only now, 16 months after the release of an $80 program that players are reliably able to get to 1945. I myself never made it to 1943 before abandoning all hope, as either side. Your stoicism is to be commended.

Do we have to listen to you "Trash Talking" again?

He happens to be correct.
We live in a free country and he paid his money for the game. If you don't like what he says quit reading it.

You guys slay me. You sound more like Anarchists than wargamers! It's a free country. He paid for it, so he can say what he wants! HAHA....

[AFV]

You're still here Tony? I thought you were leaving.
 

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: AFV

You're still here Tony? I thought you were leaving.

Not sure that I understand your comment?