ORIGINAL: RCH
These units were destroyed at Stalingrad and withdrawn from the game at the above dates. The issue is that these units were not historically withdrawn, but reconstituted (rebuilt using the number, but very few if any of the original troops).
These units are lost to the Axis player not because they were sent west, but because they were destroyed. Not one of the above units (and 2 HQs)was "withdrawn" historically from the eastern front. The issue is a bit technical, but represents the argument being made.
A number of German divisions destroyed at Stalingrad are not "withdrawn" from the game. This includes all the panzer divisions even though the 16th panzer was rebuilt and did serve some time in Italy before returning to the eastern front.
From the Axis side those 2 HQs can be huge. In 1943 who wants to lose divisions in the face of a growing enemy?
Some may think it is a non issue, others think that it is. For me the issue is a bit technical and not a real big deal to me. I think that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to what I would like to see changed. To each his own.
I wish they would allow the Axis player to construct certain HQs that would represent combat formations such as "Army Group Kempf". At times I feel quite constrained and would love to organize such a group for specific purposes. In dealing with my Soviet opponent my organization is all over the place dealing with all his threats and actual attacks.
You probably have some points there that are worth considering. The issue with the reconstituted divisions has popped up a few times in the past, and if you think it over strictly logically, both options may have happened:
If you are doing well enough East by winter 42 that you won't loose a whole army destroyed, not only the (not re-)constituted formations would probably get different numbers (or be forwarded as reinforcements element-wise for other units), but one could also argue that not only the latter divisions would perhaps be employed elsewhere, but also that part of your Eastern divisions may also be subject to withdrawal. However, similarly you could make a case for the Eastern divisions staying, while only the new units struggle elsewhere.
Ideally I would have wished that they had retained something like the "Western/Southern" Front boxes, or even refined them in smaller sub sectors, and the players be given control over the newly constituting divisions: i.e. whether to rename them to a free(d) number, and whether to send them East, South, or West.
Then this debate wouldn't exist, but probably another. Anyway, let's see what the come up with in the new WitW, and whether they will be willing to refit that to WitE (perhaps in the framework of another commercial addon?).
Incidentially, you could make the same argument about "excess material" in the East, such as the high number of tanks in IdahoNYer's case. Irrespective whether the supply and fuel infrastructure could be adapted or sustained better due to the more successful fighting East, how much of that material would have been send West, or how much of the replacement material normally supposed to go East, would go West instead? If player ToE's of tanks and APCs are say >=90% across the board, should the production rate be redirected to Western pools and not be available to the player instead?
If the Axis player closes on the sudden-death conditions, should the Soviet side receive some extra Lend-and-Lease goods, reasoning that the Allies would have boosted deliveries in case of possible disaster?
Anyway, I can certainly say that even with these small issues, I still have a lot of fun with this game, and I would buy it again. I don't think you will be disappointed if you buy it, knowing what to expect.
