Glav, per your request I posted screen shots of my game as Soviets. Unfortunately, I posted in the wrong thread. Please look at the next WITE leap thread for screen shots.
Comsolut, the games are playing out the same. My games mirror. Other's mirror. Many have just simply quit. The only way the Germans can last into 44/45 is to have a very successful 41. The only way the Germans can have a successful 41 is 1) if Germans mule, 2) the Soviets allow for encirclements.
Lol! you havent played Sveint. A solid german defense with well placed reserves can wear down the russians. Taking Leningrad or Moscow speeds up the process.
I restate my point.
Unless the Russians have a limited ability to move on June 15 (such an early opening already exists in War in the Pacific in the allied turn before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) so that the Germans do not know the exact disposition of their forces on the first turn this game will suffer as the German attack on the first move becomes ever more devastating as it is based upon total perfect knowledge of Russian disposition which did not exist in real life.
It is a flaw which the designers of the game need to fix by offering an optional June 15 scenario.
Matthew Buttsworth
I really don't see how this can work. A free setup is going to massively favor the Soviet unless you've got so many restrictions that it begs the question of how "free" it really is.
My quick and dirty fix: just remove all the surprise turn penalties from the Soviet side. Most importantly the movement penalty. These reckless pockets would be a lot tougher to pull off if the Soviets weren't zombies on turn one. But even that is a bandaid that recommends itself only because it is easy to code. Fundamentally, the surprise turn needs to be reworked from the ground up, and that's not happening.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Matrix is done with (re)design on War in the East.
This is the game you alpha tested, buddy.
You own this.
Remember, it won a BUNCH of awards!
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
People play games for many reasons. Personally, I just don't get why people who are 100% historical sticklers play these games. They are never going to be happy. I don't even know what they are trying to achieve. Because it seems unless the exact same historical result is reached they claim 'the game is broken'. I just don't get it. Why bother putting so much time and effort in to something that you hope ends up being the same result as reality? And then whinge when its not. These same guys will moan on and on when the Axis go further than they did in reality. Like the German high water mark of 1941 was the utmost best that the German Army could have achieved, all game results should be equal to that or less. Funny though these same people are quite happy for Germany to be overrun sometime in early 1944.
I read serious studies of military history to satisfy my interest in military history, not play games. I look at wargaming from a point of it being an intellectual challenge to defeat another intelligent mind on a field that is *loosely* based on a historical conflict. I am competitive by nature and what motivates me more than anything is a challenge.*I am not a win at all costs person*. But I try my best to win *and* have fun doing it. Generally I am happy with a wargame if the outcomes are within the realm of possibility. You have to include player skill here. So what is possible? Really that question cannot be answered. We are all guessing. People will be happy or unhappy with results based upon there own perceptions of what is reasonable.
WITE is not the perfect East Front simulation/model. That will never exist. What we have is a game, loosely based on history. If you want it to be more restricted than what it is, play with a bunch of house rules, but I suspect you will still be disappointed. There are just too many fundamental problems to overcome.
What would I do if faced with this opening and muling? First, I would not be concerned. I would use my superman security regiments and para units to screen my headlong retreat. Delay long enough to evacuate key industry. Don't worry about losing Moscow or other cites. Just get out the industry. If you do that and avoid massive loses, from the blizzard of 1941 on you will be in the drivers seat if you know your business.
But the real question should be how can Germany hope to have any chance of winning the *game* without muling or the Lvov opening? The answer is they cannot. I would bet a very large sum of money that I would beat any Axis player who took me on without muling and the Lvov opening.
I have spent just as many turns playing as Soviet as I have German in game time. But I have spent many many more hours trying to think of ways to make myself more completive when playing as German. I have spent much less time thinking about Soviet tactics as it is not required. They are the much easier side to play. If you want a challenge and some stress play German. For a nice enjoyable relaxing game, play Russian.
Since it has been asked here is what I consider is just as 'unrealistic' as muling and the Lvov opening but on the Soviet side. In no particular order except number one.
1. Top of the list. Being able to run run run to where ever they like. With no repercussions what soever. Without mulng the Russian's can avoid pitched fights and encirclements until they have a huge army that is overwhelming. Totally wrong. The game needs a mechanism to stop this rubbish. Muling counters this to a degree in that they need to run much further much earlier. To wrongs make a right for once
2. Super ants. The Sov's can use Security Reg's and Para's to soak up MP's and fuel to delay the German mech units in the first 6 or so turns. This gives the Sov's breathing space that they need with a very small price in units. The game desperately needs and overrun rule to prevent this crap.
3. No real C&C chaos in the Soviet command structure in 1941. Soviet units should have much more severe movement penalties. Some should get stuck and not move at all. Its also way too easy to attack under one Army HQ. There is too much flexibility in the changing HQ's on the fly.
4. Zoc's. This is a real pet peeve of mine. It defies common sense. Why would a 800 man Security reg have the exact same zoc as a stack with 50000 men and 500 tanks. Its totally nuts. This allows for things like checker boards and carpets. If we had a set of over run rules and some proper zoc rules there would be no more checker boards or carpets.
5. Reserves. Sure lets put the whole, entire, I mean every unit, in reserve mode. Its nuts and a blight on the game. Sure it helps Germany too in 43 and beyond but it needs to be fixed. The current reserve rules are way over powered. They are very simple rules, but with a little intelligent thought could be way better.
6. Soviet mech units that can have 45+ MP in 1942. Wrong.
7. The blizzard is still too harsh. Cav units overpowered in 1941 winter. Coupled with the front wide steam roller attack from Stavaka. Wrong.
There is more but that will do. Fix all that up and I would be happy to play without muling or the Lvov thing.
There is a key fundamental flaw in the design of WITE. That is that fuel expenditure is directly linked to MP spent, its linear. On the face of it you think well why not? Well here is an example. Why should crossing a major river in a zoc (might just be a ant zoc) cost around 50-60%% fuel? There are many other examples. But the crux of the matter is that MP expended equals fuel expended. But fuel expended should be equal to miles per gallon or kilometres per litre. If I drive a tank to a river, cross a bridge or pontoon then continue on why would it cost me 10 times more in fuel when not crossing a river? Sure I lose MP to the time lost in crossing but the equivalent of fuel lost is wrong. Same with moving through zoc's. Fuel used should be based/weighted more on hexes traversed rather than MP expended. At the moment its totally based on MP. I know its valid that fuel consumption will increase due to combat manoeuvring and such but there are numerous cases like my example above where the link between MP expenditure and fuel used is too linear.
I find it incredulous that GG creates these complex models and then neglects fundamental and very crucial mechanisms like the fuel/MP link. Its just too simple. No doubt there are many complex formulae used in logistics and combat but if you then end it all with a linear MP to fuel used outcome, what is the point? Its like building a formula one car and racing it on a dirt track.
Like I have said many many times. I am not a fanboy of either side. But playing Germany in *this* East Front game is by far the greater challenge and as such it appeals to me. I wish when playing Russian it was equally challenging but sadly it is not.
Lastly there are other loopholes in this game that I am aware of but have not commented on. I leave those for others to discover themselves. One point here though, I do not spend my time trying to find loopholes in systems, their discovery is merely a consequence of spending time trying to understand how the system works in order to maximise the efficency of the force at hand.
The problem we have is that we are looking at this from many different perspectives. Some guys want a virtual replay of the actual war. Others are more like myself. Many are somewhere else. I accept it for what it is. A game.
That’s all from me on this subject. Of course some people will disagree with my take on it. I expect that. But I am not going to be drawn in to arguing over it. People can play the game however they like. Just be upfront about what you expect at the start and all should be good
This post should be required reading.
MichaelT's analysis of the problems with the game are spot on.
The group-think of 2by3 and their beta test team is patently obvious in any reasoned reading of these message boards. It's tons of Soviet whining about anything that Germany can do which produces an advantage, and the justification of anything the Soviet can do by historical anecdote.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
[size="0"]Yes I'd have to agree with all that.I'm surprised he didn't mention the overly simplistic logistics system though, I thought that was one of his major gripes, it's certainly one of mine.I believe WITW is improving that aspect, (fingers crossed).
Another one of mine is the combat system which conversely I think is overly complicated and unfathomable.I don't mind unpredictable combat results, but I want to have at least a rough idea of how likely any given outcome will be, and after the combat I want to be able to trace exactly what happened.At the very least I want to know the results of the leader checks.
On his specific points:
[/size]1.Agree that the Soviets must be forced to defend forward, probably by a combination of C&C induced immobility and end turn VPs at strategically and politically important places.The German armor would also need to have it's mobility curbed to avoid an Axis runaway victory. 2.Yeah, the super-ants are a bit mental (also applies to anti tank brigades to some extent).Ideally I'd like the cost of hasty attacks to correspond to the size of the defending unit.This would also mean more expensive hasty attacks against well defended hexes.
Generally, I think units defending in isolated positions should be more likely to rout.
3.The lack of Soviet C&C chaos is also one of my major gripes.I also think that Soviet units, especially armored units, should have much more bite whenever good C&C allows.
4.Again I'd like to see the cost of passing through ZOC tailored to the size of the defending unit.Sec regiments for instance would have very little or none.
5.Agree.There should be a limit on reserves, possibly relative to the initiative rating of their army commander.
6.Not sure about this.
7.Certainly agree that cavalry is overpowered.A better logistics system would sort out the front wide offensive thing.
Having said all that, the only reason that I've found so many things to complain about is because I enjoy playing the game so much.90% of games I never get into enough to find their less obvious failings.Most of them fall at the first hurdle.
Timmy, supply isn't an advantage for the Soviets. While the logistics could be described as "Arcade Mode" they do not favor one side over the other (arguably, given Germany's industrial disadvantage, supply probably gives Germany advantage in 1941/1942).
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
I'd say the supply system definitely favors the Germans overall in 41 and 42.The Soviets army's lack of mobility due to low morale, especially in the early years, acts as a natural break on their offensive capabilities.The Germans are only limited by the advance of the rail head.The problem here is that there's no limit to the supply that this rail head can deliver.This is the fundamental problem with the supply system.
Get the logistics system right and that's half the battle won right there.
I have been watching the game evolve from the sidelines for a few months now since my game with 76mm ended and doing a lot of practice play in my limited spare time. Before Micheal posted his opening I had already figured out how to do a Lvow opening like this without using breakdowns. It is somewhat leaky but allows the Axis player to pocket more on turn 3 then usual.
I do not think it is a game breaker to have an opening like this. Against a skilled Soviet you will still be hard pressed to cause 3 million casualties by winter.
I recall with my 76mm game pocketing vast numbers of Soviet divisions yet struggling to get to 3mill. Maybe things have changed and I will have to read a few more AARs.
Things have changed indeed! I have just learnt to my cost that any kind of forward defense against a good Axis player is not a good strategy at all. Or myabe I just suck! [;)]
Welcome back Ketza BTW!
Ketza, I've seen you in the WitP AE forum. Did you buy and are playing this amazing game? [:D] You'll become addicted!
I have been playing that amazing game ever since Uncommon Valor. Jeesh over 10 years now. It is truly the most incredible game ever designed.
Well, the 47th Cleaning Bagpipe Company is not on the Aussie OOB, and it should exactly appear the 3 april 1942 at 07:23 AM But right, apart from that minor mistake: incredibly detailed. No other game comes close on this issue [8D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
Well, the 47th Cleaning Bagpipe Company is not on the Aussie OOB, and it should exactly appear the 3 april 1942 at 07:23 AM But right, apart from that minor mistake: incredibly detailed. No other game comes close on this issue [8D]
It is the same thing in WITE! The 4528th Volkspanzersturmgrenadier Field Brothel and Entertainment Battallion enters on the wrong date in April 1945, and is armed with MP40 instead of Walther P38! Broken!
Well, the 47th Cleaning Bagpipe Company is not on the Aussie OOB, and it should exactly appear the 3 april 1942 at 07:23 AM But right, apart from that minor mistake: incredibly detailed. No other game comes close on this issue [8D]
It is the same thing in WITE! The 4528th Volkspanzersturmgrenadier Field Brothel and Entertainment Battallion enters on the wrong date in April 1945, and is armed with MP40 instead of Walther P38! Broken!
Yes, but they are abstracted [8D] Suffice to say that in WitE you only have leaders for armies and fronts. In WitP AE every single unit (even the most miserable mine sweeper or PT) has a leader. And you can change him [:D]
Company A (New Guinea Volunteers Rifle Battalion):
Attachments
acompa.jpg (63.58 KiB) Viewed 112 times
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
Never played WitP, but I did play UV, but tired of it when I constantly beat up the AI. I used to switch sides every 3 months or so just to make things more challenging. I probably should have moved on to PBEM, but never got around to it. Maybe I should try WitP AE. No pockets I suppose! [:)] I am getting a case of pocket-phobia here [;)].
But right, apart from that minor mistake: incredibly detailed. No other game comes close on this issue [8D]