Trying To Like The Game But...

[GamesaurusRex]

1) Has anyone else considered what the practical effect of the commander "win loss" recording system has on the Russian command structure over the turns during '41-'42 ? It seems obvious to me that the entire Russian command staff will be executed by the end of '42 if they attempt to defend at all. While this element of the game might have been thought a "cute" addition, it is actually a pretty stupid "fail circle" simulation wise. Additionally, the "automatic" removal of commanders that were selected manually by the "Supreme Commander" (i.e. - the player) is a ridiculously conflicted concept. It should be removed. (Note: I'm being sarcastic, of course. Not suggesting that they are actually executed, but I am pointing out what seems to me to be overly high command penalties that accrue to commanders that rack up more losses than wins in a system where the Russian commanders are destined to lose almost every battle from 41-42.

(EDIT 12/21/13 - IT'S OFFICIAL ! FOR THE RECORD ! I HATE THIS COMMAND MODEL ! INCREDIBLY STUPID SYSTEM. IT SEEMS I'M NOT PLAYING THE GAME... SOME RANDOM B.S. MODEL IS. IM SUPPOSED TO BE THE SUPREME COMMANDER, NOT SOME GHOST IN THE MACHINE. TOTALLY DEFEATS THE POINT OF PLAYING IT ! DID I MENTION HOW MUCH I HATE THIS PART OF THE GAME ?)

2) I think the combat system is not working properly. When I stack fully supplied Russian infantry divisions (morale levels in excess of 50) in clear terrain that has a fortification level of 2 and is under the command of a single HQ commander (such that there is no multi HQ CV penalty) and the commander is rated 7 for infantry and 6 morale.... and then this stack is attacked by German troops with nebelwerfer, artillery, and engineers... the defending Russian troops GET NO BENEFIT OF FORTIFICATION AT ALL apparently. If I understand correctly, the presence of attacking engineers is supposed to have a "reducing" effect on the fortification (the rules talk about some multiple of 2 percent reduction), but the combat system is allowing the presence of engineers to eliminate the fortification effect entirely. If you look at the modified CV listed on the combat results report you will see this. The modified CV shows no benefit of fortification at all that I can tell. In fact, in most cases the modified CV is LESS than the raw CV shown on the detail report. Is this broken?

3) Since morale values seem to matter more than CV values for determining battle outcomes and since the Russian side has absolutely no CV worthy troops until they combine them into Corps (and no morale worthy troops for that matter either)... don't you think the game system is a little harsh when the addition of a SINGLE BRIGADE with low morale taints the morale level of the TWO other high morale DIVISIONS that are combined to form a Corps ? Why isn't the morale weight averaged ? And on the subject of morale, I thought the new Russian brigades were supposed to come in at 50 morale ? After the .11 patch they were still entering as low as 35-38... Is this normal ?

I also find it humorous that the Russian is required to keep units more than ten hexes from the enemy in order to build morale. All units begin morale in the toilette... So how exactly is the Russian supposed to defend the front, if all his troops must be 10 hexes away from the front ? Pretty much a perfect "Catch - 22" don't you think ? Apparently Grigsby's answer is "Run !... Don't defend !". I begin to think Grigsby was drinking heavily when he designed this one.

(NOTE: I think I should clarify that these comments apply to the .11 patch version of a PBEM game.)

[Peltonx]

You have allot to learn newbie.

[Flaviusx]

1. Executions are actually surprisingly rare. But Stalin does have an itchy finger when it comes to dismissing commanders. You can control this to some extent. You will never have enough first class commanders to staff all your HQs. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to man the bulk of them with the average Joe Schmoes and withhold some of your superstars until winter when they can run up their win numbers.

2. Engineers can knock down fortifications, yes. Basically you cannot count on anything below level 3 resisting this if the assets are concentrated. Nevertheless, said engineering assets are limited and you want to force said concentration.

Terrain is not subject to engineering reductions and is therefore extremely important. Work with the lay of the land, even a simple forest is nice, and dense forests, swamps, rough or urban will be particularly tough to clear.

3. CV is calculated in large part based on your unit morale -- and the relationship is not linear. A 100 morale unit is far more than twice as strong as a 50 morale unit with the same TOE, supply, leadership, etc. So you are drawing a false distinction here between the two. As for disparities in morale between different units in a single hex...well, yeah. It is what it is. If you want to hold a hex you just have to make sure that you've got first class units in them, across the board as this will generate a larger total CV between them.

And back them up with reserves.

New units do not always or even usually enter at the national morale cap. You may have to train them. Very rarely they may exceed those caps. (There's a handful of 55-60 morale Soviet Units coming in from Siberia in 41, treasure them.) You can train units up to their national morale cap in the rear, 10+ hexes from the front line.

Or they can learn in the school of hard knocks by winning fights on the front.

[GamesaurusRex]

Flaviusx and Pelton:
You two Gentlemen are psychic in your appearance here because you both are individuals who, in addition to 2BY3 and Matrix, I got up at 5:00 AM in the morning to address this diatribe to specifically. Now before I say anything else, I want to salute Flaviusx for his balanced and rational (non Russian/German-fanbois) commentary on the forum which has greatly helped me understand the inner workings (and flaws) of this game. To Pelton, I want to apologize for my misunderstanding of his demeanor and approach to this game (which I was honestly initially repulsed by). I stand corrected, Pelton IS NOT a mere "exploiter". My opinion of him is now entirely changed because I now understand how completely flawed, broken, and unfinished the coding in this game is. What Pelton IS, is an intelligent individual who is aware that the game is so broken that the only way to successfully play it is to exploit the daylights out of it's many flaws. Now having said that, let me say what I came here to say.

The point that I was attempting to make about the troops in clear terrain in "2" level fortification was that the modified CV in such a positon, when not negatively affected by supply, morale, or command penalties, should NOT be less than the raw CV values of the units.... yet often, they are. This tells me the combat system is NOT working as intended.

It also bothers me greatly that the flawed command combat "win-loss" record model, combined with non-existent CV and morale levels of the Russian forces in 41-42 and the ridiculously unrealistic "instant pocketing decimation" effects of the isolation rules forces the Russian into simply not playing the game for 41-42 and running for the east edge of the map, instead of a fighting retreat. Very unsatisfactory as a simulation. (I'm not saying the Russian can't attack, but it is suicidal in long term consequences.)

TO 2BY3 and MATRIX and GRIGSBY:
I realize that a game of this scope and attempted complexity is not an easy piece of work to pull off successfully. The coding of the game design model is so convoluted that I am sure there are unintended circular consequences that are nearly impossible to iron out. I would suggest, however that you change your marketing pitch regarding this product to let consumers know that they are purchasing a participation ticket in a beta test and not a finished product. On the other hand, I DO NOT want to harp too negatively on this point, as your continued willingness and determination to patch the game to repair the flaws has been exemplary (and I applaud you for this). I will try to hold on to that thought as I wade through this magnificent mess.

P.S. Yes, Pelton... while I am an ancient wargamer, I am completely new to WITE.

[GamesaurusRex]

Flaviusx:

Concerning the appointment of Russian Commanders in 41-42... I am converting to Pelton's school of thinking for my approach to this ass-backward "feature" of the game. Using his logic, I intend to appoint my worst officers to all positions... and why not ? They won't be intentionally engaging in ANY combat and will be running for the Urals until late 42. In any event, the design model of this game destines the Russian to lose ANY battle they didn't "choose" to initiate until late 42 (and the way the logistics work, the Russian won't be doing most of the "choosing" other than choosing to retreat), so the commander in charge will only incur "losses" on his record and be shot or otherwise command penalized into perfidy. So why would I want to expose my best commanders to that punishment? Better reserve them for assignment in 43, after the Russian Army has formed Corps with which to fight and morale levels that are functional.

(A very cheesy approach, but I bet Pelton is smiling in approval at my shedding of noobness.)

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Flaviusx:

Concerning the appointment of Russian Commanders in 41-42... I am converting to Pelton's school of thinking for my approach to this ass-backward game. Using his logic, I intend to appoint my worst officers to all positions... and why not ? They won't be intentionally engaging in ANY combat and will be running for the Urals until late 42. In any event, the design model of this game destines the Russian to lose ANY battle they engage in until late 42, so the commander in charge will only incur "losses" on his record and be shot or otherwise command penalized into perfidy. So why would I want to expose my best commanders to that punishment? Better reserve them for assignement in 43, after the Russian Army has formed Corps with which to fight and morale levels that are functional.

(A very cheesy approach, but I bet Pelton is smiling in approval at my shedding of noobness.)

Honestly, aside from against the best German players out there, who know how to push the broken logistics system to the limit there is no reason to run for the Urals. In the North a tough defense can be mounted in the area around Lovat and Valdai and in the Centre in front of Moscow starting at around Vyazma when the German logistics still haven't caught up. Only in the South is running the logical strategy if the Lvov pocket is implemented. You have to discard the thought of semi-permanently stopping the Germans (and that shouldn't be possible in Summer 1941, the Germans made it to the gates of Moscow after all). If you can turn the match into a grind with the Germans needing multiple divisions on deliberate attacks, you have already gained much. Running does not win the game, not with the new blizzard rules.

[swkuh]

Appears "Flaviusx" has met your request quite well, although more could be said. As for "Pelton," see his most recent AAR, "PeltonVBozo" for an insightful explanation of his tactics as GHQ (I think.)

Looking forward to your forum posts.

[GamesaurusRex]

SigUp: I agree that it is unnecessary to retreat much further east than along a line roughly from Moskow to Lake Onega in the North. This is more due to the terrain and the fact that the German has easier industrial targets in the South to attack and will simply not attack in the North because of it. That result has little to do with what a Russian player does and everything to do with what a German player chooses to do though, not any defensive strategy on the part of the Russian player.

In the Center at Moskow and the South toward Rostov and beyond, again the question of where the German DECIDES to attack and when the Mud hits are the ONLY factors controlling what gets taken and when. Given the game's messed up logistics, morale mechanisms and combat models (which despite multiple patches, I don't believe are even yet working as Grigsby intended) the Russian player has nothing to do but spend his moves reorganizing the Red Army, while avoiding ALL combat with the German player wherever he can until January 1943.

"Running for the Urals" is just my sarcastic way of registering my disappointment with Grigsby's apparent way of dealing with the fact that Germany did historically run over everything from Poland to Stalingrad before they ran out of steam. Unfortunately, in this approach, Grigsby forgot that there was a lot of "combat" in between those two points and has failed to model that in this simulation. No such participation in combat is even possible for the Russian player in 41-42 because of bad balance design or possibly broken code. The only practical thing for the Russian player to do is "go away" and not play the game until 43. It irks me.

[SigUp]

Every East Front game is faced with the problem of how to enable the Red Army to defend without the Germans getting completely stifled by August. I don't know whether you already played the game back then, with patch .09 I think a fix was introduced to morale gains that wasn't working correctly. As a result of that patch Soviet morale skyrocketed towards 50 and due to that those German players that weren't the top 5 or so regularly faced entrenched 4-5 CV rifle divisions on the landbridge and even experienced players were getting stopped at the Dnepr. Even now it's tough to play the German side. I don't think the average German player can flat-out dominate the Soviets until 1943.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Every East Front game is faced with the problem of how to enable the Red Army to defend without the Germans getting completely stifled by August. I don't know whether you already played the game back then, with patch .09 I think a fix was introduced to morale gains that wasn't working correctly. As a result of that patch Soviet morale skyrocketed towards 50 and due to that those German players that weren't the top 5 or so regularly faced entrenched 4-5 CV rifle divisions on the landbridge and even experienced players were getting stopped at the Dnepr. Even now it's tough to play the German side. I don't think the average German player can flat-out dominate the Soviets until 1943.

Play Wheat... and get back to me. He will give you directions to the Urals. [:D]

Game balance should be based upon the assumption that both sides are played by fully competent opponents.

[loki100]

really don't want to get involved in another cheese vs realism debate

(so here goes [:@])

There will always be people who play competitive games with the mindset that winning is all that matters and that anything not banned is legal. I somehow think the subject matter of games like WiTE tends to bring this out (esp for those who take it personally that Germany lost), as it has been, so far, less common in the AGE PBEM community (and those with that mindset tend to run out of opponents).

So on that view, leveraging turn 1 to something unrealistic, plus all the abuses of the lax logistics system is standard. After that, a Soviet player either becomes another victim of Pelton's tricks (and not just Pelton there are others) or reacts with their own pile of cheese - chief amongst which is running off to the east.

Now, as I'll freely admit, I don't have a clue where cheese begins and good game play ends. But its one of those things I know it when I see it.

Equally I think the fun part of PBEM is finding an opponent you share an approach with, the email chat around turns and the horror/joy or getting back a turn and finding your moves worked. In other words beating the living daylights out of your opponent.

So I'm not a huge fan of house rules except the very simple that can't be breached by accident. I'd suggest if you want a realistic game, then agree no Lvov, and no Soviet mass evac of the Ukraine, and then think about the key game settings - logistics and relative morale values. I've no firm idea what is right, or the best balance, but those tools exist and one advantage is they help to constrain the game. The ideal is of course a Soviet fighting retreat in 1941, a winter counteroffensive that maims the Axis and then enough residual German strength to make 1942 a realistic long shot at victory (or at least at bettering history). I think it can be done.

[Wheat]

Let me give a digest of our game to date. We began with a house rule of no German advances on the Southern front of more than 5 hexes on the first turn. Gamesaurus' Russian strat was basically run for the hills.
This kept his losses to a minimum at the expense of giving ground. I quickly took Leningrad, but elected to drive further in the south than to take Moscow, which was heavily defended. I took Rostov and the first blizzard approached. His armament losses were 55-60. For the blizzard Gamesaurus chose to NOT attack, and preserve strength. I think he should have attacked, as I was prepared to retreat. I also pulled most armor and some elite infantry back to Germany.

So, come late June 42, the German army prepares to attack a daunting 9 MILLION Russians.

His beef and to some extent mine, is that for the first 50 turns its run run run with little combat. The game has some great flavor and works well, but it needs a few tweaks to bring it all the way.

[Flaviusx]

The first blizzard is a gift for the Soviet and he certainly should be attacking then.

Nobody hates the Lvov business more than I. But if you as the German are willing to forego it, there has to be some give on the Soviet side, and not merely flat out run away in response. Ultimately the game may have to enforce discipline on this score in the form of sudden death (much as I dislike this.) It frustrates me to see this time and again where the German player agrees to not do the Lvov pocket and the Soviet just takes all of SW Front and rails it to the Dnepr. This isn't even necessary.

All of you fraidy cat Soviets need to sit down and play the Kiev scenario. You will not be allowed to do this runaway in that scenario. Nor can the Axis player do a Lvov pocket since he is limited to historical AGS forces. Learn how to make do with what you have and defend in the south. Then try this for real in a campaign game with both sides making concessions so the south plays out reasonably.

There are a lot of issues with the 1941 campaign that won't be ironed out until 2.0, unfortunately.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: Wheat

Let me give a digest of our game to date. We began with a house rule of no German advances on the Southern front of more than 5 hexes on the first turn. Gamesaurus' Russian strat was basically run for the hills.
This kept his losses to a minimum at the expense of giving ground. I quickly took Leningrad, but elected to drive further in the south than to take Moscow, which was heavily defended. I took Rostov and the first blizzard approached. His armament losses were 55-60. For the blizzard Gamesaurus chose to NOT attack, and preserve strength. I think he should have attacked, as I was prepared to retreat. I also pulled most armor and some elite infantry back to Germany.

So, come late June 42, the German army prepares to attack a daunting 9 MILLION Russians.

His beef and to some extent mine, is that for the first 50 turns its run run run with little combat. The game has some great flavor and works well, but it needs a few tweaks to bring it all the way.

And here Wheat has stated it well... the game has incredible appeal in scope, scale, and subject matter. What it lacks is a combat system that allows the two sides to actually engage in combat in 41-42. With the current situation, early combat is suicide for the Russian with no means of recovering even if he decides to do so for the sake of "Mother Russia".

[:(] I believe the isolation effects are too extreme (the pocketed troops should be able to fight to some extent and the mopping up should cost the Germans more than it does).

[:(]I believe the combat system is not calculating the CV correctly (when the modified CVs are registering less than the raw CVs in fortified battles where there are no command, supply, morale, or other penalties... you have a problem).

[:(]I believe there is no real incentive for the Russian to fight west of Moskow, and given the low replacement rate of men and material available to the Russian, there is no practical way a Russian player can engage in combat in 41-42 and survive and recover to fight in 43. (If you greatly increased available replacements, maybe they could.)

[:)]I believe all these things can eventually get fixed if the Patching Gods keep up the good work, at least I'm hoping so.

[hfarrish]

I do think we should all give .12 a chance here - the games I am playing in it are a lot of fun, as I (the Red) assume I have to fight forward since I don't have the luxury of a three month mega blizzard to take back territory a d create guards. I lose a lot more men but so does the Hun, which creates a good blizzard where both armies are weak and the Sobiets can only push in spots (as it should be). Meta-game deign decisions aside, I think things are the best they've ever been.

[GamesaurusRex]

We played with the Reduced Blizzard and it is a non-event. If anything, it makes the situation worse for the Russian who must run all the harder. As for a Russian counteratttack in the blizzard... LOL Why ? What is to be gained ? Certainly not German losses as they retreat anyway to avoid the weather effects. In any event, the rails are damaged from prior German advance and will not be repaired at a rate that would enable the LOW MORALE, WEAK BRIGADED, BADLY DISORGANIZED COMMAND STRUCTURED, Russian Army to attack anything under the combat/morale/command penalties existing in the 41-42 time frame. This was made worse under the last patch because it removed the Russian CV surge during the blizzard. Attack the Germans ? WITH WHAT ??

The Russian time and energy is better spent reorganizing their command structure and digging multiple lines of fortified positions (which will be penetrated by the Germans anyway due to the freakish logistics system that allows the Germans to penetrate 150 miles at a stretch through any front with impervious troops that are immune to attack and seemingly suffer no attritonal effects.
[&:]

The only thing that eventually stops this is the fact that IF the Russian can survive in to late 42, he will have begun to regroup the Red Army into Corps level units that are capable of engaging the German Army. Prior to this event, the Russian has NO COMBAT EFFECTIVE TROOPS TO SPEAK OF. NONE !

(and Flaviusx.. before you reiterate that Russia needs to attack during the blizzard, you need to play Wheat (with Wheat taking the German side) so he can give your Russian troops the directions to the Urals). There is just not enough of anything for the Russians to take the offensive that early. If they do so, they will face the German onslaught of summer of 42 in a weakened state and with little in the way of fortified lines.

[SigUp]

I guess all the experienced Soviet players out there will disagree with you.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I guess all the experienced Soviet players out there will disagree with you.

I guess you haven't played an experienced German player.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I guess all the experienced Soviet players out there will disagree with you.

I guess you haven't played an experienced German player.

That's because I play the Germans. [;)]

Besides, Flav disagrees with you and he is one of the best Soviet players out there.

[Flaviusx]

Well, nobody is very experienced at this point in playing with the mild blizzard as it is brand new. But I very much doubt that this new blizzard means that no offensive whatsoever is the optimum strategy. I can imagine wanting to stop early with it or limiting the scope of the offensive, but simply sitting in place everywhere for the duration?

At a minimum I'd want to grab as much real estate west of Moscow as possible in order to provide a bigger buffer to it come summer of 42. There's some good defensive terrain in this area. And attacking is the best way to generate morale and guards which helps you get past 42 where the morale cap is very low.