How to fix the game.

[SparkleyTits]

I think that's the point, talking about mechanics and what should be changed ultimately won't change the dynamics of how both teams are utilised to their fullest or what makes them win or lose atm as you can win with both side and I don't think either side is overall OP mechanically.
These chats of "Change this" have and will always happen, a different approach is needed to excel and bypass these issues

Axis are experencial, you just keep playing them and you can excel (To a point)
Soviets are nuanced, situational, need a deep understanding on many levels and need the experience to pull all of this together into a cohesive, concise and war winning manner to be able to thrive against someone of the "same skill level"

I personally think this means as the game goes on throughout it's lifespan Axis play will increase more naturally where as many Soviets will lag behind and hit their perspective ceilings earlier, or grow in a stop and start manner and it will generally mean that Soviets will be seen as the lesser side as they aren't as intuitive to play well compared to Germans

This could of course just be my personal bias due to my own experiences but I hope it's worth mentioning

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking
With more experienced players, as HLYA suggests, the Germans seem to have an advantage. Their learning curve is steeper. WitE2 development is underway and I know that the devs are reading the WitE1 forums.

I didn't suggest anything other than iterating the fact that a great deal of unbalanced factors in the game boils down to the skill level of the persons involved in the game.

[joelmar]

Great discussion, thank you guys, seems like balance in this game is a nuanced thing and it is really my feeling. I think that to know the exact truth about it would need some professional players doing only that as a day job, with lenghty analysis of the data and systematic exploration of possibilities, such is the magnitude of the complexity of the game.

As I said elsewhere, I think playing this game and aiming for a win, whatever side you're on, is besides the point. IMO what's interesting is much more to see how things develop than the final result as a game lasts forever and the final result is only a short moment in time. Crackaces said in another post that "It's about the journey, not the destination", and that IMO is one of the wisest thing I ever read about this game.

This has made me think of the historicity of the German getting Leningrad and Moscow and the Soviets being able to fight on. In reality, I don't believe it would have happened as it happens in this game. Those 2 cities and the Donbass were the 3 objectives of the German, and that was based on serious thinking and I believe sound analysis. Imagine the Germans take 2 of those 3 objectives in 1941, like the 2 cities. Forget about manpower or other considerations of the sort, think politics. Bottom line, Stalin would have been in a very difficult situation. I'm really not sure he would have been able to stay in power with the turmoil such a loss would have caused. And the creation of a vacuum at the top at that moment, or even only the infighting and frictions at the top and down the line would have meant a serious degradation of the Soviet military cohesion. It's exactly what happened to the Czar in WWI. Imagine if the Germans had won the Great War, there would have been a very different Russia in the XXth century. Such was the magnitude of their defeat in that war. Funny how we tend to see Russia as invincible because of 1812 and 1941, but we so easily forget 1917.

So I really doubt they could have straighten up the situation like the Soviet player is able to do in the game. It always amazes me that Hitler who was always having the "political" formost in his thinking didn't get that.

That said, it's a game and it's really cool in the game that the Soviets are able to continue fighting after loosing both cities and I don't think anything should be done to nerf that. It's just an observation.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking
With more experienced players, as HLYA suggests, the Germans seem to have an advantage. Their learning curve is steeper. WitE2 development is underway and I know that the devs are reading the WitE1 forums.

I think this is not necessarily true. I believe that the player base has done a lot of work trying to optimize the Axis play, while having (all put together) done a lot less with the Soviets.

The Axis first turn has basically been scripted to death, while the whole advance in the first year has been worked and reworked over and over again to somewhat near perfection.

Meanwhile, I often see the size of the Red Army mentioned as the deciding factor of how the Soviets are doing. I do not believe this is the right measure. I see people over and over agian saying that the loss of Leningrad and Moscow means "game over" for the Soviets which I also believe is simply not true.

My argument is that there are basically VERY few (if any) games out there with an experienced, slow paced player on either side, with a similarly updated view on the strategies needed from both sides.

That means that the final argument on which side is favored can simply not be made (or at least not based on actual gameplay).

1st & 2nd sentence points are correct Dinglir. Axis first turn has been beaten into the dirt very well. That is why I left the German side and start doing the Soviet side for write ups. To me it is just to darn easy to play the Germans. Others may not find that to be the case.

3rd sentence you are correct. I have seen this nonsense spewed as gospel when it is not the case imo. The size of the Red Army really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the Soviet Army. Granted there are certain minimum thresholds but blatantly saying when Soviet army reaches X number they are now in charge is not the case. It is the effectiveness of that army as a whole not the size. My current army in the game with BrianG is only 6 million. BUT over 60% of the infantry Corps, divisions, and brigades are over 47 experience and Morale. IMO that is much better than 8 million man Army with only only 26 experience and 45 morale. As for loss of Leningrad & Moscow I am still on the fence since such a loss would cut into the manpower issue pretty deep.

4th sentence it is your opinion and that it good. But I now know what to do on both sides. The biggest thing IMO that people do not do is adapt to the game. Instead many try to play a script that has been written to be followed.

5th sentence I think currently it really comes down to player skill level. I would go so far as to say that the major problem is reading the battlefield correctly and having the right pieces in the correct places for either attack or defense. In a nutshell the Strategic and tactical know how is lacking. I am simplifying this but there are many moving pieces but that has been my experience in this game.

[joelmar]

HLYA:

In the end, the leaders rating are most important. And those apply also to the player

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Every time I see balance items I remember this conversation between Pelton & Marquo in 2012 on an MT game which still holds true today in my opinion.

Great point HL I'd imagine this is pretty spot on and will likely always be the case no matter the changes made
-----------------
I also think Dinglr raises a great point too.
It doesn't seem like anybody has reached the full potential of Soviets yet, at least not publically enough for players to start taking it in, growing from it and coming to new game standards for what is and isn't supposed to be done to succeed etc

One guess of why I imagine Soviet standard play can lag behind compartively or why they are harder to show to a wider audience is that clocking in all the variables of every possible infantry and panzer move into your defence when playing Soviets in 41-42 takes an unholy amount of time comparative to Axis's Variables needed to clock in when on the attack or defence throughout the game
It's only one of the mechanics but I personally find Soviets to be much more nuanced, situational and utterly time consuming compared to Axis "Find the weak spot and exploit"

Yes, Dinglir is always the thinker with excellent points all the time. The Soviets are the harder side to play in 41. 1942 to a lesser extent depending on the German outcome of 41.

I know exactly what the Soviets need to do after 2+ years of playing Soviets, no I'm not talking about the Pskov strat I wrote up. Some Soviet moves will be unorthodox moves, some moves will be common moves that have been talked about quit a bit on the forums. In the end I believe if I played another of the same skill level as myself the game would go to a draw.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

HLYA:

In the end, the leaders rating are most important. And those apply also to the player

True. Many different mitigating circumstances that can be brought that effect and affects the game.

[thedoctorking]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

The issue is for a good soviet game the soviets need to have certain conditions going into 1942....as after winter 1941/42 the Germans are back on the offensive no matter how well the soviet player is doing due to the national morale factor.

Case in Point look at HLYA current game in AAR--he is doing about as well as could ever be expected of a soviet player in a somewhat contested game--I feel the German player made some big mistakes in 1941 and it hurt him in 1942 but he is still able to attack successfully in 1942.

So if the Soviet Army/industry/land lost is to a tipping point in 1941 the game is basically already over for the soviet player. Can the soviet player play and fight from the Urals if Leningrad/Moscow and most of the south up to Rostov falls in 1941---yes absolutely...but unless the German player makes a huge mistake the soviet player will never get back on track to anything near historical progress. As you need the manpower from all that lost ground to get on a historical offensive schedule in 1943/44...not to mention the extra loss of industry or disruption of industry losing both and the south causes.

In realistic sense I don't think losing both cities should be as extreme on soviet manpower as it is, but the game designers made a choice of soviet manpower mobilization being by week instead of a huge pool of available soviet reserve manpower as was historical. The soviet reserve force was massive and why they didn't reach manpower issues until it had all been mobilized and expended in combat by 1944. This means every manpower point the soviets lose in 1941 is a huge hit to overall soviet manpower for the entire game....a compounding effect.

This is really a good point, Chaos. I hadn't thought of it in this way before. If Moscow falls, that doesn't mean the potential contributions of Muscovites to the Red Army going forward is totally lost. Civilian evacuation would naturally have prioritized people of military age anyway.

[joelmar]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking
This is really a good point, Chaos. I hadn't thought of it in this way before. If Moscow falls, that doesn't mean the potential contributions of Muscovites to the Red Army going forward is totally lost. Civilian evacuation would naturally have prioritized people of military age anyway.

Valid point of course, but moving and relocating so many people would have been a major administrative problem for the Soviets at a time of severe crisis. It just adds to my point about the political problems this would have brought on the Soviet leadership and the consequences of this situation. Also, they would not have been able to move only the people of military worth, as the city was the hub of the Soviet administration and a major manufacturing center.

[A21]

The game does already include migration - when cities such as Moscow are captured there is already a built in migration to other cities.

[chaos45]

The migration is random, and not all points move some are lost....its really a pretty random thing. Not to mention a lot of the Manpower points do stay in the city and are lost and even those you might keep are randomly are left damaged and not producing for a long time.

That long time of no production is when the soviet manpower recruitment level is at the highest. Manpower points are worth far more in 41 and 42 than later years...by 44 due to manpower reductions if the soviets don't retake a lot of them their recruitment numbers plummet.

This is a game of mainly numbers and cascading effects really....basically the soviet army can afford to lose X number of men per week and still maintain the army in the field or grow the army. If you lose more men than X, which equals your replacement rate you are effectively getting weaker.

I don't remember the exact numbers but if you keep Moscow its somewhere around 100k men per week in 1942 give or take. Keeping in mind you will lose huge amount of Soviets every week to attrition even if the Germans take almost no action against you....this is due to the fact that attrition losses is based on NM/EXP of units which means that until late 43/44 soviet attrition losses will stay very large even with little combat.

In 1941 the soviets really cant afford to lose any major losses after the initial complete annihilation of the frontline by the Germans. Since the last patch reduced experience gain to 1 per week, you either have to pay tons of manpower you don't have to combat blood units and get a slightly fast exp growth so the units are combat capable by winter or try and keep every single trained division you have left over after the first 2 turns.

Now is the soviet situation impossible.....no but I do feel a couple tweaks are needed to balance things back abit...biggest one is the experience gain issue as this cascades into a whole range of problems for the soviets that last into mid 1942 and later. Secondly new formations in 1941 for the soviets should have abit higher random starting experience levels as these units were almost all formed from already trained personnel aside from the militia divisions.

The Barbarossa series by Nigel Askey is already showing some interesting things IMO....esp the decent amount of initial well trained soviets divisions that were mobilized from trained NKVD personnel which had approx. double the training and military time as reservists. Think he even says these were key divisions for the soviets in July as they were fully trained and fully equipped new divisions. This also goes into my opinion that the game underestimates soviet capabilities from Jun-Dec 41.

[thedoctorking]

I have also felt that attrition was too high for Soviet units. After all, they're in their own country and presumably are more used to the weather, can get food from local civilians more easily than foreigners (especially in the Russian parts of the USSR). I would say they should have a bonus for attrition results in the USSR, maybe say in territory that was part of the USSR in 1939.

[Seminole]

Keeping in mind you will lose huge amount of Soviets every week to attrition even if the Germans take almost no action against you....this is due to the fact that attrition losses is based on NM/EXP of units which means that until late 43/44 soviet attrition losses will stay very large even with little combat.

Run a first turn with no German attacks and you'll see how bad it is...

[chuckfourth]

Thank you for your suggestion Dinglir
So OK I set logistics to 400% and at the end of the third turn my armoured unit gets to the end of its tether up near Tallinn and now has 10 MPs instead of 2 so a little better, though obviously not exactly the same movements during this second test. To me this remains a extremely unlikely situation. Break out the Schnapps were staying here for a week. They could get a tank up there but not a fuel truck?

It's very simple.
Kraftwagenkolonnen can cover 125 miles in a day that translates into no supply penalties until the units are 40 hexes from the Railhead not 10 it's very simple, its very straightforward and its a fact.

Oh yes and of course the roads, don't you remember this helpful quote from No Idea thedoctorking.

"according to Glantz, the whole of European Russia had just 64.375 kms of asphalted roads". That is enough asphalt to cover 60 separate roads the distance of Moscow to Brest Litovsk. I assume that Glantz knows what he is talking about?
What I'm meant to believe here is that in heavily industrialised Russia, every autumn traffic between each and every city came to a complete halt because the roads all turned to mud. OK comrades break out the Vodka business stops now for a month. There would have been just as much if not more traffic on those roads before the Germans arrived and every year it just stopped for a few months? they couldn't manage to build a waterproof road to keep the economy running? Ridiculous. OH yes I forgot, of course they did actually build some, about 64.375 klms of them.

I realise there are air drops and HQ buildup, but that is irrelevant. This thread is specifically about the too short supply distance from a rail head before penalties kick in. It should be 40 not 10.

I am no expert agreed, and playbalance I leave to those that are, but the railhead supply range for Germans is clearly too short. Because good roads existed, the range of the Kraftwagenkolonnen and the petrol stations that serviced them. And of course the Germans spent a lot of time and effort improving what there was.

The Third ingredient is of course how much each division needs. Ammunition is the main cargo to be brought forward and then petrol But petrol can be sourced locally, The Russians used it as well, their petrol stations were full of it. Food of course can and was sourced locally.

so you shouldnt HAVE to resort to HQ and airdrops,

At the very least there needs to be a game option "remove the German supply nerfing and allow full HQ supply from railhead of 40 hexes" then I will play.

Hi Telemecus
Sorry I was unclear in my previous post. The problem is not artillery attachment as I wrongly said but wether or not that artillery participates in a particular battle. Which, if any, actual artillery units Participate in a particular battle is random. This is completely unrealistic.

Oh and Crackaces putting an Emoji at the end of your comment does not disguise your dogwhistling.
And to the member that personal messaged me and told me to kill myself I dont think I'll read any more of your messages

[Dinglir]

I realize that you do not believe this is the case, but during WWII the situatios where Panzer's outrunning their supply services were extremely common.

For example:

In France 1940 during the race for the coast, the Panzer Divisions outran their supply services short of the coast. The men then left the Panzer behind and did the last few miles by foot (I believe it was Abbeville that fell this was, but I am not sure).

In Africa 1942 Rommel did not receive more than 10% of the fuel that was sent to him from Italy. The rest were lost at sea or guzzled up by the fuel trucks bringing forward fuel.

In Russia 1944 what stopped the Bagration offensive was the lack of fuel for the Soviet tanks. The Soviets simply could nnot continue to advance until their service infrastructure had been brought forward.

It was the same for the Germans in Russia 1941.

Remember that a Tank uses A LOT of fuel. With bridges blown up, roads mined and whatever aircraft the enemy had looking to interdict the supply columns it was no easy task to bring forward fuel for the Panzers. Every offensive during WWII and even today, will have a limit to how far it can go before running our of fuel.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth
Hi Telemecus
Sorry I was unclear in my previous post. The problem is not artillery attachment as I wrongly said but wether or not that artillery participates in a particular battle. Which, if any, actual artillery units Participate in a particular battle is random. This is completely unrealistic.

I had not really thought about this until you raised it. I know the manual describes it as a quid pro quo - when assigned to the corps HQ it is not guaranteed to fire in any one battle but has the chance to participate in many different battles in different hexes. So I can see it is seen as "fair." But I think I agree it does not match how a corps HQ would work - their raison d'etre was getting the corps artillery to the critical point. There are also times I would want them to not participate in a battle as well - for example to save them for the more important follow up battle. Thinking about it now I would have at least liked a toggle for use of SUs in next battle yes/no/probable - I would keep the probably option just for those who do not want to micromanage. Leaders ratings would then be about how many battles artillery could participate in rather than the probability they participate in any one. Probably beyond the code of WitE1 now.

There is also the option to directly assign SUs to units to guarantee they participate as well - and it then costs a point to deassign. But artillery and some other SUs are not given this option - why not? I can think of military histories where they describe corps artillery being delegated to a division commander. I think at least within the existing code this would be quite easy to alter through data alterations in the next patch?

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth
Oh and Crackaces putting an Emoji at the end of your comment does not disguise your dogwhistling.
And to the member that personal messaged me and told me to kill myself I dont think I'll read any more of your messages

I know Crackaces was not directing anything at you and I think it may have been to do with someone else from a previous occurrence. So rest assured they were not trying to offend you.

I would report the serious message to the staff - they can take action or monitor who is sending those messages.

[thedoctorking]

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth



Oh yes and of course the roads, don't you remember this helpful quote from No Idea thedoctorking.

So if I have no idea, why have you not responded to my challenge? I would be happy to play you under the conditions you prefer.

[tomeck48]

I basically play solitaire vs the AI and one thing I would like to see is to have the ability to set the Combat Resolution Message Level separately for the Axis and the Soviets. I mostly run the Soviets at 0 and the Axis (when playing Axis) at 2 or 3. It's just a pain to have to reset it every turn. I know, it's not a big deal (though the programming may be) but it's something I would like to see. Thanks.

[chuckfourth]

Dinglir changing the un-penalised supply radius from the railhead from the punitive 10 to the actual 40 does NOT mean that panzers can't outrun their supply services.

So I am not saying that I want the game to make it impossible for the Panzers to outrun their supply services I am saying this.

Kraftwagenkolonnen can cover 125 miles in a day that translates into no supply penalties until the units are 40 hexes from the Railhead, not 10.

This needs to change. When its changed the panzers can still outrun their supply lines.
ie making this change does not equate to the German not being able to outrun their supply lines.

thedoctorking
Sorry for the misunderstanding, "No Idea" is the name of the poster that posted the ignored information from Glantz on the mileage of Bitumen roads in European Russia. Note that that is just bitumen roads, there would be at least the same if not several multiples of roads that though not bitumen are improved to the point where they are perfectly serviceable, in any weather.

I regretfully decline a game because I unfortunately wont enjoy a game where the supply range from the railhead has been limited to 10 to ensure the Germans run short of supply after 3 weeks. The conditions I would prefer (40 hex full supply range from railhead) are not available in the game.

I have had a good look at the game and it is a great game, but this unjustified supply restriction is a great disappointment to me. I live in hope.

Their is no justification supplied here or in any other thread as to why this range should not change form 10 to 40 hexes.

Overall the game should be a ferocious fight until the mud brings the Soviets a rest, It isn't. The soviets get their rest in week 3 that's about 4 months too early.

Operation Barbarosa was planed as a summer campaign, It was always to be won or lost in the short campaigning season before winter set in.

[Blubel2]

Moscow is about 60 hexes from the border. What you propose would enable the Germans to fully supply mobile divisions there after about 4 weeks. That is not historical. The Germans had huge supply problems in the vicinity of Smolensk.

The "Handbook of German military forces" was a handbook written by and for the US forces at the end of the war. In my opinion it states what the Germans were able to do in the best circumstances, as the Western Allies had a tendency to overestimate German capabilities. It states that they "can cover up to 125 miles a day", which is something else then stating that they could do this reliably on a daily basis. It also assumes good roades and (presumably) no enemy interference.

This is not what was the case in 1941 on the Eastern Front. While there were roads and there were also some good roads, the divisions which had to be supplied were not necessarily on them. While the truck driver might drive a truck nicely all the way to Smolensk he could get bogged down on the way to the small town or village 50 miles east of the city, were the division was which actually needed the fuel was fighting. That particular road might be bad or partly destroyed. There could also be scattered Soviet soldiers in the vicinity. Also the good roades were probably not meant to transport huge loads of goods. While the Soviet Union was industrilized and had to move huge amounts of goods, they did so mostly on train. Like the rest of the world until a relativly short time ago.
Also, the main German trucks (Opel Blitz, Ford B 3000, Mercedes L 3000) could transport about 3 tones of cargo. They had a tank of about 90 l and probably used more then 20 l per 60 miles. For the roundtrip you are suggesting they would have to use about one quarter of their loading capacity to bring their one fuel.