Look at a lot of the units withdrawn from the Russian front historically......they were withdrawn to be rebuilt because they were devastated. Not all of them mind you, but a bunch of them had suffered tremendous losses. Look at the German withdraws in Spring 1942......what pressing front were they heading to? None, they were devastated during the blizzard of 41 and needed to refit and retrain. Now, currently, those units leave whether I suffer a single loss to that unit or not. I have watched withdrawing Panzer Div fill out with the cream of the tanks, while the ones I have left are using so called obsolete designs. If the production we currently have is only what basically went to the Eastern front, why must my Eastern Front portion of that production be used to fill out the unit. Let that puppy use the remaining production NOT going to the east. Barring that, give me control so that I have the better tanks for my remaining units.
Now, when or if the linking of the games occurs, then I will have to choose who gets short changed in the deal. Which front is in more pressing need.
I think you don't understand the withdrawals. The only units being withdrawn from the game are those that were either re-deployed to another front (e.g. 10th Panzer Division) or substantially re-organized (e.g. the SS motorized divisions). As long as a unit returned to the Eastern Front after re-building, it is not a withdrawal in the game.
Yes and no. I was looking at Nbw units the other day and what I found was:
- unit first in the east, at date xy unit get transferred to the West
-unit gets destroyed in the East, gets rebuilt in one of the western Wehrkreise, and because the western front is nearer, gets sent there instead of trucking all the way back east. Very logical.
However, while at first glance these seem the same event, they are not. The rebuilt unit was in quite a few cases new from the ground up (old one was pocketed, got overrun in Bagration etc.), de facto the unit in the West had nothing to do with the old one except reusing a pre-existing name, which was an administrative convenience, nothing more. There's no reason a differently named unit couldn't have been setup with those resources instead, or the resources being used as replacements.
The WITE handling in this context doesn't make sense, because it uses the rebuilt units war history instead of recognizing that from the point of destruction onwards, the real path and game path diverge, and have to diverge. A new unit being set up and then used in the West is very different from withdrawing a functional active unit in the East and sending it West, yet WITE treats both events as being equivalent.
This pretty identical to the handling of my pet peeve, German Divisional Arty TOE's. Sure, WITE is replicating historical administrative decisions, but without any regard for why those decisions were made and in which context the decisions were taken.
EDIT: To me this seems like attempting to avoid potential problems with the Pull-production model if the Germans were to be given more control over their units. If that's the case, give the Germans more control over unit administration and instead impose the limits where they really exited: production. The same mechanism thats's being used for tanks now could also be used for guns. Production figures for everything above 20mm are fairly easily available. No guns in the pool pretty much puts paid to the notion you can have unlimited Arty even if you have the AP's, but the player should be able to use the available !historical! numbers as he sees fit.
< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/24/2012 5:06:23 PM >