Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: War in the West

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the West Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 3:55:48 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Compare this with the Soviet ability to NOT create inefficient 1942 corps combat units (42a and 42b Rifle Corps). Soviet players are encouraged NOT to create these units and instead to use the existing divisions. They skip the inefficiencies and magically STAVKA figures out how to improve on Corps anyway.

Soviets already have the ability to bypass TOE mistakes and inefficiencies.
Germany can actually end up through withdrawals having a worse army than was historical, but that NEVER bothers the Sovie-o-phile side of the playing community.

I wasn't really arguing that the Germans shouldn't have control over their TOEs or production or on-map-counter creation, because they should. I was just arguing against 2ndACR's specific example of pulling out the good Panzers from a withdrawing unit just because it's about to withdraw. If the German player had control over his TOEs, the unit about to pull out probably wouldn't have been the one with the PanzerIV's anyway. If the German player had control over his production, he might have had enough PanzerIV's that he wouldn't need to strip them off the withdrawing unit to re-allocate to his front-liners.

< Message edited by gradenko_2000 -- 2/23/2012 3:57:42 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 121
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 4:14:03 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

My reply is in red

What we know is that Germany must stick to its actual TOE at each and every step of the war.
Soviets do not.

I think you mean OOB not TOE as neither side can change the TOEs in an ongoing game. Giving the Axis player the ability to create units would not dramatically effect the game as he really doesn't have the resources to do much different than what was done historically and there is very little diversification in his TOEs to begin with.

Any serious game player can take one look at that dynamic and know that strategic playing options are wildly different for the two sides.
Germany is on rails to withdraw Totenkopf in the second half of 42 irrespective of whether there is a Demyansk pocket.

Germany greatly narrowed its strategic options when it initiated a two front war; as the Axis player you must live with the consequences of that decision. You can control what happens on the Eastern Front but not what's happening on those other fronts or decisions being made by the supreme command; you are not Hitler.

So you waste your breath talking to me about history, I'm talking about equanimity in play (though not identical capabilities).

The Soviets get all sorts of tools and abilities with which to improve the efficacy of their whole army that results in a seriously improved 1942 and 1943 fighting force over history's. They get to learn lessons without first failing.

You can't seriously try to tell me that the Axis player doesn't benefit from historical hindsight. Yeah, he might not be able to improve his army but he can certainly improve how it was used.

Germany, meanwhile, can have the entire summer's worth of success snatched from it by the fiat of arbitrary adherence to history. It occurs in morale drops, it occurs in TOE changes, it occurs in withdrawals.

The withdrawals have already be explained, both sides have TOE changes and German TOEs don't significantly decline until late 1943, and German morale is superior to Soviet morale up until 1944.

What I see is a huge community of soviet-fan players who do not care that their opponent's major setbacks are handed to him by game design, not you.

To me, you all have no meaningful concept of fair play.
And this is why I encourage people considering this or future Matrix titles to pay attention to the lop-sided nature of the discussions, the hypocritical and selective adherence to history, the personal attacks against people with different opinions, and my favorite, the insults based on what you have or have not read.

This is Matrix games and its fan base.
This is the future of War in the West.

If you desire a game in which both sides have an equal chance to "win" then games like WitE are not your cup of tea. In any valid simulation of an historical conflict the probability of the historical victor winning has to be greater than 50%. How much greater depends on how overwhelming the historical victor's victory was. Given that the Axis forces were utterly crushed and its supreme command forced to commit suicide, I would say that the Soviet victory was rather overwhelming.


(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 122
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 4:17:55 PM   
kafka

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 6/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

To re-state my position is less snarky terms, go ahead and put a production OPTION in the game to let people who want to fiddle with it fiddle with it. Don't spend a lot of debug time trying to dig out the deeply buried bugs, but include the function as an untested Beta option.


thank you for this very help- und insightful post depicting those as idiots who dare ask for a limited expansion of the very limited gameplay, what I suppose is what the majority of gamers expect from a gama

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 123
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 5:23:16 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Compare this with the Soviet ability to NOT create inefficient 1942 corps combat units (42a and 42b Rifle Corps). Soviet players are encouraged NOT to create these units and instead to use the existing divisions. They skip the inefficiencies and magically STAVKA figures out how to improve on Corps anyway.


Since historically the Soviets didn't create much more than 5 or 10 of the early Rifle Corps anyways, I'd say that this is a bit of a moot point. Also, NOT creating a Rifle Corps has a trade-off: Not being able to stack as much stuff into a hex. In other words, they can't attack/defend as well with 3 Rifle Divisions as they could with 3 Rifle Corps in a hex. Essentially, it is to the German player's advantage that the Russian player dosen't use the early TOE Rifle Corps. Personally, I'm a fan of an historical Russian OOB, so when playing as the Russians I build the early Rifle Corps anyways.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 124
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 6:24:32 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2115
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

My reply is in red

What we know is that Germany must stick to its actual TOE at each and every step of the war.
Soviets do not.

I think you mean OOB not TOE as neither side can change the TOEs in an ongoing game. Giving the Axis player the ability to create units would not dramatically effect the game as he really doesn't have the resources to do much different than what was done historically and there is very little diversification in his TOEs to begin with.

Any serious game player can take one look at that dynamic and know that strategic playing options are wildly different for the two sides.
Germany is on rails to withdraw Totenkopf in the second half of 42 irrespective of whether there is a Demyansk pocket.

Germany greatly narrowed its strategic options when it initiated a two front war; as the Axis player you must live with the consequences of that decision. You can control what happens on the Eastern Front but not what's happening on those other fronts or decisions being made by the supreme command; you are not Hitler.

So you waste your breath talking to me about history, I'm talking about equanimity in play (though not identical capabilities).

The Soviets get all sorts of tools and abilities with which to improve the efficacy of their whole army that results in a seriously improved 1942 and 1943 fighting force over history's. They get to learn lessons without first failing.

You can't seriously try to tell me that the Axis player doesn't benefit from historical hindsight. Yeah, he might not be able to improve his army but he can certainly improve how it was used.

Germany, meanwhile, can have the entire summer's worth of success snatched from it by the fiat of arbitrary adherence to history. It occurs in morale drops, it occurs in TOE changes, it occurs in withdrawals.

The withdrawals have already be explained, both sides have TOE changes and German TOEs don't significantly decline until late 1943, and German morale is superior to Soviet morale up until 1944.

What I see is a huge community of soviet-fan players who do not care that their opponent's major setbacks are handed to him by game design, not you.

To me, you all have no meaningful concept of fair play.
And this is why I encourage people considering this or future Matrix titles to pay attention to the lop-sided nature of the discussions, the hypocritical and selective adherence to history, the personal attacks against people with different opinions, and my favorite, the insults based on what you have or have not read.

This is Matrix games and its fan base.
This is the future of War in the West.

If you desire a game in which both sides have an equal chance to "win" then games like WitE are not your cup of tea. In any valid simulation of an historical conflict the probability of the historical victor winning has to be greater than 50%. How much greater depends on how overwhelming the historical victor's victory was. Given that the Axis forces were utterly crushed and its supreme command forced to commit suicide, I would say that the Soviet victory was rather overwhelming.




Well put jaw. Perhaps Advanced Tactics would be more suitable.

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 125
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 7:17:48 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
No, I understand the withdraw system. I know they are not really withdraws per se for all units. I would just like to be able to control WHO gets withdrawn and when.

Now I benefit greatly from 20/20 hindsight......of course once we German players come up with a tactic to better our chances, it seems to be taken away from us.....take the March Madness......most of that was the German protecting heavily a core army of 20-30 Div from the blizzard and then moving them back to the front and smashing all in front of them. That tactic has now been voided to a great extent.

But since I benefit from 20/20 hindsight, I should be allowed to have as great a control as the Russian/Allied player. I should be able to IF I have the goodies available, create at least support units. I cannot custom build my army like the Russian's. Would be really nice though. Every one seems to get hung up on the "this is a historical simulation", sorry, but that goes out the window when I hit end turn. Plus if that was the true case, the Russian player would have the exact units that were there historically. Period. No custom building his army. If the real Russian army had 10 infantry Corp, so do you. But that is not the case in the least. I have never understood why one side is given huge control over his army, yet the other side is crippled by history.

Some want a purely historical game.......great, they can have it......we had the same arguments in WITP original and we got the PDU switch to greatly control our plane upgrades. Worked for both sides. Those who want historical, do not use it, but those who want to see and play the "what if" select it.......most play with PDU on. Sucks having 1000 of this superb fighter in the pools and only 8 units use it. While you have 16 units stuck with the worst a/c all game long.

For those wanting a historical game, go for it, take the 6th army and park that puppy in Stalingrad and let it be destroyed. Just remember that while you did the historical thing, the Russian is custom building his army to maximize his strategy. And that army will be way more powerful than historical.

I want control over my TOE upgrade dates......just a simple switch...."upgrade available" and I get to choose whether or not to upgrade that particular unit and when. I would like control over armor upgrade/downgrade ability within defined types.....light, med, heavy, assault etc.......why, because instead of having 20 PZIV in each unit and all at 50% strength, I can make 3 panzer div 100% and the others 80% using lesser quality tanks. I can tailor my armor forces to suit what is happening in the game. It is not all about the withdraws. It just irks me to see that unit sitting in Germany loaded with the best tanks I have available while my front line units are using obsolete tanks.

I am not too concerned with production per se......would be nice......but the total lack of any control what so ever on the side that "must lose" is bothersome. While the side that will win every time, is given great flexibility in everything. If I am doomed to fail/lose......then allow me to best utilize my limited resources to the maximum. I do not want to get into the "but Hitler" this and that......I shot that fool when I took control of the army. Most Russian players shoot Stalin on turn 1 too.......20/20 hindsight is great sometimes.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 126
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 8:24:24 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
If it is unfair for the Soviet player to be able to avoid the early rifle corps, what should be done in game terms? Should the player be 'forced' to build some, or be penalized APs? Should the first X rifle corps be the early TOE, no matter whether they are actually put together?

If we want the option for the Germans to stop their TOE changes, does the Soviet side get that option too? If the Germans get the option of avoiding teeny panzer divisions and globs of crap Volksturm divisions does the Soviet player get to keep his tank divisions through the war ( instead of the breakdown into brigades in 1941, then experience penalty when tank corps are created the next year ), and motorized divisions, and keep rifle divisions of 1941 at 14k men ( instead of having to switch to the 1941B division of 10k )?

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 127
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 8:51:53 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 2308
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
An ideal system for returning units would be to get them off-map, receive their TOE changes and return at the specified date. All equipment used for or freed by the TOE change would go into the active pool. I assume too much coding for too little effect.

What I would like to see for withdrawing units is an auto maxTOE decrease to 80 if previously set to 81 or higher for the last two turns prior to withdrawal - no need to send stuff to the front that you would have to move all the way back a week later. If the MaxTOE is below 75% it should be increase to maximum 80%, this would ensure the units get their TOE back to 75% or above but not near max level.
Currently you either have to use a global maxTOE of 75% four your land units or you have to micromanage withdrawing units every turn. As fas I have seen the maxTOE 75% is kept for withdrawing units, even for units below 75% TOE, maxTOE below 75% will be resetted to 100% instead.

_____________________________

WitE Beta-tester - aircraft data modifications
WitE 1.08 development/testing
WitW aircraft data

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 128
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 9:20:16 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2115
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

If it is unfair for the Soviet player to be able to avoid the early rifle corps, what should be done in game terms? Should the player be 'forced' to build some, or be penalized APs? Should the first X rifle corps be the early TOE, no matter whether they are actually put together?

If we want the option for the Germans to stop their TOE changes, does the Soviet side get that option too? If the Germans get the option of avoiding teeny panzer divisions and globs of crap Volksturm divisions does the Soviet player get to keep his tank divisions through the war ( instead of the breakdown into brigades in 1941, then experience penalty when tank corps are created the next year ), and motorized divisions, and keep rifle divisions of 1941 at 14k men ( instead of having to switch to the 1941B division of 10k )?


And keep the 24CP armies.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 129
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 11:11:04 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I want control over my TOE upgrade dates......just a simple switch...."upgrade available" and I get to choose whether or not to upgrade that particular unit and when. I would like control over armor upgrade/downgrade ability within defined types.....light, med, heavy, assault etc.......


I think controlling TOE upgrades is a bit much. Imagine going through several dozen Soviet units every turn...and then trying to track which units have upgraded and which haven't...Considering the scale of this game, we may as well allow for controlling/changing Battalion commanders! But hey, if it's not that difficult to code, a simple option check box in the settings options wouldn't hurt anyone.

As for an option for manual AFV model upgrade, I wholeheartedly agree. Frankly, that was half the fun of playing the old WIR I have been asking for this option since the day the game was released. The code is there for auto vs. manual upgrading of aircraft, it doesn't seem like a leap of faith is needed to transfer the same option to AFVs for Bde and up sized units (I still don't understand why this is available for aircraft but not AFVs...). I think it should NOT included Russian armoured Bns/Regts, but should be available to German (but not Axis Allied) Bn sized armoured units.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 2/23/2012 11:16:19 PM >

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 130
RE: War in the West - 2/23/2012 11:15:01 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
double post.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 131
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 1:53:27 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

If it is unfair for the Soviet player to be able to avoid the early rifle corps, what should be done in game terms? Should the player be 'forced' to build some, or be penalized APs? Should the first X rifle corps be the early TOE, no matter whether they are actually put together?

If we want the option for the Germans to stop their TOE changes, does the Soviet side get that option too? If the Germans get the option of avoiding teeny panzer divisions and globs of crap Volksturm divisions does the Soviet player get to keep his tank divisions through the war ( instead of the breakdown into brigades in 1941, then experience penalty when tank corps are created the next year ), and motorized divisions, and keep rifle divisions of 1941 at 14k men ( instead of having to switch to the 1941B division of 10k )?


I am all for the options......The Russian player can tailor build his army from the ground up if he so desires. If the option to allow manual upgrades is enabled, then both sides get to have the cake and eat it too. Of course I feel that since he (the Russian) already gets to create basically any unit he wants, and the German cannot, that they should be forced to use what little "historical" restraints they have. This last one is a personal feeling and probably not for main stream players.

As stated, it bothers me that one side has it's hands tied to the extreme almost while the other side has way too much freedom. All I ask for is the option for the German player to have more control over his forces. I am not asking to be able to build 10 new Panzer div, or 3 new SS panzer Div......I would love to be able to build support units.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 132
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 3:54:17 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2115
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
Do you have a list of support units built by OKH?

It's Gary you have to convince, and a such a list plus sources just might do so.


(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 133
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 4:38:23 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Well, do we have a list of all the Russian units that were built by the Russians at will like they do in the game?

He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?

Your tossing the same argument as everyone else about everything. "But the Germans did not have that in real life" when we are saying "why do the Russians have the ability to construct their army from the ground up at will".

Not some BS about lists........I would be perfectly happy if the Russian ability to build anything outside of completely historical OOB was removed and they had to deal with the same thing the German players have to deal with. They can have their units arrive via exact timetable just like the German player. If a Russian is destroyed, his unit will do the same as the German, head east and rebuild. They can have no more and no less than what the Russians had in WW2.

Then the playing field would actually feel more level.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 134
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 12:57:24 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Well, do we have a list of all the Russian units that were built by the Russians at will like they do in the game?

He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?

Your tossing the same argument as everyone else about everything. "But the Germans did not have that in real life" when we are saying "why do the Russians have the ability to construct their army from the ground up at will".

Not some BS about lists........I would be perfectly happy if the Russian ability to build anything outside of completely historical OOB was removed and they had to deal with the same thing the German players have to deal with. They can have their units arrive via exact timetable just like the German player. If a Russian is destroyed, his unit will do the same as the German, head east and rebuild. They can have no more and no less than what the Russians had in WW2.

Then the playing field would actually feel more level.


What they had historically was a lot, in fact a lot more than most Soviet players would ever build. As the Soviet player, I would love to have the historical Soviet OOB and not have to screw around with building units. Yes, I would get some clunkers like Ski battalions, Motorcylce regiments, Anti-tank rifle battalions, etc. but I would avoid all the time and pain of building those corps or figuring out what support units really matter.

I guess I'm the odd man out but I actually prefer playing the Soviets to managing them; I get enough of that at work.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 135
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 1:10:41 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 11800
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?


You are fighting the windmills. There is no such advantage you are talking about. As Jim says I'm yet to see the late war save file with the historical amount of units built. In fact if you made such list it won't fit into the current amount of free slots. Not to mention arranging all the time schedule. Game still would be in development.

Edit: .. and, btw, at the early was the price building new onmap units is so high that, you can't really afford many (if any). We have done as much as we could to make it strict in 1941-42.

< Message edited by Helpless -- 2/24/2012 1:13:48 PM >


_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 136
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 3:55:36 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

quote:

He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?


Helpless

You are fighting the windmills. There is no such advantage you are talking about. As Jim says I'm yet to see the late war save file with the historical amount of units built. In fact if you made such list it won't fit into the current amount of free slots. Not to mention arranging all the time schedule. Game still would be in development.



Game was released year ago and still received patch after patch, what mean that there were some misjudgements.

If I am right and development team is not omnipotent, then why do You thing You are right in that case, when clearly other option wasn't extensively tested?



In my opinion. fact that it is possible to adjust Soviet army according to in-game situation is big advantage for red side.

When I saw Soviet army in AAR presenting "Don to Danube" scenario I lost all of my doubts.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 2/24/2012 3:57:51 PM >

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 137
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 4:05:07 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 11800
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Game was released year ago and still received patch after patch, what mean that there were some misjudgements.


There are plenty of conclusions could be driven from the fact. The one you mentioned is also true, but by far not the only one.

quote:

If I am right and development team is not omnipotent, then why do You thing You are right in that case, when clearly other option wasn't extensively tested?




Don't understand how opinion can be tested..

quote:

In my opinion. fact that it is possible to adjust Soviet army according to in-game situation is big advantage for red side.

When I saw Soviet army in AAR presenting "Don to Danube" scenario I lost all of my doubts.


It is possible to do ahistorical things for each side.



< Message edited by Helpless -- 2/24/2012 4:11:04 PM >


_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 138
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 4:21:11 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

quote:

If I am right and development team is not omnipotent, then why do You thing You are right in that case, when clearly other option wasn't extensively tested?



Helpless


Don't understand how opinion can be tested..



hehe, that was unnecessary remark

and I have to confess I have written option not opinion



quote:

quote:
quote:


In my opinion. fact that it is possible to adjust Soviet army according to in-game situation is big advantage for red side.

When I saw Soviet army in AAR presenting "Don to Danube" scenario I lost all of my doubts.


Helpless

It is possible to do ahistorical things for each side.



ok, lets put this that way.


First blizzard. Soviet cavalry corps.

Is Soviet side benefiting from ability to build them or it does not matter what kind of units Soviet army consists of?

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 139
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 4:29:11 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 11800
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

hehe, that was unnecessary remark

and I have to confess I have written option not opinion


it doesn't change the fact - I see no way how we could test (every) option, which is still driven by someone's subjective opinion.

quote:

First blizzard. Soviet cavalry corps.

Is Soviet side benefiting from ability to build them or it does not matter what kind of units Soviet army consists of?


I don't understand the question? Yes, some sides have various benefits, but we try to limit them within available resources. What you have is pretty much historical.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 140
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 4:52:16 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

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:

WITE:

- unit first in the east, at date xy unit get transferred to the West

Reality:

-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 >

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 141
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 5:21:35 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:


quote:


hehe, that was unnecessary remark

and I have to confess I have written option not opinion


Helpless

it doesn't change the fact - I see no way how we could test (every) option, which is still driven by someone's subjective opinion.



Each opinion is subjective, so real point is if opinion is well founded.


I agree, that not everything can be tested, but I have impression , that ability to adjust own army is not minor feature of this game.



quote:

quote:

quote:

First blizzard. Soviet cavalry corps.

Is Soviet side benefiting from ability to build them or it does not matter what kind of units Soviet army consists of?

Helpless

I don't understand the question?




Question is - does it matter for outcome of this game that one side has ability to build what they want and other can't do it.



quote:

quote:
quote:


He seems to want the German to be strictly historical, while the Russians have complete freedom to design their army at will. If he wanted a strictly historical simulation then why on earth did he allow the Russian players complete freedom?




Helpless

You are fighting the windmills. There is no such advantage you are talking about. As Jim says I'm yet to see the late war save file with the historical amount of units built. In fact if you made such list it won't fit into the current amount of free slots. Not to mention arranging all the time schedule. Game still would be in development.


If it doesn't have impact on the game, then I guess I should have same chance to win building for example only ski units, AT units, or maybe not building anything at all.



(I came up with this stupid example, because I have been taught that making-up most ridiculous circumstances lets check limits of tested model/theory/whatever)

< Message edited by Kamil -- 2/24/2012 5:30:56 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 142
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 9:43:14 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

My comments are in red.

Yes and no. I was looking at Nbw units the other day and what I found was:

WITE:

- unit first in the east, at date xy unit get transferred to the West

Reality:

-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.

If a unit is withdrawn from the Eastern Front never to return it is a withdrawal. It doesn't matter what the reason for the withdrawal was or what the subsequent fate of the withdrawn unit is. Likewise it doesn't matter what the reason is for a unit being a reinforcement. If it is sent to the Eastern Front it is a reinforcement.

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.

Units in the West that never go East are not in the game.

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.

I've raised your concern with Joel and offered a compromise solution but have not gotten a decision as of yet.

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.

We've thought about that but for the moment have kicked that can down the road.




(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 143
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 10:39:14 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2115
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Well, do we have a list of all the Russian units that were built by the Russians at will like they do in the game?
.


So you don't have one. Which means that OKH didn't make any. Which means that to get what you want would make WiTE a fantasy game. And you are against that.

I believe it was John Paul Jones who said "If we can't have what we like, we have to learn to like what we have."

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 144
RE: War in the West - 2/24/2012 11:10:40 PM   
Baron von Beer

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline
Jaw: Units that withdrew. Trouble is that some that never withdrew in reality, are still withdrawn in game. Eg: 29th Motorized division. Destroyed at Stalingrad. New division with same name formed.IE new equipment, new personnel, a new division, same number, and sent to Sicily. In WITE world, 29th withdraws. Reality, had it not been destroyed = 2 motorised divisions. WITE = 1 division.

Same for most of the Stalingrad divisions. New divisions built and went elsewhere, in WITE, original unit sent. 2 separate divisions treated as a single by the game.

Same applies to many support units, etc.

As it currently stands in the world according to WITE, the Yorktown class Yorktown and the Essex class Yorktown were the same ship.

< Message edited by Baron von Beer -- 2/24/2012 11:30:08 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 145
RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 12:39:48 AM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
Quote["So you don't have one. Which means that OKH didn't make any. Which means that to get what you want would make WiTE a fantasy game. And you are against that.

I believe it was John Paul Jones who said "If we can't have what we like, we have to learn to like what we have.""]


We have a good argument being made and instead of addressing the argument the person is patronized.


It is better to say the game is what it is and no changes will be forthcoming.

< Message edited by RCH -- 2/25/2012 12:49:50 AM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 146
RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 12:57:25 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
And hence the reason I shelved this game in my fun against the AI, but not very fun......I have returned to WITP and the new BTR for my more serious games.......at least you can explore what if's in those games. The "bad guy" at least have control over important aspects of the war.

Aurelian can say what he wants, he is a nobody anyway. Helpless is someone, Jaw is helpful.


(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 147
RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 6:26:13 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer

Jaw: Units that withdrew. Trouble is that some that never withdrew in reality, are still withdrawn in game. Eg: 29th Motorized division. Destroyed at Stalingrad. New division with same name formed.IE new equipment, new personnel, a new division, same number, and sent to Sicily. In WITE world, 29th withdraws. Reality, had it not been destroyed = 2 motorised divisions. WITE = 1 division.

Same for most of the Stalingrad divisions. New divisions built and went elsewhere, in WITE, original unit sent. 2 separate divisions treated as a single by the game.

Same applies to many support units, etc.

As it currently stands in the world according to WITE, the Yorktown class Yorktown and the Essex class Yorktown were the same ship.


To begin with, let me say that what I'm trying to do when I comment is to explain the design decisions and the reasoning behind them. Whether you except those decisions or not is your choice but at least I hope I've given everyone a better understanding of the game design.

Your 29th Motorized division example is a good one because it exemplifies the withdrawal philosophy of WitE. The 29th is NOT withdrawn because the historical division was destroyed at Stalingrad. The 29th is withdrawn because a motorized division from the Eastern Front re-building in the West was sent to Italy. In WitE terms what happened at Stalingrad has nothing to do with the 29th's withdrawal. If you check the withdrawal date you will note that the 29th does not withdraw when its historical counterpart surrendered at Stalingrad. The 29th withdraws when it was re-built and sent to Italy.

We could have taken the approach of the old SPI WAR IN THE EAST board game and only had withdrawals or reinforcements when the net strength of the German Army in the East changed. The problem with that approach however is that it doesn't work very well when units can fluxuate in strength as the do in WitE. If a message popped up saying "withdraw one motorized division to the West" what Axis player isn't going to send the weakest division he has to fill the requirement?

What you are asking for is full War In Europe game where you are Hitler and you determine what goes where when. Unfortunately that game is still a few years off.

(in reply to Baron von Beer)
Post #: 148
RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 7:09:25 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw
To begin with, let me say that what I'm trying to do when I comment is to explain the design decisions and the reasoning behind them. Whether you except those decisions or not is your choice but at least I hope I've given everyone a better understanding of the game design.

Your 29th Motorized division example is a good one because it exemplifies the withdrawal philosophy of WitE. The 29th is NOT withdrawn because the historical division was destroyed at Stalingrad. The 29th is withdrawn because a motorized division from the Eastern Front re-building in the West was sent to Italy. In WitE terms what happened at Stalingrad has nothing to do with the 29th's withdrawal. If you check the withdrawal date you will note that the 29th does not withdraw when its historical counterpart surrendered at Stalingrad. The 29th withdraws when it was re-built and sent to Italy.

We could have taken the approach of the old SPI WAR IN THE EAST board game and only had withdrawals or reinforcements when the net strength of the German Army in the East changed. The problem with that approach however is that it doesn't work very well when units can fluxuate in strength as the do in WitE. If a message popped up saying "withdraw one motorized division to the West" what Axis player isn't going to send the weakest division he has to fill the requirement?

What you are asking for is full War In Europe game where you are Hitler and you determine what goes where when. Unfortunately that game is still a few years off.



... and your explanations are much appreciated since with such a complex game, many thoughts behind design decisions are not easly seen, but still may have had lot of good thought going into them.

I think what he was trying to imply was the 29. Mot. that we use in game wouldn't have been the division at all that would have gone to Italy had it not been destroyed in first place. A replacement division that used the personell and material to rebuild that unit could as well have formed the cadre for another division at home, which then could have been send instead?

Regarding "If a message popped up saying "withdraw one motorized division to the West" what Axis player isn't going to send the weakest division he has to fill the requirement?", why couldn't one connect that will "select one division of XY type and N nationality with a CV value or ToE strenght of at least XX, or suffer, Z AP penalties per turn"? Anyway, hope GG will consider a refinement for WitW withdrawls. Even the old system with pseudo-fronts in WiR wasn't much worse, and would have been easy to refine (nationality criteria agains too many Rumanians out West etc).

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 149
RE: War in the West - 2/25/2012 7:44:31 PM   
Baron von Beer

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline
Exactly. The only tie the division sent to Italy had with the one at Stalingrad was the number assigned to it. It was an entirely different unit with no relation whatsoever to the 29th Motorized division in WITE that is withdrawn in 1943. It was not a division from the Eastern front rebuilt and sent to Italy, it was a new division from the ground up that would have been formed as the XXth Motorized division had the 29th not been destroyed. The same as occurred with the infantry divisions lost there, entirely new units were formed reusing the number, while in game the original formations are instead withdrawn and sent as if they were these new divisions.

As far as a withdrawal system simply requiring X units of Y types, if the same mechanic requiring it be filled to xx% of TO&E before leaving the map that already exists in WITE, there would be no room for the exploitative example you provide as the weakest division would still have to be filled out prior to withdrawal, same as a specific division slated for withdrawal does now. The only difference is the division(s) selected would be more rational relative to the reality within a given WITE campaign, rather than drawn as if every instance of a WITE campaign is a 1:1 carbon copy of the real war, of which there is a minute chance.

And Jaw, I too appreciate your posts.



< Message edited by Baron von Beer -- 2/25/2012 7:55:10 PM >

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the West Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.133