From: Denver Colorado
I never bought War in the Pacific (any version) because I thought to myself:
How can you make a game out of a war that the Japanese had NO chance of winning?
Now from reading around here, I've found that some of the people who play it say it's a great kind of 'hypothetical' Pacific War variant that strips some of the limitations that the Japanese had and enables a fun game for either side.
Based on what *I* am reading in AARs, playing the Axis in WitE is punishing, unforgiving, and to some bordering on hopeless. I personally don't know, as I've not played a GC yet.
What I do believe is that the Soviet is not sufficiently constricted by his historical predecessor. I know I'll move on to other games if it turns out WitE is only fun for seeing how quickly the Soviet can defeat the German. I'm absolutely fine with a game that calls the starting German position as some kind of German victory. But it doesn't appear that's the game that exists now, from estimates made based on AARs.
I'm not qualified to talk about everything in the game by any stretch. But my couple of suggestions are these:
1) The Command Battle CV Modifier (188.8.131.52 in manual) MUST be changed to punish the Soviet far more heavily than the German, particularly in 1941 and 1942.
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this one. Germans were notorious for ad hoc command arrangements and their success. Soviets always had a harder time coordinating operations, especially in 41/42 (and really until after Kursk). That both sides pay the same command modifier is, IMO, a-historic.
2) A flanking modifier to CVs must be imposed on defenders when attacked from multiple hexsides.
Again, I can't imagine anyone can disagree with this (okay, maybe in a game programming/mechanic sense you can, but from a history standpoint, no you can't!).
Those two I don't think would require a whole lot of programming (but WTF do I know about programming, disregard that last sentence).
Others I theorize about:
Forts should take longer to build post level-1. Whether that's the time-effect multiplier, or whether that limits the Soviet ability to Min/Max the construction battalion effect, I dunno.
The Finnish no-move/no-attack line should be randomized, and invisible to the Soviet player. Finland might as well not even be included in the game at present. Maybe that's your version of perfect reflection of history, but it's no fun to me.
Fatigue should diminish faster and be less a factor of distance to supply than proximity of enemy forces/territory, and especially, MORALE. There is no way for the SS panzer corps to recreate the 3rd Battle of Kharkov in the present environment. How safe you are matters more to effective rest than your supply level. Distance should affect supply and replacement. Not how well you can rest. Supply already has plenty of game-impacting effects.
The Reserve rule for defenders in cities (184.108.40.206 in the manual) is utterly unbalancing, and must be redone (I just defended Leningrad with 6 divisions that were routed in the previous turn's combat!). I do not see the connection to WW2 history with this, but maybe the better historians can enlighten me.
Forts should have limited directional benefit, not 360-degree awesomeness.
I do not think that a political collapse should be possible in 1941, nor should the Germans be able to win outright that year
+1 to the Axis win in 1941.
Simply too punishing to the Soviet player, IMO. Not a fun game to play when you can spend 35 or so turns in defense (especially if they bring in more restrictions to the Soviet to reflect their historical problems in 1941, which I advocate they do), invest all that time, and lose before you ever really got your army's balance together.
Should there be a morale bonus/loss when defenders have/don't have (respectively) a friendly unit adjacent? I dunno - I just know the Checkerboard ZOC issue is an easy exploit of a game mechanic real commanders don't have on the field, and is one of the big advantages a human Soviet can manage in 1941 that his historical counterpart wasn't allowed.
< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 2/6/2011 10:43:57 PM >