How to fix the game.

[chuckfourth]

In Reality the Russians fought desperately to hold on for every inch of territory and counterattacked wherever they could because they knew that to fall back would lose the war. In your game it is exactly the opposite because the Russian just pulls back and consolidates, too easy. This ahistoric stratagy is possible because the punitive German supply rules mean that on the Russian front the Germans blitzkrieg is impossible, he runs out of supplies. Here I am in the third week of the campaign and have armoured units with movement points of 2 at the start of the turn. What sort of blitzkrieg is it when armoured units sit around for a week waiting for petrol?

So what should be a deperate, exciting 1941 is turned into a boring, set piece German defeat.

Heres the problem

20.4.3.1. Railhead Distance and Movement Supply Modifier

"Anything 10 hexes and under gives full supply, while anything over 10 hexes gives a percent of supplies equal to 10/Hexes to the unit"

Here are two quotes from "Handbook of German military forces" talking about German supply roads.

"Motorised columns (Kraftwagenkolonnen) are in general employed on good roads. They can cover up to 125 miles per day"

"Great importance is attached to the upkeep of these routes and the placing of Gasoline stations (Tankstellen) at strategic points close by the routes"

So in a one week turn a Kraftwagenkolonnen can cover 7*125 or 875 miles, its a round trip so halve it giving a Kraftwagenkolonnen max range of 437 miles from a railhead.

So on a good road there should be no supply penalty for 44 hexes. Please note that All the major cities in Russia were connected by GOOD roads. They had a heavily indutrialised economy relying on dependable transport links. The German of course also had plenty of construction troops to keep bad roads in good order.

You have full supply out to 10 hexes and supply delivery halved at 20 hexes. Now I know most Russian roads arn't metalled but I think the games quartering of the supply radius of Kraftwagenkolonnen is a little steep. I would set it to 3/4 penalising supply after 30 hexes instead of 10.

"Relaxing" rule 20.4.3.1. this way, would mean the Russian is more likely to fight at the start of the game instead of running away. Making a much better game.

By way of compensation I would drop the German "surprise" rule. The German army was no different on week 1 than week 2 what real world difference does the "surprise" rule actually represent? the Russians didn't notice 3 army groups massing on their borders?

The surprise rule is a quick "fix" that covers something fundamentally wrong in the game itself. In this case maybe the too restrictive German supply rules. Alternately too high values on Russian counters. The German should be able to achieve historical outcomes without having to resort to special rules.

The other problem that makes the game unplayable for me (and I would like to play the game) is that Artillery Support unit attachment is random, Artillery is an integral, in fact central part of the planning for an assault or any military action and was never anywhere near as unreliable/random as it is in the game.

[MattFL]

Asked and answered...

Heard this before

What they said.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth
The other problem that makes the game unplayable for me (and I would like to play the game) is that Artillery Support unit attachment is random, Artillery is an integral, in fact central part of the planning for an assault or any military action and was never anywhere near as unreliable/random as it is in the game.

That is because you are using the SU support levels and leaving the AI to assign them. If you do it manually yourself you can choose exactly which artillery units you want to go where.

[chaos45]

I would say, you need to learn the supply system...in the current game good German players are reaching beyond Moscow before winter.

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

I would say, you need to learn the supply system...in the current game good German players are reaching beyond Moscow before winter.

Don't i know it....actually before mud

[Dinglir]

In order to get the result you desire, you could try setting the logistics modifier for the Axis to 120.

[Crackaces]

I’m thinking the title should be “how to change the game to fit my worldview “ [:D]

[Seminole]

"Relaxing" rule 20.4.3.1. this way, would mean the Russian is more likely to fight at the start of the game instead of running away. Making a much better game.

If you improve German logistics I don't see that as an incentive for the Russians to fight farther west. If anything, logically it would impel them to fight even farther east.

I am no expert in German logistics, but from what I've seen others accomplish I think there may something in your gameplay moreso than the ruleset that is leading to your results.

[thedoctorking]

The other thing I would say in response to your concern is that there is an advantage to the Soviets to fighting somewhat forward. If you can slow the Axis advance enough, they will find it difficult to attain their first year objectives. You do this not by standing up and fighting but by working against their movement. Deny or hinder supply, present them with a carpet of small defensive strongpoints that have to be cleared out with deliberate attacks, use the "checkerboard" defense with weak units, garrison cities in places where he has to advance to be able to push his supplies forward, etc.

I would also point out that your quote from the German field manual refers to good roads. One of the big problems the Axis had in Russia was that there were no good roads. In the historical Barbarossa campaign, the Germans suffered severe fuel shortages especially in the wake of the Ukraine battles in August. That is, exactly when the battle moved beyond 20 hexes or so from their railheads.

[thedoctorking]

But you can change the settings if you like. Give the Germans 120% supply.

I would be happy to play against you if you like with those conditions. Axis 120% supply, full blizzard and Soviet +1 attack advantage (to encourage more Soviet attacking and, I believe, the most historical option).

[joelmar]

It's true that having the Soviets run away is not as fun as when fighting forward for the Axis player but it's still an interesting challenge. Yet even if it is not what happened in reality and that a new purge of the Red Army would have been initiated by Stalin if his High Command officers had tried something of the sort... it can't be denied it is a valid and possible strategy as was demonstrated brilliantly by Kutusov in 1812. It must be remembered that Borodino was fought only for political reasons to please the Tsar and give the public the reassurance that the Russian army was still alive anf fighting. But the military wisdom of that battle is not so evident to pinpoint with hindsight. Truth is Kutusov thought it was useless militarily and later facts of that campaign give him reason.

Granted in the Soviet Union of 1941 maybe it wouldn't have been a good political idea to give up so much land without a fight. But I think this would be better modeled in the game by some kind of mechanism that lowers national morale if the Soviet player gives up too much too fast. I don't think supplies are in fault as the problems in that matter the axis face are quite realist and were a constant source of worry as can be read black on white in writings from Halder, Guderian, Warlimont and many others. After Smolensk the panzers were at the end of their tethers for a few weeks there is no question about it.

[chaos45]

you can attempt to fight forward against a German player with any skill if you want....the game will end quickly as the Soviet army is completely erased from the map.

The game mechanics are far to favorable to the Germans in 1941 is the issue they take very low losses the majority of the time and absolutely crush soviet units in return.

As it is Any German player than understands the supply system can supply an assault to Leningrad very easily, as well as assaults to Moscow and Rostov fairly easily before winter. After the last couple years of patches the Germans went from realistic supply restrictions to fantasy supply and can reach Moscow easily before mud....this has been the state of the game for about 3 years and why I don't bother to play it anymore.

Yes bad German players will not get those results because they don't understand how supply works, but once a German player understands the logistics system the German army has very long legs in this game far better than historical.

[joelmar]

I still don't have much experience with the game, still less with MP games, so I can't tell... But what I find funny is how opinions differ on what side is advantaged by the game mechanics and what should be nerfed

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

I still don't have much experience with the game, still less with MP games, so I can't tell... But what I find funny is how opinions differ on what side is advantaged by the game mechanics and what should be nerfed

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.

[joelmar]

Gonna have to take your (and Marquo and Pelton) words on this. But it's exactly my own newbie opinion, for what it's worth. lol!

Seriously, I think that this game is so multilayered and conditions ever changing over the turns that not many players master it all. And those who master it all will always have an advantage over the others who are more casual players. That's the law of the jungle. Might as well nerf the lion's teeth!

[thedoctorking]

I have to agree with Joelmar. The game is not unbalanced in that a good player can win with either side over an inexperienced player. I used to think that the Soviets were favored, and that is probably true for players with not much experience. 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.

[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).

[xhoel]

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).

+1

[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"

[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.