Full Motorization

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderators: RedLancer, Joel Billings

DeletedUser44
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 4:14 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by DeletedUser44 »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have preached what you have wrote in your previous post and what is here. Motorization is devastating, yet we as WITE2 have not shown the current rendition to be true. Thus, I was seeing if any others have had head-to-head games where they used motorization to add to the rhetoric that is motorization to our repository of fact. Motorization is probably lacking since many players can see the writing on the wall or read what was written before by others and myself and ruled it out. I believe it is time to prove this out for those willing to be the lab rats for it to be used against them.

I don't disagree with your assertion as I am sure there are other ways to blatantly exploit "motorization", that we, as gentlemen, have purposely avoided.

I can think of several possibilities as the German, without much effort.... like a concentrated motorization of 5 infantry divisions on turn 1 and make a mad dash towards Smolensk or Leningrad? You could probably get by without those vehicles (5 x 1500) for 3 or 4 turns.

metaphore
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:34 am

RE: Full Motorization

Post by metaphore »

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have preached what you have wrote in your previous post and what is here. Motorization is devastating, yet we as WITE2 have not shown the current rendition to be true. Thus, I was seeing if any others have had head-to-head games where they used motorization to add to the rhetoric that is motorization to our repository of fact. Motorization is probably lacking since many players can see the writing on the wall or read what was written before by others and myself and ruled it out. I believe it is time to prove this out for those willing to be the lab rats for it to be used against them.

I don't disagree with your assertion as I am sure there are other ways to blatantly exploit "motorization", that we, as gentlemen, have purposely avoided.

I can think of several possibilities as the German, without much effort.... like a concentrated motorization of 5 infantry divisions on turn 1 and make a mad dash towards Smolensk or Leningrad? You could probably get by without those vehicles (5 x 1500) for 3 or 4 turns.
In game vs. AI, I would always use max motorization (6 ID) on turn 1, spending all my APs but one to clear my way towards Pskov and Smolensk while converting as much baltic rail as possible. I would also never kept them motorized for more than this first turn because, if used for an attack at full range, they would have bled all their CPP and have not much CV left. On turn 2, I would also motorize up to 4 more IDs (those I would have chosen and kept in reserve during T1) for consolidation work, but that's pretty much all of it for the use of temporary motorization.

That should also work for PvP as the initial setup is the same and there is nothing the Soviet can do to avoid a deep strike on T2 towards Pskov, Tallinn and Smolensk.
Rosencrantus
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:49 am
Location: Canada

RE: Full Motorization

Post by Rosencrantus »

Temp motorisation is pretty broken. The developers say that temp moto is supposed to be like an ad hoc formation so I usually add a house rule that only one unit can be temp motorised per turn and that they can only move or attack in friendly controlled hexes. This limitation allows for friendly troops to be rapidly deployed and used for emergency situations while not being extremely broken as they would be if they were allowed to go into enemy hexes for breakthroughs.
User avatar
Zemke
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:45 am
Location: Oklahoma

RE: Full Motorization

Post by Zemke »

The game's motorization method may be broken or not, I am not sure what exactly is meant by "broken". Currently or in recent tests I have not been able to meet German Advance rates once you get into Sept and Oct against real humans. Advance rates can be exceeded in June and July, then bog down literally in Sept-Oct and that is using motorization in June and July when needed. After that motorization really has no effect, unless you get a good breakthrough, and given most Soviet players have a layered defense set up by Sept-Oct that never happened for me.

I know the below comments cause some "consternation", I just want to say testing this game is HARD. It is very large and very deep, and getting at the correct problem can be hard because what may appear to be an issue of some importance, may not be the real root cause of a larger problem. Granted what I say is a problem may not be what other think is a problem.

Frankly, I think everyone is nibbling around the edges of the real issue, which is, why most players playing Germany in WitE cannot match history in 1941. (1) Joe has said there has never been a test to see if the game can match history. (2) So in all the games played PvP, I have only seen one reference to a game in the AAR section (See Unicorn Post) that was close to German limits of advance in 1941, ONE, even in that game the Germans were six hexes from Moscow. This does not mean there are not others, but out of all the games, there has been one posted. That should cause concern right there. (3) Playing into Fall of 1944 against the AI and now into Fall 1943 in a PvP myself attempts to "boost" German settings in the hope of matching German performance in 1941, create havoc for the Russians into 42 and 43.

So with all the above said, the MAIN issue as I see it is, attempts to "balance 1941" creates "unbalance" in 1942-43. Much of this is perfect hindsight by all players. When I play the Russians my PRIMARY goal is the preservation of the Red Army, protecting Objective second as long as there is no sudden loss possible. Also, no Germans push to the gates of Moscow in an effort to get an early victory because it is simply not very likely and to try burns out many units that will not recover for many months.
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
User avatar
GibsonPete
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:53 am

RE: Full Motorization

Post by GibsonPete »

I do not believe temp motorization breaks the game or is an exploit or needs to be nerfed. It is option the player(s) can choose to use or not use. There are many exploits a player can use against the AI to get results they want. The most obvious is the use of save/reload to get the outcome they desire. Another is the lack of Hitler or Stalin directives to reach insane goals. I understand HYLA's point and I think in a Human game there needs to be agreed upon ground rules but against the AI that does not abide by the same rules you do... no. Achieving early victory goals without using temp motorization is very difficult for me. I am try trying other techniques but so far temp motorization works best. The AP cost limits my use of it since I build depots, repair ports and swap leaders. Just a point of view.
“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
User avatar
Gunnulf
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:26 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by Gunnulf »

My current game with AAR I reached everything I needed to in the south and centre well ahead of schedule without ever motorising any units. Its perfectly possible to keep a solid advance pace going with the panzergruppes leading and infantry marching behind in their wake. For me motorisation pretty broken as a concept as hinted to at the exploits above to try to get an extra corps of panzer grenadiers and I simply don't use it, but reading some of the above strikes a bit of fear into me how it might be used against me. I can see the rationale behind allowing the transport corps to taxi a unit strategically behind the lines from A to B especially usefully when the rails don't go in the right direction, but I don't see how this can be justified as a combat move to be honest.
"Stay low, move fast"
User avatar
GibsonPete
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:53 am

RE: Full Motorization

Post by GibsonPete »

I agree with Zemke. The real issue is why we cannot achieve what was done by the Axis/Soviets historically. All the players out there and none of them can replicate what the Axis did in 41. None can replicate what the Soviets did in 43/44. So we end up trying things that would not be considered historically, Like temp motorization or overloading a theater box to gain VPs or sending bombers away to save freight. The answer is out there.
“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
Beethoven1
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:23 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by Beethoven1 »

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

I agree with Zemke. The real issue is why we cannot achieve what was done by the Axis/Soviets historically. All the players out there and none of them can replicate what the Axis did in 41. None can replicate what the Soviets did in 43/44. So we end up trying things that would not be considered historically, Like temp motorization or overloading a theater box to gain VPs or sending bombers away to save freight. The answer is out there.

These results where in past games Axis has not been doing as well as history are based on the previous combat system in the previous patch. The new beta patch has generally more favorable combat for Germany in 1941, which makes it a lot easier to achieve historical advance for Axis. You will start to see this in new AARs, but there has not been time for it to happen yet since the new patch/combat system is relatively new.

As Gunnulf says, in his game he has achieved historical (or better) results recently, and most of that was even played with the old patch I think.

You can also look at our ongoing AAR, For the Infallible GröFaZ - Axis 1941 GC Team Game to see an example of Axis victory. Our victory is inevitable in that game, due to the infallibility of our GröFaZ and the skilled Auftragstaktik of our Army Group commanders. And indeed, as a result of that (plus also of playing with the new patch) we have already taken Pskov on turn 2 and are destroying numerous Red Army formations, making fantastic progress.
Aurelian
Posts: 3917
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

I agree with Zemke. The real issue is why we cannot achieve what was done by the Axis/Soviets historically. All the players out there and none of them can replicate what the Axis did in 41. None can replicate what the Soviets did in 43/44. So we end up trying things that would not be considered historically, Like temp motorization or overloading a theater box to gain VPs or sending bombers away to save freight. The answer is out there.

You can't achieve either as neither side in the game is going to act like history books say they did. So that isn't a real issue. And who spends $80.00 to recreate history when there is a Youtube series that does it for free. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu3p7dxrhl8&t=328s
When I argued with the Empress, I always had the last word. That word was, sorry. But it was the last word.
Dreamslayer
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:37 pm
Location: St.Petersburg

RE: Full Motorization

Post by Dreamslayer »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
You can't achieve either as neither side in the game is going to act like history books say they did. So that isn't a real issue. And who spends $80.00 to recreate history when there is a Youtube series that does it for free.
No need to recreate history, the game need to recreate historical conditions and circumstances.
User avatar
Zemke
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:45 am
Location: Oklahoma

RE: Full Motorization

Post by Zemke »

We, as a community, continue to ask for this or that game mechanic change that will fix the game. I say 90% of the problem with WitE2 is we as players have too much control and perfect hindsight. There are no Stalin or Hitler orders involved. We, as the player, answer to no one. I think a game is more exciting and realistic when there is uncertainly and risk. I also think uncertainty and risk are a more accurate portrayal of actual war. Certain board games (like Dark Valley. GMT games) do a better job than this game of introducing uncertainty and risk. Currently, there is no uncertainty or danger to either side due to perfect knowledge if you have played a few games. The Germans are not going to "risk it all" and push their units to their limit to take Moscow (not that they really can anyway in this game against a human). The Soviet player will NOT stand and fight as long as there is no risk of sudden loss (and use teleportation to move units from the South to Leningrad front through the Theater Box system. Also, based on several tests, changes to fix 1941 for the Germans unbalanced the game in 1942 and 1943 for the Russians.

This perfect hindsight creates low casualties on BOTH sides in 1941, which has significant effects in 1942 and beyond. IMO this is the KEY to everything, low losses by both Germany and Russia in 1941.

Players SHOULD have to answer to a higher authority. That is historic and realistic. I propose a game optional that could be checked for those of us who do want a historically based game, where we have to answer to Hitler and Stalin. How could this work? For the Germans in 1941, they have to hit certain objectives or Commanders start getting fired, which is what happened. For the Russians, a certain number of counter-attacks HAVE to be made each turn by certain units, or their leaders get executed or fired, and so on. Failure to continually ignore the Supreme Leader will result in YOU getting fired. Maybe a sliding bar that shows your favorability with Hitler or Stalin and if the bar goes all the way down, the game for you is over. This one change would make the game much more interesting and realistic.

If you this is not your bag, then you would not have to check the option.

(Disclaimer: This is NOT my idea, but a friend who is also deeply involved in this game, but I love the idea.)
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
RedJohn
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:46 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by RedJohn »

The complete lack of interference from Hitler and Stalin has always been odd to me. Sometimes Hitler will dismiss a leader and it'll be annoying, but that's the extent of his influence on the eastern front.

Stalin will sometimes shoot Dmitry Pavlov, and the odd air commander- but he will not demand I hold Kiev, or Kursk, or Orel, or Pskov, or... He will sometimes also remove a commander like Hitler, but again that is it.

The lack of needing to work within the hierarchies of both nations is very much felt in the strategies employed by both sides. I can send the entire southern/south western front to reserves and redeploy them to Moscow and Leningrad, and suffer no repercussions. Equally I can divert the entirety of PZG2 to AGS and nobody will complain.

It's a hard thing to add in - interference - whilst still being fun and engaging. But I think it's something that should be implemented in a greater form than we already have, which right now is essentially non-existent.
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by MakeeLearn »

Motorization should take a turn or more to achieve.

When I sim... I am Hitler... I am Stalin.






User avatar
GibsonPete
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:53 am

RE: Full Motorization

Post by GibsonPete »

Zemke's proposal of Uncertainty and risk would create some interesting results and frustration. I have seen this in other games and it can be a nightmare or godsend. For following/accomplishing the higher directive you receive 'something' and failure you lose 'something'. Again to prevent an uproar making it an option would be best.
“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
DeletedUser44
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 4:14 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by DeletedUser44 »

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

Motorization should take a turn or more to achieve.

When I sim... I am Hitler... I am Stalin.

I am inclined to feel the same. (I mean, it takes a full turn to de-motorized...)

Someone else posted a reply regarding being used in a non-combat role, simply for behind the front-lines transport. More of an ad-hoc rail-transport-like feature. That may be worth exploring.

Outside of the US, was large-scale adhoc motorization ever actually employed in WWII? Troubles me that I cannot find any historical references to it.

But the way it is implemented now, it seems like allows German to create 4-6 fully motorized combat infantry divisions, on-the-fly. (and who knows how many Soviet Rifle Corps, once their industry and lend-lease get really cranking!)

This is a bit over-the-top. If Germany really had the ability to do that at the onset of Barbarossa, they would have.

----

And for those that are concerned about 'Sir Robin', I assert that is a different matter. Personally, I would look at what, historically, kept the Soviet Army from not running away? (outside the NKVD troops strategically placed behind the front-lines. :) )

1. Soviet Army could not immediately run away.

Up until the end of 1941, the Soviet logistical and transport networks were in complete disarray (not to mention tactical leadership). Soviet unit-level supply system was, in some case, even worse off than the Germans.

Full movement points for Soviet units should not be immediately fully restored, but incremented over time.
Nearly sixteen million Soviet civilians and over 1,500 large factories were moved to areas in the middle or eastern part of the country by the end of 1941.

This is not really modeled well in the game. It was not magic or teleportation, but came at a tremendous burden on the Soviet transportation and logistical networks. There is noway this occurred without the hindrance of military movement as well. For example, consider the following regarding the 1942 evacuations, which was minor in comparison to 1941 -
Even with this authority, the GKO could not entirely avoid disruptions that hindered military operations. An Evacuation in the Trans-Caucasus region during 1942 clogged the rail lines and “deprived [the Soviets] of the ability to maneuver troops and restricted the arrival of supplies.”

Given the massive evacuation of civilians and industry...
One natural facilitator of the evacuation with regard to the military was the general movement of troops from the east to the west. Railcars full of soldiers dropped off their cargo at the front and loaded the empty cars with freight and passengers heading east

A mass exodus of a "run away" Soviet ground force (from West to East) as well would have been impossible.

2. Preservation of the Soviet industry.

The mass evacuation of the Soviet industrial production was not a foregone conclusion or auto-magic. for example -
As monumental as this effort proved, it still fell short of all available industry. In the Donets Basin, for example, 64 steel facilities came under threat in 1941, but the Soviets only managed to salvage 17 of them. It was not only facilities that were lost; huge stockpiles of raw materials or refined materials were also abandoned, and areas that produced strategic resources were taken by the enemy. The year 1942 saw the production of steel and coal at rates roughly half of what they had been in 1941

It came at a cost to the Soviet ground forces as well...
The Soviets, driven by the existential threat to their existence west of the Urals, endured the massive sacrifice of Soviet troops, civilians, and war equipment, enabling the evacuation of industry, material, and manpower east of the Urals.

In essence, it was not the preservation of the Soviet Army that led to their victory, but the preservation of their industrial capacity!

Until this is appropriately modeled by WiTE2, thus giving ample reason for Soviets to stand their ground, the "Sir Robin" strategy will prevail.
RedJohn
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:46 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by RedJohn »

They had permanent destruction of industry in WITE1, and it exists if you take out cities that historically never fell in 2, but has otherwise - to my knowledge - been removed. Now it just gets damaged but will inevitably repair back in full.

WITE1 also had at first a combined railway usage system for both industry and troop movement, which meant you needed to balance the two each turn or risk either not being able to ferry troops to the right places, or be unable to evacuate industry from advancing axis forces. This was later changed to, I believe, a separate capacity for industry movement and troop movement so one didn't impact the other.

According to the manual industry evacuation uses up some rail capacity.
Sammy5IsAlive
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:01 pm

RE: Full Motorization

Post by Sammy5IsAlive »

I think a lot of the issues re. political/industrial concerns can be dealt with via the VP system without needing the introduction of extra game mechanics.

I think we need to wait to see the effects of the recent changes to the combat engine/air war before we can draw any conclusions on where the 'base game' balance is at.

I'm happy to be corrected by the Devs but my impression of the game design re. VPs and Auto Victories is that the late 41/early 42 victory thresholds are set up to end games where there is a big mismatch in terms of player skill and that the 'game-design expectation' is that matches between fairly evenly matched players will not have an outcome until much later in the war (which means that the consequences of player decisions on either side in 1941/42 are not immediately apparent until much later down the line).

If I was one of the development team reading the feedback on the forums my conclusion would be that there is a significant proportion of players who don't really want to play into 1943, let alone 1944/45 (just to be clear - I don't attach any value judgement to that statement - for me as far as possible people should be empowered to play the game the way they want to play it). With that in mind I'd be looking at setting up a campaign scenario with much more 'volatile' early victory conditions. So for example I'd have an Axis auto-win check date at the end of August that would force the Soviets to fight forwards; an Axis auto-loss check at the beginning of December that forces the Axis player to attack in bad conditions 'against their better judgement' and then a further Axis auto-win check at the end of January that forces the Soviet player to be much more proactive in attacking through December/January despite taking really heavy losses.

In terms of the OP and motorisation, my 2c would be that for me the whole mechanic should be removed as being ahistorical and the wider game should be balanced around that solution.

User avatar
GibsonPete
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:53 am

RE: Full Motorization

Post by GibsonPete »

~ As I have posted several times let the player(s) decide to use the tools provided. If they want to use or not use Temp motorization let them. If they desire to reallocate SU's prior to turn 01 allow them. If they desire to change the Air Directives let them. If Soviet player runs away that is a choice they should make without additional consequences. If the Axis stops short and digs in because he knows winter is coming he should be allowed to do so. If the player introduces flying pigs let them. Let's not forget this is a game.

~ Would I like to be able to destroy or capture factories before they are evacuated? Absolutely. Is it essential to the game? No.

~ Does a Soviet motorized Rifle Corps scare me? A bit. Would it add uncertainty and risk to a game? Yes.

~ Would I like to impact Lend Lease? Sure. Would it change the outcome? Not a chance.

~ Do I expect the Axis to lose no matter how many tweaks are made? Yes. People that think differently are the same ones who think the Imperial Japanese Army could have defeated the Allies.


“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
metaphore
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:34 am

RE: Full Motorization

Post by metaphore »

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
Outside of the US, was large-scale adhoc motorization ever actually employed in WWII? Troubles me that I cannot find any historical references to it.
Actually, early in the War, this was kinda the way large "motorized" units were being setup. They didn't have trucks in their respective TOE but were coupled with independant transportation companies that moved their infantry from point A to point B, sometime also using civilian motor vehicules (like city or commercial buses).

During the 1940 campaign, the French Army had 9 of such motorized Infantry divisions coupled with 9 large trucks units -that could be used for other tasks- while all 9 operational BEF Infantry Divisions were also using non-organic transport units to move their infantry around (but capacity was lacking in order to move everyone at once).

Otherwise, all those divisions had fully motorized support units with orgnanic vehicules, including for their Artillery Regiments (but it was also largely the case for most of the Field and Corps/Army Artillery of the French Army, where guns that weren't towed were most of the time carried on top of trucks).

Even the Germans partially motorized their 1st wave Infantry Divisions during Fall Gelb and, at the time of Barbarossa, all those bounty trucks captured during the 1940 campaign formed the backbone of the German Army transportation units.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”