Attack/SHC retreat loses screwed up? Close enough.

[Peltonx]

Getting the other guy to retreat is ALL that matters really, lose of equipement and men and lose of morale.

The problem is after 42 in most cases the SHC retreat loses are lower then when they lose attacking and GHC loses when winning is higher then when they lose and retreat.

Now GHC can cause extra loses by getting more guns and reserve mode units into the battles. The extra 20%ish loses and 33% more wins add up over time and cause SHC to have to do deliberate attacks even when your not in forts.

At some point SHC starts winning 2/3 of the time so you have to cause as much damage per battle as possible.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Interesting results, but they are 180 degrees from the ones I posted and have in the past."

I can't explain that, however what I posted above is my routine experience counterttacking the Soviet in 1943; they suffer greivously while I incur acceptable losses. And beleive me, 5 such attacks per turn has kept the SU in check; and often I lose even less and the Soviet more. My questions above stand:

"Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantly greater damage at lower loss?"

Hopefully there is some logic to this - I really want to understand what is going on.

IMHO you have lost many valuable opportunities to smack MT around in your match with him; most turns he left victorious but spent stacks next to you in unfortfied hexes; without even moving a unit you could have counterattacked and really hurt him.

Marquo

The logic is simple-watch the combat.

Most of the loses are from retreating and not combat per say.

Thats why the loses will be about equal no matter the final CV.

In other words your better of attacking with min forse as GHC.

[Peltonx]

Standard

[mmarquo]

I understand the retreat issue; and even so it does not explain equal losses with such a huge difffence in modified CV/actual forces engaged and airpower.


You and I have to agree to disagree: your experience in 1942 is not mine; when I attack as the Axis I routine get the results I posted and so far even into 1942.

Now if we could only figure out why....

[Flaviusx]

Pelton all this has been working the way it has forever including all the games you have played in the past. You are merely trying to weasel your way out of the consequences of your ill considered retreat strategy.

Yes, Micheal's Red Army is now a monster and you won't be able to shift it and counterattacks against it are prohibitively expensive. You let it get out of hand. You cannot just run away to Poland at the end of 1941 and give the Soviets an absolutely free hand to build their dream Red Army by the end of 42. I warned you about this forever.

Suck it up or concede. There is no technical issue here. Either you accept the game design as is or not. WITE's combat engine is a done deal at this point, and you have happily ignored the problems it has on the early part of the war where in 1941 Axis losses are negligible all the way up to blizzard. So it goes.

If you want a new and hopefully improved design, you're going to have to wait until WITW. But this cake is baked and you know or should know how it works by now. Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

I understand the retreat issue; and even so it does not explain equal losses with such a huge difffence in modified CV/actual forces engaged and airpower.


You and I have to agree to disagree: your experience in 1942 is not mine; when I attack as the Axis I routine get the results I posted and so far even into 1942.

Now if we could only figure out why....

I beleive the high losses your seeing is because they are tank/cav/mech units. Check the loses vs infantry only stacks or even mixed stacks.

even so it does not explain equal losses with such a huge difffence in modified CV/actual forces engaged and airpower.

Yes it does. The combat engine does a few rounds based on range then a close combat round.

Watch during combat rounds losses are very few with allot of disrupted/damaged "units".

say 1000 in most cases then retreat loses are another 1000 to 3000(in most cases). I am not sure what that is based on , but it seems to be a random die roll then baam a pile of loses.

So it does not matter if you have 10000 planes/10000 tanks/10000 guns/ 100000 mens or 1000 of each.

As long as you WIN the other guy takes the retreat lose hit.

The extra men/guns/tanks/planes simply makes sure you win.

Thats how it looks to me anyways.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton all this has been working the way it has forever including all the games you have played in the past. You are merely trying to weasel your way out of the consequences of your ill considered retreat strategy.

Yes, Micheal's Red Army is now a monster and you won't be able to shift it and counterattacks against it are prohibitively expensive. You let it get out of hand. You cannot just run away to Poland at the end of 1941 and give the Soviets an absolutely free hand to build their dream Red Army by the end of 42. I warned you about this forever.

Suck it up or concede. There is no technical issue here. Either you accept the game design as is or not. WITE's combat engine is a done deal at this point, and you have happily ignored the problems it has on the early part of the war where in 1941 Axis losses are negligible all the way up to blizzard. So it goes.

If you want a new and hopefully improved design, you're going to have to wait until WITW. But this cake is baked and you know or should know how it works by now. Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

All fanboys go to MT thread P.

I am not going anyways mybee MT is, go give him some morale support he seems to be in dire need of it at this point from all the fanboy support hes getting.

Lol I am very surpised at your whining heheh kinda funny really.

Me and Marquo are simply tring to better figure out the combat engine at this point.

Your losing it I think or drinking.

We already know it is what it is, lol heheheh

What are you drinking anyways?

[Flaviusx]

I'm quite sober and am drinking a cup of coffee and having my morning smoke.

This isn't a whine. What YOU are doing is a whine and I'm calling you on it. There is no issue here. Stop bitching and play they game out or concede. You know or should know how the combat engine works by now. It is what it is.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'm quite sober and am drinking a cup of coffee and having my morning smoke.

This isn't a whine. What YOU are doing is a whine and I'm calling you on it. There is no issue here. Stop bitching and play they game out or concede. You know or should know how the combat engine works by now. It is what it is.

Smoking is bad for you. Probably old news.

I do understand quitting is very hard, but possible.

The only problem I have is this thread has nothing to do with MT.

All the posts are from my game vs Hugh.

It is funny, but atleast get on the right thread.

I am guessing the coffee has not kicked in heheheheheheheh

This is old news that I had been hoping would be addresses before WitWs release and "rumor" has it that it has been addressed.

There is more to WitE then MT, Flaviusx.

I don't see where personall attacks is a positive thing?

Wake up before posting and smoking is bad for you.

Wish you luck on quitting.

[gamer78]

May I ask why so many Axis loses even the battle won in post number 37? Sure there is retreat but. Any explanation.
From what I understand in post 33 and 34 what is important is final combat odds after combat? Is it related to overkill fire that Panzers did about the same level damage as low strenght infantry? how to determine sufficient attack without wasting valuable movement points? sorry don't know the engine well. [:)]

[Aurelian]

Pelton, *YOU* put yourself in this situation. It isn't the game's fault. It's your fault. And only yours.

[mmarquo]

Baris,

That is my question; and I would like to know. Pelton's explanation is not comprehensive; yes retreating causes losses but the fire power of all the panzer's and air should cause more direct casualties than the infantry attack.

Marquo

[Wuffer]

IIRC, there was an additional 'ranged' firing phase during the original 1:1 version, which was skipped then.

For a historical comparison, look at EL Alamein - harsh German losses during retreat due to lack of fuel/vehicles. But that was against a high mobile opponent.

Anyway, .... total war between the forumnites... [:D]

Happy hollidays[:D]

[randallw]

We would assume tanks are firing at long range, slapping the enemy while the enemy cannot effectively shoot back, then everything ( tanks n' non-tanks ) from both sides mix it up at closer range...is that necessarily the combat engine?

[Joel Billings]

Defender has automatic advantage (I think they shoot first once the ranges close to closer than long range artillery fire). In addition, don't underestimate leaders. Other than that, I'd agree that the combat engine is what it is and is not going to be changed at this point. It has been changed in many ways in WitW, and it will no doubt change a lot more before WitW is released.

[gamer78]

It is well understood sir.
It is pretty obvious it is not related to database from what I understand. Now I call this a pity for wargaming community that small mentioned in other posts. What I don't understand is why this game would be left out darkness if there is a problem in the combat engine? Shouldn't it be modified the best at least until upcoming WIE2? [:)]

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

If SMGs are overpowered, I don't understand why dialing that back would otherwise break the game. Seems like something that could be corrected when identified.

I agree with this. If this is the case, it appears this is a change that could be safely made.

[randallw]

Are people assuming that the programmers know there is a fault, know how to fix it, and simply refuse to? It seems more likely to me a problem where they don't know how it exists.

If the situation was the first case, that would mean they are evil. ( I kid )

[Joel Billings]

It's that the programmers know the model isn't perfect, and that's it's very difficult and time consuming to improve it. It's just as likely that a change to help one thing will hurt something else. Only with a time intensive effort would progress be made, and it could be marginal progress. Would we like it to be better. Sure we would. Do we think we can make it better quickly without potentially making something worse, no. It's much better to fool around with this with a product that's not on the market and not already being played. We already get flak for changing too much after release and thus impacting games in progress. We don't even have the equivalent of 2 full time programmers in 2by3 Games, so we live in a resource starved environment. We are not evil (at least I don't think so). [:)]

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It's that the programmers know the model isn't perfect, and that's it's very difficult and time consuming to improve it. It's just as likely that a change to help one thing will hurt something else. Only with a time intensive effort would progress be made, and it could be marginal progress. Would we like it to be better. Sure we would. Do we think we can make it better quickly without potentially making something worse, no. It's much better to fool around with this with a product that's not on the market and not already being played. We already get flak for changing too much after release and thus impacting games in progress. We don't even have the equivalent of 2 full time programmers in 2by3 Games, so we live in a resource starved environment. We are not evil (at least I don't think so). [:)]

The last patch did help balance things out allot now that I have 50+ turns from several different games under my belt and chatting with other players who are into 43.

I have to say based on the data over-all 2by3 done about everything they can at this point to balance out 43-45.

So I say lock this thread down at this point.