Unexpected Held Results
Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21
Unexpected Held Results
In my current Russian game my opponent attacks with numerical superiority. These deliberate attacks almost always work for the Russians. Why don't they work for the Germans? Is it the entrenchment?
- Attachments
-
- AxisHeld.jpg (237.63 KiB) Viewed 307 times
RE: Unexpected Held Results
in this particular case, a Soviet attack with the same dynamics would then have got +1 on the odds table and thus become 2.3-1 (up to the end of Jan 42)
RE: Unexpected Held Results
How silly of me to forget that the Germans don't get the 1:1 = 2:1 benefit. Still, I would expect that at least the first attack succeeds. The ratio of men is 4:1.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
In both cases I see the Soviets got a great CV modifier. I don't know just how common this is, but I speculate that these outcomes are more common than they should be -- that is, perhaps the solution is to curb Soviet leadership skills a bit during 1941.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
Lots of artillery + engineer values of 4 and 6 but no reduction in fort? Strange.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
RE: Unexpected Held Results
+1 on this, as I just don't see why these results should exist, as portrayed, and especially in 41.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
The combat system is bizarre frankly. Soviet defensive CVs are more prone to inflation than German and the whole system is so steeped in mystery that nobody seems to know why. I always look for 2:1 when I'm playing Axis and expect about an 80% success rate. Playing the Soviet side I Look for something like 1.2:1 for a similar success rate (discounting the 1:1 = 2:1 rule).
I think the combat system doesn't take sufficient account of Superior German tactical abilities, especially in defense, and places too much emphasis on Soviet numbers.
I think the combat system doesn't take sufficient account of Superior German tactical abilities, especially in defense, and places too much emphasis on Soviet numbers.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
@timmyab... can you suggest adjustments in balance factors that might deal with tactical ability & numbers? e.g., I set Axis to 100, 90, 90, 90, 100 and get a good game vs. AI (all 100.) But, believe its too much for the Axis, especially by mid '42.
It'd be nice to know just when the 1:1::2:1 rule kicks in and how long it lasts, as I would adjust for that by reducing Soviet morale.
Its unfortunate that this good game has such non-linear effects. Suspect there's other such, too.
It'd be nice to know just when the 1:1::2:1 rule kicks in and how long it lasts, as I would adjust for that by reducing Soviet morale.
Its unfortunate that this good game has such non-linear effects. Suspect there's other such, too.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
Unexpected is right! Riga was initially attacked on turn 2 by the majority of 4th Pzr group and failed. Then on turn 3 surrounded by the entire 18th army with all HQ within 1 hex of the city. On turn 4, 2 hefty inf divs were added to the encirclement as reinforcements to 18th amry. The city has endured full unit bombing and not less than 5 cratering deliberate attacks and the city still stands. 18th army has been completely delayed. [:@]
Tankzen
RE: Unexpected Held Results
Tankzen, this thread was originally about another game I played. The Riga thing in our game is less of a mystery because you are attacking an urban hex with fortifications and two high moral units and with 8th army + sappers + artillery in the city. Even after your 8 attacks the CV value of those units is still 55. It is best to just ignore Riga if you don't capture it on T1.
The city might fall next turn because you reduced the fortifications to 0. But you sure payed a huge price.
The city might fall next turn because you reduced the fortifications to 0. But you sure payed a huge price.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
^^
At the risk of making you even more angry I have to tell you that you don't even need to take Riga. It can be safely cordoned off and bypassed.
At the risk of making you even more angry I have to tell you that you don't even need to take Riga. It can be safely cordoned off and bypassed.
Unfortunately I can't help because I only ever use standard settings. I've just learned to accept the combat system for what it is even though it's historically inaccurate. The game is balanced around the current system so changing it without compensation would unbalance the game.ORIGINAL: rrbill
@timmyab... can you suggest adjustments in balance factors that might deal with tactical ability & numbers?
RE: Unexpected Held Results
It's my 1st time playing with an opponent and an experienced one at that. AI always abandoned Riga so I never had to bypass it before. I was really surprised how tough it would be.
Tankzen
- karonagames
- Posts: 4701
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:05 am
- Location: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
RE: Unexpected Held Results
I played Oshawott for 138 turns after a nearly 2 year hiatus from the game, and he used the same highly aggressive tactics against me, which succeeded in preventing me getting anywhere in 1942. My own struggles with the combat results generated by Gary's combat system are well documented, but I did feel that the initial/final CV multiplier has moved massively in favour of the SU much earlier than in previous games I had played 2 years ago.
Axis initial CVs would rarely treble to achieve a final CV, whereas almost right from the start, SU CVs would often more than treble, especially when sapper regiments get involved. I always used to think that Artillery and airpower was the SU's biggest force multiplier, and that this really took hold in summer 1943, with the sapper spam, the same or better force multiplier can take effect from spring 1942. When the SU attacks from 3 hex sides they can add the equivalent of a Corps of flame throwing, satchel charge chucking maniacs to their CVs, even a division's worth added to 3 cavalry corps is capable a forcing a corps of SS motorised divisions in lev3 entrenchments to retreat in 1941 - I did about 8 double takes when I saw that combat result!
If I was still a tester I would be recommending some restrictions on the massed use of sappers.
Axis initial CVs would rarely treble to achieve a final CV, whereas almost right from the start, SU CVs would often more than treble, especially when sapper regiments get involved. I always used to think that Artillery and airpower was the SU's biggest force multiplier, and that this really took hold in summer 1943, with the sapper spam, the same or better force multiplier can take effect from spring 1942. When the SU attacks from 3 hex sides they can add the equivalent of a Corps of flame throwing, satchel charge chucking maniacs to their CVs, even a division's worth added to 3 cavalry corps is capable a forcing a corps of SS motorised divisions in lev3 entrenchments to retreat in 1941 - I did about 8 double takes when I saw that combat result!
If I was still a tester I would be recommending some restrictions on the massed use of sappers.
It's only a Game
RE: Unexpected Held Results
I believe I mentioned it elsewhere some time ago, the game lacks a limit for how many sapper units you are able to attach, this should either be a single sapper Regiment or a Rgt and a Bn. I have seen games were Sov Corps exclusively use 3 Sapper Rgts while Tank/Art units are idling at HQs. So many Sappers are either completely ahistorical or this force concentration was only used in certain operations in order to achive a Breakthrough. This limit should also count for the other side, one Pionier unit per div/partial div.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
RE: Unexpected Held Results
Sappers are too powerful in the game for sure. There should be a restriction on numbers the Soviet player can produce and more importantly on how effective they are for both sides. I would propose that they shouldn't be able to reduce fortifications by more than one level per turn and not at all below level one. Level one forts should represent the advantages a defender has when they have occupied a position for a length of time. Sappers cannot nullify this advantage.
At the moment the game is reasonably well balanced (slightly pro Soviet though), but for the wrong reasons. Combat favors the Soviets too much and logistics favors the Axis too much. Soviet C&C is also way too good in the early game.
At the moment the game is reasonably well balanced (slightly pro Soviet though), but for the wrong reasons. Combat favors the Soviets too much and logistics favors the Axis too much. Soviet C&C is also way too good in the early game.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
ORIGINAL: Denniss
I believe I mentioned it elsewhere some time ago, the game lacks a limit for how many sapper units you are able to attach, this should either be a single sapper Regiment or a Rgt and a Bn. I have seen games were Sov Corps exclusively use 3 Sapper Rgts while Tank/Art units are idling at HQs. So many Sappers are either completely ahistorical or this force concentration was only used in certain operations in order to achive a Breakthrough. This limit should also count for the other side, one Pionier unit per div/partial div.
Interesting. Maybe Sapper/Pioneer units should be restricted from being attached directly (like Artillery already are) to units and left for commitment from HQs. Or maybe combat units should be limited to attaching only one support unit of a given type.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
I'd like the take the opportunity to express my disappointment in a combat engine with WitE that has any serious flaws which have never gained attention. Feel I have the right to express myself as I paid my $$ for WitE. After spending maybe hundreds hours playing game and reading forums, it seems most of it points to Gary G and his belief in his own infallibility with regards to the original combat engine design. Sure a few minor tweaks have occurred over many years, but examples like this and my own experience seeing 99 level experience/morale German units with low fatigue and 95%+ TOE taking more loses than a single Sov brigade in the open with a fort of 0 in 1941 is sheer insanity. Have read almost 20 books on east front and comes down to the Germans in almost all cases need much smaller forces to achieve great success on the battlefield. People that don't know this are ignorant of the history and/or reading the bogus data from twisted Sov history (winners can try and write own accounts). Playing the game recently has continued my disgust with a combat engine that should be using all the wonderful data the game captures and presents, but somehow years later is still falling well short of expectations. Hoping hubris will enter vocabulary of whomever is now in charge of WitE development and maybe future versions will fix some of these unacceptable combat engine farces.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
The problem is the Soviet ap’s are so precious, so in saying that the only two su’s I buy are sapper regiments and AA battalions and I assign 2 sapper and 1 AA to each corp. Boring, yes, but it seems the biggest bang for the buck.
In a perfect world what I would like to see support units that represent the function that they where design for. Example: In Europa (a game long, long ago) if an infantry unit was 1/7 armor that unit would get a plus one to a die roll, plus 3 if all armor. If a defending unit was 1/7 antitank and the attacking unit was 1/7 armor or more then the attacker would receive a minus two to the die roll. The attacker could receive a penalty up to a negative 4 depending on the amount of armor in the attack and the amount of antitank in the defence. In Wite I do not see any reason to spend ap’s on antitank regiments, tank battalions, or mortar battalions as the effect on winning or losing a battle seem minimal at best.
Also, on the subject of sappers, the Soviet wouldn’t need so many if there were not so many fortifications on the map. Has anyone ever thought about making both sides pay with ap’s to build a fortification. Of course this would mean an increase in ap’s for both sides.
In a perfect world what I would like to see support units that represent the function that they where design for. Example: In Europa (a game long, long ago) if an infantry unit was 1/7 armor that unit would get a plus one to a die roll, plus 3 if all armor. If a defending unit was 1/7 antitank and the attacking unit was 1/7 armor or more then the attacker would receive a minus two to the die roll. The attacker could receive a penalty up to a negative 4 depending on the amount of armor in the attack and the amount of antitank in the defence. In Wite I do not see any reason to spend ap’s on antitank regiments, tank battalions, or mortar battalions as the effect on winning or losing a battle seem minimal at best.
Also, on the subject of sappers, the Soviet wouldn’t need so many if there were not so many fortifications on the map. Has anyone ever thought about making both sides pay with ap’s to build a fortification. Of course this would mean an increase in ap’s for both sides.
Wes
Allies Forever
Allies Forever
RE: Unexpected Held Results
ORIGINAL: Maximeba
In Wite I do not see any reason to spend ap’s on antitank regiments, tank battalions, or mortar battalions as the effect on winning or losing a battle seem minimal at best.
Also, on the subject of sappers, the Soviet wouldn’t need so many if there were not so many fortifications on the map. Has anyone ever thought about making both sides pay with ap’s to build a fortification. Of course this would mean an increase in ap’s for both sides.
All the more reason to have the Soviet army historical based, rather than fictitious player built. They wouldn't be able to build unrealistic Sapper swarms, and would have to find a use for all the historically available units. That way, we could properly judge if there are too many forts based on historical data and not on fictitious player optimized data.
RE: Unexpected Held Results
about the hold results; the game is simply unrealistic. as axis player i had more then enough 1.9:1 hold results in areas where i had a huge superiority in men, tanks guns and a intact c&c system. its realy hard for the axis player to advance and pocket against a average russian player. every pocket (after the first 2 turns) can be broken easily by the russians and against a weak russian division one needs most of the time deliberate attacks with multiple superb german divisions.
to sum it up: the game favors the russians from turn 2 on until the end of the year.
to sum it up: the game favors the russians from turn 2 on until the end of the year.