National Morale

[LiquidSky]

I had a thought at work about this.

The national morale of Germany should start at some high level (say 75), and over time naturally drop.

It should go up only if the Germans attack (and win).

The rate at which it goes up, and the ease with which they can restore it by attacking can be fixed for balance.

This would set up a cycle of attack/rest for the germans as they would need to periodically launch offensives to try and regain lost morale.


The Russians should start at some very low value. They should gain morale (and never lose it) from combat. Any combat, either win/lose should increase the national morale. The Russians learn from their mistakes.

Again...for play balance you can adjust the rate at which they gain morale. (every 100 combats? 1000? Only ones over a certain odds?)

The TOE changes for the Germans should be controlled by the player. But it is a one way street. Maybe put a time limit before they are allowed another change.

The TOE changes for the Russians should be linked to National Morale. When they reach a certain level....it changes.

This way more competent Germans would be rewarded with higher national morale. But they will have to balance it with lost manpower from attacking.

And the Russians would inexorably become stronger over time. Balancing the need to defend forward for combat (on the job training) with the need to conserve an actual army.

Lastly...the National Morale levels should be kept completely secret from both sides.

[Peltonx]

Really, is this a joke?

No really?

Read the rules

Then read your post, because that is how it has always worked.

Small problem is Germans can not attack from late 42 - 45 as it simply lowers your manpower pool faster.

The issue is historically combat loses in 43 were 4 to 1 and WitE is 2 to 1 or less.

So even a German win in 43 is a win for Russia.

Even the gain morale does not make up for 2by3 unhistorical combat losses from 43 - 45.

This is why the game is all about pockets as soon as Germany can not form pockets they are forced to stop attacking, we have seen very skilled German players keep attacking during 43 and the German army simply folds up and disappears and Russia is in Berlin in Summer of 44.

Germanys only hope is to sit and do nothing as soon as they can not pocket units and only then can they get game to drag in 45, but because of coded morale setting and unhistorical combat losses Russians can simply attack and win by losing aka grinding down German OOB.

This needs to be fixed before 2.0 is released or it will be a PISS POOR RELEASE because with new logistic system Russia will easly win by
early 44 no matter what happens in 41/42

Combat system has always been at the core of whats wrong once that is fixed then manpower ect can be tweaked to balance the game to reflect historical losses yr by yr and not the total at the end of the war and also not be based on retreat loses.

Russians historically attacked and won and had far higher losses then Germans, but current system Germans take higher loses or 1 v 1.

This simply does not reflect historical loses

SO there is no reward for the German player to attack if he can not get pockets, but there is a reward for Russian player
to attack and lose 43+ as has been shown in AAR after AAR of mine over the years not days or months but years.

WitW does not address this issue because its the same old unhistorical combat engine so expect the same issue but worse as it will be much harder to form pockets as you know as you have played WitW.

For the 100 time over 3 yrs fix the combat engine to reflect historical losses and the game will
be much more funner

The combat losses for 41-44 have been posted in AARs by Chaos and myself

1943
1st—————498,000——————1,908,000———3.8 to 1
2nd—————110,000——————444,000———-4 to 1
3rd—————533,000——————2,633,000———-5 to 1
4th—————381,000——————1,939,000———-5 to 1
1944
1st—————423,000——————1,859,000———-4.4 to 1
2nd—————352,000——————1,021,000———-3 to 1
3rd—————879,000——————1,771,000———-2 to 1
4th—————297,000——————1,086,000———-3.6 to 1

Not many of these loses are surrenders, even Stalingrad was only taken at 3.8 to 1 loses to Russian army
Kursk was a win? for Russia, but look at 3rd quarter loses 2.6 million and a 5 to 1 ratio

This is why as Germany WitW is an easy win for Germany for me (other then an unhistorical 43 invasion which has been patched out)
I simply sit in RR mode and manpower pool goes up no counter attacks needed because attacking and winning is a win for WA

I have also proven is Germany simply attacks in 41 then retreats to rivers never attacking after May 42 that
game ends at same time if Germany attacks takes far more then historical in industry and land.

Some of this has been fixed by morveal, but the core issue with Combat engine over rides all that.

[chaos45]

Pelton as has been pointed out by myself several times that chart is incorrect so please dont qoute me as supporting it.

That chart was built on a guys website by combining data from different sources that also used different criteria for what a loss/casualty was. So it is completely invalid and not historical as far as loss comparisions go.

Not to mention it doesnt show axis allied losses at all while the Soviet Losses are total losses...the game include axis allied losses in axis total losses....and considering in 1942/1943 the axis allied were pretty much wiped from the field aside from freshly built formations thats alot of losses not included in those ratios. An if I remember right on that chart specifically the German losses arent even total casualties just permanent losses while the soviets are total losses for all factors including soldier that Returned to duty.

So you can see how just using slightly different criteria for what a loss is, and not including some numbers easily makes it look like the Germans were supermen when in fact the loss ratios historicall after 1941/1942 were much closer in reality. As I have countered you many time Pelton the overall loss ratio all axis to soviets is closer to 1.5-2.5:1 for the war. Some periods it goes above that but overall that should be about the ratio. Even when Germany was dug in on the defense the loss ratio averaged around 2:1....

Which in our game in 1943 with me attacking both wins and purposeful losses we are averaging about 2:1 in favor of the axis.....so the ratio is working as intended due to attrition losses mainly and not combat losses but its working. Now the issue is the Soviets can afford a 2:1 exchange ratio all day long which again is historical based on the two armies size on the eastern front.

Now even tho the ratio is working in 1943...the overal losses for both sides are still probably to low as has been pointed out.

[swkuh]

Would be nice to get after what's wrong with the game engine and not what's wrong with statistics. One can choose various balance factors or even build a modified scenario that improves outcomes to one's taste.

But, when the game engine has a basic shortcoming, possibly its game over. Does it, or is this an overinflated issue?

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Pelton as has been pointed out by myself several times that chart is incorrect so please dont qoute me as supporting it.

That chart was built on a guys website by combining data from different sources that also used different criteria for what a loss/casualty was. So it is completely invalid and not historical as far as loss comparisions go.

He's been quoting these numbers for years because they suit him. Do a search on Walloc and you will find some lengthy and interesting discussions on historical numbers. Unfortunately, Walloc has left the forum. His posts were very informative.

We all want balance but the numbers need to be plausible. A 4,2 million German army on 1st July 42 is not plausible.

[heliodorus04]

As an outsider to these kinds of data-driven discussions on how the game deviates from history, I have a question for the insiders:

Which is more important to you:
1) That the combat engine accurately model combat casualties to the scale of the battles being fought?
2) That the armies of each side at a given period in the war are close to accurate?

I ask because the amount of bodies in uniform and bodies in graves doesn't really matter to me. I care if it's a competitive game. I do not play humans, though, so I don't have the same requirements for competition that H2H play requires.

Sometimes these discussions seem like navel-gazing because we have established (I think) that the combat engine really cannot be changed in either game (WitE&W). So how do you go about getting a game that is fun?

One thing is for certain: this discussion sure has persuaded me to stay away from purchasing WitW...

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

As an outsider to these kinds of data-driven discussions on how the game deviates from history, I have a question for the insiders:

Which is more important to you:
1) That the combat engine accurately model combat casualties to the scale of the battles being fought?
2) That the armies of each side at a given period in the war are close to accurate?

I ask because the amount of bodies in uniform and bodies in graves doesn't really matter to me. I care if it's a competitive game. I do not play humans, though, so I don't have the same requirements for competition that H2H play requires.

Sometimes these discussions seem like navel-gazing because we have established (I think) that the combat engine really cannot be changed in either game (WitE&W). So how do you go about getting a game that is fun?

One thing is for certain: this discussion sure has persuaded me to stay away from purchasing WitW...

I'm with you on most of this. I don't care that losses in WiTE are not the same as losses in the real war. But it is worth bearing in mind that the bulk of those shown as prisoners are really outright losses given the attrition rate for POWs (on both sides).

I equally don't really care if the notional army sizes are off key.

Its a game, the embedded numbers are items of code that the game engine uses.

So what matters is if with notional losses of 'x' and army size of 'y' and the all important caveat of equal players (and neither into serious rules abuse like converting air bases into combat infantry) does the game play out roughly ok?

Now I think that at the moment the summer of 1942 is tilted too far to the Germans and then that produces the tedium of the Pelton style late game defense (I'd give up rather than have to deal with his defense ... it effectively sucks out any fun or enjoyment). I fear it wouldn't take too much tinkering to unbalance 1942 the other way so it becomes a case of the Germans simply facing an unbreakable defense.

More generally the AI gives a more realistic game, I tend to give up mid-44 as by then its gone past the point of collapse but for 41-43 its actually fun to play against (once you give the bonuses it needs)

ignore Pelton over WiTW, he's talking about many patches back. It probably is a bit pro-axis but that is shifting. Also the allies are harder to play well, I think we are seeing more balanced games (ie draws) as more people work out how the allied toolkit fits together. Supply for example is very different and it takes practice to work out how to set up depots (ie capacity in a region), rail capacity (ie the means to move supply to that region) and HQ priority (ie who gets the supply in that region).

I don't think WiTW is as much fun as WiTE but that is inherent in the situation. One side is really on the defensive. For PBEM I think its only fair to agree to swap sides so that both players get some fun (unless, for whatever reason, one player only wants to play the Germans)

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton as has been pointed out by myself several times that chart is incorrect so please dont qoute me as supporting it.

That chart was built on a guys website by combining data from different sources that also used different criteria for what a loss/casualty was. So it is completely invalid and not historical as far as loss comparisions go.

Not to mention it doesnt show axis allied losses at all while the Soviet Losses are total losses...the game include axis allied losses in axis total losses....and considering in 1942/1943 the axis allied were pretty much wiped from the field aside from freshly built formations thats alot of losses not included in those ratios. An if I remember right on that chart specifically the German losses arent even total casualties just permanent losses while the soviets are total losses for all factors including soldier that Returned to duty.

So you can see how just using slightly different criteria for what a loss is, and not including some numbers easily makes it look like the Germans were supermen when in fact the loss ratios historicall after 1941/1942 were much closer in reality. As I have countered you many time Pelton the overall loss ratio all axis to soviets is closer to 1.5-2.5:1 for the war. Some periods it goes above that but overall that should be about the ratio. Even when Germany was dug in on the defense the loss ratio averaged around 2:1....

Which in our game in 1943 with me attacking both wins and purposeful losses we are averaging about 2:1 in favor of the axis.....so the ratio is working as intended due to attrition losses mainly and not combat losses but its working. Now the issue is the Soviets can afford a 2:1 exchange ratio all day long which again is historical based on the two armies size on the eastern front.

Now even tho the ratio is working in 1943...the overal losses for both sides are still probably to low as has been pointed out.

As I have stated more then once 43-44

[Peltonx]

Russian losses 39-44 just over 9 million KIA/Wounded/MIA/Captured
German losses 41-44 2.4 million.

3.75 to 1

Sticking ones head in the sand over and over ignoring facts does not change the facts.

If The German player wins a battle he never gets better then 2 to 1 ratio vs a Corp or a stack of divisions.

Again I have posted the facts from more then one area bro

Wiki now wrong?

Yes there are times when its 2 to 1 1945 but the facts are 43 and 44 Russian loses were higher per yr then 41 or 42


1943 3rd Q 2,864,661

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ca ... rld_War_II

[Peltonx]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... viet_Union

Russian losses in 43 were higher then 41 or 42

Ignore the facts or agree they are the facts

The worst month of the war was?

3rd quarter 43

Like I said the facts are the facts

The center problem is the combat engine it simply can not reflect the historical combat loses.

Most Russian losses as you know for a fact are pockets not straight up combat

[loki100]

Pelton

your post indicates part of the reason you've lost the argument (long long ago)

you know, as well as most posters on this forum that the Axis forces in the Soviet Union were more than just those wearing German uniforms ... and those various Romanians/Hungarians/Finns killed and injured a lot of Soviet soldiers.

and your 'losses' are not calculated on a like by like basis even with that (huge) caveat

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: loki100

Pelton

your post indicates part of the reason you've lost the argument (long long ago)

you know, as well as most posters on this forum that the Axis forces in the Soviet Union were more than just those wearing German uniforms ... and those various Romanians/Hungarians/Finns killed and injured a lot of Soviet soldiers.

and your 'losses' are not calculated on a like by like basis even with that (huge) caveat

Can the combat engine reflex 10 battles in 43 where the combat ratio Russian vs german is 3.75 to 1

No never

Most Russian losses are pocketed units not standard 43-44 combat which is why we never see a German offensive in 43 its simply stupid

Name 1 game when the Russian losses in 43 were 2.8 million in 3 months

You simply can not

I am winning the argument just like I did with 2by3 on many other issues.

Ignoring what wrong never fixes it, playing a shell game or name calling or ignoring that the game is way off 43-44 will never change the fact that the game is not working 43-44

Combat engine is not working with WitW if you have any WitE.

It simply does not reflex historical combat aka battle per battle

[typhoon]

You could all argue the figures till the cows come home yet I think in many ways they miss the point. You have all put a lot of time effort and great posts into making the game what it is today and for us mortals it is still a great game. There are faults and will always remain faults but to me that is more about game design than all the statistics that keep getting posted. the trouble I think is the major league difference between the a.i opponent and human vs human play I think to achieve balance in one it distorts the balance in the other. Things designed to work when playing the a.i do not work when playing against unpredictable humans especially when there are always a million and one work rounds or counters that a multitude of very clever players will always find. You almost need two versions of the same game for the different uses it is put to. This may seem out of place here I hope it is viewed as constructive but arguing the figures to me wont put a round peg into a square hole.

[Commanderski]

You could all argue the figures till the cows come home yet I think in many ways they miss the point. You have all put a lot of time effort and great posts into making the game what it is today and for us mortals it is still a great game. There are faults and will always remain faults but to me that is more about game design than all the statistics that keep getting posted. the trouble I think is the major league difference between the a.i opponent and human vs human play I think to achieve balance in one it distorts the balance in the other. Things designed to work when playing the a.i do not work when playing against unpredictable humans especially when there are always a million and one work rounds or counters that a multitude of very clever players will always find. You almost need two versions of the same game for the different uses it is put to. This may seem out of place here I hope it is viewed as constructive but arguing the figures to me wont put a round peg into a square hole.

More generally the AI gives a more realistic game

+1

[chaos45]

We can agree battle losses are to low for both sides.

Also Pelton would like to point out that currently in just about every single 1.08.04 match going right now Germans are overall close to or better than a 4:1 exchange rate in manpower casualties. Which means the exchange rate is working....and now going into 1943/1944 the exchange rate will start to even out towards historical norm of closer to 2:1.

You forget the Soviets lose a ton more men to attrition each turn than the Germans- even with reducing my manning on the frontline im still losing 2-3x as many men as you to attrition each week...thats where they have balanced the loss ratio basically.

Also attrition losses are usually much higher than the battle losses at least for the soviets each week.

[charlie0311]

Yeah, well, if it wasn't for Pelton most of, or all, of the improvements would have never happened.

Civil war in the forums accomplishes nothing.

Pelton has changed his behavior, used to be kind of abusive. How many of us can say that, truthfully.

[c00per]

This post was about Morale mechanics how did it end up about comparing in game statistical accuracy to actual historical statistics ? Liquidsky seems a noobie to the forums compared with the venerable Pelton, but did he not school Pelton in WiTW ? Could explain Peltons initial harsh reaction and veering off topic. Either way to you both I enjoyed your AAR

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Pelton as has been pointed out by myself several times that chart is incorrect so please dont qoute me as supporting it.

That chart was built on a guys website by combining data from different sources that also used different criteria for what a loss/casualty was. So it is completely invalid and not historical as far as loss comparisions go.

He's been quoting these numbers for years because they suit him. Do a search on Walloc and you will find some lengthy and interesting discussions on historical numbers. Unfortunately, Walloc has left the forum. His posts were very informative.

We all want balance but the numbers need to be plausible. A 4,2 million German army on 1st July 42 is not plausible.

We all want balance but the numbers need to be plausible. A 4,2 million German army on 1st July 42 is not plausible.

It's a game ... a game ... we're talking about a game, not the real war 41-45. Why is it not plausible for the Germans to have 4.2 million army starting on 1st July? When I play, it's not Hitler in charge and I'm not always playing against Stalin/Zhukov. Bozo, if you want to know what happened in history and re-live it .. read some books, watching some documentaries, even take some classes. An education might be good for you, I don't care. But this is a game and the reason I bought it was to play and have fun. I want to try and win as the Germans not create the Stalingrad pocket again. What you just said about the July 42 German army size is testament to how you view WitE and why you will never find satisfaction with it. You want a simulation to go through battle by battle just like history. I'm at a lose to understanding why you bought the game in the first place? Maybe just to have some credibility to come in the forums and spew your nonsense. IDC.

I do agree with most of what Pelton is saying. Even if he's a bit bias to the axis, it's refreshing as most here are way pro Soviet and want all the rules and mechanics to have a slight or moderate Soviet advantage.

[chaos45]

The issue is the game is de-railed by mechanics long before any possibility of a Stalingrad scenario. If combat and attrition doesnt weaken the German army at close to near historical levels you can never get near historical/average performance from the Soviets is the issue. 2 well matched players in a game based on a historical event should reach close to a historical result. If one outmatches the other then you have results that stand outside the average= historical results.

Stalingrad isnt the issue- as the German army is reaching super high strength levels long before its even a possibility...and its not just a one off result- its consistent in every game. If it was just because one player did well, then would be understandable but its happening in every game.

You could also say the Soviets are auto handicapped by historical results/losses/incompetence that the player cant fix either....so the same restraints should also be on the Axis. Im all for a fun balanced/competitive game that makes both players think.

[jzardos]

Don't get me wrong the game was a mess when it was released on play balance. I remember clearly the days when one NKVD security (1200 men) unit could stop a a few full strength PZ Divs or Infantry Div on a deliberate attack in a swamp. WitE has come a long way and thanks for the super human efforts of morveal in the last year. Excited to see what 1.08.05 will bring. I do agree the combat engine concerning loses is not ideal. More loses from battles is very necessary. WitE2 also will be another big step in 2016-2017.

I have much respect for the elite WitE gamers like Pelton, Chaos45, Loki100, etc. Their AARs have and will continue to bring issue to light and fixes hopefully on the table.