Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21
- HardLuckYetAgain
- Posts: 8851
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am
Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Nada
German Turn 1 opening moves. The post that keeps on giving https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=390004
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
One question I have for soviet posters in this thread is do they mean
i) They think total losses are fine, they should just be distributed in a different way between different kinds of battle and with attrition
OR
ii) These horrible losses add up to too few losses during the campaign for the Axis side as a whole
Personally I am less worried about i, although I can see how it would effect tactical choices turn by turn. ii though is a big issue, but is tied up with the whole issue of game balance and so on.
i) They think total losses are fine, they should just be distributed in a different way between different kinds of battle and with attrition
OR
ii) These horrible losses add up to too few losses during the campaign for the Axis side as a whole
Personally I am less worried about i, although I can see how it would effect tactical choices turn by turn. ii though is a big issue, but is tied up with the whole issue of game balance and so on.
Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Like this?
Too few losses during the campaign for the Axis side as a whole. And these strange battles are actually not a main cause of this, but logistic casualties. Logistic losses are always higher for Soviet side even when it becomes a lot stronger than Axis side. In effect casualties will never reach historical ratio no matter how good Soviet player is. (By historical ratio I mean something in range of 1:1 - 1:1.5, depending on player performance.)
How I think situation can be improved:
1) Fixing causes of these strange results.
2) Removing additional Soviet magic casualties in July and August (June can stay).
3) Making Soviet logistic losses improve over time (maybe they already improve, but improvement is too small).
By the way, does anyone feel the whole game is accelerated? Germans first advance too quickly, then also lose too quickly. Maybe that's just me.
ORIGINAL: Telemecus
One question I have for soviet posters in this thread is do they mean
i) They think total losses are fine, they should just be distributed in a different way between different kinds of battle and with attrition
OR
ii) These horrible losses add up to too few losses during the campaign for the Axis side as a whole
Personally I am less worried about i, although I can see how it would effect tactical choices turn by turn. ii though is a big issue, but is tied up with the whole issue of game balance and so on.
Too few losses during the campaign for the Axis side as a whole. And these strange battles are actually not a main cause of this, but logistic casualties. Logistic losses are always higher for Soviet side even when it becomes a lot stronger than Axis side. In effect casualties will never reach historical ratio no matter how good Soviet player is. (By historical ratio I mean something in range of 1:1 - 1:1.5, depending on player performance.)
How I think situation can be improved:
1) Fixing causes of these strange results.
2) Removing additional Soviet magic casualties in July and August (June can stay).
3) Making Soviet logistic losses improve over time (maybe they already improve, but improvement is too small).
By the way, does anyone feel the whole game is accelerated? Germans first advance too quickly, then also lose too quickly. Maybe that's just me.
- HardLuckYetAgain
- Posts: 8851
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Nada
German Turn 1 opening moves. The post that keeps on giving https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=390004
- HardLuckYetAgain
- Posts: 8851
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Nada
German Turn 1 opening moves. The post that keeps on giving https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=390004
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Here is an image of three full Panzer divisions routing three Soviet Rifle divisions, but with the Rifle divisions taking virtually NO retreat losses whatsoever [:D]
It does seem there is something "off" with the casualties due to combat, but I do not think it is a "Soviet" thing only.
It does seem there is something "off" with the casualties due to combat, but I do not think it is a "Soviet" thing only.
- Attachments
-
- Losses.zip
- (128.12 KiB) Downloaded 28 times
To be is to do -- Socrates
To do is to be -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Do be do be do -- Frank Sinatra
To do is to be -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Do be do be do -- Frank Sinatra
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
I think I have been quite open that in some cases the system produces unrealistic results, especially if opposing forces are at the two ends of quality spectrum, and/or forts/rivers are involved. In this case you have to image something like a B movie, with good guys having infinite ammo and hitting with every shot, while the bad guys are tripping over themselves and never hit. The system works better if both sides are closer to middle quality. Luckily (?) taking a hex depends on CV, not combat losses, so the stronger side wins (not the one which causes more casualties).
- HardLuckYetAgain
- Posts: 8851
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Nada
German Turn 1 opening moves. The post that keeps on giving https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=390004
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Here is another one, 89 tanks permanent losses without having to make an attack. Josef will be writing another poem.
- Attachments
-
- Logistics.jpg (662.97 KiB) Viewed 237 times
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
- thedude357
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:13 am
- Location: California
- HardLuckYetAgain
- Posts: 8851
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Nada
German Turn 1 opening moves. The post that keeps on giving https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=390004
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Knowing thedude357 I know it was just meant in jest! [:)] I did not know it had been used elsewhere so probably also the case.
Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT
- thedude357
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:13 am
- Location: California
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
ORIGINAL: morvael
I think I have been quite open that in some cases the system produces unrealistic results, especially if opposing forces are at the two ends of quality spectrum, and/or forts/rivers are involved. In this case you have to image something like a B movie, with good guys having infinite ammo and hitting with every shot, while the bad guys are tripping over themselves and never hit. The system works better if both sides are closer to middle quality. Luckily (?) taking a hex depends on CV, not combat losses, so the stronger side wins (not the one which causes more casualties).
The concept of firepower vs CV has in my mind been a unique feature of the “War in the xxx” series. For those fixated on CV ...I think things like artillery are low CV high firepower units?
My thought is once the routing mechanism is fixed .. the causulties will go up for both sides?
Is the problem where disparate units are in battle The causulties go wacko fixable?
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Updated my game to 1.11 during this weekend , started a new scenario as German in Velikie Luki '42. Then the very first battle shocked me.
0 causality! of course German get dents on two infantry guns due to careless drive on poor Russian road. Someone will be sacked for this damage!
0 causality! of course German get dents on two infantry guns due to careless drive on poor Russian road. Someone will be sacked for this damage!
- Attachments
-
- 01.jpg (99.58 KiB) Viewed 237 times
Sir? Do you want to order a Kung Pao Chicken or a Kung Fu Chicken?
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
(Regiments do as much damage as a Division. Is it supposed to be like that?)
This game has had much coverage from 1941-1942 in AAR etc and by far the number one mistake players make is the lack of attention to building their units tall(attached regiments/battalions) apposed to wide and using reserves. I joined these forums in 2005 and have played countless hours of WiTW & WiTE against human opponents, and it seems to me as the number one soviet mistake. Just my opinion
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
Here are the screenshots for another two battles.
I am still a newbie to this game, I don't think I fully understand the mechanism. However, it seems to me that the loss of battle in WITE is too low, for both sides.
One hex in WITE is 16km and this is a one week per turn game. I am assuming each battle simulate one to three days battle. A lot of things can happen during this time period. Recon, bombardment, probe, bombardment again, Attack/Assault, then defender counter attack, after that everything repeat at 2nd defense line. it is very hard to image there are only few hundreds of casualty after so many events
From what I read a division will consider to call off a attack after suffer 5% casualty. retreat from defense after 10%.
But there are many cases in WITE, the defender will retreat after suffering 0.5~1% casualty.
I am still a newbie to this game, I don't think I fully understand the mechanism. However, it seems to me that the loss of battle in WITE is too low, for both sides.
One hex in WITE is 16km and this is a one week per turn game. I am assuming each battle simulate one to three days battle. A lot of things can happen during this time period. Recon, bombardment, probe, bombardment again, Attack/Assault, then defender counter attack, after that everything repeat at 2nd defense line. it is very hard to image there are only few hundreds of casualty after so many events
From what I read a division will consider to call off a attack after suffer 5% casualty. retreat from defense after 10%.
But there are many cases in WITE, the defender will retreat after suffering 0.5~1% casualty.
- Attachments
-
- 03.jpg (106.41 KiB) Viewed 237 times
Sir? Do you want to order a Kung Pao Chicken or a Kung Fu Chicken?
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
This game has had much coverage from 1941-1942 in AAR etc and by far the number one mistake players make is the lack of attention to building their units tall(attached regiments/battalions) apposed to wide and using reserves. I joined these forums in 2005 and have played countless hours of WiTW & WiTE against human opponents, and it seems to me as the number one soviet mistake. Just my opinion
I don't follow what you mean by this, can you give more details.
I am still a newbie to this game, I don't think I fully understand the mechanism. However, it seems to me that the loss of battle in WITE is too low, for both sides.
When you are looking at battle casualties I think you also need to look at the broad picture of how the game works and what are the overall losses suffered by each side including attrition. If the game is ending up with opposing armies of around the right size into '42, '43 and later then it is doing a good job.
They could have written it with lower attrition and higher battle casualties however I think the approach they have taken gives a balancing effect over a longer game, so for example Soviets could play badly in say '41 and still make a comeback if the play well in the later game.
However am not very experienced at playing late into the campaign so could have this completely wrong.
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
ORIGINAL: tyronec
This game has had much coverage from 1941-1942 in AAR etc and by far the number one mistake players make is the lack of attention to building their units tall(attached regiments/battalions) apposed to wide and using reserves. I joined these forums in 2005 and have played countless hours of WiTW & WiTE against human opponents, and it seems to me as the number one soviet mistake. Just my opinion
I don't follow what you mean by this, can you give more details.
If you right click on any HQ, German division or Soviet corp you will see an assign button. Left click the assign link, and you can build the unit stronger by adding support battalions, regiments or brigades. I believe the cost in AP is 1,2,3 as the support unit gets bigger. What I meant about taller versus wider is more of a problem for the soviets. For example their was a post recently about light tanks never being able to supply the toe of there on map units but how many soviet players pare down their on map force pool ? Once against a human player I disbanded roughly 80% of the soviets motorized, and armoured units, and guess what every on map infantry unit and cavalry had 16 movement points every turn, and my vehicle pool was robust and I had no vehicle shortage modifiers until I waited for my armoured corps to arrive in 1942. Just because your given hundreds(never counted them could be thousands) of brigades and divisions as the soviets does not mean you have to keep them all.
RE: Soviets post your Horrible loses here
I posted my answer regarding losses & stuff in an AAR thread, and seems like I'm repeating Tyronec a bit, but quoting it here anyway:
I think the current loss balance (or imbalance to be more precise) is due to design decision to create the losses more from attrition than the actual battles conducted by the player. If battles would be the decisive factor in overall losses, the players might be able to "play the engine" and orchestrate massive unhistorical losses by attacking often and hard, which didn't necessarily historically happen (well it did in many cases, but you get my point I hope).
Currently battles are a way to create tactical and strategical advantage by gaining ground or making encirclements. They're also an attritional tool for the Soviets. Even though the German losses are small, they'll add up in the long run.
I'd say the current overall loss figures seem to be in an almost correct historical ballpark in many of the AARs, don't you agree?