Are you serious??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


glvaca -> Are you serious??? (6/20/2012 3:55:56 PM)

To the WITE Dev team.
What happened to the combat engine along the way?
Please don't claim nothing was changed. Please unchange!!!

Below example, The mighty 7th flieger division, 95 morale, just of trains, move one hex, slight fatigue. Hasty attack against a cav division in light woods, zero. Are you serious? Really?
I can understand some randomness, some freak results. But this has become epidemic. Hasty attacks, even del. attacks are just loteries without 3-1 in pure bodies. Tanks matter little, so does morale and experience.

Is this really what you want?
I can't seem to upload the picture, get file is too large but will post in my AAR: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3117461&mpage=3





heliodorus04 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/20/2012 7:02:09 PM)

I subscribe to what BigAnorak (or was it Klydon) said:
You can expect 10% of your combats each turn to be completely anomalous.

Outside of that, if you want to ensure your hasty attacks win, then keep track of every division you attack in the game, to understand how many men it has, how many guns, and how many combats it has been in over the last 4 or 5 turns (and how many of those it won).

Never assume a hasty attack against a heretofore unknown enemy unit will succeed. The two types of units that most surprise the German will be cavalry divisions and rifle brigades. Never assume your recon is accurate if you haven't attacked the unit before in prior turns.

When new units appear, use a multi-stack hasty, or a single infantry deliberate.




Apollo11 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 8:21:44 AM)

Hi all,

There were no changes to WitE apart from those listed in ReadMe and updated manual addendum (although the bugfixes are not listed there - there are only in ReadMe to avoid clutter in addendum)!


Leo "Apollo11"




glvaca -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 10:02:32 AM)

Hi Leo,

Hmmm, how about the reduction of recon, could that be the cause of the much higher held percentage than previous?
see here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3127907

Thanks!




Michael T -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 10:40:31 AM)

Something definitely changed RE hasty attacks some time back. I was not inclined to complain because as soon a one does the Soviet attack gang soon arrive on the scene. But something changed for sure. I have just adapted to it.




Apollo11 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 11:52:57 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Hmmm, how about the reduction of recon, could that be the cause of the much higher held percentage than previous?
see here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3127907

Thanks!


Same answer... all should be documented... nothing was done outside that...


Leo "Apollo11"




Michael T -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 12:37:35 PM)

The 'butterfly effect'




glvaca -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 1:13:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The 'butterfly effect'


Quite possible.

Leo, in all honesty, the difference between 3 or 4 patches ago is VERY substantial. If it was unintentional, I recommend you just run the opening move between 10.06.6 and .13. You'll notice the difference for sure.




Flaviusx -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 5:37:18 PM)

Every time this has come up, Pavel has claimed that it is some kind of reporting error. The incidence of such errors has definitely increased in recent patches. The recon rules themselves have been changed and possibly the code is bleeding over and causing these reporting errors.




notenome -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 6:00:14 PM)

Saw the picture, didn't think it was so egregious. Rauss goes at length on how new units arriving on the Eastern Front frequently had a rough time of it on their first combats as they had not become acclimated to warfare in the East, and this was particularly bad when fighting tanks or fighting in woods and swamps. Mind you that 7th Flieger's performance on the Eastern Front was nothing to write home about, so much so that it was withdrawn fairly quickly since fighting in the east did not suit its specialist training (and the horrible losses it had suffered whilst taking Crete didn't help, specially since the officer corps was devastated).




glvaca -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 6:55:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

Saw the picture, didn't think it was so egregious. Rauss goes at length on how new units arriving on the Eastern Front frequently had a rough time of it on their first combats as they had not become acclimated to warfare in the East, and this was particularly bad when fighting tanks or fighting in woods and swamps. Mind you that 7th Flieger's performance on the Eastern Front was nothing to write home about, so much so that it was withdrawn fairly quickly as that fighting in the east did not suit its specialist training (and the horrible losses it had suffered whilst taking Crete didn't help, specially since the officer corps was devastated).


Right [:D]




Apollo11 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 7:15:47 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Leo, in all honesty, the difference between 3 or 4 patches ago is VERY substantial. If it was unintentional, I recommend you just run the opening move between 10.06.6 and .13. You'll notice the difference for sure.


With every new version I also run run AI vs. AI tests (full grand campaigns) as well and check things... I didn't notice anything out of ordinary...


Leo "Apollo11"




KFosso -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 8:58:33 PM)

glvaca,

Just doing a little estimating on the combat values from the combat result displayed in your AAR:

7th FJ starts with a value of 53 and ends up with a modified value of 37. This does not seem to unreasonable given that it made a hasty attack. It is in the X corp. Assuming that you haven't changed the leader, he has a morale value of 6 and an infantry value of 6 - nothing really special.

(At least in my patch) 35th Cavalry arrives on turn 7 as a shell. So it probably was in refit for 2 turns, rode the train to the hex next to the combat hex, then crossed the river & moved into the light woods - not that many factors of ground movement, so it also probably had little fatigue. Morale is likely about 45 and experience is likely about 35 judging from comparible units that I looked at in one of my games. It starts with a combat value of 12, which would be doubled to 24 because of the light woods. Don't know who the leader of 24th army is. But, he could be better than the X corp commander.

I see two questionable items on the combat result display. 1) How can the modified combat value of 35th Cav get from my approximation of 24 up to the displayed value of 61? If there are good reasons for that, then this combat result is reasonable. 2) Why does the combat result display in your AAR say it's turn 16?





Flaviusx -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 9:02:27 PM)

KFosso, this is where the reporting errors come in. Hasty attacks on units with sketchy recon can yield unpleasant surprises, and recon has been made harder to do generally.

This is happening a lot more often than it used to. Frankly, I'm totally ok with this, as recon in the game is already much too good and players have a great deal more intelligence than they probably should.

Also, Glvaca is on total cruise control in this particular game and heading for a 1941 Axis win, so I'm a little bemused by this complaint.





KFosso -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 9:21:50 PM)

Was looking into the rules a bit more & saw that a leader check can double the modified CV.

Also, a modified combat value of 37 to 24 is less than a 2 to 1, so it wasn't a guaranteed win anyway.




glvaca -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 10:06:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Leo, in all honesty, the difference between 3 or 4 patches ago is VERY substantial. If it was unintentional, I recommend you just run the opening move between 10.06.6 and .13. You'll notice the difference for sure.


With every new version I also run run AI vs. AI tests (full grand campaigns) as well and check things... I didn't notice anything out of ordinary...


Leo "Apollo11"

With all due respect Leo, playing yourself and on a knife's edge or letting the AI run against itself is a serious difference...




glvaca -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 10:10:42 PM)

@ Kfosso, it displays turn 16 because it is turn 16! [;)]
The AAR was bit behind but is now current.

Anyway, the cav division had been in the front lines for quite a while and had only just been beaten back in a previous attempt to infiltrate. It was low on manpower.

My point is that the 7th Flieger is a 97 morale/95 experience unit. It has a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers. 3-1 in arty. Is supported by nebelwherphers and other arty.

IF you can't be certain that such a division succeeds in beating back a worn out low morale/experience unit with a hasty, then what?





glvaca -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/21/2012 10:15:41 PM)

Flav, my raising this issue has nothing to do with my game against Tarhannus.
Tarhannus has done nothing that I find in violation to what was agreed before the match started. I have not raised any of the points I posted about to him or asked him to do something different. He is perfectly within his right to do what he has been doing.
My winning/loosing the match does not matter.

These sort of results should not happen. Leader's influencing combats is fine, recon having an influence is fine. But there should be sure wins, this should have been one of them. Those elite para's would have cut those misserable cav to pieces in short order in RL. There is no question about that and I dare you to play any kind of tactical game with these odds.

This did not happen in previous versions. Or if it did in way, way less frequency then currently.




notenome -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 1:56:32 AM)

I'm not sure I agree with the sure wins philosophy. Especially in WWII, pretty much anything that could happen did happen at some point or another. Like an entire panzercorps being isolated by a single stubborn tank for 2 days. Eastern Front is full of examples of Axis infantry divisions having a rough time of it in woods, Rauss and Halder both wrote that the Russians were superior fighters in woods than the Germans.




kg_1007 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 2:02:12 AM)

I think what glvaca is saying has merit. There is no such thing as a "sure win"..while many here always want the historic results to be a "sure thing" also..Setting that aside, he is saying that an already mauled division, low on everything, hard and "soft" factors such as morale, included, should not be able to beat a freshly arrived division on turn 16, for certain, as there were few examples even in history of the Soviets fighting well until winter that year, and most of their successes came from capable strong units, not from divisions that, as noted, had already been hit and knocked backwards immediately before, and thus, as well, recon should not play a factor, as the cavalry division in question, was already known, and defeated once, so would not likely become stronger, than it was when it had just lost a fight a few days before.




76mm -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 4:00:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
...most of their successes came from capable strong units, not from divisions that, as noted, had already been hit and knocked backwards immediately before...


So no such thing as a "sure thing" except when the Germans are attacking the miserable Slav hordes, is that it? [8|]

While I will never defend this game's combat engine--I think it is over-engineered, opaque, and often just plain goofy--it cuts both ways, and I don't hear any Germans complaining about how easy it is to push Sov units out of fortified city hexes, for instance.




kg_1007 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 4:12:07 AM)

76..that is a good argument that I probably agree with you on, but it is not what THIS one is about..THIS one is about an incident that, according to the original poster, is happening more..while I would have no problem with it happening as a fluke(anything COULD happen in war) if he is correct about it happening very often, it is wrong. Not only that, but none of the given reasons for it happening, would make sense in this case, either..recon should not even play a factor, he states it was just involved in a battle which it lost, already..so most of its details should already be known to the Axis opponent..PLUS, it was less than half the strength, morale, experience, of its elite German opponent(the para division, which, as stated, was near perfect in both experience and morale, as well as full strength).. My statement was that if he is correct about this happening very often, he definitely has a valid issue.
As to the other part of your comment, I agree with you on the fortifications and urban hexes being too easy to root out. I do not agree with the implied meaning I read in it though. I see it mostly as the opposite..the Soviet players mostly want everything"realistic".."hey, we won in real life, so we should win here, and the Axis players should just shut up, your side never was going to win anyway, so why play"..HOWEVER, these same "historic" Soviet players, for the most part, attack any situation where it goes against them.




notenome -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 4:29:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

I think what glvaca is saying has merit. There is no such thing as a "sure win"..while many here always want the historic results to be a "sure thing" also..Setting that aside, he is saying that an already mauled division, low on everything, hard and "soft" factors such as morale, included, should not be able to beat a freshly arrived division on turn 16, for certain, as there were few examples even in history of the Soviets fighting well until winter that year, and most of their successes came from capable strong units, not from divisions that, as noted, had already been hit and knocked backwards immediately before, and thus, as well, recon should not play a factor, as the cavalry division in question, was already known, and defeated once, so would not likely become stronger, than it was when it had just lost a fight a few days before.


Soviets had plenty of successes before the winter. Germany's casualties in July where the highest for any month of the war until Stalingrad (63,000)[1].

Two things which are being ignored here: First it was a hasty attack, which means it was not a pre-planned and coordinated assault. Second a hold does not mean that the division was stopped. Just because an attack initially fails does not mean the defenders beat an attacker. It means they absorbed some mps, if 7th flieger makes a renewed attack and pushes the cavalry division out, then it was simply delayed by the cavalry division. The only thing this simulates is that 7th Flieger attempted to press the advantage and catch the cavalry division off guard, being initially unsuccessful.

The problem is that the game simply weans German players to believe they can trash any unfortified division on the clear or woods with a hasty attack (and indeed they can, for the most part). So when it doesn't happen it becomes a shock, when in reality a hasty attack (in WitE's theoretical game terms) should be a much dicier proposition then it is right now. An unplanned, uncoordinated attack into woods is almost always militarily a bad idea.

[1] Stahel, David Kiev 1941: Hitler's Battle for Supremacy in the East. 2012. "...in the following month no fewer than 63,000 German soldiers fell (with tens of thousands more wounded), making July the deadliest month of the war until the battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942/1943."




kg_1007 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 4:43:47 AM)

In July 1941, the Germans assaulted and took several key cities..Minsk, Vitebsk,Riga, primarily, and reached the outskirts of Smolensk(it fell Aug 5). The higher casualties correspond to fighting in an urban environment, not to any "success" by the Red Army, who was still in general retreat all across the map at that time.




76mm -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 5:09:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
My statement was that if he is correct about this happening very often, he definitely has a valid issue.


As a Sov player, I have less visibility on how the combat results play out, as I don't go back review every result after the fact; therefore, I can't really comment on how often this occurs, or if it occurs more often than it used to.

That said, the combat engine has been just plain weird since the very beginning, and if the devs say they haven't made any changes I don't see any reason to disbelieve them. If anything, I would say that German hasty attacks are generally too successful at the moment, as the Sovs could and did occasionally give the Germans a bloody nose and delay them by a few days (as represented by a failed hasty attack).

I won't argue about whether or not such a result is justified in this case--who knows? The vast abstractions and convoluted calculations involved in determining combat results makes such a debate rather futile in my view.




76mm -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 5:14:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
The higher casualties correspond to fighting in an urban environment, not to any "success" by the Red Army, who was still in general retreat all across the map at that time.


We must be reading different books.




kg_1007 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 5:28:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
My statement was that if he is correct about this happening very often, he definitely has a valid issue.


As a Sov player, I have less visibility on how the combat results play out, as I don't go back review every result after the fact; therefore, I can't really comment on how often this occurs, or if it occurs more often than it used to.

That said, the combat engine has been just plain weird since the very beginning, and if the devs say they haven't made any changes I don't see any reason to disbelieve them. If anything, I would say that German hasty attacks are generally too successful at the moment, as the Sovs could and did occasionally give the Germans a bloody nose and delay them by a few days (as represented by a failed hasty attack).

I won't argue about whether or not such a result is justified in this case--who knows? The vast abstractions and convoluted calculations involved in determining combat results makes such a debate rather futile in my view.

I agree very much with that analysis.




kg_1007 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 5:31:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
The higher casualties correspond to fighting in an urban environment, not to any "success" by the Red Army, who was still in general retreat all across the map at that time.


We must be reading different books.

I don't think so, just I read behind the books..urban fighting ALWAYS is higher in casualties..the Axis took several major cities in July, and lost 63.000+ troops that month..those casualties DO "seem" high, until you relate them to the fighting that was going on..and the fact, that the Germans won those ongoing fights, for the cities mentioned. Even a win, in urban environment, results in heavy casualties, as even the modern American army in Iraq dealt with...just many of ours, were only wounded, when the same ones would have been KIAs in WW2.




notenome -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 5:35:55 AM)

So you attribute the highest losses of any month until Stalingrad to German successes? And the red army was most definitively not in general retreat all across the map. They had managed to stall the Germans at Kiev and stalled the southern pincer at Smolensk. Before the panzers had even begun to set off for Minsk the Soviets had begun strong counterattacks that stopped the German advance east of Smolensk and created several local crises for von Bock's AGC.




kg_1007 -> RE: Are you serious??? (6/22/2012 5:46:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

So you attribute the highest losses of any month until Stalingrad to German successes? And the red army was most definitively not in general retreat all across the map. They had managed to stall the Germans at Kiev and stalled the southern pincer at Smolensk. Before the panzers had even begun to set off for Minsk the Soviets had begun strong counterattacks that stopped the German advance east of Smolensk and created several local crises for von Bock's AGC.

I do not attribute them to "German successes" as casualties ALWAYS are bad..what I said, was that they were attributed to urban fighting that month, and, history shows, that the Germans DID succeed in those urban fights that month..so to be technical, yes, they were German successes, also. In game terms, Smolensk fell historically on turn 7, and the battle for it began on turn 3, so yes, they held there for quite long against really heavy odds, which lasted most of July, which cost many German casualties(the most in that month actually) BUT, you were the one who said it was a Red Army success..the fact they stood for a month, was..and in this game, it is much too difficult for the Soviet player to stand for a month in any city..but, in the end, it was a German success..which was, however, not my point..my point was that a few large urban battles in July resulted i n the heavier casualties referenced by Glantz, NOT "Soviet victories".




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1601563