RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (Full Version)

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



Message


76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 6:58:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread
Do you really expect a game with the entire war in the east as it's theme to have a combat model that reflects small-scale engagements by anything other than an abstraction?


I've thought more about this topic...

First, I guess we have to define "small-scale engagements". I think it appropriate for the attrition model to deal with abstracted company and battalion-level actions, etc.

That said, many of these Russian attacks featured a couple of divisions, and their aim was not necessarily to push an entire German division back (the only kind of attack allowed by this combat model), but to take on some portion of that division. After all, the divisional counters in this game do not represent a whole division's worth of troops sitting in some giant encampment--they represent numerous detachments spread throughout the hex and even the adjacent hexes via zones of control. It is very possible that a couple of divisions attacking a detachment could inflict seriuos losses on it, if not defeat it altogether.

So yes, I would expect a game of this scale and complexity to allow what you can call "limited attacks", the purpose of which would be not to push an entire division back, but to inflict losses, take on some abtracted detachment, etc. (note that this is NOT a hasty attack, which is simply an ill-prepared attack seeking to push back an entire division).

We are not playing a boargame in which the only possible results might be to retreat or flip over a unit to reflect 50% losses, etc. We are playing what represents itself as a complex computer wargame with a strength and combat model based on individual weapons systems--why is the only type of attack an all-out attack to push an entire division or stack back?

This kind of thing could also in theory be done in the attrition model, but given the divisional scale I don't know if that would be the most appropriate way to do it.




janh -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 9:47:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
I think the bigger issue here is not that the Soviet player "can perfectly plan his attacks" but that the Soviet player doesn't attack anywhere near as much as he did historically.

And that reason has nothing to do with the Soviet's ability to use deliberate attacks or not. It's more centered on the inability of the Soviet to mass enough firepower, in 1941, to attack a German occupied hex, period.

The historical Soviet Army in 1941 was tactically trained (such as it was) as an offensive arm, not a defensive one. Now, you can question how effective these were, but that is a different issue. So, in 1941, the Soviets launch a large number of counter attacks at the local level - just as they had been taught. And they were destroyed piecemeal.

The player, knowing the poor state of the Soviet Army in relationship to the German Army, and the supply situation, simply doesn't do that. And its not an issue of coordination, but one of looking at a difference between the CV value of a stack of Soviet units versus a stack of German units. It makes no logical sense. As a Soviet player, I might launch a few attacks against the Axis minor allies and an exposure, weak German motorize BG or unit until winter, but that's about it. So its not very many. And most AAR support that approach. Has nothing to do with MPs or deliberate attacks versus hasty attacks - the German units are just damn difficult to attack in 41. And the player knows it, so he simply doesn't attack often.

Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but I would love to see a "promising assault" as a Soviet player. I just don't see them in 1941. And if I do see them, I can't get there anyway as I don't have the movement points as it now stands for a deliberate attack.
...


Turtlefang, I can't exactly say I disagree, but I may have a very different take on achieving the same. I think the biggest challenge with a game like that is to negate the effect of hindsight, else it might not follow anything even distantly related to history even if you have underlying models that capture logistics, combat, ToEs, causal links between production (changes) and events, etc. perfectly nailed down. Player will just behave entirely different 100 years later than generals without that knowledge, acting in a time of different doctrines and casualty count valuing, and having their head personally on stake... Like you said, see your "player knowing" comment.

You probably convolute two parameters, which I'd rather consider seperately: Unit combat value versus the issue of "poor C&C", "misinterpretation of orders", and other generalship or staff errors that seem to given the first couple of month in 41 a distinct face, though they occurred generally on both sides throughout the conflict as in any war. I agree that either the base morale/exp of Soviets ought to be tuned up a tid bit in 41 (in addition to more ample reinforcements, but overall in balanced measure...) in return for a lessening of blizzard combat penalties. Alternatively the combat engine could be adjusted to result in somewhat higher losses for a side that is far superior in strength or quality terms so that (counter or attrition) attacks begin to be at least minimally sensible. Having defending actions cost MPs too would be another awesome feature in the future of this series and add another level like fixing the enemy. Cavalry would suddenly find one of its original roles...

Regarding the issue of "C&C" I would like to see in the future that poor C&C in the broader sense is not just parametrized into admin rolls or such, which all happen before the turn shows, or well hidden in the combat engine, but in fact happen during my turn: I move a unit around, and either like 76mm suggests it can't move as far/attack as projected and I am stuck, or it even has a chance to misstep based on its stats. So even LAH or some Guards should occasionally take the wrong road or fail to make an attack on time. Or that a group of units selected for a deliberate attack splits some off to mimic some C&C screw-up. Just something unforeseen, which I cannot really take into account into my planning when opening the turn.

It is about the impression, the feel, in contrast to the present ruleset, which abstractly captures that in other, less-visible and not unpredictable fashion. It feels more like having to work with poorly trained troops that need breaks or help with their route and logistics planning twice as often as the Landsers, but as long as I know it (the MPs) accurately, I can adjust my plans without screwing up in the same fashion as the Soviets did. Some rules along these lines would be nice in the future of this series, and probably could even be needed to mimic the lethargy/failure of the French or Polish to properly grasp the key of the blitzkrieg, and shift is doctrines accordingly. I imagine that without such a penalizing rule, a French Army being wielded as freely as the Wehrmacht would probably make a repeat of the German coup almost impossible. It might rather end in WW1 all over.

There is another major benefit from such random events as well: In return for "random" screw-ups, you could raise MPs (or lower the amount needed per hex for <=50 morale units), and raise combat strength of SHC units. Depending on how high you design the "C&C" failure probabilities as a function of leader and unit stats, you'd typically read significantly higher Soviet CV and given higher MP (lower hex costs), would probably be tempted more often than now to counterattack or stand your ground. Many of them just break down, but at least they have a probability to succeed. So in the end, you have also a finite probability to succeed with the hard Soviet counterattack strategy better than historically, and one to fail worse. But at least your units would attack/defend better, plus you'd have some incentive to try to fight as much as you can. Would this overcome the hindsight that the Soviets have failed at large with these counterattacks? Or that the counterattacks served the purposes of attrition and winning time? I don't know, but I think more I would be tempted to try more often at least. Just my two cents, though.




turtlefang -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 4:30:27 PM)

76mm:

You now changing your position. The original discussion was that the combat model was incorrect and did not allow the Russia to attack at the "outpost" and below level. Now, you saying this can be handled with the attrition model, which was my position. Pick one. Either the combat model simulates intense combat situations and the attrition models handles the rest, or the combat model has to supply all the losses to reach the historical loss ratio's achieved in the game.

As a note, either approach can be used, but the designers chose to use the two in combination. So like it or not, if we decide to play the game, both have to work together to get us to the appropriate loss level.

On the impact of the attrition and combat model hanging together, we will have to disagree on this one. I think the attrition level for the German needs to be increased - its too low in my opinion and then relies on the blizzard to over correct to achieve the right results. If that were corrected, you could lessen the impact of the blizzard and get close to historical results. That would "fix" the major problem in 1941 excluding the air war.

Regarding replacements leveling off TO&E. Historically, this just isn't supported. The Germans lost approximately 1.1 million men in 1941 (831,000 combat losses). They received approximately 500,000 replacements. Sources were as follows:

1) 375,000 were losses sustained and returned to combat after recovering from wounds. Unlike US policy, German policy was to return men to the same unit after recovery. This number maybe off by 100,000 as I have seen multiple sources. If so, then an additional 100,000 men were sent to the front from either 2 or 3.
2) 80,000 men were selected from units elsewhere in the services and shipped to the East front; and additional 120,000 were shipped as part of this group but were Air Force troops assigned to Air Force
3) 50,000 were from the class of 1922 that was called up; and additional 150,000 men from this class was called up and transferred to the East front in the early 42

All these are approximate as several different sources show slightly different numbers.

By December, 1941, the East Front Army was down approximately 500,000 men. Net new replacements for the year equaled about 130,000 men. Statistically, just not much went into maintaining the divisions.

The Field Replacement Battalions - about 80,000 men - are not included in these numbers as they were committed by GOC as battalions to support attacks - not used as replacements.

In addition, IIRC, approximately 30% of the German infantry divisions actually went into the campaign at 110% to 120% over strength so that's one reason they could continue to function as long as they did even with the losses they suffered.

As far as the 1:1/2:1 ratio. Its a design element. Is it the one I would have picked? Probably not and I'm not a huge fan of it. You could use CVs, combat effectiveness analysis, or something else. But I do think this should change over time. And I wouldn't have picked morale to determine mvt pts but it actually works petty well after I have played for a while.

Overall, is the game perfect? No, and I would like to see some changes. But I think you need to make a number of changes rather than just one or two to get it there.

The big issues I see are:

1) The German losses are too light in 1941 and can be made better by changing the attrition level
2) Blizzard rules just aren't right and don't even feel right. The Soviets just didn't have that type of ability at that time.
3) The air war. Enough said.
4) The first turn surprise rule, although I have mixed feelings on this one. The first turn really should invoke panic in the Russian.
5) Too many historical Russian units are missing in 1941/42.
6) I personally think the some of the Germans CVs are underpowered after turn one.
7) Units don't hold out in pockets long enough.
8) Cities and forts need a defensive boost.




turtlefang -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 4:46:18 PM)

janh -

If your stating the game doesn't "feel" right, then so be it. Each person has to come to that conclusion on their own and each will have their own ideas of what "feels" right.

C&C issues to me seem to exist below the the battalion level in modern warfare (say WWII and on just for a definition). I have a very difficult time finding any information or sources that show battalions (regiments for the Soviets) that don't get to where they are suppose to for a jump off and then jump off. Below that level, you can find thousands - or maybe hundreds of thousands - of examples of issues of coordination. Orders just don't seem to get lost, or attacks delayed.

I actually find more examples at the corps or army level than the regiment/division level of commanders disobeying orders from a higher HQs.

So, if the game level is divisional, it doesn't feel right to me for the random movement pt gig. But that's a "feel" issue on my side.

And, as note, I'm not claiming I'm right. I think both you and 76mm bring valid POVs to the table. I'm just offering mine as an alternative.




76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 5:00:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
You now changing your position. The original discussion was that the combat model was incorrect and did not allow the Russia to attack at the "outpost" and below level. Now, you saying this can be handled with the attrition model, which was my position. Pick one. Either the combat model simulates intense combat situations and the attrition models handles the rest, or the combat model has to supply all the losses to reach the historical loss ratio's achieved in the game.


hmmm, actually I haven't changed my position, because we really didn't define what kind of outpost we were talking about; I did not have platoon or company sized outposts in mind. Moreover, with all due respect, I don't have to "pick one"; these issues could probably be addressed various ways, and I'm willing to consider anything that works better than the current system. The bottom line is that I don't think the current combat model handles "intense combat situations" in 1941 very well.

I stil don't understand your attitute toward the 1:1->2:1 mechanism; to say that it is a "design element" is indisputable, but that begs the question of why it should exist at all if you have a properly-designed combat model--this is a kludge necessary to balance the game, pure and simple. And, other than for purely game-balance purposes (as now), why should it change over time? Why should the Sovs' advantage decrease as their army gets better?

The combat model uses TOEs and a variety of convoluted and opaque calculations to determine combat results--OK, fine, but if your combat model works you should not then have to apply this strange modifier on top of it to get "realistic" results. People accept it because it is necessary for game balance...

I agree with most of your points at the bottom.




Michael T -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 9:15:34 PM)

I think the so called 'AP crunch' stratgey should be nullified. If the Sov's have enough manpower and arms to rebuild destroyed units they should be a free (AP wise) build right through the game. Expanding the OOB should still cost AP. The AP crunch, although effective, is really a ludicrous method to gain a victory over Russia.

Also the cap of 500 AP should be raised for the Sov's to perhaps 750. Considering all the AP expenditures they will suffer. Saving AP beyond 500 should be possible rather than be forced to waste it on some frivolous expentiure.




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 9:27:53 PM)

Michael, I've long felt that rifle units of divisional level or below should be freely replaced and subject only to replacement pool limits. (Not corps.) I can see the case for full AP expenditures for the more technical arms, though, and even corps sized rifle units. These would require some special effort to rebuild once lost.




Michael T -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 9:50:52 PM)

While on the subject of rebuilding corps, what happens if a component is destroyed? In so much as how does one ever reconstitute the original corps?




Flaviusx -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 9:54:32 PM)

Good question. Never seen this happen, but I suspect you may be stuck with an incomplete corps in the event of losing a portion of it when broken down.





turtlefang -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/10/2012 10:22:59 PM)

My attitude toward the 1:1/2:1 is that its there and its not going to change. Its too in bedded in the game engine to change it radically. No more complicated than that. It was a design choice that was made - just like the 10 miles per hex and the division/corps level. Change any of those three radically, and you will have a cascade impact on the game that can't be predicted.

Right or wrong, those were the basic choices in the structural design of the game. So I accept those.

As far as change over time, its my believe that the Soviets simply got much much better over the years and the Germans got much much worse compared to their 41 army. So 2:1 ratio doesn't make sense as you advance in the war. It should shift. Again, my opinion.

In the end, I don't expect it to change. I suspect its hard coded.

And if the designers did it for game balance, that doesn't bother me either. Game balance is a good thing in my opinion. It can be handled in a lot of ways. This is one of them. VPs is another. Time limits is third. If they came out and said - yep, we did it for game balance and its not historical - I would be just fine with that. Designers made those types of trade offs all the time. Some are just more open about it than others.

Again, perhaps not my preferred method, but it plays to the perceived Soviet Hordes winning in the East. And then again, I can't design games, so I shouldn't throw stones.[:)]

As far as the combat elements that go into the model, I don't claim to understand them. Again, in general, they "feel" about right to me. The Soviet usually but not always suffers twice as many losses as the German. Add that to the surrenders and routes, and it seems to come close to where I would expect. Another "feel" issue. And then you have a few wildcards where the losses are off the chart for one side or the other. I just put that down to bad luck for whoever gets the short straw that roll - it happened.

The one place I do think it might need to change - German tanks and artillery units seem to survive more than they did in real life. German tank strength seems to stay petty high in 41 compared to real life - and artillery (gun) losses seem light to what I have read.

On the other hand, I like the idea of the "spoiling attack" you mentioned earlier as a third option for attacks. That one could be used to rob movement points or pin the enemy in the a hex. And that would be a valid attack goal.





76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/11/2012 5:49:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
My attitude toward the 1:1/2:1 is that its there and its not going to change. Its too in bedded in the game engine to change it radically. No more complicated than that. It was a design choice that was made - just like the 10 miles per hex and the division/corps level. Change any of those three radically, and you will have a cascade impact on the game that can't be predicted.


I really don't agree that the 1:1->2:1 mechanism is as integral to the game as the hex or unit scales.

First, recall that originally this mechanism applied throughout the whole war, then it was cut off in March 42. It exists purely for balance purposes. It is as if when they were making the map they decided that the Germans had it too easy in 1941 so they decided to add a mountain range in Ukraine to balance things out. Would that also be a valid design decision? I don't think so...

Second, I seriously doubt--and most fervently hope--that the game was not designed around this mechanism, and that it was added late in the design process when the devs realized that the combat model didn't properly reflect Sov combat capabilities.

Third, the results of removing this mechanism are in fact rather predicable--the Sovs would lose virtually any offensive capability until the blizzard, and the blizzard would would be greatly weakened, thus greatly favoring the Germans. I think this is rather clear.

Clearly this issue can't be fixed in a patch, but I certainly won't buy any WitE 2.0 unless this and a bunch of the other issues raised in this thread are fixed.




turtlefang -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/11/2012 2:55:29 PM)

76mm:

I think we may have beaten this one to death.

I haven't played WITE that long - maybe five months or so - so the 1:1/2:1 has been the same since I started.

As to how the designer placed it into the game, we would have to hear from them to know if it can be changed or not - I just assume it was embedded. And it's my assumption. And everyone knows what it means when you assume something.

As far as WITE 2.0 - I'm guessing it will be a much different game given some of the information that has come out rather than just an "incremental improvement".

And regarding buying another WITE 2.0, all I can do is quote (or at least paraphrase), Michael T - warts and all, WITE is still the best East front division level game that I have every played.

And, as a note, I have been playing East Front games going back to the days of boardgames - SPIs War in the East, DNO, Fire in the East, ect.. and then moving into computer games. And I agree with his statement.

It's not perfect, and I do agree with many of your points, but I'm glad I spent the money and I enjoy it. As do the friends I play it on a weekly basis.

On a per hour basis, its turned into very cheap entertainment for me. So the odds are petty good I would buy WITE 2.0 even if it still had a few warts on it.

And I guess that's the way I ultimately judge any game I buy - do I play it, do I recommend it to a friend, and do I get interested enough to have conversations like this with people like you on a forum? If so, the game gets high marks from me. If not, it goes in the trade in pile.




76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/11/2012 3:10:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
And regarding buying another WITE 2.0, all I can do is quote (or at least paraphrase), Michael T - warts and all, WITE is still the best East front division level game that I have every played.

And, as a note, I have been playing East Front games going back to the days of boardgames - SPIs War in the East, DNO, Fire in the East, ect.. and then moving into computer games. And I agree with his statement.

It's not perfect, and I do agree with many of your points, but I'm glad I spent the money and I enjoy it. As do the friends I play it on a weekly basis.


Clearly beaten to a pulp!

I should also say that while I have a lot of complaints against this game and don't plan to play it anymore past my current game, it has been good value for money and I've consistently recommended that people interested in the East Front buy it, although I have been rather irked by the need for so many patches and the resulting swings in game balance.

Also, while I have been wargaming for many many years, including many East Front games, this is the first theater-level East Front game I've played, either board or computer (generally when I play East Front I stick with tactical or operational games). So while I have absolutely no reason or even ability to doubt that this is the best East Front theater-level game so far, frankly I don't think it is good enough. This war is certainly extremely challenging to model properly, and hopefully they'll get it right on the next attempt.




Bletchley_Geek -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/12/2012 4:54:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Cities in general need to be more of a focal point of the game. Perhaps if the supply system were more reliant on cities close to the action to act as distribution centers or something.

Baring that what we have is a game map where no location is really any more important than another so players have no reason to care about holding anything and now the winning game strategies that have become commonplace are all about overall army sizes and strengths. Regional control plays no part in the strategies I've read about at all, because there is nothing to make players care about control other than the total number of hexes between the front and Berlin.


I'm starting shortly a GC41 soon with an alternate set of victory conditions which take into account this, which I think is one of the biggest problems with the game. Unfortunately, the soundness of such a system is linked to a few other game systems - such as logistics, which are just too easy, and the combat model - so figuring out something reasonable and workable takes some time. I'll try to keep people posted on how this experiment works by making a very light AAR. We're experimenting with a "test drive" game reducing Logistics levels to 50% (and we should perhaps as well reduce Morale levels, and top Fort levels to 120% or more).

Onto a different topic.

turtlefang has described perfectly most of my woes and one of the things I hate the most about the 1941 GC as the Soviets. As a rational player, one wants to attack only when the chances of success are reasonable. Or look so, you may make a bad call and pay for it, and that's fair. In my experience, in order to have a decent chance of success in a deliberate attack against German Infantry or Motorized divisions one needs at the very least "fresh" 4 Rifle Divisions, against a Panzer Division never less than 6 fresh Rifle Divisions. That with plenty of arty in the Army HQ and a good commander - that is, with good Inf and Morale stats. That's a force one doesn't assemble easily, especially in August, which I think is the most critical time for the Soviet Union in 1941.

Then there's the problem of getting it into place within your turn. If you can't assemble your strike force in one turn, just forget about it. The German will detect your mass and will probably strike on the flanks and encircle it next turn. Or just raid ZOCs deep in your flanks, so your low Morale Soviet units can barely move across what is actually empty land, and become, de facto, "pinned".

And then, there's a third question to answer yourself: Why I should invest this precious, well-groomed force to "defeat" just one division, to see it likely encircled next turn? It happens too often that the benefit obtained (a division counter retreating one hex) doesn't really cover the short-term cost (the losses) nor the mid-term cost (it becomes a target for guaranteed annihilation).

I'm fine having heavy losses in the attack as the Soviet in 1941. I'm fine with the Germans holding their ground. But I'm not fine with combat results entailing several thousand casualties for the Red Army and just a few dozen for the Germans: that means that I lose a regiment for every German company I take out. It doesn't make sense that each Soviet attack entails a casualty ratio which wouldn't have much to envy that of the Somme or the Nivelle Offensives - I shudder to remember the accounts I've read about that.

And the actual problem doesn't lies as much on the actual combat resolution mechanics, but rather in the retreat attrition that takes its toll whenever the attack fails. And experience is the ground element stat that is checked to determine whether it's destroyed, damaged or suffers no ill effect by the roll. That's quite reasonable for handling retreats on the defense... but on the attack? To further compound the issue, there isn't a linear relationship between experience and retreat attrition (I remember ComradeP commenting on it being more like exponential). So a ground element with 80 EXP is perhaps 10 times less likely to become destroyed or damaged, than a 60 EXP element. If something is at a premium for the Red Army in 1941 is experience...

This is actually why attacking as the Germans from late 1942 onwards when facing tight odds is so, ehm, unpleasant. They don't have anymore the EXP-shield which allowed risky Hasty attacks in 1941 with little to no consequence.

PS: And unit Morale is the cap for Experience (which increases naturally). Hence the obsession of people like Pelton with preserving it, no matter how funky the game becomes.

EDIT: My computer crashed as I pressed the OK button (too soon).




janh -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/12/2012 8:29:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
I haven't played WITE that long - maybe five months or so - ...

As far as WITE 2.0 - I'm guessing it will be a much different game given some of the information that has come out rather than just an "incremental improvement".
...



You should get back in then. Recent patches did improve logistics and mulling issues a lot, and the overall impression of the game has made quantum leaps since its release, I would say. Just look back at the early days blizzard description, or the initial Panzer raids, which both are history in this fashion now.

WitE sure is among the best, if not the best WW2 East Front game on the market presently. So was UV at its time, and then WitP some years later. A lot going on in these forums I would consider "gathering ideas and people's preferences" and I hope the devs, including Gary, do occasionally drop by to get a feel for what their customer base wants. Not that with only a comparably few people posting or discussing here this is necessarily representative of the majority, but I guess it is at least hints. And I must say many of the ideas tossed around in the past year sounded quite good, and added to the game, would give me personally some hard reasons to invest another $80 or 100 to buy a direct successor. Maybe one or another idea brought up here will make an impression and come back haunting us in WitW or another title.

I think there are some analogies in the evolution of UV/WitP/AE and WitE/WitW/? in that sense. If you go back to WitP and the beginnings of AE, you may remember or read some crazy ideas tossed around by the players and customers. Yet if you play AE as it is now, you'll be amazed that not only many of the crazy ideas made it in, but the devs even topped that with more love to detail, complexity and realism. I would almost say that without the fanbase, its criticism and ideas, there would be no AE now.




amatteucci -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/12/2012 1:50:46 PM)


quote:


And the actual problem doesn't lies as much on the actual combat resolution mechanics, but rather in the retreat attrition that takes its toll whenever the attack fails. And experience is the ground element stat that is checked to determine whether it's destroyed, damaged or suffers no ill effect by the roll. That's quite reasonable for handling retreats on the defense... but on the attack?

Good point. I think that a different handling of retreat losses for the attacker could resolve some of the issues at hand. It seems an elegant solution that, hopefully, wouldn't imbalance the game or require rewriting from scratch the game engine.





76mm -> RE: Things I would like to see in "the patch" (10/12/2012 2:29:10 PM)

That is a good point.

Moreover, if they fix the extreme casualty ratio in this manner, they might be able to dispense with the 1:1->2:1 kludge, because Sov attacks would inflict German casualties (while suffering heavy but not ridiculous casualties themselves) but not push back entire German divisions, which I think is closer to what happened...




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.296875E-02