Matrix Games Forums

A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/6/2011 2:59:48 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Pelton: games take time, so it's only logical that after almost a year, few multiplayer games got to late 1943-1945. Many people restart after big patches in any case. I don't think the situation is that different from other monster games.

As WitW is a completely different title, I don't see how anything wrong with WitE would have an effect on sales of WitW.

Also, regarding your theory that the game is heavily stacked against the Germans to survive until 1944: this is sort of a contradiction to what you're saying about games not lasting until 1944. How can you know that the Germans will be gone by 1944 if basically no games get to that point? I agree that the mid war situation for the Germans isn't pretty for a variety of reasons, but it's not like we have a dozen or more AAR's where Berlin falls.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 31
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/6/2011 3:31:15 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1890
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ComradeP

Also, regarding your theory that the game is heavily stacked against the Germans to survive until 1944: this is sort of a contradiction to what you're saying about games not lasting until 1944. How can you know that the Germans will be gone by 1944 if basically no games get to that point? I agree that the mid war situation for the Germans isn't pretty for a variety of reasons, but it's not like we have a dozen or more AAR's where Berlin falls.



Game ends because of many reasons, and patching is most important, but not only. I think second place of that list occupies feeling of helplessness - before 1.05 if Soviet player survived summer of '41 in reasonable shape then more often than not from autumn of '42 onwards German army was grinded, grinded and once more grinded and it was happening way way before '44.


I don't know how it will be now, after abolishing +1 rule and decreasing ARM production efficiency, but I still think Soviet advance will start quite early. It is assumption based on developments of current summer campaigns. We shall see soon.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 11/6/2011 3:32:50 PM >

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 32
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/6/2011 4:09:59 PM   
Swenslim

 

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline
I think the problem is in the VP system. Lets look why Soviets lost so many soldiers in 1941 and 1942. Because Stalin demanded from his generals to defend Minsk in any cost, to start immidiate counter attack at Dubno,  to defend Kiev at any cost, to defend Odessa, to retake Kerch and whole Crimea, to stand and defend every soviet city.
And what we see in game ? Soviet player only runs and runs. It is almost impossible for germans to recreate historical cauldrons.

In real life Stalin  often executed his generals for abondoning Pskov, Kerch, Minsk and other cities. In game soviets players suffers nothing for abandoning almost without any figt such cities of utter political importance as Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol and even Leningrad. Leningrad is a cradle of soviet Revolution, the loss of that city would have been catastrofic moral hit to soviet people and their will to fight. In game only loss is  few manpower points.

The loss of Moscow before 7 December 1941 would definitly had resulted in Japan attack against soviet Far East.

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 33
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/6/2011 5:15:06 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Bletchley Geek: it's more a problem of them having significantly higher chances to fire even with poor to mediocre experience and leaders. It's also why casualties go up again as soon as the Soviets get 41c Rifle divisions: 41b Rifle divisions have a minimal amount of support weapons, but 41c Rifle divisions have plenty of mortars and also some SMG squads.

It's also caused by combat almost always ending with close quarter fights and, particularly, by virtually all elements closing in on eachother.

Normally, the SMG squads would probably just be picked off one by one by regular rifle squads in clear terrain, as there would be no reason for the riflemen to close in to a range where they're at a serious disadvantage. Currently, your infantry happily runs into a disadvantageous situation and pays the price. The SMG squads now always perform like you might expect them to perform in urban terrain, as virtually without exception, elements close in to about 50 meters.


I see, so it's a problem about calibrating ground element attributes and also a problem about combat not having more phases (say more phases at mid ranges, between 1,000 and 50 meters). I still don't see why fixing any of the two issues would entail a major rework of the supply system, if ROF is capped proportionally to the lengthening of combat resolution ??

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 34
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/6/2011 5:22:04 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

I think the problem is in the VP system. Lets look why Soviets lost so many soldiers in 1941 and 1942. Because Stalin demanded from his generals to defend Minsk in any cost, to start immidiate counter attack at Dubno,  to defend Kiev at any cost, to defend Odessa, to retake Kerch and whole Crimea, to stand and defend every soviet city.
And what we see in game ? Soviet player only runs and runs. It is almost impossible for germans to recreate historical cauldrons.

In real life Stalin  often executed his generals for abondoning Pskov, Kerch, Minsk and other cities. In game soviets players suffers nothing for abandoning almost without any figt such cities of utter political importance as Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol and even Leningrad. Leningrad is a cradle of soviet Revolution, the loss of that city would have been catastrofic moral hit to soviet people and their will to fight. In game only loss is  few manpower points.


We all know IRL this defend-at-all-costs-policy was used by both sides, by the Soviets from 1941 to 1942, by Germany from 1943 to 1945. IRL the Soviets won the war. Why do you think recreating this policy in WitE would tip the balance in favour of Germany?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Swenslim
The loss of Moscow before 7 December 1941 would definitly had resulted in Japan attack against soviet Far East.



Care to present any proof for this ... assumption?

Regards

(in reply to Swenslim)
Post #: 35
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/6/2011 5:26:31 PM   
Swenslim

 

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline
It will not tip balance. It will only give a little bit more opportunity for germans to encircle soviets forces.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 36
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/6/2011 8:22:26 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I see, so it's a problem about calibrating ground element attributes and also a problem about combat not having more phases (say more phases at mid ranges, between 1,000 and 50 meters). I still don't see why fixing any of the two issues would entail a major rework of the supply system, if ROF is capped proportionally to the lengthening of combat resolution ??


The supply system would have to be reworked because artillery, which now often fires only a limited numbers of rounds, would consume far more ammunition, and for artillery elements the ammunition costs are tougher on the supply system than that of another round of, say, rifle fire. Machineguns could also theoretically consume far more ammo.

ROF being proportionally capped to the lengthening of the firing resolution would not fix the problem because, like I said before, it would not remove the problem of the relative amount of times that elements are likely to fire. If a certain element now fires 2 times, and another 4 times, if you'd cut that in half, one element would still fire twice as often/half as many times as the other. The ROFs themselves are not too problematic, although the SMG ROF is probably too generous in general as there should probably be some penalty for the inaccuracy of the weapon at full auto. I've decreased the SMG ranges in a customized variant of the game, and that results in fewer losses.

The entire combat system would also need to be changed to take into account different weapon ranges. For example: riflemen should not normally be within 50 meters of SMG squads in clear terrain. The often heard rebutal of the distances being odd is that "the defender isn't supposed to be static", but that still doesn't make some parts of it historical. Several element types, such as SPAA, would not normally be directly at the frontline, yet they're at the frontline in the game. The only elements that seem to keep some distance between them and the enemy are artillery and (some) AT guns.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 11/6/2011 8:23:43 PM >


_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Swenslim)
Post #: 37
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 10:15:31 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
Thank you for the very detailed explanation Comrade :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

I see, so it's a problem about calibrating ground element attributes and also a problem about combat not having more phases (say more phases at mid ranges, between 1,000 and 50 meters). I still don't see why fixing any of the two issues would entail a major rework of the supply system, if ROF is capped proportionally to the lengthening of combat resolution ??


The supply system would have to be reworked because artillery, which now often fires only a limited numbers of rounds, would consume far more ammunition, and for artillery elements the ammunition costs are tougher on the supply system than that of another round of, say, rifle fire. Machineguns could also theoretically consume far more ammo.

ROF being proportionally capped to the lengthening of the firing resolution would not fix the problem because, like I said before, it would not remove the problem of the relative amount of times that elements are likely to fire. If a certain element now fires 2 times, and another 4 times, if you'd cut that in half, one element would still fire twice as often/half as many times as the other. The ROFs themselves are not too problematic, although the SMG ROF is probably too generous in general as there should probably be some penalty for the inaccuracy of the weapon at full auto. I've decreased the SMG ranges in a customized variant of the game, and that results in fewer losses.


Indeed, but also the expected number of actual shots the element least likely to shoot does should be higher. And the chances of the most likely element to shoot to not get an actual shot would increase. So if the ROF Ground element parameter isn't the main problem, then assuming that both ground elements have the same experience level and same leader, why would a ground element be more likely to shoot than another one? Sorry, Comrade, perhaps I'm a bit thick this morning, but something escapes me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The entire combat system would also need to be changed to take into account different weapon ranges. For example: riflemen should not normally be within 50 meters of SMG squads in clear terrain. The often heard rebutal of the distances being odd is that "the defender isn't supposed to be static", but that still doesn't make some parts of it historical. Several element types, such as SPAA, would not normally be directly at the frontline, yet they're at the frontline in the game. The only elements that seem to keep some distance between them and the enemy are artillery and (some) AT guns.


Agreed. It looks to me that the tactical combat resolution needs to take into account formation and also, stuff like committing reserves to the front from tactical reserves (say a SPAA is committed to the frontline because the frontline ground elements falter), etc. Indeed, that's quite a complex and time consuming change.


(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 38
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 10:59:44 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Well, the ROF is part of the problem, but why some ground elements are more likely to shoot than others aside from ROF is as much of a mystery to me as it is to you.

As I see it, ideally some elements/element types should have their chance to fire increased whilst others should maybe have their chance to fire or to hit decreased. The problem isn't ROF per se, but more due to the haste at which a battle seems to take place, which is causing support weapons to get maybe 1 or 2 shots in and artillery often only 1 before the short-medium ranged elements start firing.

As stated, my earlier statement about the supply system not being able to handle changes was due to the increased ammunition costs that would occur if the support weapons and artillery would fire more often.

Combat results can be so variable, and the differences between how elements perform whilst attacking or defending so great that it's difficult to do more than spot trends/problems that happen most of the time. I've seen 90 experience elements perform worse in battle than 50 experience elements, and I've seen 50 experience elements barely being able to lift a finger as they get crushed by 90 experience elements.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 39
RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 1:28:10 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Well, the ROF is part of the problem, but why some ground elements are more likely to shoot than others aside from ROF is as much of a mystery to me as it is to you.

As I see it, ideally some elements/element types should have their chance to fire increased whilst others should maybe have their chance to fire or to hit decreased. The problem isn't ROF per se, but more due to the haste at which a battle seems to take place, which is causing support weapons to get maybe 1 or 2 shots in and artillery often only 1 before the short-medium ranged elements start firing.

As stated, my earlier statement about the supply system not being able to handle changes was due to the increased ammunition costs that would occur if the support weapons and artillery would fire more often.


Hmmm, ranges decreasing so quickly would mean two things (correct me if I'm wrong):

[list]
  • Longer range elements with low ROF (tanks with higher caliber guns, IG's, ATG's, Rifle) are severely impaired because they get less chances to get shots from a distance. I guess there are really very little elements with long range and high ROF.
  • Shorter range elements are highly benefited, since they're less exposed to be smacked at a distance and they don't care about less chances to shoot, regardless of ROF (ATR's, SMG's, etc.)
    [/list]

    There's one item that doesn't fit any of these two patterns: MG's. MG's should really own soft elements because of high ROF. Have you tried to tweak the ROF values for German MG elements (MG42, MG34). There should be a ton of those in German TOE's (every squad had one of the lighter kind, every platoon one of the heavier kind).

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: ComradeP
    Combat results can be so variable, and the differences between how elements perform whilst attacking or defending so great that it's difficult to do more than spot trends/problems that happen most of the time. I've seen 90 experience elements perform worse in battle than 50 experience elements, and I've seen 50 experience elements barely being able to lift a finger as they get crushed by 90 experience elements.


    Perhaps Pavel can build for you guys a modified Debug version of WitE that collects this data and stores it into CSV format so it can be analyzed offline. I guess such logs could weight a few hundred megabytes, but that should provide you guys with a consistent stream of data so you can track performance of ground elements during combat. Say you get this and then you see that the distribution rather than being a bell curve of sorts, is skewed to either side or too flat. That should ring a few bell ring alarms. Such a tool would be unvaluable for a game like this, were small changes can get amplified in quite unexpected ways. Say someone is generating a random number and because of a typo, one of the function parameters is out of whack.

    That's what I think people call Back To Back or Regression testing, or in Agile parlance, Functional testing.

    (in reply to ComradeP)
  • Post #: 40
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 1:45:35 PM   
    ComradeP

     

    Posts: 7170
    Joined: 9/17/2009
    Status: offline
    quote:

    Longer range elements with low ROF (tanks with higher caliber guns, IG's, ATG's, Rifle) are severely impaired because they get less chances to get shots from a distance. I guess there are really very little elements with long range and high ROF.
    Shorter range elements are highly benefited, since they're less exposed to be smacked at a distance and they don't care about less chances to shoot, regardless of ROF (ATR's, SMG's, etc.)


    Your second conclusion is pretty much correct. Artillery currently does only a small amount of actual damage, which is also why the performance of Soviet artillery divisions can be less spectacular than you might expect. If artillery gets to fire more often, those artillery brigades/divisions will be really scary (and we might have to do something like letting them arrive at the historical time, to avoid people going crazy with them). I have no idea why AFV's are often not performing all that well. When they fire, they tend to hit with high experience, but many never seem to fire and just absorb shots. Infantry guns have fairly good ROF and thus perform well. Soviet 76mm guns cause substantial casualties too.

    We can see the performance of every element type in the debugger, but like I said: there's just too much variability to draw conclusions from aside from noticing some elements are performing well and some are not. The debugger doesn't really tell us how a certain combat result happened, it just explains in detail casualties of/caused by elements. We can even check things like hits per element, but that still doesn't explain why that X amount of elements hit anything. Currently, it's not the lack of data about the performance of the elements that's causing us headaches, it's the complete mystery that is the combat system.


    < Message edited by ComradeP -- 11/7/2011 1:46:49 PM >


    _____________________________

    SSG tester
    WitE Alpha tester
    Panzer Corps Beta tester
    Unity of Command scenario designer

    (in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
    Post #: 41
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 1:57:16 PM   
    Bletchley_Geek


    Posts: 3065
    Joined: 11/26/2009
    From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: ComradeP

    quote:

    Longer range elements with low ROF (tanks with higher caliber guns, IG's, ATG's, Rifle) are severely impaired because they get less chances to get shots from a distance. I guess there are really very little elements with long range and high ROF.
    Shorter range elements are highly benefited, since they're less exposed to be smacked at a distance and they don't care about less chances to shoot, regardless of ROF (ATR's, SMG's, etc.)


    Your second conclusion is pretty much correct. Artillery currently does only a small amount of actual damage, which is also why the performance of Soviet artillery divisions can be less spectacular than you might expect. If artillery gets to fire more often, those artillery brigades/divisions will be really scary (and we might have to do something like letting them arrive at the historical time, to avoid people going crazy with them). I have no idea why AFV's are often not performing all that well. When they fire, they tend to hit with high experience, but many never seem to fire and just absorb shots. Infantry guns have fairly good ROF and thus perform well. Soviet 76mm guns cause substantial casualties too.


    I'd really try tweaking the MG's. While it's a kludgy way of "fixing" this issue, you might get acceptable results without breaking apart everything. The AFV issue is really troubling. Perhaps there's a problem with leader Mech rating checks - an issue which doesn't exist with Inf rating checks. Just throwing ideas.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: ComradeP
    We can see the performance of every element type in the debugger, but like I said: there's just too much variability to draw conclusions from aside from noticing some elements are performing well and some are not. The debugger doesn't really tell us how a certain combat result happened, it just explains in detail casualties of/caused by elements. We can even check things like hits per element, but that still doesn't explain why that X amount of elements hit anything. Currently, it's not the lack of data about the performance of the elements that's causing us headaches, it's the complete mystery that is the combat system.


    Hmmm, what about modifying it, so you can get a dump with fields like:

    Exp, Leader Inf, Leader Mech, Morale?, #Exp Checks Successful, #Leader Inf Checks Successful, #Morale checks successful, #Enemy elements destroyed, #Elements damaged, #Shots

    This I guess would mean just to record every single event during tactical combat system and should allow you to correlate all relevant factors.

    (in reply to ComradeP)
    Post #: 42
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 3:35:47 PM   
    johnnyvagas

     

    Posts: 50
    Joined: 3/28/2011
    Status: offline
    Here’s my jaded, rose colored glasses opinion. I’m sure retribution will include the standard issue cries of Russian Fanboyisim.

    After reading through this thread and threads of similar ilk, I can’t help but come away with the impression that Pelton is frustrated as a result of a game strategy he’s employed in the past that no longer seems to work. From scanning his old AARs, his winnings appear to have been based heavily upon factory raiding. One Trick Pony. More recent AARs indicate that a number of players have developed effective defensive tactics to counter the dreaded factory raiding approach to German game play.

    Pelton’s inattention toward destroying the Russian Army in vain attempts to grab factory cities before their evacuation has left him in fairly precarious position come the blizzard. The size of the Russian Army that he has allowed to develop will continue to nag at him into 1942. Since his tried and true factory raiding no longer works, the game must be broken and all that’s needed to make it perfect again is to invoke changes that will once again allow a factory raiding strategy to prevail. If only Heavy Industry meant something; If only the Russians didn’t have so much rail capacity.

    Pelton’s been drug kicking and screaming into a 1942 where he has allowed the Russian Army to grow to an enormous size. He’s faced with trying to do in 1942 what he should have been focusing upon in 1941. But rather than try to wrestle the initiative back into his court in 1942, he sits on his hands and proclaims that it’s hopeless for the Germans to do anything other than dig in after 1941.

    Now we get to read complaints about German combat results being nerfed in 1942 and how National morale keeps German units in 1942+ from obtaining the uberness they enjoyed in 1941. If only German units in 1942 all had morale of 75+ and were filled out to 100% TOE than Pelton could dig himself out of the holes he’s dug by his pursuit of a flawed 1941 strategy of factory raiding.

    (in reply to ComradeP)
    Post #: 43
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 4:27:27 PM   
    ComradeP

     

    Posts: 7170
    Joined: 9/17/2009
    Status: offline
    I think that's a nice summary.

    There's truth to combat results turning sour for the Axis in 1942, but Pelton is indeed mostly campaigning to turn the game into a game he can win by doing the only strategy he has developed thus far: abuse HQ build-up, make ahistorical leaps to destroy factories, abusing the fact that factories magically disappear the moment a city is captured.

    -

    Bletchley Geek: I forgot to mention it, but a while ago, we were working on/testing an alternative combat system, but the testing was halted in favour of concentrating other things, although the alternative combat system will be used in WitW. The current combat system won't be at the core of WitW. I'm personally hoping that the new combat system can then be moved back to WitE, but the developers are not yet sure whether that might be possible.

    _____________________________

    SSG tester
    WitE Alpha tester
    Panzer Corps Beta tester
    Unity of Command scenario designer

    (in reply to johnnyvagas)
    Post #: 44
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 6:17:04 PM   
    TulliusDetritus


    Posts: 4403
    Joined: 4/1/2004
    From: Back to Reality :(
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Swenslim

    I think the problem is in the VP system. Lets look why Soviets lost so many soldiers in 1941 and 1942. Because Stalin demanded from his generals to defend Minsk in any cost, to start immidiate counter attack at Dubno,  to defend Kiev at any cost, to defend Odessa, to retake Kerch and whole Crimea, to stand and defend every soviet city.
    And what we see in game ? Soviet player only runs and runs. It is almost impossible for germans to recreate historical cauldrons.

    In real life Stalin  often executed his generals for abondoning Pskov, Kerch, Minsk and other cities. In game soviets players suffers nothing for abandoning almost without any figt such cities of utter political importance as Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol and even Leningrad. Leningrad is a cradle of soviet Revolution, the loss of that city would have been catastrofic moral hit to soviet people and their will to fight. In game only loss is  few manpower points.

    The loss of Moscow before 7 December 1941 would definitly had resulted in Japan attack against soviet Far East.



    The truth and only the truth I will always sacrifice forces to protect Leningrad. Then you see some Soviets abandon the city on turn 6 or 7. This is not the Great Patriotic War

    I ONLY see a problem... Should the Germans bag 3 million Soviet soldiers, and I am only talking about captured, not KIA and disabled?

    Hypothesis: OK...

    Consequence: wouldn't the Germans grab WHATEVER they want (the Soviets would have LOST MANY MANY units...); what's left to defend the Soviet Union? Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov... With the new changes (new fort rules) defending the Soviet Union is HARDER. Many retreats under 1.05 would have possibly been "holds" before... So in fact the Germans basically trash everything in their path as long as they have enough forces.

    If some Germans want to bag those huge amount of soldiers I want forces which CAN hold German attacks (one week here, another week there)... Because you like it or not the Soviets did keep Leningrad and Moscow in their hands (yes, despite the 3 million soldiers bagged)... This, in game terms, would not have been possible if the Soviet forces didn't manage many "helds" here and there... and quite frequently if you ask me...

    I have seen MUCH LESS "holds" under 1.05

    I think Oleg was correct. This 1.05 is a gift to German players. And I am thinking about the Blitzkrieg. Not saying this has to be a mistake per se.

    _____________________________

    "Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

    (in reply to Swenslim)
    Post #: 45
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 6:29:15 PM   
    TulliusDetritus


    Posts: 4403
    Joined: 4/1/2004
    From: Back to Reality :(
    Status: offline
    After all, with the "few" current Soviet losses we see in almost every AAR, the Germans already grab Leningrad, almost Rostov, and manage to threaten Moscow (on my game my opponent could have PERFECTLY grabbed the city had he been lucky; I'm no Zukhov, but I am not utter incompetent either)... Imagine doing that (as a Soviet) with 3 million soldiers bagged. IMPOSSIBLE with the current rules, sorry. Simple common sense and mathematics

    _____________________________

    "Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

    (in reply to TulliusDetritus)
    Post #: 46
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 6:49:39 PM   
    ComradeP

     

    Posts: 7170
    Joined: 9/17/2009
    Status: offline
    Well, the Soviet army is still likely to be both larger and better organized than its historical counterpart when the blizzard comes. For example: there's absolutely no reason at all to use brigades, as your Army HQ's can contain 12 divisions like their German counterparts. Soviet Army HQ's with 12 divisions were a rarity, but in the game they're the norm and have been since launch.

    It's not like the Axis get all the advantages caused by the system.

    _____________________________

    SSG tester
    WitE Alpha tester
    Panzer Corps Beta tester
    Unity of Command scenario designer

    (in reply to TulliusDetritus)
    Post #: 47
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/7/2011 10:39:18 PM   
    heliodorus04


    Posts: 1404
    Joined: 11/1/2008
    From: Denver Colorado
    Status: offline
    I see things the opposite way, TD.

    There's a morale problem starting to emerge in the game, as I see it.
    Germany desperately needs as many 86-morale (or more) infantry divisions as it can make. They need this because if they can't catch the Soviets on foot, they can't launch deliberate attacks.

    But the game permanently tries to draw 86-morale infantry units back down to 70-ish. If they lose a fight it's almost a certainty that morale will drop. If they don't fight, they will regress to the mean (over time) and re-enter/remain below the 85-morale mediocrity threshold(if I understand the national morale function right, and I may not). So German infantry needs to fight and win just so it can pursue the Soviet at a reasonable speed eastward.

    While I applaud the roleplayers of WitE who attach priorities based on the actual history, I still have to prepare for the typical American gamer, who is ruthlessly focused on exploiting mechanics to achieve unanticipated strategies until the game is broken.

    And I think Soviets can now break the game by running east faster than Germans can get to you, pausing only to fight only at key points (which seem to fall along the axis of Valdai/Moscow/Voronezh/Rostov) and when armaments need more time to evacuate.

    The advantages to running east are too high to ignore: preserve Soviet equipment, preserve Soviet unit morale, Preserve Soviet manpower. I can see no down-side, because the manpower of the cities isn't necessary over the long-game, and you're also preserving bodies by not fighting.

    While running away, you're also simultaneously making Germany weaker because all of those non-fighting 86-morale divisions are seeing that advantage erode steadily over the first 11-14 turns of the game (the runaway phase, which might impact Germany's advance into Russia by as much as 20-30 hexes). The reality is losing all that land is meaningless to the Soviet production macro-game in 1941.

    A VP system, or an insta-lose if Leningrad/Moscow/Rostov/Voronezh fall to Germany, etc., could go a long way here.

    I don't envy the Soviet the loss of the forts. But even with Germany doing as well as it is, we're not seeing, I don't think (maybe you differ) Germany scoring insta-wins or games where we can clearly see that the Fort rules are THE determinant in causing the Soviet to be doomed in the long-game.

    (in reply to ComradeP)
    Post #: 48
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 2:48:04 AM   
    76mm


    Posts: 2133
    Joined: 5/2/2004
    From: Moscow
    Status: online
    While I agree that Pelton's strategies have been rather one-trick-ponyish, I think the emerging problem is that if the Sovs simply retreat, a strategy to destroy the Sov army in 1941 is just not feasible. So what effective strategies does that leave? I've heard rumors of a mythical "grind the Reds" strategies that does not depend on encirclements but simply grinds the Sovs where they are, but have never seen such a strategy employed in an AAR...

    (in reply to heliodorus04)
    Post #: 49
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 3:16:10 AM   
    Q-Ball


    Posts: 5557
    Joined: 6/25/2002
    From: Chicago, Illinois
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: 76mm

    While I agree that Pelton's strategies have been rather one-trick-ponyish, I think the emerging problem is that if the Sovs simply retreat, a strategy to destroy the Sov army in 1941 is just not feasible. So what effective strategies does that leave? I've heard rumors of a mythical "grind the Reds" strategies that does not depend on encirclements but simply grinds the Sovs where they are, but have never seen such a strategy employed in an AAR...


    I am playing against JAMiaM as Soviets, as he seems to be taking more of this approach, rather than pocketing. Losses are still pretty severe.

    The Soviets probably need more of an incentive to stand and fight, like turn-based VPs. Fear of getting shot worked well IRL, unfortunately, not something we can replicated in the game.

    Same thing for the Germans: Too easy to withdraw in Winter to avoid the Blizzard attacks. As it turns out, Hitler wasn't such a fan of that strategy......

    (in reply to 76mm)
    Post #: 50
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 3:53:29 AM   
    Michael T


    Posts: 2391
    Joined: 10/22/2006
    From: Queensland, Australia.
    Status: offline
    Some sensible auto victory conditions for 41' would put an end to these run away tactics employed by both sides in summer (by Ivan) and then in winter (by the Bosch). Even some house rule (auto victory) agreed to by both sides would work.

    _____________________________

    'Deus le Volt!'
    ------------------

    (in reply to Q-Ball)
    Post #: 51
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 4:22:02 AM   
    Marquo


    Posts: 1350
    Joined: 9/26/2000
    Status: offline
    Soviets running too far east = inability to capture Berlin.
    Axis running too far west = inability to defend Berlin.

    The game ends in 1945 not '42, '43, '44 .....

    Marquo

    (in reply to Michael T)
    Post #: 52
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 4:22:44 AM   
    randallw

     

    Posts: 1972
    Joined: 9/2/2010
    Status: offline
    Preventing the Soviet Army from becoming a massive monster may have been unavoidable in real life, so how should this be clearly attainable in the game?

    I keep seeing some people say the Russians are too big, big, big!  Well, they're supposed to be.

    (in reply to Michael T)
    Post #: 53
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 4:44:20 AM   
    Pelton

     

    Posts: 6041
    Joined: 4/9/2006
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: johnnyvagas

    Here’s my jaded, rose colored glasses opinion. I’m sure retribution will include the standard issue cries of Russian Fanboyisim.

    After reading through this thread and threads of similar ilk, I can’t help but come away with the impression that Pelton is frustrated as a result of a game strategy he’s employed in the past that no longer seems to work. From scanning his old AARs, his winnings appear to have been based heavily upon factory raiding. One Trick Pony. More recent AARs indicate that a number of players have developed effective defensive tactics to counter the dreaded factory raiding approach to German game play.

    Pelton’s inattention toward destroying the Russian Army in vain attempts to grab factory cities before their evacuation has left him in fairly precarious position come the blizzard. The size of the Russian Army that he has allowed to develop will continue to nag at him into 1942. Since his tried and true factory raiding no longer works, the game must be broken and all that’s needed to make it perfect again is to invoke changes that will once again allow a factory raiding strategy to prevail. If only Heavy Industry meant something; If only the Russians didn’t have so much rail capacity.

    Pelton’s been drug kicking and screaming into a 1942 where he has allowed the Russian Army to grow to an enormous size. He’s faced with trying to do in 1942 what he should have been focusing upon in 1941. But rather than try to wrestle the initiative back into his court in 1942, he sits on his hands and proclaims that it’s hopeless for the Germans to do anything other than dig in after 1941.

    Now we get to read complaints about German combat results being nerfed in 1942 and how National morale keeps German units in 1942+ from obtaining the uberness they enjoyed in 1941. If only German units in 1942 all had morale of 75+ and were filled out to 100% TOE than Pelton could dig himself out of the holes he’s dug by his pursuit of a flawed 1941 strategy of factory raiding.


    Not true at all I bag just as many Reds as poeple who dont raid. I advance far faster then most other then MT, but we generally advance only as far as most.

    IF you read the current AAR's with out bias and we guessing you not going to most evnly matched games bag 3 million reds by dec.

    Some more skilled Germans bag 30 to 75 armaments pts AND 3+ million russians.

    I have only had 6 games of 16 so far get into the summer of 42 and 4 I won 1 I lost and 1 is on going.

    I only attack during 42 IF its worth the risk, 4 times it was an paid off an 2 times it was not.

    The ratio has been changed its just the facts of the matter. When Flaviusx said the ratio was changed for the russians in 41 withen hrs 2 by 3 was on the boards saying no it was not. I have said the ratio was changed for the geramns in 42 2 1/2 weeks ago and 2 by 3 has said nothing.

    Pelton

    (in reply to johnnyvagas)
    Post #: 54
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 4:53:20 AM   
    Pelton

     

    Posts: 6041
    Joined: 4/9/2006
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: 76mm

    While I agree that Pelton's strategies have been rather one-trick-ponyish, I think the emerging problem is that if the Sovs simply retreat, a strategy to destroy the Sov army in 1941 is just not feasible. So what effective strategies does that leave? I've heard rumors of a mythical "grind the Reds" strategies that does not depend on encirclements but simply grinds the Sovs where they are, but have never seen such a strategy employed in an AAR...


    I am playing against JAMiaM as Soviets, as he seems to be taking more of this approach, rather than pocketing. Losses are still pretty severe.

    The Soviets probably need more of an incentive to stand and fight, like turn-based VPs. Fear of getting shot worked well IRL, unfortunately, not something we can replicated in the game.

    Same thing for the Germans: Too easy to withdraw in Winter to avoid the Blizzard attacks. As it turns out, Hitler wasn't such a fan of that strategy......


    The only chance in hell the German has is using HQ chaining build ups. At least you get 35 to 40 armament pts and the normal 3 million kia.

    If your not then you get the 3 million kia but only 8 armament pt baggged

    Like I been saying over and over and over and over
    1. the dam rail system is a joke its way over rated.
    2. 2 by 3 changed the ratio for 42 which was retarded, LAMO
    3. HVY means nothing removed the useless pos things or make them mean something
    4. National moral is a freaking joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    5. The VP systen is another dam JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is old school before i was posting. How dumb can poeple be?

    Fix this game before working on witw, I will make dam sure I am crapping on that dayly as soon as I can.

    The pocket book is all that matters to these poeple.

    Pelton

    < Message edited by Pelton -- 11/8/2011 4:54:10 AM >

    (in reply to Q-Ball)
    Post #: 55
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 4:56:09 AM   
    Michael T


    Posts: 2391
    Joined: 10/22/2006
    From: Queensland, Australia.
    Status: offline
    quote:

    Soviets running too far east = inability to capture Berlin.
    Axis running too far west = inability to defend Berlin.


    This is true Mark but I think it would make a rather boring game in 41 and perhaps beyond if employed to the extreme like I have seen in some AAR's. Thankfully you and I don't subscribe to such cowardly tactics ....



    _____________________________

    'Deus le Volt!'
    ------------------

    (in reply to Pelton)
    Post #: 56
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 4:57:30 AM   
    Pelton

     

    Posts: 6041
    Joined: 4/9/2006
    Status: offline
    **** I forgot ComradeP
    6. fix the combat system per ComradeP ideas, like SMG go on a killing spree in the clear? wth are you poeple drinking for cool-aid? Mybee in city hexs but in the clear give us all a break.

    (in reply to Pelton)
    Post #: 57
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 6:02:23 AM   
    76mm


    Posts: 2133
    Joined: 5/2/2004
    From: Moscow
    Status: online

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Pelton
    2. 2 by 3 changed the ratio for 42 which was retarded, LAMO


    I still haven't seen any evidence that this is true, any differences that you are seeing could easily be the result of any number of factors. It would be good if the devs would confirm one way or another.

    (in reply to Pelton)
    Post #: 58
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 6:58:52 AM   
    Grouchy


    Posts: 1116
    Joined: 9/26/2001
    From: Nuenen, Noord-Brabant, Nederland
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Marquo

    Soviets running too far east = inability to capture Berlin.
    Axis running too far west = inability to defend Berlin.

    The game ends in 1945 not '42, '43, '44 .....

    Marquo


    Currently it seems too easy for the german player to keep the offensive going in 1941.

    On the other hand it's also too easy for the soviet to give ground. There is no real incentive to fight in 1941 for them.
    It's very difficult to give the germans a bloody nose in 1941. But even with the germans running wild in 1941, the USSR can rail out all the necessary industry & there is no moral loss.
    And because they retreat their leaders won't get dismissed/kia/shot etc. C&C is also non historically good for them in 1941.

    _____________________________


    (in reply to Marquo)
    Post #: 59
    RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? - 11/8/2011 10:33:00 AM   
    Bletchley_Geek


    Posts: 3065
    Joined: 11/26/2009
    From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: ComradeP
    Bletchley Geek: I forgot to mention it, but a while ago, we were working on/testing an alternative combat system, but the testing was halted in favour of concentrating other things, although the alternative combat system will be used in WitW. The current combat system won't be at the core of WitW. I'm personally hoping that the new combat system can then be moved back to WitE, but the developers are not yet sure whether that might be possible.


    I'll keep my fingers crossed for that last part. With this Tactical system on the West Front, it would be truly Home by Christmas for the Western Allies.

    Though the discussion has been fruitful. If we could get some more info about the inner workings of WitE combat system, perhaps someone can come up with "fixes" that attenuate the problems we're seeing, by tweaking TOE's - and sacrificing historicity - or Ground element attributes.

    (in reply to ComradeP)
    Post #: 60
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Why was Germa attacks uber gimped during 42? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    0.133