Matrix Games

quote:

I wasn't precise enough. My divisions got 3-5 CV, but I was able to create inf corp that were around 7-10 CV. So I was able to create infantry stacks matching strength of German infantry (but not panzers). Moreover counting all of the units Soviet infantry has more CV than German.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this).

quote:

Q-Ball


That is true, and that is a very good point. If you have divisions in the 60s, a few combats should get them back up to speed.

Because of this rule, I am OK with it, though it primarily benefits 1942 Germans (and probably will benefit the Soviets in the late-game, when Tank units have a National Morale of 65, and Guards units have higher).

What that also means is that the German player in 1942 should seek a few easy combats, and stack alot of units in those combats, for the sole purpose of regaining morale for the long-haul. In fact, it is an encouragement NOT to turtle up. Turtling up means you'll just have a seat for 1942 with your crappy units.

You are also right I think on the down-side; units above National Morale always lose morale when they lose a combat. Units under it, do not necessarily. This also means that no matter how you baby the Wehrmacht infantry, it is bound to lose Morale over the long-haul. Slowly, but that's as it should be, as it's ground into dust.

That is probably the real point of national morale

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

Q-ball I think your the only one who replyed not looking though Red glasses. Atleast there is someone esle on these boards who at least neutral.

How was my reply, or the reply of all others made "through Red glasses"?

Q-Ball and you have a theory, but it's a theory that doesn't always apply to the in-game reality. Yes, you can end the blizzard with a fairly small morale gap, but you might just as well end it with a ~20 points difference. It depends on how you play, the game doesn't force that on you.

I also find it highly questionable that the Soviets will somehow get all 6-8 CV Rifle divisions by mid 1942, which is what Kamil implies when he says that the Rifle formations are "a match for the Germans".

Carpeting should now be less effective from a casualty perspective, as the Germans can still knock out more more than you get each turn in 1942. Of course, the number of favourable loss ratios declines rapidly when corps arrive en masse, but by then it will be 1943 and not 1942.

As I see it, the latest updates have moved the first real problems with combat from 1942 to 1943, which means there's still a serious problem for the Axis, but at least it's less bad than it was.

Also: that land "means nothing"/means very little applies to both sides, as the Axis can indeed withdraw to their home countries without any kind of penalty being imposed on them aside from an increased likeliness that they will lose the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


Q-ball I think your the only one who replyed not looking though Red glasses. Atleast there is someone esle on these boards who at least neutral.

Pelton

This is the type of statement that doesn't help you bud. For the most part, there was a discussion going on above your post as people were sorting out the rules, yet you come back with the above statement. I asked a freaking question and I get lumped in with "Red glasses".

That you have raised awareness over several important issues and game mechanics is undisputed. How you have done it is another matter that has turned a lot of people off. You can say you don't care about that, but the fact is if people get to the point that they have you on ignore for stupid statements or that your latest points get dismissed because past stupid statements hurt your credibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Although I agree that the rise to national morale that comes from sitting around seems slow, another factor is the chance to gain or lose morale from combat. If I understand things correctly, it is much easier to gain morale from succesful battles when below national morale (the lower the better the chance of a gain). On the flip side, I think it is easier to lose moral from losses when over the national morale (although I'm not 100% sure of this).

That is true, and that is a very good point. If you have divisions in the 60s, a few combats should get them back up to speed.

Because of this rule, I am OK with it, though it primarily benefits 1942 Germans (and probably will benefit the Soviets in the late-game, when Tank units have a National Morale of 65, and Guards units have higher).

What that also means is that the German player in 1942 should seek a few easy combats, and stack alot of units in those combats, for the sole purpose of regaining morale for the long-haul. In fact, it is an encouragement NOT to turtle up. Turtling up means you'll just have a seat for 1942 with your crappy units.

You are also right I think on the down-side; units above National Morale always lose morale when they lose a combat. Units under it, do not necessarily. This also means that no matter how you baby the Wehrmacht infantry, it is bound to lose Morale over the long-haul. Slowly, but that's as it should be, as it's ground into dust.

That is probably the real point of national morale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Moral is one of the key issues that can effect the out come. For the German theres not much one can do once you start digging in to move it up. As the Russian you can do nothing an it goes up.

quote:


A move that leaves the player an overwhelming follow-up move, and thus forces the opponent to respond, is said to have "sente" (先手), or "initiative"; the opponent has "gote" (後手). In most games, the player who keeps sente most of the time will win.

Gote means "succeeding move" (lit: "after hand"), the opposite of sente, meaning "preceding move" (lit: "before hand"). Sente is a term to describe which player has the initiative in the game, and which moves result in taking and holding the initiative. More precisely, as one player attacks, and the other defends in gote, it can be said that they respectively do and do not have the initiative. The situation of having sente is favorable, permitting control of the flow of the game.

Real men go to war on Real tanks

quote:

I think that about everyone agrees that this is the very problem with the game now. One side evecs and runs and as the German you should do the same thing.

I am guessing this is not what 2 by 3 was hoping for when they started working on this game.

There seems to be more then a few things that mean nothing, national moral and hvy to name 2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

I think that about everyone agrees that this is the very problem with the game now. One side evecs and runs and as the German you should do the same thing.

I am guessing this is not what 2 by 3 was hoping for when they started working on this game.

There seems to be more then a few things that mean nothing, national moral and hvy to name 2.

You are of the opinion that those things "mean nothing." Your opinion is just that: an opinion. It is not a hard fact.

Also: with a game featuring somewhat historical tactics and no HQ build-ups, the Axis can still be struggling to meet some of their historical goals, as the advance in the north might normally end with capturing Leningrad, but the advance in the south is often still tricky compared to the historical advance, as often Rostov is not captured. The Soviets lost an awful lot of land in 1941, so I'm not entirely sure why so many people focus on territorial losses, considering that the average Axis territorial gains are not necessarily all that much more impressive than the historical gains.

We're also playing the game from a strategic perspective, and we don't need to worry about doing what Hitler/Stalin tells us to. Trading land for preserving your army is a perfectly historical strategy, although the degree in which it can currently take place is a bit excessive.

Your statement that German national morale is 50 is also false and it leads to incorrect arguments. There is nothing "broken" about German national morale. It works as designed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Moral is one of the key issues that can effect the out come. For the German theres not much one can do once you start digging in to move it up. As the Russian you can do nothing an it goes up.

As Q-Ball points out, it is an incentive not to turtle up. I've commented elsewhere that the Axis starts losing the campaign as soon as it decides to forgo any further major offensives, even using alternate rules for scoring VP's. The Axis get the initiative on Turn 1, and don't lose it until Blizzard, when game mechanics are set in motion to snatch it and give it to the Soviet player. After that, it's completely in the players' hands to determine who's got the initiative.

You made me think hard about the statement I quoted above Pelton :)

"Initiative" is usually defined in maddingly vague terms. Let me - at the risk of sounding a bit pedantic - recall how this elusive concept is defined (and studied) in the game of Go:

quote:


A move that leaves the player an overwhelming follow-up move, and thus forces the opponent to respond, is said to have "sente" (�æŽè), or "initiative"; the opponent has "gote" (ŒãŽè). In most games, the player who keeps sente most of the time will win.

Gote means "succeeding move" (lit: "after hand"), the opposite of sente, meaning "preceding move" (lit: "before hand"). Sente is a term to describe which player has the initiative in the game, and which moves result in taking and holding the initiative. More precisely, as one player attacks, and the other defends in gote, it can be said that they respectively do and do not have the initiative. The situation of having sente is favorable, permitting control of the flow of the game.

Go is a perfectly balanced game, and WitE certainly isn't, it starts imbalanced, with the Axis having abilities out of reach to the Soviet player, and then it slowly gets stacked so that the Soviet position and abilities improve over time. However, the basic concepts of sente and gote, indeed do apply to WitE as they do in any strategy game. You have - quite convincingly - argued that WitE is a numbers game: if some strategy is anti-economic, just don't pursue that strategy. However, I want to argue that it isn't just about numbers.

Note the part I quoted in bold face: the one who has the initiative, is the one who controls the flow of the game. In WitE terms, this basically means controlling the flow of casualties for both sides. If you turtle up, you can affect the flow of the game by retreating - that is, by losing - or by counterattacking the strongest enemy concentration, his spearheads - "Unsound!" yells the Armchair General, "That's the way things are", counters dryly the commander in the field. If one doesn't turtle up, then it is possible to affect the flow of the game by initiating offensive operations in a place and time of your choice, by switching axis of attack and throwing out of balance your opponent, and, of course, calling off offensives when there is little more to gain from them.

Which of the two strategies looks more palatable?

I think the Axis has the tools to control - directly or indirectly - the flow of the campaign well into 1943. The problem we have is that there isn't clear agreement on what these tools precisely consist of (or if they even exist) and how to best use them ("a fool with a tool, is still a fool").

The bottom line is: that the Soviet position is improved over time even by doing nothing (that's true). But the only way the Soviet player gets that is that the Axis does "nothing" as in "nothing of an offensive nature".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Your telling me one month in germany is not going to up moral?





Refute that

quote:

You 100% can't refute the fact.

quote:

ComradePT

There is no evidence supporting your case that the Germans are somehow gaining fewer morale than the Soviets through resting.

Note that you're specifically talking about "resting" (so the possible increase to 75) so I'm only talking about that too, not any other kind of morale gain.

You're, as usual, mixing up arguments into one single argument even though the arguments can't be mixed. You're saying that few good attacks can be made in 1942, so German national morale is 50. The first has absolutely nothing to do with the second, or vice versa.

quote:

Q-Ball


Maybe what Pelton is trying to say is this:

On Paper, the average Morale Gap (difference in National Morale) bw Soviets and Germans is around 30 in the early game, give or take (75/70 vs. a sliding scale of 50-40).

Over time, the actual morale gap between Germans and Soviets, and for that matter between Germans and their own low-morale Allies, is much less than that.

This is because almost any unit can get into the mid-50s in Morale/Experience, simply by resting, regardless of National Morale. This means that Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and Soviet units can rountinely EXCEED their own national morale by 15 points or so, simply by resting. Because the Soviets have alot of units, they should easily be able to "park" a number of units, rotate, and raise the average morale into the 50s.

The Germans, on the other hand, if they are in the 60s in Morale after Blizzard, don't really gain it back. There is a die roll to make Morale gains, but you have to get very lucky to gain even a point through rest, once you are in the 60s. The Germans will never exceed their National Morale on rest alone, so in 1942 70 is the ceiling no matter when, except through combat.

So, though the "Paper" gap in September of 1942 is 30 points, the actual gap between Wehrmacht infantry, and Soviet/Axis Ally infantry, is more like 10 points.

I think this is what he is trying to say.

National Morale would be more meaningful if there was a "push" and "pull" toward the National Morale figure. Meaning, low-morale units were much less capable of gaining morale simply by sitting, and units with high national morale would predicably get there if they are out of combat, maybe for sure gaining a point a turn until the National Morale is reached.

Such a change would clearly favor the Germans in 1942, so that would have to be intended

quote:

ORIGINAL: stone10

darn, you can type Japanese on Matrix forum? Why I can't type in Chinese.

By the way, although I haven't play Go for a long time, I do not think the concept of Go apply to WITE. In Go, you really have to go for the best move, the most economic one. Otherwise, the initiative can shift easily because your move is relatively unimportant compare to your opponent's. On the contrary, the Axis have the initiative in the 41 summer no matter what. There're valueable objects everywhere. The only thing the Soviets can do is to respond to Axis attack or run in 41.

Real men go to war on Real tanks

quote:

This is because almost any unit can get into the mid-50s in Morale/Experience, simply by resting, regardless of National Morale. This means that Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and Soviet units can rountinely EXCEED their own national morale by 15 points or so, simply by resting. Because the Soviets have alot of units, they should easily be able to "park" a number of units, rotate, and raise the average morale into the 50s.

The Germans, on the other hand, if they are in the 60s in Morale after Blizzard, don't really gain it back. There is a die roll to make Morale gains, but you have to get very lucky to gain even a point through rest, once you are in the 60s. The Germans will never exceed their National Morale on rest alone, so in 1942 70 is the ceiling no matter when, except through combat.

So, though the "Paper" gap in September of 1942 is 30 points, the actual gap between Wehrmacht infantry, and Soviet/Axis Ally infantry, is more like 10 points.

Real men go to war on Real tanks

quote:

Hmmm, and how can a unit get over its National Morale without winning battles? I can't find that on the rules or the patch notes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I'm extremely sceptical about what some people say/imply, namely that the Soviets would suddenly get much more morale than that from resting. I have seen no proof supporting that theory, and there certainly isn't some hard coded bonus for the Soviets. Transcausus Front units don't suddenly have morale in the 60's by the time they activate.

Real men go to war on Real tanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

If resting German units, far from the front, are not getting past 50 morale it suggests a programming error.