Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB?

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/9/2012 11:36:40 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
And yes, no matter how hard you hit the Germans they will be back come spring. We can easily understand this though. When the game was fresh and the Germans were trashed during the blizzard + weak during spring + strong Soviets = Houston, we have a problem.

The workaround has been evident. No matter how hard you hit them (and I hit everything in sight during the winter) the beast will be back as if nothing had happened... They wanted to make sure a 1942 German offensive was still possible I suspect

So it basically works BUT some parameters are ahistorical: the Red Army does not get the men and counters it should get (and of course, consequence of this: it takes much less casualties, minimum 2 million), and the Germans get more men than were available historically.

It looks like some sort of Frankenstein guy but it apparently works so...

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 151
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/9/2012 11:45:18 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Thank you TD,

I purposely toke casulties/loss rates just before the blizzard start to seperate the "combat losses" from the losses incured by the blizzard rules. Also to give an indication of the blizzard rules from a manpower loss was to severe or not. Yes, u take more than historic in these particular periodes than historic, but as ppl has alrdy figured out it makes up for the "lack" of losses pre that.

My "research"/tabulating shows about half of historic losses by turn 24, then its made up by the blizzard rules incured losses and usually comes out slightly above of historic losses by the end of the blizzard. As the losses are the highest blizzard losses in dec it by ur numbers seems like u happend hit near the historic one exactly by end of dec. If i had looked at that in mine it would think it would be near the same.
Ofc the 900k in ur game is total axis. I would expect around 100k or so would be axis minors, so they number is slightly less than historic but certainly within reason.

Manpower wise as said u far ahead cuz of the heighten replacement/reinforcement rates. As too giving this to make sure u get a 42 offensive yes i suspect ur right in the intension. As to effect is another matter.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/9/2012 11:53:57 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 152
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 12:04:02 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
Walloc, you're welcome

Anyway, I am lost. You are saying that "My 'research'/tabulating shows about half of historic losses by turn 24". This means 400k - 450k? Are you sure? I'm pretty certain I have seen the same similar numbers in almost every AAR (I mean my numbers).

Something like this then (screenshot)?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 153
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 12:18:10 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Walloc, you're welcome

Anyway, I am lost. You are saying that "My 'research'/tabulating shows about half of historic losses by turn 24". This means 400k - 450k? Are you sure? I'm pretty certain I have seen the same similar numbers in almost every AAR (I mean my numbers).


Im saying we seeing the same by end of dec aka 800-900k ish. If u look just before blizzard starts the number was the following. Axis side.

TD vs Marquo BB 413k BE 1.077k (BB = before blizzard, BE Blizzard end)
Qball vs BG BB 403k BE 947k
Tarhunnas vs Axis BB 429k BE 1080k
Saper222 vs Kamil. BB 455k


And so, not gona list em all. From 403k to 455k in these cases. Among non listed is outliers being 324k, and 650k'ish.

Our numbers are pretty much the same TD, when we take the end of december. Not that i did, but if i had i would suspect it being right there. Hench my asking what u meant by Barbarrosa. I would say it ended before the blizzard, but that is semantics. If u had meant 800-900k before blizzard i would have been surprised. So i asked. '

If u look at losses and compare by start of dec they are clearly below historic losses, but because of blizzard rules and the losses u incure there especially in dec. Then by end of dec u get pretty near the historic losses in far the majority of the games/AARs i've seen. If it hadnt been for blizzard losses it be a different case or the opposite is true in case of blizzard losses as it was under the release blizzard rules.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/10/2012 6:23:47 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 154
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 12:43:41 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
Ok, we are talking about in game and real life blizzards then. When you mentioned the latter I was thinking about the first blizzard turn in the game: 25 december that is

The German losses I gave are for the whole 1941. Just to compare, in the real thing the winter "arrived" the 27 november. On my game at that date I had inflicted 610k losses (I have checked). So the rest (almost 300k) during the first part of the historical winter (random weather, on the game there was mud and then some snow), but before the first blizzard turn on the game.

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 155
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 12:57:15 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
And It's indeed true that I was confusing

I tend to call Barbarossa the many massacres (the Red Army is the victim) until there is the turning point: first week of december, the soviet counter-offensive. So that only leaves 3 weeks of december as non-Barbarossa.

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 156
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 3:01:02 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

This has been said lately but it is not true. The German losses during Barbarossa were 0.8 or 0.9 million. The game is perfect here as these are the average losses in almost every game. Am I missing something?



Hi TD,

Can i ask what u define as Barbarossa?

I ask cuz i was looking at german manpower numbers a couple of months back and was at same time looking at losses in game. To see if they were higher than historic to make up for the higher manpower rates in game than historic. I toke at that time the 15 most recent AARs with any loss rates given as datapoints, to try and avoid any bias. Aka random AARs. Except 3 outliers the remaining 12 games at turn 25ish all had very similar casulty rates for axis. All within 60 or 70K of each other and some what below 0.8- 0.9 millions. Rather close to half of that. Thats even not all german as the combined is for axis and therefor not only german losses.
For reference after the blizzard/start of summer 42 the losses tended to be around 200-300k higher than historic(this includes some bad blizzards for germans), but at that time, as the replacement rates is around milion over historic so more than making up the deficent. Any how that why IMO we tend to see 3.3+ million german armies summer 42 armies.

The in game replacement and reinforcement simply outstrips the historic ones with about a mio man by then. So even if u take 200-300k man loses extra in the blizzard as surrended manpower u still come out very much atop, from a purely manpower POV.

Kind regards,

Rasmus


Wrong wrong and more wrong.

Sure the Germans come back, but gimped.

Its 100% about morale as GHC nothing esle matters nearly as much.

If the GHC has 10-15 Surrenders a offensive in 42 is not going to be a cake walk, but very doable vs lesser players.

If the GHC has 15-20 Surrenders an offensive is still possible, but will not last long and once SHC starts pushing German lines will crumble quickly.

I GHC has 20+ surrenders its game set match. This leave way to many gimpy 3 to 5 CV units in the line that SHC can easly push and build morale fast.

Manpower is not the issue for GHC its infantry morale. Divisions that start with 80+ morale can lose about 30 battles before getting down to the 60 range. Thats a difference of 20+ CV and 5 or 6. Thats huge.

If 42 ends with GHC infantry morale around 60-65 it will only take SHC 15-20 turns of 50 attacks per turn and GHC is finished even if it has 3.5 million men. If at the end of 42 GHC morale is 50% 70-77 and 50% 78+ it will take at least 100 turns to get GHC morale down in the -65 range. an 80 morale units with 50% toe has 2x the CV of a 60 morale 90% toe unit.

So if you lose 15+ GHC infantry divisions during blizzard you probably got pounded all along the front( been there done that I know from first hand exp) and you panzer units morale will be 75-80 and most of infantry 60-65. Sure you have 3.3 million men but they be at 6-10 cv and not 12-20 cv.PLUS you have 15+ unless units.

I know I have done more Blizzards then anyone by FAR. The manpower Number means zero for GHC, its always between 3.2 and 3.4 million.

Its all about what the average infantry morale is. High morale infantry units can D attack the first,2nd and 3rd line of defences.

As GHC I could careless how many tanks or men I have come spring, its what is the morale of my units.

High morale units can hold out far longer then low morale, they take less losses and are much harder for SHC to mount allot of attacks against. The OOB of 2.6 million is not the breaking point its the morale. 2.6 million 80 morale units have 2x+ the cv of 3.5 million 60 morale units.

The SHC is more about numbers and player skill/logistics. Even a high morale 3.4 German army has a hard time vs a skilled SHC player.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 157
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 3:22:41 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Ok, we are talking about in game and real life blizzards then. When you mentioned the latter I was thinking about the first blizzard turn in the game: 25 december that is

The German losses I gave are for the whole 1941. Just to compare, in the real thing the winter "arrived" the 27 november. On my game at that date I had inflicted 610k losses (I have checked). So the rest (almost 300k) during the first part of the historical winter (random weather, on the game there was mud and then some snow), but before the first blizzard turn on the game.


No im only talking about in game. Considering the rules and weather table blizzard losses doesnt start until turn 25, periode. When looking at casulties in AARs until then i found the following. That in 12 out of the 15 cases/AARs the losses went between 403k and 468k, with 1 at 324k and 2 around 650k. I would statisticly say that the norm is in the 400k-470k range. If u have a case and im not saying its impossible or any thing that in ur game it was 610k not that far from the 650k cases, i would say that is outlying results. Not the norm. At the last ish turn of snow, aka before the blizzard begins.
If u define and thats the small difference that Barbaross ends at end of turn 24. Then i dont think its untrue to say that losses are lower than historic. I think that has been what ppl have been talking about then they talk about to low losses in Barbarrosa/summer offensive. Hench my originally question too this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

German casualties overstated during the blizzard to compensate for their unrealistically low losses during the summer campaign. The whole 1941 campaign just doesn't work that well.


This has been said lately but it is not true. The German losses during Barbarossa were 0.8 or 0.9 million. The game is perfect here as these are the average losses in almost every game. Am I missing something?

On the other hand Soviet losses are necessarily lower than the historical losses. With the current numbers and counters it's absolutely impossible to lose historical losses. Ergo, it is absolutely impossible to fight like the Soviets.

Yes, they are trying to compensate x with y.


We absolutly in agreement that when u look at losses taken at end of dec they are at a historic lvl, this because of the high spike in casulties caused by the blizzard rules. If it hadnt been for that spike aka those rules i dont see the normal result would have been at historic levels. It might be in ur latest game, but as quoted above even in ur game vs Marquo the pre blizzard losses was just over 413k, per ur AAR. I dont see with out blizzard rules the axis taking 400-500k losses in those last 3 dec turns in general.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/10/2012 5:56:36 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 158
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 4:24:15 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton



Wrong wrong and more wrong.

Sure the Germans come back, but gimped.

Its 100% about morale as GHC nothing esle matters nearly as much.

If the GHC has 10-15 Surrenders a offensive in 42 is not going to be a cake walk, but very doable vs lesser players.

If the GHC has 15-20 Surrenders an offensive is still possible, but will not last long and once SHC starts pushing German lines will crumble quickly.

I GHC has 20+ surrenders its game set match. This leave way to many gimpy 3 to 5 CV units in the line that SHC can easly push and build morale fast.

Manpower is not the issue for GHC its infantry morale. Divisions that start with 80+ morale can lose about 30 battles before getting down to the 60 range. Thats a difference of 20+ CV and 5 or 6. Thats huge.


Hi Pelton,

I think ur missing the point. I dont disagree that in that game is as now that, then ur right, moral is the king. Thats is not what im trying to point out.
There have been alot of discussing about the "unhistoric" feel of the game, russian running and so on. Talk about through VP or other means tying the russian down so they cant run, fine.
I have been looking at some of the reasons why that IMO cant stand alone. If u wanted a historic feel game. As russian reinforcement/replacement rates are as now, IMO tying down the russian with out doing any thing else, is a doomed cause. Not that u cant do it but 90% of the games would be over by turn 10. Like the MT vs Tarhunnas game. U simply cant sustain historic losses cuz the replacement rates arent historic.
So if u tie the russian down and expect them to take historic losses and by that have a historic feel game IMO one would be wrong. I know that this is recogniesed. That the russian in game replacement simply rates cant sustain that.


Thats isnt the whole story tho IMO. When u look at the german OOB historicly apart from short 2 periodes in the spring/mud season of spring 42 and spring 43 the german army historicly was continuasly falling in numbers during the entire eastern war. Replacement/reinforcrments never could cope with the losses. This isnt the story in part the average game atm, and for reasons.
When u look at german inf divs in nov/early dec 41 or even in oct for some divs, historicly. It not impossible to find inf divs at near 50% ToE. That never unless in exceptional cases happens in game currently. Why, well 2 things.

1. U dont take historic losses in the inf divs. A discussion of why is a bit long but in short one of the reason is ofc the russian runs and there for much less combat occures.
2. The in game replacement/reinforcement rates are about 1 mio for germans alone over the historic rates by end of June 42. Its natural that if u have 1 mio more manpower than historic that, that is soaked up in among the inf divs keeping them at a much higher ToE than historic.

The leads to another point. One that the russian dont get the replacement to sustain a forward defence. Another point is that the in game as now german divs retain a far too high mapower lvl during the later parts of the summer campaign 41 and through out 42.
U ur self have noted in many of ur AARs that the inf divs usually retain 85-90+ ToE in '41 with np. Again that happens partly because of the in game replacement rates.
Well what if i all of a sudden put all ur inf divs at 50-60% ToE. The CV lost in that alone would be one of the factor why the russian stopped the german historicly. A number of the german inf divs, not to talk about the pz divs, had a ToE lvl that significantly alters in the their CV, lessning their offensive punch. Would moral be the king it is now. I dont think it would be nearly as much.
If, not that its going to happen, this could be a factor in looking to achvieing a more historic feel to the campaign. In 2 ways. The germans historicly takes losses to an extend it not only becomes are question of the russian stopping them but that the combat power of the german war machine is depleted, leading to lower CV again making them easier to stop in late(r) 41. Then u could even look at reducing / removing the blizzard effects. U cant now, if it wasnt for some sorta blizzard effect the blizzard would be no different than the snow turns before them and the german offensive would continue unabatted tho MP usage is slightly higher.
Also come 42. As u say u always see german OOBs ar 3.2m-3.4m in game now. Exactly. Because of the 1 mio extra manpower u never ever see a historic lvl german summer OOB numbers. Because of this moral is king. Because u never had to worry about manpower. Not even a very bad blizzard will get u down to the historic lvl.

Now again what if we removed that 1 mio manpower and saw german OOB at lower than those 3.4-3.5mio we see now, but lets say one had 2.7m instead. As historic. U again ur self has many times has noted that u in no way feel inhabbited in ur 42 offensive and that u even can under take offensives at 2-3 places in summer 42. Sure the manpower lvl is at such an level that u dont have to compromise. That isnt in line with the historic experience. German had to, too some extend canabilize AGC/AGN to make AGS offensiveble.
I would suspect that if we in game had german OOB at 2.6-2.7-2.8mio ish that there would have to be more compromises that we see now and the scope of the offensives would be different than now. Again i would speculate in such cases moral wouldnt quite be the king as of now. Not that it wont be importand but the manpower lvls would also dicate that one cant simutaniously under take the 2-3 offensives that is possible now.
This could lead to a more historic feel.

All that said, it will in many way gimp the german army in ways we dont see now. So im not sure that ppl really would want it, but that the problem IMO with ppl calling for a more historic feeling and not wanting to have the bad sides that come with it.

quote:


I know I have done more Blizzards then anyone by FAR. The manpower Number means zero for GHC, its always between 3.2 and 3.4 million.


Exactly my point. Cause of the current in game replacement rates as of now u never had a 2,7m man army instead of a 3.4m. So manpower feels like nothing cause u always had em. I think the experience would be different if u had 2.7mio man army instead, generally speaking.
U have many a times noted that when the GHC army gets below 3.3mio that offensives get undesireable. In summer of 42 GHC historicly had to make tough choices to canabilize AGC/AGN to make AGS into an offensive force. U never had to make that choice in game, with the historical OOB of 2.789mio IIRC man german summer 42 army.

Do note i, dont see this alone. I have long stated and that think the combat engine favors the attacking side in a fashion that isnt unfavorble for the game. Alteration to that would have to be made so the germans wouldnt just be overruned when going on the defensive. Further more it isnt a quesiton of not allowing ppl to do better/worse than historic.
There are a couple of discourses in the discussion on teh forums that is semi detrimental IMO. One one side ppl want a more "historic feel" at the same time they feel that the game is on "rails".
Noting alot of things usually about the german side that "puts" them on "rails". Well if u want a more historic feel and dont want rails, apart from the apparent disconnet of those 2 thing. How do u get a "historic feel" with out show how shaping that, that happens. Well IMO one of the things that help not having a historic feel, is that the german army gets depeleted at a much later time than historic cuz of the extra 1 mio man leaving russian never being able to stop the german on "their own" in 41. Hench among other things the running/need for blizzard rules.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/10/2012 5:09:41 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 159
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 5:07:56 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
Walloc, I just have noticed I was even more confusing! So my bad.

The "25" number that is: 25 december and turn 25 are different things! The former is the last turn of the year. The latter is just the beginning of the winter offensive on the game (starting then the first week of december).

Still my total Germans losses are -as I had said- for the whole year 1941, including the losses taken during the first part of the counter-offensive. That's why I showed the screenshot of the 25 december (and 900k German losses, as per history that is).

Anyway I don't know where you got the numbers from You say

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
TD vs Marquo BB 413k BE 1.077k (BB = before blizzard, BE Blizzard end)


But in fact when I open the turn 25 of the game (so before blizzard) I have already inflicted 651.103 losses.

Anyway I don't have the historical German losses until (and only until) the first week of december. Or if you prefer, how many losses were inflicted to them during these three december weeks (the counter-offensive).

But the losses for the year 1941 are indisputable, the game is 100% right here.

EDIT: oh, and sorry for hijacking your den, Herr Pelton!

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 11/10/2012 5:08:58 PM >


_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 160
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 5:32:38 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Hi Pelton,

Yeah, sorry for highjack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Walloc, I just have noticed I was even more confusing! So my bad.

The "25" number that is: 25 december and turn 25 are different things! The former is the last turn of the year. The latter is just the beginning of the winter offensive on the game (starting then the first week of december).


Smiles, np.

quote:


Anyway I don't know where you got the numbers from You say

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
TD vs Marquo BB 413k BE 1.077k (BB = before blizzard, BE Blizzard end)


But in fact when I open the turn 25 of the game (so before blizzard) I have already inflicted 651.103 losses.


Hmmm, gona hafta look in my notes maybe the numbers was from Marquo's AAR. I was just copy pasting from some thing i was writting about it at some point. Just looked through ur AAR and yes the number are as u say. Ill hafta look for Marquo's AAR.

quote:


Anyway I don't have the historical German losses until (and only until) the first week of december.


I do and now u do too http://ww2stats.com/ By-weekly casulty reports for the Ost heer. Copies of the orginal OKW papers.

quote:


But the losses for the year 1941 are indisputable, the game is 100% right here.


I never said other wise. As i said above but if u look at the casulties pre blizzard there is a point in that they tend to be to low and usually are.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Edit: Found the problem. I has numbers from another game that copy pasted in with ur game vs Marquo. So numbers correct but from wrong game.

< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/10/2012 5:54:34 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 161
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 5:58:06 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
I have checked the link

If I well understood the statistic tables (I don't speak German at all ):

by the end of september: 551k losses
by the end of october: 665k losses
by the end of november: 753k losses

Yep, more losses than on my game for example (100k)

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 162
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 6:20:37 PM   
mevstedt

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Talk about through VP or other means tying the russian down so they cant run, fine.


Well, most people who are suggesting these things have already stated they (including me) feel that the soviets are simply too weak (CV-wise) in the summer of 41 so the talk of VPs is purely from achieving a more historically accurate campaigning environment. Soviet replacement rates and actual counter numbers have also been discussed, the problem of purely beefing up the soviets will not work without the addition of some incentive to actually fight forward as it would only lead to an overpowered soviet army by the winter as no matter how strong they are, without that incentive, SHC will still just run (and end up in much better shape because of it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
1. U dont take historic losses in the inf divs. A discussion of why is a bit long but in short one of the reason is ofc the russian runs and there for much less combat occures.
2. The in game replacement/reinforcement rates are about 1 mio for germans alone over the historic rates by end of June 42. Its natural that if u have 1 mio more manpower than historic that, that is soaked up in among the inf divs keeping them at a much higher ToE than historic.


On point one I agree as for point two I have been informed previously that the reason for the increased replacement rates is because the germans got trashed (early versions of the game) in the blizzard (which they incidentally still do if they are foolish enough to expect to hold the line) and instead of actually revising the much debated blizzard rule and attempt to get it in line with something that the axis could actually cope with they just went with the simple fix. This ofcourse leads to the problem(s) that you state after where the germans can therefore end up in much better shape than historically for the later parts of the war.

Another thing I would like to add is that attrition rates seem to be too high (for both sides) compared to historical losses, when I can reach historical losses as the axis by attrition alone (monthly that is) and actual combat losses rarely make up more than 10% of the total losses incurred during operation barbarossa then I get a feeling that the "low intensity combat" seem to be alot more intensive than the actual figthing. This also affects the soviets as they naturally have lower morale and experience on their units which in turn affects the amount of attrition losses suffered, thus tweaking attrition closer to historical figures would actually give both sides more manpower (for whatever that may be worth).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Do note i, dont see this alone. I have long stated and that think the combat engine favors the attacking side in a fashion that isnt unfavorble for the game. Alteration to that would have to be made so the germans wouldnt just be overruned when going on the defensive. Further more it isnt a quesiton of not allowing ppl to do better/worse than historic.
There are a couple of discourses in the discussion on teh forums that is semi detrimental IMO. One one side ppl want a more "historic feel" at the same time they feel that the game is on "rails".
Noting alot of things usually about the german side that "puts" them on "rails". Well if u want a more historic feel and dont want rails, apart from the apparent disconnet of those 2 thing. How do u get a "historic feel" with out show how shaping that, that happens. Well IMO one of the things that help not having a historic feel, is that the german army gets depeleted at a much later time than historic cuz of the extra 1 mio man leaving russian never being able to stop the german on "their own" in 41. Hench among other things the running/need for blizzard rules.
Kind regards,

Rasmus


Well, I have a few thoughts on the subject. For one, if the game was "perfect" there would be absolutely zero need for any special rules affecting either side as in such a case the progress of the game would put either side in similar situation as historical. By that I mean if you maintain somewhat historical progress as the germans you would end up in a similarly bad shape as the wehrmatch was in by the end of operation typhoon and thus make it likely for the soviets to be able to mount a counter offensive without having to artifically gimp either side. The reason I point this out is because it would make the game feel less on rails, why? Well, with no set date that says "on this date the germans start sucking, start your offensive!". Basically there is no one foolish enough to do any major offensive close to operation typhoon in the snow as you always know "I have a few turns and then all hell breaks lose". If the game flow was closer to historical, including when it comes to actual losses incurred through combat and so on then it would be more down to the axis player to decide in what state he wants his army to be in by the start of winter. You could essentially press less than the germans did historically and get a stronger army but less progress, press equally hard or even harder and be prepared to face the same problems that caused the germans to end up in a weakened state.

The reason I bring this up is because it adds a real element of surprise, the germans were on the offensive pretty much up until blizzard hits (in game terms) but every player knows and starts digging in alot earlier, thus we have the benefit of hindsight to play with. If the soviets on the other hand were able to mount a similar to historical counter offensive without the need of artifically gimping the axis then any soviet player could plan for when, where and why. Same with the actual date of when the offensive ends, everyone knows when the blizzard turns end and start moving back but historically the offensive didn't end because of a sudden change in the weather but because of stretched supply lines and solidifying german resistance, this situation is hardly refleced by the game as it is never the choice of the soviet player as to "when do i stop?". In essence, if the choices of when to start and end a winter offensive is simply down to the players and how the game has played out thus far, then it won't give the same repetetive "on rails" kind of feel.

Another point I would like to make about Pelton's "morale is king" remark. I don't disagree with the actual point but I think part of the problem is that morale seems to affect combat value in a seemingly non-linear kind of way. Morale from 0-40 gives a CV from 0-1(.5) or there about and then it's close to 40-50 more for CV 2-3, morale 50-60 about CV 3-4, 60-75 being CV 4-7 and so on with infantry units of morale 85+ having CV 10 and above. This is part of why the blizzard rule is just too severe as it punishes german CV not only artifically during Blizzard season but also overall. A german infantry division at 85 morale that gets attacked a few times during blizzard is likely to end up below 70 morale and thus lose in worst cases above 50% of its combat value (assuming the TOE level is kept at equal level). The point is that if the germans were allowing the soviets to attack a majority of their units across the line then (while german replacement rates are high enough to allow it) you would end up with a strong 3.3M+ OOB wehrmacht that has still lost close to 50% of its actual combat power which should not be the case. While german divisions on the static parts of the fronts were often stripped of elements the actual german combat effectiveness didn't drop much until after the soviet offensives following operation zitadelle and forward when most of the german manpower reserves were exhausted by the soviets. It was in fact the soviets that were becoming increasingly stronger and more potent on both offense and defense that made the germans look less effective (this is modelled ok by the game through the introduction of new TOE, the different corp units and so on).

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 163
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 6:23:23 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Walloc




Hi Pelton,

I think ur missing the point. I dont disagree that in that game is as now that, then ur right, moral is the king. Thats is not what im trying to point out.
There have been alot of discussing about the "unhistoric" feel of the game, russian running and so on. Talk about through VP or other means tying the russian down so they cant run, fine.
I have been looking at some of the reasons why that IMO cant stand alone. If u wanted a historic feel game. As russian reinforcement/replacement rates are as now, IMO tying down the russian with out doing any thing else, is a doomed cause. Not that u cant do it but 90% of the games would be over by turn 10. Like the MT vs Tarhunnas game. U simply cant sustain historic losses cuz the replacement rates arent historic.
So if u tie the russian down and expect them to take historic losses and by that have a historic feel game IMO one would be wrong. I know that this is recogniesed. That the russian in game replacement simply rates cant sustain that.


The key issue is that the Russian per unit CV is way way over powered, mot even semi historical. There should be way more Russian units I agree, but the fact is they are simply greatly over rated-Middle Earthish. Russian command and control late war 44-45 was still based on WW1. Shot millions of rounds of artillary at an area, then men and tanks rush forward. If Russian forses stayed ar range german forses simply mowed them down be the 10,000's.

The combat engine itself is the major problem its not reflective of combat on the ground at all on the eastern front. Germans had way more command and control from the squad level to OKH. It was not uncomman for a single company of 88's to wipe out a Russian tank Corp. Also Russian submachine guns are simply totally unrealistic. There simply is not enough long range rounds of combat before range is close enough for submachine guns to be in range.

Another thing after the War it was found that German soilders on average aimed and fired at a target(80+%) unlike Allies troops who only aimed 18% of the time. They generally just fired in the direction. Germans figured out most poeple will not take a life willing and needed specific training to over come human nature, which is not to take a life. American basic training was modeled after the Germans shortly after the war. Someone in my family was part of the intell branch of the millitary that worked on this, before he was transfered to operations inside Eastern Europe.

Think about it, the Russians had much more men, equipment and better equipment and the germans simply schooled them. The combat ratios stayed heavey in the GHC favor until Early 45 when things fell apart and mass surrenders happened.

The Russian units are simply over rated by a factor of 3x-4X and the combat engine is not even simply realistic. Range/fire control/surpression fire and radio contact between small units/single tanks is not factored into the comat engine at all.

The other problem is that of logistics, the GHC can move far to quickly from one operation to the next. The combat range of German units is right, but most big operations required weeks of stock piling fuel ammo ect and a build up of trucks.

So based on what 2by3 is working with they have to make SHC CV 4x what it should be. If they had russian units reflec what should be CV 1-5 if that, GHC units can make huge jumps weekly. So even a sea of another 200 1 to 3 CV divisions would simply get smoked.

Remember this game was in developement for yrs, thats why allot of things are not historocal. Hopefully the WITW combat engine is 100x more realistic on the ground an in the air then wite. Russian units should have 1/4 the CV we see and be 1/2 as slow, but there should be many more units and also both sides logistics would drop the tempo way down. Several turns of a major breakthourgh followed by 2 to 3 weeks of a build up of fresh troops and supplies.

quote:

Walloc
Exactly my point. Cause of the current in game replacement rates as of now u never had a 2,7m man army instead of a 3.4m. So manpower feels like nothing cause u always had em. I think the experience would be different if u had 2.7mio man army instead, generally speaking.
U have many a times noted that when the GHC army gets below 3.3mio that offensives get undesireable. In summer of 42 GHC historicly had to make tough choices to canabilize AGC/AGN to make AGS into an offensive force. U never had to make that choice in game, with the historical OOB of 2.789mio IIRC man german summer 42 army.

Do note i, dont see this alone. I have long stated and that think the combat engine favors the attacking side in a fashion that isnt unfavorble for the game. Alteration to that would have to be made so the germans wouldnt just be overruned when going on the defensive. Further more it isnt a quesiton of not allowing ppl to do better/worse than historic.
There are a couple of discourses in the discussion on teh forums that is semi detrimental IMO. One one side ppl want a more "historic feel" at the same time they feel that the game is on "rails".
Noting alot of things usually about the german side that "puts" them on "rails". Well if u want a more historic feel and dont want rails, apart from the apparent disconnet of those 2 thing. How do u get a "historic feel" with out show how shaping that, that happens. Well IMO one of the things that help not having a historic feel, is that the german army gets depeleted at a much later time than historic cuz of the extra 1 mio man leaving russian never being able to stop the german on "their own" in 41. Hench among other things the running/need for blizzard rules.


Again not true, vs TDV I had a 2.8 million man army 2 different games. I do know exactly what I am talking about.

The first game we called a draw so we could play the next major patch, I had a small army but with a nice core of high moral units and TDV's army was under 4(3.8) million by March.

Flaviusx posted I never should have agreed to a draw because I could have easly won, but thats old news.

The next game vs TDV I had 3.2 million men and he had a little over 4 million, but my morale was completely trashed and I was unable to mount a real offensive. I did attack in the south but only because he had burnt up so many trucks.

Again I know what I am talking about based on my personal game play. The numbers do matter for GHC, but not nearly as much as morale. #'s matter more then morale for SHC because the combat engine and CV values of russian units is way over rated.

It is true historically most German divisions only had 50% toe. They did not need more then a few 1000 men and a hand full of anti tank guns or tanks to hold off 6 or 7 russian full toe infantry divisions. There are books and books fulled with 1000's of first hand accounts of battles like this.

Russian training was simply not done in most cases, here is a rifle and 20 rounds march west. It is true there were some Russian units that could be 1/2 as good as most german units, but there was only a handfull in 41 and the numbers grew slowly during the war.

What poeple want ( a more realistic feel) is simply impossible with the current game engine.




_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 164
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 6:50:14 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 1778
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
I have talked with some Russian veterans and read several other reports from them. The training was essentially as you said throughout the war - give them a rifle, a uniform, and some bullets and march them West.

Stalingrad was probably the worst. One of the veterans I talked to said that he was part of 200 men - one rifle for every five or six, and everyone had a clip of nine rounds. By the end of two or three days there were only about 40 men left. But they had found their leaders and they were beginning to work together. After two days out of the front lines they went back for another four or so days. Then there were about 30 men left - already divided into groups and working much better together. After their first month there were only about 10 men left of the original group - but they were a tight and organized squad which lasted for much of the rest of the war. They also learned to 'use' newer recruits for things like recon by sending them first and then acting on where the shots that got them came from.

A very brutal kind of training.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 165
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 9:48:04 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I have talked with some Russian veterans and read several other reports from them. The training was essentially as you said throughout the war - give them a rifle, a uniform, and some bullets and march them West.

Stalingrad was probably the worst. One of the veterans I talked to said that he was part of 200 men - one rifle for every five or six, and everyone had a clip of nine rounds. By the end of two or three days there were only about 40 men left. But they had found their leaders and they were beginning to work together. After two days out of the front lines they went back for another four or so days. Then there were about 30 men left - already divided into groups and working much better together. After their first month there were only about 10 men left of the original group - but they were a tight and organized squad which lasted for much of the rest of the war. They also learned to 'use' newer recruits for things like recon by sending them first and then acting on where the shots that got them came from.

A very brutal kind of training.


Good stuff. Yes there were some that were good, good as germans man for man but not because of good leadership from the squad lvl to Corp lvl. Russians had some ok generals at the upper lvls, but the NCO and low level CO were mostly lapdogs themselfs simply puppets of the state.

I am sure given good training and leadership the Russians would have stopped the Germans withen a few months at most. But as we know there was little if any training before early 1943. Training in 43 was good on defensive tactics. Kursk was the first example of Red Army having some training. Russian offensive tactics never improved any during the war. Basic WW1 charge! The russians would attack across 100 miles and at 2-4 areas of the front hoping for a breakthrough. Many storys of 100-200 russian tanks breaking through lines, but stukas picking them off one at a time heheheh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel


The key to german victory after victory was the tactical air support from 39-42
Britian/France and Russia had better tanks/artillary ect ect and more and Germany mopped the floor withem.

WitE really is lacking in this area. The Germans did not have to man some of the front in the south because it was wide open basicly like a dessert. Germans would simply recon these areas and if any russians showed up they send in Rudel and the boys and they have some fun.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/10/2012 9:49:49 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 166
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 9:49:25 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The key issue is that the Russian per unit CV is way way over powered, mot even semi historical. There should be way more Russian units I agree, but the fact is they are simply greatly over rated-Middle Earthish. Russian command and control late war 44-45 was still based on WW1. Shot millions of rounds of artillary at an area, then men and tanks rush forward. If Russian forses stayed ar range german forses simply mowed them down be the 10,000's.


quote:

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

Well, most people who are suggesting these things have already stated they (including me) feel that the soviets are simply too weak (CV-wise) in the summer of 41 so the talk of VPs is purely from achieving a more historically accurate campaigning environment.




Smiles a bit.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The combat engine itself is the major problem its not reflective of combat on the ground at all on the eastern front. Germans had way more command and control from the squad level to OKH. It was not uncomman for a single company of 88's to wipe out a Russian tank Corp. Also Russian submachine guns are simply totally unrealistic. There simply is not enough long range rounds of combat before range is close enough for submachine guns to be in range.


We agree in that the combat engine is flawed but that kinda argument is non sensical and only clouds the arguement.
Germans had more 88 companies than russians had tank corps. So if it was that simple russians would never had been able to advance a yard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Think about it, the Russians had much more men, equipment and better equipment and the germans simply schooled them. The combat ratios stayed heavey in the GHC favor until Early 45 when things fell apart and mass surrenders happened.


While we all can agree on the superior tactical and training of the german troops. If u ever wana see any russian advances since they overall through out the whole front never really had more a superority in men at more than 2-3 to 1 in men, if u include axis minors until very late in war. Well the 100-1 argument simply wont work overall. While historicly u had russian being able to mass troops and hide this in a way that one is no way able too in game higher than 2-3 to 1. Since SHC in game doesnt have this ability to create maskistroka, creating situasion with large odd differential isnt really possible. Less the german player is asleep. Not that the as u in game isnt able to created schwerpunkts tacticly. Corps eventaully give that ability in game. While maybe not perfect one have to agree it is ingenuity in its ability to allow russian to attack as game is.
If "combat ratio" didnt change until early 45 how did the russians manage to attack some with more or and some less succesfull from late 42?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The Russian units are simply over rated by a factor of 3x-4X and the combat engine is not even simply realistic. Range/fire control/surpression fire and radio contact between small units/single tanks is not factored into the comat engine at all.


The logic by that is, since the CV of a full ToE 50/50 moral/exp russian late 41 OOB is just over 4. If u quater that the max u can get is CV 1 times 3 units. = 3 CV in a hex.. Give that fort 2 and u have 12 CV. This will stop absolutly nothing. There never would be an end to german advance. The math is simple u would never able to to gather the CV in a hex to stop any german forces. As combat engine is now u can with a suppored single full strength german inf div easily beat CV 12.

Not only that lets assume u we keept current blizzard rules CV modification wise. U would rarely if ever be able to take a hex with the 3 CV max attacking from a stack.

So while we can agree stuff needs to happen on russian side this is not the answer.


By Dec 41 most german divs was severly depleted. That not the same as the "combat effectivness" of the individual german soldier or units is diminished compared to russian troops, but again 10000 men cant defend the same as 17000 its simple logic. Do i and other avoid the whole sale surrendering of german units, less u play like an idiot. Yes but the frontline was pushed back 70-100km at points and it did come at a cost. Also the germas was stopped. Again 10000 divs didnt pack the same punch as a 17000 its absolutly one of the reasons.
By far the easiest way IMO to achieve such results is to show the behind lying reasons for that and that was that the weather along wtith the depleted state of most german units did leave them in a state that it was able to be pushed back. Creating in game those conditions where the depletedness is a factor u most likely achieve the the same conditons as historical.

quote:


It is true historically most German divisions only had 50% toe. They did not need more then a few 1000 men and a hand full of anti tank guns or tanks to hold off 6 or 7 russian full toe infantry divisions. There are books and books fulled with 1000's of first hand accounts of battles like this.


Right and first hand accounts are the best possible account of what happend and the front as a whole. If a few 1000 men, lets say 2000 men and some AT gun was always able to hold off the russian attacking with 6-7 full strength OOB divs. Now u dont say what u mean by historical OOB. This can be any thing from 3000 to 10000 men. Going as low as possible 6*3000= 18000 vs 2000 or 9-1. If that had been true there never would have been any russian advances ever. So again this makes no sense. Not that u cant find example of the above, but if that was a true estimation of the true combat strength of the war. The result would obviously been very different. Russian never had any thing like 9-1 in odds on the front overall.

quote:


What poeple want ( a more realistic feel) is simply impossible with the current game engine.


While i totally agree that the combat engine stop possible progress, thats not teh same as some things couldnt be improved. Again we both know it wont happend to WiTE 1.0.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/10/2012 9:58:54 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 167
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 10:00:12 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Walloc


If "combat ratio" didnt change until early 45 how did the russians manage to attack some with more or and some less succesfull from late 42?


I am not sure you even play this game at this pt.

This is alrdy built into the current game engine. Open up any unit and there is this thing called fatigue bro lol. Many players use this tactic, SHC more then GHC for sure.

I even have a thread some plase on how to use it to take "impossible" hexes heheh TDV is the master at these kind of tactics.

To take the back door hex simply have 6 different regiments attack a single hex, then do your main attack. Bomazz should have taken Leningrad vs Hoooper long ago, but he has no idea how to do this. I am sure Hoooper is thankful heheh. I am talking about the port and backdoor hex.

vs TDV he needed to open a pocket so he attacked the hex 12 times yes 12 dam times then did a D which lost then another then finally on the 3rd try he won. Brian used same tactic to Save Moscow. 3 full panzer units in light woods.

If the Russians had several 100 more units even with lower cv they can easly win whatever battle they want.

Come on if your going to argue something at least have a clue about what is currently already part of the game engine bro.

I think that one pt blows the rest of your pts out of the water.


< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/10/2012 10:01:11 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 168
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 10:02:08 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4221
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
It is indeed true, a solid fact that the training of soviet soldiers was basically primitive. And of course the game should simulate this. I think it does.

One cause of this poor training could not be avoided though: the country was being invaded and they had to do something or perish. These are cold facts. They had no other choice than throwing men and then more men to the battle.

Now let's take the British... The war starts in september 1939. A industrial state which can produce really good, first class equipment. If we except the France Campaign, the British started to fight in 1941... this means their soldiers had been training for almost 2 years minimum...

But of course they had a Channel. They could safely hide behind this wall of water. In other words, they could afford this awesome training.

The same can be said about US troops in WW2.

The other cause is obviously the Soviet regime itself. Let's not forget the boss (Stalin) was a brutal thug. This necessarily shaped everything... Not caring for your men for example, you have millions, order suicide assaults. Or else.

Both causes simply doomed the Red Army recruits.

_____________________________

"When the seagulls follow a trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" -- Eric Cantona, XX century philosopher

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 169
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 10:10:28 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
How TDV and others sre using fatiguing tactics is the very same thing the russians used.

The russians simply did the WW1 thing.

SHC need to take town x guarded by 1 regiment.

1. Bomb town.
2. 1st rifle division attacks and loses.
3. Bomb town.
4. 2nd rifle division attacks and loses.
5. Bomb town.
6. 3rd rifle division attacks and loses.
7. Bomb town.
8. 4th rifle division attacks and loses.
9. Bomb town.
10. 5th rifle division attacks and loses.
11. Bomb town.
12. 6th rifle division attacks and wins woot! We are amazing Generals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This attack happens over 3 or 4 days. The Germans had no or little reserves, they just get tired and be forsed to retreat because of the rRed armys amazing tactics.

The fact is it did work, but wasted millions of their own means lifes needlessly.


You can read account after account of these battles, most major russians offensive were stopped cold, but the russians hammered away for days weeks some times and the germans would withdraw.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 170
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 10:12:34 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
I personally would love to see another 200 russian rifle divisions on the map and a VP system, but you have to lower russian cv to reflex historical values.

Russian infantry Corp CV is 30 in this game hhehe talk about Middle earth, most german regiments could stop cold any russian Corp attack with 50% toe. hehehe

2by3 is saying a rifle Corp has 3x the cv of a german divisions? Its a joke historically more like 5 cv at best historically.

Again you can read story after story of german regiments holding 30 mile fronts vs Corps and they held for days only after days and days of attacks were the german forsed to retreat.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/10/2012 10:16:25 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 171
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 10:18:49 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus




Both causes simply doomed the Red Army recruits.


They were as good as any other nations fighting men and died bravely, but millions need not have died if they had good leadership and training. very sad indeed.


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 172
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 10:23:17 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
I think the British and French had as much training as Germans when Germany invaded France.

The air support was amazing on target and the system the germans had was what the USA uses to this day or until the last 4 or 5 yrs because of computers.

They we so far ahead of the rest of the world not because of equipment or numbers.

Its hard to reflec something like that in a game.

The tactical air support side of wite is a complete miss sadly. Germany did what it did because of air support, no other nation could call in air support at the company level. Everyone esle was using it to bomb areas like artillary.

Rudel there is a battleship in the harbor pissing us off can you go sink it? Rudel "sure NP" Same thing at company level for pill boxes/tanks/MG nests ect ect.

At St Lo the USA sent in 1000 bombers heheheh bombed and area not targets, then 1000 low level bombers then 10000's of artillary. Only thing it did was slow down our tanks and half tracks hehehe.
My grandfather was in 3rd armored division as a gunner in a tank that had a plow on it to cut paths in hedgerows. They spent all their time the first day making a road through the bomb craters and not fighting. He told me it was a total waste and was still kinda pissed about the hole thing until the day he died heheeh He was an amazing person one of the greatest generation. I asked him if he ever knew if he blow up a german tank, he say not sure because we shot 20x to try and take out a position. Dam Germans seemed to always shot once and blow something up.

He ended up losing his leg below the knee. He came home got fixed(wooden leg) up and went back to farming in the summer and cutting wood in the winter.

And yes he thought most of the current generation is a usless bunch of beggers wanting a handout for doing nothing.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/10/2012 10:40:02 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 173
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 10:40:14 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

Walloc


If "combat ratio" didnt change until early 45 how did the russians manage to attack some with more or and some less succesfull from late 42?




I was talking real life not in game. i assume you in ur OP meant that combat ratio didnt change until early 45 in real life.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I even have a thread some plase on how to use it to take "impossible" hexes heheh TDV is the master at these kind of tactics.

To take the back door hex simply have 6 different regiments attack a single hex, then do your main attack. Bomazz should have taken Leningrad vs Hoooper long ago, but he has no idea how to do this. I am sure Hoooper is thankful heheh. I am talking about the port and backdoor hex.


So its some thing that can be used by both sides. We have alrdy in another thread 3-4 months ago or so both noted this and agreed on this.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

If the Russians had several 100 more units even with lower cv they can easly win whatever battle they want.

Come on if your going to argue something at least have a clue about what is currently already part of the game engine bro.

I think that one pt blows the rest of your pts out of the water.



Right, couldnt have any thing to do with if u allow a max 3 CV per hex for russians for the whole front, per ur suggestion, there is no place russians would ever be able to stop the germans. So its easier to pretend the arugement isnt there, than argue it.

A little math. Max fatigue is 99 that is a 33% reduction in CV as max. U cant get it any higher no matter how many times u attack. Vs a 400% per ur suggestion reduction in SHC attack values and u stilll able to take any hex as SHC?
A 9 CV german div can be deducted 1/3 or down to 6. Since u max can have 3 CV per hex per ur suggestion lets say u attack from 2 hexes. thats 6 vs 6 or 1 to 1. Nothing counting any other possible modifications to CV. Give the german div a lvl 1 fort and its CV 12 now we attacking at 1 to 2. Even some good modifible CV isnt really gona over come that. Give it a terrain modifer and its 1 to 4 attack.

So fatigue will only get u so far. A 400% reduction in SHC CV and well u wont be able to over come it, no matter number of units.


Kind regards,

Rasmus


< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/10/2012 11:35:13 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 174
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/10/2012 10:57:15 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

Another point I would like to make about Pelton's "morale is king" remark. I don't disagree with the actual point but I think part of the problem is that morale seems to affect combat value in a seemingly non-linear kind of way. Morale from 0-40 gives a CV from 0-1(.5) or there about and then it's close to 40-50 more for CV 2-3, morale 50-60 about CV 3-4, 60-75 being CV 4-7 and so on with infantry units of morale 85+ having CV 10 and above.



The is a bit more too it than that. CV is a computation of moral*experience*CV of the devices giving CV in the unit. A added a pic of a div in the tutorial scn. In orginal scn is has 4.5 ish CV with moral 70 exp 70. Then I double every number of device in the div but keept the moral and exp at the exact same. CV in edited version is double just as expected at 9.

This is at essence of my point. If u would want the german overall CV to fall. Moral and exp is not necesarrily the only key. Not thats they dont per above doesnt figur into the equation. Simple math. A 70/70 div is 0.49 effecient. 0.7*0.7. A 80/80 is 64% effecient. 0.8*0.8 = 0.64.
So even tho its only 10 better its in fact. 64/49*100 = approx 130% better if exactly same number and type of devices. All that doesnt change the fact that number of devices in the unit alters its CV too.
By halfing number of devices u half the CV of the unit.

So when u dont get the historical reduction in forces the indivisual division in game retain a higher CV and there for offensive as well as defensive punch. If u was showing the historic depletion better than now u would reduce the overall offensive punch of the german army in game. Possibly to a point where the reduction was to the effect to halt the offensive abilities of the army along with other factors. Supply, weather and so on. Just because of the replacement lvl and we there for dont see a reduction in german offensive punch from that high or at leased to same degree as if replacement had been historic. Possbily getting to an equlibrium near early dec tor when ever depending on progress of that particular game. That then sets the scene for a stoppage of german offensive power, but retaining enough for a viable defense with out the need for the blizzard effect. At leased that factor is a possiblity isnt really in the game atm cuz of we dont really see that depletion. Its just that its a factor one could adjust on too, giving CV reductions overall.

Kind regards,

Rasmus




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/10/2012 11:10:12 PM >

(in reply to mevstedt)
Post #: 175
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/11/2012 12:03:27 AM   
dave_wolf

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 1/19/2008
From: GER, where two rivers meet.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Germany did what it did because of air support
...
Rudel there is a battleship in the harbor pissing us off can you go sink it? Rudel "sure NP" Same thing at company level for pill boxes/tanks/MG nests ect ect.

Same thing applies to air defense which is often overlooked. Mostly due to the fact that it's not as spectacular as diving Stukas.

Guderian himself, for example, once wrote about the importance of having the fighters very close to the frontline. So that they could be called in within max. 20-30min when ground units were under air attack.

_____________________________

The artist formerly known as davewolf.

Lose your password, let your email account expire and you're a complete noob again...

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 176
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/11/2012 12:07:24 AM   
dave_wolf

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 1/19/2008
From: GER, where two rivers meet.
Status: offline
And while we're on the subject of coordination: GER was the first major nation to use wireless communication in all their armoured units.

_____________________________

The artist formerly known as davewolf.

Lose your password, let your email account expire and you're a complete noob again...

(in reply to dave_wolf)
Post #: 177
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/11/2012 1:03:09 AM   
mevstedt

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

The is a bit more too it than that. CV is a computation of moral*experience*CV of the devices giving CV in the unit. A added a pic of a div in the tutorial scn. In orginal scn is has 4.5 ish CV with moral 70 exp 70. Then I double every number of device in the div but keept the moral and exp at the exact same. CV in edited version is double just as expected at 9.

This is at essence of my point. If u would want the german overall CV to fall. Moral and exp is not necesarrily the only key. Not thats they dont per above doesnt figur into the equation. Simple math. A 70/70 div is 0.49 effecient. 0.7*0.7. A 80/80 is 64% effecient. 0.8*0.8 = 0.64.
So even tho its only 10 better its in fact. 64/49*100 = approx 130% better if exactly same number and type of devices. All that doesnt change the fact that number of devices in the unit alters its CV too.
By halfing number of devices u half the CV of the unit.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



I know there is more to CV than just morale but since morale is what gets hit and both you and I agree that the germans have enough manpower to compensate for the losses taken during the blizzard, this will put them in a position where they can practically fill most if not all divisions to a much higher degree than they were able to historically. Experience is also limited as it can not be trained higher than your current morale meaning that morale becomes as Pelton phrases it "king".

I agree with you that there are more ways to get german combat value to decline other than just by dumping their morale and that is the problem since the blizzard rule is only driving down the german morale when it should ofcourse also have put the wehrmacht in a state where they have average say 70-80% TOE max for units and having to pick and choose which units to get replacements. The problem is that when that was the case in the earlier versions of the game, the wehrmacht ended up in such a poor state that it just couldn't mount a suitable summer offensive in -42.

Maybe it would have been better for the game if there had been separate CV for offense and defense not to mention more fort levels (for example 1-20 with each step being a minor increase to CV rather than the few levels we have now that increase CV by several factors).



< Message edited by mevstedt -- 11/11/2012 1:06:17 AM >

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 178
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/11/2012 3:28:57 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
There's a vague rumor that the Soviets were the eventual victor on the Eastern Front...obviously propaganda....how could it happen with the Germans having magical Stuka bombs, and most Soviet soldiers being untrained, armed with half a clip, and almost no artillery ammunition to support them?

(in reply to mevstedt)
Post #: 179
RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? - 11/11/2012 1:15:55 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

Walloc


If "combat ratio" didnt change until early 45 how did the russians manage to attack some with more or and some less succesfull from late 42?




I was talking real life not in game. i assume you in ur OP meant that combat ratio didnt change until early 45 in real life.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I even have a thread some plase on how to use it to take "impossible" hexes heheh TDV is the master at these kind of tactics.

To take the back door hex simply have 6 different regiments attack a single hex, then do your main attack. Bomazz should have taken Leningrad vs Hoooper long ago, but he has no idea how to do this. I am sure Hoooper is thankful heheh. I am talking about the port and backdoor hex.


So its some thing that can be used by both sides. We have alrdy in another thread 3-4 months ago or so both noted this and agreed on this.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

If the Russians had several 100 more units even with lower cv they can easly win whatever battle they want.

Come on if your going to argue something at least have a clue about what is currently already part of the game engine bro.

I think that one pt blows the rest of your pts out of the water.



Right, couldnt have any thing to do with if u allow a max 3 CV per hex for russians for the whole front, per ur suggestion, there is no place russians would ever be able to stop the germans. So its easier to pretend the arugement isnt there, than argue it.

A little math. Max fatigue is 99 that is a 33% reduction in CV as max. U cant get it any higher no matter how many times u attack. Vs a 400% per ur suggestion reduction in SHC attack values and u stilll able to take any hex as SHC?
A 9 CV german div can be deducted 1/3 or down to 6. Since u max can have 3 CV per hex per ur suggestion lets say u attack from 2 hexes. thats 6 vs 6 or 1 to 1. Nothing counting any other possible modifications to CV. Give the german div a lvl 1 fort and its CV 12 now we attacking at 1 to 2. Even some good modifible CV isnt really gona over come that. Give it a terrain modifer and its 1 to 4 attack.

So fatigue will only get u so far. A 400% reduction in SHC CV and well u wont be able to over come it, no matter number of units.


Kind regards,

Rasmus




There you go now add in disruption, wooot we have a winner.

Again your wrong.

I also said 1-5 CV per unit and not 1. Most would start out with 1 or 2. Thats in a clear hex so higher CV is possible defending.

Also they have these things called Sappers that can take a fort from 1 to 0, 2 to 0 and even 3 to 0 in a single combat.

So I am 100% right if the historical CV values were used then the 200 missing Rifle units could be put in game and make for a much more historical game

There is for some reason allot of restance withen 2by3 to keep Russian Corp CV 3x higher then German Infantry CV. More to do with politics then history.

When clearly a full toe good morale german regiment should have same CV as a rifle Corp.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/11/2012 1:19:30 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Extra grain for the horse = HQB? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   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

0.162