Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Musing on 1942

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Musing on 1942 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Musing on 1942 - 8/29/2015 2:18:43 PM   
loki100


Posts: 5407
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
Since 1.08 has really changed the dynamics of 1942 I thought it might be useful to try and grab the information available in a few AARs. The key to me, is that by mid-August, the 40NM rule really hits hard and most of your rifle divisions are below 45, most around 42 morale. This gives you a cv range of 1-3 depending a bit on experience and fatigue. But with the impact of the 1942b OOB for the rifle division, most will be at 2.

Looking at Chaos vs Pelton, Pelton vs smokindave, M60A3TTS vs smokindave and mine vs Vigabrand, I think we see some common themes and some interesting differences.

The Panzer ball operational tactic is very effective and every German player has prioritised the south and the destruction of Soviet units. The front lines are mostly similar. Vigabrand is the furthest to the west but then we made an agreement about Lvov. I regret this now, not that I think its realistic, but the secondary impact of the loss of FBD5 in 1941 means that not doing a Lvov pocket really hampers the ability to construct a rail net in the Ukraine.

One difference is that Vigabrand kept his Pzrs intact in the winter, I think we can see this as a perfectly valid tactic (as I suggested in my AAR at the time), its certainly not led to a radically different summer 1942 campaign.

I think myself and Chaos45 probably got out more HI than the other 2 AARs which may have an impact going forward.

I've nicked a couple of screenshots from M60s AAR, in particular post 67 to give a like with like comparison to my current game, ie up to 2 Sept 1942.

Should stress, this is not about discussing good/bad play, more interested in the reason for differences and for similarities.

In terms of airlosses, its a bit like two completely different games. Whether the difference is on the German or the Soviet side, in one game the loss ratio is 4-1 and the other 6.5-1 (and only a little can be explained by a more devastating T1). The interesting bit is my fighter losses are lower but my bomber losses are massively higher.


(M60)


(loki100)

In terms of ground losses, its roughly more similar. I've lost more and killed less but the differences are relatively marginal. The reason is I have seen far more lost as prisoners (by 500,000) which probably reflects play style – but oddly shows that Lvov is not the only way to seriously cull the Red Army.


(M60)


(loki100)

I tend to use sacrificial defensive lines a lot and have made 2 bad mistakes in the summer 1942 battles.

I guess my truck losses are so much lower, as I tend not to emphasise the use of armour in 1942. So while I've actually lost more on supply movement, I've lost far less in relation to combat and unit movements.

So I think what we are seeing is that 1.08 is producing a relatively fixed game (assuming no major brain farts), mostly, I believe, driven by the low Soviet morale from April 1942.

For what its worth, I'd suggest thinking about resetting that to 45 in September rather than October for 1.08.05.

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/29/2015 2:46:19 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
Loki,

Also no Lvov- means your game is a very different game- as you will have more industry than most other Soviet players

I want to play through the late game against Pelton and see how it goes. I personally feel the German Army in 1942 is much, much to powerful compared to what the Soviets can do. Even with massive amounts of counterattack forces you are pretty much nothing but a punching bag for the German player. This to me is complete BS compared to what the real situation was in 1942.

Many old hats at the game say you need a pathetic Soviet Army in 1942 to prevent the Germans being crushed to quickly. IDK will have to play late game and see still.

Maybe if NM stays at 40 the Soviets need a small bone thrown their way to make up for in order of Free AP units such as Tank Army HQs for free or something to reduce the AP crunch so you can rebuild and get on the offensive in late 1942 like you should be.

I can see in our game there will be no massive Soviet winter offensive 1942 in fact it already looks like Im going to lose another army or two to continued german offensives because the German army just has to much manpower in 1942 even late 1942. Its the whole fantasy game of the Germans maintaining almost 4M man armies all through 1942. Yes the Soviets are maintaining armies larger as well but it doesnt matter as much because all of the Soft factors are still crushing Soviet CV.

Also isolated units drop CV way, way to fast....4+ CV units going to 1 CV on the first turn makes breakouts almost impossible even against completely pathetic surrounding forces. This is the only game I have ever played where surrounded units collapse and become so worthless in 1 turn....which is another massive benefit to the Axis side. If the axis surround a strong soviet unit(s) it should require a decent blocking force to keep them pinned in, not a security regiment or some crap axis allied unit.

If the German infantry divisions never weaken due to lack of casualties then the Soviets cant really get counteroffensives rolling on anything near a historical timeline.

Alot of factors in the game conspire to make Stalingrad type operations impossible for the Soviets to pull off.

Also this whole disband the luftwaffe to provide manpower for the Army should come at a much higher AP cost, as it was a political impossibility.

In general im not impressed with some of the ways the game models things. Maybe supermen germans in 1941/1942 is needed to balance supermen Soviets in 1944/1945 IDK havent played that far.

Right now 1941/1942 almost feels like there isnt much of a reason to play the game as a soviet player. Your only objective is dont lose moscow 1941 and save industry....then in 1942 try not to get killed to bad but dont really challenge the German player because his counter strength alone will win out.

Like I have said in many other threads combat losses for both sides are to low, and from my understanding its an unfixable issue. So with that said not sure how much replay value the game will have for me even in pvp because the game is fixed basically.

I prefer a game where my choices and decisions matter. If I repeatedly beat back German armored units they should take enough losses to not be able to keep encirclement me turn after turn. Encirclements being the only to inflict losses means the Soviets are basically completely worthless on the counterattack in 1941/1942 as the movement penalties to get into german areas and the ability of german armor to rush 30+ hexes and still smash you makes them impossible to pull off for soviets as their units to weak and to slow moving in the current game. Even in 1943 the morale bonus wont be enough to make soviet movement into german hexes matter much for encirclements.

Morale probably needs to be removed from the hex movement equation completely and a set penalty used. This would make German players actually guard their flanks especially since the isolated penalty in this game is effectively an automatic death sentence.

So unless they can fix the casualty model to make the Germans pay in losses when attacks fail and pay when the soviet player makes good counterattacks soviet play matters very little.

My next turn ill grab some casualty screens for the soviets its never good news tho lol.

As I said though I want to see the late war game and see how it works before making a final judgement, but so far no impressed with how Soviet play matters so very little in 1941/1942. As in 1941 you are just trying to play good enough to prevent an auto loss then in 1942 trying not to be wiped out because your units are all the biggest wimps ever. Not only does that 5 Morale difference mean you defend worse but it also means your counterattack forces are worse off.

Hmm just a thought maybe adjust up Soviet tank/mech/cav corps forces another 5 points in 1942 to keep them more lethal but not the entire Soviet army....or lower German infantry morale 5 points in 1942.....that might be a thought. Something to make the German player have to worry about Soviet counterattacks/breakthroughs.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 8/29/2015 4:10:56 PM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 2
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/29/2015 4:23:33 PM   
Bob12

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 1/16/2015
Status: offline
yep casualties is the overriding issue. At the moment german replacements can easily keep up with losses which enables their divisions to stay at full strength, enabling the silly neverending encirclements in 42. The numbers would probably need to approximately double for each side to produce an accurate effect.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 3
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/29/2015 6:09:38 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
I would agree but I have beat that dead horse enough. Until they can get the loss rates for combat higher the game will continue to be a fantasy situation for the Germans in the EW and probably a fantasy situation for Soviets in LW.

(in reply to Bob12)
Post #: 4
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/29/2015 7:19:05 PM   
HITMAN202


Posts: 739
Joined: 11/10/2011
Status: offline
Fascinating game, great insights and comments.... But to get the best simulation of WITE combat reality (IMO)

1) Attrition has to increase x 0.5 to 1.0 for the Germans and x 2-3 (or greater) for the Soviets. The wear and tear of daily troop movement alone with or without mobile support is tremendous. Forget about combat. Napoleon's and William der Grosser's dictum, "an army marches on it's stomach" should, in WITE, be realistically shown in the penalty on troop movement alone. For a German infantry division to move 140 miles in a week with limited attrition is ludicrous. Add on top to that a unit which has been in continual action thru an entire summer; the small attrition cost is pure fantasy.

2) Combat units don't follow "orders" so each commander must continually feel hamstrung. There is an innate reluctance for soldiers to expose themselves to injury. So both German and Soviet commanders need to constantly face the frustration that their forces will not fully follow orders. Chaos complains that combat casualties need to be higher, but he fails to understand that when 2 Soviet mechanize division attack an entrenched German infantry division many units will not engage. Failure of command control at all levels because of poor communication, morale (fear, laziness, and self preservation et al), unit skill, and the simple reality hat only the "tip of the spear" is bloodied in combat show that Grigsby may be spot on with his combat machine.

< Message edited by HITMAN202 -- 8/29/2015 8:45:44 PM >


_____________________________

WITE is a good addiction with no cure.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 5
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/29/2015 9:10:56 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
Hitman,

Suggest you read alot more actual combat records of fighting on the Eastern front. It wasnt anything like the western front. Is a reason Germans were threatened with being sent to the Ost front.

I have read reports of soviet units being wiped out following completely stupid orders, I mean wiped out...like 12 guys left of an entire battalion. When the Soviets were ordered to do something they did it or most of them died trying. The Kharkov disaster in 1942 is a perfect picture of this Soviet formations basically decimated because they were ordered to attack even when their commanding generals knew the attacks were ill prepared and suicidal.

Also the German orders of not one step back in the winter and after in 1941 were just as lethal....most German divisions combat elements were effectively destroyed by the time they were forced out of a position and usually most of their support elements as the support was usually cannibalized to top off combat squads and typically killed off very quickly due to lack of training on actual infantry tactics. This becomes a huge issue for the Germans in the Summer of 1942...they just dont have trained/veteran infantry replacements at all.

Your innate reluctance to engage comment is a fantasy of proven false research on WW2.

Casualties for direct combat must be higher period or the game will never reach anything like realism. Attrition increases could also model this to an extent. You do realize entire Soviet armies were destroyed by direct combat, not encirclement throughout 1942.....You want to read the real casualty reports I highly suggest you read Glantzs books on the eastern front he has daily and operations casualty reports direct from the records of both sides. You quickly see that without replacements units on the eastern front would just cease to exist after awhile of even "static" operations. When operations become more kinetic with full out offensives and defenses losses quickly skyrocket to 10x normal daily rates.

Armies/units follow orders period unless they are extremely unmotivated Soldiers- even US Soldiers launched some very bloody attacks in 1944 that in retrospect were just wasteful bloodbaths...however they were following orders.

GG systems has always had poor combat models that he always made work in the game with special rules usually. Just like national morale, and first winter rules...they are needed because his combat model is poor. Been playing his games on and off for over 10 years now and they have improved but its still an issue.

Operations shouldnt cease from weather....they should cease because formations are exhausted from losses. Me and Peltons game is stupidly unrealistic as far as combat results. Both of our tank forces should be completely decimated after a full summer of full on assault and defense pretty much into the teeth of each sides tank forces. Instead almost all my units are 90%+ ToE and I bet his are to...the reason for this is, a completely crappy and poorly done combat model.

Effectively we fought Kursk about 4-5 times this summer but the battles are such wimpy slap fights as far as losses go that they dont matter other than terrain gained/lost or units actually encircled....its a stupid casualty system.....sorry for the fan boys out there but it is.

(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 6
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/29/2015 11:07:43 PM   
HITMAN202


Posts: 739
Joined: 11/10/2011
Status: offline
WITE slaughtered millions, but not in the way most perceive. Us wargamers love to play the slash and burn tactical combats, mano a mano. That's not what WITE is about. It's an operational/strategic game. I think chaos you tactically visualize launching a phalanx of rabid troops to exterminate a fortress, when in reality you merely move units then give orders. Your mentality about how those orders are executed is fantasy.

My guess is that 70 % of all casualties were by artillery/motor, most which were by a "strategical" type of attrition. Your view is too tactically focused. Merely my opinion.

_____________________________

WITE is a good addiction with no cure.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 7
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/29/2015 11:59:49 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
Yes artillery you are correct....and artillery pieces are pretty much in every single counter in the game...An attack/defense includes a fair amount of guns classified as artillery.

I think your error is not realizing the each game turn is 7 days of action. In 7 days of combat entire armies can be wiped from the earth with WW2 weaponry. In WW2 entire divisions were effectively wiped out in 1-2 days of combat. This game is representing 7 days per turn. I would be fine with the losses in the combat reports for the game if they were for 1-2 days of combat action, but they arent they are for up to a week of combat action.

An yes millions of losses are recorded in the game......I think im up to 5-6M losses in my current game vs pelton lol....

Everyone has their own likes/dislikes in games/system....Im going to continue my game vs Pelton but in all honesty my enjoyment of the system is waning already because of how unrealistic the fantasy German Army is. I can already see a very long slow slug fest against lines and lines of German forts with almost no breakthrough dues to how crappy the game rates soviet units/movement....and how amazingly well manned the German army over historical levels.

I still say a board game called the operational combat series does eastern front better than this game and its a counter based game without all the wiz bang computer calculations lol. Difference is a massively prepared offensive/defensive action will see major losses to both sides as in real life. An thats with 3-4 day turns.

Hitman seriously do some research on the historical battles on the eastern front and how many men were lost on both sides. The Romanian army in the real war was practically destroyed trying to take Odessa in 1941......That could never happen in WiTE because the combat system is way to weak.

The Germans didnt lose at Stalingrad because they were surprised.....they knew about the Soviet build-up they just underestimated how effective he Soviets would be, and overestimated the capabilities of their formations. Almost all the German divisions in the 6th Army by November 1942 were at about 50% total strength and when you look at combat infantry/engineers the situation was even worse with only about 25% fill rate and that was after moving troops from support to refill infantry positions. The Panzer divisions were in even worse shape most only able to field about 20 operational tanks.....when have you ever seen the WiTE combat system get those effects????

You havent nor will you ever as the game system fails to model historical combat so you end up with 90+% strength divisions most of the time for both sides.

When I look at the map and see nothing but a complete line of full strength German division in late 1942 it shows the game is failing at modeling the war. An you can look at the AARs all the other games under .8 have the same effect going on with full strength+++ German armies in 1942...so thats a system problem not a player problem.

Once I get the next turn from Pelton back will post losses an such, but I think of all the games that have made it to the end of 1942 since .8 I have inflicted the heaviest losses on the German Army period and yet I still see nothing but basically full strength German units and an almost 4M man German army at the end of 1942.

(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 8
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 12:56:43 AM   
Bob12

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 1/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HITMAN202

WITE slaughtered millions, but not in the way most perceive. Us wargamers love to play the slash and burn tactical combats, mano a mano. That's not what WITE is about. It's an operational/strategic game. I think chaos you tactically visualize launching a phalanx of rabid troops to exterminate a fortress, when in reality you merely move units then give orders. Your mentality about how those orders are executed is fantasy.

My guess is that 70 % of all casualties were by artillery/motor, most which were by a "strategical" type of attrition. Your view is too tactically focused. Merely my opinion.

Doesn't slaughter enough millions though :) The problem is in real life countless soviet divisions were utterly destroyed in battle as opposed to in game where the only way is encirclement. Most Soviet losses in the summer of 42 were from straight up combat as opposed to the continuous encirclements seen in peltons games.

(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 9
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 3:40:31 AM   
HITMAN202


Posts: 739
Joined: 11/10/2011
Status: offline
Chaos, you're fixated on what you think WITE combat should be like, not how it really occurred. I agree with WWII weaponry divisions could be annihilated in a few days, but when looking at real day to day, week to week German-Russian combat, it infrequently happened. You want the 4th of July fireworks to occur on each turn. Yes there were numerous Kharkov 1942-like disasters, but considering the vastness of the war in terms of time (4 years), space (eastern Euope/western Russia) and numbers (milions upon millions) it, in reality seldom happened. You're blinded by an idee fixe that's disconnected to real WITE combat.

_____________________________

WITE is a good addiction with no cure.

(in reply to Bob12)
Post #: 10
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 7:06:01 AM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline
The casualties on the "static" fronts came from daily soviet attacks.
Nobody did that, because it is stupid to attack a well defend position and take 1.000 casualties and the opponent maybe 100 or 200.
But if you attack in all quiet sectors and add more casualties to the german side you can generare more historicall numbers.
In WitE nobody attacks with the rumanians Odessa and slauthgter them. But with the actual system, you can do that!


_____________________________




(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 11
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 8:52:27 AM   
Bob12

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 1/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand

The casualties on the "static" fronts came from daily soviet attacks.
Nobody did that, because it is stupid to attack a well defend position and take 1.000 casualties and the opponent maybe 100 or 200.
But if you attack in all quiet sectors and add more casualties to the german side you can generare more historicall numbers.
In WitE nobody attacks with the rumanians Odessa and slauthgter them. But with the actual system, you can do that!


These kind of 'attacks' were not divisional level assaults but rather tactical level ones such as reconnaissance and combat patrols, probing attacks etc, and are modelled in attrition losses (although these losses are much too low).



(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 12
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 9:07:04 AM   
Bob12

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 1/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HITMAN202

Chaos, you're fixated on what you think WITE combat should be like, not how it really occurred. I agree with WWII weaponry divisions could be annihilated in a few days, but when looking at real day to day, week to week German-Russian combat, it infrequently happened. You want the 4th of July fireworks to occur on each turn. Yes there were numerous Kharkov 1942-like disasters, but considering the vastness of the war in terms of time (4 years), space (eastern Euope/western Russia) and numbers (milions upon millions) it, in reality seldom happened. You're blinded by an idee fixe that's disconnected to real WITE combat.

Its not really debatable that casualties are far too low, as this is proven by the massively inflated German OOB that occurs in every game. In reality it was very common for divisions to be worn down to 50 or 25% after prolonged heavy fighting but this just never happens in wite.

< Message edited by Bob12 -- 8/30/2015 10:08:13 AM >

(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 13
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 1:34:15 PM   
HITMAN202


Posts: 739
Joined: 11/10/2011
Status: offline
Bob12, I fully agree and that's what I stated in my initial post in regards to attrition. Units were quickly bled down to 50 % strength and the slow trickle of replacements (Germany focused too much on building new units, not strengthening veteran ones) were always inadequate. But the sudden destruction, decimation of units was rare considering the size of the arena, number of participates and prolonged duration of the war.

_____________________________

WITE is a good addiction with no cure.

(in reply to Bob12)
Post #: 14
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 2:36:28 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
It really wasnt that rare- happened every single time a major offensive was launched by one side or the other.

I have researched the eastern front for over 10 years now so know quite abit about the fighting and what happened in the real war. Have read numerous books from first person accounts/divisional histories/ to historians writing countless books about the same event.

We can agree to disagree and thats fine- but you can look at the actual loss rates for major events and see WiTE fails to model it. At this scale you are playing out major events not day to day crap. Its why its one week turns. In effect higher loss rates would equal fewer attacks from both sides due to not enough men and equipment keeping units in fighting trim. Thus getting a more realistic feel for the war. Is a reason both sides would just sit for awhile/months before launching operations, they had to build up units and munitions for those big operations. Right now in the game either side in effect can just continue operations as long as they have odds and the weather isnt mud. Because the other side will never kill/disable enough of their men to matter in the assaults...nor will the attacker ever kill enough of the defenders to matter unless they encircle them.


(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 15
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 2:37:19 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
Loki- November losses for me and Peltons game.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 16
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 2:38:56 PM   
loki100


Posts: 5407
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
3 comments just to help this along

1) I'm finding the new rules for 1942 frustrating and its taking a lot of the interest out of what should be a fascinating and pivotal period of the game. I think its telling that we have 4 AARs with 6 different individuals all coming to a very similar position. Soviet losses in my game and M60A3TTS are essentially equal (the only reason my air losses are 1000 higher is because vigabrand put more effort in the T1 airfield bombing). This worries me, given that I assume all 6 players have their own strengths and weaknesses, quirks and preferred strategy, the practical outcome is it makes next to no difference (which is not to say that played badly on either side the outcome will be different ... that is a completely different issue). I realise the style of the GG approach is few if any relational triggers but I think the 40 NM is proving too blunt a tool as currently implemented (and note I fully accept that Soviet morale collapsed in the summer of 1942);

2) Losses, yes the game engine prioritises retreat as the trigger to losses so is too favourable to the attacker. That is much better in WiTW but I presume well outside the scope of any patching of WiTE. The bigger problem is that manpower ceases to be a constraint, I've got 750,000 in my reserve pool ... purely down to the impact of the 1942b rifle division OOB shedding manpower from my combat units. Its become meaningless, I doubt I will ever have the admin pts to bring that pool back into the game.

3) Hitman is right about combat losses. Destruction of divisional units in combat just didn't happen except in very specific situations [1]. The two times it happened was at Stalingrad where the intensity of combat over multiple weeks (and the difficulty in reinforcing, plus the Soviet decision to reinforce just enough to keep the Germans pinned) saw the effective destruction (in game turns) of divisions. The other was in pockets, Soviet losses in the Kharkov offensive were not that high. Soviet losses trying to break encirclement were horrific, especially when groups linked arms to charge German machine guns in the attempt that a few could escape. Even German soldiers reported that phase as truely shocking. Also remember that a lot of the losses the Soviets report were originally taken prisoner, in other words (on both sides) its probably better to add killed+prisoners into the same group.


Wider question. This is in the end a simulation. None of us want to go back to the 1.06 (? nor sure which patch) of the German army just falling apart late game. So the balance issue has to be framed across the entire game, what sort of geographical front line and relative army numbers give the outcome of a May 45 surrender? But I do agree with Chaos45, at the moment, I'm losing much interest in playing 1941-2 as the Soviets, it seems to be too deterministic within very narrow variations, that is frustrating, I don't mind suffering for my mistakes, but I'd like to see some reward if I get something right.

[1] As a comparison, look at British army losses on the Western Front 1915-18. Even the division must cut up on the opening day of the Somme (the Ulster Division) took 45-50% losses (wounded and killed). Quite horrific, possibly quite deliberate by the British high command as to which division to use where it was committed, but the division still existed. It wasn't even pulled out the line for a week, even though it had ceased to be capable of offensive actions.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 8/30/2015 3:42:38 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 17
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 2:39:44 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
November air

Also keep in mind Pelton has scrapped about half the luftwaffe about a month ago....so at this point these numbers wont really matter going forward.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 18
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 2:50:52 PM   
loki100


Posts: 5407
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Loki- November losses for me and Peltons game.



so in effect, Pelton has managed to lose double the German losses of vigabrand and smokindave (men and tanks) for a minimal increase in Soviet losses? Since you are 13 (?) turns on from the 2 September data that indicates your losses at that phase were more or less the same as mine and M60s.

I think we can regard his decision to scrap the Luftwaffe in the same light as his approach of scrapping corps HQs in earlier patches, his basic mindsight is not 'is this at all realistic' but 'does this yield the best outcomes in terms of the game engine' - nothing wrong with that, but it is a very distinct approach

< Message edited by loki100 -- 8/30/2015 3:51:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 19
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 2:51:08 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
Loki- Im not saying divisions should shatter but in effect if a division take 25%+ losses its CV will reduce thus making it more apt to be successfully assaulted again in later turns. Right now a corps level assault hits a corps level defense and like 1-2 Battalions get disabled for the winner and 2-4 for the loser if they are soviets....

Higher losses equals not continuous offensives due to lack of CV and a more fluid possible frontline because the Germans then cant maintain 50+ CV across the whole frontline and still attack.

Keep in mind though even with the losses I have inflicted on Pelton he still has 3.8M men+ in the German army....so it shows no matter what the Soviet player does loss wise to the Germans the end effect is it matters very little at current.

On the air war- I pressed a strong air campaign from summer 1942 on as you can see the air losses in me and Peltons game are much higher than the other two even accounting for 3 month time difference.

During the height of the air war I was knocking out about 300 axis aircraft per turn and losing about twice that myself which I considered acceptable losses. I dont feel its a system issue though that I was able to smash the Luftwaffe- if you read my AAR you can see I feel it was how the Luftwaffe was played from 1941 on that cost Pelton the airwar in the summer of 1942 instead of more historically summer 1943.

I have played the red-airforce very aggressively got it built up to about 9K aircraft and have kept it at that level since the winter of 1941. I bomb the axis ground units almost every turn with pretty much all of my planes then during the air war I was bombing every axis airbase I felt I wouldn't be completely slaughtered bombing. Which is the reason for the massive air losses to both sides in our game lol.

The Axis with good play can avoid the worst of the Soviet airforce bombing tho IMO. As the soviet bombers have very limited range esp the fighter bombers.

Also another possible fix is maybe extend German first winter penalties into March 1942.....As every game we are also seeing a massive German assault/encirclement first thing in march 1942. This is a massive edge for German players as it effectively is giving them a month headstart on the Summer 1942 offensive.


< Message edited by chaos45 -- 8/30/2015 4:17:49 PM >

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 20
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 4:00:17 PM   
SCAR

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 6/29/2004
Status: offline
I started playing WitE way back in the day, playing three to four games to completion (sometimes to the bitter end, some with one or the other side surrendering). See http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2668120 for one of the games.

I missed many of the in between versions of the game, so I can only comment on the game as I see it currently. Under the newest patch, I am currently playing Soviets in a pbem game and we are in early 44. We did not do an AAR, so I can only comment on feelings and how the game seems to be going.

In our game, I survived the German 41 offensive with reasonable losses, sufficient factories, and without too much land loss.

Then we hit the summer of 42, and it was very close run thing. My opponent basically seemed to break down his infantry into regiments to hold a line in the non active places, while a big ball of mobile units and a few infantry divisions terrorized the south. It was pocket after pocket, not too big (most of the time), just painful losses turn after turn. Also, these pockets were very strong, no way they could be broken for the most part.

After the crippling soviet losses of 42, we then go into 43. It was almost a replay of 42, clearly it was harder on the Germans, but again, a big massive ball of mobile units was gobbling up my units 2-3 at a turn.

Finally in late 43, the Germans transitioned to defense and the Soviets have stabilized the front and begun pushing back.

Is this the norm for current games?

My thoughts on this effect, which seems close to other games is as follows:

1. Without more historical losses, nothing much slows the Germans. Their successes snowball into more success and they are not really worn down. The losses that do happen are to the big ball of attacking mobile units, which get replaced basically instantly. There is no moral losses for the Germans, as they are wining most of the combats. The only limitation is the rails. Plus, as the Russian lines thin due to encirclement, it gets easier on the Germans.

*Also, the Russians could not make effective counter attacks in 42, anywhere, which allows the Germans too much security in the quiet sectors. And even if an attack was successful, it can not be exploited by the soviets.

2. The supply system should not allow 4 odd panzer armies (plus an infantry army or two) to operate at full supply for the summer of 42, winter 42, summer 43 and then into the winter of 43. Supply for offensive operations for that kind of force for that prolonged of a time in the far reaches of Russia seems fanciful.

3. Now that I am counter attacking in late 43 and 44, I can basically attack with everything, every turn. Again, the supply system should not allow me to do this.

4. Fortifications also seem to not work correctly. Its hard to put my finger on exactly what the issue is here, but it feels wrong. It seems they build very quickly, and make a huge impact on the combat system. Of course entrenching is important, and troops sitting idle would be digging in, but again, something seems off and I can't tell what it is...

I have read on the forums that there is no way to increase losses. I don't understand that, but I am not a computer programmer. It seems a lot of effort was put into tracking corps sized units, down to the squad level, with machine guns and mortars and tanks being tracked, yet the losses can't be raised? Seems like it would have been better to just use strength points, and scrap the detail that looks pointless. At any rate, without more losses, I feel like the game is really being held back.

If the Germans in 42 and even into 43 are not worried by a purely defensive Soviet player, it allows tactics that seem to be out of the norm. Also, if they are not hampered by any logistical constraints, this just compounds the problem.

Finally, isolated units need to hold out longer, we are tracking their fuel and supply, let them hang in there a while without becoming helpless, this might go a ways toward fixing some things.

Thus, these two issues seem to be the ones that need focus for a patch or 2.0.






(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 21
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 4:27:42 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 196
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
I have more thoughts on this that I will post later, but Chaos I think you need to play the Germans against a good Soviet player and see if this changes your thinking a bit about changes that need to be made. My guess is you'll have a new list of stuff from the other perspective! Will follow up later...

(in reply to SCAR)
Post #: 22
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 4:34:34 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
Scar- so far I would concur with your comments- I have found in 1942 I can attack where my best units are and his panzers arent. Since his panzers went south I have been successfully slowly grinding forward to the south of Tula- its painfully slow and I only get about 4 hexes per turn even with basically 3 entire fronts on the offensive against nothing but german infantry and axis allied units. An this is with artillery division support/total air superiority and Soviet shock armies with 10 Cav corps all at 60-70+ morale. Not to mention the 6 Guard Rifle corps in the area.

Breakthroughs are basically impossible against the Germans. Just slow grinding offensives.

Against his Panzer Ball I found the only way to slow it and break into pockets to make them last an extra turn or two was if I had at least 2 shock armies with 10 cav corps most of them guards and usually at least 2-4 tank corps at a minimum...plus some supporting infantry divisions for just a couple extra CVs.

I think by 1943 especially by the end of the Summer I should have the Germans/Pelton on the defensive as by then I will have enough Corps and artillery divisions I will be grinding his infantry down and force his panzers to start supporting them/reacting to soviet assaults.

The overall big issue is the German army is staying much to strong in late 1942....losses....is the problem as has been pointed out....if they cant fix losses then I suggest German infantry morale takes hit...maybe a 5 point drop at some point over the summer to show growing issues due to losses and lack of trained replacements like historical.

(in reply to SCAR)
Post #: 23
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 4:43:25 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
matt- very well could be, the Germans need to play a very good game indeed.....but historically they did play a damn good game and still lost is the issue.

However Pelton isnt the only player getting some very good/almost to good results out of the Germans.

Its why Im not calling me and Peltons game and going to play into LW and see if the game overbalances to the Soviets in the LW. However it seems alot/all the Soviet players are having issues surviving into late 1942 now with the changes since .8.

Aside from some frustration at how impotent the Soviet army is, me and Peltons game is going well, I think end result I hopefully can end up in Berlin lol. Since Soviet tank/mech/cav corps cost so much AP to build and in general were much more elite and well led formations than the rest of the Soviet army an additional morale bonus in 1942 would go a long way to keeping the Germans more honest and from not over extending without alot more risk of counterencirclements...esp with the morale issues for entering enemy territory even shaving off 1 MP per hex goes a long way towards keep german players alittle more cautious

Also old games/email games cant be used as a judge after all the changes to the game in .8 and the cheating issues with email games.


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 24
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 4:46:37 PM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline
Suggestion:
Add +5 NM to soviet tanks in 42'. This means, they will not effect the the moral drops (stays with 45NM).
So the soviet tank corps are stronger and it makes more sense to use them or break some pockets with them.
The casualties are okay at the moment. If I storm with my infantery a fort level 2 both sides get nearly the same amount. Normal between 1-1,5k. In my game against loki, some of my tank divisions are at 80%.
I play another game as soviet and the germans didn't recover well from the first winter. So if you play against average german player as soviet and you hit him hard in the first winter, he had problems in '42. We are in mid june and the german OOB is 3,5 and I see many german infantery divisions with cv 3-6.
Pelton is one of the best and he used some tricks to max the engine. This should not be the standart for a balancing switch.
@Loki: If I will be able to kill 500k soviets in the next 6 turns, you had nearly the same OOB as chaos and after two horrible summers you will strike back. Playing the soviets in '41 and '42 is survive (with a nice counterattack in the first winter). Maybe the soviets should be able to built a FBD in december '41 to support a deep penetration in the first winter (if possible). And if you will not play the soviets, we can play a rematch with changed "colors" with .05

_____________________________




(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 25
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 5:34:43 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1723
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
vigabrand- you are facing abit stronger Soviet Army than normal though due to the no- Lvov opening. Would suggest you see results from a game with the lvov opening- Soviets should lose abit more industry and will lose some manpower centers slightly faster...meaning over overall a slightly smaller Soviet force in 1942 and taking abit longer to rebuild to full strength.

I played an opener with no lvov abit ago and the German player quit very early on as even with sacrificing those forces forward it buys so much extra time the Germans cant make a good hard push early enough to matter in the south.

Unfortunately despite the unhistorical nature of the lvov opening the game has become more or less balanced towards it.

If I have time I will most likely play soviets in .05 again. I really, really want to see list of all the changes going into .05 as they have yet to really say/post what all the changes are....if all the changes are pro German may tip the game way to far towards the Axis.

(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 26
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 6:22:44 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
.05 is heavly favors Russia.

With Russian NM in 42 getting a boost +5 and German logistic taking a major hit. The Rifle brigade exploit has been removed. There are a lot of other fixes ect, but over all a + for Russia.

Also for all the whining about things all 4 games will end with Russian wins or draws and you guys want even more? REALLY? You want 1.05 all over again with Russia on an across the front offensive in July 42?

Choas what you want was tried and was an epic failure.

The game engine is all about who is attacking there is no middle ground.
I have personally played every single patch 4+ games and a small tweak can case huge run away games for one side or the other.

1.07 was ok, but 1.08 really is about as good as it can get.

I am not in favor of some of what is in .05, but it is what the masses want. The mob is almost always wrong, because they feel first and think 2nd.

1. German offensive in 41 will be weaker
2. German offensive in 42 will be weaker.

morveal and d-man are a month ahead of you guys.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 8/30/2015 7:23:21 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 27
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 6:27:13 PM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline
And will the germans be stronger in '43, '44 and '45 or the russian offensiv in '43, '44 and'45 weaker?

_____________________________




(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 28
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 6:30:06 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11229
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: online
I hope so.

(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 29
RE: Musing on 1942 - 8/30/2015 6:39:48 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
It is nice to have played so many games into 43+ so I have some idea of what a tweak will do.

I think M+D have done a great job addressing all the little tweaks to try and make the game as historically balanced as possible

using the current game engine

They can not make steel out of corn.

if the game could be 100% historical they would have done it a yr ago trust me.

What they have done is amazing and I did not think possible with what they are working with.

The game is 98% as balanced and historical as is possible.





_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Musing on 1942 Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.168