Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: WitE 2

 
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 >> RE: WitE 2 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WitE 2 - 9/26/2015 10:00:03 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2677
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


WitW has no trouble allowing blitzkrieg type warfare. The way the 8th BR and 7th US armies roll over the Italians in Sicily is a good indicator of what will happen to the Russians in 1941. Also the way they use up supplies while doing it. And the need to use sufficient force on dug in units in terrain (cities, rough etc.).



_____________________________

My logisticians are a humorless lot they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay. Alexander the Great

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 31
RE: WitE 2 - 9/26/2015 10:30:24 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1367
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Indeed, my very point. The only thing Sicily doesn't have is the big encirclement battles, and that is what could be simulated with a test scenario in France if anyone wanted... the effect of MP delays due to combat on the ability to pocket, and the strength of breakout/in attacks in the 'Russian' turn, given the state of the attacking armoured units post the breakthrough. But I have no doubt that east front effects will occur almost naturally. The one big question is can you (with Current WITW logs/rules) achieve the opening of Barbarossa (without being overly powerful later in game), or is some other benefit needed? That is potentially what planning/objectives/prep point rules achieve. IF June/July 41 could only be achieved with max in unit supply, zero fatigue against average to poor supply and morale, and these conditions can't be achieved again in game (or not without huge effort), that would be good. If you cant achieve it without units being too powerful/fast in later game, that is where prep points might help. Max supply, zero fatigue, max prep could give a further 'lever'. I mean, you could have say 3 months to build up 100% prep against an objective up to (say) 5 hexes away, and have a CV and maybe move bonus if you go towards it. Then have rules like being attacked, or moving away halves prep... This would reflect perfect prep in peacetime being hard to repeat due to spoiling attacks, unit being used in reserve, etc. And prep point build up could be harder for deeper targets, thus pre=game you might prep for objectives much deeper than you could ever expect later. Players might then find Russian prep 43-44 might be only practical 3 hexes deep, encouraging the initial advance then pause whereas Germany with a 'free' peacetime 100% could prep the deepest possible (maybe even 10 hexes etc) in June 41.

Don't know, just thinking. I think the WITW supply system will transform WITE. Will is be enough to remove special rules? Who knows. It would be nice if first winter rules, opening rules and house rules all became unnecessary...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 32
RE: WitE 2 - 10/11/2015 8:48:47 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 988
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
Will WITE 2.0 have weekly turn as WITW and WITE 1.0?
Thanks in advance

_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 33
RE: WitE 2 - 10/11/2015 9:56:53 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 3913
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
Yes - think WitW+ in the east.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 34
RE: WitE 2 - 10/12/2015 12:02:15 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



WitW has no trouble allowing blitzkrieg type warfare.
The way the 8th BR and 7th US armies roll over the Italians
in Sicily is a good indicator of what will happen to the Russians in 1941.
Also the way they use up supplies while doing it.
And the need to use sufficient force on dug in units in terrain (cities, rough etc.).




Get out of minors bro.

I have never had my Italians get pocketed on Sicily. Your playing newbies son not pros.

An Island with 24 hexes is not Russian.

Really that's all you got?





I have data 37 + games Russia and 16 WitW and u have Sicily heheheheheh




_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 35
RE: WitE 2 - 10/12/2015 12:05:48 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.


First, I think it's pointless to try and hit specific army size milestones 3 years in. Reality is that everybody plays with plenty of hindsight and many losses due to pointless attacks that stemmed from faulty appreciation of the situation, political pressure or just stupidity don't take place. Army Group Center in December 41 or Stalingrad are very unlikely to happen, and being able to do countless iterations of the same events leads to a measure of optimization that just can't be accounted for except by going the railroad route of WITE.

Instead, create uncertainty for the player which will lead to more mistakes.

Due to manpower allocation being heavily dependent on historical events this means a German/Soviet army in 43 that took less than historical losses would be very large, instead of having some of that manpower remaining in production. I don't see any way to manage this, except maybe give manpower that is stuck in the manpower pool some kind of positive supply/production effect so that you don't just automatically always want the most manpower possible on the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?


That said, loss ratios do matter because it's nearly impossible to properly attrit the enemy without encircling manoeuvres that span hundreds of miles.

Encirclements could easily take place at company or battalion/regimental level IF there was a mobility mismatch or a c&c breakdown but the current combat engine doesn't consider that. Also, less mobile units could be overrun and destroyed, even if there notionally was space to retreat. This doesn't happen in the game, so the only practical way to cause attrition is to go for the big encirclements. I doubt these will be possible very often with the new logistics and MP penalties for hexes with combat (both very good, but now the problems manifest themselves somewhere else)

Loss ratio is also important because it punishes mistakes. Right now, everybody knows far too well what is going on on the other side, mistakes seldom happen (as in a attack running in much stronger forces than expected, the reserve system helps, but it's very localised and IMO it's still too easy to know far too much). Much bigger FOW effect on enemy strength displays or making it harder to detect formations might go some way to remedy this by inducing mistakes, especially for the Germans who had much less information on the other side.

Alternatively supply restraints could act as a regulator and I have high hopes for the new logistics system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?


As I understand the current system only uses firepower (with hit% modded by experience), with a modifier for retreat thrown in. I don't think a fixed combat ratio German-Soviet is the answer, rather a neutral system that takes more factors into account.

F.e.:
- size-space ratio
- experience differential
- mobility differential
- some kind of leadership check (for defence, is withdraw order given in time and well organized, for attack, do they actually know what is going on/where to go)
- last but not least some kind of stance like in TOAW, with minimize, limit and ignore. There needs to be some way of fighting a delaying action or only making a probing attack (recon by force goes a step in the right direction, but again cuts down on the number of mistakes).

The system could stay the same throughout, as the Soviets improve their ratio automatically becomes better.



+1000000000000000000000000

Great post




_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 36
RE: WitE 2 - 10/12/2015 12:06:34 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



I am not too worried about a Red Army airforce dominating the field with massive numbers of poor aircraft if WitW is any indication.

Quality is king in the air. Low morale coupled with poor machines means the Red Army airforce will attrit itself, just by flying. What planes that do make it into the air without crashing will be easily shot down. But some planes will get through. But only a tiny fraction of the total.

The Germans will be able to bomb airfields that are closer to the front which will force the Red Army to either disperse
it's air squadrons or base them farther back in cities guarded by FlaK.



See again your exp on Western Front is important, but your not thinking EF.

1. Russians have massive amounts of flak.
2. IF German advance is historical there will be zero bases to fly planes from near the front.
3. Germans advancing across a front with no railnet will take many turns to get supplies to rebuild airfields or put ammo at front.
4. A massive Red AF will hammer what it wants at will.
5. By doing this they gain exp
6. German AF can not cover all the front so there will be areas that the Red AF can gain exp.
7. Red AF has massive amounts of TB's and as we know from WitW they are way over rated. For some reason 2by3 thinks all TB are Stukas. Ahh yes another unhistorical bone that needs picking when the time comes

Quality might be King aka morale, but quaintly wins if there are no AB's or supplies.

You need stop thinking small ball, this is Russian Front not Normandy




_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 37
RE: WitE 2 - 10/12/2015 12:07:29 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?


ok, my view. We all agree current losses are too low.

but its not the critical issue (imho). Your second point is the key that the result is that the OOBs get too large and this has other consequences.

By that I mean if both sides are too large then the game locks up apart from at the phases where the game rules force a break. At the moment, by that I mean Dec 41 (Sov winter offensive), June 42 (Sov NM at 40), sometime in 43 (as the impact of the 43 NM changes come to apply) and sometime in 44 (as the German army starts to fall apart). The problem of too large armies is that at each of those stages the intended effect is made stronger as the beneficiary is too large.

Too large a German army makes 1942 too effective, too large a German army makes 1943 pretty tedious, both are worsened by MP players optimising their actions for the long term and with a great deal of hindsight.

I think it would be good for Soviet losses to be higher, as above keying this to experience and leadership would be quite an elegant solution. Or their attrition losses could be higher - same effect via a different method.

But you need to put the Germans into the position in 1942 where they can attack but not on the scale we are currently seeing and in 1943 where they can defend effectively but again not in endless lines of pre-pared forts.

Final point - no, let the shifting lethality of weapons systems and the changes in army competence handle that aspect.




Good points.

Red I am looking at the snowball effect of what loki has pointed out.

1. If Russian loses are lower in 41 which they will be because pockets simply will be much harder to come by and Lvov will probably be coded out one way or the other.
We know the likely results of this in current AAR's. German gets no wheres near historical and Red Army is larger then historical because combat engine results are to low.

2. So in turn because of the snowball effect. Russian Army has a very powerfull 41/42 winter- German Army suffers heavy losses ect.

3. German Army is a shell of itself by June 42 and Russian Army is HUGE.

4. German Army runs out of steam by late July early August. Now this will be worse because of lower MP's (2.0) if the German Army can not pocket units it simply can not get 4 to 1 combat ratios so why attack? You are losing by winning.

5. Russian Army is on general offensive by September 42.

Now couple this with the fact of morale changes and lower MP's across the board you will see this happen even sooner. Russian players will have zero fear of German pockets so simply spam lose battles.

I also believe there will be issues with the massive Russian Air Force which will simply spam bombing German formations.


Your more then likely not going to see any of this doing AI vs AI tests or player vs AI test.






_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 38
RE: WitE 2 - 10/12/2015 12:47:52 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1541
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Under the hood of the system- might be complex but hey the system is supposedly modeling every rifle shot as is right?

Combat losses should be modified by Fatigue/damage/disruption/mobility.

Soviet infantry division attacked successfully by a panzer division- should take very heavy losses if it retreats- Reasons its immobile against a very well trained and very mobile force. Even if the infantry division decides to retreat dudes on foot dont outrun dudes in trucks/Halftracks/tanks.

Maybe morale checks need added to combat to decide how many rounds of fire/combat occur before a unit retreats. Thus high morale units will fight bitterly to contest a spot before falling back causing more losses to both sides.

The above reference to Soviet infantry would apply to German infantry as well. They were mostly immobile/horse drawn especially after 1942 when alot of vehicles were stripped away to build new formations/ re-build formations for Operation Blue. Soviet tank/mobile forces successfully attack German infantry those guys should basically get run down but maybe slightly less losses due to experience factor to simulate better rear-guard actions an such. Static units forced to retreat should take very heavy losses from mobile units......as basically almost none of their heavy equipment would be mobile not to mention all the men are all on foot.....

Also heavily fatigued units/disrupted/damaged elements should also take higher losses if they retreat...hard to drag disrupted/damaged units along in a retreat especially if the attackers are mobile units and fast moving. I think you will find the Germans historically prolly lost as many if not more tanks to being unable to take them with them on a retreat. Especially in late 1943 entire major tank repair facilities were overrun costing them lots of repairable vehicles because they didnt have the capability to move them out.

Also you need different combat/loss tables based on Terrain- any type of city terrain needs to have a much much higher casualty table for combat. Keep the odds the same sure....but anything Lvl 3 fort, city, heavy woods, mountains probably need much higher loss tables. Armies in WW2 hated to directly assault cities because losses were always super high...in the game they arent at all...just as easy to attack a city as it is an open hex as long as you can get the odds. Fine with odds allowing the city to be pushed but it should be bloodbath for both sides.


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 39
RE: WitE 2 - 10/12/2015 6:45:55 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 3913
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 40
RE: WitE 2 - 10/12/2015 7:13:05 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1541
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier) as the 5 types of units for the modifier. The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements- either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more protected from small arms/light arms.

So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility and then the condition would escalate up the chain. static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender. Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.

Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility, due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 10/12/2015 8:15:52 PM >

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 41
RE: WitE 2 - 10/12/2015 11:16:11 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 1910
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I think combat losses should be a combination of leader ratings, unit experience/morale and unit stance (if WITE had a stance option). Terrain should be part of the equation too.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 42
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 6:41:48 AM   
invernomuto


Posts: 988
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Yes - think WitW+ in the east.


I understand that this decision is final and it is not going to change but it would be great to have an opinion / scenario with daily turns with the new version of the game engine (if possible from a programming point of view).


_____________________________


(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 43
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 8:20:12 AM   
loki100


Posts: 5056
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline

edit: deleted as being repetition ... and possibly deviation

< Message edited by loki100 -- 10/13/2015 9:21:44 AM >


_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 44
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 9:09:47 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier) as the 5 types of units for the modifier. The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements- either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more protected from small arms/light arms.

So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility and then the condition would escalate up the chain. static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender. Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.

Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility, due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.


Lets not forget a few basic things your over looking that were key historical factors.

1. Germans trained and Russians had NONE for retreating. Retreating for Germans was not considered a bad things at the divisions and lower levels. It was part of officer training and units training.

2. The Russians had political officers ( the religious police ) that looked over the shoulder of the military officers.
Russian officer were not allowed to retreat and had to follow orders from the top, EVEN WHEN THE OFFICER NEW THESE ORDERS WERE DEAD WRONG.
If the Russians attacked and were clearly losing they still had to attack.

Chaos every answer to give never has the basic officer training as part of it only xyz men parts ect.
Kind of surpised the basic military doctrine and training of the officers is never part of any of your ideas.

Retreat loses and attack losses need to be much higher for Russian formations because of the historical military doctrine of Russia

MP's as per of loses is just not historical at all.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 45
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 9:13:07 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I think combat losses should be a combination of leader ratings, unit experience/morale and unit stance (if WITE had a stance option). Terrain should be part of the equation too.


Historical military doctrine should be part of the answer to the problem of retreat loses




_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 46
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 9:26:51 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier)
as the 5 types of units for the modifier.
The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements-
either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more
protected from small arms/light arms.

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.
German units can not be grouped with Russian units for this simply historical fact. Also WA were trained for retreating.




So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility
and then the condition would escalate up the chain.
static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender.
Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.
Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war
period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

German units and officers trained for retreats, Russians did not, Russian units were forbid in 99% of all cases to retreat, they were trained to attack.
This is were things always go wrong, you want to add things to the game that are simply unhistorical. Every unit had ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD ) NKVD officers + other political officers and simply did not allow freedom of movement UNTIL LATER 43.
This is a key thing your over looking. You have always personally pushed Cav units not for historical reasons but personal as they are a good unit to exploit. Late war Cav units were simply tank units nothing more. Lets stick to historical models and not personal.


Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility,
due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/13/2015 10:27:15 AM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 47
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 9:30:18 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?


NO!


Lets not forget a few basic things your over looking that were key historical factors.

1. Germans trained and Russians had NONE for retreating. Retreating for Germans was not considered a bad things at the divisions and lower levels. It was part of officer training and units training.

2. The Russians had political officers ( the religious police ) that looked over the shoulder of the military officers.
Russian officer were not allowed to retreat and had to follow orders from the top, EVEN WHEN THE OFFICER NEW THESE ORDERS WERE DEAD WRONG.
If the Russians attacked and were clearly losing they still had to attack.

I am kind of surpised the basic military doctrine and training of the officers for Russia and Germany has
never part of WitE. I and others have posted on this in the past.

Can we finally stop ignoring this?

Retreat loses and attack losses need to be much higher for Russian formations because
of the historical military doctrine of Russia

MP's as part of loses is just not historical at all.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/13/2015 10:44:58 AM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 48
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 9:49:30 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11020
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?



Good book by S. Biddle explaining why advantage in numbers, technology, training and morale is not everything, yielding sometimes surprising results (defense in depths and mobile reserves is the only proper way to contain a modern attack, however at the unavoidable price of trading a few km of space in the process - unless it can be recaptured later with a counter attack; while trying to stand and fight in place, not to lose any ground, is a sure way to be defeated):
http://www.amazon.com/Military-Power-Explaining-Victory-Defeat/dp/0691128022

Also, in Dupuy's books (Numbers, Prediction, and War; Attrition: Forecasting...; Understanding War) there are interesting observations ("verities") made about attrition and losses in battle (smaller engagements being more bloody due to higher percentage of forces involved; attacker suffering on average lower losses; losses ratio of AFVs in "tank heavy forces" being different from that where tanks are in supporting role only), and he names two important "operational" components affecting strength (what can be considered equivalent to CV + what happens during firing sequence in WitE) in his formula, which are sound even if you don't agree about the actual formulas used: mobility of force (based on the number of men, number of trucks and strength of AFVs, affected by weather, terrain and air superiority), and vulnerability (based on number of men, exposure - posture vs terrain, ratio of enemy's strength to own, air superiority and amphibious/river crossing impact). I don't think all of these factors are properly (or enough) affecting combat and losses in WitE.

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 49
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 9:56:00 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Also just because a unit is pulling back aka retreating does not mean they are getting over run, lol

Its a 7 day battle over a single hex.

A rout is not a retreat and a retreat is not a rout.

rout1


/rout/


noun

noun: rout; plural noun: routs



1.


a disorderly retreat of defeated troops.


retreat


/rəˈtrt/


verb

verb: retreat; 3rd person present: retreats; past tense: retreated; past participle: retreated; gerund or present participle: retreating



1.


(of an army) withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat.




_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 50
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 10:37:16 AM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 946
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
Sometimes "retreating" troops inflict higher loses on the attacker than they suffer. Depends on training and doctrine, as Pelton says. Ex. USMC, Chosin reservoir, Korea.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 51
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 11:06:07 AM   
loki100


Posts: 5056
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

...


Lets not forget a few basic things your over looking that were key historical factors.

1. Germans trained and Russians had NONE for retreating. Retreating for Germans was not considered a bad things at the divisions and lower levels. It was part of officer training and units training.

2. The Russians had political officers ( the religious police ) that looked over the shoulder of the military officers.
Russian officer were not allowed to retreat and had to follow orders from the top, EVEN WHEN THE OFFICER NEW THESE ORDERS WERE DEAD WRONG.
If the Russians attacked and were clearly losing they still had to attack.

I am kind of surpised the basic military doctrine and training of the officers for Russia and Germany has
never part of WitE. I and others have posted on this in the past.

Can we finally stop ignoring this?

Retreat loses and attack losses need to be much higher for Russian formations because
of the historical military doctrine of Russia

MP's as part of loses is just not historical at all.


Pelton

I'm sorry but this is wrong. The Soviets always had a defensive doctrine right up to the fall of the USSR. A major part of marxist-leninist doctrine was that the USSR was fluffy peace loving state but seriously at risk from evil imperialist warmongers. Thus any war would start with the Red Army having to defend.

leaving the realms of fantasy, given what was envisaged in Tukhachevsky's attack doctrine they planned long and hard for what might happen when someone did the same to them.

Their basic attack logic was that there was a logarithmic link between depth of breakthrough and depth of disruption. Their goal was to maximise the second. At its simplest they assumed a 10km breakthrough produced another 10 km of disruption (in effect you made the divisional command structure have to relocate and so on), by the time you got 50km then the disruption was out to 150km - think of corps HQs having to relocate, airfields to evacuate and troops guarding depots to have to make decisions whether to destroy the contents.

If you got a 100km breakthrough, an entire army group could be disrupted.

That is exactly what the Germans did to them in 1941 and to a lesser extent in 1942.

The problem with the Soviets consistently was not doctrine (which was mostly sound and well suited to their capacity and equipment) but execution. Quite simply they were too prepared to use ill-trained infantry and had too many utter idiots in command posts. For the other side of the coin look at the Nov 41 battles at Borodino where one of the Siberian divisions tangled with an SS Mot division. In the end the Soviets pulled back, battered but in good order, exactly when it suited them.

A later war eg is the mess that Western Front made around Vyazma-Mogilev from late 42 to the end of 43. Then Rokossovsky was given command of the reconstituted Bielorussian Front and stormed Gomel in a matter of days with a well executed plan of operations, including a flexible artillery fire plan. That of course set up AGC for the later disaster in Bagration.

Equally yes, sometimes the NKVD did shoot retreating units, but that was much less common than popular history would have you believe. In the main the direct use of terror as a tool to manage the Red Army dropped away from early 1942 as it quite simply did not work.

_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 52
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 12:02:38 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1541
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier)
as the 5 types of units for the modifier.
The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements-
either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more
protected from small arms/light arms.

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.
German units can not be grouped with Russian units for this simply historical fact. Also WA were trained for retreating.


-Wrong No retreat was a standard order from Hitler from the Winter of 1941 on, Generals that disobeyed were fired or shot including some of the best Generals in the German Army. Guderian was relieved over this exact issue.

-One issue on Soviet retreat losses- alot of Soviet troops did have a tendency to escape German pockets and be re-integrated into the Soviet Army, doesnt really happen in the game.

-Agree Soviets should take higher losses- never argued that point, however if you increase Soviet losses to historical you also have to increase their replacement and industry levels to arm those replacements to historical levels. Honestly the game should refund Armaments points for % of lost squads every turn as almost every army recycled small arms and squad equipment.


So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility
and then the condition would escalate up the chain.
static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender.
Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.
Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war
period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

German units and officers trained for retreats, Russians did not, Russian units were forbid in 99% of all cases to retreat, they were trained to attack.
This is were things always go wrong, you want to add things to the game that are simply unhistorical. Every unit had ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD ) NKVD officers + other political officers and simply did not allow freedom of movement UNTIL LATER 43.
This is a key thing your over looking. You have always personally pushed Cav units not for historical reasons but personal as they are a good unit to exploit. Late war Cav units were simply tank units nothing more. Lets stick to historical models and not personal.


-Political Officers lost oversight of Army Officers by I believe summer of 1942 as the Soviets realized it was more harm than good. Whats funny is as the war went on and especially late-war the Germans were in effect starting to use "SS Commisars" to enforce stand and die orders or be hung.

-As to Cav units, they are superior mobility to a foot infantry division- is a fact, not personal preference. Germans also have cavalry divisions so not completely one-sided......An if you read my comment I talk about changing their status for LW so not sure what kinda point you were trying to make here.

Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility,
due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.




Just wanted to add another commnet on the Cav Corps and my play not being historical- The Soviets historical formed 20+ Cav Corps and "Mobile Groups" Mobile groups being mixed units but usually having at least 2 cavalry divisions so basically a cav Corps.

Historically many were destroyed in pockets. So nothing about having 20+ Cav Corps is unhistorical in fact its quite historical....not getting them wiped out in pockets all the time is the difference.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 10/13/2015 3:54:15 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 53
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 12:15:57 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15335
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.


BS

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 54
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 12:28:22 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1541
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Simple fact is unit mobility should factor into losses.

Soviet units have lower experience, experience should also be a factor and thats how you help to differentiate the two sides on losses/retreat losses.

A 70 Experience german infantry division being over run by a tank division/tank Corps should still take less losses than a 50 experience Soviet infantry division. Thats how you bake in the training- which is already a very overpowering effect in the game due to Morale being directly tied to experience levels for max.

Another simple fact is that usually as the war went on and the Soviets grasped mobile warfare entire German divisions were erased in a couple days of combat if they were the point of impact for a Soviet offensive. Have read numerous accounts of how basically whatever German division took the brunt of the offensive to pierce the lines was virtually destroyed especially as you get into late 1943 on. As the Soviets would effectively box in the Division with planned artillery fire to isolate it and then run them over with mobile forces....there was almost no escape- another reason for the bagration catastrophe.

Pelton- you have read to many books that concentrate only on the thin German lines holding back hordes of screaming red army men.....Read more books on the actual experiences of individual soldiers/officers at battalion level and down and you get a much different picture of what combat at the spearpoint was like on the eastern front. In the Early War yes wave attacks were used at extreme cost by the soviets but after that they learned and basically by the end of 1942 had a firm grasp of both small unit and larger scale mobile operations against the Germans.

The other thing you seem to forget with 4:1 loss ratio qoutes an such is the game already has much reduced Soviet replacement rates over what they historical replaced and threw into battle. So at this point a drastic increase in Soviet losses would have to be compensated for with historical replacement rates. So your really not gaining much as German player other than to see bigger numbers of Soviet dead/wounded.

The game is already giving the Germans+ axis allied an overall 2:1 exchange rate per week with no encirclements and a massive exchange rate when encirclements happen, and only giving the soviets 50-75% of historical replacement rates......so effectively the Axis are already getting a 3-4+:1 exchange rate in the game as is. So you have no point of arguement on that really.

As to Soviet leadership being pigheaded and not throwing our men away in wasteful attacks- Well if your not Hitler and dont have to do Stalingrad then well Im not Stalin and not going to order repeated suicidal attacks every week.....whats good for one side is good for the other as well. Since high command and operational command is the players choice now it needs to boil down to statistics and tactical battle effects.

Which experience, morale, weapon systems are already calculated into the system and big one left out is respective unit mobility and why I think it needs included. Its very hard to retreat and get away from someone more mobile than you period. Even with proper tactics your rearguard will often by destroyed/captured if the enemy is faster. Germans realized if left on the rear-guard it was usually a death sentence and very often rear guard elements were never seen again.

You also dont seem to realize the retreat in front of moscow during the first winter was a disaster of the highest order....AGC would have been destroyed if hitler hadnt ordered them to stand fast and as it was it was nearly destroyed in 1941/1942. In a game moving a counter is easy...in real life moving a division takes alot of effort now imagine trying to move a division of men and heavy equipment with effectively no transport, no fuel, no roads, and no back up defense lines.....and you understand why the German army lost massive amounts of material- because men can save themselves by walking on foot- but men cants take 15CM howitzer with them without trucks/horses. That first winter every German retreat suffered should inflict a significant portion of higher material equipment losses as they simply couldnt move them.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 55
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 1:54:41 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3156
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Lala lala...

Wally

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 56
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 3:18:33 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3905
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.


BS


Double BS

_____________________________

"I always take life with a grain of salt. Plus, a slice of lemon. And a shot of tequila."

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 57
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 4:12:51 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?


Please include experience and a command check as well. All 3 elements need to be there for "perfect" result.

This would also help to graduate the losses, both defender and attacker has 3 checks which can fail leading to a range of results.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 10/13/2015 5:17:06 PM >

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 58
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 8:46:13 PM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
From my past exp we can expect no changes.

Only comments on political issues or window dressing when it comes to the combat engine.

Is that really your only comment helpless on what everyone sees wrong with the combat engine or is this going to be another issue like "there is nothing wrong with NM its working fine", there is not armament bug, there is not an issue with German OOB and swapping bugs what swapping bugs.

Its clear to many that the combat engine simply is not giving close to historical results as many have posted in this tread and this one

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3943380&mpage=1&key=

I know its allot to read.

Also I like to read all history as in both sides. If your calling BS historical fact then yes I am full of it.

The concept was re-introduced on a large scale during the GermanSoviet War.[3] On June 27, 1941, in response to reports of unit disintegration in battle and desertion from the ranks in the Soviet Red Army, the 3rd Department (military counterintelligence of Soviet Army) of the USSR's Narkomat of Defense issued a directive creating mobile barrier forces composed of NKVD personnel to operate on roads, railways, forests, etc. for the purpose of catching 'deserters and suspicious persons'. These forces were given the acronym SMERSH (from the Russian Smert shpionam - Death to spies).[4][5] SMERSH detachments were created from NKVD troops, augmented with counterintelligence operatives, and were under the command of the NKVD.[4]

With the continued deterioration of the military situation in the face of the German offensive of 1941, SMERSH and other NKVD punitive detachments acquired a new mission: to prevent the unauthorized withdrawal of Red Army forces from the battle line.[4][5] The first troops of this kind were formed in the Bryansk Front on September 5, 1941.

On September 12, 1941, Joseph Stalin issued the Stavka Directive No. 1919 ( 001919) concerning the creation of barrier troops in rifle divisions of the Southwestern Front, to suppress panic retreats. Each Red Army division was to have an anti-retreat detachment equipped with transport totalling one company for each regiment. Their primary goal was to maintain strict military discipline and to prevent disintegration of the front line by any means, including the use of machine guns to indiscriminately shoot any personnel retreating without authorization.[6] These barrier troops were usually formed from ordinary military units, and placed under NKVD command.

In 1942, after the creation of penal battalions by Stavka Directive No. 227 ( 227), anti-retreat detachments were used to prevent withdrawal or desertion by penal units as well. However, Penal military unit personnel were always rearguarded by NKVD or SMERSH anti-retreat detachments, and not by regular Red Army infantry forces.[4] As per Order No. 227 each Army should have 35 barrier squads up to 200 persons each.

A report to Commissar General of State Security Lavrentiy Beria on October 10, 1941, noted that since the beginning of the war, NKVD anti-retreat troops had detained a total of 657,364 retreating or deserting personnel, of which 25,878 were arrested (of which 10,201 were sentenced to death by court martial) and the rest were returned to active duty. Most of those arrested were later returned to active duty as well.[7]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops

Aurelian its really not to hard to goggle stuff

I could post 100's of links, but I am kinda busy, you can goggle them.

"According to the NKVD's own figures, NKVD blocking detachments detained nearly seven hundred thousand officers and men between the beginning of the war and 10 October 1941. They returned most to active duty. But they arrested nearly twenty-six thousand, and shot more than ten thousand, over three thousand in front of their comrades. ... in Leningrad in September 1941, Zhukov personally ordered machine guns to be turned on retreating battalions"
- Rodric Braithwaite, Moscow 1941: A city and its People at War, p. ii: http://books.google.com/books?id=aChpsFv...

The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia

13,500 Russian men were shot in a span of a few weeks early in the Stalingrad battle it self as a result of 227

Hitler and Stalin were both monsters to believe other wise is to ignore historical fact.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/13/2015 10:04:04 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 59
RE: WitE 2 - 10/13/2015 9:10:23 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1541
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Yep NKVD shot alot of Soviet citizens is fact and they did an excellent job of record keeping this fact or so ive heard from people that have been in the Soviet archives.

However Pelton Hitlers no retreat orders were almost as brutal- would have to do some digging but think its somewhere around 10-20k German Soldiers were also executed and im sure thousands more forced into suicide penal battalions...Hmm penal battalions support units both sides should have lol as they both did have them. More of less more casualty intensive Sapper/Pioneer units for the most part.



< Message edited by chaos45 -- 10/13/2015 10:11:57 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: WitE 2 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156