What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> Feature Suggestions


cameron88 -> What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (9/11/2021 4:38:28 AM)

After playing both war in the East 1 and war in the East 2 now and having 450+ hours now between both of them, I've come to the realization of some flaws which need to be addressed in war in the East 2, and many complaints i believe are a direct or indirect result of them. I don't know if i should make a mod directed towards improving stats of units, as i don't know how far it can improve it, or if the developers plan to improve some of these things mentioned in the future, which would make the mod irrelevant.

I'd like to say first that i believe war in the East 2 is fundamentally better and overall more enjoyable. This is due to new mechanics and improved UI, graphics, and available information. However this is not true in regards to combat, especially related in comparison to war in the east 1, or real life/other realistic ww2 games. Also, most of the things i say here are 95%> true, and i really could care less if you feel the urge to post the one or two of the historical exceptions to my points, because it's irrelevant.

~~~~~~~~~~The Air War:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. Operational losses are far to high. Air losses are just to much right now, and it is genuinely unrealistic and unenjoyable that you CAN and often do lose 10%+ of your airwings in some missions just to operational losses(1-2 missions a day, not excessive). Even when you are not flying in bad weather, it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed. And no, the pilots are not exhausted, lacking fuel, supplies, or flying at the edge of their range. You can look at many AARs or complaints aswell, it's a rather common complaint, for good reason.

2. Ground attack is practically useless. Not only is divisional anti-air beyond unrealistic in its ability to slaughter a 100+ Stukas out of 200 attacking in just a few ground missions(This is common and seriously astonishing to witness), but the planes themselves do little to no damage, making it practically useless to fly these missions at all. It's better to receive whatever minuscule bonus you get from leaving them on ground support, which still get shot down in unrealistic numbers by just a handful of 37mm aa guns. In comparison to war in the East 1, planes feel far less useful in terms of ability to damage and destroy ground units, and get shot down far less, which is much closer to real life. It made using planes feel enjoyable and moving your Stukas or even Ju88s somewhere was actually helpful to your ground units.

This also incentivizes the Soviets to just leave their entire airforce in reserve, or not engage in certain areas, because it's simply not worth defending against bombing, as it does barely any damage to you. Why would you risk hundreds of your own fighters being slaughtered defending when your ground anti air is more then sufficient, let alone the fact the enemy bombers barely damage them?

3. Remove interception/air superiority missions, and make fighters within range engage/intercept bombers/enemy missions around them(Like in war in the East 1). You don't know how many times me or other people have had bombing runs on supply depots, airdrops (both supply and brigades) go over an entire REGION where you have hundreds of fighters sometimes, and they do absolutely nothing. (Even on air superiority they often get through).

4. Soviet air losses are a little too high. While i think Germany is much weaker then it should be, Soviet air losses should still be reduced by -10 to -20%, especially in 1942+. It's another reason why Soviet players just hide their entire airforce instead of using it like they historically did.

~~~~~~~~~~Tank Combat:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. As I've stated in previous posts, German tanks are very unrealistic. They kill far to little Soviet tanks in engagements in comparison to their losses, and they feel paper thin and virtually useless in many circumstances(Unlike WITE1), especially at defending with the new fatigue system, further compounding the unrealistic losses. Me along with other players actually value motorized divisions more than tank divisions as Germany now for attacking/counter attacking, because they don't lose 50% of their armor attacking/counter attacking Soviet tank corps and have decent loss ratios because they keep most of their TOE. WITE1 had far better tank combat, and was much more historical, which is the biggest issue for me in this game currently.

In regards to retreat attrition, this is also seriously dumb, it's not 1945 Germany, the tanks are not out of fuel, there is not a lack of spare parts, and in 41-43 Germany often has numerous units beside and behind them and there would be no reason to just abandon dozens of vehicles. This is especially so when Germany is the attacker and loses the battle, but ends up losing 50%-100% more tanks due to "retreating", do the developers not understand withdrawal? Tank losses from retreating, and lost offensive battles should be halved across the board for Germany, especially from a historical standpoint, it practically never happened offensively.

Tank combat results overall are so unrealistic that Soviets players are incentivized to ram their own tanks into Germany in 1941 and throughout the entire game basically at any opportunity, just so they can see a 1:1 or 1:1.5 KD at worst. Not once in WW2 on the Eastern front did Germany take anywhere near the casualties present in war in the East 2.

As just a few examples (I've researched practically every major/small battle)

(1941) - Soviets had an advantage in numbers and armor on tanks in most of these battles)
Tank battle at Brody (200 German tanks lost to 800+ Soviet tanks).
Tank Battle of Raseiniai (180 German tanks destroyed to 705 Soviet tanks).

Even in mid 1943 while attacking Kursk, the equivalent to a level 3-4 fort in war in the East 2, Germany inflicted a 1:5 Casualty rate at the very least in virtually every tank engagement. Often inflicting upwards of 1:6/8 tank casualty rate, such as in Porkhorovoka, where the SS panzer corps lost 40-60 tanks, while the Red army lost 400+ according to glantz. Even in the Battle of Kursk as a whole, including the Germans retreating, (this alone would double the losses in war in the East 2 with the silly retreat losses), is 800 to 1000 German tanks lost, to over 7000+ Soviet tanks lost, completely impossible in WITE2, even with an exhausted Soviet tank division, and a 100 preparation point German tank division, you will still take 150%-400% more casualties then would historically happen.

As for later war tanks, again they feel worthless, no better then a Panzer IV(Which i believe is party due to reasons below). While in reality you have battles like the-battle of Maciejow, where SS Panther tanks destroyed over 100+ t34 tanks, at a loss of 0 Panthers, yes 0. Later war German tanks were rarely destroyed in battle, and were more often destroyed by retreating due to lack of fuel or their positions about to be surrounded and the tank was moderately damaged so the crew chose to abandon it(Something that should not happen in 1941 to 1942 ingame at the rates it currently does.)

I believe this is genuinely due to unrealistic armor values in Soviet tanks as i have talked about previously, which is that most Soviet tanks like T34s and KV series tanks have far more armor then they realistically had, even when considering angling and evening values between hull and turret like i have.

The values for rate of fire and accuracy is also unrealistic, with the T-34s (as just one example) have a faster fire rate than both the Panzer 3 and 4 ingame, when in real life it had a well known slow fire rate, poor accuracy, poor ergonomics, and reliability among other things. And you can see this in any battle ingame, a t34 will end up shooting more, and getting more AP hits, while generally out performing panzer 3 long barrels, or panzer 4s, which is just unrealistic and very poorly modeled in my opinion.
Theres also lots of little goofy values i found on many tanks like Panther D having less accuracy then a Panther A with the exact same gun and sights for example, which isnt an issue in WITE1, or the T34/85 having more accuracy than the Panzer IV/3, or Stug. WITE1 Did not have this problem, and i compared values and they are quiet different, with Soviet tanks have properly lower accuracy (among many other things) across the board, which was reversed in WITE2 for some reason.

There's other things i think should be improved like CPP, Exhaustion, urban combat, assault fronts, cost of switching generals in scenarios, german tanks not reinforcing on depots on refit, ect, but i think i wrote enough about my main issues, which is how weak German mechanized forces are and overall how useless airforce feels in WITE2.

AlbertN -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (9/11/2021 2:03:44 PM)

In general I do agree with the Air Combat business that I feel presently it quite wrong.

Unescorted bombers get butchered - especially Luftwaffe ones by I16 or I153 so. That type of loss ratio was not even of unescorted bombers in the Battle for Britain, and British pilots were arguably better trained and flying better machines than the Soviets.
Fighter reactions are odd - I stated already in my AARs how bombing is ineffective.

As German I feel anyhow the Soviets have the supremacy of the skies. Despite T1 bombing or 'air combats' the Soviets can just reshuffle on the spot their air assets, reserve the ones needed, reorganize in one week their aerail setup and then simply bomb pointes, regularly beyond Luftwaffe air cover.
How effectively the points are bombed, I do not know. They may not suffer direct losses but gain fatigue or so and then the Soviets can hammer with a ground attack as well.

And how Panzer Divisions and German AFV feels brittle.

It is not a narrative of Germans being invincible, but if in '42-43 the Soviets can push and shove even a stack of 3 Panzer Divisions (which is seen in some AARs) it's just wrong.
It means Axis cannot make real 'strongpoints' if a stack of their best troops gets just pushed away and suffers 75% of Panzer losses in -1- combat.
The Soviets can repeat the feat across the board, once a turn, and in 10 turns the Panzerwaffe ceases to exist in this game.

Ultimately I do not care of 'Oh this was armour thickness, multiplied by this sloping factor' etc trying to justify with vaunted historical accuracy as final answer of how gameplay pans out. Because we could have steel quality. (I do not know there but I know in the Battle of Jutland german guns of smaller caliber pierced better british thicker armour, than british bigger guns did to german smaller armour). We could have how tanks were employed. We could have training of the personnel. The fact that '41 '42 T34s had no radio (except the command tank) and their tank commanders had to get out of the turret and manually signal to other tanks with flags commands whilst each single German tank had a radio? Etc.

And then all these other values are eskewed if the outcome is the present.

Anyhow I got in a game as Soviet now so to experience the Red Side too.
WAiting for my turn to come.

Denniss -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (9/11/2021 2:17:44 PM)

AFAIR the germans in WitE had a bonus for organization/tactics/radios to either reduce own tanks losses or increase enemy losses. Don't know for sure though.

cameron88 -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (9/11/2021 10:15:19 PM)

That is also another thing i noticed, is that unescorted bombers get shredded, rather higher then realistically.

Pat_ge -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (9/22/2021 7:12:18 AM)

This game has so many fundamental flaws, I am sorry to have bought it.

Just a few points in addition to above:
Flexible defence with tank units leads to disaster, because you can loose 50% of the divisions panzers when they do, what they are supposed to do: defend and then retreat a hex.
TOAW did that better already decades ago.

Attack with panzer divs will leave you without their backbone by Novembre, attacking with Mot. and closing the encirclement with panzer divs is an unhistorical winner system. Doing that leaves your pz. divs intact, even during the winter, and the stock always above 0.
Air force is a joke. Besides the points cameron made rightfully above, I don't see the historical impossibilty for either side to clear the sky. By simply placing 4-6 fighter groups each in range of Leningrad and Moskva you can wear the Russion fighter command down into oblivion.
Logistics? You own Leningrad and thus the Baltic sea and what does the game? Use rail transport to supply Leningrad and thus adds to the stress on the railroads.

panzer51 -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (9/22/2021 2:12:44 PM)

Yeah I noticed there is very little cargo travelling by sea. And while I can see how Baltic Sea is avoided, Black Sea was heavily used to transport supplies to Crimea. In the game Constanta sends paltry 2,000 tons. For example, a small coastal freighter of 2,500GRT will be able to carry about 4-5,000 tons of cargo. So this is not even one full small freighter per week. Shocking to say the least.

Air combat is a joke, I can concur. I have not used any of my Ju-87 at all, they all sit parked and collect dust. In Soviet Union there was only one place that was properly protected by Flak, and that was Moscow. There was not enough assets to protect anything else.

Finally, Soviets estimated that Su-2 was able to fly approximately 32 missions before being lost. And that's less than reliable aircraft. For Pe-2 their estimate was 72 missions. I don't see anything like that in the game at all.

GibsonPete -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (9/26/2021 9:37:38 PM)

I have found that;

~ Panzer divisions are glass cannons(compared to what I experienced in WITW & WITE1).
~ Air GA accomplishes little (compared to what I experienced in WITW).
~ OP losses are exceedingly high (common sense).
~ AS missions do not work. Perhaps it should be renamed to something else since they lack air/ground spotters and radios.
~ Certain axis bombers are actually paper planes and the published history is wrong.

AlbertN -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (9/27/2021 2:06:37 PM)

This is a typical example of something I perceive wrong.

And I am the Soviets.
All Axis bombers got destroyed.
I do not think even over Britain there was a 100% destruction ratio over German raids that were pratically unescorted or barely escorted due to range / fuel capacity issues of the Bf109.

Here we have pratically same or more modern bombers facing even older and shoddier planes than Hurricanes and Spitfires; not to speak of pilot training and skill...

(That besides Soviet attacking coordination skill)


cameron88 -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (10/17/2021 10:30:13 AM)

Everything you said is correct, however the newest patch has seemed to improve the combat ratios quite drastically to be more realistic, so they are atleast trying to fix part of these issues.

Cavalry Corp -> RE: What should be changed with Air/Land combat. (10/19/2021 4:35:02 PM)

Although I'm not an expert in this game I have played many many games over the years and studied the history.

After a shaky start I'm finally starting to understand most of this game. There is a lot to like. But the air war is rather horrible - I think it tries to be over complex and the working your way through the different menus and choices many of them without any explanation of what the implications of ticking a box are is disheartening.

I would suggest the following things are wrong with air in this game.

Only city fixed AA should fire at aircraft passing over. AA units within land units should only fire within the game if the unit is attacked. I do not agree with the concept as it stands where every flak unit is firing everywhere. Also seem far too powerful.
Operational losses sing far too high all the time even when the planes fly short distances. This combined with the flak actually probably makes air units totally useless. It seems to me it's just not worth flying them.
In this game you do not need an Air Force you just build loads of anti aircraft units - job done.
Air combat losses can be complete science fiction as seen by the post above. I'm not sure why this is but I have actually never had a result where every single plane was shot down.

I know it's quite an old game but I feel that the air war in WIP AE is pretty good. If we had this game system in that game it would be considered utterly broken.

I'm happy to be corrected.

Page: [1]

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI