Disabled trickleback

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

Post Reply
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

Disabled trickleback

Post by JocMeister »

I just came out of the first winter with 1,030,000 men disabled. But instead of slowly decreasing its actually increasing. I´m now on turn 50. Whats up with that?



Image
User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I just came out of the first winter with 1,030,000 men disabled. But instead of slowly decreasing its actually increasing. I´m now on turn 50. Whats up with that?




Simple

You get 10,300 back per turn. Anytime your losses as "disabled" exceed that the total will increase. Note that attrition alone will often exceed that. So it doesn't really decrease much, it just stops increasing so quickly.

And yes, I and many others have pointed out that an expected recovery time of two years is a bit excessive for someone rated "temporarily disabled" instead of "permanently disabled"

JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by JocMeister »

Pompack,

Thank you for the answer. So this basically means I will have over 1 million men unavailable to me for the rest of the game? Losses will if anything increase, meaning even more disabled each turn? Thus meaning the number of disabled will never decrease but instead steadily INcrease[&:]

As I wrote I am now on turn 50 and the pools of both manpower and riflesquads are completly empty by now. So there is basically no way I can refill the losses sustained during the first winter? Most of my divisions is down to around 60-80 of their riflesquads. CVs have dropped from around 8-12 to 4-6.

As you points out it sounds very strange that over 1 million men disabled by cold (frostbite) will take over two years to recover. If you don´t recover after a month or so from frostbite you never will (requiring amputation I guess). My understanding is that most of the Landsers recovered and where back at their units in time for the summer offensive?

Is there any way I can change this in myt game myself?
Image
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by mmarquo »

So, in 1942 the Axis only had enough troops left to really attack on one front; AGS. In game turns they put AGC/AGN into "static mode" and reduced the TOE to let's say 50 - 60%; and diverted most everything else to AGS (non static, TOE 100%).
 
I am not yet convinced that the horrible blizzard losses in the game really fouls up the game balance compared to history.
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by JocMeister »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

So, in 1942 the Axis only had enough troops left to really attack on one front; AGS. In game turns they put AGC/AGN into "static mode" and reduced the TOE to let's say 50 - 60%; and diverted most everything else to AGS (non static, TOE 100%).

I am not yet convinced that the horrible blizzard losses in the game really fouls up the game balance compared to history.

THB, I hadn´t really thought about it like that! You might have a point there! [:)]

I can´t really say how it will affect the game later on. Will be intresting to see how the summer offensive will go. I´m short on troops everywhere. As I said the avarage infantry division is down to around 4-6 in CV with a TOE (riflesquads) around 60-70%. I´m doubtful I can keep an offensive up for long. ATM I´m loosing more squads then I get and the main push havn´t really started yet. But rotating divisions around I might make it.

Mind you this is against the AI. Versus a real person I guess I would be toast. But one thing is sure though. If I don´t "win" in 42 it will be game over in 43.

Is it a good or bad idea to disband some divisions to release some riflesquads and manpower to fill up other divisions?
Image
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by Mynok »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

So, in 1942 the Axis only had enough troops left to really attack on one front; AGS. In game turns they put AGC/AGN into "static mode" and reduced the TOE to let's say 50 - 60%; and diverted most everything else to AGS (non static, TOE 100%).

I am not yet convinced that the horrible blizzard losses in the game really fouls up the game balance compared to history.

The losses are less a problem as the magical loss of experience the returning men suddenly had. Frostbite apparently made them forget all their training. I believe they've gotten some changes in on that, but we'll see.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by mmarquo »

"The losses are less a problem as the magical loss of experience the returning men suddenly had. Frostbite apparently made them forget all their training. I believe they've gotten some changes in on that, but we'll see."
 
I am rereading Glantz's, "Clash of Titans" after having been playing WITE for several months. He states quite emphatically that if the Axis did not win in the first several months, it was not going to win; and Glantz basically describes the Wehrmacht as a demoralized shell of what it once was in Spring 42'.   So whatever mechanic is needed (call it morale, experience, etc) the Wehrmacht has to be significantly compromised in Spring; unless it flees the to west in November and avoids contact with the Soviets till the end of the blizzard.
 
Marquo [:)]
User avatar
Hagleboz
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Murrieta, CA

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by Hagleboz »

I am rereading Glantz's, "Clash of Titans" after having been playing WITE for several months. He states quite emphatically that if the Axis did not win in the first several months, it was not going to win; and Glantz basically describes the Wehrmacht as a demoralized shell of what it once was in Spring 42'. So whatever mechanic is needed (call it morale, experience, etc) the Wehrmacht has to be significantly compromised in Spring; unless it flees the to west in November and avoids contact with the Soviets till the end of the blizzard.

Marquo

Regardless of whether this is historically true not, it doesn't sound like it makes for a very interesting game for either side. If the German knows he's got nothing left after December '41 then I don't see many games lasting beyond that, which is what we have been seeing in the AAR's.
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by JocMeister »

I agree with Hagleboz.

If what I am seeing in my game is completly normal I think something have to be changed. If the game is going to be viable to play in 42 and even 43 both player have to have a chance of winning. If the Germnan player knows that he either wins before the blizzard in 41 or its game over most players would quit when the blizzards hits.

Sometimes I guess you have to forsake some simulation for playability!


Image
User avatar
karonagames
Posts: 4701
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:05 am
Location: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by karonagames »

In all the saves I have been sent, and all the AARs that have got to turn 53, the Axis have had more men, AFVs and aircraft than the 1942 campaign start, in fact we are testing versions designed to reduce Axis strength even more before the blizzard arrives.

Personally, I am having more fun with the 1942 campaign, because you are running an offensive on a shoestring, but then my definition of "winning" is based on who has the most fun.
It's only a Game

User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by mmarquo »

"Regardless of whether this is historically true not, it doesn't sound like it makes for a very interesting game for either side. If the German knows he's got nothing left after December '41 then I don't see many games lasting beyond that, which is what we have been seeing in the AAR's.
 
I completely disagree - I think that this 1941 - 1945 game should be played until the last move and either won or lost on the outskirts of Berlin -which is how it is set up and meant to be played. One can always play the much abridged Barbarossa campaign if more immediate results are needed.
 
Marquo [:)]  

Ron
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:46 am

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by Ron »

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

In all the saves I have been sent, and all the AARs that have got to turn 53, the Axis have had more men, AFVs and aircraft than the 1942 campaign start, in fact we are testing versions designed to reduce Axis strength even more before the blizzard arrives.

Personally, I am having more fun with the 1942 campaign, because you are running an offensive on a shoestring, but then my definition of "winning" is based on who has the most fun.


I think looking at the game's modelling of Russian capabilities starting in the Winter '41 and in '42 should be a priority first. In WitE the Russians can mount and sustain front wide offensives in the Winter '41, basically destroying the Germans in front of them. This fantasy simply did not happen. It seems the cause and effect get mixed up.
Ron
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:46 am

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by Ron »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

  So whatever mechanic is needed (call it morale, experience, etc) the Wehrmacht has to be significantly compromised in Spring; unless it flees the to west in November and avoids contact with the Soviets till the end of the blizzard.

Marquo [:)]


Sure, but it has to be looked at in the context of the whole system, ie alongside the Russian opponent and capabilities. As it stands now the German is artificially hamstrung coming out of the blizzard and the Russian offensive capabilities artificially inflated.
User avatar
PeeDeeAitch
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:31 am
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by PeeDeeAitch »

Well, I am planning to play the long haul in my campaign with Cpt Flam.  The whole point of "losing the war" is to see if I can do better.  I am not sure of my abilities to shift to defensive fighting, or how a grinding game will change my play, but there are so many different phases to the game that stopping in late 1941 (after being bitten by the blizzard), throwing down my toys and going home seems wrong.
 
There will be Romanians on my flanks in 1942, Backhand Blows in 1943, Hubes to rescue, Army Groups that shatter - fun.
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by mmarquo »

Ron,
 
If you annhilate Soviets during the summer/fall of 1941, i.e > 4 - 5,000,000 casualties, and try to obtain bold but reasonable production objectives, and are emotionally able to fall back during the blizzard, you can make it. A clue for surviving  the blizzard: German units do not rout....
 
Marquo [:)]
User avatar
karonagames
Posts: 4701
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:05 am
Location: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by karonagames »

If you annhilate Soviets during the summer/fall of 1941, i.e > 4 - 5,000,000 casualties, and try to obtain bold but reasonable production objectives, and are emotionally able to fall back during the blizzard, you can make it. A clue for surviving  the blizzard: German units do not rout....

Well spotted Marquo, a lot of effort went into reducing the rout potential for the Germans (axis allies are a different matter). In early tests, 40 routs in one turn were no fun.

With regard to the other posts, I repeat there is no evidence that the Axis do not recover their strength between the end of the blizzard and the start of the summer campaign, there remains some doubt that the start line for 1942 will be good enough for a southern campaign in 1942, but holding Leningrad through the blizzard, should make a Moscow focused campaign in 1942 a possibility.

I think recent AARs that have been capturing Leningrad and pushing the soviets back during the Mud and snow are disrupting the soviet ability to prepare offensives during the blizzard and are reducing the potential damage to the axis armies during the blizzards.
It's only a Game

User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by mmarquo »

"I think recent AARs that have been capturing Leningrad and pushing the soviets back during the Mud and snow are disrupting the soviet ability to prepare offensives during the blizzard and are reducing the potential damage to the axis armies during the blizzards."
 
The trade off here is that the Axis ends the fall campaign pretty much spent, with many assets in the north, leaving the center and/south as prime ground for the blizzard offensive. The TOE of units smashing through level 4 forts in disavantageous terrain in front of Leningrad degrades rapidly - nothing is for free.  
 
Here is my point about nonrouting German units: one can choose a certain number of sacrifical divisions which are to broken up into regiments; in this manner 7 hexes instead of 3 are secured. This picket line can absorb the fury of the blizzard assault while falling back. These units can be displaced one hex, maybe 2 per turn, and can absorb staggering losses before routing. Better only 5 o5 6 divisions being depleted than all the infantry units. Place the other divisions further back in refit mode in forts.. Yes, I know some do not beleive in winter forts, but they do work as follows:
 
If the fort is aligned so that only 2 Soviet stacks can smack it, then the Soviets will suffer signifcant losses and has a high chance of being "unreadied." This is vital because an unready unit can't advance and fight. So if one falls back, then the next turn the Soviet units which remain unready are in fact useless.
 
Marquo


User avatar
karonagames
Posts: 4701
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:05 am
Location: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England

RE: Disabled trickleback

Post by karonagames »

Here is my point about nonrouting German units: one can choose a certain number of sacrifical divisions which are to broken up into regiments; in this manner 7 hexes instead of 3 are secured. This picket line can absorb the fury of the blizzard assault while falling back. These units can be displaced one hex, maybe 2 per turn, and can absorb staggering losses before routing. Better only 5 o5 6 divisions being depleted than all the infantry units. Place the other divisions further back in refit mode in forts.. Yes, I know some do not beleive in winter forts, but they do work as follows:

I think there are lots of variants that could be tried for defence - the regimental "picket" line combined with the 2 hexside fort line is one that think is worth trying. The point about the forts is the manpower they consume - if you have managed your manpower without weakening the front line divisions, then they can be used.
It's only a Game

Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”