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: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something was wrong before

 
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: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something was wrong before Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 5:50:07 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

Umm, please find me an example of this ever happening even once historically. Call me crazy but I don't think this was just a 1/1000 chance for a battle outcome. My guess is you fight this battle 100 times you get this type of result 25 times or more? Just a guess. Either way it's so wrong I don't see how anybody other than a 'Stalin's boy' (if it fits...) could be ok with these type of results so early in the war and given the circumstances.

Don't have to read too many books on the eastern front battles to know that a sov rifle div in the open and not entrench would have been utterly destroyed by a PZ Div. Being in the open this sov rifle div is now on the 'home filed' advantage of a Pz Div.

This is spring 42... so how much exp do people this that unit had? How much moral? How much %T OE? I say if it had good moral and exp in spr 42... we have a whole bag of other issues for WitE to deal with.



Yoyu don't think there were any cases where a hasty attack failed to locate the division properly and ran into air and artillery before the division retreated?



Lol, oh it was a hasty attack.. excuse me. You don't think these operations by the pz div were not in most circumstances hasty type attacks? They were running around from point to point dealing with many difficult situations. Do us all a favor and pick up a book or two on the battles on the eastern front. Maybe you'll have something intelligent to say? Where is some documentation to prove this out come could have ever occurred?

WHERE.... Nothing? That's what I thought. You can make stupid little comments or bring something to the table.


Why do you just say pz? An elite Panzer Division should be referred to as an elite Panzer Division.

Do you think the elite PANZER DIVISIONS had time in their busy elite days running all over the place to write down a complete accoun of every time they got hit by artillery and airstrikes and heard there were some russian infantry retreating somewhere near by?


Should we base this game on just some unbased opinions like yours or maybe some realistic facts and accounts about the east front. Hmmm.. I'll let you think about that one. Once again, I'll offer you the same advice and to maybe pick up a few books on the subject. There's actually a thread that has a lot of good books to read.

< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 1/26/2011 5:51:25 PM >

(in reply to MengJiao)
Post #: 61
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 5:52:58 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Please keep the posts civil.

I got some info from Gary on hasty attacks. Just to be clear, hasty attacks are not just reducing the CV of the attacker. They impact the way the battle is fought in the following ways:

1) There are less combat rounds, especially at longer combat ranges, so losses on both sides tend to be lower
2) The effectiveness of the attackers fire is reduced by roughly 2/3 (the formulas being complicated we cannot predict exactly what this effect has in the combat without studying them more seriously, but Gary's first look indicated this kind of reduction)
3) Since at longer combat ranges the attacker fires first, the weaker attacker fire could end up leading to higher attacker losses as they won't be able to disrupt defender fire (basically less time doing artillery prep assuming the attacker has a superiority in artillery).

The net of it all is generally both sides take less losses, but the defender takes a lot less losses. Of course, if you can retreat the defender, then retreat attrition can make up for some of this.

Hasty attacks are an important tactic, but you have to be very careful about how you use them. It's easy to overrun inexperienced Soviet units in 1941, but as the Soviet units improve in experience and morale, it can be a very painful tactic.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to MengJiao)
Post #: 62
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 5:55:36 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
And IMO this world could use less people like you. Once again you're displaying to all that you have nothing meaningful to add but yet another thread you troll.


Kirk, please understand that I never claimed I had anything "meaningful" or "useful" to post in this thread (or many others). I simply like how the game works. So what do you want me to post?

"I read mountain of books and I still think the game works great!" Is this meaningful enough for you?

Having said that, the way this thread started, with over the top drama, just ASKED to be turned into a comedy. Which is what some of us did.

You can't insult me by saying I didn't contribute anything meaningful, as I readily agree with that. I was just having fun. Where we disagree, is that I think you didn't post anything meaningful either (just hate and angriness), yet you flatter yourself by thinking you're being "smart" or "meaningful" (you aren't).

quote:

That's what I thought... so go ahead and act like a fool and post more meaningless crap. I'm just going to start ignoring your comments as others have pm'd me to do about you in general.


Be my guest.

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 63
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 6:18:21 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Apologies if I have this wrong but, I assume that if you replay this exact same battle say 100 times, the result will usually be much more in the axis favour thanks to the way the computer takes all variables and applies them to get a result. The crack German unit should wipe the floor with the green Soviet defenders.

But ultimately the actual result is (within certain parameters) down to the god of dice throwing.Therefore I assume what happened here is essentially the German player threw rubbish dice.

If that is the case then I cannot see the problem. There must be thousands of cases where battles did not go according to plan despite odds being heavily stacked in one sides favour - I.e. An experienced commander makes an error of judgement, the air cover arrives late, the inexperienced defender is actually a very good commander in the making..

You could say there is something wrong with the game if that result was the norm, but if it happened because of Soviet getting some good luck then that's all part of the game - surely if every result is a foregone conclusion then what is the point?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to MengJiao)
Post #: 64
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 6:20:12 PM   
raizer

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 12/6/2010
Status: offline
this thread is spiraling downward

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 65
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 6:22:05 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
Something must be missed in the translation. But I'm not here to try and bash WitE or say it's not a great game. The problems myself and others are seeing have to do with realism and how some events/battles should be modeled.

Sure I like the game too. But do I think it can be better.. heck yeah. From my experience and now ahat I;'ve seen on this post, I don't think ... personally I'd have much fun playing the axis as they don't perform in general to the capacity the did in that period of time. By axis, I really mean the German army. I'll continue to play the game PBEM as soviets and maybe create a scenario through the editor to play against the computer that is more realistic from what I know about the conflict. I have confidence changes will come.. people like Oleg with be dissapointed when the balance pendulum swings back to the center.

But this great will continue to get better which is all I really want.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 66
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 6:29:10 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: raizer

this thread is spiraling downward


Well no thanks to you. Raizer, once again why do you feel the need to post something like this? If you can't add some experience or documentation to support or refute the initial post... why are you posting?

Why do people like you feel the need to use this as some facebook social media tool? Please pm me about your logic to this post? I'd like know first hand what motivates you to dilute threads where people are spending their time to accomplish something. You remind me of those kids on a play ground that see another child building something with blocks and for no apparent reason just go over and knock it down. I don't know, maybe Raizer you are a child? Or just maybe have the mentality of a child? Don't really care.. you're not my problem.. but your post are starting to be a problem IMO.

(in reply to raizer)
Post #: 67
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 6:36:25 PM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline
Joel, thank you for that clarification/explanation inside of the hasty attack.

One does not have to search far for examples on all fronts of smaller, ill-prepared units giving a bloody nose to a seemingly larger and better prepared attacker. In this case, I do not think even the term "bloody nose" works, as it is unclear as to the actual number of long term casualties and the defender was pushed back. Reading about the 1942 campaign one can find many cases of Soviet units doing exactly this, and yes many cases of them folding again.

However, the tenor of this argument shows that passions are indeed inflamed by the game. I am not sure where posts mocking another actually help out - though I do understand the internet is a place of fewer perceived boundaries and the instant reaction is often over the top.




_____________________________

"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

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 68
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 6:39:58 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Apologies if I have this wrong but, I assume that if you replay this exact same battle say 100 times, the result will usually be much more in the axis favour thanks to the way the computer takes all variables and applies them to get a result. The crack German unit should wipe the floor with the green Soviet defenders.

But ultimately the actual result is (within certain parameters) down to the god of dice throwing.Therefore I assume what happened here is essentially the German player threw rubbish dice.

If that is the case then I cannot see the problem. There must be thousands of cases where battles did not go according to plan despite odds being heavily stacked in one sides favour - I.e. An experienced commander makes an error of judgement, the air cover arrives late, the inexperienced defender is actually a very good commander in the making..

You could say there is something wrong with the game if that result was the norm, but if it happened because of Soviet getting some good luck then that's all part of the game - surely if every result is a foregone conclusion then what is the point?


Wait a minute here? Are you saying this game is little more than a board game and the variance for certain events in battles is that low? I think you've just offended the entire development team by 'dumbing' down the game mechanics to throwing some d# die?

That's ridiculous, this game has gone to the trouble of track very specific factors of each unit for a reason. Not to finally get into a battle event and throw some dice? I can't believe you'd even related this to a dice game. I didn't buy this WItE thinking it was a throw some dice game. I think the game was built to as a computer game to have the ability to crunch large amounts of data and give results.. such in battles.. that would make sense.

The result of this battle, IMO, is outside anything possible. Say 1% or whatever. I've still yet to see any evidence to prove the contrary. Also, I don't think the outcome was some sort of lottery winning on abulbulian part. Another words.. I'd like or see it played out 100 times, even 10 times would be telling Maybe he still has a save and can do that. Let's hope so.
.
Bottom line is this game is NOT a board game and has the ability to use large amounts of data and some complex formulas to model battles circumstance. Should there be a bit of 'randomness' injected, sure. But not at the expense to create some improbable outcomes.



< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 1/26/2011 6:54:18 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 69
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 6:47:32 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
What actually inflamed me the most was all the people that quickly attacked abulbulians well document improbable outcome as far as realism is concerned. Maybe this outcome is more probably IN the game,... but that's maybe the heart of the issue. These attack on the post were with out any merit as they had no evidence or documentation to refute abulbulian's claim that the outcome was totally improbably. I agree with his assessment. Not that I've read hundreds of books on the subject, but I've read more than a few in the last few months. I couldn't find any account of a sov rifle div in 42 accomplishing anything close to this posted battle outcome in all my readings given the battle settings. BUT, I did read about many accounts of the German mobile units, like the 11th Panzer, performing amazing feats against incredible odds. Yes, also in a sort of 'Hasty' attack fashion, as they usually had to be in two places at once.

So if people want to post what they see is wrong with abulbulian's assessment why not post something to back up your claim?

< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 1/26/2011 6:49:36 PM >

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 70
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 6:54:04 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Combat is a very random thing. Who would have expected the 101st to hold Bastogne against all odds?

I prefer the randomness. It is more real life. Maybe the supply truck carrying the units ammo broke down enroute, so the unit ran too low on ammo, how about that BN commander that is so loved by his men got killed leading the charge (like he had done so many times before) and it sapped the morale and caused them to pause the attack just long enough to lose that edge. I don't want to see it in a combat report, but that is how I envision it.

How about turn 1, the Russian Div in the swamps up north, I have twice bumped it out with a single div deliberate attack, but been halted 3-4 times. 2 Div deliberate works every time, but there is that randomness. I have had 90,000 troops versus 10,000 in Odessa hold out for 3 weeks against repeated deliberate attacks. But then there is the one time I had 25,000 troops and took it first try. Real combat has way too many variables for a sure fire thing. There is no sure fire thing in combat except "friendly fire is not friendly" and "if it is going good, it is a trap".

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 71
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:04:35 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Combat is a very random thing. Who would have expected the 101st to hold Bastogne against all odds?

I prefer the randomness. It is more real life. Maybe the supply truck carrying the units ammo broke down enroute, so the unit ran too low on ammo, how about that BN commander that is so loved by his men got killed leading the charge (like he had done so many times before) and it sapped the morale and caused them to pause the attack just long enough to lose that edge. I don't want to see it in a combat report, but that is how I envision it.

How about turn 1, the Russian Div in the swamps up north, I have twice bumped it out with a single div deliberate attack, but been halted 3-4 times. 2 Div deliberate works every time, but there is that randomness. I have had 90,000 troops versus 10,000 in Odessa hold out for 3 weeks against repeated deliberate attacks. But then there is the one time I had 25,000 troops and took it first try. Real combat has way too many variables for a sure fire thing. There is no sure fire thing in combat except "friendly fire is not friendly" and "if it is going good, it is a trap".




Actually, once you look at the factors involved it's not as random as you think. I've read about the battle for Bastogne and after the analysis was done, it did show that the defenders holding was not anything that should be considered far fetched. These were highly trained men defending a city that was ready for all the German attacks. Also, military standards show show the attacking a defending city you almost need 10x more than your opponent. If you have more or less exp, then that factor changes. The Ab units and others in Bastonge were much better trained than most of the German counterparts attacking. Throw in the weather conditions.. and it only got worse for the attacker. Also, this was at a point where US arty started to use the experimental proximity fuses and it was devastating for the assault Germans.

So I completely disagree about this concept about battles being random. I think given all the factors on the table... such as in WitE reason outcomes can be established. Sure, there should be some randomness, but nothing that would take something out of the realm of impossible and put it into the possible.

I'll be happy to discuss the battle of Bastone more offline with you 2ndACR. I had a relative that was in the 101st AB and fought there. So I have that insight as well.


I to have experience these ridiculous T1 sov units in swamp or light forest that can hold out against deliberate attacks but better training and 2:1+ troops ratios. Which is why I think the post here by abulbulian is not an isolated case. The fact that this unit was in open terrain and not fortified puts this battle outcome, for me, in the realm of totally impossible.

< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 1/26/2011 7:14:10 PM >

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 72
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:11:52 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Now here's the part that just made me rub my eyes.. the combat...oh my







Ok notice the following:

1) the modified combat value of 90:5 (88 afvs to 0, axis had more arty and lost 2x more arty)
2) my loses are greater than this meak 42 sov inf div in CLEAR weather, CLEAR terrain, and no FORT lvl.

Ok, somebody that has any knowledge of what would have really happened as I'm too tired ... have at it.




Frankly, I think the problem isn't necessarily Axis losses, as mentioned before, the composition and the *real* losses can't be known from the battle report.

The problem is what "Retreat" means and what happens when a infantry unit, in the open, so maybe with a foxhole or 2 is forced to retreat in the face of a much stronger mobile unit in open terrain.

Is this an actual retreat or a delaying action? One would think the Rifle Division had just fought a highly successful delaying action against vastly superior forces with a much higher tactical mobility, but AFAIK the combat result indicates that the Rifle division was forced to retreat.

Reality normally doesn't work that way when pure infantry forces have to face mobile forces. A delaying action is "possible", i.e. can be done but without guaranteed success, if the defender has equal or greater mobility than the attacker, or the attacker can not use it's superior mobility due to terrain constraints.

In ALL other cases, the attacker will suffer losses in the initial break in and dealing with defences, but it will be able to pretty much destroy the defenders. Either the defenders stay put, in which case the attacker suffers heavier losses, but still has a big advantage since the defences are isolated and flanked, or the defenders try to retreat in which case more escape but losses are still quite heavy. Heavy weapons that are not self propelled i.e. towed arty, AT guns, etc. are especially vulnerable to being overrun or losing their transport and hence being lost in such an event.

In the above case, the expected result would be

heavy loss of Rifle squads
the loss of many medium weapons (MG+Mortars)
the loss of a lot of artillery and AT guns (artillery depends on motorization, AT guns are mostly lost since they are so far forward)

Support squads have a good chance of getting away.

Now this was a hasty attack, so only a portion of the Pz Div was involved, but either way the loss report indicates that the Rile division was able to stop the initial attack cold and then pull back in good order. This, to me, seems a very unlikely outcome given the lack of Fort levels, terrain and force matchup. Also, the Axis losses do at least indicate that a fair amount of heavy fighting has taken place, so it wasn't just a hasty attack by the lead KG which was beaten off.

Either way something doesn't add up.

If this is supposed to represent an attack by the lead forces being stopped and the Rifle Division then withdrawing in good order, the German losses seem to be too heavy (would represent an entire Battalion being more or less wiped out).

If this is supposed to represent a successful break in and overrun the German losses are ok, but the Russian losses are much too light "especially" in terms of guns.



< Message edited by MechFO -- 1/26/2011 7:21:31 PM >

(in reply to abulbulian)
Post #: 73
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:22:04 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
MechFO, thanks for being one of the first to do some analysis. The issue here where did the sov rifle div gain some advantage over the attack 11th Panzer div in order to cause more loses to it?


So lets do a simple list... people can fill in what I missed

In German favor (attacker)
- *exp (off the charts)
- *moral
- unit strength and unit formation type
- terrain: mobile units love to fight in the open
- defender not entrenched
- *leadership


In Sov favor
- defending: some intrinsic game mod? (don't think always is the case in real ware fare)


What did I miss?

* indicates probably a large advantage

< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 1/26/2011 7:23:08 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 74
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:25:11 PM   
raizer

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 12/6/2010
Status: offline
early war, "tank terror" *(thou the sovs by this time were adjusting to it, those 14 mm ptrds were pretty much useless on the run lol), towed guns in the open, rifle div in open, to me means bad stuff gonna happen. 

The attacker losing more than twice as much arty as the defender could warrant an examination imho  (I wasnt aware that soviet couterbattery was this effective so early in the war)

< Message edited by raizer -- 1/26/2011 7:31:00 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 75
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:36:06 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Apologies if I have this wrong but, I assume that if you replay this exact same battle say 100 times, the result will usually be much more in the axis favour thanks to the way the computer takes all variables and applies them to get a result. The crack German unit should wipe the floor with the green Soviet defenders.

But ultimately the actual result is (within certain parameters) down to the god of dice
throwing.Therefore I assume what happened here is essentially the German player threw rubbish dice.

If that is the case then I cannot see the problem. There must be thousands of cases where battles did not go according to plan despite odds being heavily stacked in one sides favour - I.e. An experienced commander makes an error of judgement, the air cover arrives late, the inexperienced defender is actually a very good commander in the making..

You could say there is something wrong with the game if that result was the norm, but if it happened because of Soviet getting some good luck then that's all part of the game - surely if every result is a foregone conclusion then what is the point?


Wait a minute here? Are you saying this game is little more than a board game and the variance for certain events in battles is that low? I think you've just offended the entire development team by 'dumbing' down the game mechanics to throwing some d# die?

That's ridiculous, this game has gone to the trouble of track very specific factors of each unit for a reason. Not to finally get into a battle event and throw some dice? I can't

believe you'd even related this to a dice game. I didn't buy this WItE thinking it was a throw some dice game. I think the game was built to as a computer game to have the ability to crunch large amounts of data and give results.. such in battles.. that would make sense.

The result of this battle, IMO, is outside anything possible. Say 1% or whatever. I've still yet to see any evidence to prove the contrary. Also, I don't think the outcome was some sort of lottery winning on abulbulian part. Another words.. I'd like or see it played out 100 times, even 10 times would be telling Maybe he still has a save and can do that. Let's hope so.
.
Bottom line is this game is NOT a board game and has the ability to use large amounts of data and some complex formulas to model battles circumstance. Should there be a bit of 'randomness' injected, sure. But not at the expense to create some improbable outcomes.


Warspite1

No that is not what I was "saying". I was humbly asking -and apologised in advance if I had got the wrong end of the stick. I do know this is not a "simple dice game" where anything can happen, but have always assumed that having taken all key data into account in the final analysis there is a luck element to avoid situations -turn one for example - where a player can perfect the perfect attack by always knowing a particular outcome.

This method still stops "impossible" outcomes but still gives a degree of variability. If that is the case then I do not see the result mentioned by the OP as being impossible but would certainly be on the "luckier" end of the scale. If I am completely wrong about there
being a degree of randomness then I apologise for being ridiculous.........

PS a note for the developers -I trust you took my comments as intended and despite the typical angry and high handed response I got, that you realise there was no slur intended about this great game or the fine work you have done here. I had hoped it was obvious that is not what I was saying but .......

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/26/2011 7:52:08 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 76
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:47:40 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson


Ok, I've been reading a few of the following books lately that have been describing how the German Pz Div were almost 'super-human' in dealing with some of the most incredible tasks of defending an attacking.

To the Gates of Stalingrad: Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942: David Glantz
The 6th Panzer Division 1937-1945: Helmut Ritgen


These mobile units were called upon by the Germany army over and over again to be the 'fireman' and/or spearheads when needed.
In all the readings I've yet to see an example of a sov Rifle div accomplishing what happen in this fictional WitE battle given the circumstances. Here's a little blurb which I found about the Kharkov 2nd battle:
[...]
In in almost all cases of the 42 battles, a sov rifle div caught in the open was cannon-fodder for a German Pz Div.

Ok, I've been reading a few of the following books lately that have been describing how the German Pz Div were almost 'super-human' in dealing with some of the most incredible tasks of defending an attacking.



I find your talking about “almost superhumans” and “cannon fodder” very ... brave, like the talk of the OP about “utter madness”. It tells me that, even if you refer to Glantz, you base you infos mainly on post war Nazi general’s historical fiction. Granted, those books make a fun reading. And apparently those Wehrmacht myths still manage to manipulate our perception to this very day.

Look what those German generals and officers wrote in spring 1942:

Report of German commander 3. Panzerdivision somewhere in spring 1942 „in preperation of a big summer offensive“:
“The Russian infantry is equipped badly. It will only attack when escorted by tanks. [...]. The Russians can’t stop a strong German attack. The Russian will panic and give up his position. This happened esp. During the combats near Charkov and also on Crim pensinsular. However it should be explicitely stressed, that this only happened as a conseqiuence of massive Panzer attacks. When attacked at company level, [the Russian], will re-occupy his foxhole, after he has recognized the the small number of Panzer, and the he will defend stubbornly against the following up [ German] infantry. Everytime a successfull German breakthrough happens it became necessary to chase the enemy relentlessly even at night.. Esp. At night, he managed to recombine together many troop elements. Thus, when [our] attack was continued in the morning a new line of defense had to be breeched. The Russians became very active in our flanks.” Source: Jentz, Panzertruppen(German ed.), Vol. 1, pp. 232-233.

An example of a German attack by 22. Panzer division fubared on March 20 1942 at the Crim:
33 tanks of P. Reg. 204’s 142 tanks had to be given up. The German report of the debacle stressed, that it happened because preperation and cooperation between Panzer and pts. of the German rifle regiment, which took part was lacking. Not, that 22. PD. was a green unit, it’s enemy was dug in and had some 40 tanks at it’s disposal. Source: Jentz, Panzertruppen (German ed.), Vol. 1, pp. 224-228.

German commanders about the successful destruction of the Charkov-Izjum pocket in May 1942 (Fredericus I):
“’The battle field shows the violence of the fight’, Kleist wrote in an AAR. ‘ At the focus of the battle the soil is densely covered by corpses of horses and humans, thus it takes an effort to find a path driving through.’
Such experiences weren’t without effect on the spectators and survivors. Apart from the various forms of mental stress, which can’t be found easily in the files, they forced some troop leaders to take a blunt, sceptical view, as to the future. Von Mackensen, commanding General of Group Kleist’s III. Panzerkorps wrote after the battle near Charkov, that the enemy operations became ‘more fanatically, recklessly and united’ than in 1941.” The Red leaders risk all. As to the grand perspective of things they decide very clearly, and take every possible step to put those decisions into practice. In this, now they are followed by commanders and troops much more closely than last year. [...] The Red armourd force and Cavalry distinguish themselves by an unprecedented bravery and fighting spirit, even if that means their total annihilation.’ According to Mackensen, victory still could be achieved, because of the German bravery and fighting spirit, because of the Auftragstaktik, because of the tactical surprise, because of the weather and because of the quality of the new material. The General concluded in a first hand AAR, our troops know, that the victory of annihilation only came with a last ditch effort.” Source: Bernd Wegner, Der Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1942/43, in: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg [German Reich and WW 2], vol. 6, pp. 860-881.

Assessment of the fighting strength of the divsions in the Ostheer (30.3.1942)
Out of 162 German divisions only 8 were assessed as “fully misssion capable”. Those were distributed in 6 AOK’s, among them only 2 Panzer AOK’s, meaning probably not all of those were Panzer divisions.

Regards


< Message edited by wosung -- 1/26/2011 7:49:25 PM >

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 77
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:48:42 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
Warspite1,

Sorry to jump on you. I've pm some apologizes to others I jumped on and should not have. The blocking issue I have going forward to say 'everything is ok' is that I've never read anything about the battles on the east front around the 42 period that would suggest this outcome as even possible.

I'm hoping somebody can show me some evidence that this could and did happen under the conditions given. With that done, I'd feel much better about this being a non-show stopper for me ever playing the axis.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 78
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:55:28 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
wosung,

We have to compare apples to apples. I'm not saying the sov soldier was not a brave and hard fighting one at points in the war. Given the right circumstances the average sov solider could endure unbelievable conditions and still fight on. Just look at some of the battles from Stalingrad.

What I'm looking for is an example of a very strong, rested, well supplied German Panzer Div taking more causalities from 'what at the time' was an inferior sov rifle div out in the open and not entrenched. This is still May 42, the soviet forces are maybe just starting to learn how to fight an retreat. Remember that the soviets tried a spring offensive in spring 42 around Kharkov which was an utter failure.

Sure, maybe under the right circumstance.. defending in good terrain and in prepared positions this attack would have suffered a similar or worse fate. But look again at the conditions here? Please add to what advantage the sov forces would have had in this battle.

PLEASE... I asking for somebody to list some of these advantages I've missed in the list I previous posted.



< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 1/26/2011 7:58:26 PM >

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 79
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:58:00 PM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
kirkgregerson, I don't see where you're coming from that no one is taking an objective look at this: Paul McNeely laid down a pretty convincing argument back in page 1 that this is possible within our current understanding of the game's mechanics.

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 80
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 7:58:51 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Understood kirkgregoerson

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 81
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:02:55 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

kirkgregerson, I don't see where you're coming from that no one is taking an objective look at this: Paul McNeely laid down a pretty convincing argument back in page 1 that this is possible within our current understanding of the game's mechanics.


Yes, as you said within the game mechanics. Exactly where the flaw would have to be. Did you look at my list of advantages for each side in this battle. I have yet to see any compelling arguments that the battle outcome was modeled properly by WitE in this case.

You're not telling me anything that I don't already know about the game mechanics having the issue, where else would the results come from? The point is they don't give a realistic outcome for *some* battles based on all the factors.

What do you think? Is there something about this sov rifle div that would have realistically cause more causality to the attacker in this case? Put the game mechanics stuff aside, an just give opinion and maybe why?


< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 1/26/2011 8:03:57 PM >

(in reply to gradenko2k)
Post #: 82
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:08:43 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

So I completely disagree about this concept about battles being random. I think given all the factors on the table... such as in WitE reason outcomes can be established.




Well, the OUTCOME of this battle, the retreat of the RifleDivision is not that unlikely…

I agree that in general who wins a battle is in a great proportion a deterministic event. However, regarding casualties, perhaps chance can affect the numbers, especially when we are taking into account such small losses (5% for the attacking side). I do not see impossible that some (fortunate?) well-placed salvoes from a Guards BM Howitzer Regiment could decimate a couple of companies….

Surely it is difficult to find in the books numeric examples when those figures are to be found, but that could be mainly because those (relative) small engagements are not usually dealt with in detail in the general books about the Eastern front. This difficulty can be gauged from the fact that even you could not provide a numeric example to back up your point, only that the Panzer Div “smashed trough”…How many Russian Divisions were “smashed through” in 1941, only to arrive at a situation where most of the Panzer Division were depleted?

Obviously if only the most extreme (“tail”) results of a random casualty distribution are provided, the information is biased. That a bias is present can be already seen from the title of this thread. And from post 1. The image of some players waiting with a pencil and a notebook to register whatever they consider weird and then come here to the forum to call the game ridiculous, broken, or poorly designed is one for which I was not prepared.

In a more positive note, will it be possible to repeat that battle a number of times to really know how much of the casualties are “random” and how much purely due to combat mechanics? I would think that this should be done before, in order to criticize the mechanics with some data, if necessary. As it is, the post seems of very little help to developers.


< Message edited by alfonso -- 1/26/2011 9:27:47 PM >

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 83
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:11:04 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Panzer units usually attracted the cream of the troops available to the army especially up to late '42, before the setting up of multiple airborne and later the deviation of the best men into SS units. It should be noted that even in a battle like Kursk, where the Russians enjoyed every advantage one could concieve (in intelligence, materiel etc), Panzer forces nearly got through in the south, with STAVKA having to release reserves that were originally intended for the counter attack. Panzer forces were extremely good with a high esprit de corps, training and were also the best equipped forces of the Wehrmacht. Truth is, that until '43/'44 there were few formations of comparible size in the world that could go head to head with a Panzer or even a PG division.

By this I'm not saying that they were invincible or invulnerable, but they were pretty tough clients. (One might add that even the infantry arm was very good especially those divisions raised in the first 3 waves and had been through a lot together). And although there could be a few freak accidents, I'm not really sure that a Soviet division (normally pretty weak in AT weaponry if I remember well) could have stood up to a Panzer Division in the open. I wouldn't really mind it if it was a one off result (a lot of vodka going around maybe??? ) it would be weird if such a result was repeated all that often.

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 84
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:11:48 PM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
Well, the Soviets did have air support and a Guards Howitzer Regiment (I would assume that Guards formations held up much better than their regular/conscript counterparts), and they did end up retreating all the same.

I will be the first to admit though that the inability of the game to display "damaged" units, as a class between "OK" and "disabled" can muddy the outcomes somewhat, and even keeps coming up as a thorny perception issue in the Blizzard-losses discussions.

EDIT: As for your remarks about Bastogne, I think we can chalk that up to fog-of-war. That is, hindsight tells us that the 101st was really well prepared to defend the town well, and the Germans were not in a good position to take it ... but that's the advantage of hindsight. We can only assume that at the time the battle was actually happening, the German commander make the real-life equivalent of ordering a WITE attack without considering all of the factors involved (or indeed, that some factors were unknowable from his end) ... and being just as shocked as abulbulian was with the results.

< Message edited by gradenko_2000 -- 1/26/2011 8:15:09 PM >

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 85
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:14:11 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
What do you think? Is there something about this sov rifle div that would have realistically cause more causality to the attacker in this case? Put the game mechanics stuff aside, an just give opinion and maybe why?


Soviets had artillery unit + IL-2s on their side, of course you forgot to list that.

Gradenko pointed you to Paul McNeely's post on page one of this thread that sums up the combat (dis)advantages nicely. Go read it.

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 86
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:14:49 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
Right, apples to apples.

It's not about Soviet offensive capabilities, like zheir spring offensive, but about defense.

1. OP's Panzer div with eighty tanks was understrength, compared with in 1942 now fictional TOE.
2. We are talking about 1 turn each player, which together make one week. Abstraction is incorporated.
3. Rifle division retreated. And not became annihilated. This happened. Not every hasty attack resulted in a complete rout.
4. I doubt that within a week lvl 0 entrenchement means zilch entrenchement at all. I remember German accounts from 1941, telling all the same. Just night was enough for Russian inf to reorg. and dig in. And fight stubbornly.

Please leave out the superhuman talk.

Regards

Regards



(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 87
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:16:57 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Now this was a hasty attack, so only a portion of the Pz Div was involved, but either way the loss report indicates that the Rile division was able to stop the initial attack cold and then pull back in good order. This, to me, seems a very unlikely outcome given the lack of Fort levels, terrain and force matchup. Also, the Axis losses do at least indicate that a fair amount of heavy fighting has taken place, so it wasn't just a hasty attack by the lead KG which was beaten off.

Either way something doesn't add up.

If this is supposed to represent an attack by the lead forces being stopped and the Rifle Division then withdrawing in good order, the German losses seem to be too heavy (would represent an entire Battalion being more or less wiped out).

If this is supposed to represent a successful break in and overrun the German losses are ok, but the Russian losses are much too light "especially" in terms of guns.



I think what this battle represents is the Soviet air units catching the advancing columns off-guard, disrupting them with some good attack runs, while at the same time, the Rifle division's FOs called in some pre-targeted artillery barrages from the Gds Howitzer Rgt, which further delayed, disrupted, or broke off the attack of the Panzer division, giving the Rifle Division time to retreat in good order. Then, the commander of the Panzer Division (the player, in this case) lost his nerve and called off any further attacks and did not actively pursue the fleeing Russians.

Rather simple, explainable, and realistic, during the course of a war with thousands of engagements - almost none of which ever went according to plan.

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 1/26/2011 8:19:07 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 88
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:26:14 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

MechFO, thanks for being one of the first to do some analysis. The issue here where did the sov rifle div gain some advantage over the attack 11th Panzer div in order to cause more loses to it?


So lets do a simple list... people can fill in what I missed

In German favor (attacker)
- *exp (off the charts)
- *moral
- unit strength and unit formation type
- terrain: mobile units love to fight in the open
- defender not entrenched
- *leadership


In Sov favor
- defending: some intrinsic game mod? (don't think always is the case in real ware fare)


What did I miss?

* indicates probably a large advantage


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I think what this battle represents is the Soviet air units catching the advancing columns off-guard, disrupting them with some good attack runs, while at the same time, the Rifle division's FOs called in some pre-targeted artillery barrages from the Gds Howitzer Rgt, which further delayed, disrupted, or broke off the attack of the Panzer division, giving the Rifle Division time to retreat in good order. Then, the commander of the Panzer Division (the player, in this case) lost his nerve and called off any further attacks and did not actively pursue the fleeing Russians.

Rather simple, explainable, and realistic, during the course of a war with thousands of engagements - almost none of which ever went according to plan.



Regardless of force matchup, a range of results should be always be possible, just not necessarily probable. After all, history is filled with examples of, on paper, underdogs winning a fight, it just doesn't happen very often.

But what's not clear here is what actually happened in the first place, so there is no way to quantify what a reasonable distribution of results would look like. F.e. the factors you list influence the probability of events (below) 1, 2 and 3, but we can only infer which event took place from the casualty figures, and due to everything getting mashed up, there's a lot of fudge in them as well.

Taking it apart, a Hasty Attack means:
only a portion of the division (probably only the lead elements, say about a Regimental KG)try to pierce part of a defensive line, make the defenders positions untenable and force it to retreat.

Reasonable (IMO) outcomes in the above scenario:

1) forced Retreat with exploitation: the lead KG is successful in dislocating the defences, follow on forces exploit the breach and overrun the Rear areas
Expected results: fairly light German losses, medium Russian infantry losses, high gun losses, fairly heavy disruption of retreating units.

2) forced Retreat with no exploitation: the lead KG is successful in dislocating the defences, but proper exploitation is not possible due to the time needed to clear the break in area of resistance
Expected results: fairly light German losses, medium Russian infantry losses, low gun losses, fairly heavy disruption of retreating units.

3) successful defence: the lead KG is stopped cold by the defenders, everybody stays where they are
Expected results: fairly heavy German losses, light to medium Russian losses

What bugs me is that the losses on both sides indicate 3) happened (very heavy German losses considering the forces actually involved) while the "Retreat" message IMO indicates that 1) or 2) happened.

IMO 3) "could" happen now and then, if not very often, but casualty figures don't add up either way. Also, a non motorized Rifle Division doesn't just "retreat in good" order in the face of motorized troops in the above conditions. The disparity in mobility is too big for that.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 1/26/2011 8:33:34 PM >

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 89
RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something wa... - 1/26/2011 8:33:43 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
MechFO, you're still neglecting another likely outcome - that which I posited. An orderly unforced withdrawal after attack is called off, due to disruptive artillery and aerial bombardments, with little to no exploitation or pursuit by the Panzer Division.

Why is it so out of the realm of imagination for some of the posters to see that often commanders did hesitate when they felt like they were walking (charging) into what seemed to be a trap?

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Utter madness... if you didn't believe something was wrong before 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

0.783