Attack/SHC retreat loses screwed up? Close enough.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Attack/SHC retreat loses screwed up? Close enough.

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 >> Tech Support >> Attack/SHC retreat loses screwed up? Close enough.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Attack/SHC retreat loses screwed up? Close enough. - 12/25/2012 6:47:26 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

SHC attack and retreat of GHC forses.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/2/2013 11:20:24 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

Post #: 1

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/25/2012 6:48:05 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

GHC attack and SHC retreat.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 2

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/25/2012 7:10:58 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

Why the huge loses for GHC and low loses for SHC? 1 unit routed.

1. No BS about die rolls because this is standard results battle after battle 80% of the time. I have played far more then almost everyone combined on this forums 43-45. So I know the results and have posted them in many AAR's and other areas.

2. No SHC fan boy GG results P or GHC fanboy GG results P. Yes Yes we all know 15%ish of the time you get a different result because of odd die rolls. This is the standard I am talking about.

I have posted on this before in the past.

GHC can not attack from late 42 to 45 as it simply is a complete waste of manpower. This is really not even close to historical in any way shape or form.

GHC can attack with 3 to1/2to1/1to1 or 5 to1 and the results are 85% of the time the same. GHC loses more then if they simply sat doing nothing vs 5 to 1 odds losing 3+ times to equal the one win result.

GHC can have more arty/plane s ect ect ect.

Its basicly a lamo combat engine.

This has been posted more then once long before I questioned the combat engine.

The fighting is in clear hexes and still infantry weapons do more damage then arty. Arty caused far more loses over all then stupid submachine guns(in the open come on get real).

Before WitW goes gold fix the combat engine for the love of the pixel gods.

If WITW is going to be forsing GHC to do nothing other then sit then its going to be a rag and a major BORE.

For the 100000000000000 time fix the combat engine.

If GHC attacks 6 times and routes/retreats 18 SHC CorpsDivisions - GHC still loses more men?

The combat ratio on eastern front NEVER changed from 42-44. Why does 2by3 try to change history?

There were no major pockets in 43-44 and still the combat ratio was way over 4 to 1.

I just don't get why 2by3 ignores this time and time again?

The game is 66% the GHC defending 33% SHC defending and yet it simply shortens the life of GHC as Katza has stated more then once "I love it when GHC attacks because they are doing more damage to themselfs then when I attack and win"

SHC has to attack and win 18 times to get the same ammount of loses as when the GHC attacks and wins 6 battles.

Why attack at all when your killing yourself 3x faster then just sitting there doing nothing?

If WitW combat engine gives the same results, it will be a complete and utter joke.

That everyone will know about before release.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 3

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/25/2012 7:39:08 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

Could be an issue of the combat system. First I'd check if the tanks are not getting too many easy kills, then I'd check artillery (a hidden factor since it's not part of CV). But seeing how in the first battle the Axis had also an advantage in artillery, I'd go for the tanks first. But to assess this, I'd need to look at the source code and/or see detailed statistics about which elements caused the most casualties (vs what and at what range). Impossible without access to source code, so I guess nothing can be done here without 2by3 cooperation.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 4

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/25/2012 8:02:48 PM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Hmm, no ground support aicraft and zero tanks on the Axis side vs a little air support and a hell lot of tanks on the soviet side. Plus 41 average fatigue for Axis.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 5

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 1:32:33 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Could be an issue of the combat system. First I'd check if the tanks are not getting too many easy kills, then I'd check artillery (a hidden factor since it's not part of CV). But seeing how in the first battle the Axis had also an advantage in artillery, I'd go for the tanks first. But to assess this, I'd need to look at the source code and/or see detailed statistics about which elements caused the most casualties (vs what and at what range). Impossible without access to source code, so I guess nothing can be done here without 2by3 cooperation.

I think the issue is sub machine guns. As I have been told by someone on the other side of the wall. Once the SHC up-grade GHC loses increase even when they rout SHC stacks.

As I have posted more then once its completely pointless to attack as GHC. You can have higher morale/ more arty/ more men/more planes/ more ect ect and still its a complete waste of man power/guns and afvs.

GHC won the battle and lost 2x as many guns? WTH?

The SHC player can be a complete moron and stack his units 3 high 4 rows deep, GHC can route stack after stack and still SHC losses are joking low in most cases.

I beleive infantry weapons are simply way way over rated.

Arty killed more men then rifles or submachine guns.

This is a WitW killer.

Once Allies land on beaches if you can't push them off then GHC must sit and do nothing as with WitE.

66% of WitE is GHC being a punching bag, WitW it will be more like 90%.

This is old news, but it needs to be addressed at some point.

Air War is getting up graded and logistics.

The core of the game is the combat system and its in need of some help as it has been for a long long time.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 6

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 3:27:38 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

More data here from a game Pelton vs Kamil

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2851126&mpage=6&key=

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 7

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 12:00:57 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

We've seen a couple of issues with late war combat results. If there was a safe fix it would have been made already. By "safe" I mean making a fix that is not very likely to break several other things in the process. There is no discussion right now about making significant changes to the WitE combat model AFAIK, but please don't assume that means you will see the same problem in WitW.

< Message edited by elmo3 -- 12/26/2012 12:22:20 PM >

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 8

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 12:52:25 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

We've seen a couple of issues with late war combat results. If there was a safe fix it would have been made already. By "safe" I mean making a fix that is not very likely to break several other things in the process. There is no discussion right now about making significant changes to the WitE combat model AFAIK, but please don't assume that means you will see the same problem in WitW.

Here another great example.

2 SHC divisions retreat and a Rifle Corp routes and they lose less guns the GHC?

Again WTH, this is just plain Middle Earth and its been going on now from release without it being addressed at all.

Its a GAME KILLER. 66% of WitE is the GHC defending and this issue is huge.

GHC would have to lose 3 battles to equal this single "win" result.

If 2/3 of WiTE is basicly broken or more importantly BORING because GHC is being punished for attacking.

Come on fix this sillyness. Its not like this has not been posted a 100 times in the past already.

You can't expect anyone to beleive WitW will be any different when 2by3 has said they are using the same combat engine more then once on these forums.

No one wants to play a game where on side is being punished for attacking and "winning".

More WW2 and less Middle Earth, for the love of the pixel gods or GG whatever works.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 9

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 1:17:59 PM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Again WTH, this is just plain Middle Earth

You went into an attack with 3-1 manpower advantage, but ZERO tanks to face 390 Soviet AFVs - on CLEAR terrain.
I'd expect you would suffer some casualties before the infantry closed to do their damage.
I think you're generalizing without taking all factors into consideration.
I bet if you cranked the detail level and watched the battle progress you'd see those nearly 400 AFVs getting some kills at range, since there was no terrain to hinder them.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 10

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 1:27:05 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

Again WTH, this is just plain Middle Earth

You went into an attack with 3-1 manpower advantage, but ZERO tanks to face 390 Soviet AFVs - on CLEAR terrain.
I'd expect you would suffer some casualties before the infantry closed to do their damage.
I think you're generalizing without taking all factors into consideration.
I bet if you cranked the detail level and watched the battle progress you'd see those nearly 400 AFVs getting some kills at range, since there was no terrain to hinder them.

Your using smoke and mirrors tring to distract from the HUGE issue of the low SHC retreat/route losses.

Post #9 there are ZERO as in no afvs.

Yes sure tanks do some damage(none in last battle), but a Rifle Corp routed because of poor SHC tactics ( which are being rewarded) and lost less guns then GHC?

These are the norm not wierd results.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/26/2012 1:28:31 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 11

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 3:13:19 PM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

How "late issues" impact combat? Does it related with date jan 1943? With all the help I get this forum I'm very glad to be playing this game and will be playing WIW. But not feel comfortable with the answer that it won't be in WIW. Shouldn't it be fixed by now if there is a problem. I just started to learn to play this game, on the honeymoon in the long campaign

< Message edited by Baris -- 12/26/2012 3:21:40 PM >

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 12

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 3:35:26 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Pelton, take a deep breath.... You may be right there is some problem with the algorithm, but you are getting into hyperbole territory again and that is when you are less useful!

It would be great if you could run these attacks more than once, but I guess it is a server game so no? Just to get a sense of where these attacks lay on the spectrum, because you assert they are normal, but players have a strong tendency (not just you) to remember 'abnormal' results and thus make them feel 'normal'.

The other problem is, I am not sure these are bad results from a military operations expectation perspective. In the first one, a massively superior force, in every way, conducts an assault against hasty positions, exploits the initial breakthrough with its huge armor advantage, and creates some havoc with the withdrawing defenders. It still lost 2:1 in AFVs, which is probably appropriate for an attack. remember that artillery in the game includes short range mortars and AT guns, not surprising a large armored assault gets good kills on those.

The second is a very large infantry force attacking a much more mobile defender. Looking at just "man" losses, you see the attacker suffered 4% losses, while the defender suffered 6%. but the problem with that analysis is that the defender really isn't made of "man" type defenders in the main, it is a highly moblile force, tanks and cav. here we look at AFV losses and we see that the defender took 22% losses. That is actually a very good result, especially when you consider that they are being attacked by a completely infantry force. From a realism perspective, it is not really so off, you could expect to see losses as the slower attacking force closed on defensive positons, but there would be almost no overrun or pursuit losses, which are the big killers in this game design.

So, I get the issue you are bringing up, but I am not sold that it is as completely broken as to call it 'middle earth', which seems to be your current favorite 'it is broken' tag.

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 13

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 5:03:15 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

Darbymcd,

Your analysis is correct; there is nothing "middle earth" about attackers losing more than routed or retreated defenders. You wrote, "Looking at just "man" losses, you see the attacker suffered 4% losses, while the defender suffered 6%. " In fact, this is the core lesion of the combat results/CRT IMHO. Smaller forces always lose less men/material yet than larger forces, no matter the odds. For example, if 50,000 Axis troops attack 25,000 Soviet troops at 2:1, they may lose 2,000 and the Soviet 4,000; if the same 50,000 Axis troops attack much smaller unit (i.e. tank brigade with 1,000 men), the odds will be 50 to 1; the Axis may lose 50 men and yet the tank brigade will lose only 100 men and retreat. It is suicidal to defend with huge stacks because the losses go up without advantage --> the hex is lost, but at much lower cost. Unless you really need to defend somewhere, it is always better to screen and retreat.

It is much more more advantageous to breakup a security division into 3 regiments to screen the line against the Soviet hordes, then to directly face them on the defense with large stacks.

Marquo

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 14

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 5:33:19 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

You are right of course. If it is impossible to hold a position, it is better to just screen. This is actually a point in favor of the system, the more overmatched a side, the more likely to cut and run.

For the record, I am not saying there is no room for improvement in the system as we have it. There are things I would change for sure. But it is very difficult to say what those specific things are because we don't know the specific reasons things happen. For instance, I believe that experience, morale, and leadership influence the number of losses a unit takes when retreating, which makes sense. So I think some german players see early war retreat losses for the soviets and think that is always the way it should be. but perhaps that is not so reasonable for later war battles with two more evenly matched forces, as far as 'soft' values go. but we don't really know.

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 15

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/26/2012 7:12:10 PM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Your using smoke and mirrors tring to distract from the HUGE issue of the low SHC retreat/route losses.

Post #9 there are ZERO as in no afvs.

No smoke and mirrors, just looking at some of the details in what you posted and responding with possible reasons for the results you're seeing.

In your example in post #9 you don't show the details screen, but you have less than a 2-1 advantage in manpower. Your mighty Pzr Div did bring 34 tanks to the fight, but that isn't very comparable to the 10x number that the Russians had in the earlier example. Arty is equal in tube count, but that doesn't speak at all to what types are in the fight.

Why not turn up the detail level during combat and see where/what is causing these casualties?

If you're interested you could sandbox a few of these using the editor and playing both sides so you know what you're dealing with.

It's a lot more useful than saying every result you don't like (understand?) is broken.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 16

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/27/2012 9:55:39 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baris

How "late issues" impact combat? Does it related with date jan 1943? With all the help I get this forum I'm very glad to be playing this game and will be playing WIW. But not feel comfortable with the answer that it won't be in WIW. Shouldn't it be fixed by now if there is a problem. I just started to learn to play this game, on the honeymoon in the long campaign

I beleive as has been pointed out to me by some old testers is submachine guns and 14mm atr do way more damage then they should.

In clear open hexes there is not enough long range rounds of fighting. Only a few rounds then all the damage is done at point blank range, which is really not right.

There should be rounds and rounds of ranged fighting, before close combat.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 17

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/27/2012 11:59:56 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

Your using smoke and mirrors tring to distract from the HUGE issue of the low SHC retreat/route losses.

Post #9 there are ZERO as in no afvs.

No smoke and mirrors, just looking at some of the details in what you posted and responding with possible reasons for the results you're seeing.

In your example in post #9 you don't show the details screen, but you have less than a 2-1 advantage in manpower. Your mighty Pzr Div did bring 34 tanks to the fight, but that isn't very comparable to the 10x number that the Russians had in the earlier example. Arty is equal in tube count, but that doesn't speak at all to what types are in the fight.

Why not turn up the detail level during combat and see where/what is causing these casualties?

If you're interested you could sandbox a few of these using the editor and playing both sides so you know what you're dealing with.

It's a lot more useful than saying every result you don't like (understand?) is broken.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2851126&mpage=6&key=

Post #169

Its not if you like or dislike results- they are and have always been the standard 43-45 results.

Pelton vs Hoooper / Pelton vs TDV ect ect ect I have the most 43-45 exp and have been posting results-Kamil/Katza?MT to name a few in my AAR's and other threads all have agreeded the results seem "wierd.messed up, not historical ect ect ect"

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

We've seen a couple of issues with late war combat results. If there was a safe fix it would have been made already. By "safe" I mean making a fix that is not very likely to break several other things in the process. There is no discussion right now about making significant changes to the WitE combat model AFAIK, but please don't assume that means you will see the same problem in WitW.

Semi there is NO debate about SHC retreat loses being to low and GHC winning results causing to many loses to GHC.

The real question is WTH are they going to fix it IF they even can.

66% of WitE is GHC defending and the results from the battles is just plain wrong.

The main reason why the issue has been ignored by 2by3 is because 99% of WitE games end by March 1942.

So if WitE results from 43-45 are wrong and then why would anyone beleive that WitW's combat engine is anything other then wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

Pelton, take a deep breath.... You may be right there is some problem with the algorithm, but you are getting into hyperbole territory again and that is when you are less useful!

You like so many others keep tring to change the subject.

Stop freaking out bro, take a deep breath and simply admit what everyone has known for a very long time.

43-45 combat results are simply wrong.

Its ok.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 18

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/27/2012 12:12:16 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

The reason this is HUGE is because SHC players can blob units stacked 3 high 5 deep and know that even when they lose and there units route GHC forses will lose more men then them.

In my game vs MT he can simply use moron tactics and blob his units in one area, because poor SHC tactics are rewarded by the combat engines retreat loses for SHC and punishes GHC when they attack and win.

It has a huge impact on the game from 43-45. Any moron can just stack units 3 high 3 deep+.

P.S MT is not a moron, just stating the clear fact that poor tactic's is rewarded the same a good tactics 43-45 for SHC.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/27/2012 12:15:04 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 19

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/27/2012 1:38:17 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

...Semi there is NO debate about SHC retreat loses being to low and GHC winning results causing to many loses to GHC.

The real question is WTH are they going to fix it IF they even can.

66% of WitE is GHC defending and the results from the battles is just plain wrong.

The main reason why the issue has been ignored by 2by3 is because 99% of WitE games end by March 1942.

So if WitE results from 43-45 are wrong and then why would anyone beleive that WitW's combat engine is anything other then wrong?

...

There has been plenty of discussion on this issue in the public and tester forums in the past. It's been around for a long time and certainly has not been ignored. As I said above, if there was an easy and safe fix it would have been done already. Making significant changes to the combat engine in WitE would involve months of retesting the campaigns and late game scenarios and even then we might not catch all the problems it could cause. Results could easily turn out worse rather than better which would then involve months of rebalancing and more testing. Joel has said many times that the devs and most testers are now focused on WitW. So while bugs will still be fixed in WitE there will not be major changes to the game at this point.

Please do not draw any conclusions regarding combat in WitW. Many changes have already been made to combat in that game from the baseline WitE routines. More changes will certainly be made as testing moves forward. The reason it is much safer to make changes to WitW is simply due to it being in test, not an already published game like WitE.

< Message edited by elmo3 -- 12/27/2012 1:40:42 PM >

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 20

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/27/2012 1:43:06 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

Pelton,

Logically it should cost the attacker a high butcher's bill to attack large stacks, +/- fortified, with defensive reserve activation, no? What do you think the overall attack/defender loss ratio should be? I get the feel that results are calculated as a percentage of the total forces in play, not the absolute numbers. This leads to real quirky things like 3 panzer divisions attacking a lonely tank brigade an inflicting 200 men loss - when in fact it should shatter or otherwise be wiped off the map.

Marquo

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 21

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/27/2012 4:19:50 PM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Its not if you like or dislike results- they are and have always been the standard 43-45 results.

Pelton vs Hoooper / Pelton vs TDV ect ect ect I have the most 43-45 exp and have been posting results-Kamil/Katza?MT to name a few in my AAR's and other threads all have agreeded the results seem "wierd.messed up, not historical ect ect ect"

Take a crack at responding to what I actually wrote:

Why not turn up the detail level during combat and see where/what is causing these casualties?

If you're interested you could sandbox a few of these using the editor and playing both sides so you know what you're dealing with.

It's a lot more useful than saying every result you don't like (understand?) is broken.

If you'd take a second to read it you'd note I have not debated about whether or not it is broken. Instead I've encouraged you to dig a little deeper into what is making the difference. Bitching and guessing won't accomplish that.

The end results screen provides some info, but in other ways it is like displaying the average price of a product in Walmart. That average won't tell you what the cost is of the clock radio, or the LCD TV that is driving the cost average.

You love crunching the numbers, so watch some battles at high detail and figure out what is slaughtering your squads in these situations.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 22

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/28/2012 7:54:31 AM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

There's some major, perhaps even critica,l info missing from these battle results that Pelton is presenting: the fatigue and supply level of the units involved; obviously some won't be available to one side, but with none of that info we are left with making assumptions about what's causing the results, with incomplete data on the factors.

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 23

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/28/2012 6:37:11 PM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Why not turn up the detail level during combat and see where/what is causing these casualties?

If you're interested you could sandbox a few of these using the editor and playing both sides so you know what you're dealing with.

Shouldn't be the combat system more transparent that at least it tells in the manual firing phase and sequence of combat? That's why I love HPS games with good manual telling the most essential part leaving out unnecessary stuff.
-----------------
IMHO players shouldn't be guessing when replying to absurd situation in combat if not proficient with the code. While I enjoy this game very much I still feel not comfortable after hearing battle engine will be better in our next game.

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 24

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/28/2012 6:48:58 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

Players may be unhappy knowing the system works as a giant Warhammer Fantasy Battle, with tons of models (elements) standing across a wide (empty) battlefield and taking shots in turns and then reducing ranges until close combat starts. It's a bucket of dice combat system and there are generally no maneuvers on the battlefield (just like in WFB), plus the leaders get to make a few Leadership rolls. Of course that's a generalization, but that is how the system basically works. I call those bottom-up systems (thousands of individual shots/attacks determine outcome of the battle), which should average nicely (but sometimes don't). Unfortunately, I'm a fan of top-down systems which in their most crude form are represented by a CRT on which a die is rolled, but which on the computer (and in some monster boardgames - TitE) can be also made very feature-rich, but guarantee historical results (because those results are used to construct the system first).

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 25

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 12:27:42 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Pelton,

Logically it should cost the attacker a high butcher's bill to attack large stacks, +/- fortified, with defensive reserve activation, no? What do you think the overall attack/defender loss ratio should be? I get the feel that results are calculated as a percentage of the total forces in play, not the absolute numbers. This leads to real quirky things like 3 panzer divisions attacking a lonely tank brigade an inflicting 200 men loss - when in fact it should shatter or otherwise be wiped off the map.

Marquo

Marquo your changing subject again P stay on topic

I am 100% talking about SHC stacks in CLEAR HEXES WITHOUT FORTS

That route in many cases.

I am NOT talking about (+/- fortified, with defensive reserve activation,) or even high CV stacks.

P stay on topic.

These are clear cases of what should be huge wins for the attackers vs clear/small cv/no reserves/ no forts and route because there are 2 to 3 rows of 3 high stacks behind them.

There is no reason why the attacker should be taking more loses because they route the enemy.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 26

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 12:31:57 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

Its not if you like or dislike results- they are and have always been the standard 43-45 results.

Pelton vs Hoooper / Pelton vs TDV ect ect ect I have the most 43-45 exp and have been posting results-Kamil/Katza?MT to name a few in my AAR's and other threads all have agreeded the results seem "wierd.messed up, not historical ect ect ect"

Take a crack at responding to what I actually wrote:

Why not turn up the detail level during combat and see where/what is causing these casualties?

If you're interested you could sandbox a few of these using the editor and playing both sides so you know what you're dealing with.

It's a lot more useful than saying every result you don't like (understand?) is broken.

If you'd take a second to read it you'd note I have not debated about whether or not it is broken. Instead I've encouraged you to dig a little deeper into what is making the difference. Bitching and guessing won't accomplish that.

The end results screen provides some info, but in other ways it is like displaying the average price of a product in Walmart. That average won't tell you what the cost is of the clock radio, or the LCD TV that is driving the cost average.

You love crunching the numbers, so watch some battles at high detail and figure out what is slaughtering your squads in these situations.

Submachine guns, but thats old news as it was pointed out to me over a yr ago by a bunch of other poeple on another thread.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 27

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 12:34:32 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

There's some major, perhaps even critica,l info missing from these battle results that Pelton is presenting: the fatigue and supply level of the units involved; obviously some won't be available to one side, but with none of that info we are left with making assumptions about what's causing the results, with incomplete data on the factors.

Supply is good ect ect.

This is from more then one game and over 16+ months. This is not a new issue.

The units were at the point of attack so hardly and movemnet and at a railhead.

Fat and supplies have nothing to do with the issue.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 28

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 12:39:46 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Players may be unhappy knowing the system works as a giant Warhammer Fantasy Battle, with tons of models (elements) standing across a wide (empty) battlefield and taking shots in turns and then reducing ranges until close combat starts. It's a bucket of dice combat system and there are generally no maneuvers on the battlefield (just like in WFB), plus the leaders get to make a few Leadership rolls. Of course that's a generalization, but that is how the system basically works. I call those bottom-up systems (thousands of individual shots/attacks determine outcome of the battle), which should average nicely (but sometimes don't). Unfortunately, I'm a fan of top-down systems which in their most crude form are represented by a CRT on which a die is rolled, but which on the computer (and in some monster boardgames - TitE) can be also made very feature-rich, but guarantee historical results (because those results are used to construct the system first).

The basic problem is that there are not enough ranged combat and infantry weapons do far more damage then they should. Thats why submachine guns are over powered once squads upgrade.

You can fight the same units before upgrades and retreat loses are 1 to 3 ish. Once upgrades are done attacking you lose more even when u rout units.

Again I am talking clear hexes no forts no reserve reactions and defender gets crushed with no plase to retreat to.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/30/2012 12:41:13 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 29

RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 12:46:14 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

...Semi there is NO debate about SHC retreat loses being to low and GHC winning results causing to many loses to GHC.

The real question is WTH are they going to fix it IF they even can.

66% of WitE is GHC defending and the results from the battles is just plain wrong.

The main reason why the issue has been ignored by 2by3 is because 99% of WitE games end by March 1942.

So if WitE results from 43-45 are wrong and then why would anyone beleive that WitW's combat engine is anything other then wrong?

...

There has been plenty of discussion on this issue in the public and tester forums in the past. It's been around for a long time and certainly has not been ignored. As I said above, if there was an easy and safe fix it would have been done already. Making significant changes to the combat engine in WitE would involve months of retesting the campaigns and late game scenarios and even then we might not catch all the problems it could cause. Results could easily turn out worse rather than better which would then involve months of rebalancing and more testing. Joel has said many times that the devs and most testers are now focused on WitW. So while bugs will still be fixed in WitE there will not be major changes to the game at this point.

Please do not draw any conclusions regarding combat in WitW. Many changes have already been made to combat in that game from the baseline WitE routines. More changes will certainly be made as testing moves forward. The reason it is much safer to make changes to WitW is simply due to it being in test, not an already published game like WitE.

Ok I will agree that WitW can and hopefully wiill be better then wite after October 1942.

From 10/1942 to 1945 GHC can not do a thing other then sit and get punched in the face which is not fun and not historical.

If the GHC attacks an wins (clear hexes, not forts ect ect Marquo) it will suffer the same loses as defending and retreating 3 to 6 times.

So you would be a moron to attack from late 42 to 45 because you will be shortening the life of the German army.

It is what it is and we are stuck with it.

No tring to change the subject with change the results.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> Attack/SHC retreat loses screwed up? Close enough.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>