RE: WitE 2

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: WitE 2

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: WitE 2

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 8:37:50 AM

morvael

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
anything smaller than a division exerts no added MP cost for zoc to zoc movement, or for units crossing a river in to said ant zoc's.

And then we arrive at the problem of nominal unit sizes and real unit sizes. To me real unit sizes (men or load-based for physical-related aspects and CV-based for combat-related aspects) should be used everytime in place of the nominal (and I added this in many places to WitE1, but not in all). As you know there are CV2 corps (early Soviet mechanized with no experience), CV1 divisions (Soviet ants), CV5 brigades (900th Lehr, SS motorized) and CV6 regiments (203rd Panzer Regiment). I assume a German regiment with 140 tanks has greater impact on enemy movement than a Soviet regiment with 20 light SP guns... This is not meant to sound anti-Soviet, but simply reflects their naming scheme was at least one level off from the German and Western one (their tank corps was like a division etc).

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 691

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 8:47:46 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

A foot mobile brigades/regiments sphere of influence is maybe 7-8 km across at maximum, at least if it wants to maintain ANY defensive capability (which unit commanders normally want to do).

It has neither the mobility nor the means to reach out any further. Neither does it have the ability to push much more than a company or 2 forward into the surrounding 600km2 (or 300km2 if taking into account only most likely axis of advance), and if they are pushed forward vs. an enemy with superior mobility they are at risk if being lost or bypassed. Those companies spheres are maybe 1km2, max.

In combat order that brigade/regiment will advance maybe 2-3 km/hour (being generous), ample time for any reaction, especially by a mechanized force, and very vulnerable to counter attack or artillery.

Them being able to influence movement so far away does not make sense.

The unit setup that michael shows above does not make sense in any kind of real world situation, yet makes perfect sense in WITE, which should indicate that something fundamental is wrong with the ZOC mechanic.

ZOC mobility costs can f.e. be because of:

- use of alternative roads
- necessity of screening + having reserves or extra tasking of reserve function to transiting units
- increased readiness or combat order instead of march order
etc.

However all of the above will be made due to threat assessment, and a foot mobile company stranded somewhere is not going to send anybody into big bursts of activity.

I broadly agree with your RL points. However, how in the game do you model a defense that is purely to delay and inhibit? In game, the weakest line that could be set up (under the no brigade ZOC system) would be continuous brigade lines, that is about 50% of the front covered by proper defensive positions (from your numbers). What if I want platoons or smaller, scattered around not mutually supporting, whose job it is to snipe one or two men, or hit a vehicle with the sole aim of causing 30 mins delay, or an hour, over and over again? In your analysis there is no difference between advancing into terrain where there is not a single enemy combatant for tens of miles, and one with low concentrations of trip wire, or stay behind defenses. Yes, no more than say 1/6 of the frontage is covered to a depth of maybe a few miles per brigade. A RL brigade defense could be in box/hedgehog type things, widely spaced (which the zoc rules you propose would force), or my tripwire/delay set up. In Russia frontages got very extreme... Forcing the Attacking division to stop and deploy a company for a formal attack (however hasty) would be a major success for each trip wire position.

One alternative solution would be that brigades with empty hexes next to them defend more weakly if attacked (showing they re dispersed to generate the ZOC). Another would be a toggle, where you can have a ZOC (but with that penalty) or no ZOC and no penalty - although that is very complex and micromanagement.

Again we need to see WITE2 in its advanced form before we decide how much of an issue ZOCs are. I find 30 mile deep lines everywhere (3 continuous lines) rather than stronger front lines (stacked 2 or 3 deep) far more of an issue in terms of relationship to RL in WITE...and that is the IGOUGO system driving that

< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 6/20/2016 8:50:29 AM >

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 692

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 9:23:52 AM

morvael

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

I think proper ZOC movement costs could be based on advance rates as described here: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/v2n4.pdf (page 13).

It's worth noting the base speed (without impact of posture, terrain, roads, rivers, minefields, weather, surprise, fatigue etc) depends on the equivalent of a CV ratio... We can of course assume that bigger units have greater CV than smaller units, but this is not always the case (see my previous post). But it's a starting point. Granting units of all sizes and any quality the same movement-reducing capabilities is just plain wrong. It all depends on actual relationships between the advancing and the opposing forces.

And if you'll look into those tables there is no separate row for "absolutely no resistance" (weakest possible is "negligible resitance"), as (obviously) any movement into enemy territory using tactical movement (to borrow a term from V for Victory) is bound to be slowed down because of friction.

Now let's look an impact of a brigade defending 30 miles of terrain (hex + 2 in ZOC) vs advancing panzer division. With less than 1 men per meter of frontline, the brigade would never be able to achieve "prepared/fortified defense" and only "hasty defense/delay" would be possible (this may not be present in the article, but it's in the literature ("Numbers, Predictions and War"). As we know from WitE a brigade would have 1 CV or less, compared to 15 CV or more of a panzer division, so that would result in a ratio greater than 6.0. It turns out the brigade has no impact on the speed of advance... maximum advance of 60km/day is still possible, but of course less will be achieved due to terrain and roads. And for those protesting that a brigade surely has bigger impact than a void in its place on the speed of advance, then yes, it will have an indirect impact for the following days, since a combat will occur, losses will be taken, and fatigue gained. But at the core there is not much a weak brigade on too long front can do against a strong armored force coming its way.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 693

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 10:21:43 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

...

Now let's look an impact of a brigade defending 30 miles of terrain (hex + 2 in ZOC) vs advancing panzer division. With less than 1 men per meter of frontline, the brigade would never be able to achieve "prepared/fortified defense" and only "hasty defense/delay" would be possible (this may not be present in the article, but it's in the literature ("Numbers, Predictions and War"). As we know from WitE a brigade would have 1 CV or less, compared to 15 CV or more of a panzer division, so that would result in a ratio greater than 6.0. It turns out the brigade has no impact on the speed of advance... maximum advance of 60km/day is still possible, but of course less will be achieved due to terrain and roads. And for those protesting that a brigade surely has bigger impact than a void in its place on the speed of advance, then yes, it will have an indirect impact for the following days, since a combat will occur, losses will be taken, and fatigue gained. But at the core there is not much a weak brigade on too long front can do against a strong armored force coming its way.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a brigade strung out over a long front can do anything meaningful to hold a Pzr division.

The debate (to me at least) is if the zoc cost is a realistic if imperfect rendering of the defenders ability to react (something lacking in igougo engines).

Lets assume you are part of an airborne corps and you've been told to delay/detect any German advance. No doubt your orders are expressed with usual Stalinist subtlety and concern for your well being. In your favour, if it really is an airborne brigade, you have a unit trained in small level actions and for sabotage. So I'd spread out a picket line, make sure the obvious roads were well boobytrapped etc. Once you'd detected where the enemy was moving through, I'd let the tanks go and look for ambushes on the HQ elements and other support units. So the zoc cost is a sort of imperfect way to reflect that the defending side is not just going to sit static - you could see the counter as a sort of indication of centre of gravity for the unit but with some tactical capacity to shift as the situation develops. You're not going to stop the enemy, but if you do it right you could well annoy and frustrate them?

But there is a practical aspect around the game. If we strip out the friction/response aspect - which is what the zoc is reflecting - is this better or worse for the game? Is there another mechanism that exists to capture this? And then should the zoc be situational or arbitrary. I can see arguments for both, but it is important that the AI can understand and use any rules of this ilk.

At the moment it has a simple binary rule - a unit interdicts movement past it.

_____________________________

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 694

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 12:14:56 PM

MechFO

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

As to the zoc issue, the other way to frame it is that over a certain size of defenders should project a hard zoc (ie you can't move through). It would model one of the Soviet foul ups during Mars when they lost a cavalry corps trying to slip it into the gap between German positions. Of course, it too would change some fundamental interactions embedded into the game balance.

At the map scale of the game, a hard ZOC makes no sense. In your example, I doubt the German units just sat there and magically made it impossible for the Cav Corps to move. Instead it was unable to hold it's ground, but caused losses and used up time. I think that's adequately covered by the current mechanics.

The main issue with any ZOC mechanism is that it allows one to control space without exacting a price. Hence in the game at one end of the spectrum you see ant carpets, at the other, extreme stronpoints with gaps in between.

There is an inverse ratio between coverage and combat power. You maximise your coverage but sacrifice combat power, or vice versa. It's a juggling act to get right.

The above assuming you don't go overboard with forcexspace ratio.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 695

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 12:15:19 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think proper ZOC movement costs could be based on advance rates as described here: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/v2n4.pdf (page 13).

Morveal,

Im aware of ur keen interrest in the Dupuy Methodology. So we are proberbly not gona be in agreement on this, but i can only give warning on taking the dupuy methodes and unquestionble using them.

An example is during WiTW testing some testers wanted/suggested the combat results based on testing the methodes vs the game engine. Im not a particular fan of the combat engine, but if one was to take the results from the dupuy methode and extrapolated them in normnady the Allied should have taken 6 to 1 inf in casulties and 8 to 1 in armored casulties. This included max Allied airfactors and more.
Clearly thats pretty far from historic levels. If implimented the Allies would have been attrited at a degree that question if they would ever have been able to break out.

When one looks at the methode to me some issues stands out as striking and problematic. For example is repair rates assumed to be a standart factor of 50% for both sides. That isnt really in line with the historic realities.

When u look at artillery factors nor is there any /large enough factors taking into account that things arent equal. At for example Goodwood the Allies and this isnt necesarrily uncommon differences used 78000 artilery shells. In the defence the germans used 4000.
There is no doubt that the germans had the favor of being entrenched, camoflaged and so on that lowers the effectiveness of artillery. Vs Allies that have to attack in fairly open terrain. I think its fair to assume that "granade for grenade" the german side would do more damage per grenade, but the disparity in number of shells send down range is just so large that the Allied grenade only has to be about 5% as effetive as a german one. For artillery to cause similar casulty numbers.

This to me is just some of the area's that made the results of the test dupuy battles vs real life results so different. There IMO are to many assumptions and standarditaions that isnt necesarrily correct, which leaves me weary of the dupuy methodology.

As it is now(WiTE1) the movement rates are way overstated if u take any thing but the first few weeks. Those MP are non the less attainble through out the game. Having the ability even with those 2 3 Deep lines with enough skill in a time line far beyound the initial battles to have duel pincer pockets of in exces 500 Kms. Having no such historic examples non the less being quite possible. Im aware of many changes in WiTE2 vs WiTE1. Non the less i think the overall movement and results is more importand than if subject A or B as with zoc costs are.

One thing might be a "common sense" but im sure sure that Dupuy Methodology cant recreate a single KV2 stopping parts of a pz div for 3 days/half a turn. That didnt happen often nor should it(if ever), but some times friction is just created that defies common sense. Nor are all teh 100.000s stranglers shown in game/on map, not am i saying they should be be. They might not have much combat value non the less that doesnt stop a pz div for bumping in to such elements creating friction/delays here and there.

Thats the problem i have with using such methodology. When comparing to real life u many times end up at ends. A perfect example is when for example in WiTE1 in 95% of the AAR games when do the german inf divs reach upper Dnieper and start of the Smolensk operations and comparing to when this happens in game 95% of the time. I'd rather look at movement rates based on real life accomplisments with room for a certain leverage than methodology that doesnt seem to be able to take into account the complex frictions of large operational warfare.

Its not that im necesarrily against changing ZoC movements, i just find it much more interresting in what becomes the in game results of changes and the many other changes in WiTE2 and how do they interact.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 6/20/2016 12:26:13 PM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 696

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 12:27:52 PM

EwaldvonKleist

Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline

I have followed the discussion a bit and i agree with Micheal T. The question is not whether a small brigade has a ZOC and is able to delay an advance in a certain way. But it will never ever reach the influence three stacked rifle corps or big armoured formations can have. So i fully agree that there must be a difference. I vote for a calculation based on offensive CV, maybe in combination with MPs? here. On this way, all the factors like mobility, experience&morale and supply are included because they influence CV.

@Walloc: Is there a source for the calculation? I would be very interested how they did the calculations.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 697

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 12:48:33 PM

morvael

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Kind regards,
Rasmus

I'm not saying QJM is an ideal solution, especially that an improved version was never shared publicly in full detail. But I think it's a good starting point for making estimates. I think that this metodology sort of works, because it was quite good at predicting losses in the Gulf War and in Bosnia. I would take that level of accuracy as a starting point any time. IMHO, if you have seen such mismatched predictions vs real losses, as you mention for D-Day, then I'd say that you ommited some important factors (or the system doesn't actually handle that - they freely admit for example that they have not measured the effect of interdiction enough, to make it part of the formulas, as well as the fact that there is QJM/TNDM for air war). You know I think Dupuy's methodology is good, but I also have one more favourite that I would love to marry with QJM/TNDM, as it seems it's good at explaining situations where inventory-based systems miss the effect of force employment.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 698

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 12:49:55 PM

MechFO

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

A foot mobile brigades/regiments sphere of influence is maybe 7-8 km across at maximum, at least if it wants to maintain ANY defensive capability (which unit commanders normally want to do).

It has neither the mobility nor the means to reach out any further. Neither does it have the ability to push much more than a company or 2 forward into the surrounding 600km2 (or 300km2 if taking into account only most likely axis of advance), and if they are pushed forward vs. an enemy with superior mobility they are at risk if being lost or bypassed. Those companies spheres are maybe 1km2, max.

In combat order that brigade/regiment will advance maybe 2-3 km/hour (being generous), ample time for any reaction, especially by a mechanized force, and very vulnerable to counter attack or artillery.

Them being able to influence movement so far away does not make sense.

The unit setup that michael shows above does not make sense in any kind of real world situation, yet makes perfect sense in WITE, which should indicate that something fundamental is wrong with the ZOC mechanic.

ZOC mobility costs can f.e. be because of:

- use of alternative roads
- necessity of screening + having reserves or extra tasking of reserve function to transiting units
- increased readiness or combat order instead of march order
etc.

However all of the above will be made due to threat assessment, and a foot mobile company stranded somewhere is not going to send anybody into big bursts of activity.

I broadly agree with your RL points. However, how in the game do you model a defense that is purely to delay and inhibit? In game, the weakest line that could be set up (under the no brigade ZOC system) would be continuous brigade lines, that is about 50% of the front covered by proper defensive positions (from your numbers). What if I want platoons or smaller, scattered around not mutually supporting, whose job it is to snipe one or two men, or hit a vehicle with the sole aim of causing 30 mins delay, or an hour, over and over again? In your analysis there is no difference between advancing into terrain where there is not a single enemy combatant for tens of miles, and one with low concentrations of trip wire, or stay behind defenses.

Delay mechanism would be best represented by retreat losses being scaled by relative mobility, modified by Xp. A successful Delay, which means low losses for a maximum of enemy losses and time spent is very hard to pull off. And there are always losses in a delay because if you are shooting at him he's shooting at you.

Regarding the bolded bit, you don't, because it's a very bad idea. Remember we are talking foot mobile units here, and also it is WWII, so limited radio.

That stuff is hard to pull off unless you have a significant mobility/recon and C3 advantage.

If you want to bring down effective fire you are well into his engagement envelope as well. So you have to break contact. Great, you've surveyed a retreat routes and actually found one that provides cover vs the EXPECTED axis of advance. Except, you don't know if it's still that way when you actually try to retreat. If (big IF) you successfully break contact, who says the unit you engaged is actually the most forward element? So you need very good intel on what's happening in your battlespace. Then, it's inevitable that many of your units are liable to be outflanked, because you want max coverage, so you spread them out. This means you have to have the units fall back in time, which again predicates you and they know where everyone is, at all times. I can't stress enough how hard this is to do properly, even today, unless you hold the above mentioned

Also, how many platoons are you willing to throw away like that? A battalion has only 9-12 platoons, and each platoon can only cover a very very small area.

That stuff did happen, but this was unplanned, small roving bands trying to break out of encirclement, stragglers etc. But while they caused losses, they didn't stop or significantly delay anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Yes, no more than say 1/6 of the frontage is covered to a depth of maybe a few miles per brigade. A RL brigade defense could be in box/hedgehog type things, widely spaced (which the zoc rules you propose would force), or my tripwire/delay set up. In Russia frontages got very extreme... Forcing the Attacking division to stop and deploy a company for a formal attack (however hasty) would be a major success for each trip wire position.

As mentioned, I don't have a problem with allowing brigades to breakdown. This would solve your issue.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 699

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 1:02:38 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

I have followed the discussion a bit and i agree with Micheal T. The question is not whether a small brigade has a ZOC and is able to delay an advance in a certain way. But it will never ever reach the influence three stacked rifle corps or big armoured formations can have. So i fully agree that there must be a difference. I vote for a calculation based on offensive CV, maybe in combination with MPs? here. On this way, all the factors like mobility, experience&morale and supply are included because they influence CV.

Just to point out the pitfalls in such. The rules also have to work down the line. Mid game if based purely on CV could have a german bde with for example a tiger btn attached having the same CV as 2 3 rumenian divs. That bde would have little artillery, the mobility of tigers isnt necesarrily the best. So u get an example of very few combat troops 2 3 btns of inf with little art and tanks strung out over 48 km(1 hex each to side) of front with all things given limited. Having the same "interdiction" as units much larger with many more men to cover the actual hexes and much more art. Art as such have little to no CV value at leased in WiTE1. Considering that by nature of the rules the russian is alrdy limited in mobility and the rules have to work in 43 and 44 too. How is this different than the issue of "ants"

quote:

@Walloc: Is there a source for the calculation? I would be very interested how they did the calculations.

Ill PM u. As it wasnt in public forums. Nor do i want to have peoples work given out with out their consent and knowledge. So ill ask around.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 6/20/2016 3:58:57 PM >

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)

Post #: 700

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 1:06:40 PM

MechFO

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

...

Now let's look an impact of a brigade defending 30 miles of terrain (hex + 2 in ZOC) vs advancing panzer division. With less than 1 men per meter of frontline, the brigade would never be able to achieve "prepared/fortified defense" and only "hasty defense/delay" would be possible (this may not be present in the article, but it's in the literature ("Numbers, Predictions and War"). As we know from WitE a brigade would have 1 CV or less, compared to 15 CV or more of a panzer division, so that would result in a ratio greater than 6.0. It turns out the brigade has no impact on the speed of advance... maximum advance of 60km/day is still possible, but of course less will be achieved due to terrain and roads. And for those protesting that a brigade surely has bigger impact than a void in its place on the speed of advance, then yes, it will have an indirect impact for the following days, since a combat will occur, losses will be taken, and fatigue gained. But at the core there is not much a weak brigade on too long front can do against a strong armored force coming its way.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a brigade strung out over a long front can do anything meaningful to hold a Pzr division.

The debate (to me at least) is if the zoc cost is a realistic if imperfect rendering of the defenders ability to react (something lacking in igougo engines).

Lets assume you are part of an airborne corps and you've been told to delay/detect any German advance. No doubt your orders are expressed with usual Stalinist subtlety and concern for your well being. In your favour, if it really is an airborne brigade, you have a unit trained in small level actions and for sabotage. So I'd spread out a picket line, make sure the obvious roads were well boobytrapped etc. Once you'd detected where the enemy was moving through, I'd let the tanks go and look for ambushes on the HQ elements and other support units.

What you are describing is the operation of partisans or a unit being dissolved to create partisans.

Conventional large units do not and can not operate this way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100
So the zoc cost is a sort of imperfect way to reflect that the defending side is not just going to sit static - you could see the counter as a sort of indication of centre of gravity for the unit but with some tactical capacity to shift as the situation develops. You're not going to stop the enemy, but if you do it right you could well annoy and frustrate them.

I agree this is the best case for some kind of ZOC existing, however this IMO must be tied to the units potential to actually influence the area you want to give them ZOC for. Foot mobile, smallish units (compared to geographical scale) will find this impossible to do. They can't shoot far enough, they can't move far enough and once they get there they are almost irrevocably committed, so must be subject to attack/losses.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 701

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 1:42:09 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

The usual suspects do this every time. They shy away from the basic simple question. Which is should a regiment/brigade be as sticky as a whole stack of divisions. They never answer it with a yes or no. They are like politicians, they muddy the water, dance around the issue, over complicate it, lose focus and never answer the question. Progress is never made.

I see this pattern over and over by the same people.

_____________________________

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 702

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 1:45:31 PM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

best to stay civil please, it's only a game, nothing more nothing less, passions and feelings aside that is everyone.

thanks

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 703

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 2:07:12 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I think you are thinking in western terms. In 1941 or later Russian units did not have withdrawal or even survival as a priority for high command. End result of my scenario is not an effective combat unit, it is a delay and prisoners or partisans.

To reiterate my position, I would love a better reflection of thr different capabilities of units in defending points vs covering ground but we need to be careful what we wish for , as shown by the examples being brought out now. Also we need to think on the large scale and not get too twitched about the single hexes.

A perfect example is that poor fuel state units have less MP. So they move less far. But do they move slower all week or do they move quickly for less time.. How does this sit with better ZOCs? A partially out of supply Panzer unit needs to be delayed for less time than a full fuel one (assuming it is still burning fuel while sorting out the delay. So how does this impact on the CV based ZoC. The unit might have the same CV in each case...

< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 6/20/2016 2:10:09 PM >

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 704

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 2:11:36 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The usual suspects do this every time. They shy away from the basic simple question. Which is should a regiment/brigade be as sticky as a whole stack of divisions. They never answer it with a yes or no. They are like politicians, they muddy the water, dance around the issue, over complicate it, lose focus and never answer the question. Progress is never made.

I see this pattern over and over by the same people.

But have you actually read the discussion. People are now generally agreeing with the point but there is much discussion of how to do it and what the new issues might be from any change.

Also, remembering the cost benefit aspect, is WitE broken by this, and what information do we have on WitE2 to even judge benefit. Just cos it isn't exactly 'right' on the micro scale does not make it wrong if it works on the macro scale.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 705

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 2:13:27 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

Completely agree.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 706

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 2:22:01 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

At the map scale of the game, a hard ZOC makes no sense.

Totally trivial point, but in my hazy memory of classic board warganes (SPI etc) a hard ZoC would be one that forced the moving unit to stop on entry, and only move out next turn, possibly with prohibition on moving directly from ZoC to ZoC. We are talking variations of soft ZoC (additional movement costs but no other effect).

Accusations of senility gently please :)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 707

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 2:48:46 PM

morvael

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

With prohibitive MP costs soft ZOC becomes hard ZOC in all but name :)

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 708

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 4:38:17 PM

EwaldvonKleist

Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

I have followed the discussion a bit and i agree with Micheal T. The question is not whether a small brigade has a ZOC and is able to delay an advance in a certain way. But it will never ever reach the influence three stacked rifle corps or big armoured formations can have. So i fully agree that there must be a difference. I vote for a calculation based on offensive CV, maybe in combination with MPs? here. On this way, all the factors like mobility, experience&morale and supply are included because they influence CV.

Just to point out the pitfalls in such. The rules also have to work down the line. Mid game if based purely on CV could have a german bde with for example a tiger btn attached having the same CV as 2 3 rumenian divs. That bde would have little artillery, the mobility of tigers isnt necesarrily the best. So u get an example of very few combat troops 2 3 btns of inf with little art and tanks strung out over 48 km(1 hex each to side) of front with all things given limited. Having the same "interdiction" as units much larger with many more men to cover the actual hexes and much more art. Art as such have little to no CV value at leased in WiTE1. Considering that by nature of the rules the russian is alrdy limited in mobility and the rules have to work in 43 and 44 too. How is this different than the issue of "ants"

quote:

@Walloc: Is there a source for the calculation? I would be very interested how they did the calculations.

Ill PM u. As it wasnt in public forums. Nor do i want to have peoples work given out with out their consent and knowledge. So ill ask around.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

Thanks for looking for the calculation!!!

Tiger Batallion and Romanian Div: I am not familiar with late war CVs, but I assume your CV for the romanian div is correct: The Tiger Bt. is attached to a bigger unit. So it does not work alone but together with its units. Imo not a problem because soviet tank commanders will maybe stop because they encounter the feared tigers supported by other tanks and infantry.
So it is not "tigers alone have similiar ZOC to romanian divisions" but "tigers together with its uhead unit, then tiger have comparable impact to a romanian division".
But this really is a minor question. What counts is the principle which is correct in my opinion.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 709

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 5:20:49 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Tiger Batallion and Romanian Div: I am not familiar with late war CVs, but I assume your CV for the romanian div is correct: The Tiger Bt. is attached to a bigger unit. So it does not work alone but together with its units. Imo not a problem because soviet tank commanders will maybe stop because they encounter the feared tigers supported by other tanks and infantry.
So it is not "tigers alone have similiar ZOC to romanian divisions" but "tigers together with its uhead unit, then tiger have comparable impact to a romanian division".
But this really is a minor question. What counts is the principle which is correct in my opinion.

I might not have explained it well enough but i think ur missing my point. Its a Inf Bde with 3 btns. So that infantry backing up the tigers is not necesarrily more in numbers of infanterists than a russian bde in 41. They might get higher CV for being better soldiers and better tactically, but their numbers are the same non the less. So u have the same 1 inf btn per 16 km of front as many complains about higher in the discussion. Thats the same low density as for a RU BDE in 41. While germans might be better tactically they can only be at one place at a time. Tiger btn have high CV(for reasons) compared to actual men/machines in it. Again they can only be at 1 place at one time in space.

U can ofc have some of the germans being mobile, but giving a tiger btn commander the task of patrolling 50km of front im pretty sure would cause him quite a bit of grief. Tigers arent fast, neeed specialized bridges and prone mechanical failtures. Playing light cavalry is doing Tigers a disservice. Not to mention the the fuel ussage for tigers make such non desireble.
So u have a situasion of 3 btn backed up by tigers with little artillery and recon capability has the same influence of adjecent hexes as maybe 15+ romenian btns of inf plus loads more artillery which has next to no CV value. Those 15+ btn could much better spill over into adjecent hexes.

The point being that CV isnt neceassrily a good meassure of units ability to cover terrain through out 41-45.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 6/20/2016 5:23:16 PM >

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)

Post #: 710

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 10:14:38 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

The point being that CV isnt neceassrily a good meassure of units ability to cover terrain through out 41-45.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

I agree, and I don't claim that my suggestion of DV is much better. If WiTE 2 does end up with the perfect and realistic model for ZOCs, that will be the only part of WiTE 2 that is.

@Michael - I don't think anyone has ever suggested that a small unit could IRL impose the same level of delay as a load of big ones, but size on its own is never enough to provide full satisfaction.

A focus on the combat effectiveness of the defenders (however defined or calculated) in isolation as the sole criterion for its ability to cause delay is IMHO not going to produce the 'right' result. Eighth Army's infamous 'boxes' in the desert were useless against Rommel's armour whereas if the same strength force had been facing the same enemy in terrain with few avenues of approach, it would have been able to spread out and delay the same attackers much more effectively. A unit defending the Dnepr is not going to impose much if any delay on a unit on the other side going parallel to it (assuming that the moving unit moves sensibly, but will make it very difficult to cross that same river in what WiTE calls an empty hex on its flank as I hope I explained properly earlier. The 300 Spartans would not have been remembered if they'd tried to stop the Persians on the plains of Thessaly.

The 3rd important factor relating to delay is how much the attackers know about the defenders' dispositions. That's all about recce, though that also takes time of course. However, effective recce has been probably the most important factor in the success of a force in slipping past the enemy (going through a ZOC and sometimes ZOC to ZOC in game terms) in all history.

I can't imagine any game meeting the gold standard on this issue. One that focusses simply on force levels alone certainly never will, because that is the factor most helpful to the attacker. The current rules distort the issue of force effectiveness in favour of D. It's fair to criticise that distortion, but simply to negate the effectiveness of small defending forces just increases the distortion in favour of the bigger attacking unit.

The answer therefore has to be to give proper weight to the other 2 factors I've described.So where does this post get anyonefrom a practical perspective? I hope it reduces or ideally removes the 1 dimensional focus that has dominated the issue so far, but that on its own won't help improve the current ZOC rule. I would like to think that a ZOC cost tied in to the terrain the attacker is moving into/across could be factored in simply enough to be doable, even if only as an optional rule recommended to PvP only. I suppose I'm thinking eg of small units (however defined) not having a ZOC into clear terrain, but ZOC costs into /across other terrain being higher than they are now.

My thinking may well improve once I start testing WiTE which will be next week. My son is coming over this w'end and do the necessary fiddling around to install wite 2 which is beyond me. It may be that other proposed rule changes will change the extent/nature of the ZOC issues.

NB I know sweet FA about game design/coding so, on the issue of the helpfulness or otherwise of my suggestions, I defer totally to those that do especially those who have to design effective AI with very few resources and competing/opposing demands.

I'm a simple soul/boring old fart (delete as you choose but the latter is the one I use). I don't want a simulation of something said to be 95% boredom and 5% terror, but I want a game that is easy to play but hard to play well (ie fun) and balanced (more fun and as exploit-free as possible) and with all the geeky stuff that makes wite the game I've played more than any other.

< Message edited by sillyflower -- 6/20/2016 10:36:18 PM >

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 711

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 10:37:33 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

@HMSWARSPITE

Myself and others have been through this process on numerous occasions. We raise a valid point and put a case forward for a change/improvement. At some stage certain individuals get involved who do as exactly as I said above. Not just here but in the WITW dev forums as well.

Anyway as an aside, this issue of different zoc strengths for less capable units AND the issue of better stacking rules has been raised before, circa 2011/2012/2013. Both points were commented on by Joel and other 2by3 people as, things that should or could be addressed in WITE 2.0.

Well here we are. Trying to get them addressed. Alas all to late I fear, not sure when or even how we get involved in the process (if there is one) of improving a game before it's too late.

We should aim for stacking next. Anyone want to kick that ball...

_____________________________

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 712

RE: WitE 2 - 6/20/2016 10:52:21 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

FWIW I have received emails from Pelton in relation to this zoc issue. He of course would like to post himself but can't.

He is in agreement with my assertion that ant's should not have a zoc.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 713

RE: WitE 2 - 6/21/2016 12:10:04 AM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
We should aim for stacking next. Anyone want to kick that ball...

I'd go with something like this.
Stacking points - corps = 3, division = 2, all others = 1, HQs stack for free. Soviet stacking limit = 9 points, Axis = 6 points. Stacks limited to 6 units.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 714

RE: WitE 2 - 6/21/2016 12:27:39 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

quote:

BTW, in all the years that Pelton has been playing the game and pointing out issues (and whatever I feel about his style of post and analysis of the desired outcomes, his detection and highlighting of game issues is very good), I don't recall him ever highlighting diffuse carpets of brigades as an issue. I haven't kept up wit the forum continuously, but he has complained about 3 deep continuous walls (divisions at the front and maybe brigades at the rear), not these 'zoc walls'.

This is completely false. Pelton has complained previously about ant carpet zoc's. And is in complete agreement with my, and others opinions that the zoc costs for ant carpets should be nil or much less.

_____________________________

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 715

RE: WitE 2 - 6/21/2016 12:38:38 AM

chaos45

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline

I'm just going to pipe up again saying I disagree its an issue in the current WITE 1.......with the force concentrations removing the current ZOC rules would make the game auto win for the Germans.

If WITE 2 removes the ability to concentrate 20-30 mobile divisions off one railhead then maybe Zoc reduction can be looked at. However in the interest of game play/balance in current WITE 1 its not needed.

The IGO/UGO is already very tough/bordering on unbalanced in the current game even with current zoc rules. If you remove the IMO limited ability for BDEs to cause Zocs the huge mobile AG in the game will easily just wipe the soviets from the board in 41/42 and if somehow a soviet player survives they can then have the advantage from 43 on against the german back line of reserve regiments. To me the critical issue is balance, and yes IMO even real life backs up that BDEs should slow enemy movement...sorry but in real life friction causes issues....Ive seen attacks bog down horribly in a complete training environment let alone in a real life situation when actual peoples lives are on the line. Its already been pointed out as well that units have some very high/bordering on unrealistic movement abilities in WITE as is after the opening blitz, so why is it ppl are arguing to make the situation even worse/more unbalanced game play wise?

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 716

RE: WitE 2 - 6/21/2016 1:29:04 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I disagree. I would simply convert my 150+ INF brigades in to 75+ divisions. Still more than enough to create a proper defense and crush the life from any German player you care to mention.

_____________________________

(in reply to chaos45)

Post #: 717

RE: WitE 2 - 6/21/2016 1:52:21 AM

MechFO

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

I think you are thinking in western terms. In 1941 or later Russian units did not have withdrawal or even survival as a priority for high command. End result of my scenario is not an effective combat unit, it is a delay and prisoners or partisans.

I am now throughly confused. Your "delay" was supposed to represent notional elements of a brigade in neighbouring hexes slowing the enemy down. Now you agree their loss % would be very high? You are asking for battalions on the map and have been for several posts, even if you don't seem to realise it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
A perfect example is that poor fuel state units have less MP. So they move less far. But do they move slower all week or do they move quickly for less time.. How does this sit with better ZOCs? A partially out of supply Panzer unit needs to be delayed for less time than a full fuel one (assuming it is still burning fuel while sorting out the delay. So how does this impact on the CV based ZoC. The unit might have the same CV in each case...

Sorry, don't understand your point.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 718

RE: WitE 2 - 6/21/2016 2:13:49 AM

MechFO

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Tiger Batallion and Romanian Div: I am not familiar with late war CVs, but I assume your CV for the romanian div is correct: The Tiger Bt. is attached to a bigger unit. So it does not work alone but together with its units. Imo not a problem because soviet tank commanders will maybe stop because they encounter the feared tigers supported by other tanks and infantry.
So it is not "tigers alone have similiar ZOC to romanian divisions" but "tigers together with its uhead unit, then tiger have comparable impact to a romanian division".
But this really is a minor question. What counts is the principle which is correct in my opinion.

I might not have explained it well enough but i think ur missing my point. Its a Inf Bde with 3 btns. So that infantry backing up the tigers is not necesarrily more in numbers of infanterists than a russian bde in 41. They might get higher CV for being better soldiers and better tactically, but their numbers are the same non the less. So u have the same 1 inf btn per 16 km of front as many complains about higher in the discussion. Thats the same low density as for a RU BDE in 41. While germans might be better tactically they can only be at one place at a time. Tiger btn have high CV(for reasons) compared to actual men/machines in it. Again they can only be at 1 place at one time in space.

U can ofc have some of the germans being mobile, but giving a tiger btn commander the task of patrolling 50km of front im pretty sure would cause him quite a bit of grief. Tigers arent fast, neeed specialized bridges and prone mechanical failtures. Playing light cavalry is doing Tigers a disservice. Not to mention the the fuel ussage for tigers make such non desireble.
So u have a situasion of 3 btn backed up by tigers with little artillery and recon capability has the same influence of adjecent hexes as maybe 15+ romenian btns of inf plus loads more artillery which has next to no CV value. Those 15+ btn could much better spill over into adjecent hexes.

The point being that CV isnt neceassrily a good meassure of units ability to cover terrain through out 41-45.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

Take it up with the CV calculation formula. I agree artillery missing is not good.

That said if ZOC is supposed to represent friction, and I agree that the only real point of them, then the "friction" imposed by any given unit is heavily dependent on what the threat perception of the opposition is. Those tigers aren't producing ZOC by being spread out across 40-50 km, but by being a compact unit able to mount an attack in x hours over y kilometres. Any unit moving into proximity will have to honour the threat and incur delay.

The threat an attack by an infantry battalion represents is very different to that of a tank battalion (doesn't really matter if tigers or not), because

- speed, an attack by an armour unit can develop very quickly, this reduces response times and restricts the location of reserves

- protection, effective weapons against tanks are limited, and if immobile should ideally be prepositioned. This again increases the needed reserves.

hence it has a very disproportionate effect. Which is why I think mobility is an important part of any ZOC formula, but some measure of combat power is needed as well.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 719

RE: WitE 2 - 6/21/2016 2:35:12 AM

MechFO

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
A unit defending the Dnepr is not going to impose much if any delay on a unit on the other side going parallel to it (assuming that the moving unit moves sensibly, but will make it very difficult to cross that same river in what WiTE calls an empty hex on its flank as I hope I explained properly earlier.

Only with sufficient artillery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
The answer therefore has to be to give proper weight to the other 2 factors I've described.So where does this post get anyonefrom a practical perspective? I hope it reduces or ideally removes the 1 dimensional focus that has dominated the issue so far, but that on its own won't help improve the current ZOC rule. I would like to think that a ZOC cost tied in to the terrain the attacker is moving into/across could be factored in simply enough to be doable, even if only as an optional rule recommended to PvP only. I suppose I'm thinking eg of small units (however defined) not having a ZOC into clear terrain, but ZOC costs into /across other terrain being higher than they are now.

This might seem counter-intuitive, but difficult terrain actually reduces the ability to exert ZOC. Less approach avenues means once can be screened/covered much more effectively. Difficult approach slows down the speed of advance and the ability to observe for artillery is extremely affected. One is basically reduced to hail mary grid attacks hoping that the maps are sufficiently accurate, but this is wasteful of ammo.

There is also a problem with recce being much too good, but IMO no so much at the micro level, but the fact that the attacker "knows" fairly well what's around in a 200-300km radius of his chosen penetration. This encourages brinkmanship without it being punished often enough. If the situation were more unclear, the attack would have to be more conservative, or actually run a real risk.

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 720