Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Thanks for this. I've discussed this with Joel and Gary and we agree that some additional changes are necessary. There are already a lot of checks that go on under the hood to disadvantage low experience/morale poorly led units, but there are also advantages to the defender and you'd likely see a very different result if the Soviets were attacking you. From an operational perspective, it's much more ideal to breakthrough/encircle and let them try to break out.

As you may know, we did a major revision of the combat system not too long ago to address some issues and that improved the combat overall significantly, especially for 1943+. However, the added lethality of armor combat isn't working as well in 1941.

With all that said, we agree that this result is outside of what we'd see as historical. We're going to wrap up the current update process with an official update. After that, we'll try a few changes to better reflect the breakdown and coordination issues the Soviets had, especially in 1941 with their mechanized/tank divisions. That will be in a new experimental public beta as some point in the next couple of weeks for folks to try out and give us feedback one.

While history had a very wide range of possible results, we're on the same page as far as continuing to make adjustments where we can to make sure that all cases are giving results squarely within that range.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

"that all the historical results are possible in WITE2, including the ones that were outliers. In 1941, the Axis did lose some battles and the Panzer Divisions did lose a lot of tanks, including in battles.

With all that said, although these results are historical plausible and with precedent.."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb
Please fix Soviet logistic system. It is completely unhistorical that they can use supply priority 4 for almost all of their units if not all, already from the start of the game.

Anyone can use Supply Priority 4. If you're saying they are actually getting far more supplies/ammo/fuel than what is historical, we can have that discussion. I'd like to see what you're seeing and some historical comparisons.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2
Never-the-less, I am encouraged that you have come around and reached a point of being comfortable in publically acknowledging and validating the current experiences of many of the WiTE2 players. As well as a commitment to make the necessary adjustments to bring these combat results back to within an historical range.

quote:

I'll take it upon myself to give an example. 1300 Soviet tanks participated in the battle (But during the course of the battle their number could potentially grow by 2 times) and 728 German tanks.

German losses of 85 tanks irretrievably and 200 in workshops for long-term repairs, do you know which battle or suggest?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2

quote:

German Operation Barbarossa of 1941 resulted in millions of Russian evacuees. The exact number is hard to approximate since many evacuated themselves rather than by the states directive. Some put the number at about sixteen and a half million.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hossjww30

I'm flattered that my combat example on turn 1 has gotten the attention of the developers. I am by no means a military historian however I have played Gary's games since the 1980's so I guess that makes me somewhat of an expert.

I'm just confused in that it seems the entire combat resolution system from WitE1 was almost totally revamped. I never once thought while playing WitE1 thought things were not historical. The consensus seems to be the panzers were overpowered but ok just tweak that a tad then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2

3. Target acquisition. AFVs completely ignoring all other non-AFV targets is another issue. Can you imagine an AFV ignoring pioneers planting charges all over to focus on that distant enemy AFV, barely visible?

quote:

They dont ignore other targets from what I can see. They shoot HE and AP. If there are no enemy AFVs they shoot HE.

quote:

In armored-force operations, the Germans stress the need for the concentrated employment, at the decisive place and time, of the entire combined command of tanks and other arms, less necessary reserves. The tanks constitute the striking force of such a command and normally advance as the first echelon of the attack. Their primary mission is to break through and attack the enemy artillery, rather than to seek out and destroy enemy tanks, which can be more effectively engaged by antitank units. The mission of the other arms is to assist the tanks in their advance and particularly to eliminated antitank weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Thanks for examples Beethoven1.

I am also wondering why Soviet army, which has more men, need less total freight than an Axis one?
Supply need is ~8.5k.
While 2-3 panzer armies might require same amount of freight.
And total Axis requirements are from 30k to 50-60k per turn. It is at 3.5 - 7 times more, despite having less men.

quote:

В ряду причин, обусловивших размеры потерь наших войск, прежде всего выступают объективные факторы: обеспеченность фронтов материальными средствами, в первую очередь боеприпасами и горючим; степень тщательности подготовки операций, качество боевой выучки личного состава, уровень руководства войсками во всех звеньях — от Ставки ВГК до тактического звена. Так, в обстановке тяжелейших экономических трудностей, которые переживала страна в 1941–1942 гг., наступательные операции предпринимались без достаточного материального обеспечения, что неминуемо вело к большим потерям. Это положение было ликвидировано лишь ко второму периоду войны

quote:

Among the reasons for the losses of our troops are primarily objective factors: supply of the fronts with materiel, primarily ammunition and fuel; the degree of thoroughness in preparing operations, the quality of combat training of personnel, the level of leadership of the troops at all levels - from the Supreme Command Headquarters to the tactical tier. Thus, in a situation of severe economic difficulties, which the country experienced in 1941-1942, offensive operations were undertaken without sufficient material support, which inevitably led to large losses. This situation was eliminated only by the second period of the war

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Thanks for examples Beethoven1.

I am also wondering why Soviet army, which has more men, need less total freight than an Axis one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Thanks for examples Beethoven1.

I am also wondering why Soviet army, which has more men, need less total freight than an Axis one?

No, they don't need less freight. The "need" displayed is a bit misleading since supply priority 4 seeks to get 130% of the need. So they have extra stocked up which was delivered from previous turns. You would see the same thing on the Axis side if on turn 1 you did not attack as Axis and just sat in Germany without advancing, with the whole Axis army set on supply priority 4.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

And btw, the fact that Soviets (if played by someone who knows to simply set supply priority 4 and forget, anyway) typically will have up to 130% supply in all their units means they have higher CVs.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb
Please fix Soviet logistic system. It is completely unhistorical that they can use supply priority 4 for almost all of their units if not all, already from the start of the game.

Anyone can use Supply Priority 4. If you're saying they are actually getting far more supplies/ammo/fuel than what is historical, we can have that discussion. I'd like to see what you're seeing and some historical comparisons.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2

The issues of initial excess Soviet supply capacity are presumed to be well founded.

But on the contrary, historically Soviet forces found themselves in supply situations in many instances worse than their German counterparts.

The number of vehicles at their disposal has been documented as woefully inadequate, with numerous Soviet mobile formations lacking so much as being unable to perform combat operations.

Additionally, the Soviet logistical system was being inundated by massive civilian flight from their villages, towns and cities.

quote:

German Operation Barbarossa of 1941 resulted in millions of Russian evacuees. The exact number is hard to approximate since many evacuated themselves rather than by the states directive. Some put the number at about sixteen and a half million.

Of primary concern was the hindrance of military movement. You cannot have millions of civilian refugees without it directly impacting roadways, rail-lines or other transportation arteries.

However, in WiTE2, this fact seems to largely be ignored, with populations seeming to teleport vast distances without any impact on the local transportation network.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

I strongly recommend that Beethoven and Stamb read about the logistical problems of Germany in the period 41-43-45 to begin with.

And then find out about the logistical problems of the USSR in 41-43-45.

And only then to discuss the logistical problem exclusively of the Soviet side.

What you are talking about is not exclusively a problem of the USSR, moreover, it is not a problem. The USSR has warehouses and they are on the defensive. Their supply goes through all railway lines, and not just those that they repair.
The fleet of railway trains and wagons for them were more massive than the German ones, during the retreat, that's what, and the wagons were carefully taken to the East of the country. That allowed to drive along the echelon every 10 minutes.

German logistics simply did not have such an opportunity.

You offer nothing but complain about the Soviets. You have at least one of your "advice" scroll in your head on how the warehouse system should start to work to meet your needs, taking into account how this will affect other aspects of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517