realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (Full Version)

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



Message

rotfront1918 -> realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/11/2011 7:10:27 PM)

Just read Glantz's stumbling colossus (chapters on ground force readiness - Impressive data by the way...) which made me reassess my judgement of how appropriate early period (Barbarossa) is modelled.
Always smelt sth fishy about the morale/weather modelling decisions... Kind of approximate historical outcomes, but lead to German (and Winter Soviet) supermen.

Glantz states that the Red Army only had about 36 per cent of required (Mobilisation plan - MP-41) transport vehicules on 22 June, the game models that correctly. But watch this: "By 22 August 1941, the Red Army had mobilized a total of 206,000 vehicules, while at the same time it lost 271,400 in combat."
In game, in turn 3-5 (correct me please) the Red Army has all the required transport.
(Dont know how much weight missing ammo and supply has on CV values...)

Not regarding other mobilization deficiencies (training, c&c, bad force positioning etc), lack of transport and therefore lack of ammunition, fuel and supplies was the sufficient reason for the terrible combat performance in the first months, and not "morale". [The soviets even countered German tanks by ramming them (with KV-tanks), because they had no ammunition (especially armor-piercing), then they ran out of fuel and were destroyed by german sappers.]

So if the complete lack of supply was modelled as the primary reason of Soviet combat unreadiness (until ~endOctober1941), the morale level could be "leveled out", permitting successful counter-attacks (yeah, they are possible now, I know, but crap) by rested, well-supplied units. Perhaps it would also benefit AI performance. When winter begins - conditioned on that the Soviet have shortened their lines and the Germans have outstripped theirs - you wouldn't have to implement these huge weather effects. A conservative german player would not face soviet supermen, the soviets would simply recover from the Überfall-shock to their "normal" level of combat efficiency.

Just an idea to balance the early game without pseudo-realistic modelling choices, meddeling with morale.
Comment please, am I missing sth?

Another point: "Bouncing" routed units - a routed division which is bounced should loose ALL (TOE=0) equipement, just the HQ staff fleeing.

Additionally, why can one not mod this stuff? Devs, wouldn't it be possible to provide access to the game mechanism files (regarding see above)? It would nuture new enthusiam, really!









Baron von Beer -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/11/2011 9:52:32 PM)

FWIW, ammo does get attention beyond vehicle levels:

20.3.2.1. SOVIET AMMO SHORTAGES
To simulate Soviet ammo shortages in the early part of the war, Soviet units in 1941 and 1942
must conduct a leader admin check when resupplying their units with ammo. In 1941 they
must take two successive checks, in 42 one check. As ammo is distributed, if the check fails,
then 50 percent of the ammo is lost during conversion from supplies. If both checks fail, 75
percent is lost.



rotfront1918 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/11/2011 11:43:58 PM)

thanks, didnt remember that.
concerning how much missing ammo affects combat, I only found this: "If less than 50%, the combat unit will likely get fewer shots"
Doesnt sound like a harsh penalty...



kirkgregerson -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 5:09:09 AM)

BTW, as far as routed units go, I think almost everybody that I know (minus a few soviet fanboys) hate it. I've talked to a few play tester that hate it as well (won't mention any names).

IMO it's a first attempt for the devs to model this aspect, but it falls down when you consider how much equipment routed units maintain. Really very ridiculous if you think about it. From my exp, the average is over 50%, which is a joke. It's should never be above 25% if the game is going to have realism. Otherwise, I strongly suggest the term ROUTED is change to something else like 'UNORGANIZED RETREAT' something. If you look at most of the battles in which soviet units were 'routed' in 41-42 they usually lost almost all heavy equipment. Yes this is arty too and especially arty as transport was still short in 41-42. I picture these routed soviet units picking up the arty by hand and running with it like something out of a Monty Python sketch... "come'on man" let's get this fixed.

My guess is that the current routing logic is in place as some sort of play-balancing, which I don't think is the appropriate place for it. I mean really? The Soviets lost a ton of equipment in 41, but due to their production were able to replace it. Why can't the game just model it properly with this aspect?



alaric318 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 6:48:55 AM)

best greetings and excuse any bad english, please,

well, i will love to mod wheater and "hardcoded game engine mechanics", that for sure.

about barbarossa, soviet starting shock and surprise suffered we can to some degree make a good simulation on it, as the morale setting have a direct, and heavy impact on casualties increased by suffered routs and retreats, so, if you want to make first 4 or 5 rounds really a hard time for the soviets, set the soviet morale on 80 or 90, then, on round 5, 6 or 7 set it to 100 or 110, a formation with overall morale setting at 80 that suffer a rout or retreat will see a bigger casualties damage.

that being said, i usually dont play with soviet morale less than 120 to 130 german, in my latest match against the soviet AI, was 130 german morale to 150 soviet morale, and the soviets lose around 3 million mens on around 15 turns, to 700000 germans, well, was on my mod, with extra germans and some boost to all german main-frontline units, but too was with 150 soviet morale (the only payback is the reserve units that really can make a disaster from a german assault).

you may read the game manual and see that info better explain there, i am sure, morale setting have a direct and big impact on retreat, not only rout casualties, just for your information, if you dont know about it by now,

have my best regards,

Murat30.



rotfront1918 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 12:11:37 PM)

@murat
I know that morale is the most important variable. My point was that game balance, historical outcome, is achieved by morale and weather changes. Thats why I called the modelling pseudo-realistic, it gets the outcomes kind of right, but not how it comes about. Then of course you will have some side effects, which is nearly all the stuff people are complaining about in the early game.
I know that this cant be implemented in a patch or sth (mod?), and that Barbarossa is of all historical campaigns the hardest to model, just general discussion stuff, you know...

@kirkgregerson
agree, just imagine a rifle division that "routs" (unorg retreat) and their are no lines to fall back to, being pursued by a panzer division, what will happen? Complete surrender (no time for train transport...), motorized hq flees . Implementing this would really help the German AI in generating appropriate soviet losses...




runyan99 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 5:13:37 PM)

Routing may be too generous currently. Perhaps a routed unit that contacts an enemy should Shatter instead of just displacing a second time.



mussey -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 6:20:21 PM)

When I first started playing, I thought the routing rules were unrealistic. Then I became acustomed to surrounding on turn 1 and cleaning up on turn 2. I read again my old WW2 histories and Soviet units routinely slipped through German lines (though with massive loss of heavy equipment). Then I read a post about a routed unit jumping from Estonia -Finland, and in my game a jumper from Stalino across the Sea of Avoz.

I'm OK with the current rules (not a gamebreaker) though not completely satisfied with it. Though it does add some randomness.



marty_01 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 6:34:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

BTW, as far as routed units go, I think almost everybody that I know (minus a few soviet fanboys) hate it. I've talked to a few play tester that hate it as well (won't mention any names).

IMO it's a first attempt for the devs to model this aspect, but it falls down when you consider how much equipment routed units maintain. Really very ridiculous if you think about it. From my exp, the average is over 50%, which is a joke. It's should never be above 25% if the game is going to have realism. Otherwise, I strongly suggest the term ROUTED is change to something else like 'UNORGANIZED RETREAT' something. If you look at most of the battles in which soviet units were 'routed' in 41-42 they usually lost almost all heavy equipment. Yes this is arty too and especially arty as transport was still short in 41-42. I picture these routed soviet units picking up the arty by hand and running with it like something out of a Monty Python sketch... "come'on man" let's get this fixed.

My guess is that the current routing logic is in place as some sort of play-balancing, which I don't think is the appropriate place for it. I mean really? The Soviets lost a ton of equipment in 41, but due to their production were able to replace it. Why can't the game just model it properly with this aspect?



+1.

I had assumed that a ROUT result -- particularly a ROUT through zones of control or through friendly units equated to a much more significant loss of unit heavy equipment.

Units that ROUT through zones of control or enemy units because of a combat result has been explained as infiltration through gaps in lines as well as an attempt to deal with lack of simultaneity in the sequence of play. However, the more I see units ROUT through friendly units the more I question this effect. It feels too much like teleportation -- particularly if the effected unit is retaining large percentages of heavy equipment during a rout.

I'm almost inclined to toward there being some sort of line of communications rules that are determined at the instant of combat resolution. This is not to imply that lack of a valid line of communications should be equated to instant ISOLATION effects. Moreover I still think supply determination should only be determined at the beginning of the turn and that units that loose a valid line of communications during a turn should not be subjected to instant Isolation effects. But I think loss of communications should have an effect on Combat Results of either RETREAT or ROUT -- i.e. rather than allowing enemy units without a valid line of communications to seemingly rout through friendly units, turn the RETREAT or ROUT result into a heavy defender casualty HOLD -- or a SHATTER result.



marty_01 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 6:43:21 PM)

Has anyone on the forum sat down and figured out what sorts of equipment and personel loss occurs when a friendly unit moves adjacent to a unit that is in ROUT status? I had asked this a number of weeks ago but never got any sort of reply.



rotfront1918 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 6:49:28 PM)

Nobody wants to touch the big issues... [:)]
So lets talk about routing:
as it is, it really favors Soviet human because AI doesnt encircle, German human has to spend extra Mps to not touch routed units (annoying).
My proposition: routed units have probability to bounce (~25%), partially surrender (TOE=0) (50%) or to shatter/completely surrender (25%), probabilities could also be altered dependent on some variables, like if fleeing/pursuing unit is motorized, supply situtation or sth.




marty_01 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 8:25:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rotfront

Nobody wants to touch the big issues... [:)]
So lets talk about routing:
as it is, it really favors Soviet human because AI doesnt encircle, German human has to spend extra Mps to not touch routed units (annoying).
My proposition: routed units have probability to bounce (~25%), partially surrender (TOE=0) (50%) or to shatter/completely surrender (25%), probabilities could also be altered dependent on some variables, like if fleeing/pursuing unit is motorized, supply situtation or sth.


Sorry -- wasn't ignoring you comments on Trucks and Truck loss -- or the historical ammunition shortages suffered by the Soviets in 1941-42. I agree, research can be a good thing. And, like you, while I want to have a bit of fun with this sort of game, I also expect or desire to learn something about the historical event being portrayed while playing the game.

In terms of the ammunition shortage effects, I'd have to study the in-game modifiers to see if the current reduced ammunition rules result in significant effects or insignificant effects. Or at least see some empirical data from other folks that have actually studied the effects.

It sounds like the developers thought about the ammunition shortage issue -- thus the special rules. But I must admit I now have sort of an irrational fear that a Boogie-Man inhabits the black-box that is the game code. The recent AAR forum thread in which some weird issue with Soviet Manpower Pools came to light in the GC43 scenario has resulted in more fuel being dumped onto my own irrational qualms regarding what’s actually going on under-the-hood. Maybe I just need to ignore the man behind the curtain – or whatever it is the Wizard of Oz says. Am I gonna get blind sided by some big and unforeseen thingy that invalidates 40-turns of GC play – or whatever. Dunno. Great game concept – and hopefully the big and small problems get ironed out and cleaned up. In the mean time I guess I just need to cross my fingers and hope the roller coaster doesn’t fly off the tracks.

On the ROUTED unit side-track, The effect would be equally felt by the German player when initiative or in-game momentum sways back to the Soviets -- blizzard turns -- and mid to late War turns. But in any case I agree that the term "ROUT" should perhaps to equated to much more significant personnel and equipment loss when routing units "teleport through" enemy units or through enemy zones of control; AND as a result of PURSUIT (enemy unit moves adjacent to a unit in ROUT status).



kirkgregerson -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 8:41:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01

Has anyone on the forum sat down and figured out what sorts of equipment and personel loss occurs when a friendly unit moves adjacent to a unit that is in ROUT status? I had asked this a number of weeks ago but never got any sort of reply.



I don't think any, if it's on the same turn the unit routed. Since the concept of routing is abstract, so push a routed unit around on the same turn does nothing? Could be wrong... sort of hope I am wrong.



Baron von Beer -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/12/2011 10:21:52 PM)

Routed units making displacement moves suffer "retreat attrition", which is weighted by exp & morale. 

What I don't get is if a routed unit is in a stack with non routed units and attacked resulting in a retreat, the routed unit shatters. If it is by itself, it just keeps bouncing, suffering the attrition losses, but has no limit to how far it can travel in that week. Could move 100 miles in the first displacement, 50-100 more the next, etc, while sustaining (relative to what has taken place) meager equipment losses. 

Strange that a unit that is in a shambles (resupplying, command and control etc all in chaos) is able to get 6" howitzers and armor potentially farther than a crack unit with plenty of fuel and motor transport fresh in from a refit.



heliodorus04 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/13/2011 2:53:30 PM)

Regarding the Routing issue, I have to know this first:

How many of you who want routes to produce greater losses have actually played a game as the Soviets vs. a human?

I ask because when I played the Germans my first few games, I hated the route mechanics for the very reasons you describe.

Then when I started to play Soviets against humans, I saw that if routing were changed, my ability to establish critical defensive perimeters (let me also add very weak defensive perimeters - Oleg is not wrong about Axis supermen in 1941) would be nil.

You can't change the Route mechanics without severely unbalancing Human vs. Human play, I think. They are a necessary abstraction given the IGOUGO turn mechanics in week-long turns.

Imagine if I suggested the game should be changed so that Germans should have to first conduct all movement, and only after it was done, then conduct and resolve all attacks.



marty_01 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/13/2011 9:14:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: marty_01

Has anyone on the forum sat down and figured out what sorts of equipment and personel loss occurs when a friendly unit moves adjacent to a unit that is in ROUT status? I had asked this a number of weeks ago but never got any sort of reply.



I don't think any, if it's on the same turn the unit routed. Since the concept of routing is abstract, so push a routed unit around on the same turn does nothing? Could be wrong... sort of hope I am wrong.



Your right. I just did a quick experiment -- Human vs. Human for the road to Leningrad. Checked two routed units status before and after an Axis unit moved adjacent to them. The two units were: 180th Rifle Division & 42nd Tank Division...

Here are the results. hmmm...as far as I can tell routed units don't loose anything as result of displacing.

http://img94.imageshack.us/g/42ndtankdivisionafterpu.jpg/



rotfront1918 -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/14/2011 5:46:41 PM)

@heliodorus04: The overall lines of your argument may be valid, youre probably a more experienced player, but that the routing routine is a "necessary abstraction given the IGOUGO" doesnt make sense to me. in one week, some disorganized unit in the open with no line to fall back to gets chopped up or simply lost behind the front line, especially if its motorized groups against inf - and will not flee 200miles. the game shouldnt try to simulate this, so a relativly high probability of extreme losses would be a good abstraction. (regarding balance: the game shouldnt be balanced by routing routines anyways...)
Still think probabilities influenced by some variables (mot vs inf etc) would be a nice way out, one could also add a probability that a partisan group forms, thats what happens if red army formations got lost behind the lines (ok, doesnt hold for germans...)



squatter -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/14/2011 6:17:33 PM)

If you bounce a unit a couple of times, it can end up moving three times the distance during your turn than it can when it is in good order in its own turn. I mean, we're talking inhuman distances in some cases!

Maybe routed units should displace less distance, and therefore suffer more 'bounces' and the associated extra loss of material, than they do currently.



morganbj -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/14/2011 6:51:55 PM)

Squatter hit it on the head.



Panama -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/14/2011 7:27:30 PM)

Read The Bloody Triangle. Give some good although a couple of gruesome accounts of routs. In one example they are retreating across a river. The only way was is a railroad bridge and they are in a rout. Horses pulling wagons are falling between ties breaking legs and unable to move bringing all to a halt. A KV is ordered across the bridge to clear it. This makes me sad to think about but this is how things happened. [:(]



squatter -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/14/2011 7:54:55 PM)

Thanks Morgan.

Say, are you related to any pirates?



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/14/2011 9:27:25 PM)

From what I have seen, routed units can be bounced (not always, your mileage may vary) to where you want them to go. For example, on the opening turn, many of the units north of Bialystok will rout into the area you will pocket - toward their HQs. I am sure you have all seen after a rout-fest the Soviet units clustered in the 1-hex radius around their HQ. This knowledge and understanding of the mechanics can make pockets even easier.



JJKettunen -> RE: realism=rebalancing (barbarossa) (4/14/2011 10:31:36 PM)

nevermind



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375