RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (Full Version)

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



Message

Joel Billings -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/21/2011 11:10:26 PM)

Ok, I'll take a stab at the last example. What was the ammo status of the attacking units (I assume you can't know the defending unit's ammo situation)? The defender being dug in fort level 2 allows some pre-targeted artillery bonuses. The defending unit gets supported by 3 artillery/rocket regiments. We're not talking AT guns and mortars here, but possibly major amounts of artillery. The German CVs are nothing to write home about. Did these units have a lot of damaged elements before the battle? What is the leadership quality of the leaders involved? There are just too many factors that your screenshot does not tell us to even begin to examine what is going on here.

To be honest, when you posted this "This to me is just such an injustice to gamers and an even the actual veterans alike." I had to laugh. I've been making wargames for over 30 years and I never knew that unlikely combat results (assuming that the unknown factors can't explain this) would ever be viewed as an injustice to gamers, let alone to the veterans. I'd say this is hyperbole at it's best.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 12:48:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

To be honest, when you posted this "This to me is just such an injustice to gamers and an even the actual veterans alike." I had to laugh. I've been making wargames for over 30 years and I never knew that unlikely combat results (assuming that the unknown factors can't explain this) would ever be viewed as an injustice to gamers, let alone to the veterans. I'd say this is hyperbole at it's best.


+1
The definition of histrionics, man.




Tarhunnas -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 8:01:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Just another example of sheer madness. Once again I dare anybody to agree that this would have ever been a realistic/historical possibily in 1942 east front.

Germans have superiority tactics, manpower, exp, equipment, morale, and leadership. Yet just look at the results.

Just using logic 101, if this would never be an outcome in 42 why would WitE even allow it to happen ONE time?

To me and all my friends that play war games it's clear irrefutable proof that combat mechanics are in some cases flawed. I don't see HOW anybody could say... "oh no this is ok, it should be possible". You're basically going against ever all the historical evidence that suggested give this situation the Soviet forces would have lost more of everything.

HOW CAN WitE developers and players EVER allow this continue. This to me is just such an injustice to gamers and an even the actual veterans alike.

WitE researchers on this aspect of the game, you ought to be ashamed and shame on you 100x if you don't fix it. This is my opinion and once again, not going to candy-coat this bs.

If WitE is going to be a 'war in the east fantasy' game, then allow the Axis to have a winter prep option, because you've basically taken away what was their true strength in this campaign (41-43) superior tactics,equipment, and leadership on almost all levels but Hitler. But in this case Hitler is out of the picture as players are suppose to be making those decisions.

Sorry just becoming more and more dissolutioned with what is turning out to be some real unexpected results from combat that I've never experienced in any others games of this campaign.



I can just say, this is not what I am typically seeing in my combat results at all! It is certainly possible to dig out a couple of fluke combat results, but in my experience this would be an exception. Also, the Soviet unit is dug in, it has more support units than the Germans, which could explain the German losses.

I think you are going ballistic here over a very limited selection of results, and apparently doing so from a pro-German standpoint. And since you bring up the subject of injustice, I also think your post is an injustice to the developers of this game!

P.S. You could make a rather long list of games that are an injustice to veterans. It would be interesting to hear what computer simulations of the Eastern Front in your opinion do show proper respect to veterans.



Kel -> my solution proposal (5/22/2011 8:41:18 AM)

Here is a drastic solution to the very real problem our friend has pointed out (even if he inadequately uses offensive words to support his views). Coming back to the subject of this thread (the endless lines of soviet rifle divisions on 3, 4, 5 hexes deep as soon as 1942), could it be a solution that the soviet player only have at its disposal corps-sized units ?

I mean, all the authors state that soviet corps more or less have the same combat value of german divisions. Wouldn't it be fair to consolidate those myriads of soviet divisions in corps and only give the player control over a limited number of corps-level units?

Because, in fact the multiplication of small units.

1/ dramatically expands the defensive frontage that a soviet army is able to defend

2/ multiply the sheer number of targets that the german need to attack each turn,

3/ give the Red Army a tremendous level of flexibility that does not feel historically correct.


Thus, to solve an issue that has been a lancinant plague of an otherwise very very impressive game design for 6 months now, I propose : get rid of soviet divisions and rewrite from scratch the soviet OOB limiting the player control to corps-level units (or consolidated goupings of 3 divisions as other games are doing).

Divisions would not have been a problem in effect if shattering was more common. But, we routinely observe a problematic phenomenon: in the hands of a semi competent player, it is possible that most of the divisions are never destroyed (and, as a side note, this was somewhat contrary to the soviet field practice : it was often deemed more quick and efficient to build new units form scratch). At best, they rout and come back a few turns later.

(IMO and generally speaking, some more firmness and consistency would be welcome in the in-game management of small units. At this game scale, and with this stacking limit, anything under a division should not appear at all on the map. If it is deemed correct to put romanian cavalry regiments or italian legions as HQ assets only, then, nkvd, border guard, luftwaffe field jäger or whatever regiments should also be given this streamlined treatment.)

Since it is a lot of work, I would be delighted to give money for an add-on that include this feature.



herwin -> RE: my solution proposal (5/22/2011 1:35:47 PM)

For a couple of years at the beginning of the war, the Red Army lacked the command and control assets and qualified commanders to organise infantry corps. Instead, small infantry armies were created (with around five divisions) directly under the command of a competent leader and his staff. Later in the war as commanders and staff officers learned their jobs, armies were organised with a corps echelon.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: my solution proposal (5/22/2011 3:19:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kelblau

Here is a drastic solution to the very real problem our friend has pointed out (even if he inadequately uses offensive words to support his views). Coming back to the subject of this thread (the endless lines of soviet rifle divisions on 3, 4, 5 hexes deep as soon as 1942), could it be a solution that the soviet player only have at its disposal corps-sized units ?

I mean, all the authors state that soviet corps more or less have the same combat value of german divisions. Wouldn't it be fair to consolidate those myriads of soviet divisions in corps and only give the player control over a limited number of corps-level units?

Because, in fact the multiplication of small units.

1/ dramatically expands the defensive frontage that a soviet army is able to defend

2/ multiply the sheer number of targets that the german need to attack each turn,

3/ give the Red Army a tremendous level of flexibility that does not feel historically correct.



If this happens, I will NOT play this game anymore... [;)] Obviously not a threat (who would care?)... When I put my hands on WiR in 2001 I was disappointed because of one thing: very few units to simulate what the Soviets DID in the real war in 1942 and 1943: building defensive lines, strong-points far behind their lines. In 1942, they even fortified places 600 km behind the front! Not to mention the Strategic Reserves! If we apply your idea, poof, they are gone... In other words, this would be totally ahistorical.

Are you telling me that I should not have units to do these two ESSENTIAL jobs to survive the German war machine: defence in depth and strategic reserves? No thanks. I am not interested in playing this kind of game... The old WIR would be more than enough...

From what I see the authors you read did not mention the Soviet defensive DEPTH (behind the front-line that is)... Let me fill that gap:

1942: between 500 and 600 km!
1943: 300 km

Now please tell me HOW I will be building these lines IF I have no units [;)] That's why I will ALWAYS keep many brigades (aka diggers) at least until AUTUMN '42, when I'll be 100% sure I will be surviving the Blitzkrieg Part II.



Kel -> RE: my solution proposal (5/22/2011 5:43:31 PM)

Tullius has spoken [:)]

And, no it's not "poof they are gone". These rear area layers would always be here. After all reserve armies would still be present - just with less counters - and I never wanted to get rid of forts.

The suggestion is just to consolidate the soviet on-map units to something more consistent with the size of units that are available on the other side.

Just two examples:

1/ is it absolutely essential to give the soviet player on-map control on all soviet border guard regiments ? Doesn't this feature allow quite gamey proceedings (such as the garrisonning of the whole finnish front exclusively with these regiments, a maneuver that frees up the equivalent of 2 frontline field armies ?

2/the stuG bns and independent panzer battalions are not available as on-map units but, rightfully enough IMO, as SU, that can be attached to divs or to higher hqs. On the soviet side on the other hand, every tank brigade that fought the war is present as a combat unit. Have the consequences of this dissymetry been thougt out ?

In one word : having different size of units present on map for each side do have consequences. I just suspect this dissymetry in the sheer number of available playing units to affect play balance. Nothing more.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: my solution proposal (5/22/2011 6:21:30 PM)

I am not allowed to talk, Kelblau? [:)]

Hmm, the problem I see -with this system- is defending in depth will not be possible. You have to man the front-line after all. That's a lot of hexes. To do that you already need loooots of counters (regiments, divisions or corps, it's irrelevant)... What's really left? [;)] I suspect basically NOTHING. What's going to happen when the German Panzers manage to surround a portion of the front in 1942 (because this is more than possible)? In fact, how will you be able to defend IF you have one arm tied behind your back...? Basically everyone is in the front-line except a FEW counters (Stavka Reserve Armies) behind. That is not how the Soviets defended, sorry.

To me that sounds like WiR circa 199x... If this ever works, I will stick to the current version of the game, so no problem [8D]



FM WarB -> RE: my solution proposal (5/22/2011 7:00:13 PM)

Excuse me, but I do not see how the combat results described in these threads is all that impossible.  It can be described this way:
The dug in outnumbered defensive force suffers relatively little from the enemy artillery.  It manages to put some fire on the attacking enemy.  They do not even have to aim well at the attackers as they present a target rich environment.  Then three quarters of the defending force decide to get out of there before being overwhelmed.  One quarter stays, being too stubborn to run or too wounded to move and acts as a rear guard.  This process does not require superior tactical leadership;  it happens naturally.



76mm -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 7:53:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Just another example of sheer madness. Once again I dare anybody to agree that this would have ever been a realistic/historical possibily in 1942 east front.

Germans have superiority tactics, manpower, exp, equipment, morale, and leadership. Yet just look at the results.

Just using logic 101, if this would never be an outcome in 42 why would WitE even allow it to happen ONE time?


Please stop with the "sheer madness" ranting, it is getting harder and harder to take you seriously. For starters, you have a rather pathetic engineer level of 1, which should be higher when attacking entrenched positions. Frankly, in this battle, I don't really see the issue: the Germans attacked a fortified position without adequate pioneer or air support (and a pretty scant arty advantage) and succeeded in pushing the Sovs back after suffering relatively heavy casualties. What exactly is the problem?



Michael T -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 10:20:16 PM)

For me the game has too many ants that won't die easily. I agree with Kelblau. Get rid of the ants. Nothing on the map less than a division. OR make the ants die much easier, also for overwhelming attacks the ammo, fuel and MP expenditure needs to be reduced. Multiple dug in lines of ants is crazy. It needs to be fixed.



Mynok -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 10:41:38 PM)


quote:

Please stop with the "sheer madness" ranting, it is getting harder and harder to take you seriously. For starters, you have a rather pathetic engineer level of 1, which should be higher when attacking entrenched positions. Frankly, in this battle, I don't really see the issue: the Germans attacked a fortified position without adequate pioneer or air support (and a pretty scant arty advantage) and succeeded in pushing the Sovs back after suffering relatively heavy casualties. What exactly is the problem?


If people would just green button wackos like this, we'd actually get something accomplished here.



Tarhunnas -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 10:53:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

Please stop with the "sheer madness" ranting, it is getting harder and harder to take you seriously. For starters, you have a rather pathetic engineer level of 1, which should be higher when attacking entrenched positions. Frankly, in this battle, I don't really see the issue: the Germans attacked a fortified position without adequate pioneer or air support (and a pretty scant arty advantage) and succeeded in pushing the Sovs back after suffering relatively heavy casualties. What exactly is the problem?


If people would just green button wackos like this, we'd actually get something accomplished here.



It is not completely clear from your post who's the wacko, but I think I can make a fair guess... [;)]



Flaviusx -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 10:54:55 PM)

Hey, if somebody just wants to hand me a bunch of tank and rifle corps for free in an attempt to rid the game of ants...I'm totally cool with that.




Mynok -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 10:55:06 PM)


76mm is hardly a wacko. I thought it was quite obvious.



Michael T -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 11:31:18 PM)

I would make Tank X attach to Divs just like Stugs do. Once Tank Corp become available allow them to built on map by drawing from the pool of Tank X. Same for Inf X and Para X.

Why should it cost 3MP (much more if across a river), Fuel, fatigue and Ammo to attack a Tank X with 6 tanks? Sorry this should cost 0MP and it should dissapear from the map if hit by a Division size unit.



Flaviusx -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 11:35:29 PM)

Soviets didn't attach tank brigades to divisions until the very end of the war. (They did this in Manchuria, and it worked very well there.) It flat out doesn't make sense to treat them like an SU, not in the context of this game. Same argument alas applies to rifle brigades.

They were in fact independent entities for a time and even after tank corps absorbed most of them, used frequently as forward detachments.





PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/22/2011 11:53:03 PM)

I'm sad because the game is broken and I never realized it! Here I was having fun the whole time. I demand my money back.



abulbulian -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 12:05:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I'm sad because the game is broken and I never realized it! Here I was having fun the whole time. I demand my money back.



Sorry to me this is a bad attitude. Yeah it's a fun game. So what if it has some very unrealistic/unhistorical battle results. Who cares to make it a better game, just play and enjoy. Right? Guess I know where you're coming from?

Of course that is your prerogative and anybody else that doesn't have a clue about the history of the conflict or just wants to play an ignore the inaccuracies. You payed your money .. so enjoy and leave the improvements to those that have the passion for it.

But once again we have another comedian that wants to make a joke when others want to assist WitE improve.

Go enjoy the game, but then don't come in the forums and make jokes that IMO are counter-productive and insulting.




PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 12:09:25 AM)

Thank you!



Michael T -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 12:11:15 AM)

quote:

Soviets didn't attach tank brigades to divisions until the very end of the war. (They did this in Manchuria, and it worked very well there.) It flat out doesn't make sense to treat them like an SU, not in the context of this game. Same argument alas applies to rifle brigades.

They were in fact independent entities for a time and even after tank corps absorbed most of them, used frequently as forward detachments.


For sure but were they digging trenches before sent to the front? I like that we have Tank X in the game but not when they have overated effects like zoc/attack costs etc. I am saying either remove them or fix the problem. It's ok to tone down HQ BU etc, I agree but balance the ledger by removing or lessening the effects of the ants. Thats all. If players don't think there is a problem with ants then I so be it. I think there is.



jzardos -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 12:17:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Ok, I'll take a stab at the last example. What was the ammo status of the attacking units (I assume you can't know the defending unit's ammo situation)? The defender being dug in fort level 2 allows some pre-targeted artillery bonuses. The defending unit gets supported by 3 artillery/rocket regiments. We're not talking AT guns and mortars here, but possibly major amounts of artillery. The German CVs are nothing to write home about. Did these units have a lot of damaged elements before the battle? What is the leadership quality of the leaders involved? There are just too many factors that your screenshot does not tell us to even begin to examine what is going on here.

To be honest, when you posted this "This to me is just such an injustice to gamers and an even the actual veterans alike." I had to laugh. I've been making wargames for over 30 years and I never knew that unlikely combat results (assuming that the unknown factors can't explain this) would ever be viewed as an injustice to gamers, let alone to the veterans. I'd say this is hyperbole at it's best.



The ammo situation and supply was 90%+.

Well I can see that most people would rather just kiss some WitE a** and write off my proof as not worthy of any investigation. Must just be happening to me. Either way I didn't see anybody attempt to suggest they thought my battle result posts were fine and acceptable results. So I will take it that I'm correct that it is NOT. But, as long as it doesn't happen to others, then I guess they have no problems.

IMO, there's a group of you with your 'sheepish' mindset and inability to add constructive criticism to WitE are not doing the game any favors. I tried to gather some data and present it, but that's only backfired and got most of you to run to the defense of WitE. So be it. I'm done trying to help in this 'hostile' community and will just patiently wait until at some point the issues are actually found and resolved.




Flaviusx -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 12:34:10 AM)

The problem is that too many players aren't making tank corps with these brigades. They are instead opting for a strategically uncreative and frankly boring carpet defense.



pompack -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 12:52:45 AM)

Yep, it reads a lot more coherently with the green button.

Now I can see the comments and the responses without the rants getting in the way.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 1:25:55 AM)

Pompack green buttoned me [:(]



Michael T -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 1:31:28 AM)

quote:

The problem is that too many players aren't making tank corps with these brigades. They are instead opting for a strategically uncreative and frankly boring carpet defense


100% agree. But add it is also unrealistic and
should be punished with not much cost to the enemy.

A hasty attack versus a stack of 2 divisions costs 3MP (For Mot units). It cost same
even if the stack is just a single brigade. Base the MP hasty attack costs on some other criteria that would mean say 0MP or 1 MP against such units. Reduce the ammo costs as well for overwhelming attacks. Reduce the Zoc effects as well. Result no more ants and such ahistorical tactics. Better game.




Mynok -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 2:34:24 AM)


Interesting thought there, to prorate ZOC costs based on unit size and ability to interdict movement. I'm assuming both are in mind there, and even if they aren't, they probably should be. This would of course apply to the German regiments and brigades as well.



Kiith -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 3:07:55 AM)

Honestly I prefer Tank Bde’s to corps for the reason that you state. Forming them into corps is costly in terms of AP and possibly more importantly vehicles and what you gain isn’t a really useful combat unit until it’s been trained up for a few months. Plus then you really need to use them en masse to get the full benefit, which just magnifies the above problems.

Basically with the current system it’s more efficient to leave them as Bde’s until the soviets what to go over to the offensive. So I don’t mind the idea of lessening the ZoC of these smaller units (assuming for both sides) certainly it seems a better solution than removing them from the map or allowing them to attach to Divisions.



Flaviusx -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 3:13:32 AM)

The quickest way to get a tank corps trained up is to hurl them against the German invader.

And anyhow, not making tank corps just slows down and delays their introduction. You aren't going to get to Berlin with ants. Soviet players don't seem to get this, and don't understand how to do jujitsu instead of trench warfare. A staring contest across belts of forts by both sides in 1942 is, ultimately, to the German advantage. (This is something that German players aren't getting, too.)

The key to victory lies not in static warfare, but mobile warfare...on Soviet terms and on ground of Soviet choosing, with Soviet mobile reserves smashing the German.



randallw -> RE: Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved.. (5/23/2011 3:15:55 AM)

I see these occasional "casualty madness" claims, but without the context of actual casualty numbers, from smaller size battles ( a few divisions here or there ) in 1942, being posted along with the complaints.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.46875