what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (Full Version)

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



Message

kevini1000 -> what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 3:58:55 PM)

While Germans much get 2-1 to obtain a retreat result. This might be the entire reason as to why the Russian are getting so strong so fast in the game. Digging in and good terrain means almost nothing to the Germans. If the Russian's get a 1 to 1 result good bye fort and terrain. This is why the Russian's getting 60 win results or more a turn in the first blizzard and they are regain so much more territory than normal. More on this later



Uxbridge -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 4:13:44 PM)

Fully agree. Brought it up here:

Link

Didn't get any favourable reaction, though. [:(]

Wish they would release a very unofficial unofficial patch, similar to the present, but with only this thing altered. Then anyone could choose their own version to play.



jzardos -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 4:40:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Fully agree. Brought it up here:

Link

Didn't get any favourable reaction, though. [:(]

Wish they would release a very unofficial unofficial patch, similar to the present, but with only this thing altered. Then anyone could choose their own version to play.


hehe, this will NEVER happen and for good reasons. I mean any sort of patch release. I'd pref to see the combat engine given some tweaks based off what my many many hours of testing has proven about Sov ANT units vs large scale attacks. Also, people don't realize that the current WitE combat engine has a cap loses at around 35% (approx). I did a test and attacked a depleted Sov Rifle Brigade(clear and fort1) with 3 vet German PZ Divs. So was like 40k vs 600 men. For 10 combat tests the results were an average of 100 German men lost and 200 Sov. Only ONE time did the Sov unit 'SHATTER'. To be this is bogus. How would these 600 Sov troops get away from 3 vet PZ div? I think 9 results should have been SHATTER or SURRENDER and 1 result maybe a route.

No idea why the developers have set some % ceiling on loses a unit can take. Makes no sense, especially when you have a very large forces attacking a very small force. Combat engine is solid in most battle scenarios, but really is whacked when these types of battles occurs. I do agree with abulbulian comment, that a small force with high exp and high morale should have a better chance to get away or inflict more loses.






heliodorus04 -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 5:16:12 PM)

Another one of the heuristics used to get around the hard work of actual realistic play balance.

All that work on morale and fatigue and experience and damaged elements and rates of fire and reliability and support squads and leadership rolls and then there's this kind of crap that undermines all of it.



kevini1000 -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 5:35:11 PM)

I'll give more opinion into this when I get a chance. I could see this one thing influencing play balance as I said right at the first 1-1 Russian attack. This starts a chain of events that snowball and get far worse as time goes on. Another thing is this would force the Russian player to make decision and fight the war in a more Historical manner not just run away and rail everything. Historically the Russian were counter attacking from almost day one. Often bad decisions but they won the war with blood and plenty of it. I think this would make for a much more enjoyable game on both sides.

I could also speak of the overwelming Russian rail capacity. Certainly early on. Perhaps this should start at 50% capcity then creep up as time moves on. Hey they could start the Russian rail net with lets say 40% damage this might represent the inital disorganization at the very beginning of the war.



Apollo11 -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 5:55:07 PM)

Hi all,

As Joel wrote on this forum several times - we all read the public forum and many many times discuss things started here in developer's forum!


The 1:1 +1 for Soviets was discussed a lot and talks about that stated even before the WitE was publicly released.


Right now Pavel ("Helpless") is on 2-3 weeks vacation but before he left he made us special version to test certain aspects of the game unrestricted.

Among other things there is code dealing with 1:1 +1 for Soviets... [;)]


So... as always... please be patient and have faith... the WitE is constantly improved by developers and will continue to live for long long long time... [:)]


Leo "Apollo1""



hfarrish -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 6:18:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sath

istorically the Russian were counter attacking from almost day one. Often bad decisions but they won the war with blood and plenty of it. I think this would make for a much more enjoyable game on both sides.

I could also speak of the overwelming Russian rail capacity. Certainly early on. Perhaps this should start at 50% capcity then creep up as time moves on. Hey they could start the Russian rail net with lets say 40% damage this might represent the inital disorganization at the very beginning of the war.


Why should Soviet players be forced to recreate bad decisions? 1941 play balance is very, very good right now as virtually all of the AARs reflect - and the Soviet has a very difficult time making meaningful counterattacks even with the modifier. To the extent there is later game issues (including the blizzard) with the +1 modifier, that's a different story. Also, the rail capacity complaint is wildly overblown - having just been through an round (in an AAR) where virtually every city with factories is under threat the Soviet really has to pick and choose, and CANNOT simply evacuate everything...and the fix you suggest actually doesn't hurt the Soviet that much since in the early turns there are virtually no moveable troops anyway.



HRL58 -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 6:27:54 PM)

My opinion

I can buy the soviet 1-1 attack-bonus. But only if they, in those cases, take some 7 to 10-1 losses against the defenders, and the germans loses less artillery and other stuff in their retreat. Such soviet losses better simulates the historical massive horde assault tactics ...and if used to often it also draines the experience of the individual soviet units.      



Uxbridge -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 6:30:27 PM)

Just for the record, I'm of the opinion that both sides should be able to shift a defender in 1-1 final odds, not that the Russian requirement is changed to 2-1. I rather had the Russian requirement untouched, really. Otherwise they will run into the same problem later in the war as the Germans have early (I think). Why not a compromize; let both sides have 1,5 as the required value.

To be quite honest, I am not so impressed by the choice of having retreat depend on final odds alone. But maybe there's more to it than I know of.



Pawlock -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 6:40:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sath

I could also speak of the overwelming Russian rail capacity. Certainly early on. Perhaps this should start at 50% capcity then creep up as time moves on. Hey they could start the Russian rail net with lets say 40% damage this might represent the inital disorganization at the very beginning of the war.


Play against an aggressive Axis opponent who knows what to do and then come back and say Soviet rail capacity is overwhelming.



hfarrish -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 6:50:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock


Play against an aggressive Axis opponent who knows what to do and then come back and say Soviet rail capacity is overwhelming.


Thank you...



Flaviusx -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 7:07:51 PM)

As Leo indicates, there's an experimental build for testers right now that does away with the +1 business.

Personally, I have never liked it and don't think the game needs it, but testing could reveal otherwise.



Flaviusx -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 7:10:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sath

I'll give more opinion into this when I get a chance. I could see this one thing influencing play balance as I said right at the first 1-1 Russian attack. This starts a chain of events that snowball and get far worse as time goes on. Another thing is this would force the Russian player to make decision and fight the war in a more Historical manner not just run away and rail everything. Historically the Russian were counter attacking from almost day one. Often bad decisions but they won the war with blood and plenty of it. I think this would make for a much more enjoyable game on both sides.

I could also speak of the overwelming Russian rail capacity. Certainly early on. Perhaps this should start at 50% capcity then creep up as time moves on. Hey they could start the Russian rail net with lets say 40% damage this might represent the inital disorganization at the very beginning of the war.


Um.

Removing the +1 is going to make the Soviet less rather than more likely to counterattack in 41, all other things being equal. Just saying. That said, this whole runaway business is extremely wrongheaded. I'm glad we are starting to see some good AARs showing this.



kevini1000 -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 7:12:04 PM)

I should not have said that it was a bad decision. It was actually a good decision. Bleeding the Germans at the price of heavy Russian losses. The attacks are still damaging factors increasing fatige and burning supplies in the process.

I'm suggesting that the Russian's are forced most likely to echange 1941 crappy troops to save factories if early rail capacity is reduced a bit. The factories are certainly more important in the long run.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


quote:

ORIGINAL: sath

istorically the Russian were counter attacking from almost day one. Often bad decisions but they won the war with blood and plenty of it. I think this would make for a much more enjoyable game on both sides.

I could also speak of the overwelming Russian rail capacity. Certainly early on. Perhaps this should start at 50% capcity then creep up as time moves on. Hey they could start the Russian rail net with lets say 40% damage this might represent the inital disorganization at the very beginning of the war.


Why should Soviet players be forced to recreate bad decisions? 1941 play balance is very, very good right now as virtually all of the AARs reflect - and the Soviet has a very difficult time making meaningful counterattacks even with the modifier. To the extent there is later game issues (including the blizzard) with the +1 modifier, that's a different story. Also, the rail capacity complaint is wildly overblown - having just been through an round (in an AAR) where virtually every city with factories is under threat the Soviet really has to pick and choose, and CANNOT simply evacuate everything...and the fix you suggest actually doesn't hurt the Soviet that much since in the early turns there are virtually no moveable troops anyway.





herwin -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 8:40:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Another one of the heuristics used to get around the hard work of actual realistic play balance.

All that work on morale and fatigue and experience and damaged elements and rates of fire and reliability and support squads and leadership rolls and then there's this kind of crap that undermines all of it.



Actually what happens is the overmatched unit abandons the field if it can--there's no resistance to your advance. 35% casualties is typical at that point.



jzardos -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 9:13:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Another one of the heuristics used to get around the hard work of actual realistic play balance.

All that work on morale and fatigue and experience and damaged elements and rates of fire and reliability and support squads and leadership rolls and then there's this kind of crap that undermines all of it.



Actually what happens is the over-matched unit abandons the field if it can--there's no resistance to your advance. 35% casualties is typical at that point.



Why not, it's so easy just abandon the field when over matched.

[X(]

However in practice and historically with Soviet forces (41-42) it a very difficult procedure to execute on the battlefield. So I think WitE devs need to put back in the historical flavor of how unsuccessful these ANT forces would be able to extract themselves from the field and be a fighting force in the next few turns (ROUTE) or just RETREAT with with only max 35% loses.

OH and for another JOKE these ANT forces were able to ROUTE/RETREAT with some hvy caliber arty. GET REAL, would never happen, sorry. The 3 Panzer units would have decimated this ANT soviet unit or it would have surrendered. Who in their right mind would NOT understand this??????? This is just INSANE and the more I think about it being in place for the WitE combat engine for 7 months after the initial release just upsets me even more.

Please devs, just get this fixed!

.. also for more laughs I did combat of few German units against a Soviet tank brigade. Hit the unit 3 times with deliberate attacks. Never took more than about 30% men from the ~1000k unit. It was able to retreat 3 times. I forgot the Soviets had elite commando tank brigade units in 42. [8D]



heliodorus04 -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/22/2011 9:14:18 PM)

I'm always curious as to how the game uncharacteristically keeps 1941 Soviet units from being able to launch attacks by some other means than 1:1 +1.

Was not the Soviet Army capable of contesting German operational initiative at certain points during the summer of 41?
It's these awful 1 and 2 CV units, of course, but why are they always, without fail, so awful?  Whatever mechanism prevents them from gaining meaningful strength and supply is the culprit.

As I see it, this is why the 1:1 +1 issue was created, because 1941 German CVs don't scale well based on these other factors like fatigue & supply distance. 

Outside of the first winter, the Soviet essentially cannot counter-attack until it's a foregone conclusion that he'll win the war (in 1943...).

One thing I wish we could do is simply set the 1:1 +1 limit to 1941 only.



timmyab -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 12:17:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
One thing I wish we could do is simply set the 1:1 +1 limit to 1941 only.

Yes, I've been thinking along these lines too.Could maybe limit it to shock armies and gaurds units during the blizzard and after that dispense with it.Certainly by 1943 it makes no sense at all.



Wild -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 12:39:47 AM)

I am very glad to here that this 1-1 odds thing might get changed.

I have to agree with Helio's first post. All the work to make things detailed, realistic and dare i say it "Historic" and it is all thrown away by some cheap gimmick of play balancing.
This is really my biggest complaint about the game.

In my opinion we just need to model the small things correctly and the big things will take care of themselves. No need for artificial play balancing.






hfarrish -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 1:18:21 AM)


I'm not sure how trying to achieve realistic outcomes is a "cheap gimmick." It may not work totally as designed and need tweaking in certain spots (particularly after '41), but the whole point of it was that if it isn't there than the Soviet forces are totally incapable of doing anything at all in 41...which is also not realistic.




hfarrish -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 1:23:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

[
However in practice and historically with Soviet forces (41-42) it a very difficult procedure to execute on the battlefield. So I think WitE devs need to put back in the historical flavor of how unsuccessful these ANT forces would be able to extract themselves from the field and be a fighting force in the next few turns (ROUTE) or just RETREAT with with only max 35% loses.

OH and for another JOKE these ANT forces were able to ROUTE/RETREAT with some hvy caliber arty. GET REAL, would never happen, sorry.


It's "rout" not "route." Before you go around getting hysterical in ALL CAPS you might want to get that right. Not sure why people are so fired up about this, the difference between a 1000 man unit taking 35% casualties and routing or shattering is really not that great in the scale of the game. Basically a non-problem. I would agree that the ZOC issue probably could stand to be addressed, and there are late game issues that definitely require the devs attention more than this.




Wild -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 5:37:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


I'm not sure how trying to achieve realistic outcomes is a "cheap gimmick." It may not work totally as designed and need tweaking in certain spots (particularly after '41), but the whole point of it was that if it isn't there than the Soviet forces are totally incapable of doing anything at all in 41...which is also not realistic.





I just mean, that if we model everything correctly we should achieve a historical outcome. We should not need this rule (cheap gimmick was probably a poor choice of words) for "achieving realistic outcomes".

In my view the game should be pretty well self balancing if the model is correct. So fix whats wrong with the model instead of adding artificial balancing rules.



jomni -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 6:24:25 AM)

<deleted>



cookie monster -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 6:34:35 AM)

I do love these threads I really do![8|]

I'll say it again the Russian 1-1 is hardly an advantage.

Attacking at low odds and relying on 1-1 combat odds,

Would rapidly turn the Soviet Army into Swiss Cheese.

The casualties are horrendous, and now that reserve unit commitment has been patched the situation can only be worse.

Although slower the Soviet Army does have to attack in force to preserve the Army.

Casualties are high, of course because defending will favour the Axis for a large part of the War.

I really do hope you've battled all the way from Stalingrad to Germany with the Soviet Army before formulating an opinion.



delatbabel -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 8:36:48 AM)

As much as I would like to see the retreat rules made variable (you have a high chance of retreating the enemy if you attack at 10:1, a much lower chance at 1.2:1) that leads to in-PBEM cheating where a player continually replays his or her turns until he gets the retreat result he wants.

Better would be about a 1.5:1 rule for both sides, but with much higher losses to the attacker when the odds are lower and much lower losses with higher odds. Higher levels in fortifications based on the fort level, and higher levels again in city / urban hexes. Perhaps a bit higher odds to force Soviets to retreat from USSR hexes, and higher odds required to force Germans to retreat when the war is carried into Germany. Historically (not just WWII here), troops defending on home territory stood and died, troops on foreign territory tended to retreat more often.

Furthermore I would add the ability of NKVD units stacked with or behind a Soviet unit to reduce the chance of retreat (increase the odds an attacker must have to force a retreat) at the cost of additional losses. Just throwing that one out there for the politics.

Also, as an option, allow "stand fast" orders to be added to a HQ to prevent attached units retreating, at the cost of higher losses.



jomni -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 9:30:34 AM)

This is an eureka moment. Delatbabel point out something good that is present in other operational games.  A setting for casualty tolerance.  Present in AGEOD games and TOAW, This affects both retreating as defender and calling-off an attack as attacker. Control of the hex depends on which side's tolerance is reached first during the detailed combat resolution rounds.

The player ultimately ends up deciding the doctrine in stead of some arbitrary and abstract mechanic.  This results into a big micromanagement task which I'm not fond of when playing TOAW. But for me this is the way that this should be solved. Yet I fear it is too late to put this into the game.



delatbabel -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 11:10:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

This is an eureka moment. Delatbabel point out something good that is present in other operational games.  A setting for casualty tolerance.  Present in AGEOD games and TOAW, This affects both retreating as defender and calling-off an attack as attacker. Control of the hex depends on which side's tolerance is reached first during the detailed combat resolution rounds.

The player ultimately ends up deciding the doctrine in stead of some arbitrary and abstract mechanic.  This results into a big micromanagement task which I'm not fond of when playing TOAW. But for me this is the way that this should be solved. Yet I fear it is too late to put this into the game.


I was thinking of the 3W games such as Kirovograd where each HQ gets a set of "orders" at the start of the turn. These vary from defend (take losses, don't retreat, slows movement), mobile (reduces combat efficiency, can advance or retreat), withdraw (reduces losses sustained, increases retreats), "assault", "pursue", etc.

Assigning standing orders to HQs would only need to be done at an army/corps level and could be done fairly quickly in the command report screens. I use much the same process at the moment to set the support level of HQs on a front by front basis or whole army basis, and it's fairly quick and painless.



delatbabel -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/23/2011 11:12:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

I really do hope you've battled all the way from Stalingrad to Germany with the Soviet Army before formulating an opinion.



I strongly agree with this.



Wild -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/24/2011 1:27:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

I really do hope you've battled all the way from Stalingrad to Germany with the Soviet Army before formulating an opinion.



I strongly agree with this.



I confess i have not played the russian side at all. I would agree with your comment in almost all cases, but not this one. You are missing the point of my comment. We should not have to use any play balancing tools like this if the game is modeled correctly. It's as simple as that. If the Russians would be too adversely effected by the removal of this rule then the model is not corect and must be changed.

I will say again. I am not trying to nerf the Soviets in some way. I am trying to have the game modeled as accurately and as historically as possible, and having rules like this defeats the purpose of all the hard work to model things correctly.




jzardos -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/24/2011 2:13:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

[
However in practice and historically with Soviet forces (41-42) it a very difficult procedure to execute on the battlefield. So I think WitE devs need to put back in the historical flavor of how unsuccessful these ANT forces would be able to extract themselves from the field and be a fighting force in the next few turns (ROUTE) or just RETREAT with with only max 35% loses.

OH and for another JOKE these ANT forces were able to ROUTE/RETREAT with some hvy caliber arty. GET REAL, would never happen, sorry.


It's "rout" not "route." Before you go around getting hysterical in ALL CAPS you might want to get that right. Not sure why people are so fired up about this, the difference between a 1000 man unit taking 35% casualties and routing or shattering is really not that great in the scale of the game. Basically a non-problem. I would agree that the ZOC issue probably could stand to be addressed, and there are late game issues that definitely require the devs attention more than this.





hfarrish,

Thanks for correcting me with 'rout' -> 'route'. Now let's move on to something with more relevance and substance. How about you spend a little time doing some research into the battles fought on the eastern front, specifically in 42? If that's not too much to ask? I've spent a significant amount of time in the last 2 months doing just that. Finished three great books, one was probably a bit less reliable for numbers as it was memoirs of Manstein: 'Lost Victories'. But, another by David Glantz really enlighten me and that guy know more about the eastern front THAN ANYBODY (some CAPS just for you hfrarisshh). So do that and then come back with something sensible and intelligent to say about the 35% rule. Would love to see your arguments that the battle results in WitE do historical justice in my example ANT cases.

thanks!

have a nice day!



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.669922