RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (Full Version)

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



Message

Flaviusx -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:50:53 PM)

Pelton, I think the problem actually starts before Dec. 42, provided certain conditions are met.

I myself would lean towards getting rid of the 1-1 rule as early as January of 42.

However. We've got some changes in the pipeline. It may be best to see how these other things affect the game -- they are pretty significant changes -- before doing something with the 1-1 rule.



Peltonx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:50:56 PM)

Forts have very little to do with it.

Forts help the Red players which it should, but forts do not help the German player much at all because 1v1 = 2v1 which equals the German player retreats, loses moral takes extra losses.

I beleive if the 1v1 = 2v1 is pulled the fort issue might have to be tweaked a little, but if you look at maps of the russian front it was basicly static from late 42 to late 43 early 44 in some areas. There where some attacks and counter attacks, but nothing major.

Right now all things being equal the German player can't attack during 42 and can get steamroled by April 43 because of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

I thk the fort issue is about right now. Mybee make the time between 2 and 3 longer and 3 to 4 and 4 to 5 longer.

Pelton



ComradeP -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:51:41 PM)

I don't see how you can expect people to take you seriously when you're being offensive in almost every post and complain when your pet strategy that comes down to abusing the supply system no longer works.

There is no difference to how the odds modifier works in 1942 (or 1943, 1944 or 1945) compared to 1941, so I don't see why you see that difference. In 1942, Soviet CV values can be quite a bit better than in 1941 (most if not all divisions will be ready, for starters), so there's already less need for the odds modifier. It's mostly useful as an encirclement breaker at that point. In 1941, it gives you a chance to attack spearheads without having to plan ahead and send good troops to an area, but even without it you can still launch successful attacks.

The reduction of morale, CV or the amount of men in the unit have absolutely nothing to do with the odds modifier, which causes none of those things. There is no special rule that makes a battle that's won due to the odds modifier different in terms of defender morale, CV or losses compared to an attack that has "natural" 2:1 or more odds.



Peltonx -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:57:40 PM)

I know you guys are working on it an allot of other things also.

Thanks for hard work and I am 100% sure you guys get things right.

The nerf you guys did to the HQ build up was right on. I thought it was to much of a nerf, but it turned out to be about right other then the bug every time you guys patch (19Mp) heheh. I hate to say it, but might be best to just make it 19mp and stop fighting it [:D].

Hope you guys are taking some vacations.

Pelton




Flaviusx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 9:00:00 PM)

Forts contribute to the problem.

Here is the dynamic at play. The present situation with forst allow the Soviet to create a very early stalemated situation. The entire front goes into trench warfare in summer of 42. At this stage of the game, the Red Army doesn't have the chops to do much more against German forts than to launch some low odds attacks and hope to force retreats. If the Red Army can build up a huge replacement pool, it can afford to press such attacks with wild abandon, even with the 42 Red Army.

The static nature of the front makes it relatively safe to conduct this positional and attritional style of warfare.

Now, if you can bust things open a bit and force the Soviet to respond to mobile German warfare, they're going to be too busy dealing with the enemy advances to settle down into a long grind. Right now that mobile element seems to be missing.




Peltonx -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 9:04:48 PM)

Almost is the key word.

If I am right I am right, I really could care less if I make you cry or not.

If I am wrong I will say so. I have had to eat more then one crow thks to Flaviusx and a few others.

If your wrong I will be more then happy to pt it out and expect the same from others. Dancing around the issue doen't sovle the issue.

1v1 = 2v1 does have its plase in the game, but it really does throw things out of balance quickly during 42.

Thats just the way it is sorry.

Pelton



Peltonx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 9:13:00 PM)

Yes and no.

Many games IF the German player can hit 100ish arm pts pocketed then the Red line of forts can be broken.

If its broken then allot of Red units get pocketed and the German army can get better then 3 to 1 odds. This hurts the Red army enough so they cant ever really recover.

I thk if you nerf forts to much then any German player that gets 100+ arm pts will really crush the Red army during 42.

There seems to be a really fine line between whos winning the game come 42. I am 100% sure this is what the devs are tring to get away from.

Its a very complex issue to solve for sure, becuase the game itself is a monster.

I thk the 1v1 = 2v1 is the biggest issue that needs to be fixed and the moral fort tweaks will be the iceing on the cake.

Overall the games really good and there is nothing like it out there so the devs have issues that no one has had to tackle.

Pelton



Reconvet -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 9:30:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It's a bigger problem. Opinions differ on what the problem consists of, but to me it's mostly a problem of casualties.

-Even though high experience units fire more often in battle, effects of having high experience are generally underwhelming for the Axis in terms of the casualties they take from indirect fire. Soviet Rifle squads rarely hit anything even if they fire, but as soon as the Soviets get their mortars out even barely trained conscripts give the Axis infantry a pasting that tends to ruin the loss ratio for the Axis.

-Hasty attacks usually don't do a lot of damage (which is fine), but mobile units don't have the MP's to make deliberate attacks and advance in the same turn, which is a problem.

-As there's no "chase" segment for combat, casualties caused by mobile units are often a bit underwhelming. A unit with very little mobility and no safe route for a retreat, like a Rifle brigade/division in a clear hex, can just walk away with low losses from a 90 morale/experience mobile unit.

-Retreat attrition for guns is fairly high. The Soviets can take that, the Axis can't.

-There is no period for recovery for the Axis due to the constant attrition, which shrinks the Wehrmacht every turn.

The odds modifier leads to some of these problems, it's not the direct cause of any of them.



Excellent analysis imho, highlighting that current problems of WitE ground combat definitly have more than one cause.

Some of these points ARE interdependant: Retreats and retreat casualties stemming from magical 1:1 --> 2:1 attack resolution distortions are directly connected. Retreat casualties because of combat value doping after an attack should have failed are hard to swallow. 1:1 --> 2:1 strictly reserved for one side simply STINKS, many of us here have problems with such an artificial one-sided sci-fi combat booster.

If you let Axis suffer from such a strange rule then at least adapt that rule to let Axis take fewer retreat casualties during this process. Like this you could reduce artificially produced higher Axis casualties while allowing Soviets some successful attacks and hex gains (including opening of pockets) before 1943. Consider the fact that German leadership on average was lightyears ahead of Soviet average leaders, therefore German led troops should get a bonus for orderly tactical retreats (including way less arty and AFV losses when having to fall back due to 1:1-->2:1).

In short: I'd propose keeping 1:1-->2:1 during 1941 and 1942 (though with significantly reduced retreat losses for German units forced to retreat due to the 1:1-->2:1 rule), and then get rid of this awful rule on 01/01/1943 for the rest of the game.





heliodorus04 -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 10:53:30 PM)

I'm dumbstruck that someone can argue that the +1 odds shift might not have 'macro' implications. OF COURSE it has macro implications, because of the retreat casualties routine.

The loss of guns and the loss of morale ARE your macro implications. This speaks nothing of the irrelevance of German forts given this mechanic, and several other impacts I can't remember right now. You drain the German OOB of guns, accelerating the degradation of the German defensive capability, and you use a 'sci-fi gimmick' (well said Reconvet) that causes a defeat and a corresponding drop in German morale.

In combination, this creates compound leverage bringing about the early defeat of Germany which the German player is helpless to stop because it's hard coded.

I can accept and understand that there are difficulties balancing the game en toto because you have people who only play the AI, and you have people who are playing opponents that are dubiously inferior than they themselves, so some tradeoffs are looked at over a long time with an eye on unintended consequence. But to say that you're not sure whether or not macro impact is present flies in the face of very straight-forward game mechanics which you must obviously understand.

I'm deeply fatigued that a game which is 33% more expensive than other computer games, which is now 8 months old, is being sandbagged from logical improvements (like ending the +1 at some point in 1942, and the BS Soviet brigade ZOC/fort-building routines) through forced waiting on AARs from the public at large on its website (so not only do we have to wait for someone to play the game and write an AAR, we have to wait for someone at Matrix to READ them and compile quantitative data from them). Maybe Matrix should have anticipated ways to easily exchange data from games between players and databases.

And when someone gives a specific AAR, it seems to me at least that someone from Matrix or the Alpha/Beta testers inevitably proclaims "This AAR is an outlier." Fancy jedi mind trick, that...




Farfarer61 -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 11:09:25 PM)

I think there is a greater aim at work - to create the "unified field theory" of game engines which will stand for 1939-1945 all countries, all fronts, no by-year tweaks. I think it is a bridge too far. I would have 1 = 2 have a blended early end end with an earlier ability to make "Corps" - with an increased cost but reducing cost in AP. For example, end it in 31 Dec 41 ( you save Moscow or whatever) , but allow Inf and Tank Corps to be made at +5 AP extra per month greater than historical availability.



Flaviusx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 11:29:03 PM)

Heliodorus, in case you haven't noticed, I support getting rid of the rule past a certain point.

And the game in question is an outlier. Take a look at the AAR yourself. This isn't a standard game. It's very exceptional. No conclusions should be drawn from it. And the conclusion you would draw from it is exactly the opposite one of this topic. This is a game where the 1-1 rule is actually working just fine.

So let's please throw out this particular data if we want to discuss adjusting the rule.

We have much much better examples of games to make the argument from. One of them is even a Tarhunnas game, his game against Q-ball. Why he felt compelled to make his case based on the Gids game is a mystery to me.

It only undermines his arguments.



ComradeP -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 11:41:04 PM)

quote:

I'm dumbstruck that someone can argue that the +1 odds shift might not have 'macro' implications. OF COURSE it has macro implications, because of the retreat casualties routine.


It does not have implications by itself, because the odds themselves don't do anything. They cause various kinds of results, but those achieved with the odds modifier are no different from the results from natural 2:1 and higher odds results.

If you'd remove the odds modifier, things like the casualties caused by retreats would be completely unaffected. In my opinion, that's where the problem is. If the casualties become less brutal and there's perhaps some chance that a unit won't take a morale hit upon losing a battle, the odds modifier immediately becomes much less of a problem, although I'm not happy with it myself.

quote:

I'm deeply fatigued that a game which is 33% more expensive than other computer games, which is now 8 months old, is being sandbagged from logical improvements (like ending the +1 at some point in 1942, and the BS Soviet brigade ZOC/fort-building routines) through forced waiting on AARs from the public at large on its website (so not only do we have to wait for someone to play the game and write an AAR, we have to wait for someone at Matrix to READ them and compile quantitative data from them). Maybe Matrix should have anticipated ways to easily exchange data from games between players and databases.


The reason when it comes to the speed of some kinds of changes is not lack of data or a lack of a will to change things. We had a pretty large list of suggestions pre-release as well.

The reason is that the programming team consists of Gary, who has a company to run, and Pavel, who has a regular day job and does this part-time. If 2by3 was some big developer with a dozen programmer, obviously things could be changed much faster than they can be changed now.

I understand it can fatigue you, it fatigues the testers and the developers too in a way, because we all want to be the product to be as good as possible, but it's just what the situation is like currently. The capabilities for more than gradual changes are just not there currently, also because really big changes need extensive testing.

I'm sorry if you feel like you've been mislead in some way, but I don't think it was a secret that 2by3 is a small development team and thus has its limitations compared to the huge more mainstream development teams.

quote:

And when someone gives a specific AAR, it seems to me at least that someone from Matrix or the Alpha/Beta testers inevitably proclaims "This AAR is an outlier." Fancy jedi mind trick, that...


As difficult as that might be to believe, it is true in many cases. Only recently have public games that are being AAR'ed gotten close to the tester AAR's in terms of the experience of their opponents and thus what both players achieve, simply because people had to slowly get used to the game and become more experienced. As such, many AAR's initially came down to one opponent turning out to be much better than the other or one player making a series of crucial mistakes. Changing things based on extremes is a bad idea, things should be changed based on the average. Now that the overall experience of the community has increased substantially since the period directly after release, it's much easier to collect results of the average game and make adjustments based on that.



Michael T -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 1:25:35 AM)

It seems that the game is leaping from 41 blitzkrieg warfare to 43 attrition warfare and skipping the 42 middle ground. Factors for this include the 1:1 thing, no proportional zoc's, ants (no overrun rule) and forts (too many 3's and 4's).

These factors need to be addressed. If they are then the game will open up in 42 and the Soviets will be very busy rebuilding lost units and conserving force for a proper counter offensive rather than building INF Corp to lead a series of 1:1 attrition attacks.

In 42 I would change the 1:1 rule to 1.5 : 1. And remove all together in 43.
I would introduce an over run rule for ants at high odds (not sure what).
I would make the zoc costs proportional.
I would limit the number of level 3 and 4 forts.

I also think there is a significant problem with morale recovery/improvement. Its been toned down too much. I see my elite German troops degrade very fast even after just 1 or 2 hold results and yet they can win 10-0 battles and not gain a single point.

The play testers make very valid points in that nothing can really be gained from analysing AAR's between significantly unequal opponents. These type of games should be disregarded for that purpose.

I have been playing east front games for over 30 years, and reading widely on the subject, not just Glantz. I would hope the majority of testers have this kind of experience. If so things should work out. Because I am beginning to doubt that the developers have sufficient knowledge on the subject. I realize the game is very complex but I am referring to fundamental military facts here. A Soviet Brigade simply cannot exert the same influence on its surrounds as a Soviet or German Division/s. A Brigade cannot face up to a Panzer Corp in the open. These facts matter in game terms because the Russians have many many Brigades. They are influencing the game in a totally disproportionate way.

WITE is easily the best PC game on the 41-45 war in Russia. But lets face it there is not much competition out there. But there are plenty of board games out there that surpass it IMO. The problem is that there is a vast pool of experience and talent in the board game design realm but comparatively very few can/will program a computer game. If we had a guy like Dean Essig or Frank Chadwick or Vance von Borries designing PC games we would be blessed with great systems out of the box. No disrespect to GG but I don't think his knowledge of what works in a Division/Brigade scale wargame is quite as good as some established board game designers. If that were so we would not need to be debating about the number of level 3/4 forts, zoc effects of ants, over run rules, ants in general, blizzards, Riga gambits, Soviet amphib capabilities etc etc. For these problems there are well established solutions in the board game world. They work. Any veteran board gamer knows this. Its common knowledge. Why we have to keep banging on about it is beyond me.

Do the devs ever have a look at how things work in quality board games? For example I have never seen this problem of excessive fort construction in GMT's East Front series or OCS GBII or Case Blue or Europa's FITE/SE. Why try and re invent the wheel? Have a look at how realistic and workable limits have been designed in to these games. Check out the over run rules. Think about why they were there in the first place. Could it be because a soviet brigade in the open facing a whole panzer corp would actually be wiped off the map? Or at least routed.

I love the game and spend hours and hours on it. I would recommend it to anyone. But I am mystified as to why accepted norms that work in other WWII board games of similar scale/complexity are being/have been ignored.

Ok rant over. Bring on the hammering :)



misesfan -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 1:39:46 AM)

If a successful combat results in a successful leader rating increase or increase in morale, plus a rating decrease/sacking and decrease in morale for the defender, dont you think that this macro affect would be significant?

For example, lets say the successful attack resulted in a decrease in morale so that the unit goes from bright green to dull green (I believe if the morale decreases below 85) doesn't that unit suffer from more effects than the casualty loss/retreat? It can longer penetrate as far if used offensively through enemy lines for one thing...

Or if the attack results in a morale rating increase for a Guards Army commander. Death Star stack of doom incoming...Or von Manstein gets a KIA...

All random results to be sure, but arent they more probable due to continuous Soviet 1:1 attacks marching up and down the line?

I am a noob for sure but Heliodorus and Tarhunnas have a point in my humble opinion.



wpurdom -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 1:49:26 AM)

quote:

In 42 I would change the 1:1 rule to 1.5 : 1. And remove all together in 43.
I would introduce an over run rule for ants at high odds (not sure what).
I would make the zoc costs proportional.
I would limit the number of level 3 and 4 forts.

I also think there is a significant problem with morale recovery/improvement. Its been toned down too much. I see my elite German troops degrade very fast even after just 1 or 2 hold results and yet they can win 10-0 battles and not gain a single point.


I agree with these sentiments. But you're asking for a huge redesign. If you make zoc proportional and allow overruns it's going to greatly unbalance matters against the RUSSIANS in 1941. I'm fine with taking Leningrad being more or less par for the course - if Hitler had made it a priority instead of initially wanting to starve to death its inhabitants first, it probably would have fallen. But players like Pelton already seem to routinely make unrealistic progress beyond what was logistically feasible in 1941, and Moscow can probably fall too eaily now. And chopping off the most formidable Russian front in the south weakens the Russians tremendously. It would take a lot to rebalance the game after the changes you suggest (which are also on my own wish list).
Finally, if you tone down the forts, how are the Germans going to slow the Soviet advance in 1943?



Michael T -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 2:10:13 AM)

quote:

If you make zoc proportional and allow overruns it's going to greatly unbalance matters against the RUSSIANS in 1941


I don't think so because the hordes of brigades appear late in summer 41 thru winter 41. Plus the zoc and overun rule need only apply to single brigades. This would force the Soviets to stack the Brigades or risk being over run. It would influence 42 much more I think.

quote:

if you tone down the forts, how are the Germans going to slow the Soviet advance in 1943?


If the Germans are able to do more damage to Russia in 42 then they are better protected in 43. Also I am saying limit the number of 3/4 forts. Not their effect. Reasonable limits need to be imposed.



carlkay58 -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 2:51:14 AM)

This is not my first time looking over problems in an Eastern Front game dealing with Soviet abilities to attrit the Axis to death too quickly. (GRD's Scorched Earth is one case - 1:1 or 3:2 attacks in '42 or '43 easily destroyed the Axis by attrition.) But let's approach this from the view of the Designer.

The Designer put the 1-1 rule into the game as a method of showing the difference in tactics between the Soviets and the Germans. The Germans concentrated their troops into a single solid fist to break through the defenders. Good intel, fluid battle control, good communications, and well-trained troops allowed the Germans to concentrate quickly to hit the soft spots. The Soviets, however, had quantity of infantry, tanks, and artillery - and that's about it. So they developed different tactics that included a broad front attack which would highlight the weak points in the Axis line and then reinforce the successful areas while holding in the other areas. Very effective use of superior numbers and the defenders would find themselves falling back to prevent being surrounded.

Now couple this thought with the fact that vastly inferior forces in the game are able to remain intact and suffer few casualties while retreating in front of the attacker. We are told that this is because the inferior forces were more likely to "bug out" earlier and avoid the casualties. So there should be a good case to make that when the Axis is forced to retreat solely because of the 1-1 rule, the retreat losses should be less - the defenders retreated to avoid being surrounded - just like the brigades/regiments do. This would give the players a situation where the Axis forces retreat in good order and are able to counter-attack with greater force to recapture the lost ground or hit the flanks of the Soviet thrust with more troops. Pretty historical. So perhaps we need to argue a lower rate of retreat losses rather than eliminate the rule.

This fix would work at any point of the war - so no need to figure out and test when a change should occur.



DesertedFox -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 3:38:04 AM)

quote:

pelton.
I beleive if the 1v1 = 2v1 is pulled the fort issue might have to be tweaked a little, but if you look at maps of the russian front it was basicly static from late 42 to late 43 early 44 in some areas. There where some attacks and counter attacks, but nothing major.




Kursk, July 1943 doesn't count as a major battle? Interesting take on it. All of my reading over the past 35 years has described it as the largest tank battle of WW2.

Cheers,

Dooley



heliodorus04 -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 4:16:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

This is not my first time looking over problems in an Eastern Front game dealing with Soviet abilities to attrit the Axis to death too quickly. (GRD's Scorched Earth is one case - 1:1 or 3:2 attacks in '42 or '43 easily destroyed the Axis by attrition.) But let's approach this from the view of the Designer.

The Designer put the 1-1 rule into the game as a method of showing the difference in tactics between the Soviets and the Germans. The Germans concentrated their troops into a single solid fist to break through the defenders. Good intel, fluid battle control, good communications, and well-trained troops allowed the Germans to concentrate quickly to hit the soft spots. The Soviets, however, had quantity of infantry, tanks, and artillery - and that's about it. So they developed different tactics that included a broad front attack which would highlight the weak points in the Axis line and then reinforce the successful areas while holding in the other areas. Very effective use of superior numbers and the defenders would find themselves falling back to prevent being surrounded.

Now couple this thought with the fact that vastly inferior forces in the game are able to remain intact and suffer few casualties while retreating in front of the attacker. We are told that this is because the inferior forces were more likely to "bug out" earlier and avoid the casualties. So there should be a good case to make that when the Axis is forced to retreat solely because of the 1-1 rule, the retreat losses should be less - the defenders retreated to avoid being surrounded - just like the brigades/regiments do. This would give the players a situation where the Axis forces retreat in good order and are able to counter-attack with greater force to recapture the lost ground or hit the flanks of the Soviet thrust with more troops. Pretty historical. So perhaps we need to argue a lower rate of retreat losses rather than eliminate the rule.

This fix would work at any point of the war - so no need to figure out and test when a change should occur.


Good points, all.



Vyper -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 6:42:23 AM)

Well posted.


Perhaps even no loss of morale (but no points could be gained that turn) for a 1:1 retreat as it was good order also? That may help with the low morale issue in 42-43.



saintsup -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 7:29:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
In 42 I would change the 1:1 rule to 1.5 : 1. And remove all together in 43.
I would introduce an over run rule for ants at high odds (not sure what).
I would make the zoc costs proportional.
I would limit the number of level 3 and 4 forts.


+ I would reduce retreat losses from low-odds attacks
+ I would find a way to make static mode used by players (harsher motor pool conditions, incentive to static for defense, ...) in order to simulate the logistical impossibility to conduce offensive all along the front as used by the designers in starting set-ups for 43 and 44 scenarios



davetheroad -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/29/2011 4:10:21 PM)

Thinks

to shortcircuit all the problems of analysing PBEM games etc etc why not just trust the players and
add a end turn number for the 1:1=2:1 rule?

Put it in the player options section so that it can be changed during the game if the players agree.

If you do this you have covered all the bases without attempting to make the game fit ALL situations, which of course it will never do.

eventually a consensus will appear for which is the best turn to end the rukle



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 6:53:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The rule kicked in. Any final combat odds result greater or equal to 2 or less than three will include the modifier in it.



Actually, the rule always kick in whenever the Soviets attack and get a result better than 1-1. Not sure if that has any side effects or not, but that is the way it seems to work. Look at the example below. 412 and 195 give an odds of 2.1, which is enough that the Germans would have retreated anyway, but the odds is still shifted to 3.1.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/406D7171DD90408BA5A17235D44F7C41.jpg[/image]



KenchiSulla -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 9:42:23 AM)

Actually Tarhunnas, this last post kinda shows the need for an increase in soviet combat value.

9:1 in men
9:1 in tubes
3:1 in tanks

Air superiority

And soviets barely get 2:1 odds

Or is that a mud turn?

Anyway, I don't know what exactly is happening under the hood but wouldn't it make the game more transparant if the soviet CV was intrinsically higher as a form of organisational bonus (1941 stands at 0%, 1942 stands at + 5% etcetera?)..

You might be able to get rid of the modifier that way...

Just my 2 cents...



ComradeP -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 11:32:19 AM)

quote:

And soviets barely get 2:1 odds


The Germans are in level 4 forts and Soviet experience is probably "meh".

It's strange that the map suggests there's a mud turn, whilst according to the combat report it's a clear turn, must be some (graphical) glitch.



Der Lwe -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 11:34:00 AM)

This mihgt have been sugested before. But why dont you just remove some of the adverse effects of german reatreats? This could reflect the german emphasis of mobility. Let the germans dig faster in the lower end up to lvl2 and then slower after that and reduce the german reatreat atrition.



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 12:28:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

And soviets barely get 2:1 odds


The Germans are in level 4 forts and Soviet experience is probably "meh".

It's strange that the map suggests there's a mud turn, whilst according to the combat report it's a clear turn, must be some (graphical) glitch.


No, it is correct. The combat was from the preceeding Soviet turn, in which it was still clear weather.



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 12:33:58 PM)

But this is a sidetrack, it is not about the combat itself.

What I really wanted to say with my example was: Flavio said the rule only kicks in at odds between 1-1 and 2-1, but apparently it always kicks in whenever the odds in a Soviet attack is greater than 1-1. I am wondering if this doesn't matter since the odds are 2-1 and that's it, or if the odds have some other effect besides causing a retreat. Do they affect retreat casualties for example?



enael -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 1:20:03 PM)

i just start with WITE. it's a very good game. Someone one can explain what you all talk about : 1:1= 2:1 ?



Harovan -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (8/7/2011 2:14:51 PM)

To be won, a combat needs at least 2:1 odds. The Germans have to achieve these odds by themselves, the Soviets only have to achieve 1:1 odds and get another 1 for free: (1+1):1.




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.15625