RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (Full Version)

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



Message

Klydon -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 12:58:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great.



Have to disagree on this one strongly. I would like to see any reference where someone says the German army of 1942 could even compare to the 1941 invasion force.

I have at least 1 book that the German staff absolutely states the 1942 army is not even close to the 1941 army in terms of mobility (especially among the infantry divisions) and this is due to several factors:

Loss of motor transport and the death of so many horses from the winter. The Germans lost something like 75000 vehicles in 1941. They sent 7500 replacements. Horses were better in that most of those were replaced.

Loss of material in the retreats, especially artillery that could not be moved in time. This caused most German batteries to be at 3 guns instead of 4.

Officer and NCO casualties along with casualties in general. The Germans did not make good the casualties they had suffered by the spring and summer and the theater was still short replacements to bring the army up to full ToE strength.

The one plus was the number of tanks was very close to the same, but the tanks were much better quality than what invaded Russia in 1941.

According to my book; the comments of the General staff were that a number of mobile divisions were created (all sent to the southern part of the front for Operation Blue) and many more units had limited mobility and punch. (Most of the rest of the front).



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 1:09:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great.



Have to disagree on this one strongly. I would like to see any reference where someone says the German army of 1942 could even compare to the 1941 invasion force.

I have at least 1 book that the German staff absolutely states the 1942 army is not even close to the 1941 army in terms of mobility (especially among the infantry divisions) and this is due to several factors:

Loss of motor transport and the death of so many horses from the winter. The Germans lost something like 75000 vehicles in 1941. They sent 7500 replacements. Horses were better in that most of those were replaced.

Loss of material in the retreats, especially artillery that could not be moved in time. This caused most German batteries to be at 3 guns instead of 4.

Officer and NCO casualties along with casualties in general. The Germans did not make good the casualties they had suffered by the spring and summer and the theater was still short replacements to bring the army up to full ToE strength.

The one plus was the number of tanks was very close to the same, but the tanks were much better quality than what invaded Russia in 1941.

According to my book; the comments of the General staff were that a number of mobile divisions were created (all sent to the southern part of the front for Operation Blue) and many more units had limited mobility and punch. (Most of the rest of the front).


I was talking about QUALITY and EXPERIENCE translated into MORALE in the game. [;)]




Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 2:33:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
First Winter rules are - in my understanding - such a "scripted limitation". My point was such a "scripted event" doesn't decisively cripple the Axis (provided other things elsewhere in the game are well oiled and tuned).


Well it is historical fact that Soviet ability to wage war during winter was better than German ability to wage war during winter. Soviet ability to handle logistics during winter was also better than German ability to handle logistics.

It has to be simulated with some rules.



saintsup -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 3:36:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I think a strong point can be made that the Germans of 1942 where just as good as in 1941, so why put all those scripted limitations to artificially knock them down regardless of how well the German player is doing? As the German you're being forced down a road, a spiral you cannot get out of even if you're doing great.



Have to disagree on this one strongly. I would like to see any reference where someone says the German army of 1942 could even compare to the 1941 invasion force.

I have at least 1 book that the German staff absolutely states the 1942 army is not even close to the 1941 army in terms of mobility (especially among the infantry divisions) and this is due to several factors:

Loss of motor transport and the death of so many horses from the winter. The Germans lost something like 75000 vehicles in 1941. They sent 7500 replacements. Horses were better in that most of those were replaced.

Loss of material in the retreats, especially artillery that could not be moved in time. This caused most German batteries to be at 3 guns instead of 4.

Officer and NCO casualties along with casualties in general. The Germans did not make good the casualties they had suffered by the spring and summer and the theater was still short replacements to bring the army up to full ToE strength.

The one plus was the number of tanks was very close to the same, but the tanks were much better quality than what invaded Russia in 1941.

According to my book; the comments of the General staff were that a number of mobile divisions were created (all sent to the southern part of the front for Operation Blue) and many more units had limited mobility and punch. (Most of the rest of the front).


If you're right, this is not accuratly modelled at the moment:
- overall CV (due to moral ?) of german units is too low, including 'crack' panzer units, in comparison with soviet defense capability
- there is no shortage of trucks making the use of static mode not useful

In fact one of my major grip is that the static mode is not used in human/human play because there is not enough incentive/obligation to use it. Make it used and useful (by stick or carrot) and it could well be a good to simulate limitations to go on offensive on a whole front.



Captain -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 7:46:28 PM)

The June 42 German Army was not anywhere near as capable as the June 41 one.

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles. The training program for recruits was also shortened to 2 months, so new recruits were less trained.

This is discussed by Glantz in vol.1 of his "Stalingrad trilogy".



misesfan -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 9:03:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain

The June 42 German Army was not anywhere near as capable as the June 41 one.

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles. The training program for recruits was also shortened to 2 months, so new recruits were less trained.

This is discussed by Glantz in vol.1 of his "Stalingrad trilogy".


Disagree - but that is one of the biggest debates in military history I think.

Regardless, the Germans were able to launch operations that were as deep as the crow the flies to their gains in 41. The fact is that the breadth and width of the frontage was enormous - no way they would be able to hold if they didnt score a decisive victory in the south. And of course Hitler meddles - 11th Army northbound when it scores a big win in the Crimea, the diversion of the fourth Panzer along the axis of sixth army, etc.. etc...



saintsup -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 9:53:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles.


Shortcuts which are very dificult to mimic in game because of the capability of soviet to maintain offensive capability on the whole front.



Captain -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 10:40:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: saintsup


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles.


Shortcuts which are very dificult to mimic in game because of the capability of soviet to maintain offensive capability on the whole front.



Not really, you can reduce TOE for all infantry divisions in AGN and AGC to 66% and set them to static. All excess replacements should now flow to AGS and should more or less replicate 42, I would think?



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 10:44:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain

The June 42 German Army was not anywhere near as capable as the June 41 one.

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles. The training program for recruits was also shortened to 2 months, so new recruits were less trained.

This is discussed by Glantz in vol.1 of his "Stalingrad trilogy".


Good books, although the wait for volume 3 is long.

What you say is right but you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

Let's turn it around, do you feel that in the historical situation, the German Army in june 1942, would have been what translates to 65 infantry, and 75 panzer morale? And with a cap for infantry not to go higher than 85 and 90 for panzers? Knowing these maximums are absolute (enforced by system) and are very hard to get too? How would you rate the historical German army versus the game "Morale abstraction"?

Now the above question concerns history. IMO I think a strong arguement can be made that the German morale/experience was quickly regained to the same hight as during the 1941 campaign.

Secondly, this is with the historical first winter mistakes. However, whatever you do as the german, the system will punish you with a morale point loss per blizard turn and then off course each time you lose a combat (offense/defence). This point per turn is fixed (unless in a blizard safe hex but the majority of your army will be affected).

In addition, the system does not allow you to re-gain morale quickly through combat. Making it very hard to regain lost morale and at the same time very easy to lose morale through failed attacks. And, here's the point, does not allow the players to reach historical high morale levels in 1942 and beyond.

Anyway, that's my analysis.

On another matter, 2 months training would still be _Considerably_ more than the average training of a Russian infantry man. Still, German replacements arrive with the same experience of 30 as their Russian counter parts...





Captain -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/26/2011 11:52:15 PM)

I dont disagree with the history. Its clear that in summer 42, the German Army was still more capable than the Red Army. My only point is that it was not able to attack everywhere as in 41



Tarhunnas -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 6:41:29 AM)

I am of the opinion that the combat model needs to be looked at. With combat results as these, there is absolutely no incentive to attack. Even if things would improve with higher morale for the attacker, this would still be a bit simplistic, if moral was everything. Attacks against outnumbered defenders seem to cause way to many casualties for the attacker.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/C114C66C85D9419DBF15869DB8E4FA6B.jpg[/image]



Tarhunnas -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 6:51:27 AM)

While a larger tank corps with much more support is ridiculously easy to rout. I simply don't think this feels right. I know there are lots of things that cause variation in combat results, but these are not extreme examples, these are typical!

[image]local://upfiles/37384/15A43872E7374141A45D958E7AB2061A.jpg[/image]



Helpless -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 8:18:13 AM)

There could be plenty reasons for such combat results and in many cases if you look at the details (beyond the provided screenshots) the result doesn't look that surprising. Axis and Soviet casualty composition (killed/damaged/disrupted) could be very different. Both results doesn't look wrong at the first glance.



Tarhunnas -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 9:00:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

There could be plenty reasons for such combat results and in many cases if you look at the details (beyond the provided screenshots) the result doesn't look that surprising. Axis and Soviet casualty composition (killed/damaged/disrupted) could be very different. Both results doesn't look wrong at the first glance.


Are damaged and disrupted included under the "LOST" heading?



Helpless -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 9:14:18 AM)

quote:

Are damaged and disrupted included under the "LOST" heading?


Halved damage are included. Disruption is not. But disruption is causing a very high fatigue and operational losses afterwards.

Also, there could be some small elements which got damaged and they are not listed due to the rounding. Plus there is a display bug which adds lost vehicle to the battle report lost men.




Remmes -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 9:37:17 AM)

If this game is anywhere near historic regarding the hugeness of the Soviet Army, it is all the more a testimony to the German skill in fighting. With this huge superiority in numbers the Russians should have kicked the Germans out long before they actually did. I am reading now about the German withdrawal after Stalingrad leading up to the loss and recapture of Kharkov. If the Germans hadn't been superbly handled by von Manstein and the Russians not so badly led (the amount of interference of Stalin as well as Hitler in military affairs is astounding), the war in Russia would have been over in '43, early '44 at the latest.
I think the the feel of the later game: the German mouse vs the Russian colossus is right. The Germans should be a tad more powerful in '42 to give them more chance of succes because I think they came very, very to final victory in '42. Like the game very much....if only I had more time!



Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 10:45:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain

The June 42 German Army was not anywhere near as capable as the June 41 one.

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles. The training program for recruits was also shortened to 2 months, so new recruits were less trained.

This is discussed by Glantz in vol.1 of his "Stalingrad trilogy".


Also Hitler stripped all panzer divisions and other mobile divisions from AGN and AGC along with all vehicles.

AGN and AGC were so stripped off at june 42 that they could only barely hold Soviets at bay.



Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 10:55:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

While a larger tank corps with much more support is ridiculously easy to rout. I simply don't think this feels right. I know there are lots of things that cause variation in combat results, but these are not extreme examples, these are typical!


Well Soviet troops are not as reliable than German troops. You cannot rely them do same things than Germans can do.




heliodorus04 -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 2:26:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

There could be plenty reasons for such combat results and in many cases if you look at the details (beyond the provided screenshots) the result doesn't look that surprising. Axis and Soviet casualty composition (killed/damaged/disrupted) could be very different. Both results doesn't look wrong at the first glance.


The point is that the average combat results clearly show the German 'best path':
Don't attack the Soviets, anywhere, ever, because you will always lose the macro-game of attritional warfare (far faster than anyone advocates happened historically) and end up losing the war faster.

The combat engine is poorly conceived. It's implementation is fine. It's the modelling that's bad.



Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 3:34:54 PM)

The key to game is Russian production.

The loss ratio is about right when captured units is factored out. As more then a few devs and players have pointed out based on allot of data and historical results.

The forsed loses because of retreats to AFV's is way off and needs to be addressed.

As the German as long as you take out 100 arm pts your in great shape and should be able to control the red machine until mid 44.

You can take all the hexes/citys(Leningrad,Moscow to Rostov, kill 4 million plus reds before Dec 41, but if you do not bag industry your going to get crushed by turn 100ish. The output of men and guns will build up much faster then you can possibly kill. The German player must do atleast 2.6 to 1 ration in manpower to keep the Red machine under control and this can only be done by pocketing units. Which means during 42 the German player must be pocketing units. This is very hard to do unless you have forsed allot of industry to move and destoryed enough arm pts during 41.

Guns are the key to the Russian defences and only way they can break the fort belts during 42 to 45 even with the new fort rules.

As the German player doing better then historical is amost 100% based on destoryed industy. Citys are simply points on the map that means little unless they have industry in them.

If as the German player you want to be rewarded for good play, bag industy. Destoryed units and talking of citys do reward you, but no ways near as much as destoryed industy does in the long run.

Pelton




Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 3:46:47 PM)

I very very much disagree with the idea that the German can't counter attack from turn 70 to end of the game.

German mech an armor units must be used to counter attack because they cause generally better results then sitting on there butts all the time.

The fact is they cant generally get better then 2.6 to 1 odds attacking but they will acheive much better ratios then being forsed to retreat.

When mech or armor counter attacks a win gets you 1.5 to 3 to 1 ratio in deaths. Most of the time around 2 to 1.

If your armor is on line which it will be forsed to be at some point your ratio once your forses to retreat will be 2 to 1 and as low as 1 to 2. Mostly around 1 to 1 because of the higher loses when units retreat.

So if your looking at the big picture and the grind and German Arm output in 43 to 45 you are much better off counter attacking.

Sure the odds will not be 3 to 1, they be 2 to 1 which is better then 1 to 1.

Counter attack as many Red units that are not in forts as possible and pull back the armor after you have done your counter attack.

This will cause more loses to the Red Machine and slow them down some. Your mech and armor losses can be replased unlike your guns and infantry losses.

Pelton



pompack -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 4:10:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I very very much disagree with the idea that the German can't counter attack from turn 70 to end of the game.

German mech an armor units must be used to counter attack because they cause generally better results then sitting on there butts all the time.

The fact is they cant generally get better then 2.6 to 1 odds attacking but they will acheive much better ratios then being forsed to retreat.

When mech or armor counter attacks a win gets you 1.5 to 3 to 1 ratio in deaths. Most of the time around 2 to 1.

If your armor is on line which it will be forsed to be at some point your ratio once your forses to retreat will be 2 to 1 and as low as 1 to 2. Mostly around 1 to 1 because of the higher loses when units retreat.

So if your looking at the big picture and the grind and German Arm output in 43 to 45 you are much better off counter attacking.

Sure the odds will not be 3 to 1, they be 2 to 1 which is better then 1 to 1.

Counter attack as many Red units that are not in forts as possible and pull back the armor after you have done your counter attack.

This will cause more loses to the Red Machine and slow them down some. Your mech and armor losses can be replased unlike your guns and infantry losses.


Pelton, that is a really insightful observation. I have been concentrating too much on overall ratios.

To reiterate your key points:
1. Attacking with a 2:1 result is better than being attacked with a 1:1 result
2. If you attack and withdraw you will probably NOT be attacked the next turn
3. By attacking with tank-heavy forces you are taking losses in tanks which are more easily replaced than infantry.



Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 4:24:38 PM)

I dont thk the engine is that far off as far as the big picture goes, sure it need some tweaks. Over-all its ok for now.

I would say that the devs have bigger fish to fry before getting around to tweaking engine.

As always the game is improving with every patch, of course it not as fast as some would like or just what I want done.

Over-all things are progressing at a good pace an in a positive direction.

Pelton




Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 4:35:19 PM)

If they do lower russian production from 200 to 130 then the ratio will drop from 2.6 to 1 in manpower.

The ration can also be effected by the number of armerment pts destoryed during 41.

I would say the thing that will effect the game the most is the lowered Russian output. Forts will have some effect, but can be over come. Forts can be cleared by using more guns and engineers. I don't thk most German players use art to their advantage taking out hard pts. I know I learned from reading Russian player AAR's how effective guns and eng's are at taking forts just withen the last month. Forts are kinda meaningless from the German pt of view because of the 1v1 = 2v1 rule. So belts of lvl 2 forts are just as good as belts of lvl 3and 4 forts.

It works the same way for taking out Red high level forts. Its a pain in the butt moving guns from one AG to another then down to corps lvl, but if you plan ahead almost any area can be taken even hexes that can only be attacked from 1 hex.

Pelton



heliodorus04 -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 5:20:46 PM)

Pelton, I've really enjoyed your posts over the last month or so: you've taught me a lot about how to focus my efforts.  Thanks.

As an aside/possible digression:

What the heck does Heavy Industry do? Why is it that armament factories seem to be the only ones worth capturing?

I think to myself when considering heavy industry: shouldn't HI be responsible for the large-caliber guns like 122mm and 152mm and Katyushas (or some such)?

Is Heavy Industry de-emphasized in this production model?



Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 5:29:04 PM)

quote:

c. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 3 - Must be adjacent to an enemy hex, be an urban or city hex, or be in or adjacent to a fort unit. Once the level 3 is reached, the condition does not have to continue to be met to keep the level 3 fort.


I am guessing this is wrong. The must be adjacent to enemy hex part.

If not sure saying you cant build a level 4 or level 5 fort bacisly, because to get from 2 to 4 you have to build a lvl 3 fort first and you can only do that if you next to an enemy unit.

I am 100% sure that thats not how things will work and you put that down wrong.

Pelton



janh -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 5:46:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I very very much disagree with the idea that the German can't counter attack from turn 70 to end of the game.

German mech an armor units must be used to counter attack because they cause generally better results then sitting on there butts all the time.

The fact is they cant generally get better then 2.6 to 1 odds attacking but they will acheive much better ratios then being forsed to retreat.

When mech or armor counter attacks a win gets you 1.5 to 3 to 1 ratio in deaths. Most of the time around 2 to 1.

If your armor is on line which it will be forsed to be at some point your ratio once your forses to retreat will be 2 to 1 and as low as 1 to 2. Mostly around 1 to 1 because of the higher loses when units retreat.

So if your looking at the big picture and the grind and German Arm output in 43 to 45 you are much better off counter attacking.

Sure the odds will not be 3 to 1, they be 2 to 1 which is better then 1 to 1.

Counter attack as many Red units that are not in forts as possible and pull back the armor after you have done your counter attack.

This will cause more loses to the Red Machine and slow them down some. Your mech and armor losses can be replased unlike your guns and infantry losses.


Pelton, that is a really insightful observation. I have been concentrating too much on overall ratios.

To reiterate your key points:
1. Attacking with a 2:1 result is better than being attacked with a 1:1 result
2. If you attack and withdraw you will probably NOT be attacked the next turn
3. By attacking with tank-heavy forces you are taking losses in tanks which are more easily replaced than infantry.


Wouldn't it seem "gamey" to use such a tactic just to circumvent the 2:1-1:1 rule? Or is it that this rule too crude of a mechanism to tune the game balance?

Is it supposed to account for the improving Russian skill in dealing with German entrenchments? Which, since moral also is designed as a measure for training and skill, should be captured by moral in the engine? Or the improving Russian equipment, like heavy artillery and engineering stuff, for that task? Which should already be captured by all the new, better devices coming with the advancing ToEs? Or does it mimic the wavering Axis fighting morale in later years, i.e. the lower will to hold but withdraw faster? Which, again should be captured by the lowering of German morale in the engine? Somehow I am getting confused with this rule.

If the improved Russian ability to drive the Germans back would solely stem from their better training, or quality of equipment or tactics/leadership, which are all to be properly treated by the game's combat engine, then you probably couldn't cheat like that. What factor am I missing that this rule is to account for, but cannot be attributed to anything fundamental already covered by the combat engine?







Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 5:51:59 PM)

Hvy converts resourses and is as important as ARM or MP,but problem is the German player cant get to enough to put a real dent in production.

To get to enough arm pts you have to really put major presure on all areas of the front early and get some breakthroughs early.

You can't worry about cutting off units ect, just drive like a crazy man with a plan for the large arm centers + Moscow for the manpower hit and Leningrad for the factory hit.

The key to the hole war is the first 7 turns for the German. I was thinking the first 5 four a long time, but I have had major screw ups I have been able to recover from.

I really beleive play testing vs the computers turn 1-7 5 to 7 times is very important to get to know the mechanics of the game. I will probably do this again once 1.05 comes out. I see a few things in the patch that will greatly help my play style.

Its really all about blitzkrieg as the German player as it should be. Some times you must expose your flanks or a few units for the greater good of the war effert. Panzer units can easly be replased, but infantry units can't.



Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 5:57:03 PM)

Flaviusx has a good explination of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

I 100% dislike/hate the rule and think it should be removed after Dec 42 at the latest.

Pelton



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 5:59:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Sure the odds will not be 3 to 1, they be 2 to 1 which is better then 1 to 1.

Counter attack as many Red units that are not in forts as possible and pull back the armor after you have done your counter attack.

This will cause more loses to the Red Machine and slow them down some. Your mech and armor losses can be replased unlike your guns and infantry losses.


Pelton, that is a really insightful observation. I have been concentrating too much on overall ratios.

To reiterate your key points:
1. Attacking with a 2:1 result is better than being attacked with a 1:1 result
2. If you attack and withdraw you will probably NOT be attacked the next turn
3. By attacking with tank-heavy forces you are taking losses in tanks which are more easily replaced than infantry.


Wouldn't it seem "gamey" to use such a tactic just to circumvent the 2:1-1:1 rule? Or is it that this rule too crude of a mechanism to tune the game balance?


I hardly see that as "gamey", to be honest. It's certainly the way to go: bracing yourself and putting your motorized units in reserve hoping for the best most certainly isn't. The problem is that sooner or later you'll find those same units needing for refit or being the only stuff you have left so you have to use them in static defense roles.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.015625