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

Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 6:06:53 PM)

Refit during mud turns.

The mech units get refit very quickly if on rail heads.

You probably have about 25% to 33% of the units in reserve refitting at anyone time.

Doing something that effects the mathantics of the war from turn 70 to 225 is better then doing nothing.

I play the game for the long run, so every little thing you can do as the German player that has an impact on the game will add up at some pt.

Most of the war the German player is defending not attacking so you have to make an huge impact from turn 1 to 17.

Pelton



Ketza -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 7:37:15 PM)

I have found the best way to use German Panzers in 42 and beyond in the current form of the game is to shoot and scoot back behind fort lines and avoid being attacked if at all possible. That is the best way to maximize German Panzer divisions and maintain good loss ratios.

Pelton makes a great point.



Encircled -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 8:32:54 PM)

The "shoot and scoot" tactic is also very effective for the Soviets when facing the '42 wall of forts.

Divisions hold the front line, with the Corps behind them, who move, attack and move back.



pompack -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 8:39:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

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?




[&:] I don't see that it has anything at all to do with the 2:1-1:1 rule. Pelton's many posts on the subject [:)] notwithstanding, I have found as the Russians that 99% of my successful attacks in 43-44 were at odds of (true) 2:1 or higher. This is simply looking at the consequences of trying to hold back the Russian Steamroller.

Now that you have opened the floodgates by mentioning that horrible subject[sm=00000018.gif], I have to say that I really don't care much if it stays or goes. If it goes, it provides a cleaner distribution curve, and if it stays it means that the devs are working on somthing significant instead. In either case, the Germans are going to get really, really hammered from Fall 43 on since the average Russian player will do much better than Stalin did IRL (unless that is, the fanboys convince the devs to make changes that will produce "a more interesting game"). Under those circumstances the German task is to minimize the damage as much as possible and Pelton's post (#171 above) provides one technique for doing that, which I appreciate.

And yes, for those concerned about the "fanboy" comment, I prefer to play the Germans but I am not interested in distorting the game in order to make it more interesting for the Germans to play after they finished pummeling the Soviets in the initial phase. End of rant.[:)]



glvaca -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 10:00:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


And yes, for those concerned about the "fanboy" comment, I prefer to play the Germans but I am not interested in distorting the game in order to make it more interesting for the Germans to play after they finished pummeling the Soviets in the initial phase. End of rant.[:)]




Wasn't that good getting that of your chest! [:D]



pompack -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/27/2011 10:23:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca


quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


And yes, for those concerned about the "fanboy" comment, I prefer to play the Germans but I am not interested in distorting the game in order to make it more interesting for the Germans to play after they finished pummeling the Soviets in the initial phase. End of rant.[:)]




Wasn't that good getting that of your chest! [:D]



Yes, I've been holding it in for some time now[:D]



Caltone -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/28/2011 2:22:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

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?



I'm interrested in the answer to this last question as well.



Pipewrench -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/28/2011 3:32:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

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?



I'm interrested in the answer to this last question as well.



so am I.





Pipewrench -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/28/2011 3:51:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I have found the best way to use German Panzers in 42 and beyond in the current form of the game is to shoot and scoot back behind fort lines and avoid being attacked if at all possible. That is the best way to maximize German Panzer divisions and maintain good loss ratios.

Pelton makes a great point.


that is exactly what you do in using a spoiling attack. Pelton is correct and it always has been used by mobile forces to spoil an offensive operation and throw the enemy's timetable behind. It is a great way to keep your opponent guessing.



herwin -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/28/2011 3:52:19 AM)

The 1-1 becoming 2-1 is supposed to reflect Soviet military doctrine. It's hard to remember all the details after so many years, but I still remember Harriet Fast Scott explaining the difference to me between how NATO envisioned fighting and how the Soviets planned to fight. Suppose three Soviet divisions in a corps were assaulting a NATO position. The one on the right had encountered an ambush and been thoroughly shot up; the one on the left was at 20% strength; while the one in the middle was barely making progress. The corps commander had a tank regiment he could feed into the battle. Which division should he support? Or should he hold the regiment in reserve? The answer according to Soviet military doctrine was clear, and if the corps commander didn't follow it, he would be shot. The tank regiment should be committed to support the division that was still barely making progress, and anything currently allocated to supporting the other two divisions should also be focussed on supporting that division. So the Soviets could expect higher casualties, but deeper penetrations.



Harrybanana -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 12:10:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pipewrench


quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

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?



I'm interrested in the answer to this last question as well.



so am I.




The factor the rule is accounting for is the Soviet Attack Doctrine. This is something that is not otherwise accounted for in the combat engine and is explained in the Manual as follows:

"Game Play Info: The Soviet ability to force a retreat at a 1:1 modified
combat ratio may seem a huge advantage, but remember that the attack
doctrine that allows this also normally results in lower final CV due to
more exposure to defensive fire causing additional casualties."

As I understand it the Soviet Attack Doctrine differed from that of most combatants in that they were prepared to accept much higher casualties before calling off an attack. In situations where other nations would have called off an offensive the Soviets persisted and were often successful in achieving their objective, albeit at a very high cost. I'm not sure if this doctrine justifies a full odds shift (I think a .5 odds shift increase would be more reflective of the doctrine) but that is the rationale for it. It will be interesting to see if the War in the West version of this game will duplicate the British Attack doctrine and require them to have 3:1 odds to cause a retreat but at the same time reduce their losses.

Ideally the game would allow the defender and the attacker to set their attack and defence orders on a hex by hex basis. The defender would have options such as "retreat if attacked" (which would decrease both losses and the odds required to cause a retreat), "defend" (normal losses and retreat odds). or "hold at all costs" (which would increase losses and the odds required to cause a retreat). Meanwhile the attacker could choose from "overrun" (which can only be used with Hasty attacks and decreases the MP cost to attack but at a cost in CVs), "Normal" and " Assault" (which can only be used with a deliberate attack and increases losses and reduces the odds required to cause a retreat). I supect however that this system would be very difficult to implement and I'm not sure if it would make a big difference. The Soviets would probably almost always attack with an "Assault" anyway (what do they care about losses). It would however require the Soviets to have 2:1 or better odds for Hasty Attacks and allow the Axis to defend those essential hexes with Hold at All Costs Orders. Note the Axis probably won't want to do this too often though as they will take higher casualties especially if they are forced to retreat not withstanding the Hold at All Costs Order. Note as well that the Soviets will also be able to "Hold at All Costs" so it works both ways.

Edit: Just to be clear the above isn't my idea, I read about it elsewhere on the Forum and think it is a good idea. If it were implemented (which I think very unlikely) they could also tinker with the morale losses caused by retreats so that units set to "Retreat if Attacked" wouldn't suffer any morale losses at all if retreated, while units with "Hold at All Costs" orders would suffer increased morale losses if forced to retreat.






misesfan -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 9:58:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The 1-1 becoming 2-1 is supposed to reflect Soviet military doctrine. It's hard to remember all the details after so many years, but I still remember Harriet Fast Scott explaining the difference to me between how NATO envisioned fighting and how the Soviets planned to fight. Suppose three Soviet divisions in a corps were assaulting a NATO position. The one on the right had encountered an ambush and been thoroughly shot up; the one on the left was at 20% strength; while the one in the middle was barely making progress. The corps commander had a tank regiment he could feed into the battle. Which division should he support? Or should he hold the regiment in reserve? The answer according to Soviet military doctrine was clear, and if the corps commander didn't follow it, he would be shot. The tank regiment should be committed to support the division that was still barely making progress, and anything currently allocated to supporting the other two divisions should also be focussed on supporting that division. So the Soviets could expect higher casualties, but deeper penetrations.


Yikes.. it should go without saying that one should always reinforce success, and not failure. If they reinforced the bogged down regiment, then their casualties will be much higher, and deservedly so.



janh -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 10:02:35 AM)

Ok, thanks for the answers.  So doctrine it was that I was missing.  It sounds like it would be nice to see more variation with the possible orders, as you mention Harrybanana, but I imagine it would be a nightmare to get AI to use them properly. Definitely an attack mode that indicates the Soviets using the "assault doctrine" in contrast to "regular assaults" (!?) would seem to a nicer way of showing their advance in tactics.  I assume instead of using the rule, having implemented it rather as additional/prolonged combat phases, which it essentially is, in the already state-of-the-art combat engine would have been the king's way to do it.  No arbitrarily chosen cutoff in that case.  But if there is a special rule for the Soviet doctrine, is there also one for real counterattacks by small German (adhoc) "Kampfgruppen", i.e. in contrast to a full attack at divisional level during  weekly turn? I presume that is simply captured by the "hq committing reserves" feature, which would make sense?

Unfortunately the way I had understood the OP poster's comment was that he suggested that rather than suffering the casualties from a retreat by "the rule", it would be better to attack headlong and get a little better loss ratio (with any kind of attack).  My misunderstanding.
Generally, counter-attacking with the armored formations should make better use of them than on a purely passive, defensive role.  I think IdahoNYer in his AAR shows very elegantly what the "fire-brigade" role was all about, and what difference it can make to secure the integrity of the mbtl, and causing heavy casualties to the red units that stuck their head out of their trenches.  Preempting enemy attacks by armored pushes into their staging areas is of course also a very suitable tactic, though only if not running headlong into entrenched rifle corps.  I must say IdahoNYer seems to follow the historical German operational thinking very closely and his AAR could be just another book about the war.



Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 11:05:50 AM)

For me it is funny that some German players whine so much thread after thread about 1:1 Soviet attack rule. Forcing Soviet go in 1:2 attack rule would also mean that Soviet would suffer less losses in offensive combat while German would suffer more. Soviet player would stop doing those advance no matter the costs attacks witch they have incentive in 1:1 rule.

This is why I think Soviet side need their 1:1 incentive and it would be mistake to remove it.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 2:02:50 PM)

I don' think the whine (and cheese) is so much about the 1:1 as it is about the increased casualties that come about from the forces retreats of the Germans.



pompack -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 3:39:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I don' think the whine (and cheese) is so much about the 1:1 as it is about the increased casualties that come about from the forces retreats of the Germans.



Very true, but I'm afraid that most posters seem to miss that. As I have said, I see relatively few painful 1:1/2:1 combats but I suffer a lot from 3:1 and worse retreats following massive, painful doses of artillery fire after mid-42.



Peltonx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 3:58:42 PM)

I tracked 1v1=2v1 in one of my games and it does very much help bleed the german army from turn 70 to 90. Once the fort belt is removed and moral lowered its over. Sure after turn 90 there are very few 1v1 attacks because the German army is 70% a pile of 1 to 3 cv units.

It should be removed at some pt during early to mid 42.

The Red army should easly be able to bleed the German army starting in mid to late 43 without 1v1=2v1. With the rule the Red army can start in late 42.

Pelton



Klydon -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 7:16:52 PM)

Part of the issue I have with the 1:1 = 2:1 is the Russians can absolutely launch that many more attacks up and down the front to not only push the Germans out of any fort line faster, but also to bleed them more. (Russians can afford the casualties easy with the current combat engine ratio while the Germans can't). The Russians do have to be somewhat careful with this approach since one of the things I would try as the German is to have strong divisions in reserve and hope to frustrate this particular Russian tactic. 



Jakerson -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 7:58:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Part of the issue I have with the 1:1 = 2:1 is the Russians can absolutely launch that many more attacks up and down the front to not only push the Germans out of any fort line faster, but also to bleed them more. (Russians can afford the casualties easy with the current combat engine ratio while the Germans can't). The Russians do have to be somewhat careful with this approach since one of the things I would try as the German is to have strong divisions in reserve and hope to frustrate this particular Russian tactic. 


German side cannot stop Soviet steam roller every sector at same time. Sometimes it is better just give up ground and focus on one sector with proper reserves at time. With this tactics it is possible to punish Soviet with strong counter attacks and even isolate their units behing stacks of 3 German units per hex between main Soviet force and isolated force. It is very hard Soviet to break up this isolation in one turn. Even in late years.




Klydon -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/29/2011 10:06:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Part of the issue I have with the 1:1 = 2:1 is the Russians can absolutely launch that many more attacks up and down the front to not only push the Germans out of any fort line faster, but also to bleed them more. (Russians can afford the casualties easy with the current combat engine ratio while the Germans can't). The Russians do have to be somewhat careful with this approach since one of the things I would try as the German is to have strong divisions in reserve and hope to frustrate this particular Russian tactic. 


German side cannot stop Soviet steam roller every sector at same time. Sometimes it is better just give up ground and focus on one sector with proper reserves at time. With this tactics it is possible to punish Soviet with strong counter attacks and even isolate their units behing stacks of 3 German units per hex between main Soviet force and isolated force. It is very hard Soviet to break up this isolation in one turn. Even in late years.



Not sure which game you are talking about, but it isn't WITE. There are several AAR's that feature Russians breaking 3 lines of Germans to relieve a pocket in 1942. Same with breaking a 3 high stack of Germans to break a pocket. Not saying it is easy, right or wrong, but it happens. The other issue with that is the counter attacks themselves and the loss ratio they impose in many cases (under 3:1 usually in favor of the Germans). While the Russians are hurt worse, they are more easily able to afford the losses, especially if the attacking Germans happen to be panzer troops. We won't go into details on what risks the Germans take in trying to encircle Russians in 42 and beyond in terms of exposing themselves to counter attacks and the amount of losses they take from said counter attacks.



76mm -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 6:33:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I don' think the whine (and cheese) is so much about the 1:1 as it is about the increased casualties that come about from the forces retreats of the Germans.


Pelton's whine is distinctly and repeatedly about 1:1, he's made that pretty clear. I agree that to the extent there is a problem, it stems from excessive retreat losses rather than the 1:1 rule itself.



Flaviusx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 10:17:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I don' think the whine (and cheese) is so much about the 1:1 as it is about the increased casualties that come about from the forces retreats of the Germans.


Pelton's whine is distinctly and repeatedly about 1:1, he's made that pretty clear. I agree that to the extent there is a problem, it stems from excessive retreat losses rather than the 1:1 rule itself.


There's something to this, but I personally think the 1:1 can be abused for purposes beyond naked attrition. It's all about momentum, racking up wins and morale.

Getting lots of cheap wins matters a lot to the Soviets over the long run. This would still be true even if the combat engine were changed to produce lower retreat losses. The Soviet has every incentive to take easy wins given the effects on morale generally and guards specifically. So long as the losses to the Soviet aren't beyond replacement capacity, you still want to run up the score regardless of attrition on the German.

So, even though Pelton is in danger of becoming a bore on the subject...he's got a point.



76mm -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 10:31:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Getting lots of cheap wins matters a lot to the Soviets over the long run. This would still be true even if the combat engine were changed to produce lower retreat losses. The Soviet has every incentive to take easy wins given the effects on morale generally and guards specifically. So long as the losses to the Soviet aren't beyond replacement capacity, you still want to run up the score regardless of attrition on the German.


By "cheap wins" I presume you mean wins that squeak in at just above 1:1? Let's say the Sovs launch ten attacks in which their initial CVs match the German CVs at 1:1. If the combat engine is functioning as it should, the Sovs should lose many of these combats, and when they lose, they typically lose 10x what the Germans lose. So how are any wins a "cheap win"? For the Sovs to be reasonably confident of ending up with a 1:1 result, they should presumably start with at least 3:2 odds, maybe 2:1. Given the disparity between the German and Sovs in experience/morale/CVs in 1941 and 1942, I think that it will generally be very difficult to get 2:1 odds in most instances in 1941-1942.



Flaviusx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 10:37:52 AM)

It's a cheap win, yes.

The Soviet will always want to make as many such low odds attacks as possible so long they don't exceed his replacement capacity.

Let's assume, arguendo, that the Soviet is getting 100k a turn in manpower. Let us further assume that expensive low odds attacks will cost the Soviet 5k men each on average. The Soviet will still want to launch 20 such attacks a turn, knowing that his army will not shrink in size, and will be gaining wins, morale, and guards conversions. If you are looking at AFV losses, you'll be willing to accept even higher losses.



janh -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 10:41:34 AM)

Hmmh, how about the average Red Army capabilities assuming there were no 1:1 rule?  Could it in 1943 amass say enough arty, guard rifle corps and supports to score a local breakthrough through a 3+ fortified, infantry held line like the 4 TK Army did achieve in Model's flank at Bryansk, which contributed  to stopping the northern pincer at Kursk?  And in 1944, could it perform several such local breakthroughs along AGC's line and throw it into retreat?  From the experience of those of you who played the later scenarios, would both things be impossible without the rule, just the improving qualities of the Red Army, or does it really need this rule to come out right?  



Flaviusx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 10:48:44 AM)

The 1:1 rule is mostly irrelevant in 1943. If you have anything resembling the historical 1943 Red Army you will blast your way through any German fortified position. It's merely a question of the proper application of overwhelming force, and particularly your artillery. You cannot do this across the entire front, to be sure, but you don't need to.

It's in 1942 that it is a problem.



76mm -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 11:17:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The Soviet will always want to make as many such low odds attacks as possible so long they don't exceed his replacement capacity.


I guess this is what I'm saying...in my experience, if I lose, I lose big--generally 10x German losses--which, especially together with losses to encirclement, etc., certainly exceed my replacement capacity. Even when I win I generally suffer 2-3x losses. All of this means that launching attacks which qualify as "cheap wins" is a losing proposition in my view, and when I attack, I try to get the highest odds possible (within reason) and hope that given my crappy morale, experience, leadership, etc., I can still achieve a 1:1 result. I don't really consider these cheap wins, indeed, they are the only wins I can get...

You've got a lot more experience with the game than I do, but at least in 1941-1942 I think that removing the 1:1 rule will cause issues, and that the "fix" should be sought elsewhere.

Frankly, I've never felt that strongly about this issue and am generally only posting about it now because I don't want Pelton's rather fanatical rants to be the only opinion expressed on the forum. Any fix needs to be carefully considered and tested and not a knee-jerk reaction to the loudest voice on the forum on the topic.



Flaviusx -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 11:27:23 AM)

Well, it's only one piece of the puzzle, to be sure. You could arguably leave it as is and throw in all the other changes we've got going and be ok. My own playtesting at this point is showing a very different metagame, and these tester versions haven't altered the 1:1 rule. There's a lot of new stuff being tested at the moment (not all of which has been revealed.)

The game is vast, and contains multitudes.






BletchleyGeek -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 11:38:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The Soviet will always want to make as many such low odds attacks as possible so long they don't exceed his replacement capacity.


I guess this is what I'm saying...in my experience, if I lose, I lose big--generally 10x German losses--which, especially together with losses to encirclement, etc., certainly exceed my replacement capacity. Even when I win I generally suffer 2-3x losses. All of this means that launching attacks which qualify as "cheap wins" is a losing proposition in my view, and when I attack, I try to get the highest odds possible (within reason) and hope that given my crappy morale, experience, leadership, etc., I can still achieve a 1:1 result. I don't really consider these cheap wins, indeed, they are the only wins I can get...

You've got a lot more experience with the game than I do, but at least in 1941-1942 I think that removing the 1:1 rule will cause issues, and that the "fix" should be sought elsewhere.


Here you're assuming that the only possible change is to remove entirely the rule, while I think the devs can do something more nuanced and addresses both concerns: yours, when the Red Army is utter crap and Flavio's when the Red Army is coming of age.



76mm -> RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side? (8/30/2011 11:42:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Here you're assuming that the only possible change is to remove entirely the rule, while I think the devs can do something more nuanced and addresses both concerns: yours, when the Red Army is utter crap and Flavio's when the Red Army is coming of age.


Yeah, I think most people agree that it is most relevant in 1942, and to a certain extent 1941. I haven't gotten to 1943 in any PBEM games, but it sounds like most Sov attacks after 1942 will be in excess of 2:1 anyway...



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.670898