1:1->2:1 rule (Full Version)

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



Message

sven6345789 -> 1:1->2:1 rule (9/1/2011 12:04:12 PM)

Hi, might sound a little like living behind the moon, but

What exactly is the effect of this rule?



BletchleyGeek -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/1/2011 12:25:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Hi, might sound a little like living behind the moon, but

What exactly is the effect of this rule?


The effect of this rule was to automatically increase the CV odds in combat when:

1) The Soviet side was the attacker
2) Final combat odds lied between 1:1 and 2:1

paired with this rule were the extra losses the Soviet side suffers during combat resolution due to extra shots defending Axis units get. This had the effect of reducing final Soviet CV.



gradenko2k -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/1/2011 3:10:23 PM)

You need final odds of 2:1 to win a battle and cause a retreat (or worse).

If you're playing the Russians, and your final odds are better than 1:1 (such as 1.1 : 1), your final odds automatically get increased by +1, so 1.1 : 1 becomes 2.1 : 1, and you win the battle and cause a retreat.

In contrast, the Germans get no such bonus, and will always have to come up with a "natural" 2:1 or better to win their battles.

However, as Bletchley_Geek said, the Russians take more losses on their attacks, so it's (at times) more difficult for them to reach the minimum required odds in the first place, all other things being equal.



Jakerson -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/1/2011 3:39:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

You need final odds of 2:1 to win a battle and cause a retreat (or worse).

If you're playing the Russians, and your final odds are better than 1:1 (such as 1.1 : 1), your final odds automatically get increased by +1, so 1.1 : 1 becomes 2.1 : 1, and you win the battle and cause a retreat.

In contrast, the Germans get no such bonus, and will always have to come up with a "natural" 2:1 or better to win their battles.

However, as Bletchley_Geek said, the Russians take more losses on their attacks, so it's (at times) more difficult for them to reach the minimum required odds in the first place, all other things being equal.


It is also worth to mention that Soviet logistics works more poorly in the long run (especially when rail lines are overextended) which makes it harder to maintain proper offensive CV in the long run because of Supply, ammo and fuel shortages.

In most cases Soviet troops cannot recover their supply and ammo levels as fast as Axis side. Also large number of Soviet troops needed for offensive operations puts strain on Soviet vehicle pool pretty early on. This drops their offensive CV



BletchleyGeek -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/1/2011 3:48:30 PM)

Now this thread starts to look like an obituary.



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/2/2011 11:55:13 PM)

This says it all.



[image]local://upfiles/20387/054CB792B47A4470B8AAEBC6B5879FDB.gif[/image]



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/3/2011 1:57:36 AM)

[:)]


[image]local://upfiles/23503/9499C5B4166A45D087830566E78A3CE6.jpg[/image]



Reconvet -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/3/2011 8:57:21 AM)


Nice pic of Cato the Elder. I'll be so free and add one of Carthage ruins. [:D]


[image]local://upfiles/37285/EBEB511120AD486891B620B0419F3462.jpg[/image]



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/3/2011 12:02:43 PM)

1.05



[image]local://upfiles/20387/1568CD2F37E74E57B0CB42DC85FC027D.jpg[/image]



Krec -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/3/2011 10:50:16 PM)

somebody over thought the game when this rule was made. i say get rid of this dog, its really not good. also i say that the russian side should either have to stay and fight of suffer stiff penalties when they run away in 41. thats just my 2 cents fwiw.



CarnageINC -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 4:28:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Krec

somebody over thought the game when this rule was made. i say get rid of this dog, its really not good. also i say that the russian side should either have to stay and fight of suffer stiff penalties when they run away in 41. thats just my 2 cents fwiw.


I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 9:42:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Now this thread starts to look like an obituary.


Indeed! LOL! [:D]



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 9:46:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.


That is an interesting suggestion. There have been a number of suggestion on different ways of penalizing the sides for losing cities, both via morale and VP-wise, but unfortunately there seems to be nothing coming out of it. I wholeheartedly agree there should be some mechanism to make players reluctant to lose cities and territory, as that was a strong imperative for decisions in the real campaign.




Peltonx -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 10:48:27 AM)

Historical results for s historical game?

Intesting idea for sure.

I am guessing at some pt that will happen.

They have really changed the game allot form its original form.



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 12:29:34 PM)

Sigh.

National morale isn't morale, guys. It's a proficiency rating that has nothing to do with territorial objectives per se. In retrospect, this should have been called something else (like, say, proficiency rating!) to avoid confusion.

This suggestion keeps cropping up and keeps getting rejected because it is the product of semantic confusion.

Anyways, the new and dramatically lower armament multiplier (going from 200 to 130) gives the Soviet excellent reason for hanging on to cities, at least long enough to get out the factories.

Also, Soviet national morale craters in 1942 in 1.05. Like, down to 40. So, yeah. They really don't need to take any more hits beyond that.



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 1:04:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Sigh.

National morale isn't morale, guys. It's a proficiency rating that has nothing to do with territorial objectives per se. In retrospect, this should have been called something else (like, say, proficiency rating!) to avoid confusion.

This suggestion keeps cropping up and keeps getting rejected because it is the product of semantic confusion.

Anyways, the new and dramatically lower armament multiplier (going from 200 to 130) gives the Soviet excellent reason for hanging on to cities, at least long enough to get out the factories.

Also, Soviet national morale craters in 1942 in 1.05. Like, down to 40. So, yeah. They really don't need to take any more hits beyond that.


You are right, morale is not the right thing to take a hit from losing cities. A more dynamic VP system would be the way to solve it IMHO.



gradenko2k -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 1:42:22 PM)

quote:

I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.

I disagree with this, because Morale in this game represents more than just the will to fight, but also encompasses things like command structure and training levels and overall Force Proficiency (I think the stat should be renamed to that, actually).

Soviet Force Proficiency was in shambles at the start of the war and slowly-but-surely improved as the war went on, but I don't think there's a need to link it to the loss of major cities. It's not as though the average Soviet soldier fought worse as the Germans got closer to Stalingrad. In fact, they only got better.

Similarly, the loss of combat power in German formations reflects in the growing scarcity of men and material to fill out TOEs with. Yes, the replacements that these formations did get from 43 onwards was of decreasing quality as training regimens were shortened and the age of the recruits edged more towards the very old and young, but that already reflects in their National Morale being reduced as time wears on.

By the time you're rolling into Germany itself, the loss of the factories and manpower centers themselves should be such a blow to the Wehrmacht's limited resources as to not need another National Morale reduction on top of it. You can perhaps make a case for the gradual National Morale reduction to be unrealistic if the Reds are threatening the Polish-German border in 1943, which means German National Morale is still relatively high, but that means that your game has gone sufficiently off the rails anyway.

I suppose I do agree with the need to convince the Soviet player to take a more forward-fighting stance, but the devs seem to be taking an alternate route to that - primarily by reducing the ARM production bonus from 200% to 130%. That 35% decrease means you need to save as more factories than you otherwise would have pre-1.05



Krec -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 9:49:27 PM)

i think we can all agree that something needs to be done so the russians just dont run away as soon as the game starts. The city/morale thingy sounds interesting. At this point i am game for just about anything, because the way it is now is no good. As for the 2v1 rule........all in favor of getting rid of it say "I" ............"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"............ok the I's have it lets move to the next topic.[:D]



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 10:11:00 PM)

Any Russian who simply runs away at the get go will get mopped up (in terms of forces, he may well be safe for industry) around turn 10-13. That imposing looking carpet of units are weak ants, and in the next iteration will likely only be fort level 2 at the maximum with a decreasing morale. Any german player worth his chops will love bagging 50-60 units each in massive encirclements that can be done. Plus, losing Leningrad, Moscow, the Donbas Cities, etc will hurt. The German player will have fewer preparations for winter, but a huge empty area to retreat into in the face of a less effective winter assault.

There is no need for artificial game mechanisms to make the Soviet player stand and fight, experience will teach them that the actual existing game mechanics are there to make this a rather worthless option.



Pawlock -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 10:17:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Krec

i think we can all agree that something needs to be done so the russians just dont run away as soon as the game starts. The city/morale thingy sounds interesting. At this point i am game for just about anything, because the way it is now is no good. As for the 2v1 rule........all in favor of getting rid of it say "I" ............"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"............ok the I's have it lets move to the next topic.[:D]


Please dont lump me in your general statement that everybody should think the Russians should stand and fight. I would like the option to do as I please,I am not Stalin and as such I make my own decisions.

Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?

2:1 rule as much as I hate Peltons continual whining on the subject Im all for a phased withdrawal starting mid 42.

Mind saying that I think we should all see how the 1.05 plays out before making more changes



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 10:22:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?



IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.



glvaca -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 10:24:26 PM)

re the stand and fight and run options, it's always going to be a mix of knowing when to run, and knowing when to fight.



Pawlock -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/6/2011 10:26:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?



IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.


I've always been in favour of something like that for the GC games,I think the trouble with that is the time constraints for the testers to roadtest a point balance.



Krec -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/7/2011 10:43:00 AM)

NP, lets play with 1.05 and see how it goes. i am ok with that. just looking for a better game thats all. as it sits now the 2v1 is a game breaker IMO.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: 1:1->2:1 rule (9/7/2011 1:53:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.


Well, there are some "incentives" in place which affect VP count in an indirect way (not enough ARM points make bears sad). If anything, there need to be more incentives like that (perhaps reducing supply production for each HI point)? Nonetheless, it's better that changes like the former or this one are introduced one by one. Makes easier for the devs & testers to figure out what are their effects.

I don't want the kind of patching people has seen - or rather suffered - with Stardock's Elemental: War of Magic. I'm glad I didn't buy that one - though I used to be a rabid player of Master Of Magic. Things there got so out of hand that the studio and publisher owner himself has set getting it "right" a personal mission.

While the discussion here can get quickly and unexpectedly to quite irrational extremes, and some issues cause indeed frustration, it doesn't put anybody out of their job :) And paucity and clear vision of the goals is a much better bet for economic success than meandering around the actual problems trying to appease the masses.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875