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

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



Message

mmarquo -> 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 2:21:21 AM)

"29) Rule Change – The Soviet attack doctrine discussed in section 15.8 of the manual now only applies from June 1941 to February 1942 (inclusive)."

The way this rule was original described in the manual was exciting and ingenious.

"There are many factors that go into determining the modified combat values used in deciding the winner and loser in a ground battle. One of the most critical is the leader combat (mech
or infantry) rating check. A successful check can result in the CV of the combat unit being doubled. Several failed checks can result in the CV being halved. As with other leader checks,
a failed check by one leader will allow the next leader in the chain of command to attempt a combat rating check, albeit at a reduced chance of success. Other factors that impact
the modified combat value include battle losses, the fortification defense modifier (possibly reduced due to attacking engineers), type of attack (hasty attacks halve the overall CV),
command battle modifier, leader and unit morale, leader initiative and admin ratings, ground element experience and fatigue, supply status (severe penalty possible if units are isolated),
vehicle shortages for attackers and defending reserve units, and effect on fighting in an urban hex for AFV/combat vehicles (halved) and infantry (doubled).

I am somewhat incredulous that Soviet Attack Doctrine would somehow forgivingly change at a discrete point in time after the blizzard offensive to obligingly allow a more robust Axis 1942 offensive. Given the variables enumerated in the above paragraph, there are perhaps alternative ways to rebalance the game rather than evoke a mythical operational shift in doctrine. Simply put, the ability for the Soviets to acheive 1:1 and/or the Axis to permit it could have been balanced. For example, the modifiers for forts could be different for the opposing different sides and during different time periods. The effect of battle losses/won ratio on the final odds could be different for the combatants and during different periods; etc.

I could intellectually and viscerally accept such an approach better than simply postulating a fanatsy doctrine change. This fantasy requires an abrupt mindset change on the part of both players in March 1942. Just typing and thinking about this makes me shake my head: on February 28, 1942 an attack ratio of 1:1 is good enough, on March 1, 1942 suddenly success requires twice the spice.


IMHO a game that so faithfully and meticulously accounts for the elements of the TOEs, leader capabilities, etc. can do better than inject such a machination. Yes, there are some rather vocal opponents of this rule, and some AARs reveal some problematic issues, but to throw the baby out with the bath water seems radical.


Frankly, I really appreciate the developers committment to excellence - thanx.

Marquo [:)]





pompack -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 2:26:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

I am somewhat incredulous that Soviet Attack Doctrine would somehow forgivingly change at a discrete point in time after the blizzard offensive to obligingly allow a more robust Axis 1942 offensive. Given the variables enumerated in the above paragraph, there are perhaps alternative ways to rebalance the game rather than evoke a mythical operational shift in doctrine. Simply put, the ability for the Soviets to acheive 1:1 and/or the Axis to permit it could have been balanced. For example, the modifiers for forts could be different for the opposing different sides and during different time periods. The effect of battle losses/won ratio on the final odds could be different for the combatants and during different periods; etc.

I could intellectually and viscerally accept such an approach better than simply postulating a fanatsy doctrine change. This fantasy requires an abrupt mindset change on the part of both players in March 1942. Just typing and thinking about this makes me shake my head: on February 28, 1942 an attack ratio of 1:1 is good enough, on March 1, 1942 suddenly success requires twice the spice.


IMHO a game that so faithfully and meticulously accounts for the elements of the TOEs, leader capabilities, etc. can do better than inject such a machination. Yes, there are some rather vocal opponents of this rule, and some AARs reveal some problematic issues, but to throw the baby out with the bath water seems radical.


Frankly, I really appreciate the developers committment to excellence - thanx.

Marquo [:)]



True, but at least this way we may be able to discuss other issues, problems, or improvements without the thread being hijacked. I don't think that any rational fix would have accomplished that.[8|]



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 2:44:43 AM)

[&o] 29) Rule Change – The Soviet attack doctrine discussed in section 15.8 of the manual now only applies from June 1941 to February 1942 (inclusive).

Pelton




mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 3:27:57 AM)

Pelton,

Eveyone of your, "When Pigs Fly" quotes and jibes equally apply to this bizarre antihistorical fantasy machination of doctrine. The Axis has penetrated a thousand kilometers into Russia, and suddenly Stalin has a change of doctrinal heart, and requires less, not more, of Ivan. Really? Instead of getting better, the Soviet Armed forces abruptly gets worse??? As you say, "When Pigs Fly." There are many other ways to effect game balance rather than this comedy. Even you did not really object to the rule, rather the effect. I do not object to dynamic changes of CV calculations during time periods, but in a game which strives to be the epitome of historical accuracy, this is hard to reconcile.

I beleive that Joel reflected, "Be careful what you wish for."



[image]local://upfiles/1355/BDE4D2CACBF240A28F860AD8D332B501.gif[/image]



jazman -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 3:34:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Pelton,

Eveyone of your, "When Pigs Fly" quotes and jibes equally apply to this bizarre antihistorical fantasy machination of doctrine. The Axis has penetrated a thousand kilometers into Russia, and suddenly Stalin has a change of doctrinal heart, and requires less, not more, of Ivan. Really? Instead of getting better, the Soviet Armed forces abruptly gets worse??? As you say, "When Pigs Fly." There are many other ways to effect game balance rather than this comedy. Even you did not really object to the rule, rather the effect. I do not object to dynamic changes of CV calculations during time periods, but in a game which strives to be the epitome of historical accuracy, this is hard to reconcile.



Maybe it's just a bone the devs throw to the 1:1-->2:1 dogs until they figure out something better.



gradenko2k -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 3:46:26 AM)

While I do agree somewhat that the rule being lifted does sound odd in the sense that it implies the Soviets suddenly fight a lot more differently after Feb 1942, the Soviets were always going to fight differently anyway, as their National Morale increases, their leaders get better/reshuffled and their formations change from Rifle Divisions and Arty SUs to Rifle Corps and on-map Arty.

I think jazman might be on the right track - this may just be a temporary stopgap while the devs figure out how to pass on the force balance requirements* onto the subtler aspects of the game's engine. Having said that, it might also be the case that these subtler aspects such as National Morale and leader checks are insufficient for such a large change in the abilities of the Soviet army going past 1941.

* By this I mean that if you make Soviet CVs naturally strong enough to allow them to make occasionally effective counter-attacks in 1941, then their defensiveness also goes up to the point where it may become too difficult for the Germans to make their Blitzkrieg gains. On the other hand, retaining the 2:1 rule past 1941 also means that the Soviets are able to make broad-front attacks in 1942. It's quite a conundrum, really.



mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 3:53:03 AM)

Most, if not all of the 1.05 changes seem to be designed to neuter the Soviets. In fact, the only rational step for the Germans in 1942 was to retreat and/or sue for peace. To balance the game, either the CV calculations or VP determinants could be changed, but to mythically enable a stronger Wehrmacht and weaken the Soviet Army under pretense of doctrinal change is disappointing.


[image]local://upfiles/1355/47B7BD809CBE4794804786AC9E84A73E.gif[/image]



Wild -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:00:03 AM)

Very happy to see this rule changed. The only "fantasy" was the fact that this rule existed to begin with. I think this is an acceptable compromise.



mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:13:57 AM)

Srping, 1942: Hilter and Aliens sign a nonaggression pact.....



[image]local://upfiles/1355/7612ADF6D1264D518401914DF658AD04.gif[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:17:42 AM)

Due to supernatural Alien influence, magic bones are thrown to the barking dogs, and abruptly, after kicking ass all winter, T 34s lose 50% of their combat effectiveness....

[image]local://upfiles/1355/AB2BE96C64794C3F891B90AAB8A68A4D.gif[/image]



gradenko2k -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:19:58 AM)

This is obviously post-mortem, but I think it wasn't all that good to let players know that the rule existed in the first place. It's been said that Mr Grigsby does not completely disclose all of his combat calculations to the general public (by which I mean this forum) specifically because it leaves them open for players to nitpick at specific parts of it.

That they revealed this particular one can be argued to be proof enough of that. Or rather, this rule was picked on because it was the only one that the players were aware of, and as such became a scapegoat, so to speak. It's easy enough to point to the 2:1 rule as the root cause of any particular Axis retreat, but I remember one of the earliest posts about it was an attack where the Soviet had about 200 Shturmovik's worth of unopposed CAS



Pipewrench -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:22:55 AM)

love the drama Marquo.

I woke the wife up laughing so hard.

Continue with the sci-fi journey into 42 as it should represent what is about to happen to the Russian player.

I think you are right by the way, the Germans are now supermen and history be damned.



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:24:13 AM)

The rule is a fantasy based on nothing to start with.

The Red army never got better, it got bigger.

The Germans were not ready for General winter, it had nothing to do with Red army tactics.

The Russians really never got away from WWI tactics until late 43.

It was a basic WW1 tactics until very late 43 and some would say early 44.

1. Bombard enemy lines.
2. Charge.

The Russians were morons, because Stalin killed everyone with an IQ over 55 before 1938. No worrys Marquo
you would not have gotten shot [8D]

They couldn't even take over Finland, hehehe

The rule should not even be in the game first place, end of fairtale.

Pelton





Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:28:18 AM)

[&o] 29) Rule Change – The Soviet attack doctrine discussed in section 15.8 of the manual now only applies from June 1941 to February 1942 (inclusive).



gradenko2k -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:36:59 AM)

I think if we're going to discount the idea of a 'fantasy', then we'd also have to ask ourselves if it's reasonable to expect the Germans to be in a position to launch a 1942 summer campaign, if the Soviets don't play historical ball and don't take as many losses.

Because that's ultimately what this is about, right? The Germans had a summer campaign in 1941, and another in 1942 (and whatever you might want to call 1943). They had one in 1942, so the players want to be able to perform one as well, but if the Soviets never lost as many men as they did historically, would the conditions for Case Blue still have been as ripe as they were?

EDIT: I suppose this also ties in to the idea that you're either making a game that tries to model historical performance while allowing for ahistorical decision-making, or if you're making a game that tries to give both sides an equal shot at 'winning', since it can certainly be argued that the War in the East was never going to be a fair fight.



Michael T -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:47:20 AM)

quote:

The Red army never got better, it got bigger.

The Germans were not ready for General winter, it had nothing to do with Red army tactics.

The Russians really never got away from WWI tactics until late 43.

It was a basic WW1 tactics until very late 43 and some would say early 44.

1. Bombard enemy lines.
2. Charge.



Pelton please stop writing utter rubbish like this. Some less informed people may actually beleive it.



abulbulian -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 4:59:41 AM)

All I can say is well done WitE.  It's about time this nonsense of the 1:1->2:1 was finally nerfed a bit.

[8D]



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 5:06:04 AM)

I have had more then one game were the russians lost far less then historical and still had a great 42 summer O. I don't waste time pocketing Russians during 41.

Russian losses are not the end all to be all. Production is far more important.

With arm pt production reduced from 200 to 130 its what its all about now. Which is great!! The Russians now just can't use hill biily tactics and run for the hills, they have to fight forward as the reds did historicaly.

Trade land for blood. Hmm like history Micheal T [8D]

Pelton




jzardos -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 5:06:20 AM)

oh no the poor Soviets players  [:(]
They might actually have to think about their strategies and make some good decisions about how and where to attack.. [>:]
Get over it please... the rule was a hack IMO for balance and people that have been paying attention to the more well matched player AARs know this change in the 1:1 -> 2:1 is well overdue.

Thanks WitE devs for finally taking a stand and cutting through all the Soviet player fanboys (sorry hate to use that work but it fits here) propoganda trying to dismiss a need to time-box this rule.





Michael T -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 5:20:08 AM)

Good Soviet players will still beat you Pelton, even with the Arm drop to 130 and the 1:1 rule gone. I wonder what your next excuse for a loss will be.



stone10 -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 5:26:52 AM)

Without 1:1 rule, is it possible for the soviets make success counterattack in 1942 campaign?



JAMiAM -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 5:36:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stone10

Without 1:1 rule, is it possible for the soviets make success counterattack in 1942 campaign?

They should be able to, but with much less success than pre 1.05 games. With the AP farming from mech units gone, and the need to build some Fortified Zones to boost important defensive positions, the Soviets are going to have a tougher time gathering the APs to quickly ramp up to a Rifle Corps based army. This, coupled with the poor quality of replacements due to their National Morale hit in 1942, as well as a host of other changes, will make 1942 a much more fluid campaign than it's been.



Michael T -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 5:40:30 AM)

I have a feeling that the reduction in Arm down to 130 will be a bigger hit than the 1:1 thing. The game may well be in favour of the Germans now. But time will tell. I think a game between a good Soviet player and a good German player may more than likely end in a German victory. But good Soviet players will still beat weaker German players. Just my gut instinct.



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 6:11:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The rule is a fantasy based on nothing to start with.

The Red army never got better, it got bigger.


Eh, the Red Army never got better? What are you talking about?

As to whether it the 1:1 rule was fantasy or not, I don't know. But the fact is that the two armies did fight differently, and the Sovs generally took higher casualties. So now, as far as I can tell, we have two "identikit" armies which are basically the same (other than experience and morale, which at some point converge as well). All this in a game which tracks individual satchel charges for chrissake.

And another thing: if leadership is so important, they need to stop the constant random dismissals of commanders. I get really tired of putting a good commander in charge of some front, only to realize several turns later that he has been replaced for some unknown reason, and I need to spend another 15 AP replacing him. If I'm the CiC, I'm the freaking CiC, and I should be making the decisions about what commanders to replace and when. I find it completely ludicrous that I can make the decision to abandon Kiev, Lgrad, Moscow, everything west of the Urals, and yet, and yet, somebody else (who?) is making decisions about replacing the commander of random armies. The fact is that I put good commanders in the most challenging positions, so they will end up losing some battles, but I don't want, or expect, them to be replaced.



karonagames -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 10:26:14 AM)

quote:

Without 1:1 rule, is it possible for the soviets make success counterattack in 1942 campaign?


That is, I think, the biggest question about the release of 1.05, and I think the developers will look at this aspect the closest when the beta test reports (AARs) start rolling in.




karonagames -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 10:27:23 AM)

quote:

The Red army never got better, it got bigger.


One statement that loses any credibility you may have gained in this forum.



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 10:34:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have a feeling that the reduction in Arm down to 130 will be a bigger hit than the 1:1 thing. The game may well be in favour of the Germans now. But time will tell. I think a game between a good Soviet player and a good German player may more than likely end in a German victory. But good Soviet players will still beat weaker German players. Just my gut instinct.


The new multiplier definitely changes up your evacuation strategy. I'm skipping heavy industry nowadays. Basically, I just get out armament, afv, and plane factories only now. And the latter two I do bare minimum withdrawals with whatever rail is left over. I'll use up to 90k rail cap each turn during 41 getting armament factories out.

And I skip the front line stuff, btw. I go straight for the big concentrations of armament factories first. (Starting with Leningrad, and then moving to the southern concentrations in Dnepropetrovsk, Poltava, and Kharkov.) Gomel, Odessa, Kiev, etc. Skip 'em.

The armament situation is very tight now. You'll be living hand to mouth well into 1942 even if you do very well with evacuations. If not, you may never be in surplus for the rest of the game.



janh -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 11:12:28 AM)

Sounds like the game just got a lot more potential to represent the war closer to history.  If a German player overextends his army in the south, wastes good units by assaulting well dug-in, quality Soviet division in Stalingrad, and stretches his communications and his flanks the way his historical counterparts did, the red opponent hopefully will be able to still punish him badly.  But not as badly as up to now, where I would bet a game a Stalingrad like outcome would have resulted in a continuous rush to Berlin, much like Q-Ball vs Tarhunnas style.  In contrast to the Germans actually having shored up their front, hurt the Soviets pincers significantly, and restored the situation up to the point that 1943 resulted in a stalemate with the biggest tank battle of time being fought.

Well, what will happen to the Red army if they will not follow historical orders, as gradenko_2000 suggested, will be testable now with a much more significant bearing.  Mind that if the Reds don't fight forward, the Wehrmacht will likely come out of 41/42 also with a much stronger force as well.  Historically they were quite bled down by their aggressive advances, especially before Moscow, even before the blizzards and the Russian counterstrike hit.  In fact I believe if the Russians don't stand their ground and attrit the Wehrmacht, the latter should also be in a much better shape to beat down or even prevent any successful Russian winter offensive.  Sounds like some exciting questions, no?
Fortunately, there is no such game feature as players being bound to historic orders, be it either targets/offensives, force shifts (unfortunately except...), suicidal standing orders or sacrificial attacks etc etc -- both sides.  If it were so, yes, of course the game would mimic history even better, and you'd as some point truly be in the footsteps of an Army commander pushed around by Hitler or Stalin -- but if you'd drive that concept to far, you at some point end up watching the war as a movie on your computer...



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 11:38:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
Sounds like the game just got a lot more potential to represent the war closer to history. 


I'm afraid that this is an elusive and probably futile goal. Any game which comes "close to history" will mean that a grand German offensive in 1942 will probably result in German overstretch, with thet inevitable Sov counter-attack making such offensives imprudent. So smart Germans will soon learn to simply turtle throughout 1942, using their stack of APs to build an impregnable line of fortresses that the Sovs, with their weakened forces, will not be able to breach.

On the other hand, if the Germans regularly achieve massive success in 1942, it means that the game has veered far from historical accuracy. Why? The fact is that by avoiding the many major Soviet blunders in 1941, Sov players should be expected to do much better than historically, with the Germans doing worse. In other words, IRL the Sovs were played by a "poor player" and yet still won the war rather handily. Why should the game be different?

Thus, to a certain extent the existing game balance issues might well be simply a reflection of the fact that the Sovs will do better then historically as long as they can avoid at least some of the massive mistakes made by Sov leaders, as most players can readily achieve.



janh -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/9/2011 12:20:14 PM)

True, I agree with every single one of your points.  Wehrmacht leadership played in a different league, for the exception of Hitlers messing with war related matters, and the exception of a few very talented and capable Russian officers. 

Perhaps turtling in 1942 is the best way to go for the Germans? Maybe in some 5 years, some more refinements, and some hundreds AARs down the road, the common conclusion might be that. Much like it seems to be in the WitP:AE community accepted today that the Japanese needs not overstretch as well, but needs to get a good foothold in Burma/Eastern India, around Darwin, and in CentPac -- trying to take India as a whole, OZ or Pearl is fun gaming, but would have resulted in utter disaster for the Japanese, as it does in the game for two comparable players. 
But maybe the situation is much more complex than that?  The best choice in 1942 might depend strongly on the character of the fighting put up until that spring: if losses are light and terrain gains have been substantial for the Wehrmacht just pursuing a withdrawing Red Army, it might be well worth to perform another full-scale summer offensive to gain some strategic centers, defensible terrain -- or perhaps force the Russians to sue for peace.  If the fighting would be closer to historical, perhaps a more focused offensive aimed at destroying more Soviet formations would be better than turtling.  That might be particularly true if a player made some "apparent" mistakes that could be exploited (or be a trap, like the balcony at Kursk).  I don't think turtling will in all cases be the best to do.  Much as in WiTP:AE sitting and waiting for the Allied steamroller to start in 44 is not the best thing to do.  Interdiction, harassment, trying to stop the opponent from gaining balance and allowing him time to set himself up properly are some things to bear in mind...





Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
8.6875