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

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



Message

Erik Rutins -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 3:57:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Okay; time will tell. Hard to see how neutering the Soviets and strengthening the Axis will make things more mobile. The AARs showing slugfests on the Volga are humorous; of course the Axis player is going to get bled to death in that manner.


There has been consistent progress in making adjustments to the balance of WITE since release. This is part of that ongoing effort. We certainly don't want to "neuter" the Soviets or make things easy on the Axis, but the game balance in 1.04 after 1941 was not as historical as we would like and we hope that 1.05 will bring us closer to that goal.

Keep in mind this is the first 1.05 public beta, after many internal betas but before many other public betas. Our goal is to make 1.05 official before the end of the year. We are planning on a fairly long public beta process. Adjustments to HQ buildup are still planned for 1.05 as well.

Regards,

- Erik



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 4:08:08 AM)

Marquo, seriously, check out any number of AARs showcasing the trench warfare issue. We're not talking about the Volga here, either.

Good place to start: Q-ball's match with Tarhunnas. But there were others of this sort.

Look. I'm a Soviet fanboy. And I think there was a problem.

Now, if pressed, I think we may have overshot the mark in other areas. Not this silly 1:1 business, but things that people aren't even tuning in on yet. I don't like the adjustment to 40 NM in 1942 at all. During testing this caused a huge problem with readiness, among other things (although Pavel tweaked the code to address that issue.) I suspect that the 130 multiplier to armaments is too drastic a nerf, since the Soviets need nearly perfect evacuations in armaments to meet requirements now. (Hence my new found fanaticism about evacuating these factories now almost to the exclusion of anything else. HI is taking it in the chin here in particular.)

Too many people imo get stuck on one particular hobby horse like this 1:1 rule, it's just part of the puzzle.

But the goddamned maginot line 1942 crap had to go. This has been accomplished in my estimation. Which isn't to say that further adjustments won't be necessary elsewhere. The game is a work in progress, and 1.05 is hardly the final word.



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 4:09:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Okay; time will tell. Hard to see how neutering the Soviets and strengthening the Axis will make things more mobile. The AARs showing slugfests on the Volga are humorous; of course the Axis player is going to get bled to death in that manner.


There has been consistent progress in making adjustments to the balance of WITE since release. This is part of that ongoing effort. We certainly don't want to "neuter" the Soviets or make things easy on the Axis, but the game balance in 1.04 after 1941 was not as historical as we would like and we hope that 1.05 will bring us closer to that goal.

Keep in mind this is the first 1.05 public beta, after many internal betas but before many other public betas. Our goal is to make 1.05 official before the end of the year. We are planning on a fairly long public beta process. Adjustments to HQ buildup are still planned for 1.05 as well.

Regards,

- Erik



You guys going to make HQ longer then 19 hexes? They are hardly used now, once a turn if your using them more then that your on top of your railheads anyways.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 4:20:56 AM)

The 1:1 to 2:1 (for all my bitching about it, talk to Pawlock for hints on this) is not the big thing, but rather the fortifications, the Morale boost to types, the lessening of production for the Soviets, etc...those are big things that I see. As Flavius says, there are things that will likely need to be tweaked, and this is what the public beta is for. God knows that there will be unforseen things cropping up, but some changes have been made to hopefully address the wildly problematic 1942 that was appearing time and time again.

I saw it, we all did - it wasn't deep in Russia either, but rather a few hexes east of the Dnepr in many cases...



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 4:22:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

You guys going to make HQ longer then 19 hexes? They are hardly used now, once a turn if your using them more then that your on top of your railheads anyways.


You are not allowed to have more than one celebre, Pelton. [;)]



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 4:28:09 AM)

I haven't even played 1.05 yet and I know 130 is to low. I am a German fanboy, but thats a huge hit.

200 is high because evacing factorys is so easy with HP build up basicly being nerfed from game by 1.04.

It seems to me each patch goes a little over board, swinging the game from one side to the other to much.

Many of the changes were very much needed, but the main 3 things that effect the game more then anything are,

1.1v1=2v1
2.arm production
3.HQ build up.

1(pro Russian) and 3 ( pro German) have now been nerfed to death. 2 needs to be tweaked some. I guess getting a bunch of AAR's is the best way to testem out.

Thing is its going to take some evenly matched players playing into late 44 to see how 1.05 pans out.

Pelton



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 4:31:35 AM)

I do have a plan B of course if they nerf it totaly.

It just takes a little longer to get rolling and requires more thinking.

Pelton



gradenko2k -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 4:33:00 AM)

quote:

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

In a vacuum, yes. It's still very possible to mass enough forces to make attacks that will achieve "natural" 2:1 results or better.

The removal of the rule means that there are going to be fewer attacks that can be made though, and some of those attacks going to fail. Whereas the Soviet player may see 10 good opportunities before (a completely arbitrary number), he may only see half of that or less available, and some of those aren't going to result in Anis retreats, depending on how close to the odds-edge the Soviet is willing to push it.

However, this patch is a rather layered one. The forts change may mean that the Soviet loses more men and production and have less AP-built units. The ARM modifier change directly means that the Soviet will have less guns and tanks and planes to work with. The ARM modifier change indirectly means that the Soviet has to fight more forward than previously, which may mean more losses, which will combine with the forts change effect and the direct ARM modifier effect to mean even less forces to work with.

I'm not sure if the National Morale changes are a net positive or net negative to Soviet prospects, but I'd guesstimate that it's a buff for the Germans.

Disclaimer: I'm not at all saying that the changes may be too much, or too little. I'm just pointing out the potential ramifications. I'd like to think I'm able to empathize with both sides of the aisle.



Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 4:52:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Marquo, you have got this exactly wrong. 1.04 promoted trench warfare in the east for both sides. This beta is designed to open things up and make it more mobile...on both sides.

The south in particular is going to see some wild swings of fortune.

The slow attritional grind seen prebeta inevitably led to an early collapse of the Wehrmacht well ahead of schedule. Games were getting called early as a result of this, nor were the players insane for doing so. Once the German army reaches a certain tipping point in this kind of relentless attritional grind, it collapses like a bad souffle and doesn't recover. I've seen this happen -- but not so early as was happening in 1.04 games, where the process was being accelerated by a good year or more. (I've managed to do it sometime in 1944 from a 1943 scenario starting point.)

I'm pretty well convinced that the old 1:1 rule was a major factor in this, although by no means the only one. (Forts were at least as important in promoting this WWI type of fighting, if not more important. And the lack of Hiwis also made the German replacement situation more fragile than necessary.)

We're taking a chance here with these changes, sure. They may or may not pan out under heavy play. (I personally think we may have gone too far with the new armaments multiplier. It's gotten to the point now where these are almost the only thing you want to evacuate. It's now a very hard chokepoint in the Soviet replacement situation. The lower manpower multiplier in 1942 is also imo somewhat dubious. And the new 40 NM in 1942 is I think also perhaps too far.) Caveat emptor and all of that. But plainly tweaking was necessary the state of the metagame in 1.04 had reached a very predictable result between equal players, and not a very good one.

One thing I'm going to be watching very very very carefully with this beta: the HQ buildup rule. If there's anyplace the game is way way way too favorable to the Germans, this is it.


HQ build-up is about usless now, other then pulling back a corps to fuel up the move back to front lines. Its basicly not even used in the north or center if ever and probably a waste when it is used.

Only area its used in my option is in the south and still your only talking a single corps a turn rotationing in and out divisions not a hole PZ army like in the past using up most of the GHC ap pts. I am working on a system that does same thing basicly without even using HQ build up and saves me a bunch of admin pts.

The issue at this point as we both have stated for over a week is the arm production. Dropping it down to 135 from 200 is just plain to much.

I again love the game and patchs, each one requires me to thk out side the box.

One dam big chess game with a few 1000 pieces.

Pelton



Jakerson -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 10:51:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Food for thought: the Soviet offensive doctrine called for deep operational armor advances of 100s of miles into the enemy's rear; when have we seen this in any of the AARs? Is there one example of a Bagration-like penetration and encirclment; or anything which comes close to the performance of Operation Gallop? No - all we have seen is a slow, boring Soviet steamroller grind; which btw, maynot have enough time to reach Berlin in the time limits of the game. Some of the AARs haved shown the Axis getting drained to death on the banks of the Volga, or between the Volga and the Dnepr. This makes perfect sense to me; if the German player stands 2,000 km deep in Russia, what is supposed to happen? What changes are being made to reflect the crushing operational blows so that game does not devolve into trench warfare stalemate deep in Russia? The V 1.05 changes guarantee a boring, stagnant game.


One way to solve this could be make artillery divisions more powerful busting trough forts but make them replenish ammo more slowly.

This way Soviet can go through fortified lines faster and start exploiting faster (and more historically) but artillery divisions cannot be used with full potency very often as their ammo recover very slowly. Slow ammo recovery would limit use of artillery divisions only for few selective operations during year.

Slow ammo recovery would also limit how much soviet can use their super fort buster artillery.


That is a good idea. +1
Simular to TOAW which models ,that very well. You just can't effectively fire your arty every turn in TOAW. You need to stock up.



This is just idea I fully understand if it is not possible to do this in current game engine but maybe someday if there is some kind of expansion for this game like WITP had its Admirals Edition.

I got idea from this after reading some books about the subject. Artillery really was most powerful weapon during World War 2 but its largest shortcoming was the fact that artillery eat up ammo stockpiles very rapidly. It was easy to fire months of ammo production in just few days.

I hope that Soviet side could have some way to build massive stockpiles of artillery and their ammo and then unload it all in one turn to bust trough forts very rapidly when they choose to use it. It was historical Soviet doctrine to bombard fortified lines in the way that there was nothing left in breakthrough point. Even minefields and tank obstacles were bombarded away.

It should not be too easy or fast or it could be exploited too much but just to give Soviet chance to do those big breakthrough operations 1-2 two times a year (I really mean game year).

One problem in current game model is that Soviet have to deliberate attack with so large amount of stacks of troops per hex to bust trough level 3-4 forts that there is no MP left for exploit anymore they can only push German stack one hex witch them are fortified again in next turn.





Mehring -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 12:24:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

You have a lot of praise for the OCS supply system but it's not all sunshine and glory. How about having so little supply that you can't even fuel your panzer divisions for turns (3d per turn) on end. While foot can just march along when in trace supply which is also very easy to have. not very historical either.

The big difference with OCS and why, it plays so fluently versus more stagnation in WitE, is the map scale difference. For each WitE hex, you have 4 OCS hexes (15 miles versus 5km). Its just not possible to have a coherent line from the top down everywhere. To aggrevate this you are at very simular unit "order" lots of Div. and only the panzer and tank/mech and some other formations are slit in regiments and battalions. Add to this that the maximum stack per hex is slightly higher (not counting Rifle Corps) than WitE and defending is much harder in OCS.

I really don't think you can compare the two. I'd certainly buy an Empire eddition of WitE with 4 hexes per hex now [X(][&o]

Regarding the 1:2 rule, here too the scale of the game is a bit too high to accurately follow history. While the Germans certainly at times retreated before an assault of the Sovs. I haven't found any example that Panzer divisions were thrown back 15miles by a Russian attack up until September 1941. Ther eis one counter offensive in late August when Konevs 19th Army pushed back and mauled serveral Germans divisions, and beat back a counter attack by the 7th Panzer, even then they advanced only a few km.

My hunch is that perhaps it would have been better to modify the combat engine to produce more losses for the Germans at lower odds, but without retreats. But I'm certainly not complaining as things are changed now.

Let's see how it goes. About to go into one Winter with the Russians and one with the Germans, will be interesting to see it both ways.

glvaca, I've tried to follow what you're saying with regard to OCS, but have failed dismally. Suffice to make the following points-

Your comparison of the scale is exaggerated nearly six times. WitE is 10 miles per hex, not 15. OCS east front map groups are 5 miles per hex, not 5 km. Given your argument rests on this difference, whatever it might be, I can't accept it, Sorry.

You say I have a lot of praise for OCS supply system, clearly implying that it is not warranted. Read what I actually say please. "...it's a board game with, given the medium, a pretty good logistics system. It has all the disadvantages of board games but it works pretty well..." and "The three types of [WitE] supply are, potentially, a better logistics solution than the two types in OCS."

The value of the OCS system is precisely what you dislike, namely that if you don't stockpile your war materials but instead play like some arcade shooter, you will run into a brick wall. I love it, it's real. It's maybe about as accurate a simulation a boardgame might achieve while maintaining a playable game. It reflects not only operational reality but one of the principle reasons Germany went to war in the first place- lack of raw materials.



glvaca -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 12:52:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

You have a lot of praise for the OCS supply system but it's not all sunshine and glory. How about having so little supply that you can't even fuel your panzer divisions for turns (3d per turn) on end. While foot can just march along when in trace supply which is also very easy to have. not very historical either.

The big difference with OCS and why, it plays so fluently versus more stagnation in WitE, is the map scale difference. For each WitE hex, you have 4 OCS hexes (15 miles versus 5km). Its just not possible to have a coherent line from the top down everywhere. To aggrevate this you are at very simular unit "order" lots of Div. and only the panzer and tank/mech and some other formations are slit in regiments and battalions. Add to this that the maximum stack per hex is slightly higher (not counting Rifle Corps) than WitE and defending is much harder in OCS.

I really don't think you can compare the two. I'd certainly buy an Empire eddition of WitE with 4 hexes per hex now [X(][&o]

Regarding the 1:2 rule, here too the scale of the game is a bit too high to accurately follow history. While the Germans certainly at times retreated before an assault of the Sovs. I haven't found any example that Panzer divisions were thrown back 15miles by a Russian attack up until September 1941. Ther eis one counter offensive in late August when Konevs 19th Army pushed back and mauled serveral Germans divisions, and beat back a counter attack by the 7th Panzer, even then they advanced only a few km.

My hunch is that perhaps it would have been better to modify the combat engine to produce more losses for the Germans at lower odds, but without retreats. But I'm certainly not complaining as things are changed now.

Let's see how it goes. About to go into one Winter with the Russians and one with the Germans, will be interesting to see it both ways.

glvaca, I've tried to follow what you're saying with regard to OCS, but have failed dismally. Suffice to make the following points-

Your comparison of the scale is not right. WitE is 10 miles per hex, not 15. OCS is either 2.5 miles or 5 miles per hex, depending on the game. I think the east front map groups in question are 5 miles per hex, but I could be wrong. Either way, the question mark is over whether you have exaggerated the difference by three times or six times, not whether or not you exaggerate. Given your argument rests on this difference, whatever it might be, I can't accept it, Sorry.

You say I have a lot of praise for OCS supply system, clearly implying that it is not warranted. Read what I actually say please. "...it's a board game with, given the medium, a pretty good logistics system. It has all the disadvantages of board games but it works pretty well..." and "The three types of [WitE] supply are, potentially, a better logistics solution than the two types in OCS."

The value of the OCS system is precisely what you dislike, namely that if you don't stockpile your war materials but instead play like some arcade shooter, you will run into a brick wall. I love it, it's real. It's maybe about as accurate a simulation a boardgame might achieve while maintaining a playable game. It reflects not only operational reality but one of the principle reasons Germany went to war in the first place- lack of raw materials.


IT was late (for me) when I wrote this so perhaps I wasn't very clear [>:]

What I'm saying there is a big difference in hex size. Whether 5km or 5miles (East front Case Blue) versus 15 miles, it still is a very subtantial difference. I can't check as I don't have the rules handy but you'll agree, 1:3 or 1:4 does not really matter to make the point. This difference with largly the same unit sizes, an absurd cost for digging in and the high mobility of the panzer units in relation to leg, all thogether conspire to make the OCS gaming system very fluid. Perhaps to fluid. Forgot to add that the pahse system (movement and exploitation/reaction) also contributes a lot.

I also love OCS. I should have made this clear in this post. But it is not unreservedly. The supply system is the best in any boardgame I've personally played but it also has it's quirks and I was trying to point these out.
1. Trace supply is easy to have. Which would translate to Supplies in game.
2. Supply for fueling and combat is harsh, especially in case Blue for the Germans. They lead to situations where your panzer divisions are ofen in the rear not being able to move while the infantry happily marches on. Likewise, using arty as the German is a luxery you really can't afford much. I don't find either very realistic WRT how the Germans operated historically.
3. Moving supply forward and stockpiling is great. And I'm very much on your side when you make a point about this. However, I think WitE handles this, as is, by forcing you to either not move, HQ-up, fly in supply and/or stay close to the rail road for maximum stockpiling. It is abstracted and I feel it works well.

I know how to play OCS after spending almost 2 years with Case Blue you get the idea. I absolutely love the combat suprise system and many other things of OCS but to go as far as prefering the OCS supply system to the WitE supply sytem, that is a step I personally won't take.




Mehring -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 2:42:01 PM)

glvaca, ok, again WitE is 10 miles per hex, not 15. Case Blue is 5 miles, I verified it just by comparing a few distances on the maps. That makes for a scale difference of only X 2 not X 3 or more and I don't think it qualitatively differentiates the two games' systems.

Of more impact, in my view, is the turn length, the same ratio but with much greater consequences. Even OCS, with its 2 turns per week, as you say, has a phase system. This is great and is partly mirrored by the rather unreliable WitE reserve status. But how far can a mechanised unit travel in a week turn, whatever the map scale, while the other side is unable to respond? Nevertheless, this seems to favour the Germans. As a number of players point out, when the boot's on the Russian foot, it seldom achieves breakthroughs, having instead to grind forward in a boring war of attrition.

You seem to need a judgement of one supply system being better than the other. My appraoch is to evaluate the strong and weak points of each and propose a synthesis of them for the context of this PC game. There are aspects of the OCS supply system, which, whatever its undeniable overall weaknesses, simulate logistical problems better than WitE. The converse is also true, but again, its not 'either or' I'm looking at, but synthesis.

My experience of WitE doesn't support your points on the existing supply system. It has the structures in place, bar aviation fuel, port capacity, road and rail differentiation, but they are seriously under utilised. Playing PBEM Russian I can grind forward as early as 1942, pretty well along the entire front, getting far beyond the 25 hex optimum supply limit and with only about half the full vehicle requirement. March 1943 and I'm outside Warsaw, in East Prussia and Bessarabia and split the front in two at the Carpathians. This should be a logistical impossibility. Clearly, as any number of players will testify, it's not.

Quite apart from the dysfunctional supply delivery system, there's also the question of supply production. I'm not sure if you followed the thread on or have read Adam Tooze's book, "The Wages of Destruction". I went and got the book and am half way through it. It's the first book I've found that deals with the economics of Germany in detail and its relation to fascism and the war drive.

Given the relation of materials allocation it gives, which maybe were not previously available to game designers, I wonder whether the entire strategic WW2 gaming inventory shouldn't be overhauled to replace guesswork with statistics. I don't know how to crunch the production numbers in WitE, so I have no idea what % of HI product is allocated to each branch of production and to the front as supplies. The statistics Tooze provides up to November 1941 indicate at least 20% of production on ammunition alone and he states a minimum of 40% on aircraft production for the entire war. I hope whoever is developing War in the West is reading or has read this book.



glvaca -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 5:14:08 PM)

Yes, I verified the rules and it is 5miles. But that's still a 100% increase in hexes. So again, still very substantial. Try covering a front line in WitE that is DOUBLE the distance with the samer troops. You would call that a minor difference? hmmm...

The turn length is definitely a big difference and allows for pauses for supply build up much easier that WitE.

German mech units have about 14-16 movement in move mode. BUT if you take them out reserve in the enemy turn reaction phase that is another 7 or 10 movement for a total of 17 (14+7) or 20 (16+4) movement. And you could push it even further, by again going into reserve at the start of your turn and move 1/4 before regular movement. So theoretically, you could push it as far as 17+3=20 and 20+4= 24. AND that's TRUE movement (altough terrain affects it) while in WitE morale has a big influence and even 86+ units pay 2 per clear hex they flip.

Oh, and I should add that you move 2 times in OCS for each time in WitE....

So the true movement for WitE is actually halved for 86+ morale, A thrid for the next order and so on. And that is starting from the magical 50 mvpts to begin with. Many times you will have much less because fatigue, lack of fuel, lack of vehivcles, leader checks, etc...
Objective conclusion or synthesis: mobility in OCS is much GREATER and also GRANTED if you have the supply (fuel). In addition to more terrain and thus lower density and much harder to create fortifications, it allows more fluidity.

That has been my point from the start and remains.

And you seem to have the need to put words in my mouth. [:-] So to repeat, the supply system of OCS is not perfect and quite frankly, being 25 hexes from your Railheads in OCS is no real problem, provided you have the trucks and wagons to use as extenders and bring supply forward. Try capturing Baku in Case Blue to have an exersice in logistics.

Where we do agree on is that I too believe there is room for fine-tuning with the supply system. For instance, define limits on how much a certain stretch of RR can be used per turn. And in consequence how many units can draw supply from said stretch. But again, yes there is room for fine-tuning. However, I for one fully realize how difficult supply is to get right. And if you were a dev, you'd probably be very careful and if a mistake needs to be made you'd surely prefer it to be on the side of having a bit too much, rather then too little. Too little being a very big problem.

I'll pick up the book, seems like an interesting read.

I cannot comment on your performance in PBEM's. But I wager a guess you got through the first summer pretty well and had a good or excellent winter and held the German off with a fort fest in the summer.

Let's try that in 1.05 and see if that still works.

Peace! [;)]



Mehring -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 6:02:48 PM)

Yes, I verified the rules and it is 5miles. But that's still a 100% increase in hexes. So again, still very substantial. Try covering a front line in WitE that is DOUBLE the distance with the samer troops. You would call that a minor difference? hmmm...

Is that relevent to a discussion on logistics?

German mech units have about 14-16 movement in move mode. BUT if you take them out reserve in the enemy turn reaction phase that is another 7 or 10 movement for a total of 17 (14+7) or 20 (16+4) movement. And you could push it even further, by again going into reserve at the start of your turn and move 1/4 before regular movement. So theoretically, you could push it as far as 17+3=20 and 20+4= 24. AND that's TRUE movement (altough terrain affects it) while in WitE morale has a big influence and even 86+ units pay 2 per clear hex they flip.

Oh, and I should add that you move 2 times in OCS for each time in WitE....

Yes, theoretically. Weren't you just complaining about panzer divisions lagging behind for lack of fuel? No wonder if you burn it up as above. As you go on to say...

Objective conclusion or synthesis ??? : mobility in OCS is much GREATER and also GRANTED if you have the supply (fuel). In addition to more terrain and thus lower density and much harder to create fortifications, it allows more fluidity.
That has been my point from the start and remains.

So mobility depends upon the avialability of fuel. If you're arguing about anything else, you're arguing with yourself, In so far as you argued about fuel, you were saying panzers couldn't move, now they move too much, which is it? I'll answer. It treats reality differently from WitE. Some of this treatment is more realistic than WitE. I would like to see that realism incorporated in WitE to compliment the aspects of WitE thatare more realistic than OCS. Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.

And you seem to have the need to put words in my mouth. So to repeat, the supply system of OCS is not perfect and quite frankly, being 25 hexes from your Railheads in OCS is no real problem, provided you have the trucks and wagons to use as extenders and bring supply forward. Try capturing Baku in Case Blue to have an exersice in logistics.

Can you show me where I've put words in your mouth? If you fantasized less about what's being put in your mouth you might bother to read what I'm saying, maybe not. But to repeat, protracted offensives work way beyond 25 hexes in WitE, so long as you can refit troops from time to time. That's a problem for me and a number of players.

Where we do agree on is that I too believe there is room for fine-tuning with the supply system.

I'm afraid not. While I think much more could be made of the mechanisms the game already has, I think the logistics are deeply flawed. Either the logistics system will need reworking or the entire game will be superseded.

I'll pick up the book, seems like an interesting read.

Highly recommended. Absorbing economics? That's a first for me.

I cannot comment on your performance in PBEM's. But I wager a guess you got through the first summer pretty well and had a good or excellent winter and held the German off with a fort fest in the summer.

Kursk happened in spring 1942 and I started to roll west in June or July. The time scale may vary a little but I think this is a fairly universal experience if Russia is not knocked out or hopelessly compromised in 1941. The roll westwards begins much too soon and in an unrealistic way.

Let's try that in 1.05 and see if that still works.

Well not much choice there, but a guarantee it won't work. The underlying logistical problems are not addressed.



glvaca -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 6:18:59 PM)

No, it supports my point of view there are other lements in OCS that differ from WitE that make for a different game. That was explained above in some detail. Perhaps you should read it again?

Actually, that would cost me 1 SP per panzer div as the fueling happens in the reaction phase it lasts through the complete friendly turn too. Better check up on the rules.

I don't see how WitE differs, no fuel, panzers don't move. The way the two games differ is how you get the fuel to your divs. Is the OCS's way better? Maybe, but I'm not complaining about the WitE system. Some more control would be nice, but there is HQ buildup. I don't have a preference, both are good. Neither are perfect but in the end I perefer WitE. Does it allow for a bit too much flexibilty? Perhaps. But historically, the Mech units ran out of fuel after a 150-200km+ exploitation. I think that's in the game as is. I find myself pausing after such a breakthrough to fuel up.

OK, so we don't agree.

Well yes, fort fest in 1942. And look at the notes for 1.05. Isn't that the exact situation they are trying to address?
Only difference is, they took a different approach to shifting the balance. And believe me, I'd rather have the Germans in high morale, but reducing the Soviets in morale, forts, armaments, etc... works too. At least that's what it looks like now. We'll see after some AAR and games.




Mehring -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 6:30:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

No, it supports my point of view there are other lements in OCS that differ from WitE that make for a different game. That was explained above in some detail. Perhaps you should read it again?

Actually, that would cost me 1 SP per panzer div as the fueling happens in the reaction phase it lasts through the complete friendly turn too. Better check up on the rules.

I don't see how WitE differs, no fuel, panzers don't move. The way the two games differ is how you get the fuel to your divs. Is the OCS's way better? Maybe, but I'm not complaining about the WitE system. Some more control would be nice, but there is HQ buildup. I don't have a preference, both are good. Neither are perfect but in the end I perefer WitE. Does it allow for a bit too much flexibilty? Perhaps. But historically, the Mech units ran out of fuel after a 150-200km+ exploitation. I think that's in the game as is. I find myself pausing after such a breakthrough to fuel up.

OK, so we don't agree.

Well yes, fort fest in 1942. And look at the notes for 1.05. Isn't that the exact situation they are trying to address?
Only difference is, they took a different approach to shifting the balance. And believe me, I'd rather have the Germans in high morale, but reducing the Soviets in morale, forts, armaments, etc... works too. At least that's what it looks like now. We'll see after some AAR and games.



I read you very carefully, and in so far as you are comprehensible your statements include gross exaggeration, are self contradictory and argue points not being argued. No we don't agree. I don't think we're arguing the same points. Bye.



glvaca -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 6:33:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

No, it supports my point of view there are other lements in OCS that differ from WitE that make for a different game. That was explained above in some detail. Perhaps you should read it again?

Actually, that would cost me 1 SP per panzer div as the fueling happens in the reaction phase it lasts through the complete friendly turn too. Better check up on the rules.

I don't see how WitE differs, no fuel, panzers don't move. The way the two games differ is how you get the fuel to your divs. Is the OCS's way better? Maybe, but I'm not complaining about the WitE system. Some more control would be nice, but there is HQ buildup. I don't have a preference, both are good. Neither are perfect but in the end I perefer WitE. Does it allow for a bit too much flexibilty? Perhaps. But historically, the Mech units ran out of fuel after a 150-200km+ exploitation. I think that's in the game as is. I find myself pausing after such a breakthrough to fuel up.

OK, so we don't agree.

Well yes, fort fest in 1942. And look at the notes for 1.05. Isn't that the exact situation they are trying to address?
Only difference is, they took a different approach to shifting the balance. And believe me, I'd rather have the Germans in high morale, but reducing the Soviets in morale, forts, armaments, etc... works too. At least that's what it looks like now. We'll see after some AAR and games.



I read you very carefully, and in so far as you are comprehensible your statements include gross exaggeration, are self contradictory and argue points not being argued. No we don't agree. I don't think we're arguing the same points. Bye.


Blablabla. Cheers.



elxaime -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 8:45:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Red army never got better, it got bigger.


Actually, this is incorrect. Forgive me for jumping in here, since I own but have not yet played WITE (waiting for the patching dust to settle). Much of this is in the book "Russia's War - Blood Upon The Snow" by Richard Overy (1997 Penguin) but you can find more elsewhere.

The Soviet combat officers, through attrition and experience in battle, simply got better as the war proceeded. This was true from Corps commanders on down to smaller units. They also not only deployed increasingly lethal weaponry, whether it was new generations of tanks and assault guns, more SMGs for infantry, etc., they also used tactics to maximize these assets. Primarily through US lend lease deliveries, they managed to get a significant number of Soviet infantry on wheels for the first in their history. Soviet camoflage and dezinformatsiya (disinformation) tactics in planning and executing operations at all levels repeatedly caught the Germans flat-footed. High rates of Soviet losses sustained in the late war had more to do with Stalin's political imperatives in pushing his forces to continue assaults even when exhausted and at the end of long supply lines than with troop quality.

However there remains an enduring myth of the Soviet armed forces as this undifferentiated mass, numbly marching in lock-step with fixed bayonets into crafty German machine gunners. While this certainly did occur, especially early on, by mid-war this was no longer the case and by late war the Soviets best units were a match for all but the most elite forces the Germans could throw against them.



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 10:06:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elxaime
However there remains an enduring myth of the Soviet armed forces as this undifferentiated mass, numbly marching in lock-step with fixed bayonets into crafty German machine gunners. While this certainly did occur, especially early on, by mid-war this was no longer the case and by late war the Soviets best units were a match for all but the most elite forces the Germans could throw against them.


Agreed on that and if you play WITE into the 1943-1945 period, a Red Army that is not just bigger but much better than the 1941-1942 army does emerge.

Regards,

- Erik



BletchleyGeek -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 11:10:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elxaime
However there remains an enduring myth of the Soviet armed forces as this undifferentiated mass, numbly marching in lock-step with fixed bayonets into crafty German machine gunners. While this certainly did occur, especially early on, by mid-war this was no longer the case and by late war the Soviets best units were a match for all but the most elite forces the Germans could throw against them.


Not only the commanders got more experience, they also got more confidence from the Soviet State, which allowed them a freedom of maneuver they hadn't previously been able to enjoy. The irony is that, in parallel, the Third Reich political leadership grow less confident of field commanders...

In any case, I see a bit of exaggeration implicit in your last sentence. It wasn't a cake walk for the Red Army either, to push AGS all the way from Kharkov to Lvov in nine months. Actually they had to stop large-scale operations everywhere else. When I see that in WitE, that the Soviet has to forego any kind of activity in half the front to get that kind of victory, then I'll be completely sure that the game will be the best ever rendition of the conflict. I think it started pretty close, and is pushing the bar even higher with each patch (or iteration).



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/10/2011 11:57:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


In any case, I see a bit of exaggeration implicit in your last sentence. It wasn't a cake walk for the Red Army either, to push AGS all the way from Kharkov to Lvov in nine months. Actually they had to stop large-scale operations everywhere else.


No, they did not.

People keep saying this. It's just not true. 1943 was a broad front offensive that included a good 2/3 of the front. You don't hear much about the stuff up north because the Sovs didn't do as well as the Ukraine, but these fronts were active and made their own, slower, bloodier advances. Indeed, they started operations during the whole Kursk battle, by launching their own offensive on the Orel salient. Bryansk, Western, and Kalinin Fronts were quite as busy as Steppe, Voronezh, Southwestern and Southern.

Only by Leningrad did the Sovs stay put until year's end.

This is one of the things that seriously annoys me about the stock 1943 campaign, btw. It seriously underestimates the Red Army's potential by keeping virtually 3/4 of it on static at a time when 3/4 of it was active, and you don't have anything like the required amount of APs to get it moving when it should. There are some expedients around this, but it definitely reflects this preposterous old school view that the Red Army didn't do broad front offensives.

Absolutely wrong. The Red Army didn't do anything but broad front offensives until 1944.







Pipewrench -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/11/2011 12:27:51 AM)

backing you up Flaviusx,


By 1943 it was over The Soviets had the manpower, material and experience to launch broad front attacks.

edit: good read on Kursk.

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0604103-113808/unrestricted/Klug_thesis.pdf


[image]local://upfiles/33731/5A816B4E094D4CEA97A2429982D64707.jpg[/image]



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/11/2011 1:30:06 AM)

Pipewrench, thing is, they launched broad front offensives also in 1941 and 1942. This was just their style in general -- they were remarkably persistent about this, even when the results were not amazing. (As in, say, the lamentable operation Mars in 42.)

Only in 44 did they change it up, and they switched to staggered offensives.




mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/11/2011 4:00:00 AM)

The cornerstone of Soviet doctrine, and this was honed from the beginning up to the end, was the deep operational breakthrough. Infantry and artillery massed at limited, focal attack points, and cleared the way for tank/mtz units to exploit the breach and then rove hundreds of kilometers into the rear. For the life of me I do not see this happening with any version of the game presented so far, and I fear 1.05 will not be the answer. We will see. I am in a PBEM which is on turn 18, getting ready for the first Mud/Snow/Bizzard; we just upgraded to 1.05 so we will be into '42 pretty soon.

Great game in any event.

Marquo [:)]



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/11/2011 4:10:43 AM)

Hi Marquo,

How far into the full campaign have you played?

Regards,

- Erik



Pipewrench -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/11/2011 4:11:29 AM)

Flaviusx,

that early? I did not know that but that is something I definitely will look up.

I knew about operation Mars and Uranus which could of lead to Jupiter in 42-43 but really never looked into 41 except for the Moscow offensive against AGC in 41 and the push on Kharkov in early 42.

Have to do some more reading ...thanks for the heads up  [;)]



daft -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/11/2011 8:54:25 AM)

I don't think the historical composition of Soviet forces really supported the deep battle doctrine that early in the war. When they reorganized the tank armies in may -42 they were done so with a fashion to support the breakthrough - exploitation thinking permeating the Red Army. Problem was it didn't really work too well due to the low motorization of the attached rifle divisions as well as due to the fact that the tank armies often were deployed well forward an the front lines. Obviously they had some successes in the winter of -42 with this type of composite armies, but they were still hampered by the force structure. It took some additional time (and the experiences of the winter of 1942 offensive) for the Red Army to make their tank forces more self-sufficient and geared towards exploitation with the tank elements detached from the un-motorized rifle elements.



cherryfunk -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/11/2011 12:17:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The Red Army didn't do anything but broad front offensives until 1944.

True, but many of these offensives went horribly wrong and caused massive casualties for almost no gain, didn't they? One of the criticisms aimed at Stalin's grand strategy is his tendency to push for too much, too soon, in too many places. Even Zhukov complained about this (after the big guy was dead of course).



mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 Redux (9/11/2011 1:01:00 PM)

Erik,

We did the first 18 moves with the prior 1.04 xx and now are using 1.05 xx. At least this will give some idea as to the winter offensive and then the '42 riposte. I will ask my opponent if it is okay to share.

BTW, it seems like players have already found a way to confound the intention of llimiting the detection limit of airbases. I am playing as the Soviet, and we had agreed to only one attack/AB/turn when playing under 1.04 xx; we were going to allow unlimited AB attacks under 1.05 xx; but I do not want to play against an Axis player with a neutered Luftwaffe. Any suggestions as to how to deal with this? I was thinking going back to 1 attack/turn; other thoughts???

Regards,

Mark



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125