RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (Full Version)

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



Message

TulliusDetritus -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 2:04:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
if you have thin lines the Germans will punch through them very easily, encircle an army or two or three, kill them, and do it all over again. Your reserves will not be able to save them. and pretty soon your "reserve" will be manning the frontline because of all the troops you've lost in pockets...


Humm, either I wasn't very clear or you haven't understood [:)] The only German attack that matters is the one which involves Panzers. As I have said there should be maximum only two main attacks. No sir, the German Panzers will N O T be attacking a thin front-line. They will be facing 1/2 of the Strategic Reserves + lots of Corps... defending in DEPTH... Much more forces than a mere carpet may give you... Because you will necessarily know where the Panzers are concentrated. No magic tricks. And then some tchouk-tchouck.



karonagames -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 2:11:39 PM)

quote:

For those pointing to a successful Stalingrad offensive as "proof" of Russian offensive capability to refute Pelton's claims, I would ask/remind said players as to who exactly the Russian offensive hit, because it didn't include very many Germans at all. (IE, the Russians kicked the snot out of Axis minor allies, which they can do even in 1941). Can the Russians really attack a section of a fortified German line that has good troops in it in 1942 and expect success? Was there any major shifting of the lines during all of 1942 north of Voronezh? The Russians tried several operations and pretty much got bloody noses for their efforts.


As Pelton has noted in another thread, historically, the Soviets took what they were given. And at Stalingrad 6th Army was wrapped up for them with tinsel and ribbon. Elsewhere offensives like Operation Mars at Rzhev, were unmitigated disasters.

Your question about Red Army offensive capability in 1942 is absolutely valid and is another incentive for Axis players to consider a strategy that does grab real estate in the South and defend it with a German army that has not over-extended and weakened itself, because without +1 I would go as far as saying the Soviets can't get it back, based on the limited testing I have done, which probably means you can get a 1943 start line further to the east that will definitely take the soviets longer to push back to Berlin.



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 2:36:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Humm, either I wasn't very clear or you haven't understood [:)] The only German attack that matters is the one which involves Panzers. As I have said there should be maximum only two main attacks. No sir, the German Panzers will N O T be attacking a thin front-line. They will be facing 1/2 of the Strategic Reserves + lots of Corps... defending in DEPTH... Much more forces than a mere carpet may give you... Because you will necessarily know where the Panzers are concentrated. No magic tricks. And then some tchouk-tchouck.


Definitely deja-vu! Of course I'm talking about attacks with panzers...and they will be attacking a thin front line unless your strategic reservers are within a few hexes of the attack, in which case they are not really a strategic reserve. The panzers don't have to drive ten hexes deep, or eight, or even six--against a thin line they go in two-three hexes deep and several hexes across and pocket everything in between.

Defenses in depth do absolutely no good against such shallow pockets. If your massive, in-depth reserves are more than about two hexes from the pocket, they will do absolutely no good because the pocketed units will be dead before they get to them. I don't know how to explain it any better.



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 2:38:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
another incentive for Axis players to consider a strategy that does grab real estate in the South and defend it with a German army that has not over-extended and weakened itself, because without +1 I would go as far as saying the Soviets can't get it back


Or the Germans could just dig in where they are, in which case it will be even harder for the Sovs to get it back. Advancing in the south or really anywhere else will only make the Germans more vulnerable to counterattack because they won't be dug in.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 2:41:50 PM)

76mm, I guess this has to be off topic so we better drop this. You're a carpet psycho, I'm an ex-carpet psycho, everyone is happy, that's all [:)]

And thanks for the 1:1 tip [:)] Maybe it was bad luck. I had done attacks 1:1 and they did not work. I did some tests and yes, it still works (as designed).



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 2:51:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
You're a carpet psycho, I'm an ex-carpet psycho, everyone is happy, that's all


I resemble that remark!



karonagames -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 3:00:50 PM)

quote:

Or the Germans could just dig in where they are, in which case it will be even harder for the Sovs to get it back.


I know that Ketza did that in your game with him, but you did have a tough 1941 with the loss of Leningrad and a high capture rate,and you are also having a tough time taking territory back. Maybe Leningrad is enough to give the Axis the edge they need; I am surprised if that is the case.

I also think you are starting to see the importance of artillery +1 debate.



Oskkar -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 3:53:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

For those pointing to a successful Stalingrad offensive as "proof" of Russian offensive capability to refute Pelton's claims, I would ask/remind said players as to who exactly the Russian offensive hit, because it didn't include very many Germans at all. (IE, the Russians kicked the snot out of Axis minor allies, which they can do even in 1941). Can the Russians really attack a section of a fortified German line that has good troops in it in 1942 and expect success? Was there any major shifting of the lines during all of 1942 north of Voronezh? The Russians tried several operations and pretty much got bloody noses for their efforts.




The claim that Soviet forces were for the most part unable to dislodge well-entrenched German forces in 1942 (your time-limit) is basically correct (and in the context of this thread this is the most pertinent claim), but...

It is the claim that Soviet forces were useless in the offensive until late summer 1943 which is basically incorrect. URANUS is a proof of that. The fact that the STAVKA outplanned the OKH and forced even the evacuation of a German Army Group from the Caucasus by mass-concentrating against minor axis allies along the Don River is a proof of how useful that offensive was.

The claim that Soviet forces were unable to dislodge well-entrenched German forces before late summer 1943 (and this is Pelton's time-limit) is probably incorrect. For instance, in January 1943 the German 2nd Army was ejected from Voronezh (I say probably because I do not know the details of that operation)

Nota bene: If someone claims "A is true because B is true" and someone else shows that B is false, that does not mean that A is false. In this case A= "the abolition of the 1:1=2:1 rule in March 1942 is OK", and B="Soviet offensive operations were generally useless until late summer 1943"



BletchleyGeek -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 4:09:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Raiding the Caucasus and destroying huge chunks of the Red Army is the best bet for the Axis.


Raiding the Caucauses is the best bet if the Germans want to lose. I don't think they can really pose a credible threat to Baku, and an attempt puts them in a much more hazardous position than the Sovs. As a Sov player I would like nothing more than to have my German opponent try that... I have actually tried to lure Germans down there but they were too smart to take the bait.

The best German bet in 1942 is to encircle large chunks of the Sov carpet and kill them, without any grand strategic designs. And I'm not even sure if that will be possible if the Sovs have a huge army in 1942 because they were able to avoid large casualties by retreating.


What are the reasons for not being that a realistic prospect? The über Soviet offensive capabilities in 1942? With toy Tank Corps, no Arty Divs, and Rifle divisions with Morale and Experience in the 30s-40s? Certainly not. Games started with 1.05 have been changed in a fundamental way.

What grand-style encirclements can they make in the wake of dug-in Soviet Armies in depth? And if they breakthrough, why would anybody stay put, say, between Kharkov and Voronezh in 1942?

Sincerely, you'd hate seeing how your forces are surrounded and destroyed on the steppes while the German motorized divisions dance around you. Try the Operation Blue scenario against a human and you'll see what I mean.



Baelfiin -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 4:15:15 PM)

I think you have hit the main point of 1.05xxxxx BG

Real estate is cheap( for both sides) fort levels are nice, but really not the be all and end all of any defence.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 5:03:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

I think you have hit the main point of 1.05xxxxx BG

Real estate is cheap( for both sides) fort levels are nice, but really not the be all and end all of any defence.


I really mean to believe it's different in 1.05, let's see if people (or facts) can get me down that horse.

Otherwise we'll all get used to this kind of AARs:

"This has been a HUGE turn guys. The 10,000th T-34 should be rolling out of the Chelyabinsk factory as you read this".

"It's about time to get these Tank Corps rolling... oh, wait. Damn. 87th Tank Corps IS-2s paint hasn't dried yet. And 142nd Rifle Corps is still at 75% TOE. F12".

or

"Diary of the OKH: 13/12/1944. Today Obergrefeiter Schumann has been awarded the Knights' Cross with Oak Leaves for his heroic deeds east of Kharkov, when captured a Soviet private who had veered too far from his trenches to relieve himself. This deed should be considered an example for the entire ArmeeGrüppe."

I don't think we're all condemned to this IF people take chances and think out of the box.



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 6:29:23 PM)

For starters, I would say the Soviets were not, on average, capable of launching a strategic offensive (where "strategic" is not meant the way the Soviets understood it, but in game terms of an offensive of 10 hexes gained or more) in summer 1942 at the same time as the Axis summer offensive.

In previous versions, Axis summer offensives in 1942 were either unlikely to start to begin with or were unlikely to succeed due to the presence of significant numbers of forts and the ease with which the Soviets can move reserves around (essentially making them very good at backhand blows in the process).

I personally believe that the Soviets can still make limited (counter)attacks, even if they require an army to do so, but in order to dislodge dug-in German divisions, they'd need artillery divisions and corps-sized units. Considering that prior to summer 1943, the Soviets had made only limited gains in terms of recapturing territory that was lost pre-summer 1942 (keeping in mind that during the winter 1942-1943 offensive, they mostly recaptured areas lost during summer 1942, the Axis lines in summer 1943 were fairly similar to where they were a year ago in summer 1942 aside from in some areas), I don't consider it to be a problem from a historical perspective that the Soviets can't launch their first sustained/sustainable offensive along the entirety of the frontline in 1943.

However, if they can't do so now, that's a problem.

Aside from Soviet unit quality and quantity, the main things determining whether a Soviet offensive can work are the TOE% status of German units in the area, their number and their morale.

The Soviets in 1942 have not just been "hit" with the removal of the odds modifier, but also with lower national morale, which may or may not have a significant influence on their chances of launching a successful offensive on the other hand. To compensate by 1944 their Rifle corps CV's will be (very) high and in 1943 your Guards corps should start to get some impressive CV's. As the Soviets will have a fair amount of high ROF elements in their corps, they'll also inflict more casualties than they ever do in 1941-1942.

The Germans now get Hiwi's, which eases their manpower problems, and it might very well be that they get too many Hiwi's, which can be a problem even though there's only an X amount of Hiwi's that can be in the game at any point (because it's limited to the quantity of support squads).

There's a good chance further changes will be made, but I am not in favour of a return of the odds modifier. Slightly improving overall Soviet unit quality: OK, but a return of the odds modifier would in my opinion be a bad thing for balance reasons, as it would make it too easy to wreck the Axis through low odds attacks and the resulting retreat attrition.



lycortas -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 6:49:40 PM)

Oskkar, you are in danger of becoming the Russian Pelton. Uranus was launched against a German (allied) line that was so attenuated that it had to fail. What were the 3rd Romanian Army frontages? IIRC each Romanian battalion had like 15km of front!!!! Insane. Very few German players will be that stupid. We cannot adjust our game so that Soviets win because Soviets historically won.
That way leads to madness.

Sorry, i have always wanted to say that.

Anyway, I support the 1:1 change as a good rule. 76mm, you hit it on the head, the Germans have no incentive to move in '42. That has to change.

I am one of the creators of CHS for WitP and that game has a lot of problems, but i enjoy playing it. This game i have not played one vs human game because it is not fun.
I hope that can be fixed.

Michael





PeeDeeAitch -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 7:15:35 PM)

I do not think that the Germans have no incentive to move in 1942. We shall have to see how it plays out, but the premise of taking more land (more to take back) and more importantly harming the Soviet army and perhaps creating some pockets cannot be understated.

While the conservative Axis player may turtle, there are things to be gained from the offensive.



Q-Ball -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 7:31:00 PM)

I think it will be difficult to draw alot of conclusions until we get well into 1944 in a couple games.

One difference between WITE and RL, is the importance of Forts. IMO, we might see Germans consistently hold ground ahead of historical objectives in 1943, but what's really happening is that they are holding onto forts they built. I think rather than retreating to unprepared ground, German players are going to choose/be forced to fight forward in Fortifications. I think German players will grind grind grind in forward lines rather than retreat, until the Germans reach a collapse point, THEN it will be a runaway faster than history.

If I am right, 1943 will look like a pro-German stalemate, and 1944 will be a bigger disaster for the Germans than it was IRL

Of course, I could be wrong, but we really need to get there. That's my point.



Oskkar -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 7:33:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Oskkar, you are in danger of becoming the Russian Pelton. Uranus was launched against a German (allied) line that was so attenuated that it had to fail. What were the 3rd Romanian Army frontages? IIRC each Romanian battalion had like 15km of front!!!! Insane. Very few German players will be that stupid. We cannot adjust our game so that Soviets win because Soviets historically won.
That way leads to madness.

Sorry, i have always wanted to say that.

Anyway, I support the 1:1 change as a good rule. 76mm, you hit it on the head, the Germans have no incentive to move in '42. That has to change.

I am one of the creators of CHS for WitP and that game has a lot of problems, but i enjoy playing it. This game i have not played one vs human game because it is not fun.
I hope that can be fixed.

Michael





Lycortas, the question is as simple as follows.

Do you think the Soviets were useless in their offensive operations before late summer 1943?


Yes or no?

Please note that the question is not "were they effective against German entrenched units"?

Think about it.

Then re-read my post.

Then come here and argue why you consider URANUS "useless".



Ketza -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 7:35:11 PM)

To me it boils down to math.

In order for me to risk Axis troops getting out of their entrenchments there has be some type of incentive. If that incentive does not involve creating situations where I can get 3-1 casualty ratios or better against Soviet troops then there is no point doing it because that is the average of casualties when Soviets attack me in my trenches.

Granted if I see opportunities to creat pockets I do so as long as I have a good feeling that the ratio will be maintained. The one time in my game against 76mm I neglected that rule my Panzer troops took a pounding. Now some of that was because of the 1-1 rule which is now gone so I will have to see if those ratios change when I go on the offensive again.

Now if there was some major strategic goal that could be obtained that would lower Soviet capabilities for the duration of the game I would weigh whether or not the casualties incurred in obtaining that goal would be worth the negative impact on Soviet forces. Once the Soviet has evacuated all of the factories there really is no way you can impact them other then taking manpower centers.

Once you obtain a certain level of manpower centers the cost of "reaching" for more would typically be way to high compared to the actual long term damage you would do to do the Soviet army. A 1943 full blown Axis offensive to take Moscow in my current 1943 game would probably cost me a million casualties and completely trash my Panzer troops. It is the only real manpower center in my reach left but it is surely not worth that effort.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 8:05:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza
Now if there was some major strategic goal that could be obtained that would lower Soviet capabilities for the duration of the game I would weigh whether or not the casualties incurred in obtaining that goal would be worth the negative impact on Soviet forces. Once the Soviet has evacuated all of the factories there really is no way you can impact them other then taking manpower centers.



Oil production can't be moved, very much like manpower.



mmarquo -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 8:17:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sticking with history, which we all know runnian players hate to do.

I am sorry that the I win button was taken away from the Red players, but the game needed to be based on history and not fairytales.

Ask Hoooper for a few pointers and stop cring for your I win button back.

Pelton


Pelton

You are trying to highjack this thread with inflammatory drivel. Since I started this thread, I will not be so kind as others who have already asked you to tone it down: please leave my house, you are no longer welcome.

Thanks,

Marquo



Oskkar -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 8:32:09 PM)

Would not it be possible to make the transition from the bonused Soviet attacks to the unbonused ones in a more stepwise manner?.

In February 1942 1:1 (or higher) gets a bonus of +1 and is converted to 2:1 (or higher)
In March 1942 1.1:1 (or higher) gets a bonus of +0.9 and is converted to 2:1 (or higher)
In April 1942 1.2:1 (or higher) gets a bonus of +0.8 and is converted to 2:1 (or higher)


and so on?

Or something similar?




Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 8:41:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I think it will be difficult to draw alot of conclusions until we get well into 1944 in a couple games.

One difference between WITE and RL, is the importance of Forts. IMO, we might see Germans consistently hold ground ahead of historical objectives in 1943, but what's really happening is that they are holding onto forts they built. I think rather than retreating to unprepared ground, German players are going to choose/be forced to fight forward in Fortifications. I think German players will grind grind grind in forward lines rather than retreat, until the Germans reach a collapse point, THEN it will be a runaway faster than history.

If I am right, 1943 will look like a pro-German stalemate, and 1944 will be a bigger disaster for the Germans than it was IRL

Of course, I could be wrong, but we really need to get there. That's my point.



Plan a fall back line and gradually retreat. Try to keep reserves available. Don't overextend yourself in 1943. And bear in mind that if the Red Army can only hit you with mobile units, it's not that effective. It is the rifle corps and artillery divisions that have the real killing power. So even minor withdrawals will significantly reduce what can be thrown against you. You don't necessarily need to do a full runaway, falling back out of deliberate attack range of non mobile units will dramatically lower your losses.

And forget about major offensive operations from 1943. You can, possibly, contrive to create a backhand blow circumstance if the Soviet advance is rash, but a positive offensive simply risks burning out the Wehrmacht.

The panzer divisions in some ways reach their maximum combat power in absolute terms in 1943; properly used, they can do wonders on the defense.



stone10 -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 8:51:55 PM)

theoretical, you could retreat gradually. However, the Soviets can simply follow and when can you get the time to dig in? how much ground can you afford to lose?



Farfarer61 -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 9:06:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stone10

theoretical, you could retreat gradually. However, the Soviets can simply follow and when can you get the time to dig in? how much ground can you afford to lose?



Everything but Berlin I guess :)



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 9:13:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
One difference between WITE and RL, is the importance of Forts. IMO, we might see Germans consistently hold ground ahead of historical objectives in 1943, but what's really happening is that they are holding onto forts they built. I think rather than retreating to unprepared ground, German players are going to choose/be forced to fight forward in Fortifications. I think German players will grind grind grind in forward lines rather than retreat, until the Germans reach a collapse point, THEN it will be a runaway faster than history.


As far as I know, the Germans have tons of AP and will basically create as many FZ as they want to create fall-back fortifications. So why do you think they will hit a collapse point?



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 9:21:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

What are the reasons for not being that a realistic prospect?

Geography?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
What grand-style encirclements can they make in the wake of dug-in Soviet Armies in depth? And if they breakthrough, why would anybody stay put, say, between Kharkov and Voronezh in 1942?

Sorry, who are they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Sincerely, you'd hate seeing how your forces are surrounded and destroyed on the steppes while the German motorized divisions dance around you. Try the Operation Blue scenario against a human and you'll see what I mean.

I can't speak to the Case Blue scenario, but in a GC I'm just not worried about German motorized divions dancing around me to Baku. Have we ever seen that in more than 1-2 AARs? 1.05 changes a lot, but not everything...



76mm -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 9:23:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Oil production can't be moved, very much like manpower.


I looked at this once, and destruction of the oil production north of the mountains looked pretty inconsequential, destruction of the oil production south of the mountains looked pretty difficult.



stone10 -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 9:27:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
One difference between WITE and RL, is the importance of Forts. IMO, we might see Germans consistently hold ground ahead of historical objectives in 1943, but what's really happening is that they are holding onto forts they built. I think rather than retreating to unprepared ground, German players are going to choose/be forced to fight forward in Fortifications. I think German players will grind grind grind in forward lines rather than retreat, until the Germans reach a collapse point, THEN it will be a runaway faster than history.


As far as I know, the Germans have tons of AP and will basically create as many FZ as they want to create fall-back fortifications. So why do you think they will hit a collapse point?


Fortified Zone does not equal to forts. you need send powerful troops to build them, which is semi-possible when you have to run from massive Rifle Corps & arts.



janh -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 9:34:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza
To me it boils down to math.

In order for me to risk Axis troops getting out of their entrenchments there has be some type of incentive. If that incentive does not involve creating situations where I can get 3-1 casualty ratios or better against Soviet troops then there is no point doing it because that is the average of casualties when Soviets attack me in my trenches.


Not to dilute your discussion, but I really think there should be quite substantial FOW on all the enemy statistics, be it the strength overview tables, or losses in battle -- just in WitP/AE, and just as in real life. Even the own number and states should be a little bit inaccurate, and the enemy losses should be only know by estimates. The latter could be more accurate for the side that keeps the hex (and for example can estimate casualties a little more accurate from what the enemy left behind). I think not exactly knowing the losses of the enemy would make a huge difference in how people would play on either side. And result in more realistic situations and mistakes.
Same as I always think when playing WitP that as a commander I should have a good idea of the qualities of my leaders or units, but not on a centi-scale. Things should be rated "excellent, very good, good, average, and poor", or along these lines, but a dossier of subordinates never read "Tanaka, 76% naval skill...".

And yes, the Soviets had no staying power or yet developed the right experience before 43 for a strategic offensive of a few hexes against a proper, heavy Axis defensive position that would retain the gains, and not potentially end in either disaster, or depleting of the attacker's units at little gains. However, the Soviets did perform some local counteroffensives, of a few 10 miles, which were successful in the initial days. For that, they surely had some teeth left, especially for small scale counterattacks. Yet once the Germans reacted... Ouch.



Ketza -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 10:44:25 PM)

I agree there should be a higher degree of FOW. I do not think this would really change the strategic direction of most games as most of the trends in casualties would still be the same. Those trends would remain fairly consistent unless players make mistakes that can be taken advantage of such as Axis turn one missteps or the Soviets allowing large pockets in the campaign seasons of 1942 and 1943.

Against evenly matched players there are really no major variables in this game unless mistakes are made. Although many of us appreciate sticking to the historical approach of the developers there is not much a player can do to change the overall direction of the game except slug it out while keeping an eye on the trends of combat.




Peltonx -> RE: 1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality (10/21/2011 10:50:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

For starters, I would say the Soviets were not, on average, capable of launching a strategic offensive (where "strategic" is not meant the way the Soviets understood it, but in game terms of an offensive of 10 hexes gained or more) in summer 1942 at the same time as the Axis summer offensive.

In previous versions, Axis summer offensives in 1942 were either unlikely to start to begin with or were unlikely to succeed due to the presence of significant numbers of forts and the ease with which the Soviets can move reserves around (essentially making them very good at backhand blows in the process).

I personally believe that the Soviets can still make limited (counter)attacks, even if they require an army to do so, but in order to dislodge dug-in German divisions, they'd need artillery divisions and corps-sized units. Considering that prior to summer 1943, the Soviets had made only limited gains in terms of recapturing territory that was lost pre-summer 1942 (keeping in mind that during the winter 1942-1943 offensive, they mostly recaptured areas lost during summer 1942, the Axis lines in summer 1943 were fairly similar to where they were a year ago in summer 1942 aside from in some areas), I don't consider it to be a problem from a historical perspective that the Soviets can't launch their first sustained/sustainable offensive along the entirety of the frontline in 1943.

However, if they can't do so now, that's a problem.

Aside from Soviet unit quality and quantity, the main things determining whether a Soviet offensive can work are the TOE% status of German units in the area, their number and their morale.

The Soviets in 1942 have not just been "hit" with the removal of the odds modifier, but also with lower national morale, which may or may not have a significant influence on their chances of launching a successful offensive on the other hand. To compensate by 1944 their Rifle corps CV's will be (very) high and in 1943 your Guards corps should start to get some impressive CV's. As the Soviets will have a fair amount of high ROF elements in their corps, they'll also inflict more casualties than they ever do in 1941-1942.

The Germans now get Hiwi's, which eases their manpower problems, and it might very well be that they get too many Hiwi's, which can be a problem even though there's only an X amount of Hiwi's that can be in the game at any point (because it's limited to the quantity of support squads).

There's a good chance further changes will be made, but I am not in favour of a return of the odds modifier. Slightly improving overall Soviet unit quality: OK, but a return of the odds modifier would in my opinion be a bad thing for balance reasons, as it would make it too easy to wreck the Axis through low odds attacks and the resulting retreat attrition.


What he said, basicly. 1v1=2v1 is where it needs to be now.

1.05 made WiTe about 95% right on.

Some tweaking needed.

1. HVY system.
2. up arm pts number some for Russians(135 to ?)
3. Morale tweak, ask a dev i have no idea.
4. better VP system

Games finished.

Pelton



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6386719