RE: The core problem with WitE+

RE: The core problem with WitE+ (Full Version)

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

Message

loki100 -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/7/2014 6:28:23 PM)
ok Pelton you want data, here's some Soviet estimates of losses (dead) in the various major operations that defined 1941 up to the start of the Winter offensive. The first number is recorded KIA/MIA on the battlefield, the second is died in hospital, so it ignores prisoners, those so seriously wounded as to be discharged as well as those later to return to their units. It ignores VVS losses. The source is Krivosheev and you can find the details here (much better than a Wikipedia page). 22 June – 9 July Baltic Battles– 75,202+ 13,355 Bielorussia – 341,000 + 77,000 Lvov – 172,000 + 69,000 29 June – 10 October Finnish Front – 67,000+68,000 7 July – 26 September Kiev – 616,000+84,000 10 July – 30 September Leningrad – 214,000+131,000 Smolensk – 486,000 + 273,803 29 September – 16 November Dombass-Rostov – 143,000+17,000 30 September – 5 December Moscow – 515,000+144,000 So we have around 3.2 million losses in combat, you claim the ratio was 6-1 so then German losses for the period up to 5 December were, according to you, something akin to 500,000? Vabanque (I'm less sure with German sources) indicates German combat losses were June :41058 July 164988 August 189813 September 131687 October 113762 November 84051 December 77O93 If we leave out December to try and do like with like that seems close to 960,000 (and of course ignores losses among the German allies). But this is like with like, the sort of loss ratio the combat engine should generate, seems like 3-1? but this whole discussion is pointless. As widely suggested, the WiTE combat engine is not going to get revised, and equally the flaws in logistics are as bad (not worse), so the game we have, hopefully with some of the small stuff that wrecks the mid-game (like the upgrade logics) sorted out.

SigUp -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/7/2014 6:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa Just coming to the end of 'Demolishing the Myth - The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943' - Valeriy Zamulin and it joins some of the small number of books that have genuinely changed history for me. 'The Bloody Triangle' - Victor J. Kamenir graphically described the state of Soviet forces in 1941, explaining the initial rapid successes for the Axis during Barbarossa. 'Demolishing the Myth' shows that in 1943 the same Soviet command and control problems were still there, lack of co-ordination with other ground and air units, lack of reconnaissance, units knowing little about enemy, or even friendly dispositions, higher HQ setting unrealistic tasks, all of which results in tragically high casualty rates. The main theme is that the biggest tank battle in history, never happened, at least not in the way it has been described up to now. It wasn't a chaotic encounter battle with a surprised enemy, the II SS PzK knew the Soviet tank attack was coming on the 12th July and where it would take place, going over to the defensive on that part of the front, to inflict maximum casualties on the attacking Soviet tank corps of the 5th Guards Tank Army, whilst continuing to advance on the flanks of the expected attack. It didn't involve 1500 tanks and there was no great melee of AFVs, most of the damage was done by anti-tank guns and tanks firing from ambush positions on expected lines of advance. Tanks and guns did become intermingled, but not on the scale that has been previously presented. Quote : The brigade has been fighting under conditions of complete ignorance of the enemy's strength that has been concentrated on this sector; without sufficient attack preparation: and on an unsuitable tactical line, which has restricted the maneuver of tanks and infantry - all of this has contributed to heavy casualties in the brigade. The command staff is poorly directing the fighting. It does not always skilfully assess the situation and make decisions. - Col. Drozdov, 11th Guards Mechanised Brigade This is echoed in the reports of many other tank units, thrown hurriedly into the attack, expecting to expand and exploit an existing breakthrough, but finding themselves blundering into a prepared and unbroken enemy. The Germans seemed so well prepared on the sector of the Soviet attack, that one Soviet commander commented that it looked as though the Germans had been in their positions for a month, rather than having just occupied them the day before. There is a stark contrast in command and control abilities even at this late stage in 1943. None of this changes the eventual result of the 1943 summer campaign, but it didn't happen the way it has been portrayed. The point is, that in attempting to set an historical framework for the game, the problem is what is that historical framework to be. It is clear that much of the original story is from the memoirs and reports of Gen. Rostmistrov - 5th Guards Tank Army and Col. Gen. Vatutin - Voronezh Front who, having thrown the strategic reserve into the battle with little preparation, needed another narrative to explain the huge losses. Yep, the "biggest tank battle in history" which ended with hundreds of German tanks smouldering is a myth created by Rotmistrov in order to cover up what was a gigantic failure which devastated 5th Guards Tank Army. Sadly it is so widespread that most amateur history films and books describe it as reality. In reality 5th Guards Tank Army attacked only around three regiments of the SS Panzer Corps. Even more embarassing (and perhaps most calamitous) was the fact that the troops of 5th Guards Tank Army weren't notified of their own massive anti-tank trench. So the hordes of T-34 drove into the anti-tank trench their own allies had dug, got stuck in it and became target practice for the German anti-tank gunners as panic and chaos erupted. If one looks at the combat reports of the SS Panzer Corps and its divisions, nothing spectacular is noted for the day of the supposed tank battle. It read something like "today the enemy conducted a counterattack with numerous T-34, it was repelled under heavy casualties for the enemy". But on the other hand Prokhorovka and its aftermath showed in an impressive way how strong the Soviet industry was. At Prokhorovka the majority of 5th Guards Tank Army was destroyed, yet a couple of weeks later it was spearheading the drive towards Kharkov.

Walloc -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/7/2014 8:03:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton Hungary 200,000 600,000 800,000 France 245,000 350,000 595,000 Italy 380,000 153,000 533,000 Great Britain 403,000 92,700 495,000 United States 407,000 6,000 413,000 Czechoslovakia 7,000 315,000 322,000 Country/Military/Civilian/Total USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million Poland 597,000 5.86 million 6.27 million Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million Yugoslavia 305,000 1.35 million 1.66 million Romania 450,000 465,000 915,000 Holland 13,700 236,000 249,000 Greece 19,000 140,000 159,000 Belgium 76,000 23,000 99,000 Apart from fact i used Krivosheev as u have. Only right to tell what happens when u use the same sources as u have used multiple time. Then where on the wikipedian article does it say russians lose 12m? Actually there is in the article. 2 numbers used. 1 is estimates thats is from 8.7m to 13,85m Later in the aritcle it uses Krivosheev numbers and last but not the least. it list in notes why the range. The notes: The official Russian Ministry of Defense figure for military total dead and missing from 1941 to 1945 is 8,668,400; including 6,330,000 killed in action or died of wounds and 556,000 dead from non-combat causes; 500,000 MIA and 1,283,000 dead and missing POW. The official Russian statistics for military dead do not include an additional estimated 500,000 conscripted reservists missing or killed before being listed on active strength, 1,000,000 civilians treated as POW by Germany; and an estimated 150,000 militia and 250,000 Soviet partisan dead, which are considered civilian war losses in the official figures.[345] The estimate by most western historians of Soviet military POW deaths is about 3 million out of 5.7 million total POWs in German hands.[64] Ok, but even account and assuming all of these figurs are correct corrections to the offfical figurs. It doesnt change the combat losses much then nor the ratio much. 1,000,000 civilians treated as POW by Germany, as these deaths wasnt army they wasnt lost in combat and therefor has no relevance on combat loss ratio An estimated 150,000 militia and 250,000 Soviet partisan dead. Again as these Arent really shown in game. The casulties on both sides in game in regards to partisan and the losses is very much abstracted not really a factor in the game. So they dont change combat losses any bit. The estimate by most western historians of Soviet military POW deaths is about 3 million out of 5.7 million total POWs in German hands. Again as they died after being captured they by the nature of it they cant be deaths/losses cant be considered as part of the combat ratio as they are alrdy included in the POW figurs that u dismiss in ur assumptions. That leaves: additional estimated 500,000 conscripted reservists missing or killed before being listed on active strength. AS they would have been in the army just not listed in teh records if this is correct this is the only figur that would be included in the combat losses. So lets lets say we add those 500k to the official 8.7m thats 9.2m not 12m. Yes the real number might be 12m but as more dead POWs by the nature wouldnt change combat losses ratio's by a single figur its for sake of combat loss ratio irrelevant. Now that we are at it. As u pick numbers out of the hat and take the 12m is in the high end of ranges and without its listed any where. U doesnt seem to read the notes where its explained how the range is calculated. See above. Lets look at the german military losses. U list it as 4m. In teh article its listed as between 4.3m and 5.5m So u go lower for the german than even the lowest in the range. So do u still beleive that the combat loss ratio u have listed in about every post in the last 14 days are even remotely correct? Kind regards, Rasmus

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/7/2014 8:18:32 PM)
Unless the combat/logistics is going to be retro fitted into WiTE, this grandstanding topic, (credit to Flav), is....... pointless. It isn't going to change in this game. Not now.

Walloc -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/7/2014 10:06:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SigUp Rasmus, I was specifically referring to the combat losses. As you see, I picked up on Flav's assessment of attacking losses being too low, which is correct. Ok, Sigup. Yes, and i fully agree with u and Flav in that assement. Further more it isnt only the german attacking losses that is to low so is the soviet. I been saying this for a long time the combat engine is biased for the offensive side and it goes both ways. Lacking in Casulties are one of the problems but far from the only one. In the WiTE engine. quote: In the current WITE engine the Germans suffer the highest combat losses during the Soviet counterattack due to the engine's reliance on retreat losses. Agreed and it goes futher. If one sets up an defence where few retreats are incured. This is a particular issue in regards to AFV losses on the german side when on the defence. As apparently at leased that how i read that non combat losses are suppose to be included in the retreat losses. If one avoids reteats than one naturally get into a situasion where the engine doesnt really allow for the non combat casulties that plauged in particular the german side cuz of their lackings in logistics. In particular in the 1943-45 periode. In short if non combat losses are suppose to be shown in retreat and u dont get any retreats in ur armored formations u end up "flawed" AFV casulties. quote: The frostbites etc. are actually taken care of in the game with the extra disruptions of the first winter. To bring it to a point, combat losses during the offensive period in WITE is too low, while combat losses during the blizzard is too high Yes and no. There is no doubt that the combat incured losses was to high in the standart blizzard rules. Non the less if u look at casulties as a whole. The are in fact to way to low during this periode. This ofc get then less as in the mild blizzard option. u both take less combat casulties and to few attritional/non combat losses. This isnt limited to the Winter 1941-42 tho. Non combat losses are shown to their real degree in part making for inflated OOBs. Non the less i would say the issue is by far the largest in regards to the 1942 dynamics in paticular if u play with the mild blizzard option. We have earæier discussed and exchanged numbers on this before. If u look at non combat casulties tho there are attrition in game this simply are a fraction of the historic ones. One of the reason for the inflated OOBs as said in particular the 42 german army. quote: As for Soviet casualty numbers, the total population loss is generally given at 26.6 million (this number is utilized by the Russian government). Other works cite a number between 21.8 and 46 million with most hovering around 27-28. In regards to Krivosheev's number, they have to be viewed carefully as the numbers for 1941-42 were partly estimates due to missing documentation. In addition some scholars dispute Krivosheev's number for POW deaths. Mikhalev for example argues that the figures of Krivosheev can't be reconciled with the total men drafted and he has calculated a number of over 10 million. Yet other researches have claimed that the field reports, upon which Krivosheev's numbers are based didn't consider soldiers who died in rear area hospitals. These people used the Russian Military Archives' card files to assist in determining the number and arrived at 13-14 million. Some Russian researchers even go up to numbers in excess of 16 million. Yes the 12 mil total is off there for my bad. Non the less and the notes in the above responce to pelton goes into details with that. If we assume Krivosheev's numbers are wrong and corrected as in the above post. As dead PoWs migth cause more overall deaths to change it doesnt affect the combat ratio. If they die after being taken prisnor it ofc doesnt affect combat casulties. As they alrdy included in the PoW numbers. As this is clouded in like the german deaths too in a degree of uncertainty. "Right" number presumably wont ever be found. If there is newer research i have no problem correcting number but so far all we have is peltons statement backed by a wikepedia page. Which then in the notes asses the range in which their numbers is given. Assuming that is correct as explain in above most of those casulties wont affect any combat losses. Tho its clear that by the notes that 500k would be and his numbers are off there. So even if take the 12mio as teh correct numner because its mainly adjuestments dead PoWs, dead civlian PoWs and partisan which is shown in mainly an abstract way with Little losses on both sides. Those doesnt really affect combat ratio either. The 500k unlisted reservists ofc do. Kind regards, Rasmus

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 8:21:48 AM)
Hi Clearly the Biggest problem with the game is the Combat engine. Leaving the combat mechanics as they are is flushing all the work done on the detail of the weapons and equipment down the toilet. Its not just about what the equipment was. But -how- it was used. For example, having indirect fire weapons fire directly and specialist weapons fire at whatever pops up is ludicris. Putting in an acceptable combat engine is a -fundamental- change. The benefits will filter up and solve many of the problems clogging up this forum. It will give you the better results for Germanys early years. It will give you the correct Kill ratios Pelton mentions. For Gods sake grasp the nettle. If Witw and Wite2 are left in the same miserable state then that's a great opportunity missed. Best Regards Chuck.

Peltonx -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 8:53:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Walloc quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton Hungary 200,000 600,000 800,000 France 245,000 350,000 595,000 Italy 380,000 153,000 533,000 Great Britain 403,000 92,700 495,000 United States 407,000 6,000 413,000 Czechoslovakia 7,000 315,000 322,000 Country/Military/Civilian/Total USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million Poland 597,000 5.86 million 6.27 million Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million Yugoslavia 305,000 1.35 million 1.66 million Romania 450,000 465,000 915,000 Holland 13,700 236,000 249,000 Greece 19,000 140,000 159,000 Belgium 76,000 23,000 99,000 Apart from fact i used Krivosheev as u have. Only right to tell what happens when u use the same sources as u have used multiple time. Then where on the wikipedian article does it say russians lose 12m? Actually there is in the article. 2 numbers used. 1 is estimates thats is from 8.7m to 13,85m Later in the aritcle it uses Krivosheev numbers and last but not the least. it list in notes why the range. The notes: The official Russian Ministry of Defense figure for military total dead and missing from 1941 to 1945 is 8,668,400; including 6,330,000 killed in action or died of wounds and 556,000 dead from non-combat causes; 500,000 MIA and 1,283,000 dead and missing POW. The official Russian statistics for military dead do not include an additional estimated 500,000 conscripted reservists missing or killed before being listed on active strength, 1,000,000 civilians treated as POW by Germany; and an estimated 150,000 militia and 250,000 Soviet partisan dead, which are considered civilian war losses in the official figures.[345] The estimate by most western historians of Soviet military POW deaths is about 3 million out of 5.7 million total POWs in German hands.[64] Ok, but even account and assuming all of these figurs are correct corrections to the offfical figurs. It doesnt change the combat losses much then nor the ratio much. 1,000,000 civilians treated as POW by Germany, as these deaths wasnt army they wasnt lost in combat and therefor has no relevance on combat loss ratio An estimated 150,000 militia and 250,000 Soviet partisan dead. Again as these Arent really shown in game. The casulties on both sides in game in regards to partisan and the losses is very much abstracted not really a factor in the game. So they dont change combat losses any bit. The estimate by most western historians of Soviet military POW deaths is about 3 million out of 5.7 million total POWs in German hands. Again as they died after being captured they by the nature of it they cant be deaths/losses cant be considered as part of the combat ratio as they are alrdy included in the POW figurs that u dismiss in ur assumptions. That leaves: additional estimated 500,000 conscripted reservists missing or killed before being listed on active strength. AS they would have been in the army just not listed in teh records if this is correct this is the only figur that would be included in the combat losses. So lets lets say we add those 500k to the official 8.7m thats 9.2m not 12m. Yes the real number might be 12m but as more dead POWs by the nature wouldnt change combat losses ratio's by a single figur its for sake of combat loss ratio irrelevant. Now that we are at it. As u pick numbers out of the hat and take the 12m is in the high end of ranges and without its listed any where. U doesnt seem to read the notes where its explained how the range is calculated. See above. Lets look at the german military losses. U list it as 4m. In teh article its listed as between 4.3m and 5.5m So u go lower for the german than even the lowest in the range. So do u still beleive that the combat loss ratio u have listed in about every post in the last 14 days are even remotely correct? Kind regards, Rasmus The numbers I have seen are 3.25 million not 4 I was going with 4 as high side as same for Russian. All in all 42-44 run about 4 to 1, we can low ball 3 to 1 if you want. Loses by engine are generally 1.5 to 1 even when German player wins, which is why as many players say I do not counter attack as Germany because it simply lowers my OOB faster. As I have shown and several others skilled at GHC defence, you have to turtle 100% and you will then have a good chance at draw or atleast a shot at it. Even with just 5 GHC counter attacks per turn which all win add 7500 to 12,000 extra loses per turn. If we go from Jan 43 to Jan 45 we are looking at 1,040,000 in lost men+ equipment+ armaments ect ect. Russian loses are easly replaced. The current engine is telling both sides to run or turtle, which is completely counter to what Gary wanted when he started out on this wounderful journey. As I have pointed out in more then one AAR GHC forse need to achieve a min of 2.5 to 1 odds to make it worth while not to turtle from November 41 - May 45. Even attacking in summer 42 is questionable if you know you can not get a win or really cripple SHC, vs good SHC players you know this is simply not going to happen. The exploitation of 1v1=2v1 snowballs from July 41 into 42. The exploition makes sure that morale,armaments ect ect is not an issue by spring 42. So a full retreat to border is the best option, if you play vs a good exploiter of which there are more and more as average players copy Katza and others counter attacking in summer of 41 10 to 20 times per turn winning 100% of the time.

Peltonx -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 9:02:36 AM)
Moral is the key matrix currently, but I think it should be C&C and training. Japanese had great morale, but did little good vs US fire power. C&C/training reflects modern warfare better then morale. As someone stated you can have the best equipment, but if your not trained how to use it and your C&C stinks. The other side can have dated equipment and better training and easly win even vs an enemy dug in with more. Which was what Germany was doing 39-42.

Peltonx -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 9:10:22 AM)
As far as current engine goes. I do not think it needs to be thrown out, but tweaked so it promote's attacking and not turtling and running. Even if you throw in new VP consitions using current rule set. The GHC player simply gets just past them and digs in. The line will crack at the same time ( turtling will by allot of extra time aka losses not wasted attacking pile up.) if its in Poland or 40 miles west of Moscow. The size of SHC army seems to matter very little. A smaller one 8 million is really better then 10+ million for allot of reasons.

tevans6220 -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 9:47:50 AM)
Interesting discussion. Call me a fool. Call me an idiot. But I'm just not getting what this argument is all about. I have never played any wargame, computer or board, where events in the game happened exactly as they happened in real life. Far be it for me to argue numbers with anybody. I'll leave that to those who know or think they know. However I will say that hindsight or Monday morning quarterbacking is a lot of the problem. The only thing ever going to be 100% historical is the initial setup. Once you take your first turn history and historical numbers go out the window. The combat system may very well be off. I don't know. But I do know from what I've read on these forums that there are a lot of gamey tactics and strategies that people use that have nothing to do with historical events. For example, I've read some AAR's where Soviet players have run like jackrabbits instead of fighting. Correct me if I'm wrong but where did that actually happen. Stalin gave orders to stand and fight or to attack. Another example that I've read about gives the advise to put the Soviet air force into reserve on Turn 1 to save it. Did Stalin do that? No. Seems kind of gamey to me. It also seems gamey to lower HQ support to 0 and have all support units revert to STAVKA control. Did that actually happen? I've never read about it. The point I'm trying to make is you can't take ahistorical actions and expect historical numbers or outcomes. In real life Hitler ordered Paulus to stand and fight at Stalingrad instead of breaking out. Nobody I know playing this game would ever do such a thing. The minute I have units surrounded or pocketed, I'm breaking out. That did not happen in real life. Stalin and Hitler both gave stand and fight orders. Just my opinion but hindsight and gamey or ahistorical actions seem to be a lot of the problem.

RedLancer -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 10:29:47 AM)
Tim I agree with your sentiments as apart from testing my own scenarios I only play my own 'what if' ones. However in a single isolated battle initiated by a mouse click (when the combat engine plays its part) I would expect that the results should be in line with history (based on the factors taken into consideration by the combat engine such as terrain, unit type/strength/morale and supply status). Similarly the supplies received should be realistic. This game has been balanced to produce historic outcomes to the conflict. WitE is described a simulation. In a game this complex it is easy to miss the wood for the trees. Much of the frustration on the forums is based on the perception that in achieving historic outcomes too much influence has been placed on changes to the logistics/production system and the blizzard and not enough on the game engine. I have considerable sympathy with that point of view. Where I have less sympathy is in the use of strategic statistics to argue tactical shortcomings. IMO there are too many other variables in play; most of which you have highlighted. I think that I am allowed to say that the issue at the heart of this discussion has now moved to the WitW Testers Forum and the opening round of comments are already raising good food for thought.

Walloc -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 11:13:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton The numbers I have seen are 3.25 million not 4 I was going with 4 as high side as same for Russian. Then u havent read the webpage u cite above: If u read it for the germans teh range is cites is 4.3m to 5.5m As on the russian side on the german side the newer resarch tend to on both sides up the numbers. 3.25m is from the 1958 german goverment figurs. Will there ever be any real number. No, prolly not but it is interresting that when ppl have gone back and reserch and checked the numbers they are cnsistandly been revising the numbers up. I as Sigup as my reservation about Dr Overmanns work but non the less its there. Just as the russian side there are also researches that have high numbers and that is there. quote: All in all 42-44 run about 4 to 1, we can low ball 3 to 1 if you want. Are we talking with or without PoWs now?(both on the russian side in 42 but also german side in 44) on the are we taking purely combat casulties or do we talk including non combat caulties? quote: Loses by engine are generally 1.5 to 1 even when German player wins, which is why as many players say I do not counter attack as Germany because it simply lowers my OOB faster. Well what should be teh numbers be then? i think u misjudge the losses the german takes when counter attacking. Not there isnt differences, which also muddles the picture. If u go by Zetterlings statiscal analytic works its pretty clear when motorized german forces attack teh ratio in combat losses they get are better than when inf formations do. The differnce is quite markedly. Do panzerwaffen tend to do better than 1.5 on average yes, but then inf tend not too and take much higher losses when attacking than the pz formation even those in teh same corps attacking side by side. So on average 1.5 is prolly on average not that far off. I suggest reading some thing like his work on kursk where u can see german both motorised and inf formation attacking side bty side into the near same coniditions . It makes for a good comparison. The casulties they incured are very different. So when u say 1.5 but should be higher. Yes in some cases yes in other cases no and averaging it out, not that u cant show these differences then i think ur average of 1.5 isnt far off. Also i assume we both agree in that in general that the russian losses should be higher when attacking. Ok if this is to be true and german counter attack ratio are to be better too. If we accept for the moment accept a 3-1 loss ratio u run into a problem in that u cant raise or the limit on how much u can raise it if u still need to keep an 3-1 average. It cant be that u raise all case to be above 3-1 and then end up at an average of 3-1. Thats by teh nature of it and mathematical impossibility. quote: As I have shown and several others skilled at GHC defence, you have to turtle 100% and you will then have a good chance at draw or atleast a shot at it. Even with just 5 GHC counter attacks per turn which all win add 7500 to 12,000 extra loses per turn. If we go from Jan 43 to Jan 45 we are looking at 1,040,000 in lost men+ equipment+ armaments ect ect. Russian loses are easly replaced. The current engine is telling both sides to run or turtle, which is completely counter to what Gary wanted when he started out on this wounderful journey. As I have pointed out in more then one AAR GHC forse need to achieve a min of 2.5 to 1 odds to make it worth while not to turtle from November 41 - May 45. Even attacking in summer 42 is questionable if you know you can not get a win or really cripple SHC, vs good SHC players you know this is simply not going to happen. Well thats the more of an insight into the wonder of hindsight. Knowing u gona have a manpower crunch u try and limit by reducing ur losses aka no counter attacking. Same as russain knowing if u dont have an army of a certain size in 42 u gona be in trouble so u get some running, tho running has many variations. What if u historicly didnt have a 2.5-1 or better ratio counter attacking? Do u make it so in order for german to counter attack. Problem is in that as u ur self points out once u get above that number it becomes a german advantage. So if u automaticly make it a 2.5-1 or better it only has an upside and yes teh german will automaticly use it as its a winning stratgey. If the russian losses attacking is also so be upped when is there ever cases if some thing going the russian way? this is ur fundemental problem u only look at ways that the german side can win. Not looking at what it takes for the russian side to win. That isnt teh same as their isnt issues with the combat engine. But u only consistantly point out cases where it should be better for germans aka make it more easy for them to win. There sseems to be no reflection on ok what it would take for the russian side to win. When looking at an issue with the engine u only look at the points where its disavantegous to the german side and fault that, not the cases where the german use it to their advantage then its not an fault. Sure there is problems in hindsight i dont think any one will disagree but this isnt exclusive used in game by the russian side. As u ur self points out u knowing the engine holds off counter attacks. The only solution u offer is to make one where its an automatic german advantage. I dont see any suggests like tying russian Down in 41 of making german side having to counter attack at what woudl be bad combat ratio to keep it historic. Instead the solution is make it advantagerous for the german side and they will do it. Doh, really? quote: So a full retreat to border is the best option, if you play vs a good exploiter of which there are more and more as average players copy Katza and others counter attacking in summer of 41 10 to 20 times per turn winning 100% of the time. Problem is one one side aka russian side u say attacking is too good but when it comes to german counter attack its not good enough. I think by now most think the (for Johns benefit) teh WITE engine is flawed when it comes to offensive vs defensivs bias, non the less teh effect of ur suggestion is only to make it worse for the russian side which u actually dont think its good enough for the german side. Where is the suggestion to limit the 2v1-to 1v1 rule but also reduce the offensive bias to teh german side that they use to get by with far fewer losses in 41 than historic. Where the solution that deal with both sides of the coin? Sorry Pelton but u only look at 1 side of the issue. Never have i seen suggest more comprehesive solutions, taht slo look at the engines offensive bias when it comes to the german lower casultis in for example 41. In fact u dont think the bias isnt by ur opinion good enough for german counter attacks. Every time the german do betters its because it was just better germans playing worse russians but when u meet a top end russian player and u dont get to do as u usually do its the engine at fault. There doesnt mean there cant be engine issues but it does sound all the more hollow. Kind regards, Rasmus

Walloc -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 11:46:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 So we have around 3.2 million losses in combat, you claim the ratio was 6-1 so then German losses for the period up to 5 December were, according to you, something akin to 500,000? One minor thing. These numbers arent just for combat losses they are for overall losses including non combat loses, sickness and so on. Also these numbers include russian POWs. The whole premise behind Pelton orginal assement was that the combat casulty 6-1 ratio was with out PoWs. Its the exact same overall numbers as in his book but the detail and categorization is different in the book. I assume that was lost when the webpage was made. This becomes importand when u compare to german numbers. There is the blütige verluste which doesnt include non combat losses, sicknes and so on and then those numbers that do. If u wana make comparision using numbers that covers the same causes is importand assuming u want as accurate comparison as possible. u would have clear the numbers of losses that was PoWs if its to be a comparison as per Pelton original statement. Any how if going by ur number with all losses non just combat ones included and PoW on russian side per Krivohseev u make it to 3-1. Perspectivisng Pelton claim of 6-1 ratio with out counting PoWs. Kind regards, Rasmus

shane56 -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 1:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tevans6220 Interesting discussion. Call me a fool. Call me an idiot. But I'm just not getting what this argument is all about. I have never played any wargame, computer or board, where events in the game happened exactly as they happened in real life. Far be it for me to argue numbers with anybody. I'll leave that to those who know or think they know. However I will say that hindsight or Monday morning quarterbacking is a lot of the problem. The only thing ever going to be 100% historical is the initial setup. Once you take your first turn history and historical numbers go out the window. The combat system may very well be off. I don't know. But I do know from what I've read on these forums that there are a lot of gamey tactics and strategies that people use that have nothing to do with historical events. For example, I've read some AAR's where Soviet players have run like jackrabbits instead of fighting. Correct me if I'm wrong but where did that actually happen. Stalin gave orders to stand and fight or to attack. Another example that I've read about gives the advise to put the Soviet air force into reserve on Turn 1 to save it. Did Stalin do that? No. Seems kind of gamey to me. It also seems gamey to lower HQ support to 0 and have all support units revert to STAVKA control. Did that actually happen? I've never read about it. The point I'm trying to make is you can't take ahistorical actions and expect historical numbers or outcomes. In real life Hitler ordered Paulus to stand and fight at Stalingrad instead of breaking out. Nobody I know playing this game would ever do such a thing. The minute I have units surrounded or pocketed, I'm breaking out. That did not happen in real life. Stalin and Hitler both gave stand and fight orders. Just my opinion but hindsight and gamey or ahistorical actions seem to be a lot of the problem. A most excellent reply from tevans6220, which reflects in many ways my view of this game, in that playing whatif's (different strategies/tactics) are what it is all about, as playing this game to the same script that happened 1941-1945 is never going to happen, you would be crazy to follow it, as the aim is for a different outcome preferably a win as GHC or SHC. Different outcomes can only come about by different strategy and tactics. Maybe if a soviet general was in charge instead of Stalin the red army might have made earlier withdrawls into the interior (like they did in 1812) concentrate and then strike the german army harder when it was over-extended. The germans could have taken leningrad in 1941 and should have (would have freed up a whole army), launched attack on moscow with pzgroups 2 & 3 leaving the southern flank to AGS south to clean up by it's main line of advance being through kiev and not to the donbas. These different stratagies and there are many more is what this game is about. Sooo... Because we dont follow the failed historical script how do we now know if the current game loss ratios are or are/not relevant to how we now play the game from day one versus the historical ratios based on that crazy historical script. Many Soldiers, tanks and planes are all in different locations than they were back in 1941, purely because we have NEW Management running the show on both sides.

Walloc -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 3:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shane_056 quote: ORIGINAL: tevans6220 Interesting discussion. Call me a fool. Call me an idiot. But I'm just not getting what this argument is all about. I have never played any wargame, computer or board, where events in the game happened exactly as they happened in real life. Far be it for me to argue numbers with anybody. I'll leave that to those who know or think they know. However I will say that hindsight or Monday morning quarterbacking is a lot of the problem. The only thing ever going to be 100% historical is the initial setup. Once you take your first turn history and historical numbers go out the window. The combat system may very well be off. I don't know. But I do know from what I've read on these forums that there are a lot of gamey tactics and strategies that people use that have nothing to do with historical events. For example, I've read some AAR's where Soviet players have run like jackrabbits instead of fighting. Correct me if I'm wrong but where did that actually happen. Stalin gave orders to stand and fight or to attack. Another example that I've read about gives the advise to put the Soviet air force into reserve on Turn 1 to save it. Did Stalin do that? No. Seems kind of gamey to me. It also seems gamey to lower HQ support to 0 and have all support units revert to STAVKA control. Did that actually happen? I've never read about it. The point I'm trying to make is you can't take ahistorical actions and expect historical numbers or outcomes. In real life Hitler ordered Paulus to stand and fight at Stalingrad instead of breaking out. Nobody I know playing this game would ever do such a thing. The minute I have units surrounded or pocketed, I'm breaking out. That did not happen in real life. Stalin and Hitler both gave stand and fight orders. Just my opinion but hindsight and gamey or ahistorical actions seem to be a lot of the problem. A most excellent reply from tevans6220, which reflects in many ways my view of this game, in that playing whatif's (different strategies/tactics) are what it is all about, as playing this game to the same script that happened 1941-1945 is never going to happen, you would be crazy to follow it, as the aim is for a different outcome preferably a win as GHC or SHC. Different outcomes can only come about by different strategy and tactics. Maybe if a soviet general was in charge instead of Stalin the red army might have made earlier withdrawls into the interior (like they did in 1812) concentrate and then strike the german army harder when it was over-extended. The germans could have taken leningrad in 1941 and should have (would have freed up a whole army), launched attack on moscow with pzgroups 2 & 3 leaving the southern flank to AGS south to clean up by it's main line of advance being through kiev and not to the donbas. These different stratagies and there are many more is what this game is about. I dont think u will find any that disagrees in that. quote: Sooo... Because we dont follow the failed historical script how do we now know if the current game loss ratios are or are/not relevant to how we now play the game from day one versus the historical ratios based on that crazy historical script. Many Soldiers, tanks and planes are all in different locations than they were back in 1941, purely because we have NEW Management running the show on both sides. But this doesnt make any sense. How the different scenarios u descripe above wil play out is directly affeted by the player ability and how the combat and logistics work in the game. For arguments sake lets say u had a combat engine that had 6-1 combat casulty ratio not counting PoW. Then the chance of the game developing in one way is directly affect by that. If for arguemnt sake then u have the same game/strategies with combat losses being 1-1 instead of 6-1 all things given the ease or difficulty depending on how u wana view it, of accomplishing the same operational plans u state above would be very different than under conditions of a 6-1 combat ratio. No one is arguing that players shoudl follow an historic script or u need to accomplish or not as the case might be historical advances/losses, but it makes no sense to say its irrelevant how the logistiscs and combat works and there for the ease/difficulty of achieving what ever the german/russian player wana do operationally thats is different than the historic plan. Quite the opposite, the ability to achieve non historical strategies is basicly down to how the logistics, combat/movement works and ofc the different player ability. That is what forms how the game plays out, playing with different strategies. U might not care about how the logistic and combat works and just explore the different operational strategies. Thats fine. How ever doing that under much different versions of the game as in 1.01 vs 1.04 vs 1.07.12 would dramaticly affect what results u would get from the exploration. Kind regards, Rasmus

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 10:17:38 PM)
Hi John exactly right. If I might quote you. "a single isolated battle initiated by a mouse click (when the combat engine plays its part) I would expect that the results should be in line with history" Unfortunately they arn't and cant be. because the combat engine is so crude. Here's an example. panzer grenadiers rode in armoured halftracks. This is not a fighting vehicle its just a taxi. Its job is to protect the occupants from small arms fire but mostly from the artillery barrage that 'normal' infantry has to walk through before it can close with the enemy. As we know from WWI walking through an artillery barrage to the tune of HMGs is very punishing as it still was in WWII By putting the grenadiers in armoured taxis these heavy casualties are avoided and so the Grenadiers become much more effective. Because of the crude combat engine grenadiers are treated the same as normal infantry (dismounted and walking forward). The Germans forces are "dumbed down" In game the armoured halftracks are used as thinly armoured, underarmed tanks. You may as well not even produce them for all they are worth as such. But as armoured taxis they are invaluable. If you look at my suggestion for improvements to the game engine at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3428981 It can be seen that advancing mounted grenadiers would be made largely immune from casualties inflicted in steps 5 and 6. There are myriad other examples. Identifying them and implementing is the -only- way of incorporating the German technical and tactical edge into the game. That edge is what allowed them to prevail against the superior soviet numbers. The tactics of the two armies and various formations are different and make a difference. The current combat engine is too simple to model tactics and this is the Games major shortcoming. Year by year "historical" results can -only- be achieved by making changes at the bottom and letting them filter up, not by changing high level factors because they -dont- filter down. A refined combat engine will also reduce heavy and specialist weapon casualties and hence production. Can you or someone please get this message to the "discussion has now moved to the WitW Testers" The game is at a watershed and needs to be tipped over in the right direction. An improved combat engine needs to be incorporated into the new game as it is developed not afterwards. Afterwards is harder technically and much harder emotionally. Best Regards Chuck

BletchleyGeek -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/8/2014 10:44:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Lancer This game has been balanced to produce historic outcomes to the conflict. WitE is described a simulation. In a game this complex it is easy to miss the wood for the trees. Much of the frustration on the forums is based on the perception that in achieving historic outcomes too much influence has been placed on changes to the logistics/production system and the blizzard and not enough on the game engine. I have considerable sympathy with that point of view. Where I have less sympathy is in the use of strategic statistics to argue tactical shortcomings. IMO there are too many other variables in play; most of which you have highlighted. I think that I am allowed to say that the issue at the heart of this discussion has now moved to the WitW Testers Forum and the opening round of comments are already raising good food for thought. I do really expect 2by3 will deliver something really good with WitW, and I also hope that you guys will be bouncing back quick enough to return to the Eastern Front. Don't take the statements below as a destructive criticism: it's just a frank - and subjective, indeed - assessment of what actually lies at the core. The thing is that WITE faces two dilemmas which I don't think can be solved in a way that you can satisfy everyone concerned. The first dilemma lies in the trade-off between playability and fidelity when representing time, terrain, weather and forces. In order to make a playable operational simulation, and lacking any meaningful friendly AI to assist the player, the game had to parcel into packets each of the former into weekly turns, 10 km hexes, all or nothing weather conditions for areas in excess of 100 square kilometers, and Divisions/Brigade/Regiments as maneuver forces. Each of these choices have, in turn, required to introduce a quite extensive and complex set of rules to account for events and processes which cannot be accounted for given the choices made to model time, terrain, weather and forces. Such rules can be more or less inspired, but in general, as with the blizzard effects, they have just become a very complicated affair with plenty of loopholes and problems from both a simulation/what-if or re-enacment/historicity perspective. I know some of these choices are under review - or have been outright changed - in WitW (like weather). But I reckon you'll have to review further the other choices as well (especially time). Here follows an example of a feature of the 1941 campaign which WitE just can't handle, that I find critical to get right in order to portray with a certain degree of accuracy how the German Army eventually petered out at the gates of major strategic objectives during the Winter of 1941: quote: 2. Tactics. The operations in connection with the establishment and defense of bridgeheads were among the most important tasks of the Eastern campaign, and these duties were assigned quite frequently, particularly to the mobile troops. During the course of the campaign I, myself, together with the troops subordinated to me, have fought in various sectors and more than sixty bridgeheads, not even two which were alike in character. [...] Not one of these bridgeheads even remotely resembled the one at the Luga River, which even my subordinate commanders at first considered to be untenable. The units which arrived subsequently regarded the setup of this bridgehead as absurd, and were quite astonished that it had been possible to hold it under such difficult circumstances. [...] The person writing this was Erhard Raus, CO of 6th Panzer Division, reflecting on one the "case-studies" covered in "Panzers on the Eastern Front: General Erhard Raus and His Panzer Divisions in Russia 1941-1945". Note the remark "more than sixty bridgeheads". That's a lot of battles where elements of a Panzer Division had to fight against massive odds - and come on top due to superior training, command and control. In this case, Raus commanded a KG formed by one panzer battalion, a panzer-grenadier battalion, an artillery battalion, a 50mm AT Gun battery, plus a 88mm battery and a 20mm battery. Against them, Northern Front pitted three militia divisions - probably over 10,000 bayonet strength - hastily recruited and formed in Leningrad, along with elements of a Tank Division. The fight covered the best part of four days. The Soviets forces in all likelihood suffered close to 50% casualties and the Germans about 20% (hence the 15:1 ratio Raus mentions in passing). Indeed, this is just one an example - and far too many operational wargames introduce rules which fit one single example, taking the part as the whole - but I think it's quite instructive. Every bridgehead was different - in terrain, forces involved and outcome (here Raus discusses a successful bridgehead battle, I wonder how many of those 'more than sixty' ended with a German withdrawal). But look at the casualty rates: even if the Luga bridgehead was probably "special" with respect to the perceived "hopelessness" of the endeavour, that's a lot of battles, always conveying significant amounts of tear and wear (in materiel, personnel and psychologically). No wonder the German Army just petered out: their mobile divisions were just hollow hulks by November 1941 after so much fighting and too little rest, refit and resupply. I've yet to see a German Army ragged as the German Army was in any WitE game. Using the Panzer Divisions in the way the Germans did, and given the logistics in the theater, probably that outcome couldn't be avoided (and this is a hint about how poorly was Barbarossa planned from an strategic and operational viewpoint). I'd argue that the same is true for Soviet formations in WitE: the abstractions in time and forces, lead to "battles" which cause in general much less disruption and casualties that they should. How supposedly WitE accounts for the above? By introducing a rule that causes attrition for movement, proportional to the number of hexes traversed by a unit. Let's say it's less than a 1% of the force, and modified by Leader Admin rolls. Is this rule "good enough"? I think it isn't, as one can imagine several ways how players, having perfect knowledge of the rule and the engine, can find a way to reduce its effects to the minimum. The combat engine, the logistics/production system, the terrain (map), the weather and the time granularity are all interconnected - operating on one component to get it "right" will probably require major changes on other parts. This should be accepted as it is, something I think 2by3 has been reluctant to admit. The second dilemma in WitE involves also that of being an 'attrition-theory' game or a 'maneuver-theory' game. WitE is a game of attrition, pure and simple. We move in order to fight, and only rarely - the Germans in 1941 and 1942, or the Soviets in 1943 - one actually fights in order to move. It's all about fighting, fighting and fighting, battle after battle. Sides don't really have any 'critical vulnerability' (either material or moral) which can be attacked and bring a decision at the strategic level (or operational, indeed mass isolation brings about an operational decision, but encirclements in WitE are also magical, since the players have to jump through hoops in order to have a decent chance to break out, and the encircler doesn't really need to divide his forces into an inner and outer ring). VP's are mere window-dressing in campaign games (not in scenarios, which are probably the best WitE has to offer), inconsequential until the very last turn of the game. And fights in WitE are always protrayed to be 'fair' and 'square'. But taking this 'fair & square' approach to its logical consequences would mean that you'll never get to see the German Army accomplishing much, and probably the Third Reich would have been overrun by 1943 in most games. So one introduces rules that give 'magic powers' to the 'most proficient' side. The problem with this 'magic powers' is that they're, by definition, purely magical, not grounded in anything physical and detached from the thing WitE attempts to model. And they get out hand, very much as Mickey Mouse found out in "Fantasia". So we have 'surprise turns', '1:1 -> 2:1' and magical protections conveyed by high levels of experience when units are retreating or being fired upon. How many issues are or have been related to these rules? Especially the latter becomes rather decisive in the later parts of the game: Pelton rightly says Morale is King, and he's right, since Morale is the cap for the magical Experience protection spell. In any case, all the best wishes guys, and I'm hoping to see WitW hit the shelves sooner than later [:)]

Tom Hunter -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/9/2014 12:59:02 AM)
I’ll go several levels up from Pelton’s concern. The problem with the game is a design decision to sacrifice realism and to some degree playability in order to gain detail and complexity. The result is a huge problem with bugs, a combat system that everyone agrees is broken, a logistics system that is broken as well, and a game that fails to model the fighting on the eastern front. It does model the armies, the generals, the equipment and certain other things, but the sum of these things fails to model the fighting. I find myself agreeing with much of what is said here, but also find myself thinking this is not going to fix anything in the larger picture, because of the complexity. I’m also aware that the detail and complexity sell the game, so I’m not expecting things to change much.

RBednar -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/9/2014 3:23:24 AM)
The lack of realistic command and control is the key problem. The Russian Army is always huge, and the Russian player can easily mount an attack with 6 divisions/corps (6:1 odds). How to show it was not within historical capability: (1) Model 1941 divisions as being ludicrously weak with 0 offensive capability (2) Prevent Russian player from using corps organization (even though have corps HQs) (3) Have very low Russian morale for most units (4) Better modeling of supply buildup for fuel and artillery ammunition (this is what really halted the Russian offensives) ==> model tons of ammo fired The next problem then becomes how to keep the 50 MP panzerdivisions from running all the way to Moscow in 2 months? (1) Reduce German MPs as they advance (2) Enable super-supply for suprises The result: (1) Army Group Center will not be stopped by Russian armored counterattacks in July 1941 (2) Army Group South will not have a very tough fight on it's hands the the Russian southern armies (in fact the Russian armies are basically destroyed before the Russian player even gets to move) (3) Russian armies flee eastward regardless of losses to resources, industry, or population (4) Russian Army annihilates German Army in frontal attacks in 1944! Fixes: (1) Increase Russian combat capability (initial 1's should be 2's and 3's vs German infantry of 16) (2) Do not let 100% of attacking Russian units actually partipate in the attack (or model them attacking uncoordinated), based on leader ratings. Why model leadership for reserves and support units when the main units are 100% effective? (3) Given Russian Army some incentives to attack and fight (severe penalties for early loss of resources, people, and industry) (4) Go to half-a week turns (25 MP maximum) to allow other player to react before Uber-surround is completed) (5) Make Russian MPs more diverse with minimums being something like 1 hex!

Michael T -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/9/2014 5:00:17 AM)
quote: I’ll go several levels up from Pelton’s concern. The problem with the game is a design decision to sacrifice realism and to some degree playability in order to gain detail and complexity. The result is a huge problem with bugs, a combat system that everyone agrees is broken, a logistics system that is broken as well, and a game that fails to model the fighting on the eastern front. It does model the armies, the generals, the equipment and certain other things, but the sum of these things fails to model the fighting. I find myself agreeing with much of what is said here, but also find myself thinking this is not going to fix anything in the larger picture, because of the complexity. I’m also aware that the detail and complexity sell the game, so I’m not expecting things to change much. Agree entirely. The focus of the design is detail. There are other games (read board) far less detailed that actually do a much better job at modelling the war. I think its just a GG thing. You need look no further than the time and space model. It seems strange to me that people go on and on and on about building some super complex logistical model when the mechanics of the movement and combat are so abstract and simple. Weird. The guts of the game should be a superb combat and movement model. Then build your logistics around that. I mean what is the point of a perfect logistical model that supports a game where the whole army of one side gets to move and attack in any desired order before the other side can do anything at all?

RedLancer -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/9/2014 7:57:41 AM)
[:(][:(][:(] All this wonderful insight and opinion - none of which will move the combat engine or the game series forward an iota. It makes me very sad. I've been the Test Co-ord for WitW since late summer. I stepped into the gap because I wanted to contribute more to WitW, no-one else would and I hope I've made a difference. As I have tried to highlight in this thread any substantive changes to the Combat Engine will develop from where the WitW engine is now and not where the WitE engine is. I don't substantially disagree with any of the comments made but for those of you posting (some of whom are already involved with WitW) if you really want to see a difference you need to put your efforts behind your wishes. The game is an evolution so any changes will be based through play testing, gathering data and producing saves that show ahistorical results and then arguing cogently why things should change. I take no pleasure in saying talk is cheap but why would the fulltime Devs (and I'm not one) rush to make changes based on a single forum post? I've seen this myself with standalone bugs - a simple post saying it's not working correctly can result in hours of effort to reproduce the error. A detailed post with clear instructions, screenshots and saves reduces the burden on the Devs and allow a quicker fix. Their time is finite. Now scale that up against a game of this complexity.

RBednar -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/9/2014 11:11:52 PM)
WITE has had extensive development and re-development time, and just the posted AARs show a tremendous amount of game play. Many of these strategic problems have been published as pictures in these AARs. As various patches have been installed, the flow of WITE has changed dramatically. I recommend Matrix establish baseline historical scenarios with the moral set to typical values indicated by the current rules. This could be done via computer output. Then the following critical campaigns can be played concurrently by the testers: June 22, 1941 to Dec 5, 1941 Dec 5, 1941 to May 1942 June 1942 to October 1942 November 1942 to June 1943 July 1943 to end of 1944 1945 This would allow the new fixes to be more quickly looked at covering the entire campaign (1941-1945). It simply takes too long for several teams to each cover the entire campaign one or more times before the patch is officially released. In regards to helping you with WITW, I am finished with going back to college and now have free time after work again. My signed agreement for WITE play testing was already turned in. I volunteer to be a WITW play tester!. The combat system may not work very well when just one division attacks another, like typically happened in North Africa and Italy. Also, the 50 MP maximum may result in Rommel surrounding the entire British Army in a single turn! In practice, one division attacks just part of another, and achieves local 3:1 superiority. When did 3 divisions attack 1 division in North Africa or Italy? The only convincing example I can give is during the Battle of the Bulge.

Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/10/2014 2:00:09 AM)
Maybe we should go back to the original topic of this post, the combat engine. I don't find the combat engine to be such a failure as is suggested in this thread. It needs some minor adjustments regarding retreat losses especially in regards to AFVs. My suggestion is to make retreat losses much more dependent on morale. This would automatically reduce retreat losses for the Axis in 41 as it should be. Later in the war this would be reversed. When you turn the Combat Resolution Level up a couple of notches (4 or 5) you can see some interesting details. For example the losses ratio is not so unrealistic at first. I mostly get ratios of 3:1 or higher despite huge numerical superiority. The retreat losses screw everything up once the winner is calculated. Another surprising aspect of the combat system is the effectiveness of artillery regarding AFVs. In a recent combat 40 out of 130 destroyed AFVs were caused by Russian artillery. The remaining 90 were caused by retreat. I'm not a military historian but this seems very high. The chances of a Howitzer destroying a Panzer III or IV seem pretty slim. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Of course, you can also adjust your tactics to avoid certain retreats mentioned in the manual that will cause additional and sometimes catastrophic retreat losses. Just some ideas.

hfarrish -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/10/2014 2:18:09 AM)
Does artillery include AT Artillery? Then that might make more sense...

Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/10/2014 2:35:57 AM)
In this case it was really just 152 mm Howitzers that did most of the AFV damage.

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/10/2014 3:45:29 AM)
Hi John Thanks for your reply. No Offence but I did supply an example of how the Combat engine could be improved which did required a bit of thinking as well as typing. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3428981 I don't think that anyone disagrees that the combat engine could be improved. I have no Idea wether the relevant authorities have any interest in my contributions or not. I have no Idea wether my contributions are or would be relevant to the WITW combat engine. For instance using the example Panzer grenadiers and their taxis in my previous post. Does or Will the combat engine in WitW treat panzer grenadiers the same as infantry or not? Do the relevant authorities care if panzer grenadiers are treated as infantry or not? If they were Id be happy to write the use cases for this or any other agreed changes to the combat engine (obviously I have a lot of other changes in mind as well) So yes I am willing to help in this regard. Best regards Chuck.

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/10/2014 3:51:23 AM)
The howitzers could be used in either indirect or direct fire. By 1943 they had HEAT rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_howitzer_M1938_(M-30) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_howitzer-gun_M1937_(ML-20)

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/10/2014 6:13:05 AM)
Hi Aurelien The problem is that the 152mm howitzers are divisional or better artillery. That means that they are far -behind- an entire Russian (for arguments sake) infantry division. That means for them to fire -directly- at the German tanks The German tanks must have rolled over at least one third of a Russian Division. The Current combat engine assumes they fire directly at the German armour from the start. wrong they cant see it In fact they will often fire directly before the smaller calibre infantry weapons because of there longer range. Wrong. The Current combat engine assumes that all weapons in a line facing the enemy. wrong they are deployed in depth. When the tanks do arrive they are much more likely to bug out then fire Heat at the tanks. Please see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3428981 The Combat engine does not model indirect fire weapons at all, all weapons are assumed to fire directly. wrong needs to be fixed in witw and wite2 Best Regards Chuck.

Michael T -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/10/2014 6:17:52 AM)
quote: The Current combat engine assumes that all weapons in a line facing the enemy. wrong they are deployed in depth. If this is true its completely idiotic and no better than an arcade game. Please tell me it ain't so...

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/10/2014 6:37:59 AM)
Hi Michael Its true alright All you have to do is watch the details of the battle. Besides the already mentioned complete absence of indirect fire weapons firing indirect, there is also AT guns popping off at the first infantry they see and getting nailed, instead of -waiting- for the tanks. They have I believe made AA fire less often at ground targets to preserve them for AA use. same needs to be done for AT. Basically there is a huge need to write the tactics into the combat engine. There currently pretty much missing, amazing. Best Regards Chuck.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.033203