Unexpected Held Results (Full Version)

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



Message

Oshawott -> Unexpected Held Results (4/23/2014 1:58:21 PM)

In my current Russian game my opponent attacks with numerical superiority. These deliberate attacks almost always work for the Russians. Why don't they work for the Germans? Is it the entrenchment?



[image]local://upfiles/46668/56ABA96D1E834FA088465CFF937B073A.jpg[/image]



loki100 -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (4/23/2014 2:32:11 PM)

in this particular case, a Soviet attack with the same dynamics would then have got +1 on the odds table and thus become 2.3-1 (up to the end of Jan 42)



Oshawott -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (4/23/2014 2:37:36 PM)

How silly of me to forget that the Germans don't get the 1:1 = 2:1 benefit. Still, I would expect that at least the first attack succeeds. The ratio of men is 4:1.



jwolf -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (4/23/2014 3:00:06 PM)

In both cases I see the Soviets got a great CV modifier.  I don't know just how common this is, but I speculate that these outcomes are more common than they should be -- that is, perhaps the solution is to curb Soviet leadership skills a bit during 1941.



Denniss -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (4/23/2014 3:13:06 PM)

Lots of artillery + engineer values of 4 and 6 but no reduction in fort? Strange.



Wheat -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/11/2014 4:32:46 AM)

+1 on this, as I just don't see why these results should exist, as portrayed, and especially in 41.



timmyab -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/11/2014 12:11:23 PM)

The combat system is bizarre frankly. Soviet defensive CVs are more prone to inflation than German and the whole system is so steeped in mystery that nobody seems to know why. I always look for 2:1 when I'm playing Axis and expect about an 80% success rate. Playing the Soviet side I Look for something like 1.2:1 for a similar success rate (discounting the 1:1 = 2:1 rule).
I think the combat system doesn't take sufficient account of Superior German tactical abilities, especially in defense, and places too much emphasis on Soviet numbers.



swkuh -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/11/2014 3:10:21 PM)

@timmyab... can you suggest adjustments in balance factors that might deal with tactical ability & numbers? e.g., I set Axis to 100, 90, 90, 90, 100 and get a good game vs. AI (all 100.) But, believe its too much for the Axis, especially by mid '42.

It'd be nice to know just when the 1:1::2:1 rule kicks in and how long it lasts, as I would adjust for that by reducing Soviet morale.

Its unfortunate that this good game has such non-linear effects. Suspect there's other such, too.



Tankzen -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/11/2014 10:53:15 PM)

Unexpected is right! Riga was initially attacked on turn 2 by the majority of 4th Pzr group and failed. Then on turn 3 surrounded by the entire 18th army with all HQ within 1 hex of the city. On turn 4, 2 hefty inf divs were added to the encirclement as reinforcements to 18th amry. The city has endured full unit bombing and not less than 5 cratering deliberate attacks and the city still stands. 18th army has been completely delayed. [:@]



Oshawott -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/12/2014 2:02:07 AM)

Tankzen, this thread was originally about another game I played. The Riga thing in our game is less of a mystery because you are attacking an urban hex with fortifications and two high moral units and with 8th army + sappers + artillery in the city. Even after your 8 attacks the CV value of those units is still 55. It is best to just ignore Riga if you don't capture it on T1.

The city might fall next turn because you reduced the fortifications to 0. But you sure payed a huge price.



timmyab -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/12/2014 2:15:39 AM)

^^
At the risk of making you even more angry I have to tell you that you don't even need to take Riga. It can be safely cordoned off and bypassed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill
@timmyab... can you suggest adjustments in balance factors that might deal with tactical ability & numbers?

Unfortunately I can't help because I only ever use standard settings. I've just learned to accept the combat system for what it is even though it's historically inaccurate. The game is balanced around the current system so changing it without compensation would unbalance the game.



Tankzen -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/12/2014 10:13:42 AM)

It's my 1st time playing with an opponent and an experienced one at that. AI always abandoned Riga so I never had to bypass it before. I was really surprised how tough it would be.



karonagames -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/13/2014 11:14:07 AM)

I played Oshawott for 138 turns after a nearly 2 year hiatus from the game, and he used the same highly aggressive tactics against me, which succeeded in preventing me getting anywhere in 1942. My own struggles with the combat results generated by Gary's combat system are well documented, but I did feel that the initial/final CV multiplier has moved massively in favour of the SU much earlier than in previous games I had played 2 years ago.

Axis initial CVs would rarely treble to achieve a final CV, whereas almost right from the start, SU CVs would often more than treble, especially when sapper regiments get involved. I always used to think that Artillery and airpower was the SU's biggest force multiplier, and that this really took hold in summer 1943, with the sapper spam, the same or better force multiplier can take effect from spring 1942. When the SU attacks from 3 hex sides they can add the equivalent of a Corps of flame throwing, satchel charge chucking maniacs to their CVs, even a division's worth added to 3 cavalry corps is capable a forcing a corps of SS motorised divisions in lev3 entrenchments to retreat in 1941 - I did about 8 double takes when I saw that combat result!

If I was still a tester I would be recommending some restrictions on the massed use of sappers.



Denniss -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/13/2014 11:36:24 AM)

I believe I mentioned it elsewhere some time ago, the game lacks a limit for how many sapper units you are able to attach, this should either be a single sapper Regiment or a Rgt and a Bn. I have seen games were Sov Corps exclusively use 3 Sapper Rgts while Tank/Art units are idling at HQs. So many Sappers are either completely ahistorical or this force concentration was only used in certain operations in order to achive a Breakthrough. This limit should also count for the other side, one Pionier unit per div/partial div.



timmyab -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/13/2014 11:37:40 AM)

Sappers are too powerful in the game for sure. There should be a restriction on numbers the Soviet player can produce and more importantly on how effective they are for both sides. I would propose that they shouldn't be able to reduce fortifications by more than one level per turn and not at all below level one. Level one forts should represent the advantages a defender has when they have occupied a position for a length of time. Sappers cannot nullify this advantage.
At the moment the game is reasonably well balanced (slightly pro Soviet though), but for the wrong reasons. Combat favors the Soviets too much and logistics favors the Axis too much. Soviet C&C is also way too good in the early game.



Schmart -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/13/2014 3:51:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

I believe I mentioned it elsewhere some time ago, the game lacks a limit for how many sapper units you are able to attach, this should either be a single sapper Regiment or a Rgt and a Bn. I have seen games were Sov Corps exclusively use 3 Sapper Rgts while Tank/Art units are idling at HQs. So many Sappers are either completely ahistorical or this force concentration was only used in certain operations in order to achive a Breakthrough. This limit should also count for the other side, one Pionier unit per div/partial div.


Interesting. Maybe Sapper/Pioneer units should be restricted from being attached directly (like Artillery already are) to units and left for commitment from HQs. Or maybe combat units should be limited to attaching only one support unit of a given type.



jzardos -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/13/2014 4:40:34 PM)

I'd like the take the opportunity to express my disappointment in a combat engine with WitE that has any serious flaws which have never gained attention. Feel I have the right to express myself as I paid my $$ for WitE. After spending maybe hundreds hours playing game and reading forums, it seems most of it points to Gary G and his belief in his own infallibility with regards to the original combat engine design. Sure a few minor tweaks have occurred over many years, but examples like this and my own experience seeing 99 level experience/morale German units with low fatigue and 95%+ TOE taking more loses than a single Sov brigade in the open with a fort of 0 in 1941 is sheer insanity. Have read almost 20 books on east front and comes down to the Germans in almost all cases need much smaller forces to achieve great success on the battlefield. People that don't know this are ignorant of the history and/or reading the bogus data from twisted Sov history (winners can try and write own accounts). Playing the game recently has continued my disgust with a combat engine that should be using all the wonderful data the game captures and presents, but somehow years later is still falling well short of expectations. Hoping hubris will enter vocabulary of whomever is now in charge of WitE development and maybe future versions will fix some of these unacceptable combat engine farces.



Maximeba -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/13/2014 9:39:23 PM)

The problem is the Soviet ap’s are so precious, so in saying that the only two su’s I buy are sapper regiments and AA battalions and I assign 2 sapper and 1 AA to each corp. Boring, yes, but it seems the biggest bang for the buck.
In a perfect world what I would like to see support units that represent the function that they where design for. Example: In Europa (a game long, long ago) if an infantry unit was 1/7 armor that unit would get a plus one to a die roll, plus 3 if all armor. If a defending unit was 1/7 antitank and the attacking unit was 1/7 armor or more then the attacker would receive a minus two to the die roll. The attacker could receive a penalty up to a negative 4 depending on the amount of armor in the attack and the amount of antitank in the defence. In Wite I do not see any reason to spend ap’s on antitank regiments, tank battalions, or mortar battalions as the effect on winning or losing a battle seem minimal at best.
Also, on the subject of sappers, the Soviet wouldn’t need so many if there were not so many fortifications on the map. Has anyone ever thought about making both sides pay with ap’s to build a fortification. Of course this would mean an increase in ap’s for both sides.



Schmart -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/13/2014 10:09:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Maximeba
In Wite I do not see any reason to spend ap’s on antitank regiments, tank battalions, or mortar battalions as the effect on winning or losing a battle seem minimal at best.
Also, on the subject of sappers, the Soviet wouldn’t need so many if there were not so many fortifications on the map. Has anyone ever thought about making both sides pay with ap’s to build a fortification. Of course this would mean an increase in ap’s for both sides.



All the more reason to have the Soviet army historical based, rather than fictitious player built. They wouldn't be able to build unrealistic Sapper swarms, and would have to find a use for all the historically available units. That way, we could properly judge if there are too many forts based on historical data and not on fictitious player optimized data.



bigbaba -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/15/2014 7:32:33 AM)

about the hold results; the game is simply unrealistic. as axis player i had more then enough 1.9:1 hold results in areas where i had a huge superiority in men, tanks guns and a intact c&c system. its realy hard for the axis player to advance and pocket against a average russian player. every pocket (after the first 2 turns) can be broken easily by the russians and against a weak russian division one needs most of the time deliberate attacks with multiple superb german divisions.

to sum it up: the game favors the russians from turn 2 on until the end of the year.



swkuh -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/15/2014 10:09:23 AM)

Uh, wonder if we play the same game? Have had two "won" positions vs. AI, albeit not played beyond mid '42, '43 with Germans handicapped by balance factors.

AFAIK, "holds" have appeared to be reasonable, so?

But, who knows? as only played for "fun."



HermanGraf -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/15/2014 3:06:21 PM)

I have just started my first grand campaign as Axis and I have defnitely noticed results like these too. Overwhelming German #s being stymied by inferior Russian forces. However most of the time it does have something to do with Fort levels. I dont think I've been "HELD" in a HEX that didn't have a fort level, and usually the Russians are "routed" or "shattered".



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/15/2014 5:27:46 PM)

Just wondering lads... when did the 'issue' arise first? I got a PBEM, playing as Soviet and Riga is still holding out with an AT-Bde and an NKVD Regiment against all odds. Naturally that p*sses my opponent off and I thought it might be just him not using enough support or artillery. Then I bumped into this thread...

Klink, Oberst



morvael -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/15/2014 6:05:30 PM)

There was a bug where strong units could go into negative values, making them weak. Dense modifier in urban terrain will cause problems for attacking armor, so taking Riga using hasty attacks by panzers is hard. Try to keep the HQ in range, so that attacking units would get better support from HQ and leader. I do agree that the system has problems with numbers vs quality (which are not reflected in CV), though.



loki100 -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/15/2014 7:34:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

There was a bug where strong units could go into negative values, making them weak. Dense modifier in urban terrain will cause problems for attacking armor, so taking Riga using hasty attacks by panzers is hard. Try to keep the HQ in range, so that attacking units would get better support from HQ and leader. I do agree that the system has problems with numbers vs quality (which are not reflected in CV), though.


I do think you need to bounce that unit in the first turn. Left alone and put onto refit, it'll grow to 4 CV in the next turn and become a major problem (as it will draw supply pretty easily). Best to plan the opening turn for AGN around setting up a decent attack on it (& making sure the HQ is in range when you do attack). Of course the trade off maybe not clearing the Lithuanian coastal regions or the extent that you pocket the NW Front south of the Daugava?



BJP III -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/15/2014 8:51:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

There was a bug where strong units could go into negative values, making them weak. Dense modifier in urban terrain will cause problems for attacking armor, so taking Riga using hasty attacks by panzers is hard. Try to keep the HQ in range, so that attacking units would get better support from HQ and leader. I do agree that the system has problems with numbers vs quality (which are not reflected in CV), though.


I do think you need to bounce that unit in the first turn. Left alone and put onto refit, it'll grow to 4 CV in the next turn and become a major problem (as it will draw supply pretty easily). Best to plan the opening turn for AGN around setting up a decent attack on it (& making sure the HQ is in range when you do attack). Of course the trade off maybe not clearing the Lithuanian coastal regions or the extent that you pocket the NW Front south of the Daugava?


Now that the Riga Sealift is gone, I think it is actually a misallocation of resources to go hard after Riga on T1 (or afterwards, for that matter). My goal with AGN is to encircle NW Front west of the Daugava while routing as few units as possible out of the pocket. I prefer to use the Pz Divs from 41st PzK to convert as many hexes as possible, rather than having them stuck up in that swampy corner where they may or not successfully hit Riga. Plus, in order to get to Riga with enough MPs to attack, you need to attack (and potentially rout) several units which are better left alone.

By maxing out hex conversion, two good things happen. First, you make it impossible for the SU to break the pocket. Second, you can keep all your motorized and Pz units in command radius, ensuring that almost all will have 40+ MPs on T2. That allows them to approach Pskov on T2 (converting a broad front of hexes on the way) and then return back into supply range. This in turn, results in almost all the Mot and Pz units again having 40+ MPs on T3 without any need for an HQBU. I like to use 57th PzK here as well. With 3 gassed up PzKs on T3, you can annihilate any defense south of Pskov, and should be North of Pskov (hopefully isolating it) by the end of the turn. Hopefully you only need 2 PzKs for this, and then you can use the third on T4 to blaze a trail close to Leningrad. If all goes according to Hoyle, you will be across the Luga before the SU can build any decent forts, and it is game over for Leningrad.

As to Riga itself, if the SU doesn't voluntarily abandon it on T1 or T2 (that NKVD division is better used up in Leningrad, if you ask me), I just use one crappy Inf Div or Sec Div to keep an eye on the Riga garrison -- they are not going anywhere. And once Kurresare falls, Riga is easily defeated.



DorianGray -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/20/2014 3:15:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

If I was still a tester I would be recommending some restrictions on the massed use of sappers.


I recently played the SHC against a GHC (AI) and found it peculiar that the number of sapper SUs for the Soviet player was virtually unlimited, while playing the Germans it was quite the contrary and you had to be very careful about handling their limited supply of pioneers.

If sappers were truly as effective (and plentiful) in combat as they have been modeled in the current game system, then there would have been the formation of sapper divisions - and even possibly sapper corps - by the Soviet High Command.



DorianGray -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/20/2014 3:23:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Maximeba

In a perfect world what I would like to see support units that represent the function that they where design for. Example: In Europa (a game long, long ago) if an infantry unit was 1/7 armor that unit would get a plus one to a die roll, plus 3 if all armor. ...


I remember Europa and I quite liked the way it attempted to model combined arms functions. It gave good incentive to properly manage appropriate armor to infantry to AT ratios.



gingerbread -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/20/2014 4:24:57 PM)

One difference between Europa and WitE is that in Europa, it is enough to just have the AT in the defending hex. In WitE, the guns have to fire, hit and penetrate for them to have an effect.



Tankzen -> RE: Unexpected Held Results (5/20/2014 6:58:07 PM)

Regard to Riga, and what makes it a nagging issue, is that it can be used as point of resistance and even counter attack. If the city stays in supply SU has the ability to ship and maintain max units at that spot. W/ out surrounding it with 5 divisions, SU can possibly break the pocket. By the time that happens, Riga is deep behind German lines with not possible counter attack. Also, physiologically for the Wehrmacht player, if you can't take Riga (a single hex port surrounded by 5 hexes), how in the hell do you take Leningrad ( a 5 hex city extremely well defended with at least 1/2 million troops)? I understand the reasoning behind cutting it off and leaving it, I just drives me crazy knowing it's there.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375