RE: National Morale (Full Version)

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



Message

chaos45 -> RE: National Morale (10/8/2015 6:44:31 PM)

One idea- and just an idea as I have no idea how well it might work in WiTW type system compare to WiTE1. WiTE1 it might be to powerful.

Germans get the first turn of the game with a perfectly executed plan, and due to player knowledge will most likely do better than historical most the time.

This in turn give the Germans the initiative of first player to see weather and dictate the tempo of the game until they lose the ability to attack.

Perhaps to add some uncertaintity to the game the first player turn needs to be switched at some point in the game, and give the soviet player a double turn. This gives them two turns to get a smooth breakthrough and changes the initiative for the rest of the game.

Or give the soviet player some type of surprise offensive bonus they can use once or twice a game to replicate the prepared and super successful offensives they did perform....may the preparation bonus in WiTW replicates this IDK.

That aside- Casulaties- Losses need to be higher period. More and larger variance of results, and I would honestly use 20% as a measure for realism. Most commanders wouldn't stop an attack until about 20% of their unit was combat ineffective as thats typically the real life loss threshhold commanders operated under...for Soviets probably closer to 50%+.

This, due to the extra rounds of combat to get to these loss number should burn down more ammunition and due to more/longer fighting cause even a winning defender more losses to finally drive off an attacker in theory if the system does it right.

Even for successful attacks pryrrhic victories happen.....should be cases where attackers take some heavier than expected losses.....Especially against certain enemies...KVs/T34s in 1941.....Tigers/panthers later 1942+ as examples when smalled more lethal elements often killed far more enemies than statistics would usually account for.

Some games account for this with a surprise roll that is a seperate roll before the actual combat but can modify the combat table drastically. As sometimes even a skilled attacker might walk into a well laid defensive trap or make a mistake that costs lots of troops....happened all the time. Other times a skilled attacker could overcome a well planned defense through hitting a sudden weak link.....some generals were better at this than others.

In Carius's book he talks about preparing to attack soviet positions and German artillery falling short and virtually wiping out the entire infantry battalion that was around his tiger platoon to support the attack....these things happened in the real war. Same with allied level bombers dropping short and killing lots of allied soldiers.

So more variation of results with more losses on both sides is really whats needed. A divisional/corps level attack should have consequences above well we attacked and a couple companies in 2nd battalion got bloodied so we stopped.



xbmoore -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 3:41:54 AM)

Been thinking on how to invoke higher casualties in the game and throwing this out for discussion

Take the printed CV value off of the counters for the side you are playing against(The CV of the enemy stays hidden until you actually attack the unit(s) and then would give you only an approximation of +/-20% of the CV for more fog of war). How many times have you looked at a stack and said, "Well I don't even have close to a 2 to 1 so I'm not attacking" (this equates to less casualties because you don't attack) or "Hey I have 99 to 1 against that hex I'm going to murder them and take fewer deaths. Or you sit there and see that all hexes have a 26+ defense but there is ONE hex 5 hexes north has only a 2 defense with 3 units in the hex, you then direct your whole offense towards that 2 defense unit as if you are omniscient. Without knowing the CV comparison I believe would increase the amount of attacks which in total would raise the death rate since you will have to attack to find out from attacks. Or on the other hand will it cause even less because people wont attack with smaller forces and will have a couple big stacks attacking? It all boils down to we as players know the other sides CV and thus won't attack a hex where in real life the Russians/Germans really didn't know they had a 2 to 1 or higher.


I see the "overall" casualty rate lower in the game because we cherry pick our fights.









loki100 -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 6:19:35 AM)

with the Soviets, there is already substantial FoW to be honest. I've seen on map cvs inflate by 50% when the attack is made and not just against units that were out of contact at the start of turn.

the Germans suffer this to some extent in 1941 where they are moving so fast that they will encounter poorly reconned hexes.

So you should be seeing this going on, I tend to find I make at least one attack a turn that proves to have been very silly (ie the at start cv ratio is around 1-1 rather than my preferred 1.4-1) due to FoW.

The reason why many Soviet players don't make weak attritional attacks is the impact on morale. For the most part you lose 1 morale point if you lose and your opponent gains 1. If you attack with say 10 rifle divisions against 2 German infantry divisions and lose that is a net transfer of 12 morale points. Depending on where the NM is that can hasten the weakening of your army or help slow the impact of the post-1943 morale losses on the axis.

So its one way in which the game engine (overall) tends, in PBEM, to encourage a certain degree of conservatism.

Its also an example of how the AI often gives a more realistic game. It will do those marginal probing attacks and as a result you do see higher losses vs AI than PBEM. As an eg in an AI game under 1.08.03 by T76 (27 Nov 42) the Soviets had had 1.4m killed and the axis 830,000, in my current PBEM the same numbers are 950,000 and 380,000. By the time I abandoned that AI game (T157) killed were 2m axis and 4m Soviet. An older PBEM (partly under 1.07.xx, partly under 1.08.01/2) saw dead ratios of 400,000 axis and 760,000 Soviet at the same stage (T76).

While I agree with the general view that the WiTE combat engine doesn't really penalise the attacker enough (I actually think there is an indirect penalty for the Soviets via the higher attrition losses ... you can see that as a rough tool to reflect the % losses of larger combat formations).

But, I do strongly think this is one area (there are others) where the PBEM community is its own worst enemy. We tend to play optimally and then complain that a game engine that reflects the messy reality of the war fails to reproduce historical trends. Its one reason why I think its a mistake to dismiss AI games (as some PBEM players do), you see how the game engine was meant to work much more clearly.



RedLancer -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 8:14:11 AM)

The feedback is really interesting. This is likely to be my mantra - 'WitE2 is being developed from WitW not WitE.' This is not a mercenary pitch to buy WitW as I won't see a penny of your hard earned cash but if you haven't played WitW then you are a little behind the power curve.

Some observations and subsequent questions so far:

- If losses need to be higher on both sides is not the answer reducing manpower inflow by 20% rather than tinkering with the combat engine? I'm really interested in thoughts where you believe losses need to reflect a differential in sides and time. Is experience and morale the best way to control this difference and would it work? There have to be 'simple' levers in the code to affect the difference in combat and artificial ones can be contentious. 1=1 is 2=1 demonstrates how contraversial such a design choice can be.
- Should some failed attacks be more costly to reflect Soviet do or die attacks - what controls that - should the political rating of the commander have an effect? The leader may love you but your troops don't.
- WitW CV calculations are quite different to WitE and can deliver surprise results. In a recent Torch test game we had two retreats against the odds.
- Random switching of the sides is impossible because of how the phases play out. In an IGOUGO game players optimising T1 is inevitable. Having a free defender setup is an answer but is difficult to achieve and even more difficult when you have an AI to programme. For 22 Jun 41 I wonder if it is neccesary as the Germans did so well the Russians were on the back foot for months. Did the Lvov Pocket allow over optimisation of T1?



VigaBrand -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 8:25:15 AM)

Give the soviets the special ability, that in 41-42 are no morale changes after unsuccesfull attacks.
This means, the soviets can attack against all odds and only suffer the material casualties and no moral changes.
So the soviet player can attack with high casualties (1:5 or so) and didn't weak his units because of Moral drops and strengthen the germans with increasing there moral.
If I attack a german division and losse. The germans maybe suffer 200 men penalties but after that combat they are stronger, because they get one moralpoint.



Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 11:13:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
1. WitW's current logistics system simply will not work on WitE 2.0 because the AI takes a very
long time doing a turn for WitW its going to take 10 hrs per turn atleast for WitE 2.0
So someone has a ton of work tring to figure out how to stream line that and the air system ect ect
not all players have super computers.


It's already being worked on - I think that is what Pavel was saying but it might have been lithuanian basket weaving techniques.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
2. German movement east will be very slow after turn 2 or 3 much slower then 1.0 which means balancing issue very early in game.


As it was historically! The Germans stalled at Smolensk from July - September 1941.
Vast areas of the front were static from Winter 41 to 43.
There will be a balancing issue all the way through the game but
you cannot use WitE1.0 as a justification for arguments about 2.0.
One of the first questions that we will need to answer is will Turn 1
be a whole week and will it have special rules?
Although before my time the length and behaviour of T1 was all about initial balance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

3. Its hard as hell to get pockets in WitW.



Is this using the Axis or the Allies? They are quite different because of the different TOE mobilisation levels, interdiction, the impact of trucks and fuel on MP points, resupply in turn (all difference from WitE1.0). The combat delay code does play a factor and we have already considered the importance of preparation for offensive operations. Unlikely as it may be, it might be that you are playing WitW too much like WitE - they are superficially very similar but very different in a number of areas where learning the nuances makes a big difference.


1. I think he need more help. He is a smart person, I really admire and respect what he has done. But some times we cant see the forest through the trees and a fresh perspective might put some light to another path through the forest.

2. As we have seen in AAR after AAR if the Russians are able to hold the line in July or August you end up with a Wall Of Steel with the Russians going over to the offensive in summer 41 game set match late 43 or early 44.
This is old news which again is caused by the combat results. Russians can win by losing. We know the results of a WW I advance by German.

Really some players agree not to do the Lvov opening and the game is a joke by summer 42 with Russian on a general across the front offensive.

3. Again its hard to form pockets in 41 in WitE 1.0 now vs a good Russian player- yes they can be done but its only done because of
HQBU and in past games because of air drops. .05 will make it much harder for Germany to say nothing of 2.0.





Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 11:19:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



It's really easy to make pockets in WiTW.
Just play the allied invasion of Sicily.
The Italians will be very much like the Russians.
The allies will be a weaker version of the Germans.
No trouble pocketing Italians.



You really are just making stuff up here because you have zero exp playing WitE

The Russian army has many formations on turn 1 that do not get pocketed that have 2-8 CV and have allot of good support formations.

The Italian Army is not the Russian Army not even close and from my exp its next to impossible for Western Allies to get a pocket vs the German Army in late 44 or 45

I personally have not lost any units other then to hold a major city for VP's or to an invasion ect things that have nothing to do with WitE.

The German Army in 45 sucks and allies are as strong as Russians and yoy cant get pockets, but the Russians can get pockets in late 43.


Why the WA can not is because logistics chain, its very easy for me to know the limit because I have exp.

So low starting MP + higher cost of entering hexes for WitW

Bro its simple math less MP's = its impossible to form large pockets and hard to form even small pockets.



Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 11:22:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

...
For discussion is it:

- All Combat should generate X% higher casualties.
- Combat in Year X should be more/less costly than Year Y. (If so, how would you achieve that differential? Is it morale?)
- Soviet losses should be more expensive than Axis losses. (If so, how would you achieve that differential? Is it morale? Is it certain weapons should be more dangerous?)

You can change morale levels now - Dominick added that functionality to the editor although I admit my focus is very much WitE2 (and if people didn't spot Joel's comment in a post on the WitW forum now that Torch is released that is what we are concentrating on)

...


to have a go at the easier one, I think that Soviet losses should be higher but keyed to two factors - (a) unit experience and (b) commander capacity.

There is already an experience rule (ie the combat flips to scouting) and the stop-range rule in WiTW is a more sophisticated version of this. In effect less experienced units are more likely to do one of two things - stop an attack too early or persevere to the point of excess losses. Given the nature of the Soviet command chain and the importance of the plan, the latter happened too often.

I think it was Gorbatov in charge of 1 Gds Army who muttered about 'us all getting killed but at least we'll carry out the plan' about one of the innumerable botched assaults by Western Front around Vyazma-Mogilev from late 42 to early 44.

So a test, if exp>z%, unit will avoid too much commitment and the level of command capability can lower z (randomly). The contrast I'm thinking of is the relative ease and elegance of Rokossovsky's liberation of Gomel in early 1944 compared to almost 16 months of incompetence on that sector?

Its a combination of command and control and doctrine. Soviet doctrine was, even at its best, accepting of losses. At its key was the idea that the violence of an attack could offset overall losses (never did but that is a different point).

edit ... I don't think this a weapons system issue, German artillery may have been more accurate, each side clearly had certain weapons that were better (the Germans liked to use captured PPSh41s for close quarters fighting etc), for 1943 the T-34 was clearly outclassed by the newer German tanks etc. All this matters but its not really the core issue?

The problem about absolute losses/army size/NM is these are tools to an end. I've never had a problem with slightly unrealistic means to gain a realistic end. What WiTE needs oddly is both to be made more constrained and more free.

By that I mean, as you say, large sectors saw no action at all from late 41 into early/mid 44. Equally both armies had large operational pauses. But the game engine doesn't capture the disruption of a breakthrough. Soviet planning was that roughly a 10km breakthrough caused 20km of chaos but if you got a 50km breakthrough the chaos was > 100km, as the losing side lost all command and control and local commanders started to make their own decisions etc etc.

The ideal is to get the Germans by early 1943 to the position where somewhere something will break and when it does they will have real problems, but the capacity to recover. rinse and repeat for the rest of the war but each time the breakage is larger and the recovery smaller.

I actually think the WiTW supply system offers the means to achieve this. It is simply harder to keep everybody in full supply and the penalty for lack of supply is more nuanced.



Good stuff

+1



Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 11:25:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

One idea- and just an idea as I have no idea how well it might work in WiTW type system compare to WiTE1. WiTE1 it might be to powerful.

Germans get the first turn of the game with a perfectly executed plan, and due to player knowledge will most likely do better than historical most the time.

This in turn give the Germans the initiative of first player to see weather and dictate the tempo of the game until they lose the ability to attack.

Perhaps to add some uncertaintity to the game the first player turn needs to be switched at some point in the game, and give the soviet player a double turn. This gives them two turns to get a smooth breakthrough and changes the initiative for the rest of the game.

Or give the soviet player some type of surprise offensive bonus they can use once or twice a game to replicate the prepared and super successful offensives they did perform....may the preparation bonus in WiTW replicates this IDK.

That aside- Casulaties- Losses need to be higher period. More and larger variance of results, and I would honestly use 20% as a measure for realism. Most commanders wouldn't stop an attack until about 20% of their unit was combat ineffective as thats typically the real life loss threshhold commanders operated under...for Soviets probably closer to 50%+.

This, due to the extra rounds of combat to get to these loss number should burn down more ammunition and due to more/longer fighting cause even a winning defender more losses to finally drive off an attacker in theory if the system does it right.

Even for successful attacks pryrrhic victories happen.....should be cases where attackers take some heavier than expected losses.....Especially against certain enemies...KVs/T34s in 1941.....Tigers/panthers later 1942+ as examples when smalled more lethal elements often killed far more enemies than statistics would usually account for.

Some games account for this with a surprise roll that is a seperate roll before the actual combat but can modify the combat table drastically. As sometimes even a skilled attacker might walk into a well laid defensive trap or make a mistake that costs lots of troops....happened all the time. Other times a skilled attacker could overcome a well planned defense through hitting a sudden weak link.....some generals were better at this than others.

In Carius's book he talks about preparing to attack soviet positions and German artillery falling short and virtually wiping out the entire infantry battalion that was around his tiger platoon to support the attack....these things happened in the real war. Same with allied level bombers dropping short and killing lots of allied soldiers.

So more variation of results with more losses on both sides is really whats needed. A divisional/corps level attack should have consequences above well we attacked and a couple companies in 2nd battalion got bloodied so we stopped.


We have seen what happens with no Lvov pocket, its a joke.

Why?

Because combat engine does not reflex historical loses and the only way to get to that is pockets.

As soon as the front goes static vs a good Russian player the games over and the Russian player can start grinding down German army by losing, then you get the NM level flip of 20% and boring the rest of the way.

You have to think big picture as one tweak can completely unbalance the game as you know Chaos.

WitW logistics and MP costs = much less MP's for Germans slower moving west and easyer for Russians to hold. As we all know for a fact the red army can simply with draw 2 hexes per turn after turn 2 in the south and 1 per turn in center and Germans will not beable to do anything because they be out of gas (MP's)
Red army will grow because there will be next zero contact. This is all very easy to see for better Russian and German players. So Russian loses will be very light, no industry over run ect ect. A very boring 41 with Russians having a massive army by 42.

Also the lower MP's will have zero effect on Russian armys grind west as pockets do not need to be formed because loses are 1.5 to 1 and morale is hard coded into system.

Russians never have much because of truck shortages which means 2.0 logistics
system will have zero effect on the grind west)

Big picture not small ball.



Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 11:39:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand

Give the soviets the special ability, that in 41-42 are no morale changes after unsuccesfull attacks.
This means, the soviets can attack against all odds and only suffer the material casualties and no moral changes.
So the soviet player can attack with high casualties (1:5 or so) and didn't weak his units because of Moral drops and strengthen the germans with increasing there moral.
If I attack a german division and losse. The germans maybe suffer 200 men penalties but after that combat they are stronger, because they get one moralpoint.



2.0 Germans will have far fewer MP's after turn 2 they be a long ways from RH's. unlike WitW the Russians can simply give ground in south and center and suffer next to nothing in losses as Germans will not have MP's to do attacks

So giving Russians more offensive power I 41 will simply unbalance the game even more.

The German Army is based on MP's far more then CV ect. If they can not get pockets in 41 after openning the games over because the combat engine can not do historical losses without pockets.

Russians will not have to fight forward other then near Leningrad which means all the best troops will be piled up there.

not hard to play things out under the current engine or future logistics

I like the systems, but they need MAJOR tweaking or we will all be playing WW I on the eastern front with a massive German and Russian army by early 42.



charlie0311 -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 11:41:23 AM)

This is absolutely true. The one exception is if the players agree to no Lvov pocket, but the Reds fight forward in the South and so you get a "slow" Lvov pocket. Then the axis players needs to get a kill in '42, usually because the sov player gives up, not quite knowing how to deal with the '42 panzer ball or understanding how to rebuild/build the Red army.

Given highly skilled players means no Lvov pocket = Red win.

My hope is that no one takes offense.

I am referring to the Lvov pocket post.



RedLancer -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 12:52:41 PM)

Pelton - it's very difficult to have a constructive discussion when you don't answer the questions posed. As always I'll persist as you do raise valid concerns.

- Actually we are about to test Pavel's new logistics code - this isn't about the rules - it's all about how quickly the game engine calculates the logistics phase which I understand is your point in this regard.

- MORALE IS NO LONGER HARD CODED!!! I hope that is now clear - in WitW Randy and I changed the WitW Italian Pilot morale for precisely the combat losses issue. I agree that morale is a huge factor and perhaps too big.

- I agree that over a period that the combat loss to manpower inflow rate can lead to ahistoric balance which manifests in a need to pocket to survive for the axis. Trust me I get it loud and clear - we are now in the let's consider how we solve it phase. Firstly you cannot logically argue that one imbalance is justified to support another. I know that logistics bores you but you cannot use perceived flaws in a combat engine to rubbish the WitW logistics system. A logistics system that I believe will better depict the factors in play on the eastern front. Two wrongs do not make a right. Liquid Sky's comments are absolutely valid - you say that you cannot pocket in WitW - this is untrue - he can and I can - but this has nothing to do with WitE or the experience of playing WitE. This is like arguing about scoring goals in ice hockey using field hockey experience to justify your approach. I appreciate that your view is that pockets are vital to maintain manpower balance under the current loss regime but there are other levers in this regard beyond combat losses. Remember in WitW that replacements cost freight so often you can't get men out of the pool.

- I agree that the Russian ability to run away at the start increases the manpower imbalance issue. However this too is not an argument to justify problems in the logistics construct. Perhaps the improved rail congestion code will impact on supply as factory evacuation causes congestion. I do not know yet but perhaps this, limiting supply to the Russians, will reduce the speed of evacuation. However we may well need to encourage the Soviets to fight forward.

- So let's turn this around a little - is the problem that the Soviets lose too little manpower or receive too much? Would we be better ignoring the combat issue and focusing our time on manpower production and population evacuation? If we made population evacuation more difficult - perhaps so that players would have to hold ground forward to get them out would that be better? So you could run away but it will mean that you will receive less men.



chaos45 -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 1:05:35 PM)

Interesting that morale will no longer be hard coded so if a unit loses alot of combat how does it ever recover? Does rest at least restore you to a certain minimum?

Both sides take way to few losses- its not just a Soviet issue. By 1942/1943 you end up with about 1 Million extra Germans and about 1-2 Million extra soviets....so not just 1 side has to many men. Its why combat needs to increase losses for both sides.



loki100 -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 1:33:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

This is absolutely true. The one exception is if the players agree to no Lvov pocket, but the Reds fight forward in the South and so you get a "slow" Lvov pocket. Then the axis players needs to get a kill in '42, usually because the sov player gives up, not quite knowing how to deal with the '42 panzer ball or understanding how to rebuild/build the Red army.

Given highly skilled players means no Lvov pocket = Red win.

My hope is that no one takes offense.

I am referring to the Lvov pocket post.


The worst, and I've seen it done, is to agree no Lvov and then the entire SW Front appears at Leningrad 2 turns later. But it works if both sides agree to some simple constraints and if actually gives a better game for the south. But its never easy to agree constraints in PBEM beyond binary rules ... unless you trust your opponent. For myself I have no interest in Michael_T style obsessing about this or that form of rule abuse, if someone wants to abuse an agreement/game engine etc in the search for a win .. well they are welcome to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Interesting that morale will no longer be hard coded so if a unit loses alot of combat how does it ever recover? Does rest at least restore you to a certain minimum?

Both sides take way to few losses- its not just a Soviet issue. By 1942/1943 you end up with about 1 Million extra Germans and about 1-2 Million extra soviets....so not just 1 side has to many men. Its why combat needs to increase losses for both sides.


not hard coded I think means that the levels are no longer hidden in the .exe but can be manipulated in the scenario editor to amend/set up a scenario.

the problem isn't losses or army size as such, its what too large an army allows to happen.

For much of the war, and esp after Bagration, a typical Soviet rifle division was <6,000 men - now quite what that means is not immediately straight forward, so its best seen as the direct combat strength excl support elements (but then the Soviet division was pretty spare in that regard). Now if you did that in game, you'd have a 1cv division, probably around an 6-7 cv corps.

Its the interaction between notional numbers and effective combat power, as you've said a few times, the Germans having too much manpower means they never get really stretched, the Soviets with too much manpower never hit constraints around replacements.

Its worth noting that in the period from March 44 - Aug 44 when Tolbukhin's Front stayed on the defensive on the lower Dneistr he got something like 15,000 replacements from Stavka ... and like all Soviet commanders tried to fill out the gaps in his divisions by forced recruitment from the recently liberated Dneipr region.

I think under WiTE2 managing the rail net is going to be very different. That and the supply system will create a different set of parameters for the game. In WiTW your rails are ferrying supplies, reinforcements and complete formations and its very easy to run into bottlenecks as a result. In 1941, Soviet factory evac is going to slow the arrival of replacements (never mind new formations), so as the year goes on the Soviets will get more ragged ... but so will the Germans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

...

- So let's turn this around a little - is the problem that the Soviets lose too little manpower or receive too much? Would we be better ignoring the combat issue and focusing our time on manpower production and population evacuation? If we made population evacuation more difficult - perhaps so that players would have to hold ground forward to get them out would that be better? So you could run away but it will mean that you will receive less men.


yes ... I think in reality both sides ran out of manpower long before it becomes an in-game constraint. This and higher attrition would go a long way to resolving this.



LiquidSky -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 2:36:32 PM)



A lot of Russian formations should start the game STATIC anyways which would put a big damper on their ability to run away on their first turn.




xbmoore -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 3:14:16 PM)

I concur to a certain degree, not so much "static" but more of being locked in their theater of operations(unless that is what you meant by static). So the Southern front units are tied the whole first turn to the Southern front and cant be moved north of hex row X.X. in example. The Russians, in my opinion, have too much rail on the first turn & able to build a good defense in key places. Did the Russians in real life rail that many units around to different fronts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



A lot of Russian formations should start the game STATIC anyways which would put a big damper on their ability to run away on their first turn.






xbmoore -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 3:21:10 PM)

This could also be applied to the Germans for their theater of operations first turn. (cough Lvov pocket cough)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xbmoore

I concur to a certain degree, not so much "static" but more of being locked in their theater of operations(unless that is what you meant by static). So the Southern front units are tied the whole first turn to the Southern front and cant be moved north of hex row X.X. in example. The Russians, in my opinion, have too much rail on the first turn & able to build a good defense in key places. Did the Russians in real life rail that many units around to different fronts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



A lot of Russian formations should start the game STATIC anyways which would put a big damper on their ability to run away on their first turn.








RedLancer -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 3:21:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45
Both sides take way to few losses- its not just a Soviet issue. By 1942/1943 you end up with about 1 Million extra Germans and about 1-2 Million extra soviets....so not just 1 side has to many men. Its why combat needs to increase losses for both sides.


But is too many men a result of too few losses (given that swathes of manpower are not represented so that historic statistical comparisons are difficult) or because each sides manpower pools are receiving too many people. Losses are not the only manpower regulator.

I know I'm being picky put I'm trying to focus on the key elements to try to save development time and effort and address an obvious bone of contention. I get it that manpower and morale are perhaps the key factors in game balance and we have three levers we can pull - inflow, losses and national morale levels. It is undeniable that the conduct of 1941 is pivotal as the manpower levels at the end of 41 have a huge impact on the rest of the campaign so we need to ensure that 41 cannot be easily be exploited to reap later benefits.



chaos45 -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 3:44:43 PM)

I would say the manpower influx is close to historical for the Germans.

For the Soviets they are already generating far less manpower and unit creation ability compared to historical capabilities.

I understand what your saying Red Lancer and it shows u dont really want to mess with the combat system, but the losses from the combat system is the root of the problem. If Germans/axis are getting close to historical replacements but still not losing enough men, and you have already cut Soviet replacements by 25%+ of what historical was does it make sense to keep cutting manpower generation? or to fix the combat system to give more realistic results?

In effect no Soviet player will attack like the Soviets did historically especially considering the losses they suffered for those attacks historically. Unless they are also taking Axis forces and supplies with them. Also if the morale loss stays in the game Soviets players just wont attack unless they think they can win thus reducing losses even further than historical unless the Germans can do pocket operations.

If in real life 12 Tank Corps at 90% ToE assaults 1-2 German motorized division with a full attack the German motorized divisions would be effectively destroyed and the tank Corps probably take heavy losses. I use this as an example because it happened in me and Peltons game and the losses were laughable.

I consistiently attack 1-2 German divisions with 9+ Soviet Corps w/artillery division support and losses are only 1-2k each most of the time. The ability of the defender to retreat loss wise should also be tied to how mobile the defender/attacker is. A Mobile attack vs an immobile defender will inflict much greater losses on the immobile defender if they are forced out of their defense. A mobile defender, defending again an immobile attacker could retreat with fewer losses.

Mobile vs Mobile should be heavy losses for both as even if the defender tries to rear-guard defense the other side is going to push fast to maintain contact attempt to destroy the other formation.

Supplies will probably mitigate the ability to attack some but IMO the losses for both sides for attacking need to escalate massively this would produce the worn out formations both sides had as the war went on where they could never keep up with losses. THousands of losses for an attack defense on the division level over a one week period should be the standard loss rate for combat actions. You go larger than just a division or so and the losses should escalate.

Also these losses should be for both sides. As if that attacker losse an attack and losses a ton of guys they are probably taking a fair amount of the defenders with them. Right now attacks to often stop with like 2-300 losses for one side and like 700 for the other side. Even in big battles 1-2k per side is to low when you have virtually an entire army engaged in the combat.



c00per -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 5:36:39 PM)

Someone said it already but allow players some flexibility with initial setup this would be fair to both sides and would prevent the min max turn ones due to known setup



RedLancer -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 6:24:06 PM)

I'm wary but happy to argue to open the Pandora's Box of the combat engine but only if I know what the intent and endstate is. Always think to the finish.

I'm not convinced that the losses is the only answer. It's too simple a solution - a bit like introducing cane toads. I'm looking at WitE2 - here we have a blank canvas although the paint and brushes are chosen. This is a fleeting opportunity.



charlie0311 -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 6:39:55 PM)

Up the combat loses for sure. Offset with replacement rate,ie, replacement formations, show up faster when the sov are absolutely getting crushed at the front. Faster train up, morale and exp. Try to keep fairly close to the known historical OOB.

Don't take away all the pocketing, that's the fun part.

We need, oh, about 50 more Peltons, for testing purposes.

Edit, and Lokis and others there are quite a few.



Walloc -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 7:15:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

He's been quoting these numbers for years because they suit him. Do a search on Walloc and you will find some lengthy and interesting discussions on historical numbers. Unfortunately, Walloc has left the forum. His posts were very informative.

We all want balance but the numbers need to be plausible. A 4,2 million German army on 1st July 42 is not plausible.


Im still around. I just dont play the series any more so doesnt post much. I was alpha/beta testing WiTW and just have to say i have another view than the design team on a number of issues and its their game to make, not mine. At core im "player" and want to "change history", but things can get to far fetched from reality. Taken into account what the premise for the different game is.
Where that line is, differs from people to people. i can just say that among others the combat and air engine results and how this plays out in how the game works is beyond my line in that regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos


It's a game ... a game ... we're talking about a game, not the real war 41-45. Why is it not plausible for the Germans to have 4.2 million army starting on 1st July? When I play, it's not Hitler in charge and I'm not always playing against Stalin/Zhukov. Bozo, if you want to know what happened in history and re-live it .. read some books, watching some documentaries, even take some classes. An education might be good for you, I don't care. But this is a game and the reason I bought it was to play and have fun. I want to try and win as the Germans not create the Stalingrad pocket again. What you just said about the July 42 German army size is testament to how you view WitE and why you will never find satisfaction with it. You want a simulation to go through battle by battle just like history. I'm at a lose to understanding why you bought the game in the first place? Maybe just to have some credibility to come in the forums and spew your nonsense. IDC.


Obviously where u draw the line is different of game vs simulation than mine and thats fine. Non the less try add the german replacement/reinforcement on the eastern front minus any withdrawls and not count any casulties and see what the max the german army could be at 1. july 1942 from the june 22 1941 starting point. That might give an answer.
Like wise u could ask why cant u have a 20m russian man army in july 1942 or be in Berlin in july 1942 in the name of fun. From reading these forums over the years im fairly certain how the majority of people would find those situasion and i dont think it falls in the fun category.

Thats said u can do any thing in the name of balance, but from reading the current AARs not to dispairage Morveals work on 1.08+ in my opinion the game isnt better off, so the potential balance argument doesnt fly with me in this situasion.


Kind regards,

Rasmus



loki100 -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 9:51:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm wary but happy to argue to open the Pandora's Box of the combat engine but only if I know what the intent and endstate is. Always think to the finish.

I'm not convinced that the losses is the only answer. It's too simple a solution - a bit like introducing cane toads. I'm looking at WitE2 - here we have a blank canvas although the paint and brushes are chosen. This is a fleeting opportunity.


fwiw, in someway both armies grow too large and that creates a set of dynamics. At periods when one is coded to have an advantage (eg Germans in 1942 Soviets in 1944) the impact escalates too much, at others its too easy to create an essentially WW1 mode of play (eg the German defense in 1943).

I know there are variations to this. and that many problems flow from the mode of play adopted in MP rather than by the AI, but to me the end result is:

a) at the moment I think 1941 sort of works
b) at tbe moment the Germans are too strong in 1942
c) at the moment 1943 seems too stalemated

... these are connected, oddly weakening both armies would unblock both periods of play and given the interaction of Manpower-NM-CV, some means to reduce manpower sounds desirable

d) I'm quite prepared to accept that in 1944 the Soviets get too strong

that b-c-d are good baselines for the game is fine as far as I'm concerned its just that at each stage the effect is too much and needs to be dampened. I think the reason for this is (i) permissive logistics and (ii) the size of both armies (or more strictly the impact of that size on cv).

I really do think that the building blocks in WiTW go a long way to creating the tools to address these problems, as such the only tweak to the combat engine I'd push for is a combination of more losses for the attacker (esp the Soviets as above) and some scaling of losses relative to the numbers actually engaged?



Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 11:54:47 PM)

#



Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/9/2015 11:59:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45
Both sides take way to few losses- its not just a Soviet issue. By 1942/1943 you end up with about 1 Million extra Germans and about 1-2 Million extra soviets....so not just 1 side has to many men. Its why combat needs to increase losses for both sides.


But is too many men a result of too few losses (given that swathes of manpower are not represented so that historic statistical comparisons are difficult) or because each sides manpower pools are receiving too many people. Losses are not the only manpower regulator.

I know I'm being picky put I'm trying to focus on the key elements to try to save development time and effort and address an obvious bone of contention. I get it that manpower and morale are perhaps the key factors in game balance and we have three levers we can pull - inflow, losses and national morale levels. It is undeniable that the conduct of 1941 is pivotal as the manpower levels at the end of 41 have a huge impact on the rest of the campaign so we need to ensure that 41 cannot be easily be exploited to reap later benefits.


The big hard on (sorry but not sure what else to say)you and chaos have with losses = this is not a movie

The larger Russian and German army is from the simple fact that player are Monday morning quarter backs.

In other words fix what is wrong with the engine and not what is wrong with Middle Earth.

The lower lose and larger armys is because Russian player choose not to throw away 100,000 of lives for nothing as Stalin did the end result is lower Russian and german loses.

Chaos you simply can not magicly have higher losses and lower OOB's if players choose not to be stupid.

Gandalf



chaos45 -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 2:07:11 AM)

Pelton if both players sat around and did nothing i could understand high OOBs....but as are game shows both sides fighting hard pretty much every single turn aside from mud and OOBs are still way to high.

How many army/army groups size major engagements did we have over the summer, and my continued winter offensive of 1942-1943 with assaults hitting 5-6 areas of front at once every single turn. Yes its causing slow grinding attrition but the losses for both of us are way to low. Both of our forces in each of those sectors should be fighting at greatly reduced strength after 4+ months of continuous action yet most of my units are still around 90% ToE......Hell the only thing im actually short on is trucks.....



Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 8:27:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton if both players sat around and did nothing i could understand high OOBs....but as are game shows both sides fighting hard pretty much every single turn aside from mud and OOBs are still way to high.

How many army/army groups size major engagements did we have over the summer, and my continued winter offensive of 1942-1943 with assaults hitting 5-6 areas of front at once every single turn. Yes its causing slow grinding attrition but the losses for both of us are way to low. Both of our forces in each of those sectors should be fighting at greatly reduced strength after 4+ months of continuous action yet most of my units are still around 90% ToE......Hell the only thing im actually short on is trucks.....


Which is what I ben saying now for how many yrs?

Russian loses for 43-44 are way way to low, our game is a good example.

Compaired to historical loses Russian loses are far to low for 43

Historical Russian loses were 8 million for 43

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

German 700,000 dead/missing and another 1,100,000 wounded or 1.8 million

We looking at 4 to 1 we will never see that in 43, which is why we see a static front all of 43.

My game vs Dave has over all losses at 2.5 to 1 and should be 3.75 to 1.

If we had an historical ratio German players would try and attack in 43, but the more u attack and win with a 1.5 to 1 ratio why attack?

The same ratio with 2.0 with a much lower MP's and higher MP cost will cause even higher OOB's and a static front as early as summer 42.

Most of your loses are caused by pockets almost 3 million of the 7.4 or 40%

43-44 loses historically were from straight up combat and very few pockets.

Data is a great thing and has changed the minds of people now for yrs.

The combat ratio from no captured men to date is

German loses from combat: 2,140,000
Russian loses from combat: 4,393,000

For a combat ratio of 2.05 to 1.

This is nothing even close to historical losses

The ratio for 43 is closer to 1.5 to 1.

Now we have hard data so we can track the ratio over the next few turns.

I agree German loses should be slightly higher, but Russian losses should be 2x as high bases on historical data for 43 and 44.

This engine is giving basicly the same ratio as the WitW engine because its based on retreat loses


[image]local://upfiles/20387/FCAA76EA8CAA42489C0449DCFBD0E66E.jpg[/image]



Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 8:40:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm wary but happy to argue to open the Pandora's Box of the combat engine but only if I know what the intent and endstate is. Always think to the finish.

I'm not convinced that the losses is the only answer. It's too simple a solution - a bit like introducing cane toads. I'm looking at WitE2 - here we have a blank canvas although the paint and brushes are chosen. This is a fleeting opportunity.


The issue is that losses on WF were 2 to 1 or 1.5 to 1 and EF ( minus POWs 43-44 ) 3.75 to 1.

If you take a stack of WA vs German with same or close in CV to a stack of Russian vs German you get basicly same ratio.

Ok cool beans right?

2.0 will have a far more static front after turn 2 as Germans will be far from RH's and depots in general,
probably no Lvov, much lower German MP's, higher MP costs so a static front for 7 turns?

Red Army will grow like crazy, because most losses on EF are from pockets.

Russian loses are simply far to low battle per battle for EF 43-44





Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 9:11:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Pelton - it's very difficult to have a constructive discussion when you don't answer the questions posed.
As always I'll persist as you do raise valid concerns.

- Actually we are about to test Pavel's new logistics code - this isn't about the rules - it's all about how quickly
the game engine calculates the logistics phase which I understand is your point in this regard.

Good luck

- MORALE IS NO LONGER HARD CODED!!! I hope that is now clear -
in WitW Randy and I changed the WitW Italian Pilot morale for precisely the combat losses issue.
I agree that morale is a huge factor and perhaps too big.

Not sure how that's going to effect combat losses on EF

- I agree that over a period that the combat loss to manpower inflow rate can lead to ahistoric balance which manifests
in a need to pocket to survive for the axis.
Trust me I get it loud and clear - we are now in the let's consider how we solve it phase.
Firstly you cannot logically argue that one imbalance is justified to support another.

Who is?

I know that logistics bores you but you cannot use perceived flaws in a combat engine to rubbish the WitW logistics system.

Who is?

A logistics system that I believe will better depict the factors in play on the eastern front. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Your going where with this? I am talking combat ratio's I am fine with the logistics model.

Liquid Sky's comments are absolutely valid - you say that you cannot pocket in WitW - this is untrue - he can and I can -
but this has nothing to do with WitE or the experience of playing WitE.

Again your taking an island which can be attacked from 4 sides, a very small scale and the Italian Army is not the Russian.
I am talking about Russia. You see no pockets in France or Germany, in my games. I never lost and Italian unit on Italy to a pocket other then an invasion for that matter
That's a piss poor example and you know it. I have played both WitW and WitE more then 15 times each.

This is like arguing about scoring goals in ice hockey using field hockey experience to justify your approach.

Wrong dead wrong your looking at it that way not me. For the 400th time-
The combat ratio is way off way off and losses to low for 43-44. AGAIN OR AGAIN I am not talking pockets, but straight up combat.

I appreciate that your view is that pockets are vital to maintain manpower balance under the current
loss regime but there are other levers in this regard beyond combat losses. Remember in WitW that replacements cost
freight so often you can't get men out of the pool.

Both Russia and Germany in all my games have men in the manpower pools from 42-45, freight cost, but its a simply depot chain to the front with men flowing turn by turn to front nothing different then WitE there will just be more in the river so to speak,
I know that's how I get around WA air power and my front line troops always get stuff. This has nothing to do with combat ratio.

Using logistics as a tool to slow combat( low MPs ect ect) does nothing to change the combat ratios. It simply makes the game more static. In WitW if the German player applies WitE
strategys you never see pockets in France its very static



- I agree that the Russian ability to run away at the start increases the manpower imbalance issue.
However this too is not an argument to justify problems in the logistics construct.

Combat enigne

Perhaps the improved rail congestion code will impact on supply as factory evacuation causes congestion.
I do not know yet but perhaps this, limiting supply to the Russians, will reduce the speed of evacuation.
However we may well need to encourage the Soviets to fight forward.

- So let's turn this around a little - is the problem that the Soviets lose too little manpower or receive too much?

Not an issue

Would we be better ignoring the combat issue and focusing our time on manpower production and population evacuation?

This has been tried for years and never works, this issue has been around before release like 1v1=2v1.

If we made population evacuation more difficult - perhaps so that players would have to hold ground forward to get them out
would that be better?

Data is cool bro, check out my game vs Dave. He lost far more then historical and no real effect. Industry looks to be window dressing at this time. Russians just need Rifle Corp and a few mobile Armys and they can grind east starting in late 42 ( historical loses)
or early 43 ( higher then historical ) The games will all end withen a few turns of each other

So you could run away but it will mean that you will receive less men.

Might help, but its been tried.




You can tweak pool, replacements or play with logistics ect ect that's all been done.

The combat ratio has not changed.

One small change can and generally does have a major effect long run.

You made a change to the logistics system. We can give you medals have a party or be stuborn and dig your heals in the ground, but the change has a major effect and ignoring that fact does not change the fact.

Your answer to less pockets and a combat engine that's WAY OFF is to play around with manpower? Really?

In the past this is always how the debate starts.

Someone points something out that's clear and one side ignores it and digs there feet in.

The other side gathers more data and post it over and over and finally after 6 months to a yr the problem is addressed.

This has been on going for yrs and the data is clear.

We have a new logistics system cool, but whats the effect? Less losses that's clear to everyone.

We have a combat engine that's not giving historical results so instead of fixing the core issue

We want to change manpower replacements?

Why not simply change the core problem?

we can have a new air system new logistics system, but the combat ratio's are clearly off and with pockets being taken off the table or reduced by at least 50% with 2.0 what is the effect?

Less German and less Russian loses for 2.0 - that is really not that hard to see.

Your not going to fix it by giving each side less replacements bro heheh



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.90625