RE: National Morale (Full Version)

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



Message


RedLancer -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 10:31:58 AM)

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?




loki100 -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 11:14:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?


ok, my view. We all agree current losses are too low.

but its not the critical issue (imho). Your second point is the key that the result is that the OOBs get too large and this has other consequences.

By that I mean if both sides are too large then the game locks up apart from at the phases where the game rules force a break. At the moment, by that I mean Dec 41 (Sov winter offensive), June 42 (Sov NM at 40), sometime in 43 (as the impact of the 43 NM changes come to apply) and sometime in 44 (as the German army starts to fall apart). The problem of too large armies is that at each of those stages the intended effect is made stronger as the beneficiary is too large.

Too large a German army makes 1942 too effective, too large a German army makes 1943 pretty tedious, both are worsened by MP players optimising their actions for the long term and with a great deal of hindsight.

I think it would be good for Soviet losses to be higher, as above keying this to experience and leadership would be quite an elegant solution. Or their attrition losses could be higher - same effect via a different method.

But you need to put the Germans into the position in 1942 where they can attack but not on the scale we are currently seeing and in 1943 where they can defend effectively but again not in endless lines of pre-pared forts.

Final point - no, let the shifting lethality of weapons systems and the changes in army competence handle that aspect.




Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 11:52:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago.
But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few
manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to
know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

- Why is the loss ratio so critical?

If you go back and review old AAR's there as a patch which greatly slowed German MP's and the result was German advance stalled at Pskvo, landbridge and Keiv to D-town. Why? Loses were very little as Germans cound not get a pocket after turn 1.
This was nick named the Wall of Steel Patch. So basicly the combat ratio is at the core of the game. Logistics, morale ect ect effect it but it is everything. If losses are low Russian Army is Huge fast so German offensive grinds to a stop very quickly.
So then Russians can attack at will win or lose and grind down German army. So with 2.0 we have lower MP's so Russian player has zero fear of pockets so he knows he can attack and attack and attack and lose and lose and lose, but grind down German army far quicker then historical because lose ratio is NON historical.
ALSO with new morale changes you talked about Russians can attack and attack with no fear of morale lose so gain WTH stop
attacking and losing? Also a large German OOB has little effect on the game as can be seen in the data of my AAR's and Daves when he plays Germany. Germany can have 3.6 to 4.2 and the results are the same the lines start cracking in 43/44 winter depending on skill of Russian player not OOB's or industrial losses



- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?

VP system will help, so can new logistics system or hurt

- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
No

- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?

Yes





Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 12:45:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?


ok, my view. We all agree current losses are too low.

but its not the critical issue (imho). Your second point is the key that the result is that the OOBs get too large and this has other consequences.

By that I mean if both sides are too large then the game locks up apart from at the phases where the game rules force a break. At the moment, by that I mean Dec 41 (Sov winter offensive), June 42 (Sov NM at 40), sometime in 43 (as the impact of the 43 NM changes come to apply) and sometime in 44 (as the German army starts to fall apart). The problem of too large armies is that at each of those stages the intended effect is made stronger as the beneficiary is too large.

Too large a German army makes 1942 too effective, too large a German army makes 1943 pretty tedious, both are worsened by MP players optimising their actions for the long term and with a great deal of hindsight.

I think it would be good for Soviet losses to be higher, as above keying this to experience and leadership would be quite an elegant solution. Or their attrition losses could be higher - same effect via a different method.

But you need to put the Germans into the position in 1942 where they can attack but not on the scale we are currently seeing and in 1943 where they can defend effectively but again not in endless lines of pre-pared forts.

Final point - no, let the shifting lethality of weapons systems and the changes in army competence handle that aspect.




Good points.

Red I am looking at the snowball effect of what loki has pointed out.

1. If Russian loses are lower in 41 which they will be because pockets simply will be much harder to come by and Lvov will probably be coded out one way or the other.
We know the likely results of this in current AAR's. German gets no wheres near historical and Red Army is larger then historical because combat engine results are to low.

2. So in turn because of the snowball effect. Russian Army has a very powerfull 41/42 winter- German Army suffers heavy losses ect.

3. German Army is a shell of itself by June 42 and Russian Army is HUGE.

4. German Army runs out of steam by late July early August. Now this will be worse because of lower MP's (2.0) if the German Army can not pocket units it simply can not get 4 to 1 combat ratios so why attack? You are losing by winning.

5. Russian Army is on general offensive by September 42.

Now couple this with the fact of morale changes and lower MP's across the board you will see this happen even sooner. Russian players will have zero fear of German pockets so simply spam lose battles.

I also believe there will be issues with the massive Russian Air Force which will simply spam bombing German formations.


Your more then likely not going to see any of this doing AI vs AI tests or player vs AI test.






MechFO -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 3:01:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.


First, I think it's pointless to try and hit specific army size milestones 3 years in. Reality is that everybody plays with plenty of hindsight and many losses due to pointless attacks that stemmed from faulty appreciation of the situation, political pressure or just stupidity don't take place. Army Group Center in December 41 or Stalingrad are very unlikely to happen, and being able to do countless iterations of the same events leads to a measure of optimization that just can't be accounted for except by going the railroad route of WITE.

Instead, create uncertainty for the player which will lead to more mistakes.

Due to manpower allocation being heavily dependent on historical events this means a German/Soviet army in 43 that took less than historical losses would be very large, instead of having some of that manpower remaining in production. I don't see any way to manage this, except maybe give manpower that is stuck in the manpower pool some kind of positive supply/production effect so that you don't just automatically always want the most manpower possible on the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?


That said, loss ratios do matter because it's nearly impossible to properly attrit the enemy without encircling manoeuvres that span hundreds of miles.

Encirclements could easily take place at company or battalion/regimental level IF there was a mobility mismatch or a c&c breakdown but the current combat engine doesn't consider that. Also, less mobile units could be overrun and destroyed, even if there notionally was space to retreat. This doesn't happen in the game, so the only practical way to cause attrition is to go for the big encirclements. I doubt these will be possible very often with the new logistics and MP penalties for hexes with combat (both very good, but now the problems manifest themselves somewhere else)

Loss ratio is also important because it punishes mistakes. Right now, everybody knows far too well what is going on on the other side, mistakes seldom happen (as in a attack running in much stronger forces than expected, the reserve system helps, but it's very localised and IMO it's still too easy to know far too much). Much bigger FOW effect on enemy strength displays or making it harder to detect formations might go some way to remedy this by inducing mistakes, especially for the Germans who had much less information on the other side.

Alternatively supply restraints could act as a regulator and I have high hopes for the new logistics system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?


As I understand the current system only uses firepower (with hit% modded by experience), with a modifier for retreat thrown in. I don't think a fixed combat ratio German-Soviet is the answer, rather a neutral system that takes more factors into account.

F.e.:
- size-space ratio
- experience differential
- mobility differential
- some kind of leadership check (for defence, is withdraw order given in time and well organized, for attack, do they actually know what is going on/where to go)
- last but not least some kind of stance like in TOAW, with minimize, limit and ignore. There needs to be some way of fighting a delaying action or only making a probing attack (recon by force goes a step in the right direction, but again cuts down on the number of mistakes).

The system could stay the same throughout, as the Soviets improve their ratio automatically becomes better.




Commanderski -> RE: National Morale (10/10/2015 10:36:31 PM)

quote:

First, I think it's pointless to try and hit specific army size milestones 3 years in. Reality is that everybody plays with plenty of hindsight and many losses due to pointless attacks that stemmed from faulty appreciation of the situation, political pressure or just stupidity don't take place. Army Group Center in December 41 or Stalingrad are very unlikely to happen


I think that what MechFO said is the main issue in having huge armies in the later years. You won't have the losses at Stalingrad for the Germans and you won't have the losses at Kiev for the Soviets, among other places for both sides.

Maybe it can be coded in the game that when either side reaches a certain number of manpower a percentage is removed from all units across the board. Also you have to consider PBEM games vs those who only play against the AI (which is very good). The casualties that you incur and those against the AI will vary differently than the PBEM games.

It's probably not an easy fix but maybe just by using the same mechanics of WITW it may just work out with only a little tweaking.




typhoon -> RE: National Morale (10/11/2015 7:02:21 AM)

If WITEII is to be new and not just WITE redone then introduce something that changes things more than tweaking a few under the hood calculations that the lesser player (me for instance don't really understand). Stop allowing players from being all singing all dancing and able to exploit loopholes in mechanics if possible. The main problem if there even is a problem is that the players are allowed always to play like gods and do whatever they wish when that sort of freedom would not have been allowed to either command headquaters. Force the Russians to attack from the beginning a said number of attacks per turn which the player must execute to maintain his AP's then in winter force the Germans to stand still in a number of places again at the risk of dropping Ap's. Not sure exactly what effect all that would have and there may be better ideas but at least it would force a more realistic approach.




LiquidSky -> RE: National Morale (10/11/2015 7:32:47 AM)



I am not too worried about a Red Army airforce dominating the field with massive numbers of poor aircraft if WitW is any indication.

Quality is king in the air. Low morale coupled with poor machines means the Red Army airforce will attrit itself, just by flying. What planes that do make it into the air without crashing will be easily shot down. But some planes will get through. But only a tiny fraction of the total.

The Germans will be able to bomb airfields that are closer to the front which will force the Red Army to either disperse it's air squadrons or base them farther back in cities guarded by FlaK.

The Russians will be unable to train their airforce quickly....planes and pilots will be lost in large numbers to operational losses. It is faster to use 'on the job' training...which is pretty much the Russian philosophy in general.

It won't be until late war, when the Russians get planes that don't get shot down as easily, and better quality pilots who were given better training before given a machine to fly before they will dominate the skies.

Also...ground unit attacks have been greatly toned down. It is very hard to destroy any quantity of afv's by air. However you will disrupt them, so it will make ground combat easier. It will mean that WWI style combat will no longer exist. The Russians will apply a combination of air with massive artillery and ground attacks to open holes in the German lines. But they wont be able to push a lot of units through the hole because of combat delay points...and zoc to zoc costs.

But it will force the Germans to retreat.

I suspect that manpower will not be an/the issue in WitE2. It will be how fast can you make the Germans retreat. A game that ends with the Russians in Berlin in late '44 but with 3 million men in the Axis force pool is still a loss.




Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/11/2015 11:03:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.


First, I think it's pointless to try and hit specific army size milestones 3 years in. Reality is that everybody plays with plenty of hindsight and many losses due to pointless attacks that stemmed from faulty appreciation of the situation, political pressure or just stupidity don't take place. Army Group Center in December 41 or Stalingrad are very unlikely to happen, and being able to do countless iterations of the same events leads to a measure of optimization that just can't be accounted for except by going the railroad route of WITE.

Instead, create uncertainty for the player which will lead to more mistakes.

Due to manpower allocation being heavily dependent on historical events this means a German/Soviet army in 43 that took less than historical losses would be very large, instead of having some of that manpower remaining in production. I don't see any way to manage this, except maybe give manpower that is stuck in the manpower pool some kind of positive supply/production effect so that you don't just automatically always want the most manpower possible on the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?


That said, loss ratios do matter because it's nearly impossible to properly attrit the enemy without encircling manoeuvres that span hundreds of miles.

Encirclements could easily take place at company or battalion/regimental level IF there was a mobility mismatch or a c&c breakdown but the current combat engine doesn't consider that. Also, less mobile units could be overrun and destroyed, even if there notionally was space to retreat. This doesn't happen in the game, so the only practical way to cause attrition is to go for the big encirclements. I doubt these will be possible very often with the new logistics and MP penalties for hexes with combat (both very good, but now the problems manifest themselves somewhere else)

Loss ratio is also important because it punishes mistakes. Right now, everybody knows far too well what is going on on the other side, mistakes seldom happen (as in a attack running in much stronger forces than expected, the reserve system helps, but it's very localised and IMO it's still too easy to know far too much). Much bigger FOW effect on enemy strength displays or making it harder to detect formations might go some way to remedy this by inducing mistakes, especially for the Germans who had much less information on the other side.

Alternatively supply restraints could act as a regulator and I have high hopes for the new logistics system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?


As I understand the current system only uses firepower (with hit% modded by experience), with a modifier for retreat thrown in. I don't think a fixed combat ratio German-Soviet is the answer, rather a neutral system that takes more factors into account.

F.e.:
- size-space ratio
- experience differential
- mobility differential
- some kind of leadership check (for defence, is withdraw order given in time and well organized, for attack, do they actually know what is going on/where to go)
- last but not least some kind of stance like in TOAW, with minimize, limit and ignore. There needs to be some way of fighting a delaying action or only making a probing attack (recon by force goes a step in the right direction, but again cuts down on the number of mistakes).

The system could stay the same throughout, as the Soviets improve their ratio automatically becomes better.



+1000000000000000000000000

Great post [sm=00000436.gif]
[sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif]




Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/11/2015 11:13:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: typhoon

If WITEII is to be new and not just WITE redone then introduce something that changes things more than tweaking a few under the hood calculations that the lesser player (me for instance don't really understand). Stop allowing players from being all singing all dancing and able to exploit loopholes in mechanics if possible. The main problem if there even is a problem is that the players are allowed always to play like gods and do whatever they wish when that sort of freedom would not have been allowed to either command headquaters. Force the Russians to attack from the beginning a said number of attacks per turn which the player must execute to maintain his AP's then in winter force the Germans to stand still in a number of places again at the risk of dropping Ap's. Not sure exactly what effect all that would have and there may be better ideas but at least it would force a more realistic approach.


This has been done by several players and the results were predictable.

1. If Russian army stands their ground in 41 they get creamed. The players playing were the best of the best.

2. If German army stands and fights they get wiped out by summer 44.

Allot of the best players left long ago, but a few people like myself are still around, so allot of "new ideas people throw out have been tried.

MechFo and loki hit the nail on the head as have countless others over the yrs.

morveal tweaked the 1.0 engine as best he could and has the game playable and fun. Plus he and others found all the loopholes/exploits and removed them.

WitW is a one way game. WA are on the attack all the time.

WitE is a 2 way game and 212 turns so things snowball over time. 41 is the game.





Peltonx -> RE: National Morale (10/11/2015 11:22:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



I am not too worried about a Red Army airforce dominating the field with massive numbers of poor aircraft if WitW is any indication.

Quality is king in the air. Low morale coupled with poor machines means the Red Army airforce will attrit itself, just by flying. What planes that do make it into the air without crashing will be easily shot down. But some planes will get through. But only a tiny fraction of the total.

The Germans will be able to bomb airfields that are closer to the front which will force the Red Army to either disperse
it's air squadrons or base them farther back in cities guarded by FlaK.



See again your exp on Western Front is important, but your not thinking EF.

1. Russians have massive amounts of flak.
2. IF German advance is historical there will be zero bases to fly planes from near the front.
3. Germans advancing across a front with no railnet will take many turns to get supplies to rebuild airfields or put ammo at front.
4. A massive Red AF will hammer what it wants at will.
5. By doing this they gain exp
6. German AF can not cover all the front so there will be areas that the Red AF can gain exp.
7. Red AF has massive amounts of TB's and as we know from WitW they are way over rated. For some reason 2by3 thinks all TB are Stukas. Ahh yes another unhistorical bone that needs picking when the time comes

Quality might be King aka morale, but quaintly wins if there are no AB's or supplies.

You need stop thinking small ball, this is Russian Front not Normandy




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625