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?

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

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.

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.

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?

quote:

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

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

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.

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.

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.