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.
|
|
|
|