7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2



Message

Cavalry Corp -> 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/14/2022 3:28:08 PM)

OK despite lack of trucks big time I attacked at end May and enclosed c 30 Russian Divs East of Kharkov (nice) - to cut off some meat before the main attack in June.

Astonished that 7 Russian Army commanders were killed, almost every re location resulted in their death only 1 or 2 relocations caused by combat had no effect.

Sorry this is silly - it was too low before now its way too high ...hope it will be patched soon as my opponenent will be pretty pissed off.



ShaggyHiK -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Karkov. (2/14/2022 3:49:39 PM)

At the moment, the mechanics are redundant. The commanders of the fronts - armies and corps died quite rarely, they should die, there are no vulnerable people, but 7 people per week of fighting. So by turn 100, the entire pool of commanders will most likely be wasted. And who to fight?



Cavalry Corp -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Karkov. (2/14/2022 5:29:54 PM)



In a game of such detail at every level I'm afraid the detail has to be added at all levels not just on say pilots and so on - broadly its all heading in a good direction but this is a bigger issue than I thought.

Leaders -

Should sometimes be killed more often wounded and out for a variable time or esp. in a pocket captured (or suicide).

I put the post up as well because my opponent ( I have known him for a long while and he is pretty thick skinned) is sure not wanting to play on if he losses the good ones - which he will.



xhoel -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Karkov. (2/14/2022 5:44:20 PM)

I think there is enough evidence in the forum from multiple players and multiple games that show that leader deaths are excessive under the current patch.

The bug fix seems to have overcorrected and now instead of seeing too few deaths we are seeing too many. We need a change that will bring leader deaths in a normal range.



ShaggyHiK -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Karkov. (2/14/2022 6:13:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

I think there is enough evidence in the forum from multiple players and multiple games that show that leader deaths are excessive under the current patch.

The bug fix seems to have overcorrected and now instead of seeing too few deaths we are seeing too many. We need a change that will bring leader deaths in a normal range.

And this is really required in the near future, because a large number of parties can be ruined by excess mortality.



Joel Billings -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/14/2022 7:14:33 PM)

Due to the bug in the past, leaders were not being killed as they should have been by the percentages. Is it possible that players have gotten too cavalier with their HQs because leaders were so rarely killed in the past. Here are the results of two AI games that went into May 1945 (game 1/game 2). Keep in mind the AI can be very bad at AI placement, although it can also be bad at isolating the enemy, so maybe there's an offset here, hard to say:

Soviet leaders killed 61/54
Soviet leaders executed 3/2
Total Soviet killed 64/56

German leaders killed 82/62
Romanian leaders killed 5/3
Hungarian leaders killed 4/8
Total Axis killed 91/73

1941 is a tough time for the Soviets, as can parts of 1942. There can be a lot of displacements and a decent number isolated. In the first game, 34 Soviet leaders were killed in 1941, which is more than 1/2 of those killed in the entire war.

Also, please note as mentioned before, we don't have a wounded/sick/retired option in the game. Some of these losses would fall into those categories. All we can do is kill off leaders, so yes, you will get more kills in the game than historical to account for these kinds of losses.

The good news is that we have a fairly high confidence level that the code is now working per the rules (with lots of variation as happens with random numbers). If it appears that the values are too high, they can be adjusted, but I'm not inclined to do this until players adjust to the rules working as documented and we get more information from non-AI test games. The other side of it is the historical losses. I saw someone posted their study of Soviet leaders killed during the war and IIRC concluded that a smaller number of Soviet leaders in command were killed (was it 21, and did this include down to corps in 1941). What if you account for leaders that were wounded/sick and out of action for some period of time or retired. If you accounted for man months lost for those purposes, what number would you end up with? Having that info would be very helpful, and we appreciate the feedback from players and researchers on this.



ShaggyHiK -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 4:12:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

At the beginning of the game, the death of commanders cannot be compensated by the Soviet player in any way. Many headquarters of all levels fall into the environment. According to the replacement system, when the best commander available is replaced, with a second displacement, for example, it’s not Vlasov who dies, but Vasilevsky. The cauldrons are closed, but this does not guarantee the safe exit of the headquarters on the next turn. When pressing "relocate", even if the commander is not lost, the headquarters usually ends up on the German player's axis of advance, which again leads to the passing of checks for the death of the commander.

Thus, there is a carousel of knocking out the best generals.

At the same time, the player is not able to put his headquarters in invulnerable positions for a sufficiently long period of time in order to stop losing the general after the general.

At the moment, I also observe processes when players adapt to the conditions and introduce rules that prohibit pushing headquarters too often, or specifically surrounding them.
And it would be interesting to find out what level of losses can be achieved in a game of man against man if the German player sets the goal of the maximum possible movement of the Soviet staffs in the period from the first to the fifth turns.

I am currently participating in a 4v4 game that started on the new patch, 10 generals were lost on the first turn, on the next turn many headquarters were surrounded, and at the moment about 10-15 more commanders are expected to lose from the calculation of the movement of headquarters when finishing off surrounded . And even after the encircled units are finished off, a certain number of headquarters still cannot be safely withdrawn.

There are also complaints about the loss of commanders from those headquarters that did not even participate in the battles. But this complaint from the German side makes it difficult to say what the cause of the losses is, including just pure chance.



AlbertN -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 11:33:23 AM)

I concur the loss ratio of Soviet leaders is too high.

Given at the same time I feel they should cost way more to be replaced by a player so that the transiction from 'shoody leaders' to top notch leaders spans over a long, long time - right now I assume this kind of balances off the other.

But past the first turns it's rare for Soviets to lose (good) leaders in a PvP match.



RedJohn -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 12:15:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I concur the loss ratio of Soviet leaders is too high.

Given at the same time I feel they should cost way more to be replaced by a player so that the transiction from 'shoody leaders' to top notch leaders spans over a long, long time - right now I assume this kind of balances off the other.

But past the first turns it's rare for Soviets to lose (good) leaders in a PvP match.


Both players will, for the most part, replace every single starting leader they have ASAP. For the axis it's replacing all their corps and some army leaders, for the soviets it's replacing 99% of their army leaders. I don't know the historical churn for either side, but it does seem a bit silly.

I do not think the current rates are a problem. It is only an issue turn 1/2, where I do think the lack of player agency involved (RNG determines whether a top leader is shipped in to a 10% TOE corps that's just been displaced and it's leader killed, not very fun) is an issue. But otherwise? I think it's a legitimate risk you take if you're benefiting from replacing your entire command chain. This isn't a uniquely soviet issue, though of course it's primarily an issue they face in 41/42 - but the axis need to be careful with their placements too, especially in 43 when soviet penetration has teeth. In my 43 game I've lost a ton of good leaders to Soviet thrusts, and in another Soviet game I killed off 2 of the top German leaders by displacing them from the turn 1 pockets by marauding units.

But there should be risk and I think the fixed rates simulate that well.



Beethoven1 -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 1:36:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

I do not think the current rates are a problem. It is only an issue turn 1/2, where I do think the lack of player agency involved (RNG determines whether a top leader is shipped in to a 10% TOE corps that's just been displaced and it's leader killed, not very fun) is an issue.


Ding ding ding. @Joel, if there would just be a fix for this happening in the first couple turns, where Vatutin gets killed in the Bialystok pocket or something (wtf?) then I think most players would be pretty much ok with it subsequently.

The real problem is the way things work currently in the first few turns, especially with good leaders being unrealistically flown into pocketed or otherwise doomed HQs and then subsequently killed by subsequent follow-up displacement.

Leaders in HQs in this sort of situation should be in some way or another "locked" to prevent this from happening. If that were done, then the current leader death rates might be fine. Or might be too high or too low. But the unrealistic-seeming and off-putting part would be gone.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 5:04:50 PM)

Well thanks for the reply. We will see what happens- it is true it was a big breakthrough. Depends I guess how good the ones that were killed were?
Certainly going to make us think about to Axis Generals on their small Regt:)

Maybe the word killed could be changed to be more reflective of all situations... say "removed" maybe be better.



Stamb -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 5:52:44 PM)

I did some testing with a saves that Joel provided where a lot of HQ are grouped in few places:

Results for a NON isolated HQs

Overrun HQs | Kills | %

112 | 28 | 25%
101 | 14 | 14.4%
97 | 25 | 25.77%
102 | 26 | 25%
100 | 34 | 34%



Stamb -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 6:17:12 PM)

For isolated HQs:

Overrun HQs | Kills | %
75 | 44 | 58%
75 | 44 | 58%
75 | 44 | 58%
75 | 51 | 68%
75 | 42 | 56%



Cavalry Corp -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 6:31:58 PM)

Isolated HQ should be much higher - agree but how much?

It seems my experience was around 70% non isolated maybe the dice rolls just got lucky. If it was about 25% I suppose I would not have posted...



Stamb -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/15/2022 6:39:24 PM)

according to a latest changes
15% for non isolated, 50% for isolated

this is archive with a test files, no password for a saves:
https://ufile.io/g7z3l7oy



ShaggyHiK -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/16/2022 3:47:13 AM)

In my opinion, a correction is needed here.
1. The chance should strive for 15% and 50%, but it is advisable not to reach it.
2. Headquarters that were subjected to a check for the death of a commander in the future should have simpler checks in order to avoid cases of conveyor death of commanders.
3. Dead commanders should be replaced not by the best commanders, but by the worst ones, first of all, in a combat situation, his subordinates come to the place of the commander, who are usually lower in rank and position, and also most likely by experience.



malyhin1517 -> RE: 7 Dead Russian Generals in one week! In one action around Kharkov. (2/16/2022 2:04:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

In my opinion, a correction is needed here.
1. The chance should strive for 15% and 50%, but it is advisable not to reach it.
2. Headquarters that were subjected to a check for the death of a commander in the future should have simpler checks in order to avoid cases of conveyor death of commanders.
3. Dead commanders should be replaced not by the best commanders, but by the worst ones, first of all, in a combat situation, his subordinates come to the place of the commander, who are usually lower in rank and position, and also most likely by experience.

+1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875