Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Well, that explains the following then:

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'm going to make you look the fools you are.
Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

Hypocrit much?

Those weren't bwheatley's words. They were kirkgregerson's from post #44. Unfortunately, bwheatley's editing of the nested quotes left the impression that he was the original author of the slur. He wasn't and you owe him an apology.

I return you to your scheduled entertainment...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

What actually inflamed me the most was all the people that quickly attacked abulbulians well document improbable outcome as far as realism is concerned. Maybe this outcome is more probably IN the game,... but that's maybe the heart of the issue. These attack on the post were with out any merit as they had no evidence or documentation to refute abulbulian's claim that the outcome was totally improbably. I agree with his assessment. Not that I've read hundreds of books on the subject, but I've read more than a few in the last few months. I couldn't find any account of a sov rifle div in 42 accomplishing anything close to this posted battle outcome in all my readings given the battle settings. BUT, I did read about many accounts of the German mobile units, like the 11th Panzer, performing amazing feats against incredible odds. Yes, also in a sort of 'Hasty' attack fashion, as they usually had to be in two places at once.

So if people want to post what they see is wrong with abulbulian's assessment why not post something to back up your claim?

I agree people attacking others is lame.

Well, that explains the following then:

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'm going to make you look the fools you are.
Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

Hypocrit much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

...

I have really tried to avoid most of this thread, but I am seeing alot of "this does not happen in real life"........sorry, but it does, even to this day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Well, that explains the following then:

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'm going to make you look the fools you are.
Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

Hypocrit much?

Those weren't bwheatley's words. They were kirkgregerson's from post #44. Unfortunately, bwheatley's editing of the nested quotes left the impression that he was the original author of the slur. He wasn't and you owe him an apology.

I return you to your scheduled entertainment...

JAMiAM: Thank you. I had mis-interpreted this post as well.

While Bill and I had our differences earlier, I have come to respect his contributions and his moderation. I have to admit that I was shocked when I read the post above because I also thought those were his words. However instead of tracking back to the earlier posts he was referencing I just shook my head sadly and went on. So I feel that I also should apologize to him for believing even for a minute that he would write something that ... immoderate.

Bwheatley, I'm sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

My apologies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

At eastern front there were documated cases where attacker lost more than 3000-5000 men without being able to kill zero defenders. It happened when defender had one recon plane or forward observer team in the right place at right time calling artillery strike on enemy deployment zone just when they where starting to attack and devastating artillery fire hit right on the target with power of 50 tons of TNT just in couple of minutes and that tryout attack was over.

I never seen this happening in this game even when that should be possible to stop attack with artillery fire with decimating casulties to attacking side without being able to lauch attack at all. This game really gives a lot of better chances to attack than historically was possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni
I happens to me as Soviet. I do a hasty attack on a 1CV German unit. He takes no casualties while I take some and then my leaders call off the attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

At eastern front there were documated cases where attacker lost more than 3000-5000 men without being able to kill zero defenders. It happened when defender had one recon plane or forward observer team in the right place at right time calling artillery strike on enemy deployment zone just when they where starting to attack and devastating artillery fire hit right on the target with power of 50 tons of TNT just in couple of minutes and that tryout attack was over.

I never seen this happening in this game even when that should be possible to stop attack with artillery fire with decimating casulties to attacking side without being able to lauch attack at all. This game really gives a lot of better chances to attack than historically was possible.

EDIT: btw. this is not whining I understand that wargame need set of rules and is always abstraction of reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

Ok, I've been reading a few of the following books lately that have been describing how the German Pz Div were almost 'super-human' in dealing with some of the most incredible tasks of defending an attacking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

I agree with the fact that Soviet air and support artillery units alone could be accounted for the majority of the losses the German force suffered. Therefore the "crack Panzerdivision vs. puny Rifle Division" argument is a moot point.

What is strange? That a regiment of 19 Il-2 disabled eight German AFVs? Or that a Guards high power artillery regiment, armed with 24 203mm howitzers, caused a few hundreds of WIAs and KIAs against moving troops in the open?

As it was already said, the attached combat report screenshot is, by itself, insufficient in proving that there's something absolutely and unbelievably wrong with the game system.
The "crack Panzerdivision vs. puny Rifle Division" argument is a moot point, since Soviet air and support artillery units alone could be accounted for the majority of the losses the German force suffered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The problem for me is mainly that the relative losses and the combat result don't add up. RETREAT is defined in the manual as a forced displacement, I checked to be sure, and that definition is repeated ad nauseam. So this wasn't a delaying action (which is it's own discussion).

This was by any measure a highly successful defensive action, so it should be a HOLD.

If it really was a RETREAT, then German losses can still be rationalised, but Russian losses are way too low.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The problem for me is mainly that the relative losses and the combat result don't add up. RETREAT is defined in the manual as a forced displacement, I checked to be sure, and that definition is repeated ad nauseam. So this wasn't a delaying action (which is it's own discussion).

quote:


This was by any measure a highly successful defensive action, so it should be a HOLD.

quote:


If it really was a RETREAT, then German losses can still be rationalised, but Russian losses are way too low.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I find a couple of points about kirkgregerson's ranting interesting:

1) he criticizes virtually everyone on this thread for failing to analyze or prove their positions and yet he has not provided the slightest "proof" of his assertions, other than to state his strongly-held opinion about how things should work.  By now several have posted excerpts from German reports to the effect that Russians could inflict signficant losses on panzers...what more do we need to do kirkgregerson?

2)  He is probably the first wargamer I've ever encountered that considers combat to be a determinitive process (ie, not involving luck), and who apparently wants this approach reflected in wargames as well.  In my view, his position is like saying that once you really drill down into the physics, rolling dice does not involve any luck at all, because based on the various properties and forces involved, you should be able to determine in advance what the result will be. Obviously this statement is true on some level, but not at the level of detail reflected in this game, as we have no idea about many significant factors which could have influenced the battle, including:
a) the specific terrain (generally open, but perhaps with various streams or the ravines common in parts of Russia),
b) how long the battle actually lasted/how it was conducted (ie, weekly turns, maybe attack launched in the evening as the panzers arrived, and Sovs withdrew at night, etc.),
c) whether there was fog on certain mornings which could have disrupted an attack or allowed the Sovs to escape,
d) etc. etc. etc.

For these reasons it is rather difficult for me to understand how someone could be so outraged by the results of this battle, I consider it a rather lucky for the Sovs but well within the realm of the possible.

And before further patronizing comments, yes, I have read more than a few books on this topic...

And I second the request to be able to turn on logging for the battle results; usually I keep in on Level 1 or 2, which is not very illuminating, but for seemingly anamolous results it would be great to go back and see what what driving the result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I wonder how would the whiners and "determinists" explain the result of Allied invasion of Kiska, completely empty island, abandoned in secret before the invasion.

"On August 15, 1943, an invasion force consisting of 34,426 Allied troops, including elements of the 7th Infantry Division, 4th Infantry Regiment, 87th Mountain Combat team, 5,300 Canadians (the 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions), 95 ships (including three battleships and a heavy cruiser), and 168 aircraft landed on Kiska, only to find the island completely abandoned. The Japanese, aware of the loss of Attu and the impending arrival of the larger Allied force, had successfully removed their troops on July 28 under the cover of severe fog, without the Allies noticing. Allied casualties during this invasion nevertheless numbered close to 200, all either from friendly fire, booby traps set out by the Japanese to inflict damage on the invading allied forces, or weather-related disease. There were seventeen Americans and four Canadians killed from either friendly fire or booby traps, fifty more were wounded as a result of friendly fire or booby traps, and an additional 130 men came down with trench foot. The destroyer USS Abner Read hit a mine, resulting in 87 casualties."

Several hundered casualties.... over an empty island? No need for a Russian INF division supported by 203mms and IL-2s.

I cannot even imagine the outcry on the boards if OP and his pro-"super human"-Axis mates got this kind of result from a GAME.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

This thread is almost as entertaining as playing WITE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I cannot even imagine the outcry on the boards if OP and his pro-"super human"-Axis mates got this kind of result from a GAME.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Such a mountain made out of a molehill of a non issue.

And the end result of the OP's batte was........... the Soviets lost

quote:

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

I agree with the fact that Soviet air and support artillery units alone could be accounted for the majority of the losses the German force suffered. Therefore the "crack Panzerdivision vs. puny Rifle Division" argument is a moot point.

What is strange? That a regiment of 19 Il-2 disabled eight German AFVs? Or that a Guards high power artillery regiment, armed with 24 203mm howitzers, caused a few hundreds of WIAs and KIAs against moving troops in the open?

As it was already said, the attached combat report screenshot is, by itself, insufficient in proving that there's something absolutely and unbelievably wrong with the game system.

I'm not saying that there's plenty of evidence that there's no problem with the game combat system itself, I'm saying that there's no evidence of a problem, yet. This because we don't know what happened exactly (i.e. what Soviet units scored the kills) and we don't know how probable was this result (one should run the very same attack a lot of times and compare the results).

I don't agree with the opinion that such a result should be impossible to obtain in all circumstances and, therefore, the game shouldn't allow for such an outcome, even once in a thousand times.
I can rationalize such a result without problems, no suspension of disbelief needed.

Having said so, I, once more, present the request of having the option of dumping combat detailed results dumped into text file logs. Nobody would actually run the game resolving combats with level 7 descriptions. But it would be interesting to have the option to review in detail some combats, to understand better how things work in WitE and to base this kind of discussions upon hard data and not just our guesses.