RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:11:46 PM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

Thanks BigA, that helps clarify quite a bit. So my thinking is fairly correct that a Manstein corps division should have an extremely high chance of getting at least a good bump on the double-CV rolls? I started with a base CV of 191 (of which roughly 110 was from the panzers), had an 80% command penalty, and ended up with a modified result of exactly 191. That seems like it's awfully low if the majority of those units should have been passing doubling rolls.

Marty, you've summed up my thoughts on the matter very eloquently. With that, since my questions have been answered, I am bowing out of this post. Thanks guys!

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 31

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:13:35 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

Yes sorry I wasn't being clear. The total CV won't be doubled because of the 90% command penalty for different corps attacking (this will be changed in 1.04).

Also the doubling is not "all or nothing", because it is calculated on a element by element basis, and the CV weighting is then applied, so tanks will have more impact if their CV was doubled.

_____________________________

It's only a Game

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 32

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/2/2011 4:16:05 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

(what's the plural of malus? LOL)

mali - latin 2nd declension

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 33

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 12:42:02 AM

Rugens

Posts: 213
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hoosierland
Status: offline

quote:

And again, I"m just trying to understand what the rationale behind the rule is. I could understand something that greatly fatigued and beat up German divisions in Soviet counterattacks (slow war of attrition mentality), as that is largely what happened in the war. Guderian in Panzer Commander talks about how few tanks they had by the time Typhoon came around, largely from the beatings they had taken and wear and tear. But the pockets didn't get routinely bashed open from what I know of the Eastern Front

Your understanding of history in this regard is accurate. It's a very good game but in my opinion this is one area it does not model well. Hopefully it will change over time. WITP AE is a good example. It took a long time but the end result is a game that has no equal. I suspect this one will get there as well.

< Message edited by Carl Rugenstein -- 4/3/2011 12:47:34 AM >

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 34

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 1:40:51 AM

Baron von Beer

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline

That CV doubling is like Stalin leaping out from behind a tree, running up to me while giggling, kicking me in the balls, and diving back into the brush.

(in reply to Rugens)

Post #: 35

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 3:16:21 AM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Could be worse...it could be my mother-in-law

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to Baron von Beer)

Post #: 36

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 6:35:11 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris
Oh please, look at the north of that pocket. There's several unguarded one hex spots along the north part of it. All that's needed to open it up for the trapped units is to break into any one of those spots. Then look at the CV's of the units inside that pocket. Once they are freed of the pocket, some deliberate attacks would simple demolish those weaker 6-8 CV motorized/tank units.

I think you're missing the point--the Sov units generally don't have the MP to take advantage of the unguarded spots, so the rest of your argument is incorrect.

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 37

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 1:34:33 PM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

Regarding the +1 odds modifier, there is absolutely no basis in reality. This feature is purely for gameplay balance.

The designers built a combat system from the ground up, driven by calculating strengths of all weapon systems in the battle. When this system was scaled up, it was found that it wasnt quite working - for whatever reason, the Soviet player was at a disadvantage, and needed help to balance the game. It was found in particular that the Soviets couldnt muster enough CV concentrations to force retreats.

So, the +1 odds modifier was introduced to help the Soviet. Any thought that this was done to get closer to reality is a nonsense. When did it ever become the case that in 1941 the soviets were BETTER than the the Germans at concentrating unit power and forcing Germans to retreat in pinpoint attacks? I think we safely throw out any thought that this is something that reflects reality. I mean, if you were designing an Eastern Front game, you wouldnt be saying: "ok, first, we need to make sure that the Soviet's exceptional ability to force the Germans to retreat in key locations by amassing a bunch of meiocre infantry divisions and crashing headlong into an elite panzer division is represented." At least I hope you wouldnt.

So what this feature does is make the game more balanced. It is in fact a patch to fix up a disfunctional game system. Like it or not, that's why the feature is there. Personally, I dont have too much problem with it, other than that now I'm in 1942, it's very hard for the Axis to hold any clear hex in the first turn of an encirclement.

I'm not a tester or connected to the design of this game in any way, but this is how I see the +1 odds system. The testers themselves are divided as to whether the +1 should be there or not.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 38

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 2:00:03 PM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris
Oh please, look at the north of that pocket. There's several unguarded one hex spots along the north part of it. All that's needed to open it up for the trapped units is to break into any one of those spots. Then look at the CV's of the units inside that pocket. Once they are freed of the pocket, some deliberate attacks would simple demolish those weaker 6-8 CV motorized/tank units.

I think you're missing the point--the Sov units generally don't have the MP to take advantage of the unguarded spots, so the rest of your argument is incorrect.

Well, I can't see all the CVs, so I'm having to guess on some, but the below screenshot shows what I'm sure is a perfectly viable option. Up north, it's very easy to break that pocket as shown. After that, the units in the pocket get their CVs back. That 6 CV motorized division is toast after that, I see at least 21 CV that can be brought to bear against it. In the eastern portion, that pocket can also be broken pretty easily as shown. Oh, at that point you have 3 isolated panzer divisions too. I can't see enough CVs to prove it, but since I can see a total of 14 CV, and pretty sure there's at least 6 more CV that I can't see, you're looking at 20 CV vs that 8 CV armor, that's probably doable too. At this point, you've got some badly thrashed panzers in a pocket, they won't be doing much next turn.

And that's just from what I can see. If he has more assets available, you could really be looking at a very bad situation.

I have no doubt that pocket will eventually get bagged over a few turns, but it's a poor example for a "fool-proof" pocket. But a good experienced Soviet wouldn't allow this situation to occur in the first place. Defense in depth in the rear areas would have never allowed the panzers to penetrate as much as they did. And considering how many are in that pocket, there definitely were enough units to have a layered carpet defense. Considering there are non-routed units stacked in the center of the pocket indicates that there were plenty of 3-stack hexes here, that's the #1 no-no as the Soviets anywhere other than behind a major river (and most certainly not in the Ukraine!).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 39

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 3:25:38 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

My bad on the pocket being tight. For Altaris info, you can find this encirclement and what happen in post 19 of this AAR between Ketza and 76mm (Ketza is the Axis and 76mm is the Russian). There was no attack involved. The attacks Altaris describes in the above picture would be very difficult to carry out the way he has them described because he is showing a lot of movement that involves going from one Axis zoc to another, which typically drains any movement points left and most any Russian unit moving a hex and then trying to move from one zoc to another simply doesn't have enough movement points unless they are cav at this point in the game.

At any rate, here is the link to Ketza's AAR and Ketza goes through what happen in post 19. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2696554

If 76mm cares to comment about why his guys are stacked, that is up to him, but given the time line, my guess is they were trying to retreat to the east as quickly as possible from the border areas and got caught.

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 40

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 4:07:46 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
If 76mm cares to comment about why his guys are stacked, that is up to him, but given the time line, my guess is they were trying to retreat to the east as quickly as possible from the border areas and got caught.

Nothing more complicated than bad tactics, cost me dearly. Wasn't sure if this was my game or not, I was not maintaining an AAR at that point.

IIRC, I did break that pocket this turn, but I think I got one friendly lane in the south (not shown in the screenshot), rather than where altaris shows, which I did not have the MP for. The point is not whether this encirclement was wide enough throughout its entire length, but that the 1:1 modifier has nothing to do with relieving pockets if the encirclement is wide enough--if is 3-4 hexes wide, the Germans hardly need any troops in the cordon because of low Sov MP values.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 41

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 8:30:59 PM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

Well I had pointed out on my original reply the pocket had indeed leaked.

That particular game in my AAR was the first PBEM that either one of us attempted and neither one of us were beta playtesters. We have both been learning the game as we progress and I must say that it has been by far the most enjoyable of my PBEMs.

My only reason for placing the screenshot was to address some of the issues outlined by the poster. I by no means was trying to refer to him as a noob but was attempting to point out how it was possible to negate some of the things he was listing as reasons why pockets are hard to hold

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 42

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 8:59:37 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris

Altaris you have no idea how bad the MPs are for Soviets early on. Your comments on the screenshot show the level of your (in)experience with the game.

Your "21 CV to hit 6 motorized" would really be only 9 CV from that 9=20 stack with motorized div on top. Other stacks could NOT participate in the attack after spending their MPs to barely move one hex. 9 CV stack could theoretically displace 6 CV German motorized unit, but remember that the game usually overestimates enemy CV, that 9 CV stack is probably more like a 4-5 CV stack.

Also, motorized units need to spend 16 MPs (!!!!!) for delib attack. For Sovs, 16 is ALL, I repeat ALL they have this early, so if they attack they will be completely immobile and easily re-pocketed in the next turn. Soviet counter attacks make sense only if done from a position that can be kept in the next turn (no need to move). Otherwise they mean nothing, just giving away the mobility and risk being pocketed or repocketed in the next turn.

"14 CV, probably close to 20 to hit that armor" ?!?!?!? Now I gotta ask if you ever played WITE as Soviet for more than 5 minutes? You have no idea.... the only stack that could attack that Panzer is 5=13 with motorized on top that is actually directly adjacent to it. Others don't have enough MPs. Even that stack, after doing suicidal attack on Panzers, would be SPENT, and completely immobile, ripe for picking in the next turn.

Your top-most arrow shows some Sov ?-tank unit moving to reopen the pocket, but after going ONE hex next to that Panzer it could not be moving again!

I don't want to sound too condescending, but I feel you really need to play more, also from the Soviet side. This whole thread is FAIL.

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 43

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/3/2011 11:57:44 PM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

Whatever Oleg. I've played a HtH game vs myself up through Turn 12 just to see what types of things are possible. This is certainly doable. Nowhere have I advocated any unit moving more than 1 hex into an EZOC, and those units wouldn't have been attacking either. The tank would move 1 hex that is Russian owned to its current SE position, then SW into one EZOC hex. That's easy, easy, easy to do. The other rifle div would link up to it by moving into the hex NW of its position. Same thing in the eastern part, one of those airborne divs could go SW, and inside the pocket, a unit could move 1 hex in it's own ZOC, then a hex into EZOC to complete the cutoff.

Moving through one's own controlled hexes costs hardly nothing. I agree that getting through 3 EZOC hexes (and often just 2) is impossible, but going 1 from each direction most certainly isn't.

And that motorized German division is toast. Sorry, but that's not even debateable in my book. There's already 9 CV sitting right next to it as is, and the other 12 CV only has to move 1 friendly hex to be next to the German one. That's assuming nothing else can move into deliberate attack, which is a big "if". 21:6 is basically 3.5:1 base odds, 4.5:1 with the +1 odds modifier. Even if the Germans succeed in their double CV rolls, and the Russians fail, it still comes out around 2.3:1, more than enough to force the retreat.

And absolutely none of this has the first thing to do with the +1 odds modifier. I was commenting how this was a really poor example of an "unbreakable" pocket, and that it is.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 44

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 1:01:23 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris
Whatever Oleg. I've played a HtH game vs myself up through Turn 12 just to see what types of things are possible. This is certainly doable.

What, exactly, is doable? Reopening the pocket from your screenshot might be doable, but only just marginally, and without your famous 1:1 modifier. It MIGHT be possible for that ? tank unit (which might not even be tank, as it's ?) to move two hexes, although I don't believe it can, then for 2=4 unit to move one hex and establish contact.

So what's the problem with Russian reopening a pocket for one turn if it's not sealed tight? It happened all the time and German pockets leaked left and right, even though they captured massive amounts of enemy. That exactly is what I see will happen here. Pocket might be reopened, a unit or two might escape, only to be re-pocketed, perhaps in even bigger version, in the next turn. So what??

Soviet player, if he's smart, won't waste that perfectly good airborne brigade to reopen the pocket, he will escape with it. Same with tank in the north, if it's good div, it's much smarter to run than to waste that unit in the next turn.

If I understand right, you, as German are complaining if the Soviet player gives you free gift of several more units to capture in the next turn?

And what's that got to do with 1:1 modifier?

1:1 might be a legit issue for German players, I agree, but threads like this only help cloud the issue with half baked information, wrong assumptions and players showing how inexperienced the are. Your screenshot above is full or wrong info, bad strategies etc.. Sorry for putting it out so clearly and not in a politically correct fashion mate!

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 45

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 1:28:43 AM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris

And that motorized German division is toast. Sorry, but that's not even debateable in my book. There's already 9 CV sitting right next to it as is, and the other 12 CV only has to move 1 friendly hex to be next to the German one. That's assuming nothing else can move into deliberate attack, which is a big "if". 21:6 is basically 3.5:1 base odds, 4.5:1 with the +1 odds modifier. Even if the Germans succeed in their double CV rolls, and the Russians fail, it still comes out around 2.3:1, more than enough to force the retreat.

But they will have MPs to be able to make deliberate attacks?

EDIT= I am referring to the MotDiv wich is seen in the 12=42 stack. 2 (clear hexes)+16 (Deliberate attack)+1 (leaves EZOC)=19, and Sov Mot Divs are capped at 18.

< Message edited by alfonso -- 4/4/2011 1:52:53 AM >

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 46

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 2:41:23 AM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

Okay, last post as I won't continuously feed trolling. If you look back at all my posts, I have consistently said this has absolutely nothing to do with the +1 odds modifier. In fact, if you read the original post, I just asked what the historical basis was for the +1 modifier. It wasn't even meant to be a discussion about the pockets holding or not. Of course, like every other post out here with a genuine question, it gets overrun with these assanine postings of "you don't know how to make a pocket, blah-blah-blah", many of them by you no less. So I get a response back on what the historical basis of the +1 odds modifier with a post of what's supposed to be an example of a fantastic pocket. First of all, that's not a seal-proof pocket by any stretch of the imagination. I have a funny feeling that if I had posted that exact same screenshot as my pocket, you'd have been blabbing on and on about how terrible and full of holes it was. You start with an agenda, and then skew anything else anyone says to fit it. Thus the reason that a +1 odds modifier becomes some pointless discussion about pockets that I didn't cause or create, and would never have done so in the first place.

So peace out Oleg. If you want to play some scenario sometime where you are the German and I the Soviet so you can try to prove your lame excuses, I'm perfectly happy to take you up on that. I have a feeling I'd send you home crying pretty quickly. Other than that, I have absolutely no interest in arguing pointless crap that you obviously have no basis for any further.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 47

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 3:23:51 AM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris

Okay, last post as I won't continuously feed trolling. If you look back at all my posts, I have consistently said this has absolutely nothing to do with the +1 odds modifier. In fact, if you read the original post, I just asked what the historical basis was for the +1 modifier. It wasn't even meant to be a discussion about the pockets holding or not. Of course, like every other post out here with a genuine question, it gets overrun with these assanine postings of "you don't know how to make a pocket, blah-blah-blah", many of them by you no less. So I get a response back on what the historical basis of the +1 odds modifier with a post of what's supposed to be an example of a fantastic pocket. First of all, that's not a seal-proof pocket by any stretch of the imagination. I have a funny feeling that if I had posted that exact same screenshot as my pocket, you'd have been blabbing on and on about how terrible and full of holes it was. You start with an agenda, and then skew anything else anyone says to fit it. Thus the reason that a +1 odds modifier becomes some pointless discussion about pockets that I didn't cause or create, and would never have done so in the first place.

So peace out Oleg. If you want to play some scenario sometime where you are the German and I the Soviet so you can try to prove your lame excuses, I'm perfectly happy to take you up on that. I have a feeling I'd send you home crying pretty quickly. Other than that, I have absolutely no interest in arguing pointless crap that you obviously have no basis for any further.

The manual is not very explicit about the rationale of the +1 modifier. It only says "The Soviet ability to force a retreat at a 1:1 modified combat ratio may seem a huge advantage, but remember that the attack doctrine that allows this also normally results in lower final CV due to more exposure to defensive fire causing additional casualties" but I suppose that this is not enough for you.

Sometimes Oleg is too passionated, you will have to learn to live with that. In your original post you made the connection between the +1 modifier and the pockets, and the pocket shown to you as example was not presented here as a fantastic pocket, but as an example of broken pocket. That was done to illustrate the point that usually pockets fail not to attacks, but to reconnections. That post was prompted because in the original post you made the link between attacks and pockets.

Going back to your question about the historical basis of the +1 modifier, I think that it is partially motivated by in-game mechanics, which model different attack doctrines. If one considers that in theory one CV=10 Soviet Unit is equivalent to another CV=10 German Unit, and that in the battle Soviets lose more CV than Germans, one can envisionage the rationale behind a +modifier...

< Message edited by alfonso -- 4/4/2011 3:24:01 AM >

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 48

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 4:22:14 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris
Nowhere have I advocated any unit moving more than 1 hex into an EZOC, and those units wouldn't have been attacking either. The tank would move 1 hex that is Russian owned to its current SE position, then SW into one EZOC hex. That's easy, easy, easy to do. The other rifle div would link up to it by moving into the hex NW of its position. Same thing in the eastern part, one of those airborne divs could go SW, and inside the pocket, a unit could move 1 hex in it's own ZOC, then a hex into EZOC to complete the cutoff.

Wow, you're quite the expert for a game that you weren't even playing--I am almost certain that the moves that you are saying are "easy, easy, easy to do" were not possible--the pocket had to be broken from the south.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Altaris
And that motorized German division is toast. Sorry, but that's not even debateable in my book. There's already 9 CV sitting right next to it as is, and the other 12 CV only has to move 1 friendly hex to be next to the German one. That's assuming nothing else can move into deliberate attack, which is a big "if". 21:6 is basically 3.5:1 base odds, 4.5:1 with the +1 odds modifier. Even if the Germans succeed in their double CV rolls, and the Russians fail, it still comes out around 2.3:1, more than enough to force the retreat.

Again, OK, but why attack that unit? I assume you're referring to the 6-11 mot unit; forcing it to retreat will achieve exactly nothing as far as I can tell, the MPs would be better spent manuevering to try to open the pocket next turn.

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 49

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 5:01:42 AM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

In fact if you read the original post Altaris says at the very end (and thus ruining just about any pocket I manage to make).

What people have attempted to point out is that for the most part (from individual experiences including my own) the odds bump should not even come into play in most pocket situations if the Axis player is careful and lays down some hex control. While the pocket example was slightly porous it was by no means the disaster Altaris makes it out to be and it actually led to the destructtion of 30-40 Soviet units in following turns.

People were trying to help no need for him to get all defensive and call peeps out for a game. Actually that would be fun if they did play and he had an AAR!

< Message edited by Ketza -- 4/4/2011 5:03:09 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 50

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 10:50:11 AM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

This is one of those threads I get very nervous about participating in, because I am torn between being a tester and a gamer.

When I first started testing, the +1 drove the OCD, rational/logical side of me insane. I absolutely detest asymmetrical rules. Every time the subject was debated in the forums things got very heated about the "doctrines" being reflected in the rule, and of course no one wanted to use certain words like "human" and the things you see at the seaside in the same sentence, because the thread would explode.

So I got on with playing the game, and the more I played, the more I realised that the +1 is a means to an end, to help the Soviets through the transitional phase from the autumn/winter of 1942 to the summer of 1943, when they haven't got the combined-arms artillery/mechanised forces of the summer 1943, but they still need to take back the large chunks of territory they lose in the summer of 1942. Look closely at the comparative CVs of units in November 1942, and you will start to understand the challenge for the soviets and the game engine to deal with.

So a few marginal attacks that the Sovs make in 1941 to crack pockets are a drop in the ocean compared to the 80-90 attacks they need to be making in 1942 to restore the balance. As noted elsewhere the +1 is irrelevant from summer 1943 onwards as the Artillery and Airpower is halving axis CVs from disruption alone.

So, "historically justified" will be debated ad infinitum, but "gameplay justified"? Despite my initial hatred of it, I can now justify it on this basis.

_____________________________

It's only a Game

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 51

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 10:59:58 AM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

I have been thinking about this issue, and I would like to share some of my reflections on what the manual says about this point�.They are, needless to say, completely speculative. I am just thinking aloud.

First of all, it seems that the designation of the +1 modifier as a �not historically based�, �merely related to game mechanics� carries a pejorative connotation, when it shouldn�t. As a matter of fact, the odds calculation is itself a game mechanics, and the same could be said of the CV values.

What is a CV? The capacity of taking or holding terrain. Please note that it is not the same as firepower. How is it calculated? By a esoteric and secret formula (as the one for the Coca-Cola?) containing the different ground elements, the fatigue, experience, morale, supply, leadership, etc�It is interesting, that contrary to what happens in physics (speed=space/time), the definition is not the same as the way it is calculated. As far as I know, the formula used is the same for the two sides. This means that if doctrine differences means that each side has a distinct mixture of ground elements, it is possible that two opposing units with the same CV have in reality different firepower. But this does not affect the definition of CV (the capacity of holding a hex). In general terms, all units with a CV=10 have the same potential to hold ground.

Let�s imagine a simplified and abstract battle between an attacking unit with CV=15 and a defender unit with CV=10. Theoretically, the result of this battle should be the same irrespective of which side is the attacker and which is the defender, because the supposed excellence of the Wehrmacht is already factored in the CVs. We could say that the CV=15 unit has �more right to own the hex� than the CV=10 unit.

But then arrives the difference! The way the Germans fight is not the same as how the Russians fight. The Russians take more casualties. If the CV=15 attacking unit is German, its CV will be lowered only to 13. The CV=10 Russian gets its value lowered, let�s say, to 6. Net result: 13/6=2.1. Narrow German victory.

If, alternatively, the attacking CV=15 unit is Russian, its CV will go from 15 to 9, and the German Unit will only go down from 10 to 8. Net result 9/8=1.1. But according to the previous considerations, the results of the battle should be symmetrical!. Is there here a contradiction? Maybe what it should be done is to develop alternative esoteric ad-hoc CV formulas for each side?

Or, simply, add a modifier depending of the directionality of the battle. How is this �epsilon� value guesstimated? By selecting the value which produces results with a more historical flavour. More or less the same procedure to what is done when selecting how each distinct element in the esoteric CV formula is weighed up�.

< Message edited by alfonso -- 4/4/2011 11:04:59 AM >

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 52

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 11:09:18 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

I don't really have any strong feelings about the +1 modifier. And I don't have any problem with the fact that the Sovs take heavier casualties.

That said, I recently finished going through the blizzard as Sovs, and almost every time I lost a battle, I lost about 10X what the Germans did. I'm sure this happened often enough IRL, but my point is that the losses during the blizzard were very consistently around 9-10X, which makes me wonder about how "sophisticated" the combat resolution mechanism is...I would certainly expect that sometimes the Sovs would suffer 5X losses, sometimes 12X, etc. Instead, it seems like 9-10X every time, which first seems rather high, and which second does not seem very random...

On the other hand, when I won, my losses were typically 1X or 1.5X German losses, only on a couple of occasions did the Germans lose more than I did.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 53

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 11:19:08 AM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

Excellent post, Alfonso - I think this is getting to the heart of the issue.

_____________________________

It's only a Game

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 54

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 11:58:17 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso
But then arrives the difference! The way the Germans fight is not the same as how the Russians fight. The Russians take more casualties. If the CV=15 attacking unit is German, its CV will be lowered only to 13. The CV=10 Russian gets its value lowered, let�s say, to 6. Net result: 13/6=2.1. Narrow German victory.

I'm not sure if I understand your point--rather than developing new formula, don't you get the same effect if you simply change the significance of the resulting outcome? In other words, instead of having two different formula, according to which the German and Sov CV would be calculated to arrive at the 2:1 odds necessary to force retreat, why not just accept that 2:1 for the Germans equals 1:1 for the Sovs? Same forumula, simply a different treatment of the result?

Your point above that the Germans and Sovs fight differently could (*maybe*) also help justify the 1:1 Sov odds rule. For instance, you could argue that Sov tactics (basically mass assualt, not much maneuvering from covered position to covered position) relied more on physically overrunning German positions and thus, if the attack succeeded, did not need a 2:1 CV superiority (CV = firepower?), but if it failed, your casualties would be much higher as well, which is how it works in the game. Actually, it seems like casualties could be much higher even if you won, but that's not how the game works...

And I'm not actually arguing for the 1:1 rule, I'm kind of neutral towards it, but I am trying to better understand why people dislike it so much.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 55

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 12:05:34 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso
But then arrives the difference! The way the Germans fight is not the same as how the Russians fight. The Russians take more casualties. If the CV=15 attacking unit is German, its CV will be lowered only to 13. The CV=10 Russian gets its value lowered, let�s say, to 6. Net result: 13/6=2.1. Narrow German victory.

I'm not sure if I understand your point--rather than developing new formula, don't you get the same effect if you simply change the significance of the resulting outcome? In other words, instead of having two different formula, according to which the German and Sov CV would be calculated to arrive at the 2:1 odds necessary to force retreat, why not just accept that 2:1 for the Germans equals 1:1 for the Sovs? Same forumula, simply a different treatment of the result?

It is the same.

I suppose than the common "victory" sub-routine is called by something like "IF Odds>2 then go to..." (buff, what a shame, BASIC

), so you need a previous modifier. But conceptually, you are right, it is exactly the same.

< Message edited by alfonso -- 4/4/2011 12:07:18 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 56

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 12:13:14 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

Actually, it seems like casualties could be much higher even if you won, but that's not how the game works...

Maybe if the Soviets win, many of the German losses reported are due to retreat attrition rather than to the battle itself.

By the way, how the battle is fought perhaps is also a Coca-Cola secret.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 57

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 12:44:18 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

By the way, how the battle is fought perhaps is also a Coca-Cola secret.

Secret, yes, but I'm not sure how complicated it is; a couple of posts ago I mentioned it sure seems like when Soviets lose the program simply multiplies German losses by 10 (or close to it) to determine Sov casualties...

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 58

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 3:34:17 PM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

My thoughts on the matter are that the +1 modifier is fine if its necessary to balance the combat system. If the +1 is to remain, then certainly the soviet should be taking higher casualties to offset this, which he is. These two features can be rationalised in various ways, and at the end of the day they produce results that approximate reality.

But the issue that is not addressed, and for me sticks out as highly improbable and unrealistic, is how the soviet player can achieve these 1:1 odds with a mass of weak inf divisions in 1941, which of course is deeply ahistorical. Such large, badly coordinated attacks were, as we all know, disasterous, and resulted in massive casualties, and no panzer divisions were routed, losing 50% of their equipment in this way.

So I would resurrect a previous suggestion which was to inflict stronger penalties on the Sovs for large attacks with numerous poor units, as compared to attacks with fewer stronger units.

This could be achieved in a number of ways. 1. Penalties for low EXP elements in attacking combats could be exaggerated. 2. Penalties for SU attacking with units from different formations could be increased. 3. New rule that sov units can only be reassigned to a new HQ once in a turn, to prevent large amounts of units being 'cycled' in and out of the same HQ in the same turn to facilitate multiple attacks using the best HQ with best leader and SUs.

The net result of one/some/all of the above would be to reward the Soviet player who is able to husband viable reserve units (CV3/4/5+) for counterattacking, and punish the reliance on mass CV1 infantry swamping attacks.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 59

RE: I really despise that +1 Soviet odds modifier - 4/4/2011 3:43:33 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter
no panzer divisions were routed, losing 50% of their equipment in this way.

And how many are routed in WITE games so far? In my games from both sides - none. Of course, it does happen from time to time, but is pretty rare occasion, I personally have never seen it.

Since we rerun hundereds of Barbarossas in our games it's bound to happen from time to time, and it's realistic. In some games Moscow is taken, you know, and it never happened in real war.

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 60