1:1->2:1 rule

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1:1->2:1 rule

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 >> 1:1->2:1 rule

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1:1->2:1 rule - 9/1/2011 12:04:12 PM

sven6345789

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline

Hi, might sound a little like living behind the moon, but

What exactly is the effect of this rule?

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

Post #: 1

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/1/2011 12:25:34 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Hi, might sound a little like living behind the moon, but

What exactly is the effect of this rule?

The effect of this rule was to automatically increase the CV odds in combat when:

1) The Soviet side was the attacker
2) Final combat odds lied between 1:1 and 2:1

paired with this rule were the extra losses the Soviet side suffers during combat resolution due to extra shots defending Axis units get. This had the effect of reducing final Soviet CV.

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 9/1/2011 12:26:18 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to sven6345789)

Post #: 2

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/1/2011 3:10:23 PM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

You need final odds of 2:1 to win a battle and cause a retreat (or worse).

If you're playing the Russians, and your final odds are better than 1:1 (such as 1.1 : 1), your final odds automatically get increased by +1, so 1.1 : 1 becomes 2.1 : 1, and you win the battle and cause a retreat.

In contrast, the Germans get no such bonus, and will always have to come up with a "natural" 2:1 or better to win their battles.

However, as Bletchley_Geek said, the Russians take more losses on their attacks, so it's (at times) more difficult for them to reach the minimum required odds in the first place, all other things being equal.

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 3

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/1/2011 3:39:58 PM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

You need final odds of 2:1 to win a battle and cause a retreat (or worse).

If you're playing the Russians, and your final odds are better than 1:1 (such as 1.1 : 1), your final odds automatically get increased by +1, so 1.1 : 1 becomes 2.1 : 1, and you win the battle and cause a retreat.

In contrast, the Germans get no such bonus, and will always have to come up with a "natural" 2:1 or better to win their battles.

However, as Bletchley_Geek said, the Russians take more losses on their attacks, so it's (at times) more difficult for them to reach the minimum required odds in the first place, all other things being equal.

It is also worth to mention that Soviet logistics works more poorly in the long run (especially when rail lines are overextended) which makes it harder to maintain proper offensive CV in the long run because of Supply, ammo and fuel shortages.

In most cases Soviet troops cannot recover their supply and ammo levels as fast as Axis side. Also large number of Soviet troops needed for offensive operations puts strain on Soviet vehicle pool pretty early on. This drops their offensive CV

(in reply to gradenko2k)

Post #: 4

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/1/2011 3:48:30 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Now this thread starts to look like an obituary.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 5

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/2/2011 11:55:13 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

This says it all.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 6

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/3/2011 1:57:36 AM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 7

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/3/2011 8:57:21 AM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

Nice pic of Cato the Elder. I'll be so free and add one of Carthage ruins.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)

Post #: 8

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/3/2011 12:02:43 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

1.05

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 9

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/3/2011 10:50:16 PM

Krec

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline

somebody over thought the game when this rule was made. i say get rid of this dog, its really not good. also i say that the russian side should either have to stay and fight of suffer stiff penalties when they run away in 41. thats just my 2 cents fwiw.

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 10

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 4:28:33 AM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krec

somebody over thought the game when this rule was made. i say get rid of this dog, its really not good. also i say that the russian side should either have to stay and fight of suffer stiff penalties when they run away in 41. thats just my 2 cents fwiw.

I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.

_____________________________

(in reply to Krec)

Post #: 11

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 9:42:28 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Now this thread starts to look like an obituary.

Indeed! LOL!

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 12

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 9:46:22 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.

That is an interesting suggestion. There have been a number of suggestion on different ways of penalizing the sides for losing cities, both via morale and VP-wise, but unfortunately there seems to be nothing coming out of it. I wholeheartedly agree there should be some mechanism to make players reluctant to lose cities and territory, as that was a strong imperative for decisions in the real campaign.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 13

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 10:48:27 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

Historical results for s historical game?

Intesting idea for sure.

I am guessing at some pt that will happen.

They have really changed the game allot form its original form.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 14

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 12:29:34 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Sigh.

National morale isn't morale, guys. It's a proficiency rating that has nothing to do with territorial objectives per se. In retrospect, this should have been called something else (like, say, proficiency rating!) to avoid confusion.

This suggestion keeps cropping up and keeps getting rejected because it is the product of semantic confusion.

Anyways, the new and dramatically lower armament multiplier (going from 200 to 130) gives the Soviet excellent reason for hanging on to cities, at least long enough to get out the factories.

Also, Soviet national morale craters in 1942 in 1.05. Like, down to 40. So, yeah. They really don't need to take any more hits beyond that.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 9/6/2011 12:30:20 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 15

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 1:04:19 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Sigh.

National morale isn't morale, guys. It's a proficiency rating that has nothing to do with territorial objectives per se. In retrospect, this should have been called something else (like, say, proficiency rating!) to avoid confusion.

This suggestion keeps cropping up and keeps getting rejected because it is the product of semantic confusion.

Anyways, the new and dramatically lower armament multiplier (going from 200 to 130) gives the Soviet excellent reason for hanging on to cities, at least long enough to get out the factories.

Also, Soviet national morale craters in 1942 in 1.05. Like, down to 40. So, yeah. They really don't need to take any more hits beyond that.

You are right, morale is not the right thing to take a hit from losing cities. A more dynamic VP system would be the way to solve it IMHO.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 16

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 1:42:22 PM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.

I disagree with this, because Morale in this game represents more than just the will to fight, but also encompasses things like command structure and training levels and overall Force Proficiency (I think the stat should be renamed to that, actually).

Soviet Force Proficiency was in shambles at the start of the war and slowly-but-surely improved as the war went on, but I don't think there's a need to link it to the loss of major cities. It's not as though the average Soviet soldier fought worse as the Germans got closer to Stalingrad. In fact, they only got better.

Similarly, the loss of combat power in German formations reflects in the growing scarcity of men and material to fill out TOEs with. Yes, the replacements that these formations did get from 43 onwards was of decreasing quality as training regimens were shortened and the age of the recruits edged more towards the very old and young, but that already reflects in their National Morale being reduced as time wears on.

By the time you're rolling into Germany itself, the loss of the factories and manpower centers themselves should be such a blow to the Wehrmacht's limited resources as to not need another National Morale reduction on top of it. You can perhaps make a case for the gradual National Morale reduction to be unrealistic if the Reds are threatening the Polish-German border in 1943, which means German National Morale is still relatively high, but that means that your game has gone sufficiently off the rails anyway.

I suppose I do agree with the need to convince the Soviet player to take a more forward-fighting stance, but the devs seem to be taking an alternate route to that - primarily by reducing the ARM production bonus from 200% to 130%. That 35% decrease means you need to save as more factories than you otherwise would have pre-1.05

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 17

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 9:49:27 PM

Krec

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline

i think we can all agree that something needs to be done so the russians just dont run away as soon as the game starts. The city/morale thingy sounds interesting. At this point i am game for just about anything, because the way it is now is no good. As for the 2v1 rule........all in favor of getting rid of it say "I" ............"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"............ok the I's have it lets move to the next topic.

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton

(in reply to gradenko2k)

Post #: 18

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 10:11:00 PM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

Any Russian who simply runs away at the get go will get mopped up (in terms of forces, he may well be safe for industry) around turn 10-13. That imposing looking carpet of units are weak ants, and in the next iteration will likely only be fort level 2 at the maximum with a decreasing morale. Any german player worth his chops will love bagging 50-60 units each in massive encirclements that can be done. Plus, losing Leningrad, Moscow, the Donbas Cities, etc will hurt. The German player will have fewer preparations for winter, but a huge empty area to retreat into in the face of a less effective winter assault.

There is no need for artificial game mechanisms to make the Soviet player stand and fight, experience will teach them that the actual existing game mechanics are there to make this a rather worthless option.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Krec)

Post #: 19

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 10:17:47 PM

Pawlock

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krec

i think we can all agree that something needs to be done so the russians just dont run away as soon as the game starts. The city/morale thingy sounds interesting. At this point i am game for just about anything, because the way it is now is no good. As for the 2v1 rule........all in favor of getting rid of it say "I" ............"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"............ok the I's have it lets move to the next topic.

Please dont lump me in your general statement that everybody should think the Russians should stand and fight. I would like the option to do as I please,I am not Stalin and as such I make my own decisions.

Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?

2:1 rule as much as I hate Peltons continual whining on the subject Im all for a phased withdrawal starting mid 42.

Mind saying that I think we should all see how the 1.05 plays out before making more changes

(in reply to Krec)

Post #: 20

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 10:22:39 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?

IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Pawlock)

Post #: 21

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 10:24:26 PM

glvaca

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

re the stand and fight and run options, it's always going to be a mix of knowing when to run, and knowing when to fight.

(in reply to Pawlock)

Post #: 22

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/6/2011 10:26:18 PM

Pawlock

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

Perhaps by your logic maybe the axis player should be forced to stand and fight everywhere, Hitler made them do so?

IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.

I've always been in favour of something like that for the GC games,I think the trouble with that is the time constraints for the testers to roadtest a point balance.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 23

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/7/2011 10:43:00 AM

Krec

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline

NP, lets play with 1.05 and see how it goes. i am ok with that. just looking for a better game thats all. as it sits now the 2v1 is a game breaker IMO.

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton

(in reply to Pawlock)

Post #: 24

RE: 1:1->2:1 rule - 9/7/2011 1:53:50 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
IMHO nobody should be forced, but there should be victory point incentives for hanging on to cities. That way players can chose, more VP now or hope to preserve forces and win even more VPs later.

Well, there are some "incentives" in place which affect VP count in an indirect way (not enough ARM points make bears sad). If anything, there need to be more incentives like that (perhaps reducing supply production for each HI point)? Nonetheless, it's better that changes like the former or this one are introduced one by one. Makes easier for the devs & testers to figure out what are their effects.

I don't want the kind of patching people has seen - or rather suffered - with Stardock's Elemental: War of Magic. I'm glad I didn't buy that one - though I used to be a rabid player of Master Of Magic. Things there got so out of hand that the studio and publisher owner himself has set getting it "right" a personal mission.

While the discussion here can get quickly and unexpectedly to quite irrational extremes, and some issues cause indeed frustration, it doesn't put anybody out of their job :) And paucity and clear vision of the goals is a much better bet for economic success than meandering around the actual problems trying to appease the masses.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 25