Slitherine

quote:

Submachine guns, but thats old news as it was pointed out to me over a yr ago by a bunch of other poeple on another thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

Submachine guns, but thats old news as it was pointed out to me over a yr ago by a bunch of other poeple on another thread.

So you've watched these battles at high detail to see that's where the squad slaughter is taking place in these instances, or are you simply assuming that is what it taking place here based on what someone else told you over a year ago?

If you're confident that SMGs are the operant difference than it should be cake to sandbox and observe this with identical conditions (same hex type, weather, attacking units and values - just create different TOE defenders and run it through a few times to avg out die rolls).

If SMGs are overpowered, I don't understand why dialing that back would otherwise break the game. Seems like something that could be corrected when identified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Now, imagine what would happen if I amassd multiple panzer units for the counterstrike after the same air-ground attack...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

What I do not understand:

1st Case: Modified CVs 307/84, odds 3.6:1, and no air units from either side participate

2nd Case: Modified CVs 1115/121, odds 9.2:1, robust air support

And...losses in both case about equal?


Why do 6 infantry divisions attacking at lower odds without air support inflict about equal damage to 2 Tank Corps/1 Cavalry Corps as 6 panzer/PzG divisions and 2 infantry divisions at much greater odds?



I am not suggesting that anything is broken, rather I would like to know why things work this way:

Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantyl greater damage at lower loss?

However, this does debunk claims that the attacking is not wise - it is very wise as the routed units are unavailable next turn, the moral equilibrium is favorably shifted and the loss ratio is favorable.

Final note: I replayed this from my last move with TD after I sent him the finished move; for the record I want to assure him that I do not reload saves when I play - this was an experiment to explore the notions raised in this thread.

Thanks,

Marquo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Interesting results, but they are 180 degrees from the ones I posted and have in the past."

I can't explain that, however what I posted above is my routine experience counterttacking the Soviet in 1943; they suffer greivously while I incur acceptable losses. And beleive me, 5 such attacks per turn has kept the SU in check; and often I lose even less and the Soviet more. My questions above stand:

"Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantly greater damage at lower loss?"

Hopefully there is some logic to this - I really want to understand what is going on.

IMHO you have lost many valuable opportunities to smack MT around in your match with him; most turns he left victorious but spent stacks next to you in unfortfied hexes; without even moving a unit you could have counterattacked and really hurt him.

Marquo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

I understand the retreat issue; and even so it does not explain equal losses with such a huge difffence in modified CV/actual forces engaged and airpower.


You and I have to agree to disagree: your experience in 1942 is not mine; when I attack as the Axis I routine get the results I posted and so far even into 1942.

Now if we could only figure out why....

quote:

even so it does not explain equal losses with such a huge difffence in modified CV/actual forces engaged and airpower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton all this has been working the way it has forever including all the games you have played in the past. You are merely trying to weasel your way out of the consequences of your ill considered retreat strategy.

Yes, Micheal's Red Army is now a monster and you won't be able to shift it and counterattacks against it are prohibitively expensive. You let it get out of hand. You cannot just run away to Poland at the end of 1941 and give the Soviets an absolutely free hand to build their dream Red Army by the end of 42. I warned you about this forever.

Suck it up or concede. There is no technical issue here. Either you accept the game design as is or not. WITE's combat engine is a done deal at this point, and you have happily ignored the problems it has on the early part of the war where in 1941 Axis losses are negligible all the way up to blizzard. So it goes.

If you want a new and hopefully improved design, you're going to have to wait until WITW. But this cake is baked and you know or should know how it works by now. Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'm quite sober and am drinking a cup of coffee and having my morning smoke.

This isn't a whine. What YOU are doing is a whine and I'm calling you on it. There is no issue here. Stop bitching and play they game out or concede. You know or should know how the combat engine works by now. It is what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

If SMGs are overpowered, I don't understand why dialing that back would otherwise break the game. Seems like something that could be corrected when identified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It's that the programmers know the model isn't perfect, and that's it's very difficult and time consuming to improve it. It's just as likely that a change to help one thing will hurt something else. Only with a time intensive effort would progress be made, and it could be marginal progress. Would we like it to be better. Sure we would. Do we think we can make it better quickly without potentially making something worse, no. It's much better to fool around with this with a product that's not on the market and not already being played. We already get flak for changing too much after release and thus impacting games in progress. We don't even have the equivalent of 2 full time programmers in 2by3 Games, so we live in a resource starved environment. We are not evil (at least I don't think so).