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: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results

 
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 2 >> RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/18/2022 11:44:17 PM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline
You should have seen the topic and arguments where it was discussed, you seemed to also participate there, about the fact that all replenishments go to the theater.

Where it was clearly shown that in the 2 air defense regiments in the theater there are more replenishments than in the East.

I look forward to your second topic when you finish playing until the age of 44 and raise a similar topic.

At the turn of the year 41, the problem of replenishments for the Soviet player is an order of magnitude more acute than for the German one, the German army does not suffer high losses, but even a slight increase in losses from Soviet aircraft, other than 0. And you are the first to raise a cry that this needs to be fixed, encountering the problem that there is no way to replenish the heavy weapons of your divisions.

< Message edited by ShaggyHiK -- 2/18/2022 11:48:23 PM >

(in reply to Stamb)
Post #: 61
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/18/2022 11:58:06 PM   
DarkHorse2

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/4/2022
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Thanks for this. I've discussed this with Joel and Gary and we agree that some additional changes are necessary. There are already a lot of checks that go on under the hood to disadvantage low experience/morale poorly led units, but there are also advantages to the defender and you'd likely see a very different result if the Soviets were attacking you. From an operational perspective, it's much more ideal to breakthrough/encircle and let them try to break out.

As you may know, we did a major revision of the combat system not too long ago to address some issues and that improved the combat overall significantly, especially for 1943+. However, the added lethality of armor combat isn't working as well in 1941.

With all that said, we agree that this result is outside of what we'd see as historical. We're going to wrap up the current update process with an official update. After that, we'll try a few changes to better reflect the breakdown and coordination issues the Soviets had, especially in 1941 with their mechanized/tank divisions. That will be in a new experimental public beta as some point in the next couple of weeks for folks to try out and give us feedback one.

While history had a very wide range of possible results, we're on the same page as far as continuing to make adjustments where we can to make sure that all cases are giving results squarely within that range.

Regards,

- Erik



Thank you Erik, for your very constructive post.

We're listening and reading, but I think it is very important that Matrix understands that rather than the previous somewhat dismissive generalizations, such as

quote:

"that all the historical results are possible in WITE2, including the ones that were outliers. In 1941, the Axis did lose some battles and the Panzer Divisions did lose a lot of tanks, including in battles.

With all that said, although these results are historical plausible and with precedent.."


that it would have been very helpful if you could provide more information, ideally a citing or reference where we can see the precedent you are referring to? For example, a historical instance where a German Panzer Division suffered 277 out of 316 AFVs during the 1st week of Barbarossa, such as hoss has been able illustrate in WiTE2. (additionally, at something like 100 to 1 calculated odds!)

Never-the-less, I am encouraged that you have come around and reached a point of being comfortable in publically acknowledging and validating the current experiences of many of the WiTE2 players. As well as a commitment to make the necessary adjustments to bring these combat results back to within an historical range.






< Message edited by DarkHorse2 -- 2/19/2022 12:21:34 AM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 62
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:02:11 AM   
Beethoven1

 

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb
Please fix Soviet logistic system. It is completely unhistorical that they can use supply priority 4 for almost all of their units if not all, already from the start of the game.


Anyone can use Supply Priority 4. If you're saying they are actually getting far more supplies/ammo/fuel than what is historical, we can have that discussion. I'd like to see what you're seeing and some historical comparisons.

Regards,

- Erik


Hi Erik,

Personally I can't speak to exactly what level of supply difficulty is historical for Soviets, but I can definitely speak to having no supply problems basically at all in the game while playing the Soviets, past turn 4-5 or so, and at least from what I am aware it is not historical for Soviets to have no real supply issues at all (for example in the Battle of Kharkov, I think they had some significant supply problems, but I'm not a historian so don't quote me on that).

During the initial few turns of the game, Soviets can have supply issues because they are still in the process of mobilizing trucks, and many new units are appearing on the map and being railed around (initially starting off with low supply until they have a chance to start receiving supply for a turn or two). However, if you simply put the entire Red Army on supply priority 4 and build some depots and set depots near the front to level 4 priority, all of these issues very quickly disappear and essentially every Soviet division will quickly have 100%+ levels of supply/ammo/fuel.

I suspect that part of the issue might be related to how the game treats all vehicles as a standardized single entity. As far as I am aware, the game treats all "vehicles" as a 2.5 ton truck. However, in reality as far as I am aware many of the civilian vehicles mobilized by the Soviets in 1941 would have been random civilian vehicles, not actual specialized military transport trucks, and accordingly probably many of them had much less carrying capacity than 2.5 tons. This might be one part of what contributes to Soviet logistics being so good (at least as long as they are not fighting far away late in the game in Germany or Poland in 1944/45). I have also played Soviets in 1942/43 in the StB scenario and similarly had no significant supply issues outside of a handful of local areas by simply putting my whole army on supply priority 4.


Here are some screenshot from my Soviet game against jubjub as an example. This is a server game so you can look at the saves directly if you want. On turn 12, I have an enormous surplus of trucks, with 66k in the pool:



Having had my entire army on supply priority 4 since the start of the game, by this point I am easily receiving a lot more supply than my units need on any given turn, because of all the supply they received and have stocked up from previous turns. I am receiving 26k supply, and need 8k, so I am getting more than 3x as much as I need to be at full supply, consistently, on every turn.



All of this adds up to basically having all my units be in good supply, basically all of the time. The only time when units are not in good supply is right after they have lost a battle and routed or something, in which case they just need a turn or so to refit (or just air transport supplies to them) and then they are restored to full supply.

How much is this costing me? Am I losing a large number of trucks as a result of putting my entire army on supply priority 4 the whole time? Not as far as I can see. I have lost a total of 955 "Trucks Lost in Freight" over 12 turns of having my entire army on supply priority 4.



If those truck losses cause a problem at all, it seems like one that can be fixed by simply having one or two fewer tank corps later in the game and instead using more tank brigades which I can assign to my Guards Rifle Corps to make them even stronger.



What is even more striking, however, is my supply situation in this OTHER game... AAR here - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5141454

In this other game, I am trying to test out just how broken Soviets are, especially if they don't waste a lot of troops trying to defend the south. So I am playing deliberately with both hands tied behind my back. As such, among other things, I am not using any army HQs or corps HQs at all, and all units are directly controlled by STAVKA except for assault fronts, which are directly controlled by the assault fronts (with no armies). I am also using bad leaders for STAVKA and the assault fronts, at the moment whichever ones Stalin decides to give me.

That means that I have truly horrendous leader rolls, with all my troops being assigned either directly to STAVKA or directly to my 2 assault fronts. And yet, here is my logistics report on turn 11 of that game:



So despite literally not using generals or leaders at all, and consequently having absolutely horrendous admin rolls, my units basically all have excellent supply, with 20k received compared to 8k needed.

And in this game, my truck losses from using supply priority 4 are even lower, only 158 trucks lost over 11 turns of continuous supply priority 4:



So I guess I must have been doing something wrong in the jubjub game to even lose 955 trucks.

And in this game, I have a truck pool on turn 11 of 116k extra trucks just sitting around:



The 116k is admittedly inflated because I disbanded all my army HQs, so I am saving trucks on those, but still... 116k trucks just sitting around, not even having to use them. While I am sure Soviets had better supply than Germany in late 1941, I am doubtful it was really quite so easy as this.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 63
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:03:13 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2
Never-the-less, I am encouraged that you have come around and reached a point of being comfortable in publically acknowledging and validating the current experiences of many of the WiTE2 players. As well as a commitment to make the necessary adjustments to bring these combat results back to within an historical range.


I'll take it upon myself to give an example. 1300 Soviet tanks participated in the battle (But during the course of the battle their number could potentially grow by 2 times) and 728 German tanks.

German losses of 85 tanks irretrievably and 200 in workshops for long-term repairs, do you know which battle or suggest?

(in reply to DarkHorse2)
Post #: 64
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:31:49 AM   
DarkHorse2

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/4/2022
Status: offline
quote:

I'll take it upon myself to give an example. 1300 Soviet tanks participated in the battle (But during the course of the battle their number could potentially grow by 2 times) and 728 German tanks.

German losses of 85 tanks irretrievably and 200 in workshops for long-term repairs, do you know which battle or suggest?


If you are referring to a historical engagement during the 1st week of Barbarossa of something of this nature, I admit I do not know.

Given the number of German Tanks (728) involved, that would have required at least 3 full Panzer Divisions.

In that case, while it is still high, a loss of 285 tanks out of 728 would have been easier to accept. Especially knowing those losses would have been spread out across multiple Panzer Divisions.

But I would have found it highly implausible that 1300 Soviet tanks could have successfully coordinated crossing the road, let alone a full coordinated engagement during the 1st week. (in fact, there are some documented examples of Soviet tank units being so confused & surprised of them literally driving into bogs/swamps and completely incompacitating their equipment themselves.)



< Message edited by DarkHorse2 -- 2/19/2022 12:37:23 AM >

(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 65
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:33:05 AM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
I am not as detailed as Beethoven, but in my Soviet game I have set Stavka (and thus all subordinates) to Supply Level 4.
And that is it.

I just care of adding new depots, which fill in cheap and easy.

I can easily move via admin movement back troops that I need back in the reserve and fit them there, for refit. It can take a bit but it can help alleviate the need of freight.

From my perspective Moscow and Saratov should not be NSS; and the Soviets industrial heart is to be Siberia. (as many tabletop games have 'eastern edge of the map' as supply source for Soviet Russia!). Railyards and the like may be in need of fine tuning.
But Russians are lavishly supplied and I somehow doubt it will change in drastic ways once I get in winter or '42.

(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 66
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:36:16 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2


Seeing a similar result of the battle, I assure you, you would find a topic on the forum where the players would ask to fix the Soviet tank troops and bring them into a "historical form".

No one is interested that the USSR in 41 years can carry out well, at best, 5-6 such attacks, after which their tanks will run out.
And I take directly good conditions for the Soviet player in my performances. In an average game where the German player doesn't stand still like a burrow and moves forward, the limit will most likely be 2-3 attacks.

< Message edited by ShaggyHiK -- 2/19/2022 12:37:26 AM >

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 67
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 1:01:15 AM   
hossjww30

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline
I'm flattered that my combat example on turn 1 has gotten the attention of the developers. I am by no means a military historian however I have played Gary's games since the 1980's so I guess that makes me somewhat of an expert.

I'm just confused in that it seems the entire combat resolution system from WitE1 was almost totally revamped. I never once thought while playing WitE1 thought things were not historical. The consensus seems to be the panzers were overpowered but ok just tweak that a tad then.

(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 68
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 1:31:22 AM   
DarkHorse2

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/4/2022
Status: offline
The issues of initial excess Soviet supply capacity are presumed to be well founded.

But on the contrary, historically Soviet forces found themselves in supply situations in many instances worse than their German counterparts.

The number of vehicles at their disposal has been documented as woefully inadequate, with numerous Soviet mobile formations lacking so much as being unable to perform combat operations.

Additionally, the Soviet logistical system was being inundated by massive civilian flight from their villages, towns and cities.

quote:

German Operation Barbarossa of 1941 resulted in millions of Russian evacuees. The exact number is hard to approximate since many evacuated themselves rather than by the states directive. Some put the number at about sixteen and a half million.


Of primary concern was the hindrance of military movement. You cannot have millions of civilian refugees without it directly impacting roadways, rail-lines or other transportation arteries.

However, in WiTE2, this fact seems to largely be ignored, with populations seeming to teleport vast distances without any impact on the local transportation network.

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 69
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 1:59:37 AM   
DarkHorse2

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/4/2022
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hossjww30

I'm flattered that my combat example on turn 1 has gotten the attention of the developers. I am by no means a military historian however I have played Gary's games since the 1980's so I guess that makes me somewhat of an expert.

I'm just confused in that it seems the entire combat resolution system from WitE1 was almost totally revamped. I never once thought while playing WitE1 thought things were not historical. The consensus seems to be the panzers were overpowered but ok just tweak that a tad then.


There appears to be multiple issues at play with the current tactical combat system, especially those relating to AFVs.

1. AFVs are equipped with direct fire weapons. However, in the game, there is no evidence that obstructing terrain is factored into combat.

2. Positioning. Given a hex 10 miles across, the fact of all AFVs engaged being within range and able to fire on any other AFV within the 10 mile hex is a fantasy.

3. Target acquisition. AFVs completely ignoring all other non-AFV targets is another issue. Can you imagine an AFV ignoring pioneers planting charges all over to focus on that distant enemy AFV, barely visible?

Just considering these alone is enough to create some very weird combat results.

< Message edited by DarkHorse2 -- 2/19/2022 3:01:13 AM >

(in reply to hossjww30)
Post #: 70
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 5:03:33 AM   
Hardradi


Posts: 571
Joined: 2/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2

3. Target acquisition. AFVs completely ignoring all other non-AFV targets is another issue. Can you imagine an AFV ignoring pioneers planting charges all over to focus on that distant enemy AFV, barely visible?



They dont ignore other targets from what I can see. They shoot HE and AP. If there are no enemy AFVs they shoot HE.

Also if you drill down deeper you can see the weapon they are shooting.



< Message edited by Hardradi -- 2/19/2022 5:05:28 AM >

(in reply to DarkHorse2)
Post #: 71
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 8:27:56 AM   
Stamb

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline
Thanks for examples Beethoven1.

I am also wondering why Soviet army, which has more men, need less total freight than an Axis one?
Supply need is ~8.5k.
While 2-3 panzer armies might require same amount of freight.
And total Axis requirements are from 30k to 50-60k per turn. It is at 3.5 - 7 times more, despite having less men.

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/19/2022 8:28:45 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Hardradi)
Post #: 72
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 9:53:26 AM   
DarkHorse2

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/4/2022
Status: offline
quote:

They dont ignore other targets from what I can see. They shoot HE and AP. If there are no enemy AFVs they shoot HE.


Not aware they shoot at both AFV and soft targets at the same in same round, if that is what you are saying. If that is the case, that is goofy as well. I don't believe that is the case though.

"If there are no enemy AFVs they shoot HE" - now that I believe is accurate. Priority is on AFVs above all other targets until there are no enemy AFVs left. In essence, ignoring soft targets as long as there is an AFV left.

AFV fire is not distributed among AFV and soft targets, even though you have engineers throwing grenades down your hatch.

Ever play Panzer Blitz? You would lose all your armor if you ignored advancing engineers/anti-tank guns and not dealt with them.

quote:

In armored-force operations, the Germans stress the need for the concentrated employment, at the decisive place and time, of the entire combined command of tanks and other arms, less necessary reserves. The tanks constitute the striking force of such a command and normally advance as the first echelon of the attack. Their primary mission is to break through and attack the enemy artillery, rather than to seek out and destroy enemy tanks, which can be more effectively engaged by antitank units. The mission of the other arms is to assist the tanks in their advance and particularly to eliminated antitank weapons.


So this concept of AFV vs AFV combat at the exclusion of AFV vs soft targets is absurd.

https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Offensive-Attack-Tactics/

< Message edited by DarkHorse2 -- 2/19/2022 9:56:18 AM >

(in reply to Hardradi)
Post #: 73
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 10:04:21 AM   
DarkHorse2

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/4/2022
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Thanks for examples Beethoven1.

I am also wondering why Soviet army, which has more men, need less total freight than an Axis one?
Supply need is ~8.5k.
While 2-3 panzer armies might require same amount of freight.
And total Axis requirements are from 30k to 50-60k per turn. It is at 3.5 - 7 times more, despite having less men.


I believe supply / ammo / fuel requirements are auto-calculated off of the sum of TOE elements.

You may have to go down to the TOE element level in the game editor to get a better feel for the significant difference. It is also possible there exists a data error that needs correcting.

(in reply to Stamb)
Post #: 74
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 11:20:36 AM   
Stamb

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline
Erik,
Here are some examples, hopefully you and your team are able to translate it (this is a good translator https://www.deepl.com/translator):
https://mil.ru/winner_may/history/more.htm?id=11359251@cmsArticle

quote:

В ряду причин, обусловивших размеры потерь наших войск, прежде всего выступают объективные факторы: обеспеченность фронтов материальными средствами, в первую очередь боеприпасами и горючим; степень тщательности подготовки операций, качество боевой выучки личного состава, уровень руководства войсками во всех звеньях — от Ставки ВГК до тактического звена. Так, в обстановке тяжелейших экономических трудностей, которые переживала страна в 1941–1942 гг., наступательные операции предпринимались без достаточного материального обеспечения, что неминуемо вело к большим потерям. Это положение было ликвидировано лишь ко второму периоду войны


Machine translation:
quote:

Among the reasons for the losses of our troops are primarily objective factors: supply of the fronts with materiel, primarily ammunition and fuel; the degree of thoroughness in preparing operations, the quality of combat training of personnel, the level of leadership of the troops at all levels - from the Supreme Command Headquarters to the tactical tier. Thus, in a situation of severe economic difficulties, which the country experienced in 1941-1942, offensive operations were undertaken without sufficient material support, which inevitably led to large losses. This situation was eliminated only by the second period of the war


Another website worth inspecting:
https://www.soldat.ru/doc/mobilization/mob/

Ammo/artillery ammo before the start of the war.
They did not have enough ammo, especially for the artillery (but it is already represented in the game):
https://www.soldat.ru/doc/mobilization/mob/chapter2_5.html

Stockpiled weapons:
https://www.soldat.ru/doc/mobilization/mob/table21.html
Rifles: 490220
Hand machine guns: 6490
Machine gun: 5780

This is what they needed and what they had in September `41.
https://www.soldat.ru/doc/mobilization/mob/chapter3_1.html

I can not paste table, but in total this is what they had in % of their needs: (probably due to a huge pockets, that are not happening in a game, but should give an idea)
Riffles: 20%
Machine guns: 10%
Mortars: 28%
Guns: 18%

There are many more pages which describes that there was not enough ammo/weapons. It would take ages to copy all of that into this post.

It is really worth reading.
And from what I saw via videos, wite 1 was simulating that situation much better than wite 2 where Soviets do not have any problems with armaments, even if major centers in Ukraine are taken ahead of schedule.
It really breaks immersion and adds even more reasons for a Soviets not to defend in the South.
Nobody is even looking onto armament/resource/heavy industry production in wite 2. As is it impossible to run out of it, no matter what.

You can check my test https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5132185&mpage=2&key=
post 35

Thanks for looking into this issues and for an amazing support for this game.

Best,
Stamb

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/19/2022 11:30:02 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to DarkHorse2)
Post #: 75
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 11:36:12 AM   
malyhin1517


Posts: 1426
Joined: 9/20/2015
From: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk
Status: offline
I would like to clarify that the Russians have a problem with heavy weaponry due to the limited production of guns in the game. However, heavy infantry weapons, namely machine guns and small-caliber mortars, are produced in the game without restrictions! I have been writing about this for a long time that it is necessary to establish a limit on the production of heavy infantry weapons! Now in the game for the Russians a situation has been created where, for example, militia divisions have 100% infantry and machine guns, but not a single gun! And they won't get guns unless they're placed in reserve! The only way to get artillery for units is to go into reserve. But machine guns in all units are fully available, which contradicts historical facts! There were not enough machine guns in the Soviet army until 1943, so the Russians were forced to start again in 1941 the production of obsolete Maxim machine guns, which they had stopped producing earlier!

_____________________________

Sorry, i use an online translator :(

(in reply to Stamb)
Post #: 76
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 11:43:46 AM   
Stamb

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline
I think I mentioned that in another threads. Personally I would like Reserve TB to be removed, I see no reasons for it to be in a game. Units training can happen far from a front, near depots for example.
But I doubt that it gonna happen.
Now we are talking partially about this issue:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5132514

In my opinion on map units should be the highest priority for replacements. It makes no sense that unit on map that is placed to refit, will not get replacements because there are some units in Reserve that took all of the tanks/manpower/etc.


_____________________________


(in reply to malyhin1517)
Post #: 77
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:12:31 PM   
Beethoven1

 

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Thanks for examples Beethoven1.

I am also wondering why Soviet army, which has more men, need less total freight than an Axis one?


No, they don't need less freight. The "need" displayed is a bit misleading since supply priority 4 seeks to get 130% of the need. So they have extra stocked up which was delivered from previous turns. You would see the same thing on the Axis side if on turn 1 you did not attack as Axis and just sat in Germany without advancing, with the whole Axis army set on supply priority 4.

(in reply to Stamb)
Post #: 78
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:16:56 PM   
Beethoven1

 

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline
And btw, the fact that Soviets (if played by someone who knows to simply set supply priority 4 and forget, anyway) typically will have up to 130% supply in all their units means they have higher CVs. If the devs are looking at AI vs AI game balance, and the AI is set to not use supply priority 4 for the entire army, that would mean that the AI Soviets has lower CVs than a player would have.

This might be some of the reason why some of the devs seem to think that it is balanced. And tbh if they made changes so that Soviets played by a player simply had more normal supply (up to 100% rather than 130%), then that might well be enough to re-balance the game overall and perhaps even to switch it to being Axis biased, because that makes a significant difference to CV of the entire Red Army.

As it is now, a good Soviet player will always use supply priority 4 for the whole Red Army, at least maybe until 1944 or something possibly (I don't know because I haven't gotten that far), because there is no disincentive from doing so and no drawback to it.

< Message edited by Beethoven1 -- 2/19/2022 12:18:02 PM >

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 79
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:29:49 PM   
Stamb

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Thanks for examples Beethoven1.

I am also wondering why Soviet army, which has more men, need less total freight than an Axis one?


No, they don't need less freight. The "need" displayed is a bit misleading since supply priority 4 seeks to get 130% of the need. So they have extra stocked up which was delivered from previous turns. You would see the same thing on the Axis side if on turn 1 you did not attack as Axis and just sat in Germany without advancing, with the whole Axis army set on supply priority 4.

You are right. I did a test. I did not move anywhere and put everything on 4 as an Axis. They "need" 8k supplies. But Soviets are also fighting and using ammo + digging + refitting.

_____________________________


(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 80
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 12:30:51 PM   
Stamb

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

And btw, the fact that Soviets (if played by someone who knows to simply set supply priority 4 and forget, anyway) typically will have up to 130% supply in all their units means they have higher CVs.
...

Lol, this is what my opponent told me. How to deal with a supplies as a Soviets!

_____________________________


(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 81
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 6:50:49 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb
Please fix Soviet logistic system. It is completely unhistorical that they can use supply priority 4 for almost all of their units if not all, already from the start of the game.


Anyone can use Supply Priority 4. If you're saying they are actually getting far more supplies/ammo/fuel than what is historical, we can have that discussion. I'd like to see what you're seeing and some historical comparisons.

Regards,

- Erik





https://www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/3/9/the-influence-of-railways-on-military-operations-in-the-russo-german-war-19411945

Both sides are heavily oversupplied and there was never a Soviet ability to move entire fronts laterally.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 82
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 7:17:28 PM   
RedJohn

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline
Soviet supply is very generous. I cannot speak as to whether that's historically accurate, but the way the game works right now is that a competent Soviets will be in good supply for a massive portion of the game. The only time this isn't true is the first 5 or so turns, give or take a turn. Supply priority 4 works extremely well for the Soviets as they're retreating into depots and whatnot, and receive plenty of trucks from LL.

The Axis will be in a supply surplus (I believe) for the first few turns, but once the front is pushed far back enough they start facing serious issues due to the freight penalty. Supply priority 4 is arguably detrimental to the Axis; the attrition on trucks is massive if you're not close to the railhead and depots. A Soviet who retreats often will cause this issue to be exacerbated as you're unable to capture soviet trucks, and the depots will always lag. It's part of what makes retreating in the south so efficient.

The Soviets must simply set supply priority 4 on turn 1, occasionally repeat that once every couple of turns to ensure every HQ is on supply prio 4, and it can sit like that until they start pushing the Axis back into Poland and the Balkans. This does not seem very realistic, but I freely admit I am not remotely well-read on the war or Soviet logistics. From a gameplay point of view however it's actively detrimental and means the Soviets can very well ignore logistics until they start pushing. Moscow as a NSS is the primary reason for this.

I have recently concluded an axis victory game (against a first time Soviet who refused to retreat, a win was expected) and my opponent lost Moscow in 41. This crippled the Soviet supply. On turn 24 for example, compare the screenshots.

Pictured below is a screenshot of my turn 24 that's just started in a PBEM+ game. The general replacements number is accurate for all of my turn 24's as soviets though, as is the supply demanded/received.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 83
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 7:18:29 PM   
RedJohn

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline
Here's his turn 24.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RedJohn)
Post #: 84
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/19/2022 7:30:07 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
I believe Moscow should not be a NSS.

Soviet NSS should be in Urals or so. But I believe that also require some extra railyards in the Urals - I could be wrong.

(in reply to RedJohn)
Post #: 85
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/20/2022 6:43:19 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline
I strongly recommend that Beethoven and Stamb read about the logistical problems of Germany in the period 41-43-45 to begin with.

And then find out about the logistical problems of the USSR in 41-43-45.

And only then to discuss the logistical problem exclusively of the Soviet side.

What you are talking about is not exclusively a problem of the USSR, moreover, it is not a problem. The USSR has warehouses and they are on the defensive. Their supply goes through all railway lines, and not just those that they repair.
The fleet of railway trains and wagons for them were more massive than the German ones, during the retreat, that's what, and the wagons were carefully taken to the East of the country. That allowed to drive along the echelon every 10 minutes.

German logistics simply did not have such an opportunity.

You offer nothing but complain about the Soviets. You have at least one of your "advice" scroll in your head on how the warehouse system should start to work to meet your needs, taking into account how this will affect other aspects of the game.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 86
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/20/2022 7:51:18 AM   
Jeff_Ahl

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 10/10/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2

The issues of initial excess Soviet supply capacity are presumed to be well founded.

But on the contrary, historically Soviet forces found themselves in supply situations in many instances worse than their German counterparts.

The number of vehicles at their disposal has been documented as woefully inadequate, with numerous Soviet mobile formations lacking so much as being unable to perform combat operations.

Additionally, the Soviet logistical system was being inundated by massive civilian flight from their villages, towns and cities.

quote:

German Operation Barbarossa of 1941 resulted in millions of Russian evacuees. The exact number is hard to approximate since many evacuated themselves rather than by the states directive. Some put the number at about sixteen and a half million.


Of primary concern was the hindrance of military movement. You cannot have millions of civilian refugees without it directly impacting roadways, rail-lines or other transportation arteries.

However, in WiTE2, this fact seems to largely be ignored, with populations seeming to teleport vast distances without any impact on the local transportation network.


+1

(in reply to DarkHorse2)
Post #: 87
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/20/2022 8:06:11 AM   
malyhin1517


Posts: 1426
Joined: 9/20/2015
From: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

I strongly recommend that Beethoven and Stamb read about the logistical problems of Germany in the period 41-43-45 to begin with.

And then find out about the logistical problems of the USSR in 41-43-45.

And only then to discuss the logistical problem exclusively of the Soviet side.

What you are talking about is not exclusively a problem of the USSR, moreover, it is not a problem. The USSR has warehouses and they are on the defensive. Their supply goes through all railway lines, and not just those that they repair.
The fleet of railway trains and wagons for them were more massive than the German ones, during the retreat, that's what, and the wagons were carefully taken to the East of the country. That allowed to drive along the echelon every 10 minutes.

German logistics simply did not have such an opportunity.

You offer nothing but complain about the Soviets. You have at least one of your "advice" scroll in your head on how the warehouse system should start to work to meet your needs, taking into account how this will affect other aspects of the game.

In general, I agree with you! However, with the good work of the railway, the Russians were very much short of trucks to deliver supplies to the troops. Therefore, it is extremely necessary to drastically reduce the number of trucks for the Soviet side. This will dramatically worsen the supply of Soviet troops and it will be more realistic. By the way, it was so in WITE!

_____________________________

Sorry, i use an online translator :(

(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 88
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/20/2022 10:12:48 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517


WitE1 is an absolutely disgusting combat system. The results of the battles have no pattern and are completely random.

250k Soviet troops cannot move 2 German regiments of 9,500 people. At the same time, of course, they will lose 2-3 thousand people for 50 people from the Germans.

Are we sure we're playing the same games?

And did the Germans have the demotorization of their infantry divisions of part of the motorized divisions because they had enough trucks? The Wehrmacht did not have enough fuel to support all the trucks they had. Do similar supply difficulties arise in Germany, for example, in winter, summer, autumn 42 in the game?

Here is a proposal to pour in with the fix of the Soviet side, although at the moment it is weaker than the German one. The Soviet Union at the moment, if it starts in 41, hardly survives. And as a rule, it loses more than it has lost in history.

Any environment becomes fatal. Even if you do not get surrounded at all, the Soviet troops do not become somehow super strong.

German divisions can smash entire armies with head-on attacks, inflicting significant losses.

Reading the message of people here, I get the feeling that only the USSR had problems and the USSR won the war only thanks to Lend-Lease, and only a wave of corpses that simply swept over Berlin.

Beethoven aware that the USSR was the most motorized country in the world? Yes, not with the best cars, but at the same time, the number of vehicles by 41 was huge, even in the USA this was not the case.

The USSR had supply problems, but they were tied to aspects not reflected in the game. For example, in the game there is no division into types of ammunition.
The USSR had a shortage of anti-tank type ammunition and they were of poor quality.
The loss of the production of gunpowder led to the fact that the guns could be produced, but the ammunition for them was in insufficient quantities.
In the North near Leningrad. The meager railway network and the problems of the loss of the coal industry led to the fact that the trains had to be fired not with coal, but with firewood.
There was a coal crisis.

Is it possible to reflect any of this in the game?

I can bring similar things for the German side. If there is coal in the game? Communication between cities? If you introduce all these things, it turns out that the German economy, for all its virtues, will be so constrained and so incapable of doing the necessary things that the game Germans will howl and lose games simply because.

The losses of the German army in the game are underestimated, the production does not take into account the weak aspects of the German economy of that period. Lack of fuel does not lead to problems on the map.

But of course, the players only want to discuss and fix the Soviet Union.

(in reply to malyhin1517)
Post #: 89
RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results - 2/20/2022 10:24:51 AM   
Jango32

 

Posts: 307
Joined: 3/15/2021
Status: offline
The US in 1939 had almost 30 million cars, vans, buses and trucks summed up. The Soviet inventory by that point had surpassed a little over 1 million vehicles for the same vehicle types.

(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> RE: Turn 1 Axis Panzer Group Combat Results Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890