Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



WitW has no trouble allowing blitzkrieg type warfare.
The way the 8th BR and 7th US armies roll over the Italians
in Sicily is a good indicator of what will happen to the Russians in 1941.
Also the way they use up supplies while doing it.
And the need to use sufficient force on dug in units in terrain (cities, rough etc.).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

First, I think it's pointless to try and hit specific army size milestones 3 years in. Reality is that everybody plays with plenty of hindsight and many losses due to pointless attacks that stemmed from faulty appreciation of the situation, political pressure or just stupidity don't take place. Army Group Center in December 41 or Stalingrad are very unlikely to happen, and being able to do countless iterations of the same events leads to a measure of optimization that just can't be accounted for except by going the railroad route of WITE.

Instead, create uncertainty for the player which will lead to more mistakes.

Due to manpower allocation being heavily dependent on historical events this means a German/Soviet army in 43 that took less than historical losses would be very large, instead of having some of that manpower remaining in production. I don't see any way to manage this, except maybe give manpower that is stuck in the manpower pool some kind of positive supply/production effect so that you don't just automatically always want the most manpower possible on the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?

That said, loss ratios do matter because it's nearly impossible to properly attrit the enemy without encircling manoeuvres that span hundreds of miles.

Encirclements could easily take place at company or battalion/regimental level IF there was a mobility mismatch or a c&c breakdown but the current combat engine doesn't consider that. Also, less mobile units could be overrun and destroyed, even if there notionally was space to retreat. This doesn't happen in the game, so the only practical way to cause attrition is to go for the big encirclements. I doubt these will be possible very often with the new logistics and MP penalties for hexes with combat (both very good, but now the problems manifest themselves somewhere else)

Loss ratio is also important because it punishes mistakes. Right now, everybody knows far too well what is going on on the other side, mistakes seldom happen (as in a attack running in much stronger forces than expected, the reserve system helps, but it's very localised and IMO it's still too easy to know far too much). Much bigger FOW effect on enemy strength displays or making it harder to detect formations might go some way to remedy this by inducing mistakes, especially for the Germans who had much less information on the other side.

Alternatively supply restraints could act as a regulator and I have high hopes for the new logistics system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?

As I understand the current system only uses firepower (with hit% modded by experience), with a modifier for retreat thrown in. I don't think a fixed combat ratio German-Soviet is the answer, rather a neutral system that takes more factors into account.

F.e.:
- size-space ratio
- experience differential
- mobility differential
- some kind of leadership check (for defence, is withdraw order given in time and well organized, for attack, do they actually know what is going on/where to go)
- last but not least some kind of stance like in TOAW, with minimize, limit and ignore. There needs to be some way of fighting a delaying action or only making a probing attack (recon by force goes a step in the right direction, but again cuts down on the number of mistakes).

The system could stay the same throughout, as the Soviets improve their ratio automatically becomes better.

+1000000000000000000000000

Great post

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



I am not too worried about a Red Army airforce dominating the field with massive numbers of poor aircraft if WitW is any indication.

Quality is king in the air. Low morale coupled with poor machines means the Red Army airforce will attrit itself, just by flying. What planes that do make it into the air without crashing will be easily shot down. But some planes will get through. But only a tiny fraction of the total.

The Germans will be able to bomb airfields that are closer to the front which will force the Red Army to either disperse
it's air squadrons or base them farther back in cities guarded by FlaK.

See again your exp on Western Front is important, but your not thinking EF.

1. Russians have massive amounts of flak.
2. IF German advance is historical there will be zero bases to fly planes from near the front.
3. Germans advancing across a front with no railnet will take many turns to get supplies to rebuild airfields or put ammo at front.
4. A massive Red AF will hammer what it wants at will.
5. By doing this they gain exp
6. German AF can not cover all the front so there will be areas that the Red AF can gain exp.
7. Red AF has massive amounts of TB's and as we know from WitW they are way over rated. For some reason 2by3 thinks all TB are Stukas. Ahh yes another unhistorical bone that needs picking when the time comes

Quality might be King aka morale, but quaintly wins if there are no AB's or supplies.

You need stop thinking small ball, this is Russian Front not Normandy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?

ok, my view. We all agree current losses are too low.

but its not the critical issue (imho). Your second point is the key that the result is that the OOBs get too large and this has other consequences.

By that I mean if both sides are too large then the game locks up apart from at the phases where the game rules force a break. At the moment, by that I mean Dec 41 (Sov winter offensive), June 42 (Sov NM at 40), sometime in 43 (as the impact of the 43 NM changes come to apply) and sometime in 44 (as the German army starts to fall apart). The problem of too large armies is that at each of those stages the intended effect is made stronger as the beneficiary is too large.

Too large a German army makes 1942 too effective, too large a German army makes 1943 pretty tedious, both are worsened by MP players optimising their actions for the long term and with a great deal of hindsight.

I think it would be good for Soviet losses to be higher, as above keying this to experience and leadership would be quite an elegant solution. Or their attrition losses could be higher - same effect via a different method.

But you need to put the Germans into the position in 1942 where they can attack but not on the scale we are currently seeing and in 1943 where they can defend effectively but again not in endless lines of pre-pared forts.

Final point - no, let the shifting lethality of weapons systems and the changes in army competence handle that aspect.

Good points.

Red I am looking at the snowball effect of what loki has pointed out.

1. If Russian loses are lower in 41 which they will be because pockets simply will be much harder to come by and Lvov will probably be coded out one way or the other.
We know the likely results of this in current AAR's. German gets no wheres near historical and Red Army is larger then historical because combat engine results are to low.

2. So in turn because of the snowball effect. Russian Army has a very powerfull 41/42 winter- German Army suffers heavy losses ect.

3. German Army is a shell of itself by June 42 and Russian Army is HUGE.

4. German Army runs out of steam by late July early August. Now this will be worse because of lower MP's (2.0) if the German Army can not pocket units it simply can not get 4 to 1 combat ratios so why attack? You are losing by winning.

5. Russian Army is on general offensive by September 42.

Now couple this with the fact of morale changes and lower MP's across the board you will see this happen even sooner. Russian players will have zero fear of German pockets so simply spam lose battles.

I also believe there will be issues with the massive Russian Air Force which will simply spam bombing German formations.


Your more then likely not going to see any of this doing AI vs AI tests or player vs AI test.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Yes - think WitW+ in the east.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier) as the 5 types of units for the modifier. The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements- either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more protected from small arms/light arms.

So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility and then the condition would escalate up the chain. static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender. Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.

Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility, due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I think combat losses should be a combination of leader ratings, unit experience/morale and unit stance (if WITE had a stance option). Terrain should be part of the equation too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier)
as the 5 types of units for the modifier.
The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements-
either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more
protected from small arms/light arms.

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.
German units can not be grouped with Russian units for this simply historical fact. Also WA were trained for retreating.



So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility
and then the condition would escalate up the chain.
static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender.
Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.
Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war
period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

German units and officers trained for retreats, Russians did not, Russian units were forbid in 99% of all cases to retreat, they were trained to attack.
This is were things always go wrong, you want to add things to the game that are simply unhistorical. Every unit had ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD ) NKVD officers + other political officers and simply did not allow freedom of movement UNTIL LATER 43.
This is a key thing your over looking. You have always personally pushed Cav units not for historical reasons but personal as they are a good unit to exploit. Late war Cav units were simply tank units nothing more. Lets stick to historical models and not personal.

Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility,
due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

...


Lets not forget a few basic things your over looking that were key historical factors.

1. Germans trained and Russians had NONE for retreating. Retreating for Germans was not considered a bad things at the divisions and lower levels. It was part of officer training and units training.

2. The Russians had political officers ( the religious police ) that looked over the shoulder of the military officers.
Russian officer were not allowed to retreat and had to follow orders from the top, EVEN WHEN THE OFFICER NEW THESE ORDERS WERE DEAD WRONG.
If the Russians attacked and were clearly losing they still had to attack.

I am kind of surpised the basic military doctrine and training of the officers for Russia and Germany has
never part of WitE. I and others have posted on this in the past.

Can we finally stop ignoring this?

Retreat loses and attack losses need to be much higher for Russian formations because
of the historical military doctrine of Russia

MP's as part of loses is just not historical at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier)
as the 5 types of units for the modifier.
The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements-
either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more
protected from small arms/light arms.

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.
German units can not be grouped with Russian units for this simply historical fact. Also WA were trained for retreating.

-Wrong No retreat was a standard order from Hitler from the Winter of 1941 on, Generals that disobeyed were fired or shot including some of the best Generals in the German Army. Guderian was relieved over this exact issue.

-One issue on Soviet retreat losses- alot of Soviet troops did have a tendency to escape German pockets and be re-integrated into the Soviet Army, doesnt really happen in the game.

-Agree Soviets should take higher losses- never argued that point, however if you increase Soviet losses to historical you also have to increase their replacement and industry levels to arm those replacements to historical levels. Honestly the game should refund Armaments points for % of lost squads every turn as almost every army recycled small arms and squad equipment.

So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility
and then the condition would escalate up the chain.
static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender.
Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.
Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war
period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

German units and officers trained for retreats, Russians did not, Russian units were forbid in 99% of all cases to retreat, they were trained to attack.
This is were things always go wrong, you want to add things to the game that are simply unhistorical. Every unit had ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD ) NKVD officers + other political officers and simply did not allow freedom of movement UNTIL LATER 43.
This is a key thing your over looking. You have always personally pushed Cav units not for historical reasons but personal as they are a good unit to exploit. Late war Cav units were simply tank units nothing more. Lets stick to historical models and not personal.

-Political Officers lost oversight of Army Officers by I believe summer of 1942 as the Soviets realized it was more harm than good. Whats funny is as the war went on and especially late-war the Germans were in effect starting to use "SS Commisars" to enforce stand and die orders or be hung.

-As to Cav units, they are superior mobility to a foot infantry division- is a fact, not personal preference. Germans also have cavalry divisions so not completely one-sided......An if you read my comment I talk about changing their status for LW so not sure what kinda point you were trying to make here.
Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility,
due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.

quote:

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.

BS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?