Alekmalek quit WITE2 because of WW1 grinding

[HardLuckYetAgain]

If you like to work together, along with the others that posted, I am all for it. Maybe the way you, and the others, come up with will be better. Just let me know I can jump in any Voice Discord chat with all that would like to work on it together.

[RedJohn]

I think we've gone off topic. Herding might be tied to the grinding, but the core issue of grinding remains - retreat path priorities should be saved for another thread.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I think we've gone off topic. Herding might be tied to the grinding, but the core issue of grinding remains - retreat path priorities should be saved for another thread.

Fair enough. Just started replying to your initial post on the the non-topic https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5133854 in this thread first. When you want to start the topic on retreat priorities let me know. Thanks much.

[Gray Lensman_MatrixForum]

Let’s say retreat path priorities logic is changed so axis always retreat west and Soviets always retreat east regardless of ZOC. Knowing that rule you could still create herding opportunities. Units have to retreat somewhere and knowing the rules of how that applies means you can still plan/strategise for it

What “solution” would you suggest for example on retreat paths?

That's why I suggested elsewhere that the retreat priorities should be randomized at the final stage. Basically towards the controlling HQ or the source of supply to be determined randomly at the end of the combat resolution.

There's always going to be some "herding", but a little randomness introduced into the retreat rules would complicate the "herding" directional issue.

[jasonbroomer]

Yeah, I agree that grinding is a very dispiriting experience and counters much of the enjoyment that I gain from this game. Here is an example of my GC game as soviets versus Vet.

T9 3 Axis divisions taking out Soviet strongpoint.png (1.18 MiB) Viewed 973 times

Here a soviet strong point in heavy woods was treated out by 3 German divisions. Vet was clearly trying to use minimum force to ensure a single hex retreat (routing the the Soviets at this juncture would have been a disaster for Axis This incidentally is just crazy)

The follow up attack by armour was devastating, despite the retreated divisions falling back to a position held by an untouched division in light woods.

T9 Massacre in second line.png (1.49 MiB) Viewed 973 times

While this is good Axis play, I don't see why this was especially poor Soviet play (I see ways to have improved the Soviet lot but ultimately the results may have been similar).

To lose 30k casualties from the commitment of 6 Axis divisions against 3 Soviet divisions defending a level fort 2 in heavy woods (=Cv of 1000) is too high a tariff. The Soviet OOB simply cannot sustain losses of this magnitude if they happen say twice a turn. This is all too easy for the Axis to engineer.


I suspect that the massive losses are caused by the immediate drop in morale following a defeat. Once Soviet moral drops below 50, losses suffered go through the roof. A minor defeat can cause a loss of morale with catastrophic consequences, even when falling back to prepared positions.


Retreat priorities are another issue, but when combined with 'grinding' can result in ludicrous outcomes. I can provide a far more egregious example then the above example.

As I say, all this has greatly diminished the enjoyment I gain from the game. However, I profess to still learning Soviet advanced strategy and I am intrigued about formulating methods to counter such tactics.

[dankhippos]

Yeah, I agree that grinding is a very dispiriting experience and counters much of the enjoyment that I gain from this game. Here is an example of my GC game as soviets versus Vet.


T9 3 Axis divisions taking out Soviet strongpoint.png


Here a soviet strong point in heavy woods was treated out by 3 German divisions. Vet was clearly trying to use minimum force to ensure a single hex retreat (routing the the Soviets at this juncture would have been a disaster for Axis This incidentally is just crazy)

The follow up attack by armour was devastating, despite the retreated divisions falling back to a position held by an untouched division in light woods.


T9 Massacre in second line.png


While this is good Axis play, I don't see why this was especially poor Soviet play (I see ways to have improved the Soviet lot but ultimately the results may have been similar).

To lose 30k casualties from the commitment of 6 Axis divisions against 3 Soviet divisions defending a level fort 2 in heavy woods (=Cv of 1000) is too high a tariff. The Soviet OOB simply cannot sustain losses of this magnitude if they happen say twice a turn. This is all too easy for the Axis to engineer.


I suspect that the massive losses are caused by the immediate drop in morale following a defeat. Once Soviet moral drops below 50, losses suffered go through the roof. A minor defeat can cause a loss of morale with catastrophic consequences, even when falling back to prepared positions.


Retreat priorities are another issue, but when combined with 'grinding' can result in ludicrous outcomes. I can provide a far more egregious example then the above example.

As I say, all this has greatly diminished the enjoyment I gain from the game. However, I profess to still learning Soviet advanced strategy and I am intrigued about formulating methods to counter such tactics.

Aha! Sounds like the 45 morale sub human cut off that effects axis allies is also the underlying culprit here. I wonder it both the Axis and Soviet sides had their morale raised by ten, how much the issue would be alleviated. Because as far as I know, below the 45 cutoff you disintegrate, and above you take somewhat normal losses.

[Nikel]

In another game, SGS Korean War, a poster is complaining because the game (the campaign scenario) is broken due to the VP level is 60, something that is easily fixed just changing a number in a file with a text editor.

It would be funny if most of these complains could be fixed in a similar way, in a user editable file or perhaps in the more arcane code

[HardLuckYetAgain]

The Soviet "combat value" collapses constantly. Is the penalty too big for the Soviet side on the calculations contributors?

[Zebtucker12]

Yeah, I agree that grinding is a very dispiriting experience and counters much of the enjoyment that I gain from this game. Here is an example of my GC game as soviets versus Vet.


T9 3 Axis divisions taking out Soviet strongpoint.png


Here a soviet strong point in heavy woods was treated out by 3 German divisions. Vet was clearly trying to use minimum force to ensure a single hex retreat (routing the the Soviets at this juncture would have been a disaster for Axis This incidentally is just crazy)

The follow up attack by armour was devastating, despite the retreated divisions falling back to a position held by an untouched division in light woods.


T9 Massacre in second line.png


While this is good Axis play, I don't see why this was especially poor Soviet play (I see ways to have improved the Soviet lot but ultimately the results may have been similar).

To lose 30k casualties from the commitment of 6 Axis divisions against 3 Soviet divisions defending a level fort 2 in heavy woods (=Cv of 1000) is too high a tariff. The Soviet OOB simply cannot sustain losses of this magnitude if they happen say twice a turn. This is all too easy for the Axis to engineer.


I suspect that the massive losses are caused by the immediate drop in morale following a defeat. Once Soviet moral drops below 50, losses suffered go through the roof. A minor defeat can cause a loss of morale with catastrophic consequences, even when falling back to prepared positions.


Retreat priorities are another issue, but when combined with 'grinding' can result in ludicrous outcomes. I can provide a far more egregious example then the above example.

As I say, all this has greatly diminished the enjoyment I gain from the game. However, I profess to still learning Soviet advanced strategy and I am intrigued about formulating methods to counter such tactics.

Aha! Sounds like the 45 morale sub human cut off that effects axis allies is also the underlying culprit here. I wonder it both the Axis and Soviet sides had their morale raised by ten, how much the issue would be alleviated. Because as far as I know, below the 45 cutoff you disintegrate, and above you take somewhat normal losses.

Pretty sure that below 50 nm line of code would be pretty easy to remove.

[Veterin]

Yeah, I agree that grinding is a very dispiriting experience and counters much of the enjoyment that I gain from this game. Here is an example of my GC game as soviets versus Vet.


T9 3 Axis divisions taking out Soviet strongpoint.png


Here a soviet strong point in heavy woods was treated out by 3 German divisions. Vet was clearly trying to use minimum force to ensure a single hex retreat (routing the the Soviets at this juncture would have been a disaster for Axis This incidentally is just crazy)

The follow up attack by armour was devastating, despite the retreated divisions falling back to a position held by an untouched division in light woods.


T9 Massacre in second line.png


While this is good Axis play, I don't see why this was especially poor Soviet play (I see ways to have improved the Soviet lot but ultimately the results may have been similar).

To lose 30k casualties from the commitment of 6 Axis divisions against 3 Soviet divisions defending a level fort 2 in heavy woods (=Cv of 1000) is too high a tariff. The Soviet OOB simply cannot sustain losses of this magnitude if they happen say twice a turn. This is all too easy for the Axis to engineer.


I suspect that the massive losses are caused by the immediate drop in morale following a defeat. Once Soviet moral drops below 50, losses suffered go through the roof. A minor defeat can cause a loss of morale with catastrophic consequences, even when falling back to prepared positions.


Retreat priorities are another issue, but when combined with 'grinding' can result in ludicrous outcomes. I can provide a far more egregious example then the above example.

As I say, all this has greatly diminished the enjoyment I gain from the game. However, I profess to still learning Soviet advanced strategy and I am intrigued about formulating methods to counter such tactics.

To be fair, I was on the receiving end of the same thing in my 2 soviet games vs you.

At higher experience levels, axis are lethal. The hard thing for balance is that at less experience levels Soviets tend to dominate

IMG_9873.jpeg (1.1 MiB) Viewed 850 times

IMG_9874.png (6.33 MiB) Viewed 850 times

IMG_9876.jpeg (1.77 MiB) Viewed 850 times

[M60A3TTS]

Here a soviet strong point in heavy woods was treated out by 3 German divisions. Vet was clearly trying to use minimum force to ensure a single hex retreat (routing the the Soviets at this juncture would have been a disaster for Axis This incidentally is just crazy)

I would just point out that Model with a lot pioniers and artillery marching on Leningrad is as old as WiTE1. Same with Manstein. The 210mm Howitzer Battalions at 90 experience get some extremely high HPE values, leaving a lot of disrupted Soviet ground elements in their wake.

[RedJohn]

Here a soviet strong point in heavy woods was treated out by 3 German divisions. Vet was clearly trying to use minimum force to ensure a single hex retreat (routing the the Soviets at this juncture would have been a disaster for Axis This incidentally is just crazy)

I would just point out that Model with a lot pioniers and artillery marching on Leningrad is as old as WiTE1. Same with Manstein. The 210mm Howitzer Battalions at 90 experience get some extremely high HPE values, leaving a lot of disrupted Soviet ground elements in their wake.

I don't think his issue is with the original battle. That's a fairly solid battle. The issue is the followup from Madman Manstein, causing 10x the losses for a cool 256 men, 2 guns and 6 panzers.

That is not as old as WITE1.

[Wiedrock]

One could assess what's going on if people would start using the "Show Details" view in their Screenshots.
#showdetails

[M60A3TTS]

Here a soviet strong point in heavy woods was treated out by 3 German divisions. Vet was clearly trying to use minimum force to ensure a single hex retreat (routing the the Soviets at this juncture would have been a disaster for Axis This incidentally is just crazy)

I would just point out that Model with a lot pioniers and artillery marching on Leningrad is as old as WiTE1. Same with Manstein. The 210mm Howitzer Battalions at 90 experience get some extremely high HPE values, leaving a lot of disrupted Soviet ground elements in their wake.

I don't think his issue is with the original battle. That's a fairly solid battle. The issue is the followup from Madman Manstein, causing 10x the losses for a cool 256 men, 2 guns and 6 panzers.

That is not as old as WITE1.

I agree with you, but in order to set up Battle #2 as effectively as possible, putting high powered German artillery behind Battle #1 sets things up very effectively.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I would just point out that Model with a lot pioniers and artillery marching on Leningrad is as old as WiTE1. Same with Manstein. The 210mm Howitzer Battalions at 90 experience get some extremely high HPE values, leaving a lot of disrupted Soviet ground elements in their wake.

I don't think his issue is with the original battle. That's a fairly solid battle. The issue is the followup from Madman Manstein, causing 10x the losses for a cool 256 men, 2 guns and 6 panzers.

That is not as old as WITE1.

I agree with you, but in order to set up Battle #2 as effectively as possible, putting high powered German artillery behind Battle #1 sets things up very effectively.

Sorry to say but it is as OLD as WITE1. BUT the difference was that the extra casualties ended at the end of Sept and were a great deal less afterwards (was added by Morvael). At the beginning of WITE1 the casualties were astronomical then toned down (but this was the real early versions, maybe even the beta version but memory hazy) (I am pretty sure I remember this correctly but been many many years)

[HardLuckYetAgain]

So what are you all going to propose to Joel Billings on the fix? If Joel thinks it needs it. I see all the chit-chat back and forth but nothing else.

[Veterin]

I would just point out that Model with a lot pioniers and artillery marching on Leningrad is as old as WiTE1. Same with Manstein. The 210mm Howitzer Battalions at 90 experience get some extremely high HPE values, leaving a lot of disrupted Soviet ground elements in their wake.

I don't think his issue is with the original battle. That's a fairly solid battle. The issue is the followup from Madman Manstein, causing 10x the losses for a cool 256 men, 2 guns and 6 panzers.

That is not as old as WITE1.

I agree with you, but in order to set up Battle #2 as effectively as possible, putting high powered German artillery behind Battle #1 sets things up very effectively.

Had a look at the AAR on this and 2 out of the 3 units had already lost 2 battles that turn so there would have been a large number of damaged units prior to the panzer pile on

[MarkShot]

Reading this thread ... I perhaps have a very different take on it than posters. Why? Because before PC wargaming even existed, I was software engineer.

There are two main approaches to design:

Top Down = We take the results we want and we design code that will generate said results.

Bottom Up = We model process details which underlie what we are interested in, and tweak hoping that the model will yield something relatively close to reality.

In everyday English, we could use these terms:

Top Down = Wholistic

Bottom Up = Reductionism

In the early days of games, I would dare to say that Top Down design was more common than now. Why? Lack of compute power. So, these days many sims like flight sims and racing are physics based. But in the very early days, look up tables based on real world performance was used to simulate. This gave realistic results in most cases with minimal computation.

I would dare to say that most games these days are designed bottom up. Why? Because much more CPU power is available; it is an easier coding style/project management; and gives better representation of expected outcomes across a broader spectrum of tests. You may further divide bottom up into statistical simulation and agent simulation. This game is primarily statistical simulation both due to BG legacy and performance given the scope of the game. A side by side contrast between these two styles can clearly be seen in: City Skylines I (agent based) and Anno 1800 (statistical based); both city builders.

But the real issue here is Top Down versus Bottom Up. Bottom up will give better results at finer resolution, but yet often fails to provide historic results. Why? Because real humans at the top of the command of chain (decision making) are often breaking the modeled rules. In some cases, human results were down right stupid and other cases, pure genius.

So, what can games do about this problem of bottom up development not leading to historic results? Historic results are often forced by scripting at the highest levels or other artificial constructs like VL objectives. The problem with this solution is that it may often lead to very deterministic behavior which gamers will ultimately conclude to be boring and limited replayability. For a game such as WITE2 with such a steep learning curve, limited replayability is a sales killer.

Further, when a game clearly becomes predictable, the min-max-meta players often are themselves the factor that breaks historic fidelity. Partially because they know the history which the game is attempting to simulate, and partially because predictable behavior by the game leads the human being to be inside the game's OODA loop or having a few tempos on the game engine in chess terms.

I don't have a solution to WWI grinding or divergence from actual WWII history. I just want to point out a different perspective on the problem with designing such a game which is not intended to be purely flavor based where anything can happen like HOI4 versus a game like WITE2 which is supposed to be flavor based but yielding historical results without appearing to be running on rails.

As software engineer, I consider something like WITE2 to be a very challenging project; in the top 10 that I have seen in my career.

Well, I hope I have added another perspective on this whole issue. Thanks for reading.

[Stamb]

So what are you all going to propose to Joel Billings on the fix? If Joel thinks it needs it. I see all the chit-chat back and forth but nothing else.

Imo Joel should tell if they, dev team, are willing to apply a fix that community might develop. If not then it is a waste of time and better to close this topic. Creating a proper fix requires a lot of thinking and might involve changes in a few game mechanics, from my POV. So personally i dont want to spend, potentially, dozens of hours to a thing that is never going to be live. Better do my turn

[Veterin]

So what are you all going to propose to Joel Billings on the fix? If Joel thinks it needs it. I see all the chit-chat back and forth but nothing else.

Imo Joel should tell if they, dev team, are willing to apply a fix that community might develop. If not then it is a waste of time and better to close this topic. Creating a proper fix requires a lot of thinking and might involve changes in a few game mechanics, from my POV. So personally i dont want to spend, potentially, dozens of hours to a thing that is never going to be live. Better do my turn

If only your turns were dozens of hours