Eureka, have the issue now! Problem can be solved..

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Nobody really cared to answer the direct question of if the posted battle would ever have realistically gone 'down' that way.  Personally I think the results are comical as far as Soviet loses go.  No where in ANY of my readings of the battles during 1942 did I come across an instance where a 'deliberate' attack with about 35k men against such a small force would have been able to get away in such good order. Mobile or not. In fact the norm was an smaller German force handing a large Soviet force much high loses in early-late 42. Sure, there might have been a few battles in which a smaller Soviet force could get the better of a German force, but these were in the minority.

OK -- German infantry forces advance to contact under moderate artillery fire and air attack. Russian sees that position is indefensible and retreats double quick. Both sides suffer light casualties -- and the Russian casualties weren't all that light. What is so "unrealistic" about that?

Just because it is called a "deliberate attack" in the game should not mean that the defense should be required to stand and fight.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Nobody really cared to answer the direct question of if the posted battle would ever have realistically gone 'down' that way.  Personally I think the results are comical as far as Soviet loses go.  No where in ANY of my readings of the battles during 1942 did I come across an instance where a 'deliberate' attack with about 35k men against such a small force would have been able to get away in such good order. Mobile or not. In fact the norm was an smaller German force handing a large Soviet force much high loses in early-late 42. Sure, there might have been a few battles in which a smaller Soviet force could get the better of a German force, but these were in the minority.

OK -- German infantry forces advance to contact under moderate artillery fire and air attack. Russian sees that position is indefensible and retreats double quick. Both sides suffer light casualties -- and the Russian casualties weren't all that light. What is so "unrealistic" about that?

Just because it is called a "deliberate attack" in the game should not mean that the defense should be required to stand and fight.

But if the premise is that this is a historical game we must consider exactly what we're dealing with.

In order for a unit to be able to have a timely retreat there's a great deal of things that NEED to happen in a timely manner. If you're think the command and control aspect of the Soviet armed forces was capable of rapid and concise decisions at this stage of the war, you're very misguided. [:-]

Soviet units where very unlikely to retreat and make decision as such without higher up authority. Not to mention the difficult dynamics in a retreat in order being carried out on the battlefield (w inexperience troops). This would normally turn into a route. Given how poorly the Soviet communication network was at that time, this was iffy at best to get orders in time to make the best decision. Many of the massive amounts of loses, we're talking entire armies were lost due the deficiencies in the Soviets communication, command, and control facilities.

I CAN'T EXPRESS ENOUGH HOW IMPORTANT AND HOW MANY TIMES PEOPLE FORGET THESE ISSUES THE SOVIET ARMED FORCES WERE FACING IN 1942. I think people tend to just forget this crucial balance factor in the game and assume Soviet units had the capability to make sounds and timely decisions based on standing orders.

This is why that unit in reality would have been smashed if no reserves had come up to help it. THIS is why the game mechanics make it feasibility for the Sov to spread out their units in such a bizarre manner and get rewarded for it.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think if steps were taken to increase loses based forces involved (very high attacker vs small defender .. 10:1?)  it would help to avoid these unhistorical deep lines of single forted Sov units in 42. 

This particular solution isn't necessarily to the German advantage in the long run. It is the Soviet, after all, who outnumbers the German rather severely in time.

Be careful what you wish for. In trying to "fix" the 1942 game you may wind up wrecking the game from 43 onwards.

Already in the existing game there is arguably a problem with German defenders in the late war. (Possibly due to retreat losses as Bob mentioned.) If you tweak the combat engine such that units simply explode when faced with high odds attacks, the Wehrmacht will come under heavy pressure in due course and quite possibly collapse well ahead of schedule.

This is a complex issue that doesn't lend itself to easy solutions.

Yes, and do you know why this is a problem? I think a lot of it has to due with the game not honoring the exp and skilled tactics the Germans exhibited when actually allowed freedom to stage a fighting withdrawn (keeping in mind no Hitler to make crazy stand and die orders). It has been documented and well known that the Germans were the most skilled in this tactic over ALL nations involved in WW2. Just look at what Manstein was able to accomplish with his 'backhand blow' after Stalingrad fell early 43. That is just one of many example what German forces could accomplish when given freedom to maneuver. Yet, WitE merely gives the German forces some paltry combat benefits. Fix this glaring mechanic and WitE will be on it's way to a more realistic game and other play-balance issues in the game will be able to be corrected with less work.

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

This is a complex issue that doesn't lend itself to easy solutions.

Flaviusx - have you seen the 'reconnaissance' battle type for attacking units? I'm wondering what triggers that. Perhaps another battle type can be introduced? One based on a leadership roll perhaps, where the defenders bug out if the odds are overwhelming with a morale check on routing rather than retreating in good order? The morale check would help limit its usefulness in 1941 for the Soviets or the southern Axis minors. Course passing on that kind of decision to the AI may result in players pulling their hair out when the LAH fails its check and gives up a position it is meant to hold at all costs...

[Flaviusx]

It's an interesting idea.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Nobody really cared to answer the direct question of if the posted battle would ever have realistically gone 'down' that way.  Personally I think the results are comical as far as Soviet loses go.  No where in ANY of my readings of the battles during 1942 did I come across an instance where a 'deliberate' attack with about 35k men against such a small force would have been able to get away in such good order. Mobile or not. In fact the norm was an smaller German force handing a large Soviet force much high loses in early-late 42. Sure, there might have been a few battles in which a smaller Soviet force could get the better of a German force, but these were in the minority.

OK -- German infantry forces advance to contact under moderate artillery fire and air attack. Russian sees that position is indefensible and retreats double quick. Both sides suffer light casualties -- and the Russian casualties weren't all that light. What is so "unrealistic" about that?

Just because it is called a "deliberate attack" in the game should not mean that the defense should be required to stand and fight.

But if the premise is that this is a historical game we must consider exactly what we're dealing with.

In order for a unit to be able to have a timely retreat there's a great deal of things that NEED to happen in a timely manner. If you're think the command and control aspect of the Soviet armed forces was capable of rapid and concise decisions at this stage of the war, you're very misguided. [:-]

Soviet units where very unlikely to retreat and make decision as such without higher up authority. Not to mention the difficult dynamics in a retreat in order being carried out on the battlefield (w inexperience troops). This would normally turn into a route. Given how poorly the Soviet communication network was at that time, this was iffy at best to get orders in time to make the best decision. Many of the massive amounts of loses, we're talking entire armies were lost due the deficiencies in the Soviets communication, command, and control facilities.

I CAN'T EXPRESS ENOUGH HOW IMPORTANT AND HOW MANY TIMES PEOPLE FORGET THESE ISSUES THE SOVIET ARMED FORCES WERE FACING IN 1942. I think people tend to just forget this crucial balance factor in the game and assume Soviet units had the capability to make sounds and timely decisions based on standing orders.

This is why that unit in reality would have been smashed if no reserves had come up to help it. THIS is why the game mechanics make it feasibility for the Sov to spread out their units in such a bizarre manner and get rewarded for it.

I find it highly ironic that the same sorts of people (although not necessarily you specifically) who want to be able to send their Uberfinns to Maikop and have their tankbuster Stukas wipe out entire tank corps get all worked up about a tank brigade being able to retreat in the face of an all-infantry attack with only (!!??) 30% casualties. [8|]

[Mynok]

This wasn't a tank corps defending. It was a rifle division.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


This wasn't a tank corps defending. It was a rifle division.

In the OP's example it was 2 German Inf Divs plus support attacking a Tank Brigade plus support.

[jzardos]

Just another example of sheer madness. Once again I dare anybody to agree that this would have ever been a realistic/historical possibily in 1942 east front.

Germans have superiority tactics, manpower, exp, equipment, morale, and leadership. Yet just look at the results.

Just using logic 101, if this would never be an outcome in 42 why would WitE even allow it to happen ONE time?

To me and all my friends that play war games it's clear irrefutable proof that combat mechanics are in some cases flawed. I don't see HOW anybody could say... "oh no this is ok, it should be possible". You're basically going against ever all the historical evidence that suggested give this situation the Soviet forces would have lost more of everything.

HOW CAN WitE developers and players EVER allow this continue. This to me is just such an injustice to gamers and an even the actual veterans alike.

WitE researchers on this aspect of the game, you ought to be ashamed and shame on you 100x if you don't fix it. This is my opinion and once again, not going to candy-coat this bs.

If WitE is going to be a 'war in the east fantasy' game, then allow the Axis to have a winter prep option, because you've basically taken away what was their true strength in this campaign (41-43) superior tactics,equipment, and leadership on almost all levels but Hitler. But in this case Hitler is out of the picture as players are suppose to be making those decisions.

Sorry just becoming more and more dissolutioned with what is turning out to be some real unexpected results from combat that I've never experienced in any others games of this campaign.

[abulbulian]

True, this is probably not something that would have resulted at this point in the campaign. I understand your frustration. All I would say is try to continue and play on knowing that the developers are examining these issues and will be doing their best to correct the inaccuracies as they're able to discover the cause. It's not an easy process and there's much to consider before just throwing a patch out before looking at the big picture and any regression.

Have some faith.

[&o]

[Joel Billings]

Ok, I'll take a stab at the last example. What was the ammo status of the attacking units (I assume you can't know the defending unit's ammo situation)? The defender being dug in fort level 2 allows some pre-targeted artillery bonuses. The defending unit gets supported by 3 artillery/rocket regiments. We're not talking AT guns and mortars here, but possibly major amounts of artillery. The German CVs are nothing to write home about. Did these units have a lot of damaged elements before the battle? What is the leadership quality of the leaders involved? There are just too many factors that your screenshot does not tell us to even begin to examine what is going on here.

To be honest, when you posted this "This to me is just such an injustice to gamers and an even the actual veterans alike." I had to laugh. I've been making wargames for over 30 years and I never knew that unlikely combat results (assuming that the unknown factors can't explain this) would ever be viewed as an injustice to gamers, let alone to the veterans. I'd say this is hyperbole at it's best.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

To be honest, when you posted this "This to me is just such an injustice to gamers and an even the actual veterans alike." I had to laugh. I've been making wargames for over 30 years and I never knew that unlikely combat results (assuming that the unknown factors can't explain this) would ever be viewed as an injustice to gamers, let alone to the veterans. I'd say this is hyperbole at it's best.

+1
The definition of histrionics, man.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Just another example of sheer madness. Once again I dare anybody to agree that this would have ever been a realistic/historical possibily in 1942 east front.

Germans have superiority tactics, manpower, exp, equipment, morale, and leadership. Yet just look at the results.

Just using logic 101, if this would never be an outcome in 42 why would WitE even allow it to happen ONE time?

To me and all my friends that play war games it's clear irrefutable proof that combat mechanics are in some cases flawed. I don't see HOW anybody could say... "oh no this is ok, it should be possible". You're basically going against ever all the historical evidence that suggested give this situation the Soviet forces would have lost more of everything.

HOW CAN WitE developers and players EVER allow this continue. This to me is just such an injustice to gamers and an even the actual veterans alike.

WitE researchers on this aspect of the game, you ought to be ashamed and shame on you 100x if you don't fix it. This is my opinion and once again, not going to candy-coat this bs.

If WitE is going to be a 'war in the east fantasy' game, then allow the Axis to have a winter prep option, because you've basically taken away what was their true strength in this campaign (41-43) superior tactics,equipment, and leadership on almost all levels but Hitler. But in this case Hitler is out of the picture as players are suppose to be making those decisions.

Sorry just becoming more and more dissolutioned with what is turning out to be some real unexpected results from combat that I've never experienced in any others games of this campaign.

I can just say, this is not what I am typically seeing in my combat results at all! It is certainly possible to dig out a couple of fluke combat results, but in my experience this would be an exception. Also, the Soviet unit is dug in, it has more support units than the Germans, which could explain the German losses.

I think you are going ballistic here over a very limited selection of results, and apparently doing so from a pro-German standpoint. And since you bring up the subject of injustice, I also think your post is an injustice to the developers of this game!

P.S. You could make a rather long list of games that are an injustice to veterans. It would be interesting to hear what computer simulations of the Eastern Front in your opinion do show proper respect to veterans.

[Kel]

Here is a drastic solution to the very real problem our friend has pointed out (even if he inadequately uses offensive words to support his views). Coming back to the subject of this thread (the endless lines of soviet rifle divisions on 3, 4, 5 hexes deep as soon as 1942), could it be a solution that the soviet player only have at its disposal corps-sized units ?

I mean, all the authors state that soviet corps more or less have the same combat value of german divisions. Wouldn't it be fair to consolidate those myriads of soviet divisions in corps and only give the player control over a limited number of corps-level units?

Because, in fact the multiplication of small units.

1/ dramatically expands the defensive frontage that a soviet army is able to defend

2/ multiply the sheer number of targets that the german need to attack each turn,

3/ give the Red Army a tremendous level of flexibility that does not feel historically correct.


Thus, to solve an issue that has been a lancinant plague of an otherwise very very impressive game design for 6 months now, I propose : get rid of soviet divisions and rewrite from scratch the soviet OOB limiting the player control to corps-level units (or consolidated goupings of 3 divisions as other games are doing).

Divisions would not have been a problem in effect if shattering was more common. But, we routinely observe a problematic phenomenon: in the hands of a semi competent player, it is possible that most of the divisions are never destroyed (and, as a side note, this was somewhat contrary to the soviet field practice : it was often deemed more quick and efficient to build new units form scratch). At best, they rout and come back a few turns later.

(IMO and generally speaking, some more firmness and consistency would be welcome in the in-game management of small units. At this game scale, and with this stacking limit, anything under a division should not appear at all on the map. If it is deemed correct to put romanian cavalry regiments or italian legions as HQ assets only, then, nkvd, border guard, luftwaffe field jäger or whatever regiments should also be given this streamlined treatment.)

Since it is a lot of work, I would be delighted to give money for an add-on that include this feature.

[herwin]

For a couple of years at the beginning of the war, the Red Army lacked the command and control assets and qualified commanders to organise infantry corps. Instead, small infantry armies were created (with around five divisions) directly under the command of a competent leader and his staff. Later in the war as commanders and staff officers learned their jobs, armies were organised with a corps echelon.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Kelblau

Here is a drastic solution to the very real problem our friend has pointed out (even if he inadequately uses offensive words to support his views). Coming back to the subject of this thread (the endless lines of soviet rifle divisions on 3, 4, 5 hexes deep as soon as 1942), could it be a solution that the soviet player only have at its disposal corps-sized units ?

I mean, all the authors state that soviet corps more or less have the same combat value of german divisions. Wouldn't it be fair to consolidate those myriads of soviet divisions in corps and only give the player control over a limited number of corps-level units?

Because, in fact the multiplication of small units.

1/ dramatically expands the defensive frontage that a soviet army is able to defend

2/ multiply the sheer number of targets that the german need to attack each turn,

3/ give the Red Army a tremendous level of flexibility that does not feel historically correct.

If this happens, I will NOT play this game anymore... [;)] Obviously not a threat (who would care?)... When I put my hands on WiR in 2001 I was disappointed because of one thing: very few units to simulate what the Soviets DID in the real war in 1942 and 1943: building defensive lines, strong-points far behind their lines. In 1942, they even fortified places 600 km behind the front! Not to mention the Strategic Reserves! If we apply your idea, poof, they are gone... In other words, this would be totally ahistorical.

Are you telling me that I should not have units to do these two ESSENTIAL jobs to survive the German war machine: defence in depth and strategic reserves? No thanks. I am not interested in playing this kind of game... The old WIR would be more than enough...

From what I see the authors you read did not mention the Soviet defensive DEPTH (behind the front-line that is)... Let me fill that gap:

1942: between 500 and 600 km!
1943: 300 km

Now please tell me HOW I will be building these lines IF I have no units [;)] That's why I will ALWAYS keep many brigades (aka diggers) at least until AUTUMN '42, when I'll be 100% sure I will be surviving the Blitzkrieg Part II.

[Kel]

Tullius has spoken [:)]

And, no it's not "poof they are gone". These rear area layers would always be here. After all reserve armies would still be present - just with less counters - and I never wanted to get rid of forts.

The suggestion is just to consolidate the soviet on-map units to something more consistent with the size of units that are available on the other side.

Just two examples:

1/ is it absolutely essential to give the soviet player on-map control on all soviet border guard regiments ? Doesn't this feature allow quite gamey proceedings (such as the garrisonning of the whole finnish front exclusively with these regiments, a maneuver that frees up the equivalent of 2 frontline field armies ?

2/the stuG bns and independent panzer battalions are not available as on-map units but, rightfully enough IMO, as SU, that can be attached to divs or to higher hqs. On the soviet side on the other hand, every tank brigade that fought the war is present as a combat unit. Have the consequences of this dissymetry been thougt out ?

In one word : having different size of units present on map for each side do have consequences. I just suspect this dissymetry in the sheer number of available playing units to affect play balance. Nothing more.

[TulliusDetritus]

I am not allowed to talk, Kelblau? [:)]

Hmm, the problem I see -with this system- is defending in depth will not be possible. You have to man the front-line after all. That's a lot of hexes. To do that you already need loooots of counters (regiments, divisions or corps, it's irrelevant)... What's really left? [;)] I suspect basically NOTHING. What's going to happen when the German Panzers manage to surround a portion of the front in 1942 (because this is more than possible)? In fact, how will you be able to defend IF you have one arm tied behind your back...? Basically everyone is in the front-line except a FEW counters (Stavka Reserve Armies) behind. That is not how the Soviets defended, sorry.

To me that sounds like WiR circa 199x... If this ever works, I will stick to the current version of the game, so no problem [8D]

[FM WarB]

Excuse me, but I do not see how the combat results described in these threads is all that impossible.  It can be described this way:
The dug in outnumbered defensive force suffers relatively little from the enemy artillery.  It manages to put some fire on the attacking enemy.  They do not even have to aim well at the attackers as they present a target rich environment.  Then three quarters of the defending force decide to get out of there before being overwhelmed.  One quarter stays, being too stubborn to run or too wounded to move and acts as a rear guard.  This process does not require superior tactical leadership;  it happens naturally.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Just another example of sheer madness. Once again I dare anybody to agree that this would have ever been a realistic/historical possibily in 1942 east front.

Germans have superiority tactics, manpower, exp, equipment, morale, and leadership. Yet just look at the results.

Just using logic 101, if this would never be an outcome in 42 why would WitE even allow it to happen ONE time?

Please stop with the "sheer madness" ranting, it is getting harder and harder to take you seriously. For starters, you have a rather pathetic engineer level of 1, which should be higher when attacking entrenched positions. Frankly, in this battle, I don't really see the issue: the Germans attacked a fortified position without adequate pioneer or air support (and a pretty scant arty advantage) and succeeded in pushing the Sovs back after suffering relatively heavy casualties. What exactly is the problem?