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

[jzardos]

Ok, I finally understand what the fundamental problem with this game is when it comes to combat especially after 41. Kept scratching my head looking at these AARs and seeing the massive lines of Soviets units ... single units. Then I realized it's a trend, whether checkboard or just a carpet it was always single units. So I know that some of these Soviet players are no dummies and as most smart players do will gravitate to whatever winning strategy the game will allow, even if in this case as I will prove is completely bogus, unrealistic, and unhistorical. Take your pick, it just smells bad.


So I decide to test this theory out and have been now for weeks. I've been doing it with a friend in our game and vs AI. Here's the logic to why a smart Soviet player can get away with putting down a line of just crap units in 42 and let them fort up to 2-3 (sometimes 4) YES WITH v1.04. Oh yeah. Now the Soviet player has in the critical areas a line of single units 4-5 hexes deep.

Here's where it getting interesting and somewhat sad at the same time. I've played many board and computer games over the years.. 15 years at least. WitE is the ONLY game I know that you can put down a piece of crap unit and not losing it or having it devastated to a cadre when taking on better units (if considering morale and exp) at odds of 10:1 or greater.

Exhibit A:



Given it's early 42, I'd say the air evens out .. or should actually still be German advantage. But that's a another issue topic entirely.

What does the mean. Well it means that the Soviet player doesn't need to stack units because the attrition alone against the axis will do it's job. If I'm a Soviet player, I'd be very happy in 42 losing up to 3x more men/equip. Since the chances for a German breakthrough are going to be extremely rare if the Soviet player is not a noob. To me this creates a very unhistorical and unrealistic wall or check-board in depth approach that is just the smart way to go for the Soviets. You can't blame them for using it, because WitE allows for it to work so well.

*Also, as a unit like this retreats it moves back to another single unit in a fort and now there's two if them. This will continue to happen as the axis player continues to push through the wall of units. Unless the Soviet units happens to route.

What should happen to these single units of 3k-5k when hit with 30k-50k? I'd say a very high chance they are shattered or routed back with 20-30% left and losing 75% of heavy equipment. Side-note to developers... fix routing as it seems to be the running joke of the forums. I've seen Soviet units route and only lose 10% arty and 10% men..lol. Really?

Ok, I digress. Back to the issues of ratio loses with WitE, I've done hundreds of battles and it seems very difficult to for defending units to lose more than 30-35% even when faced with the assault I've displayed in here. BTW those two axis infantry units were two of the best with 80 morale and avg 79 on units. Commanded by none other than Manstein. Blizzard still turns most of the German infantry units to crap even if never attacked. Fix the issue with returning troops from winter disables lowering exp, remember these are the same veterans just returning to the lines. NOT green troops. But I don't think WitE at this point is sophisticated to track this? Oh well.

I know this is not a board game, but still. For people that have played, there's reasons why in most combats of 10x, the defender is eliminated.

Because WitE allows it, they have now this situation crazy unhistorical situation in 42 where the Soviet players just make a deep line of single units. Watching the axis player bang away until they've worn themselves down and then to counter attack. I should know as I used it on my friend playing axis and he just threw in the towel in 43 because of how much he lost in 42 with very little to show for it.

Will fixing this combat to be more realistic effect play-balance? Possibly. So maybe something else needs to change as well. But at least the historical feel is back with battle results.

So I leave people with the question: How many, with their vast or even limited knowledge of the east front campaign, feel these combat results (in early 1942) would EVER be possible. Oh, I ran this battle 10x times or more and this closest to the average result. So it was NO fluke result.

My answers is never. This Soviet unit would have been decimated. It's late so not going to bother proofing. Also, sorry if this is strong. Keep in mind I'm presenting what I think is constructive criticism because this very good game is only going to get better!

NOTE: I realize that the Soviet bombers explain the loses to the Germans. It's the very low (~20%) loses to the Soviets given what they were attacked by. That's the point of this post and how it's major issue in the game.

[76mm]

I don't see what the Eureka moment is here, this outcome has been very obvious for some time (as you point out, Sov players recognized this long ago). From your thread title, I though you had figured out WHY is this occuring, but apparently not...you also don't propose any real fix, other than that the Sov unit should be pulverized...
[>:]

People can certainly argue about whether this outcome is realistic (I would say that it is almost certainly not for unentrenched units, for entrenched units, not sure), but as I've said before if the fix is to simply wipe from the map every Sov unit that is hit by a strong German stack, I think we'll have significant play balance issues.

[herwin]

A few comments:
1. The casualties are right for a day or two of combat. To break through, you have to hammer a few times before you release your mobile forces.
2. A light covering force was used by both sides. There should be a heavy defending force on the MLR one hex back, and counterattack forces behind that.
3. The goal of an attack is to make a penetration, but if the defence in depth goes too far back, it's a waste of forces that could stiffen the defence further forward. On the other hand, you do need forces in place. A UK division organised stop lines with HMGs and AT assets 4 and 8 km back from the front line.
4. A force retreating, especially a Soviet force, should not be able to generate much combat power until it gets a breather. That's why the counterattack reserves were important to holding a line.

[Zebedee]

You're outnumbered 2:1 Reds, retreat nicely or....



Ouch...



No fair! Don't make me deliberate attack.... No... don't you go bringing reserves in too....



Let's see that again without your friends...

[76mm]

Interesting, Zebedee, a rather wide range of results, but given all of the different factors (hasty vs deliberate, air support, reserves, etc.) it is rather difficult for me to interpret them other than the rather obvious conclusions that from the attacker's perspective, Deliberate Attack is GOOD, air support is GOOD, reserves are BAD.

Can anyone provide more insightful analysis?

[cpt flam]

i would have rather made an hasty attack with a lone div if there is only a X in face
you are really over commiting in this case
probably you would have the same retreat if that's you want

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Interesting, Zebedee, a rather wide range of results, but given all of the different factors (hasty vs deliberate, air support, reserves, etc.) it is rather difficult for me to interpret them other than the rather obvious conclusions that from the attacker's perspective, Deliberate Attack is GOOD, air support is GOOD, reserves are BAD.

Can anyone provide more insightful analysis?

In longer words and joined up sentences for the adults:

The critical factor is the choice between hasty and deliberate attack on units with a fortification level. Attackers' casualties will be higher and defenders tend towards lower when hasty attacking in comparison to the identical factors influencing a deliberate attack. This is because when you're hasty attacking, your artillery is skimping on fire. Less casualties caused, less suppression, more stuff firing at you and so causing you more casualties.

Notice that even the addition of a tank brigade of reserves still wasn't sufficient to stop the rout for the first deliberate attack.

[76mm]

The difference in defender casualties between a hasty and deliberate attack is pretty huge...is that solely a result of less effective artillery, or are there also fewer restreat losses after a hasty attack?

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The difference in defender casualties between a hasty and deliberate attack is pretty huge...is that solely a result of less effective artillery, or are there also fewer restreat losses after a hasty attack?

Yeah, you're right, I should have been clearer (I have a working theory that losses added on for routing and retreated seem fairly proportional to losses taken in combat - neither here nor there). I was refering to what goes in the combat prior to the results for rout/shatter getting added on as you can see with the exceptionally low Soviet casualties in the two 'holds' against hasty attacks.

You're definitely not going to see too many shatters if you always hasty attack (you don't get the same level of CV inflation, you're limiting the amount of CV which can be brought on the target), but then if you always deliberate attack, you won't get many encirclements either.

[arras]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Here's where it getting interesting and somewhat sad at the same time. I've played many board and computer games over the years.. 15 years at least. WitE is the ONLY game I know that you can put down a piece of crap unit and not losing it or having it devastated to a cadre when taking on better units (if considering morale and exp) at odds of 10:1 or greater.

Do you base your opinion on "games" or do you have some real historical evidence to support your claim? One thing I am sure about is that games vastly exaggerate battle casualties.

Through the history, typical battle casualties usually ranged about 10-20% for winner and 30-40% for looser. With some generalization of course. And I do mean larger units of soldiers, like say divisions.

Only computer boots fight to the death.

Perhaps you can show us some typical examples of real WWII battles and their results including casualties.

ORIGINAL: jzardos

I know this is not a board game, but still. For people that have played, there's reasons why in most combats of 10x, the defender is eliminated.

Question is what that "10" represents, which you do not know. Again I see you based your assumption on experience from playing games. Not good I would say.

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Because WitE allows it, they have now this situation crazy unhistorical situation in 42 where the Soviet players just make a deep line of single units.

I'll would say, it is defence in depth and see nothing unhistorical in it. Learning from Soviet experiences, that is what player should do. If that work in WITE than I definitely consider it plus.

In fact what I miss in this game is ability to set units in to "holding enemy attack" stance. In which they would not make stand but give ground slowly in front of the enemy. Retreating while keeping looses down even against superior enemy. Units with lot of mobile elements should be more effective in this kind of combat both at attacking and defending side.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The difference in defender casualties between a hasty and deliberate attack is pretty huge...is that solely a result of less effective artillery, or are there also fewer restreat losses after a hasty attack?

Yeah, you're right, I should have been clearer (I have a working theory that losses added on for routing and retreated seem fairly proportional to losses taken in combat - neither here nor there). I was refering to what goes in the combat prior to the results for rout/shatter getting added on as you can see with the exceptionally low Soviet casualties in the two 'holds' against hasty attacks.

You're definitely not going to see too many shatters if you always hasty attack (you don't get the same level of CV inflation, you're limiting the amount of CV which can be brought on the target), but then if you always deliberate attack, you won't get many encirclements either.

Good data Zebedee.

I must say I am comfortable with the outcomes and the difference between deliberate and hasty attacks. If I want to get forward quick, I make a hasty attack, if I want to cause enemy losses I make a deliberate one.

I can't really see what's the problem and what the solution is you have found Jzardos? The result you show is not what I typically get when i delib a lone tank brigade with 2 German infantry divisions. Though I agree that tank brigades do tend to inflict casualties out of proportion to their own size. However, it was in level 2 fort here, so that would probably explain some of the German losses.

I do agree though that there might well be some scaling issues with the combat model, and the effects seem to be felt more badly for the Germans in the later war period.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The difference in defender casualties between a hasty and deliberate attack is pretty huge...is that solely a result of less effective artillery, or are there also fewer restreat losses after a hasty attack?

Yeah, you're right, I should have been clearer (I have a working theory that losses added on for routing and retreated seem fairly proportional to losses taken in combat - neither here nor there). I was refering to what goes in the combat prior to the results for rout/shatter getting added on as you can see with the exceptionally low Soviet casualties in the two 'holds' against hasty attacks.

You're definitely not going to see too many shatters if you always hasty attack (you don't get the same level of CV inflation, you're limiting the amount of CV which can be brought on the target), but then if you always deliberate attack, you won't get many encirclements either.

Good data Zebedee.

I must say I am comfortable with the outcomes and the difference between deliberate and hasty attacks. If I want to get forward quick, I make a hasty attack, if I want to cause enemy losses I make a deliberate one.

I can't really see what's the problem and what the solution is you have found Jzardos? The result you show is not what I typically get when i delib a lone tank brigade with 2 German infantry divisions. Though I agree that tank brigades do tend to inflict casualties out of proportion to their own size. However, it was in level 2 fort here, so that would probably explain some of the German losses.

I do agree though that there might well be some scaling issues with the combat model, and the effects seem to be felt more badly for the Germans in the later war period.

The other thing you should see if you organise a deliberate attack is that the defence has the option to thin out the line so that the attack hits nothing.

[Ridgeway]

Here's where it getting interesting and somewhat sad at the same time. I've played many board and computer games over the years.. 15 years at least. WitE is the ONLY game I know that you can put down a piece of crap unit and not losing it or having it devastated to a cadre when taking on better units (if considering morale and exp) at odds of 10:1 or greater.

You do realize that you are attacking an essentially purely mobile unit (a tank brigade) with units that have no mobility. Why do you think it would be realistic for the tank brigade to stand immobile and let itself be overrun (overwalked)?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

Here's where it getting interesting and somewhat sad at the same time. I've played many board and computer games over the years.. 15 years at least. WitE is the ONLY game I know that you can put down a piece of crap unit and not losing it or having it devastated to a cadre when taking on better units (if considering morale and exp) at odds of 10:1 or greater.

You do realize that you are attacking an essentially purely mobile unit (a tank brigade) with units that have no mobility. Why do you think it would be realistic for the tank brigade to stand immobile and let itself be overrun (overwalked)?

That's exactly the advantage mobile units have in the defence. Beck's Delaying Defence was designed around motorised machinegun Abteilungen that were trained to deploy, forcing the opposition to deploy at foot speed, then ploy and pull back to the next position. Rinse and repeat. Dick Simpkin wrote a whole book on this and related topics.

[gravyface_]

I've been a silent observer of these play-balance/bugs/flaws threads for the last few weeks; good stuff. Haven't bought the game yet, finishing up DC:WtP first.

Can I ask, is there such a thing as an overstack penalty in WiTE?

[arras]

No, but there is stacking limit, which is 3 units. Any units, regardless of size or type (HQs and airfields also count). You however can trace movement through those units.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

Here's where it getting interesting and somewhat sad at the same time. I've played many board and computer games over the years.. 15 years at least. WitE is the ONLY game I know that you can put down a piece of crap unit and not losing it or having it devastated to a cadre when taking on better units (if considering morale and exp) at odds of 10:1 or greater.

You do realize that you are attacking an essentially purely mobile unit (a tank brigade) with units that have no mobility. Why do you think it would be realistic for the tank brigade to stand immobile and let itself be overrun (overwalked)?

For what it's worth, I've seen several occasion in which the target unit was not a mobile unit. I very much doubt there's logic to retreat mobile units sooner than non-mobile when it comes to incurring loses from the attacker.

[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.

The main issue jzardos is trying to convey is that very small Sov forces are too often able to inflict decent loses to the attacker, but more importantly taking a very low amount themselves when faced with extremely high attacker:defender odds.

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.  The idea that very experience and high morale units even if outnumber should be able to stand up better to these situations.  Clearly this posted battle by jzardos was not the case for the lower morale and exp defender.

I'm also, still concern the game doesn't reflect the leadership and just better tactical abilities of the Germans vs their Soviet counterpart in 42.  Even until the end of the war, although the gap was closing, the German still have superior skill in almost all lower levels of leadership.

Keeping in mind this type of change in combat mechanics would later favor the Soviet's march back to Berlin in 43 onward. 

[gravyface_]

Have you tried reloading your save game and attempting the same attack but with less units? Curious to know if there's a "hidden" penalty for committing too many forces to the battle.

[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.