German losses?

[chaos45]

So I know Brian has commented on this as well and I hadnt played in a year, but now having started up a game again...the German losses for failing attacks is stupid low.

Usually less than 100 men and I just had one battle report of a german failed attack with 3 men damaged on the German side.

Think the designers/modders have given the Germans a tad to much leeway in reducing losses in 1941 especially. This means German units are effectively losing battles and still staying full strength all through 1941.

The nerfs to soviets sappers and engineers not assisting in digging in is huge, its a reduction in CV in the divisions and a reduction in CV from fortifications in 1941.

I can now see why Soviet players are again and again being badly trounced in the opening 10+ turns of the game now, they have virtually no way to slow down a german player using HQBU and managing his rail lines well.

In the early turns the German players shouldnt have a complete free hand and be able to attack with hasty attacks all the time with no risk in losses its alittle ridiculous. Ive seen turns where my units are hit by 2-3 hasty attacks in a row before finally retreating or routing and the losses on the German side are only 100-200 men for all the attacks while the soviet side losses thousands.

You might want to look at the loss ratios and rolls for the german special loss reductions abit more closely because they seem a tad to good still.

Just my 2 cents...and leningrad is completely impossible to even do a good delaying action at with these current rules. The game has changed far, far to the Axis favor over the last 12 months of changes in the opening game.

open to discussion

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: chaos45
...and leningrad is completely impossible to even do a good delaying action at with these current rules.

Judging by my current game against HardLuck, this statement is either untrue or else I simply suck at this game....

[56ajax]

Dear Chaos?

Are you trying to wind me up? I'm the one who reported a successful Soviet counter attack that killed 4.

Against a Good german the game is over by T12.

Then again perhaps i suck as a Soviet.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I have my assumptions what is happening with Chaos45 in his game but not knowing his full setup with the units involved on his side will be difficult to tell. (my assumption is low experienced squads, this is the bane of the Soviets early game).

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

Dear Chaos?

Are you trying to wind me up? I'm the one who reported a successful Soviet counter attack that killed 4.

Against a Good german the game is over by T12.

Then again perhaps i suck as a Soviet.

The worst attack you can do is against a brigade/Regiment size units as a Soviet. This will give "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious ridiculous absurd f'ing results" as Chaos45 has said.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

ORIGINAL: chaos45
...and leningrad is completely impossible to even do a good delaying action at with these current rules.

Judging by my current game against HardLuck, this statement is either untrue or else I simply suck at this game....

So far I have held onto Leningrad in all my games using my Strategy "Defense of the Soviet Union begins one hex West of Pskov" I have 11 games done so far and 5 in progress (1 game not using this strat). I can say that 3 of the current in progress games Leningrad will not be captured and 2 games are too early to call, Dinglirs is one of the two games the 2nd being the game I'm not using my strat on and still too early.

Having said this it is not just you Dinglir that ran into this defense The Road to Leningrad can be defended but you really have to be on your toes as the Soviet.

[chaos45]

as to combat results---that just re-affirms something isnt working right when a smaller formation inflicts massed damage and takes like nothing even when it loses.

As to defending Leningrad, I saw your screenshot---much pends the skill of the German players. Is a massive different between someone thats played against the computer alot and dabbled vs human play and a German player that has mastered the logistics system which what the German player really needs to know to do well in first 10 turns. Knowing the logistics and HQBU system will allow a good German player to hit all across the front every turn, by my math to make that line you showed in the screen you would have to pull about every decent Division in the Soviet army to the north in the first couple turns of the game. As well as not suffer a very well done lvov with follow on lightning push on kiev or into your deep SE industrial zone from AGS.

Not to mention you will need something to defend VL and the land bridge with besides 1-2 CV soviet divisions, just my take which would leave me to believe you not facing German players really milking the logistics system for max Panzer MP.

A strong hold at Pskov should just be bypassed via VL which then also flanks the land bridge. As a dabbling German player Ive stormed VL on T4 vs a human player and Im not good at playing Germans at all really lol...an this was pre all the pro Axis patching.

[Stelteck]

My opinion is also that the battle phase of the combat system is not important enough and do not provide enough damage.

Especially artillery elements should do more damage.

This game have a superb battle phase model, but instead of using it to full extend, most damage come from retreat damage and attrition, which are only lightly influenced by battle phase.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

as to combat results---that just re-affirms something isnt working right when a smaller formation inflicts massed damage and takes like nothing even when it loses.

As to defending Leningrad, I saw your screenshot---much pends the skill of the German players. Is a massive different between someone thats played against the computer alot and dabbled vs human play and a German player that has mastered the logistics system which what the German player really needs to know to do well in first 10 turns. Knowing the logistics and HQBU system will allow a good German player to hit all across the front every turn, by my math to make that line you showed in the screen you would have to pull about every decent Division in the Soviet army to the north in the first couple turns of the game. As well as not suffer a very well done lvov with follow on lightning push on kiev or into your deep SE industrial zone from AGS.

Not to mention you will need something to defend VL and the land bridge with besides 1-2 CV soviet divisions, just my take which would leave me to believe you not facing German players really milking the logistics system for max Panzer MP.

A strong hold at Pskov should just be bypassed via VL which then also flanks the land bridge. As a dabbling German player Ive stormed VL on T4 vs a human player and Im not good at playing Germans at all really lol...an this was pre all the pro Axis patching.

1st para I concur with. The combat results VS PZ brigade/Regiments is absurd.

2nd para Again, You can have the best Lvov pocket and still make this work. I have done tests with the Pocket I make at Lvov as the German capturing all of the south and you can still build the defense.

3rd no offense here but conventional thinking of the forum and conventional failing imho. As such I don't defend the Landbridge. I do deny access to VL first few turns though. (Screen shot below) Those Para units don't route easily ;-}

4th para conventional thinking and again plays right into what I want done(I also want the Germans to attack my line at Pskov so it is a win win scenerio) As such I ask the question, "What is more important holding specific areas on the map or maintaining your Army". My answer is, "maintaining my Army" You aren't going to hold much of anything with the majority of the Soviet Rifle squad experience in the 10's and 20's until turn 9-14. Anything that sneezes at these divisions will cause them to lose thousands of men. Thus in my opinion the "CRUX" that is causing the Soviets the most pain. You have to use your experienced Rifle squads efficiently. No ifs ands or buts about it. Thus I begin the Defense of the Soviet Union one hex west of Pskov using my "Experienced Rifle Divisions with experienced Rifle squads". As the Soviets with this defense you are living on the edge of a knife. Don't slip.

[morvael]

You just have to survive until September 1941, where the special rule causing enormous Soviet losses post battle is turned off.

[chaos45]

just till september....ya lol....you do realize the Germans can be in Moscow by September with the current logistics system. No wonder my units are being totally crushed even when they win and delay the Germans slightly.

Maybe have this rule turn off at the start of August so soviet players can actually play the game? That still gives the german players at least 5 turns to do massive damage where its almost impossible for the soviets to resist.

[Stelteck]

ORIGINAL: morvael

You just have to survive until September 1941, where the special rule causing enormous Soviet losses post battle is turned off.

There is really such a script ?? Ha ha [X(]. Soviet looses cannot just only the consequences of bad leadership, XP and morale ?

WITE is an awesome game but i'am very uncomfortable with scripted, weakness like this.

I hope WITE2 will not have them.

[charlie0311]

House rule such that axis rail is limited to the best road beds, bridges, other infrastructure, etc (the rail lines between major population centers), (coming soon to a wite 2.0 near you) limits the axis VL gambit, etc.

Pretty sure I can save Moscow but not Lgrad. Hidden exploits not in use, of course.

Cheers,

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: charlie0311


Pretty sure I can save Moscow but not Lgrad. Hidden exploits not in use, of course.

Cheers,

I would rather lose Moscow than Leningrad, but my goal is to hold both.

[darbycmcd]

I think the engine is overly dependant on morale for post battle losses. In reality sometimes these troops break and run earlier and can suffer lower net losses.


But I also think one of the biggest problems is lack of normal attrition from specific operations. For example, panzer divisions can advance 200 miles and fight basically at full to&e at the end. As well, the air resupply missions do not create significant losses to attrition. Both of these things, along with the.... significantly overpowered... axis logistics situation, give that player ahistorical capabilities.

The reality is, fighting in the Barbarossa phase was characterized by rapid advances (check), massive Sov losses (check), desperate raising and commitment of untrained formations by STAVKA (check), but also by very significant erosion of combat power to attrition for the Axis (not so much check), and an increasingly disasterous logistics situation (definately not check). So it kind of seems like the the character of the war that is hard on the Sov player is there, but the experience of the Axis player is a bit more kind than is historically warranted.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I think the engine is overly dependant on morale for post battle losses. In reality sometimes these troops break and run earlier and can suffer lower net losses.


But I also think one of the biggest problems is lack of normal attrition from specific operations. For example, panzer divisions can advance 200 miles and fight basically at full to&e at the end. As well, the air resupply missions do not create significant losses to attrition. Both of these things, along with the.... significantly overpowered... axis logistics situation, give that player ahistorical capabilities.

The reality is, fighting in the Barbarossa phase was characterized by rapid advances (check), massive Sov losses (check), desperate raising and commitment of untrained formations by STAVKA (check), but also by very significant erosion of combat power to attrition for the Axis (not so much check), and an increasingly disasterous logistics situation (definately not check). So it kind of seems like the the character of the war that is hard on the Sov player is there, but the experience of the Axis player is a bit more kind than is historically warranted.

So if you do well as the Soviets now you are beating the odds? I'm sure someone will delimit this in some form or other ;-P I'm hearing there is nothing but doom and gloom for the Soviets in the beginning of the game and you pretty much are against the odds of even surviving past Turn 10.

[darbycmcd]

You have listed your record and discussed your abilities in several threads now.I feel like maybe you need some affirmation? Your defense is genius. I suspect that chaos45 may be on to something about the importance of Axis player response being key (ok I 100% agree with him), but that is always the problem with stochastic analysis.

Do you have some insight into the the difference between historical and game results? This is another example really of the difference between historical gamers and .... I am not sure what to call the others. The historical ones are saying "hey, these results are a bit different from historical expectations and therefore the game is taking on an ahostorical character, which is not what we want in an, you know, historical game". The others are saying "look, do this tactic which lets you win. Since both sides have winning tactics, the game is fine". Both sides are correct for their particular view but it means very little in the other sides perspective.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

You have listed your record and discussed your abilities in several threads now.I feel like maybe you need some affirmation? Your defense is genius. I suspect that chaos45 may be on to something about the importance of Axis player response being key (ok I 100% agree with him), but that is always the problem with stochastic analysis.

Do you have some insight into the the difference between historical and game results? This is another example really of the difference between historical gamers and .... I am not sure what to call the others. The historical ones are saying "hey, these results are a bit different from historical expectations and therefore the game is taking on an ahostorical character, which is not what we want in an, you know, historical game". The others are saying "look, do this tactic which lets you win. Since both sides have winning tactics, the game is fine". Both sides are correct for their particular view but it means very little in the other sides perspective.

Just seems to be the consensus on the forum at the moment. I'm just an average player trying to hold both Leningrad and Moscow is all. Maybe I just havent played the same German players that others are playing to obtain the same results as them. I don't know. I can only show my games and what I have done.

As for historical I can only say I'm playing with current rule set to have fun The discussion of Historical or not is one that would go on forever with neither side concurring with the other.

[darbycmcd]

That is very true, but without endless and ultimately pointless debate on the internet forums we wouldn't have much to talk about!

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

That is very true, but without endless and ultimately pointless debate on the internet forums we wouldn't have much to talk about!

I love you already with this quote