Different retreat likeliness.

[Uxbridge]

This is something that still concerns me:

[center]At the end of all combat, the modified combat values for both sides are calculated and
compared as a ratio (attacker/defender) to determine the winner and loser of the battle (7.1). If
the displayed modified CV ratio is 2:1 or greater, the defender will be forced to retreat. Note that
for the Soviet player as attacker, if the actual modified CV ratio is greater than 1:1, due to Soviet
attack doctrine, one level will automatically be added to their side of the ratio. For example,
a 1.5:1 ratio will become 2.5:1 for determining the winner. This means that the modified CV
ratio displayed for Soviet attacks will either be less than 1:1, in which case they lose the battle,
or 2:1 or greater and they win the battle.![/center]

I just can't understand why there's a difference for USSR and Axis sides. I have seen this issue pass, in secondary form, in many threads, and also some talk of having it changed in future patches. But if there's any older thread where this is explained - especially the rationalle behind it - please, direct me there. It seems to me that this is some balancing action, created in order to redress some other problem, and I don't like it. In fact, unless I simply don't understand the mechanic here, it looks as this is one of the major issues making any determined German effort to continue advancing after the initial part of the campaign, more or less pointless. You may be able to open up a hole or two, but in general there will be losses for nothing.

Apart from that, why should the question of retreat or not be so crudely based on wether a certain odds ratio is reached or not? The game is so detailed in other areas, why couldn't there be some diversity of results even here. Why can't a defender sometimes take massive losses, but still decline to retreat? History have numerous examples of that. Same should be true in the opposite situation too. How many times hasn't a military commander thought himself in grave danger and ordered a retreat prematurely?

All in all, my main concern is that the retreat function will lead to an unnecessary stale front mid-game.

[arras]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

I just can't understand why there's a difference for USSR and Axis sides.

As much as I understand it is some kind of abstraction of some kind of ideas of developers about tactical differences in combat between Russians and Germans. Something like "human wave" or something of this sort. There is another side of it, Soviets take more looses from German fire.

Personally I do not see many differences between Soviet and German tactic. Famous "human wave" seems to me simply as lack of competent leadership or lack of adequate equipment and resources in some battles, especially early on than result of some specific tactical doctrine.

[marcpennington]

If it is meant to simulate "human wave" tactics, I wonder if a possible adjustment to the modelling would be for Soviet attacks ranging from 1:1 to just under 2:1 to suffer a very high addition to the Soviet casualty rate, as well as a complete negation of German retreat casualties (although the Germans would still retreat, the Soviets would be so disorganized after their "human wave" to mount a real exploitation.) Otherwise, it just seems that the casualty ratio gets a bit askew from historical norms, and theatre wide infantry offensives seem to become a bit too attractive.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

This is something that still concerns me:

[center]At the end of all combat, the modified combat values for both sides are calculated and
compared as a ratio (attacker/defender) to determine the winner and loser of the battle (7.1). If
the displayed modified CV ratio is 2:1 or greater, the defender will be forced to retreat. Note that
for the Soviet player as attacker, if the actual modified CV ratio is greater than 1:1, due to Soviet
attack doctrine, one level will automatically be added to their side of the ratio. For example,
a 1.5:1 ratio will become 2.5:1 for determining the winner. This means that the modified CV
ratio displayed for Soviet attacks will either be less than 1:1, in which case they lose the battle,
or 2:1 or greater and they win the battle.![/center]

I just can't understand why there's a difference for USSR and Axis sides. I have seen this issue pass, in secondary form, in many threads, and also some talk of having it changed in future patches. But if there's any older thread where this is explained - especially the rationalle behind it - please, direct me there. It seems to me that this is some balancing action, created in order to redress some other problem, and I don't like it. In fact, unless I simply don't understand the mechanic here, it looks as this is one of the major issues making any determined German effort to continue advancing after the initial part of the campaign, more or less pointless. You may be able to open up a hole or two, but in general there will be losses for nothing.

Apart from that, why should the question of retreat or not be so crudely based on wether a certain odds ratio is reached or not? The game is so detailed in other areas, why couldn't there be some diversity of results even here. Why can't a defender sometimes take massive losses, but still decline to retreat? History have numerous examples of that. Same should be true in the opposite situation too. How many times hasn't a military commander thought himself in grave danger and ordered a retreat prematurely?

All in all, my main concern is that the retreat function will lead to an unnecessary stale front mid-game.

I don't know the game that well--modified combat ratio in what way? If it's a standard 2x3 firepower duel followed by a comparison of the survivors, it's probably overstating the probability of the attacking side winning. The long-term defensive performance of the 4th Armee is very hard to replicate using this model of battle. I can, however, understand what might be meant by the attack doctrine--the Red Army had realised (correctly) that victory in a set-piece assault was dependent on the depth of the greatest advance, and every effort was devoted to supporting the attacking element that was gaining the most ground.

[Joel Billings]

There is much debate about this rule, both in the public forum and among the testers and development team. As best I understand it, the rational from Gary is that the Soviets were more willing (as a general rule) to suffer greater losses in order to take the position than Axis forces. There are two components to the "Soviet attack doctrine" rule:

1) Attacking Soviet units are more susceptible to defensive fire and thus will invariably take higher losses
2) When performing the post battle CV comparison during Soviet attacks, if the odds are 1 to 1 or better, the Soviets win (instead of needing 2 to 1).

You can disagree with the rational, but it's not all that complicated. There were two reasons this rule was inserted from a game balance point of view:

1) We felt the Soviets were not taking enough casualties in their attacks.
2) We wanted to Soviets to be able to win some battles that otherwise they would not have been able to win using the basic system. Some think this was inserted to help the AI. I don't remember it being specifically added to assist the AI, but clearly it does help the Soviet AI win some battles that it wouldn't otherwise win, and it's possible that when it was added (far back in pre-release development) Gary wanted a boost for the Soviet AI attacks.

At the risk of misstating or oversimplifying the position of those on the dev team that don't like this rule, it's that it's an artificial rule that shows there is a fundamental weakness in the combat model and they'd rather fix the combat model. However, eliminating the rule without making other adjustments would result in lower Soviet casualties (unless you leave in the higher losses but just remove the bonus of winning at 2 to 1 odds). Lowering Soviet combat casualties when they are on the attack would not be moving in the correct direction as if anything the ratio of Soviet to German losses in 43 and later is too low as it is. So for now the rule stays, but we are experimenting with combat changes that might lead us to alter the rule in the future. At this point my assumption is that the extra Soviet losses caused by this rule are much more than the extra losses that would be suffered by the Soviets from losing those few battles that fall in the 1 to 1 to 2 to 1 range. Of course we could leave in the higher Soviet losses and just remove the +1 odds benefit which would then only hurt the Soviets.

As for the way combat is done, there is the element by element fire which accounts for everything and the kitchen sink, and during this time elements can be destroyed, damaged or disrupted. Then there is the CV comparison at the end of the battle that only includes elements that have not been destroyed, damaged or disrupted during the combat. Notice that artillery has 0 CV value, so although you could have 1000 artillery pieces that cause all kinds of casualties to the enemy, they do not help retain the position (other than their ability to destroy/damage/disrupt the enemy elements). Basically you need infantry and AFVs to take/hold territory, and they have to survive the combat phase intact and undisrupted. CV's are only one piece of the puzzle. An artillery unit has virtually no CV value, but they can have a huge impact in combat. Given the way combat is done, there is no easy way to provide information to the user as to the true abilities of the different units. Getting a feel for this is just part of playing the game, and one of the ways it is different from a boardgame.

[gradenko2k]

The manual spells it out that the Soviets get this modifier to account for the differences between German and Soviet armies in terms of tactical doctrine. That is, the Soviets need less final CV to "win" an attack, but take greater casualties.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Apart from that, why should the question of retreat or not be so crudely based on wether a certain odds ratio is reached or not? The game is so detailed in other areas, why couldn't there be some diversity of results even here. Why can't a defender sometimes take massive losses, but still decline to retreat? History have numerous examples of that. Same should be true in the opposite situation too. How many times hasn't a military commander thought himself in grave danger and ordered a retreat prematurely?

I forgot to mention that there is a lot of variability in the combat results, especially in the retreat calculation. Leaders as you probably know are a huge factor and can modify the results in a big way. Some people have complained that there is too much variability in the combat and that the kinds of things you want to have happen should not happen as much as they are.

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

[...] There are two components to the "Soviet attack doctrine" rule:

1) Attacking Soviet units are more susceptible to defensive fire and thus will invariably take higher losses
2) When performing the post battle CV comparison during Soviet attacks, if the odds are 1 to 1 or better, the Soviets win (instead of needing 2 to 1).

... There were two reasons this rule was inserted from a game balance point of view:

1) We felt the Soviets were not taking enough casualties in their attacks.
2) We wanted to Soviets to be able to win some battles that otherwise they would not have been able to win using the basic system. [...]

At this point my assumption is that the extra Soviet losses caused by this rule are much more than the extra losses that would be suffered by the Soviets from losing those few battles that fall in the 1 to 1 to 2 to 1 range. Of course we could leave in the higher Soviet losses and just remove the +1 odds benefit which would then only hurt the Soviets.

As for the way combat is done, there is the element by element fire which accounts for everything and the kitchen sink, and during this time elements can be destroyed, damaged or disrupted. Then there is the CV comparison at the end of the battle that only includes elements that have not been destroyed, damaged or disrupted during the combat. [...]

Yes, all this is so intricated that as a novice to the system, I really can't argue my point with any prospect of success. When it comes to the two points above, however, I through in my meagre weigth with the proponents of dropping the difference and keeping the high Soviet losses. That feels right somehow. Wether the Russians can through the Germans back in low odds attacks or not, I can sacrifice on the altar of realism (my version, of course). Germany should lose the war in the East by way of attrition. Each attack they make will lose them some men; each attack the Soviets make will do the same. In the end the Soviets will gain the upper hand, not by gaining tactical superiority, they never did that, but because the German lines are so thin that numbers alone will force the decision.

I do realise, obviously, that this balance is extremely difficult to achieve.

Gosh! While writing this the turn arrived; the first one for a week. I will therefore leave this topic for a day or two. Thanks for the reply, Joel. [:)]

[Helpless]

not by gaining tactical superiority, they never did that

They did that.

[Uxbridge]

Well I won't accept that challenge, Pavel. We would be at it for ages. [:)]

[Flaviusx]

I would say they got operational superiority.

[Ketza]

The problem I have with 1-1 2-1 rule is this.

Say a stack of German units is in a clear hex is facing a stack of Soviet units in a clear hex and both have close to the same CV,same leader qualities and same air support. In 1942 and beyond the Soviets have an advantage because of this rule.

As the Axis you can do everything in your power to do everything "right" for a battle yet lose to a rule that perhaps was put in the game so the AI could perform better?

Its not the casualties from the fighting its the excess casualties from the retreat caused by losing a battle due to the odds shift.

I am not an expert but to me this is an issue.

I am sure it will work itself out eventually.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

1) We felt the Soviets were not taking enough casualties in their attacks.
2) We wanted to Soviets to be able to win some battles that otherwise they would not have been able to win using the basic system. Some think this was inserted to help the AI. I don't remember it being specifically added to assist the AI, but clearly it does help the Soviet AI win some battles that it wouldn't otherwise win, and it's possible that when it was added (far back in pre-release development) Gary wanted a boost for the Soviet AI attacks.

I have no big problems with this rule though I do suspect it might benefit the Soviets a little in the mid to late part of the game.

How about making the 1-1 effect random, 50% or so? That would make the Soviet player do attacks in the hope of getting the modifier, incurring historically large losses, and sometimes they would succeed, upsetting the Germans. Soviet attacks were kind of unpredictable in that sometimes they failed miserably with huge losses, but sometimes the succeeded and then there would be trouble for the Germans.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

The manual spells it out that the Soviets get this modifier to account for the differences between German and Soviet armies in terms of tactical doctrine. That is, the Soviets need less final CV to "win" an attack, but take greater casualties.

Did anyone actually do a statistical test of the model in this area?

[tigercub]

I  like the Random idea Tarhunnas +1

[saygame]

+1 with Tarhannas and Ketza. Here's another possibility as well.

What about keeping it at one to one thru Jun '42 and then changing the Russian odds required to 2-1 in June '42 and 2.5 or 3-1 in June '43 when huge artiilery numbers and corps creation give the Soviets the offensive initiative. This would continue to give the Soviets reasons to defensively counterattack in '41 to keep the losses historical by encouraging active Soviet defense. And it would blunt some of the cases where AARs in '42 have reported '43-like shifting of the initiative (early) back to the Soviets in late fall of '42. In addition the later raising of odds in '43 would require more tactical Soviet massing of forces, perhaps reducing the Baltic-Black Sea continueous Soviet offensives along the entire front that have been reported as somewhat prevalent.

I also like Tarhannas idea of random variability in outcome because it enhances the uncertainty inherent in tactics and war.

[Uxbridge]

Even though Tarhunnas' and saygame's suggestions redress the problem to a certain degree and therefore move things in a positive direction, I think the 1-1/2-1 issue (from now refered to as "the tilt") would be best solved by simply abandoning the rule altogheter and then just tweak a few other things to adjust to the new situation. It was primarily on the offensive that the Germans excelled, and the tilt is the total opposite of this, making them weak in the offensive while retaining their neutral value in defensive situations. Frankly, gamewise, I would have been less surprised if the opposite was true; that the Soviets needed 2-1 to shift a German position. If that had been the case, we would not have had the blizzard issue, would we?

Depriving the Germans of their (in my view, note!) superior ability to conduct offensive operations, will make the German player so defensive-minded after -41 that that campaigns like the drive for Stalingrad or the more limited Citadelle will be highly unlikely to ever occur. Using an unnatural rule to balance something that doesn't come out well in the combat system, is often likely to stir up other problems in other sectors of a game. Without having more than a basic insight, I would nevertheless say that the tilt is the culprit to many other issues.

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Even though Tarhunnas' and saygame's suggestions redress the problem to a certain degree and therefore move things in a positive direction, I think the 1-1/2-1 issue (from now refered to as "the tilt") would be best solved by simply abandoning the rule altogheter and then just tweak a few other things to adjust to the new situation. It was primarily on the offensive that the Germans excelled, and the tilt is the total opposite of this, making them weak in the offensive while retaining their neutral value in defensive situations. Frankly, gamewise, I would have been less surprised if the opposite was true; that the Soviets needed 2-1 to shift a German position. If that had been the case, we would not have had the blizzard issue, would we?

Depriving the Germans of their (in my view, note!) superior ability to conduct offensive operations, will make the German player so defensive-minded after -41 that that campaigns like the drive for Stalingrad or the more limited Citadelle will be highly unlikely to ever occur. Using an unnatural rule to balance something that doesn't come out well in the combat system, is often likely to stir up other problems in other sectors of a game. Without having more than a basic insight, I would nevertheless say that the tilt is the culprit to many other issues.

I can't see how abandoning a core design concept of the game (1-1 Battle Odds = Soviet Victory) could ever be described as simple.

Without this rule how are the Ants supposed to get a retreat/surrender on an exposed Panzer Corps for example.

Getting it handed to you for 17plus turns as the Russian just ain't no fun.

Also in the late game Russian casualties are horrific on the offensive. Even Security Divisions can give you a bloody nose.

NOW with the patched Reserve commitment function, the chance of a Russian attack meeting greater numbers increases. Without the 1-1, I believe the game would descend into trench warfare.

I do hope you have played alot as the Russians before making a statement such as ''I believe they should SIMPLY throw away a core design concept of the game".

The talk of Russians 1-1 Battle victory rule and "The Russians have too much Rail Capacity" by non Russian players grates on me.

Not saying you have never played Russians, but I hope you have because of your opinion.

No offence intended, but core game concepts are well "core".

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Even though Tarhunnas' and saygame's suggestions redress the problem to a certain degree and therefore move things in a positive direction, I think the 1-1/2-1 issue (from now refered to as "the tilt") would be best solved by simply abandoning the rule altogheter and then just tweak a few other things to adjust to the new situation. It was primarily on the offensive that the Germans excelled, and the tilt is the total opposite of this, making them weak in the offensive while retaining their neutral value in defensive situations. Frankly, gamewise, I would have been less surprised if the opposite was true; that the Soviets needed 2-1 to shift a German position. If that had been the case, we would not have had the blizzard issue, would we?

Depriving the Germans of their (in my view, note!) superior ability to conduct offensive operations, will make the German player so defensive-minded after -41 that that campaigns like the drive for Stalingrad or the more limited Citadelle will be highly unlikely to ever occur. Using an unnatural rule to balance something that doesn't come out well in the combat system, is often likely to stir up other problems in other sectors of a game. Without having more than a basic insight, I would nevertheless say that the tilt is the culprit to many other issues.

I can't see how abandoning a core design concept of the game (1-1 Battle Odds = Soviet Victory) could ever be described as simple.

Without this rule how are the Ants supposed to get a retreat/surrender on an exposed Panzer Corps for example.

Getting it handed to you for 17plus turns as the Russian just ain't no fun.

Also in the late game Russian casualties are horrific on the offensive. Even Security Divisions can give you a bloody nose.

NOW with the patched Reserve commitment function, the chance of a Russian attack meeting greater numbers increases. Without the 1-1, I believe the game would descend into trench warfare.

I do hope you have played alot as the Russians before making a statement such as ''I believe they should SIMPLY throw away a core design concept of the game".

The talk of Russians 1-1 Battle victory rule and "The Russians have too much Rail Capacity" by non Russian players grates on me.

Not saying you have never played Russians, but I hope you have because of your opinion.

No offence intended, but core game concepts are well "core".

I agree with CM here. In my experience in playing the Soviets, without the 1-1 rule, the Soviets stand no chance to make any kind of meaningful attack in 1941. It is needed, or its effect is needed.

And just how do you mean that the 1-1 shift deprives the Germans of their superior ability to conduct offensive operations? Boosting the Soviets (abysmal) possibilities of making a successful counterattack in 1941 is hardly depriving the Germans of their (already excellent) attacking possibilities in 1941?

But the 1-1 as a sure thing might not be such a good thing, making it a random chance going down over time might be better.

No offense meant, but there is an awful lot of theorizing going on here, many opinions seem to be based on just reading the rules and the forum. In my experience the game actually plays out well and is fairly balanced in human vs human, at least until late 1942, but I respect that other people might have different experiences. On how many games and playing what side(s) do you base your views, Uxbridge?

[gingerbread]

Two things feels intuitively weird:

1) That the bonus is based on the German final CV strength.

2) That the Germans don't over time develop counter measures that lessens the impact of the Russian doctrine over time.