what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

[
However in practice and historically with Soviet forces (41-42) it a very difficult procedure to execute on the battlefield. So I think WitE devs need to put back in the historical flavor of how unsuccessful these ANT forces would be able to extract themselves from the field and be a fighting force in the next few turns (ROUTE) or just RETREAT with with only max 35% loses.

OH and for another JOKE these ANT forces were able to ROUTE/RETREAT with some hvy caliber arty. GET REAL, would never happen, sorry.

It's "rout" not "route." Before you go around getting hysterical in ALL CAPS you might want to get that right. Not sure why people are so fired up about this, the difference between a 1000 man unit taking 35% casualties and routing or shattering is really not that great in the scale of the game. Basically a non-problem. I would agree that the ZOC issue probably could stand to be addressed, and there are late game issues that definitely require the devs attention more than this.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


I'm not sure how trying to achieve realistic outcomes is a "cheap gimmick." It may not work totally as designed and need tweaking in certain spots (particularly after '41), but the whole point of it was that if it isn't there than the Soviet forces are totally incapable of doing anything at all in 41...which is also not realistic.

I just mean, that if we model everything correctly we should achieve a historical outcome. We should not need this rule (cheap gimmick was probably a poor choice of words) for "achieving realistic outcomes".

In my view the game should be pretty well self balancing if the model is correct. So fix whats wrong with the model instead of adding artificial balancing rules.

[jomni]

<deleted>

[cookie monster]

I do love these threads I really do![8|]

I'll say it again the Russian 1-1 is hardly an advantage.

Attacking at low odds and relying on 1-1 combat odds,

Would rapidly turn the Soviet Army into Swiss Cheese.

The casualties are horrendous, and now that reserve unit commitment has been patched the situation can only be worse.

Although slower the Soviet Army does have to attack in force to preserve the Army.

Casualties are high, of course because defending will favour the Axis for a large part of the War.

I really do hope you've battled all the way from Stalingrad to Germany with the Soviet Army before formulating an opinion.

[delatbabel]

As much as I would like to see the retreat rules made variable (you have a high chance of retreating the enemy if you attack at 10:1, a much lower chance at 1.2:1) that leads to in-PBEM cheating where a player continually replays his or her turns until he gets the retreat result he wants.

Better would be about a 1.5:1 rule for both sides, but with much higher losses to the attacker when the odds are lower and much lower losses with higher odds. Higher levels in fortifications based on the fort level, and higher levels again in city / urban hexes. Perhaps a bit higher odds to force Soviets to retreat from USSR hexes, and higher odds required to force Germans to retreat when the war is carried into Germany. Historically (not just WWII here), troops defending on home territory stood and died, troops on foreign territory tended to retreat more often.

Furthermore I would add the ability of NKVD units stacked with or behind a Soviet unit to reduce the chance of retreat (increase the odds an attacker must have to force a retreat) at the cost of additional losses. Just throwing that one out there for the politics.

Also, as an option, allow "stand fast" orders to be added to a HQ to prevent attached units retreating, at the cost of higher losses.

[jomni]

This is an eureka moment. Delatbabel point out something good that is present in other operational games.  A setting for casualty tolerance.  Present in AGEOD games and TOAW, This affects both retreating as defender and calling-off an attack as attacker. Control of the hex depends on which side's tolerance is reached first during the detailed combat resolution rounds.

The player ultimately ends up deciding the doctrine in stead of some arbitrary and abstract mechanic.  This results into a big micromanagement task which I'm not fond of when playing TOAW. But for me this is the way that this should be solved. Yet I fear it is too late to put this into the game.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: jomni

This is an eureka moment. Delatbabel point out something good that is present in other operational games.  A setting for casualty tolerance.  Present in AGEOD games and TOAW, This affects both retreating as defender and calling-off an attack as attacker. Control of the hex depends on which side's tolerance is reached first during the detailed combat resolution rounds.

The player ultimately ends up deciding the doctrine in stead of some arbitrary and abstract mechanic.  This results into a big micromanagement task which I'm not fond of when playing TOAW. But for me this is the way that this should be solved. Yet I fear it is too late to put this into the game.

I was thinking of the 3W games such as Kirovograd where each HQ gets a set of "orders" at the start of the turn. These vary from defend (take losses, don't retreat, slows movement), mobile (reduces combat efficiency, can advance or retreat), withdraw (reduces losses sustained, increases retreats), "assault", "pursue", etc.

Assigning standing orders to HQs would only need to be done at an army/corps level and could be done fairly quickly in the command report screens. I use much the same process at the moment to set the support level of HQs on a front by front basis or whole army basis, and it's fairly quick and painless.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

I really do hope you've battled all the way from Stalingrad to Germany with the Soviet Army before formulating an opinion.

I strongly agree with this.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

I really do hope you've battled all the way from Stalingrad to Germany with the Soviet Army before formulating an opinion.

I strongly agree with this.

I confess i have not played the russian side at all. I would agree with your comment in almost all cases, but not this one. You are missing the point of my comment. We should not have to use any play balancing tools like this if the game is modeled correctly. It's as simple as that. If the Russians would be too adversely effected by the removal of this rule then the model is not corect and must be changed.

I will say again. I am not trying to nerf the Soviets in some way. I am trying to have the game modeled as accurately and as historically as possible, and having rules like this defeats the purpose of all the hard work to model things correctly.

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: jzardos

[
However in practice and historically with Soviet forces (41-42) it a very difficult procedure to execute on the battlefield. So I think WitE devs need to put back in the historical flavor of how unsuccessful these ANT forces would be able to extract themselves from the field and be a fighting force in the next few turns (ROUTE) or just RETREAT with with only max 35% loses.

OH and for another JOKE these ANT forces were able to ROUTE/RETREAT with some hvy caliber arty. GET REAL, would never happen, sorry.

It's "rout" not "route." Before you go around getting hysterical in ALL CAPS you might want to get that right. Not sure why people are so fired up about this, the difference between a 1000 man unit taking 35% casualties and routing or shattering is really not that great in the scale of the game. Basically a non-problem. I would agree that the ZOC issue probably could stand to be addressed, and there are late game issues that definitely require the devs attention more than this.

hfarrish,

Thanks for correcting me with 'rout' -> 'route'. Now let's move on to something with more relevance and substance. How about you spend a little time doing some research into the battles fought on the eastern front, specifically in 42? If that's not too much to ask? I've spent a significant amount of time in the last 2 months doing just that. Finished three great books, one was probably a bit less reliable for numbers as it was memoirs of Manstein: 'Lost Victories'. But, another by David Glantz really enlighten me and that guy know more about the eastern front THAN ANYBODY (some CAPS just for you hfrarisshh). So do that and then come back with something sensible and intelligent to say about the 35% rule. Would love to see your arguments that the battle results in WitE do historical justice in my example ANT cases.

thanks!

have a nice day!

[cookie monster]

How else do you model "Human Wave doctrine" in a war game?

The Soviets take lots of casualties whilst pushing back the Axis.

So you have a good reserve unit commitment and the odds swing in your favour, the Soviet Generals pour more men into the battle and eventually overpower you.

The Soviets took horrific casualties and gained a so called "victory".

Do I have to say again... You would have to be mad to fight at one to one odds as the Soviets. It's a real experience killer seeing your units become shredded.

It would be nice if another Soviet player could say how often they attack at 1-1 odds, it's probably not necessary as it's been said before.

--------------------------------------------
There's a very large bandwagon around here...

It revolves around.

1. Soviet 1-1 odds.

2. Excessive Soviet Rail Cap

3. First Winter

4. Forts

5. The games broke Axis can't WIN yada yada

Try getting yer butt kicked as the Soviets for 20 turns, cos it sure ain't fun playing "Supermen vs Ants".

So even though Soviets have to endure a pounding... I know lets make them even more difficult to play.[:D]

[Lieste]

Maybe ants is wrong too - because German losses in July/August were a hell of a lot higher than Dec/Jan. Current tempos don't match this at all.
Good tactical performance by Russian troops, but a poor strategic/operational situation, against superior tactical and operational situation of the German forces might be a closer match than inept/disgraceful tactical performance with relatively smooth running strategic options (which are largely irrelevant due to poor troops).

Supply cap enforcement also affects German movements (just slightly less so due to more efficient use of smaller numbers of weapons - the concentration of Pz formations should be tough though... they need a huge amount of rail, and large supplies of fuel and ammunition compared to an ID).

[Mynok]

I wouldn't mind seeing the 1-1 thing go away after 42. Trust me...the Soviets don't need it after that. Indeed I do not recall it ever being a factor in&nbsp; the 43 campaign with Oleg I'm playing.

[Wild]

I usually find myself in agreement with you Cookie, but on this issue i guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I understand your argument, but the whole rule just seems artificial to me. Seeing as how the developers are spending time making code changes for this,there seems to be some merit to getting rid of this rule.

By the way, sure the Soviets get smashed in '41, but they have to in order for the axis to have a chance.
Just look in Q-ball vs.Tarhunnas AAR. The Germans pounded the Soviets hard in the summer but the Soviets were still able to have a deadly winter offensive.
The first 20 turns the Soviets get pounded like you say, but there are a whole lot of turns after that where it's not that way.

[Baelfiin]

Playing as the Soviets some of my most favorite moments in the summer of 1941 are when I get to dogpile that panzer division that is all alone out on the point of the advance. And everytime I do, the casualties are high for the Red Army even though the panzer goes flying. I don't recommend attacking at 1-1 odds, because you will run out of dudes that can attack at all very quickly. For all of the nay-sayers out there complaining about play balance, how many of you have actually played the game to a conclusion (on the map, not in your mind) of the game? I think that all of the whining about the game design can probably be summed up with a quote from a wargaming buddy of mine, " It's impossible to design and play-balance a game that will compensate for player incompetence."

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Wild


Just look in Q-ball vs.Tarhunnas AAR. The Germans pounded the Soviets hard in the summer but the Soviets were still able to have a deadly winter offensive.

It's worth noting on this point that Tarhunnas did launch a brilliant late summer campaign but took a lot of risks that he is now paying for. I would still maintain that the lack of any effective supply constraints on the Soviets once they flip to the aggressor is a far bigger issue than the 1-1 odds modifier. It's the scale and scope of the offensives that allow them to become overwhelming, not the modifier. This becomes doubly true in 42 and 43.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Maybe ants is wrong too - because German losses in July/August were a hell of a lot higher than Dec/Jan. Current tempos don't match this at all.
Good tactical performance by Russian troops, but a poor strategic/operational situation, against superior tactical and operational situation of the German forces might be a closer match than inept/disgraceful tactical performance with relatively smooth running strategic options (which are largely irrelevant due to poor troops).

I think this is probably onto something in terms of feel...but given that 41 is right about where it should be in terms of results (IMO) I'm afraid to revisit a lot of the thinking that went into how it gets there.

[arras]

Can somebody point me to war or prewar time Soviet army manual, political manifesto or any other primary source which orders Soviet commanders perform "human wave" attacks? Or something which can be described as such? Newer ever in my life I saw such "doctrine" been defined in any relevant literature.

Only place where I find Soviet doctrine of "human wave" are computer games!

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: arras

Can somebody point me to war or prewar time Soviet army manual, political manifesto or any other primary source which orders Soviet commanders perform "human wave" attacks? Or something which can be described as such? Newer ever in my life I saw such "doctrine" been defined in any relevant literature.

Only place where I find Soviet doctrine of "human wave" are computer games!

The root of the whole thing lies in the social system of the USSR. Lenin himself had said that if the country was attacked the Red Army would be "the most agressive army of history".

In other words, the military professionals have NOTHING to do here. What they did, of course, is developing this "agressive" army theory thing. Which is why the Red Army focused on attacking, not in defending.

It's easy to see that this "agressive" thing lead to unnecessary, suicidal attacks: the waves you describe.

But again, it was about the revolutionary spirit. Not about some random military formulating this doctrine from his desk [;)]

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: arras

Can somebody point me to war or prewar time Soviet army manual, political manifesto or any other primary source which orders Soviet commanders perform "human wave" attacks? Or something which can be described as such? Newer ever in my life I saw such "doctrine" been defined in any relevant literature.

Only place where I find Soviet doctrine of "human wave" are computer games!

Anyway here's some info. I'm not gonna dig further I'm just gonna accept what was written in the manual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave#Usage