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

[Wild]

Your absolutely right Oleg.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Wild

Yes, but they only had 28 afv's vs 189 for the germans.

They had 62 Sturmos flying the completely clear skies picking off Panzers like sitting ducks too.... and 1350 arty tubes.

ROE is a good idea, but I remember in TOAW I rarely ever put any of my units below "max ultra extra suicide fanaticism highest casualties are OK" or whatever it was called.

[Wild]

I understand what you guy's are saying. The rule still sticks in my craw though. As Oleg say's it would have been better if it was hidden. It does play to a certain fairness aspect of the human psyche.

[Ketza]

Here is a problem that you are missing.

As a Soviet player you know that you have a good chance of winning a battle like this with a bunch of grunts that dogpile a stack of tanks. You can win it with grunts instead of a proper attack with TANKS. So that is what you use.

You cant have it both ways. If as an Axis player you cannot "guaranteee" a hold with a full Panzer Corps against Soviet infantry at low odds then as a Soviet you should not be able to use just enough pure infantry to guarantee you will take a hex because of an odds shift.

I do this as Soviets all the time in 1941. Its one of the reasons I get better then historical results against Axis players game after game. I am sure that in 1942 I would look at it the same way. Panzer division or 2 in the open? Hells bells attack it at crappy odds and get that retreat!

One or 2 battles like this is no big deal but turn after turn for the entire game over the course of hundreds of battles makes a difference.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Here is a problem that you are missing.

As a Soviet player you know that you have a good chance of winning a battle like this with a bunch of grunts that dogpile a stack of tanks. You can win it with grunts instead of a proper attack with TANKS. So that is what you use.

You cant have it both ways. If as an Axis player you cannot "guaranteee" a hold with a full Panzer Corps against Soviet infantry at low odds then as a Soviet you should not be able to use just enough pure infantry to guarantee you will take a hex because of an odds shift.

I do this as Soviets all the time in 1941. Its one of the reasons I get better then historical results against Axis players game after game. I am sure that in 1942 I would look at it the same way. Panzer division or 2 in the open? Hells bells attack it at crappy odds and get that retreat!

One or 2 battles like this is no big deal but turn after turn for the entire game over the course of hundreds of battles makes a difference.

That's the mechanisim working as inteneded. Given that German CVs are infalted due to superior units and Soviet CVs are deflated due to crappy units... if it were changed to a real 2:1 odds then the Soviet player will be discouraged to make these attacks and take less casualties.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Soviet you should not be able to use just enough pure infantry

This wasn't pure infantry, this was 1350 tubes of arty, 60 unopposed bombers, bazillions of infantry and even some tanks probably from that Cav corps.

Based purely on looking at the numbers - ignoring the game and all - my gut feeling is that this would be very evenly matched battle. That's EXACTLY what combat odds gave us, very evenly matched battle, you lost barely by one tenth of a point! You could just as easily have won. So IMO it's a good example of game working as designed.

A combat resolution mechanism that would not give ANY chance for Sovs to win this battle would be unfair.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

In fact this is a good example of game working as designed, and why 1:1 perk is OK.

Without that bonus Soviets could not win this battle and IMO they had right to win.

2by3 did a mistake they published how 1:1 bonus work, they should just have made it secret, and I guess less people would complain about battles like this, with realistic results.

With rules published, whenever Germans see 2:1 and they KNOW 1 has been added as per the rules, it does hurt and seems unfair. "GRRR I WOULD HAVE WON THIS IF IT WASNT FOR 1:1 THING!" I understand that on a personal and emotional level, but that's a wrong way to look at it.

If the complete process was hidden from the players, people would not complain and would accept their fate. I am generally against making the formulas known to public. What matters is only the final result, and here I think the final result is OK, within the realms of realism and quite possible. So what's the problem? Ketza would you accept your fate easier if the game gave the final odds of, say, 5:1, so that you know 1:1 perk wasn't at work here? [:)]

I would accept the fate if the odds were higher because the proper amount of force would have to be applied to achieve the results.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Here is a problem that you are missing.

As a Soviet player you know that you have a good chance of winning a battle like this with a bunch of grunts that dogpile a stack of tanks. You can win it with grunts instead of a proper attack with TANKS. So that is what you use.

You cant have it both ways. If as an Axis player you cannot "guaranteee" a hold with a full Panzer Corps against Soviet infantry at low odds then as a Soviet you should not be able to use just enough pure infantry to guarantee you will take a hex because of an odds shift.

I do this as Soviets all the time in 1941. Its one of the reasons I get better then historical results against Axis players game after game. I am sure that in 1942 I would look at it the same way. Panzer division or 2 in the open? Hells bells attack it at crappy odds and get that retreat!

One or 2 battles like this is no big deal but turn after turn for the entire game over the course of hundreds of battles makes a difference.

That's the mechanisim working as inteneded. Given that German CVs are infalted due to superior units and Soviet CVs are deflated due to crappy units... if it were changed to a real 2:1 odds then the Soviet player will be discouraged to make these attacks and take less casualties.

So the argument is give the Soviets a perk to win a low odds battle because they cannot win it otherwise because German troops are superior? This is even in 1942 and beyond when they outnumber the Axis in everything across the board?

It makes more sense that the Soviets from 1942 on just need to make proper attacks and take thier licks when they do not.

[Oleg Mastruko]

It appears to me that playing with Report level set to 0 would solve most of the problems players have with this game. No overanalysing the combat reports and looking for "perks" that helped the enemy, just accepting the final battle results as they come... [:D]

Joel, I hope you're reading this, never let the players know they have some "perk" applied against them, I do agree that it's psychologically bad thing to see, even though the results are OK otherwise.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Ketza
It makes more sense that the Soviets from 1942 on just need to make proper attacks and take thier licks when they do not.

This was a "proper attack" mate, by any measure known to man! Look at the numbers outside the game, and forget the damn 2:1 odds presented by the software!

Are you saying 94k men, 1350 tubes, 120 aircraft and some tanks, wasn't a "proper attack" vs half the number of men, three times less arty tubes, no forts and NO aircraft??

It was a proper attack, just try to ignore the way game used to reach the 2:1 odds presented to you. Turn the report level to 0 if that would help [;)]

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Ketza
It makes more sense that the Soviets from 1942 on just need to make proper attacks and take thier licks when they do not.

This was a "proper attack" mate, by any measure known to man! Look at the numbers outside the game, and forget the damn 2:1 odds presented by the software!

Are you saying 94k men, 1350 tubes, 120 aircraft and some tanks, wasn't a "proper attack" vs half the number of men, three times less arty tubes, no forts and NO aircraft??

It was a proper attack, just try to ignore the way game used to reach the 2:1 odds presented to you. Turn the report level to 0 if that would help [;)]

[:D][:D][:D]

[KamilS]

Oleg Mastruko

It appears to me that playing with Report level set to 0 would solve most of the problems players have with this game. No overanalysing the combat reports and looking for "perks" that helped the enemy, just accepting the final battle results as they come...

I think it is great idea. We should not see combat reports. But it is not enough. To make this game truly great we should not see units too.[;)]

I have got even better idea. We should not see that game at all.


I think, that we will know if +1 attack bonus for Soviets is good idea or not in 2015 (hopefully), when people will start finishing their campaigns and final patch 1.49 will be released.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Ketza
It makes more sense that the Soviets from 1942 on just need to make proper attacks and take thier licks when they do not.

This was a "proper attack" mate, by any measure known to man! Look at the numbers outside the game, and forget the damn 2:1 odds presented by the software!

Are you saying 94k men, 1350 tubes, 120 aircraft and some tanks, wasn't a "proper attack" vs half the number of men, three times less arty tubes, no forts and NO aircraft??

It was a proper attack, just try to ignore the way game used to reach the 2:1 odds presented to you. Turn the report level to 0 if that would help [;)]

I am unconvinced it was a proper attack.

A 2-1 advantage of infantry attacking armor in the open would be a slaughter if you look at this outside the game. Even with air support and a 3-1 artillery advantage.

Try a scenario of that type of Cross of Iron and tell me how that works out for ya.

Just saying. [;)]

[gradenko2k]

Try a scenario of that type of Cross of Iron and tell me how that works out for ya.

I'm pretty sure Close Combat Cross of Iron doesn't represent battles of that scale. You can examine the results of a couple dozen rifle squads against a couple of tanks, but nothing that would represent 90 thousand men at one time.

Perhaps TOAW or JTCS?

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Ketza
It makes more sense that the Soviets from 1942 on just need to make proper attacks and take thier licks when they do not.

This was a "proper attack" mate, by any measure known to man! Look at the numbers outside the game, and forget the damn 2:1 odds presented by the software!

Are you saying 94k men, 1350 tubes, 120 aircraft and some tanks, wasn't a "proper attack" vs half the number of men, three times less arty tubes, no forts and NO aircraft??

It was a proper attack, just try to ignore the way game used to reach the 2:1 odds presented to you. Turn the report level to 0 if that would help [;)]

The problem is i love seeing all of the combat reports and statistics. I'm a history nut.
For my sanity i just hope they find an acceptable way to get rid of this rule without nerfing the Soviets. Maybe that way we could all be happy.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Ketza
I am unconvinced it was a proper attack.

A 2-1 advantage of infantry attacking armor in the open would be a slaughter if you look at this outside the game. Even with air support and a 3-1 artillery advantage.

Try a scenario of that type of Cross of Iron and tell me how that works out for ya.

Just saying. [;)]

So you think the Soviets won't use smoke to conceal their advance?

[Mynok]

1350 tubes. That was the killer IMO. When some of you guys play more in the later years you will understand how utterly devastating arty is for the Soviets. You'll get battles where they have 5k tubes. And lots of Germans will die.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: Wild

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Ketza
It makes more sense that the Soviets from 1942 on just need to make proper attacks and take thier licks when they do not.

This was a "proper attack" mate, by any measure known to man! Look at the numbers outside the game, and forget the damn 2:1 odds presented by the software!

Are you saying 94k men, 1350 tubes, 120 aircraft and some tanks, wasn't a "proper attack" vs half the number of men, three times less arty tubes, no forts and NO aircraft??

It was a proper attack, just try to ignore the way game used to reach the 2:1 odds presented to you. Turn the report level to 0 if that would help [;)]

The problem is i love seeing all of the combat reports and statistics. I'm a history nut.
For my sanity i just hope they find an acceptable way to get rid of this rule without nerfing the Soviets. Maybe that way we could all be happy.

My one and only point is the Soviets do not need this odds bump in 1942 and beyond. They already have an immense advantage.

And I say that not as an Axis or a Soviet fan but a fan of the game.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

1350 tubes. That was the killer IMO. When some of you guys play more in the later years you will understand how utterly devastating arty is for the Soviets. You'll get battles where they have 5k tubes. And lots of Germans will die.

5k tubes. Amateurs. In my last 43 campaign I was routinely hitting with 10k tubes and 400 bombers in areas where I could concentrate a stack of arty divs. You don't have to worry too much about starting CVs when you hit with that number, because the German CVs and fort levels will spiral down to zero anyway.

[Mynok]

[:D] 5k will do the trick. Oleg has done very well putting sufficient artillery behind his attacks. Less tubes per attack means more attacks and he's been very efficient at that.