I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now...

[Flaviusx]

Heliodorus, in case you haven't noticed, I support getting rid of the rule past a certain point.

And the game in question is an outlier. Take a look at the AAR yourself. This isn't a standard game. It's very exceptional. No conclusions should be drawn from it. And the conclusion you would draw from it is exactly the opposite one of this topic. This is a game where the 1-1 rule is actually working just fine.

So let's please throw out this particular data if we want to discuss adjusting the rule.

We have much much better examples of games to make the argument from. One of them is even a Tarhunnas game, his game against Q-ball. Why he felt compelled to make his case based on the Gids game is a mystery to me.

It only undermines his arguments.

[ComradeP]

I'm dumbstruck that someone can argue that the +1 odds shift might not have 'macro' implications. OF COURSE it has macro implications, because of the retreat casualties routine.

It does not have implications by itself, because the odds themselves don't do anything. They cause various kinds of results, but those achieved with the odds modifier are no different from the results from natural 2:1 and higher odds results.

If you'd remove the odds modifier, things like the casualties caused by retreats would be completely unaffected. In my opinion, that's where the problem is. If the casualties become less brutal and there's perhaps some chance that a unit won't take a morale hit upon losing a battle, the odds modifier immediately becomes much less of a problem, although I'm not happy with it myself.

I'm deeply fatigued that a game which is 33% more expensive than other computer games, which is now 8 months old, is being sandbagged from logical improvements (like ending the +1 at some point in 1942, and the BS Soviet brigade ZOC/fort-building routines) through forced waiting on AARs from the public at large on its website (so not only do we have to wait for someone to play the game and write an AAR, we have to wait for someone at Matrix to READ them and compile quantitative data from them). Maybe Matrix should have anticipated ways to easily exchange data from games between players and databases.

The reason when it comes to the speed of some kinds of changes is not lack of data or a lack of a will to change things. We had a pretty large list of suggestions pre-release as well.

The reason is that the programming team consists of Gary, who has a company to run, and Pavel, who has a regular day job and does this part-time. If 2by3 was some big developer with a dozen programmer, obviously things could be changed much faster than they can be changed now.

I understand it can fatigue you, it fatigues the testers and the developers too in a way, because we all want to be the product to be as good as possible, but it's just what the situation is like currently. The capabilities for more than gradual changes are just not there currently, also because really big changes need extensive testing.

I'm sorry if you feel like you've been mislead in some way, but I don't think it was a secret that 2by3 is a small development team and thus has its limitations compared to the huge more mainstream development teams.

And when someone gives a specific AAR, it seems to me at least that someone from Matrix or the Alpha/Beta testers inevitably proclaims "This AAR is an outlier." Fancy jedi mind trick, that...

As difficult as that might be to believe, it is true in many cases. Only recently have public games that are being AAR'ed gotten close to the tester AAR's in terms of the experience of their opponents and thus what both players achieve, simply because people had to slowly get used to the game and become more experienced. As such, many AAR's initially came down to one opponent turning out to be much better than the other or one player making a series of crucial mistakes. Changing things based on extremes is a bad idea, things should be changed based on the average. Now that the overall experience of the community has increased substantially since the period directly after release, it's much easier to collect results of the average game and make adjustments based on that.

[Michael T]

It seems that the game is leaping from 41 blitzkrieg warfare to 43 attrition warfare and skipping the 42 middle ground. Factors for this include the 1:1 thing, no proportional zoc's, ants (no overrun rule) and forts (too many 3's and 4's).

These factors need to be addressed. If they are then the game will open up in 42 and the Soviets will be very busy rebuilding lost units and conserving force for a proper counter offensive rather than building INF Corp to lead a series of 1:1 attrition attacks.

In 42 I would change the 1:1 rule to 1.5 : 1. And remove all together in 43.
I would introduce an over run rule for ants at high odds (not sure what).
I would make the zoc costs proportional.
I would limit the number of level 3 and 4 forts.

I also think there is a significant problem with morale recovery/improvement. Its been toned down too much. I see my elite German troops degrade very fast even after just 1 or 2 hold results and yet they can win 10-0 battles and not gain a single point.

The play testers make very valid points in that nothing can really be gained from analysing AAR's between significantly unequal opponents. These type of games should be disregarded for that purpose.

I have been playing east front games for over 30 years, and reading widely on the subject, not just Glantz. I would hope the majority of testers have this kind of experience. If so things should work out. Because I am beginning to doubt that the developers have sufficient knowledge on the subject. I realize the game is very complex but I am referring to fundamental military facts here. A Soviet Brigade simply cannot exert the same influence on its surrounds as a Soviet or German Division/s. A Brigade cannot face up to a Panzer Corp in the open. These facts matter in game terms because the Russians have many many Brigades. They are influencing the game in a totally disproportionate way.

WITE is easily the best PC game on the 41-45 war in Russia. But lets face it there is not much competition out there. But there are plenty of board games out there that surpass it IMO. The problem is that there is a vast pool of experience and talent in the board game design realm but comparatively very few can/will program a computer game. If we had a guy like Dean Essig or Frank Chadwick or Vance von Borries designing PC games we would be blessed with great systems out of the box. No disrespect to GG but I don't think his knowledge of what works in a Division/Brigade scale wargame is quite as good as some established board game designers. If that were so we would not need to be debating about the number of level 3/4 forts, zoc effects of ants, over run rules, ants in general, blizzards, Riga gambits, Soviet amphib capabilities etc etc. For these problems there are well established solutions in the board game world. They work. Any veteran board gamer knows this. Its common knowledge. Why we have to keep banging on about it is beyond me.

Do the devs ever have a look at how things work in quality board games? For example I have never seen this problem of excessive fort construction in GMT's East Front series or OCS GBII or Case Blue or Europa's FITE/SE. Why try and re invent the wheel? Have a look at how realistic and workable limits have been designed in to these games. Check out the over run rules. Think about why they were there in the first place. Could it be because a soviet brigade in the open facing a whole panzer corp would actually be wiped off the map? Or at least routed.

I love the game and spend hours and hours on it. I would recommend it to anyone. But I am mystified as to why accepted norms that work in other WWII board games of similar scale/complexity are being/have been ignored.

Ok rant over. Bring on the hammering

[misesfan]

If a successful combat results in a successful leader rating increase or increase in morale, plus a rating decrease/sacking and decrease in morale for the defender, dont you think that this macro affect would be significant?

For example, lets say the successful attack resulted in a decrease in morale so that the unit goes from bright green to dull green (I believe if the morale decreases below 85) doesn't that unit suffer from more effects than the casualty loss/retreat? It can longer penetrate as far if used offensively through enemy lines for one thing...

Or if the attack results in a morale rating increase for a Guards Army commander. Death Star stack of doom incoming...Or von Manstein gets a KIA...

All random results to be sure, but arent they more probable due to continuous Soviet 1:1 attacks marching up and down the line?

I am a noob for sure but Heliodorus and Tarhunnas have a point in my humble opinion.

[wpurdom]

In 42 I would change the 1:1 rule to 1.5 : 1. And remove all together in 43.
I would introduce an over run rule for ants at high odds (not sure what).
I would make the zoc costs proportional.
I would limit the number of level 3 and 4 forts.

I also think there is a significant problem with morale recovery/improvement. Its been toned down too much. I see my elite German troops degrade very fast even after just 1 or 2 hold results and yet they can win 10-0 battles and not gain a single point.

I agree with these sentiments. But you're asking for a huge redesign. If you make zoc proportional and allow overruns it's going to greatly unbalance matters against the RUSSIANS in 1941. I'm fine with taking Leningrad being more or less par for the course - if Hitler had made it a priority instead of initially wanting to starve to death its inhabitants first, it probably would have fallen. But players like Pelton already seem to routinely make unrealistic progress beyond what was logistically feasible in 1941, and Moscow can probably fall too eaily now. And chopping off the most formidable Russian front in the south weakens the Russians tremendously. It would take a lot to rebalance the game after the changes you suggest (which are also on my own wish list).
Finally, if you tone down the forts, how are the Germans going to slow the Soviet advance in 1943?

[Michael T]

If you make zoc proportional and allow overruns it's going to greatly unbalance matters against the RUSSIANS in 1941

I don't think so because the hordes of brigades appear late in summer 41 thru winter 41. Plus the zoc and overun rule need only apply to single brigades. This would force the Soviets to stack the Brigades or risk being over run. It would influence 42 much more I think.

if you tone down the forts, how are the Germans going to slow the Soviet advance in 1943?

If the Germans are able to do more damage to Russia in 42 then they are better protected in 43. Also I am saying limit the number of 3/4 forts. Not their effect. Reasonable limits need to be imposed.

[carlkay58]

This is not my first time looking over problems in an Eastern Front game dealing with Soviet abilities to attrit the Axis to death too quickly. (GRD's Scorched Earth is one case - 1:1 or 3:2 attacks in '42 or '43 easily destroyed the Axis by attrition.) But let's approach this from the view of the Designer.

The Designer put the 1-1 rule into the game as a method of showing the difference in tactics between the Soviets and the Germans. The Germans concentrated their troops into a single solid fist to break through the defenders. Good intel, fluid battle control, good communications, and well-trained troops allowed the Germans to concentrate quickly to hit the soft spots. The Soviets, however, had quantity of infantry, tanks, and artillery - and that's about it. So they developed different tactics that included a broad front attack which would highlight the weak points in the Axis line and then reinforce the successful areas while holding in the other areas. Very effective use of superior numbers and the defenders would find themselves falling back to prevent being surrounded.

Now couple this thought with the fact that vastly inferior forces in the game are able to remain intact and suffer few casualties while retreating in front of the attacker. We are told that this is because the inferior forces were more likely to "bug out" earlier and avoid the casualties. So there should be a good case to make that when the Axis is forced to retreat solely because of the 1-1 rule, the retreat losses should be less - the defenders retreated to avoid being surrounded - just like the brigades/regiments do. This would give the players a situation where the Axis forces retreat in good order and are able to counter-attack with greater force to recapture the lost ground or hit the flanks of the Soviet thrust with more troops. Pretty historical. So perhaps we need to argue a lower rate of retreat losses rather than eliminate the rule.

This fix would work at any point of the war - so no need to figure out and test when a change should occur.

[DesertedFox]

pelton.
I beleive if the 1v1 = 2v1 is pulled the fort issue might have to be tweaked a little, but if you look at maps of the russian front it was basicly static from late 42 to late 43 early 44 in some areas. There where some attacks and counter attacks, but nothing major.

 
 
Kursk, July 1943 doesn't count as a major battle? Interesting take on it. All of my reading over the past 35 years has described it as the largest tank battle of WW2.
 
Cheers,
 
Dooley

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

This is not my first time looking over problems in an Eastern Front game dealing with Soviet abilities to attrit the Axis to death too quickly. (GRD's Scorched Earth is one case - 1:1 or 3:2 attacks in '42 or '43 easily destroyed the Axis by attrition.) But let's approach this from the view of the Designer.

The Designer put the 1-1 rule into the game as a method of showing the difference in tactics between the Soviets and the Germans. The Germans concentrated their troops into a single solid fist to break through the defenders. Good intel, fluid battle control, good communications, and well-trained troops allowed the Germans to concentrate quickly to hit the soft spots. The Soviets, however, had quantity of infantry, tanks, and artillery - and that's about it. So they developed different tactics that included a broad front attack which would highlight the weak points in the Axis line and then reinforce the successful areas while holding in the other areas. Very effective use of superior numbers and the defenders would find themselves falling back to prevent being surrounded.

Now couple this thought with the fact that vastly inferior forces in the game are able to remain intact and suffer few casualties while retreating in front of the attacker. We are told that this is because the inferior forces were more likely to "bug out" earlier and avoid the casualties. So there should be a good case to make that when the Axis is forced to retreat solely because of the 1-1 rule, the retreat losses should be less - the defenders retreated to avoid being surrounded - just like the brigades/regiments do. This would give the players a situation where the Axis forces retreat in good order and are able to counter-attack with greater force to recapture the lost ground or hit the flanks of the Soviet thrust with more troops. Pretty historical. So perhaps we need to argue a lower rate of retreat losses rather than eliminate the rule.

This fix would work at any point of the war - so no need to figure out and test when a change should occur.

Good points, all.

[Vyper]

Well posted.


Perhaps even no loss of morale (but no points could be gained that turn) for a 1:1 retreat as it was good order also? That may help with the low morale issue in 42-43.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
In 42 I would change the 1:1 rule to 1.5 : 1. And remove all together in 43.
I would introduce an over run rule for ants at high odds (not sure what).
I would make the zoc costs proportional.
I would limit the number of level 3 and 4 forts.

+ I would reduce retreat losses from low-odds attacks
+ I would find a way to make static mode used by players (harsher motor pool conditions, incentive to static for defense, ...) in order to simulate the logistical impossibility to conduce offensive all along the front as used by the designers in starting set-ups for 43 and 44 scenarios

[davetheroad]

Thinks

to shortcircuit all the problems of analysing PBEM games etc etc why not just trust the players and
add a end turn number for the 1:1=2:1 rule?

Put it in the player options section so that it can be changed during the game if the players agree.

If you do this you have covered all the bases without attempting to make the game fit ALL situations, which of course it will never do.

eventually a consensus will appear for which is the best turn to end the rukle

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The rule kicked in. Any final combat odds result greater or equal to 2 or less than three will include the modifier in it.

Actually, the rule always kick in whenever the Soviets attack and get a result better than 1-1. Not sure if that has any side effects or not, but that is the way it seems to work. Look at the example below. 412 and 195 give an odds of 2.1, which is enough that the Germans would have retreated anyway, but the odds is still shifted to 3.1.

[KenchiSulla]

Actually Tarhunnas, this last post kinda shows the need for an increase in soviet combat value.

9:1 in men
9:1 in tubes
3:1 in tanks

Air superiority

And soviets barely get 2:1 odds

Or is that a mud turn?

Anyway, I don't know what exactly is happening under the hood but wouldn't it make the game more transparant if the soviet CV was intrinsically higher as a form of organisational bonus (1941 stands at 0%, 1942 stands at + 5% etcetera?)..

You might be able to get rid of the modifier that way...

Just my 2 cents...

[ComradeP]

And soviets barely get 2:1 odds

The Germans are in level 4 forts and Soviet experience is probably "meh".

It's strange that the map suggests there's a mud turn, whilst according to the combat report it's a clear turn, must be some (graphical) glitch.

[Der Lwe]

This mihgt have been sugested before. But why dont you just remove some of the adverse effects of german reatreats? This could reflect the german emphasis of mobility. Let the germans dig faster in the lower end up to lvl2 and then slower after that and reduce the german reatreat atrition.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

And soviets barely get 2:1 odds

The Germans are in level 4 forts and Soviet experience is probably "meh".

It's strange that the map suggests there's a mud turn, whilst according to the combat report it's a clear turn, must be some (graphical) glitch.

No, it is correct. The combat was from the preceeding Soviet turn, in which it was still clear weather.

[Tarhunnas]

But this is a sidetrack, it is not about the combat itself.

What I really wanted to say with my example was: Flavio said the rule only kicks in at odds between 1-1 and 2-1, but apparently it always kicks in whenever the odds in a Soviet attack is greater than 1-1. I am wondering if this doesn't matter since the odds are 2-1 and that's it, or if the odds have some other effect besides causing a retreat. Do they affect retreat casualties for example?

[enael]

i just start with WITE. it's a very good game. Someone one can explain what you all talk about : 1:1= 2:1 ?

[Harovan]

To be won, a combat needs at least 2:1 odds. The Germans have to achieve these odds by themselves, the Soviets only have to achieve 1:1 odds and get another 1 for free: (1+1):1.