Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

[Tarhunnas]

I am of the opinion that the combat model needs to be looked at. With combat results as these, there is absolutely no incentive to attack. Even if things would improve with higher morale for the attacker, this would still be a bit simplistic, if moral was everything. Attacks against outnumbered defenders seem to cause way to many casualties for the attacker.

[Tarhunnas]

While a larger tank corps with much more support is ridiculously easy to rout. I simply don't think this feels right. I know there are lots of things that cause variation in combat results, but these are not extreme examples, these are typical!

[Helpless]

There could be plenty reasons for such combat results and in many cases if you look at the details (beyond the provided screenshots) the result doesn't look that surprising. Axis and Soviet casualty composition (killed/damaged/disrupted) could be very different. Both results doesn't look wrong at the first glance.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

There could be plenty reasons for such combat results and in many cases if you look at the details (beyond the provided screenshots) the result doesn't look that surprising. Axis and Soviet casualty composition (killed/damaged/disrupted) could be very different. Both results doesn't look wrong at the first glance.

Are damaged and disrupted included under the "LOST" heading?

[Helpless]

Are damaged and disrupted included under the "LOST" heading?

Halved damage are included. Disruption is not. But disruption is causing a very high fatigue and operational losses afterwards.

Also, there could be some small elements which got damaged and they are not listed due to the rounding. Plus there is a display bug which adds lost vehicle to the battle report lost men.

[Remmes]

If this game is anywhere near historic regarding the hugeness of the Soviet Army, it is all the more a testimony to the German skill in fighting. With this huge superiority in numbers the Russians should have kicked the Germans out long before they actually did. I am reading now about the German withdrawal after Stalingrad leading up to the loss and recapture of Kharkov. If the Germans hadn't been superbly handled by von Manstein and the Russians not so badly led (the amount of interference of Stalin as well as Hitler in military affairs is astounding), the war in Russia would have been over in '43, early '44 at the latest.
I think the the feel of the later game: the German mouse vs the Russian colossus is right. The Germans should be a tad more powerful in '42 to give them more chance of succes because I think they came very, very to final victory in '42. Like the game very much....if only I had more time!

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Captain

The June 42 German Army was not anywhere near as capable as the June 41 one.

Hitler was only able to bring Army Group South up to strength by taking shortcuts. All replacements were funneled to AGS. AG Center and North infantry divisions were reduced to 2 instead of 3 regiments and were stripped of most of their vehicles. The training program for recruits was also shortened to 2 months, so new recruits were less trained.

This is discussed by Glantz in vol.1 of his "Stalingrad trilogy".

Also Hitler stripped all panzer divisions and other mobile divisions from AGN and AGC along with all vehicles.

AGN and AGC were so stripped off at june 42 that they could only barely hold Soviets at bay.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

While a larger tank corps with much more support is ridiculously easy to rout. I simply don't think this feels right. I know there are lots of things that cause variation in combat results, but these are not extreme examples, these are typical!

Well Soviet troops are not as reliable than German troops. You cannot rely them do same things than Germans can do.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

There could be plenty reasons for such combat results and in many cases if you look at the details (beyond the provided screenshots) the result doesn't look that surprising. Axis and Soviet casualty composition (killed/damaged/disrupted) could be very different. Both results doesn't look wrong at the first glance.

The point is that the average combat results clearly show the German 'best path':
Don't attack the Soviets, anywhere, ever, because you will always lose the macro-game of attritional warfare (far faster than anyone advocates happened historically) and end up losing the war faster.

The combat engine is poorly conceived. It's implementation is fine. It's the modelling that's bad.

[Peltonx]

The key to game is Russian production.

The loss ratio is about right when captured units is factored out. As more then a few devs and players have pointed out based on allot of data and historical results.

The forsed loses because of retreats to AFV's is way off and needs to be addressed.

As the German as long as you take out 100 arm pts your in great shape and should be able to control the red machine until mid 44.

You can take all the hexes/citys(Leningrad,Moscow to Rostov, kill 4 million plus reds before Dec 41, but if you do not bag industry your going to get crushed by turn 100ish. The output of men and guns will build up much faster then you can possibly kill. The German player must do atleast 2.6 to 1 ration in manpower to keep the Red machine under control and this can only be done by pocketing units. Which means during 42 the German player must be pocketing units. This is very hard to do unless you have forsed allot of industry to move and destoryed enough arm pts during 41.

Guns are the key to the Russian defences and only way they can break the fort belts during 42 to 45 even with the new fort rules.

As the German player doing better then historical is amost 100% based on destoryed industy. Citys are simply points on the map that means little unless they have industry in them.

If as the German player you want to be rewarded for good play, bag industy. Destoryed units and talking of citys do reward you, but no ways near as much as destoryed industy does in the long run.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

I very very much disagree with the idea that the German can't counter attack from turn 70 to end of the game.

German mech an armor units must be used to counter attack because they cause generally better results then sitting on there butts all the time.

The fact is they cant generally get better then 2.6 to 1 odds attacking but they will acheive much better ratios then being forsed to retreat.

When mech or armor counter attacks a win gets you 1.5 to 3 to 1 ratio in deaths. Most of the time around 2 to 1.

If your armor is on line which it will be forsed to be at some point your ratio once your forses to retreat will be 2 to 1 and as low as 1 to 2. Mostly around 1 to 1 because of the higher loses when units retreat.

So if your looking at the big picture and the grind and German Arm output in 43 to 45 you are much better off counter attacking.

Sure the odds will not be 3 to 1, they be 2 to 1 which is better then 1 to 1.

Counter attack as many Red units that are not in forts as possible and pull back the armor after you have done your counter attack.

This will cause more loses to the Red Machine and slow them down some. Your mech and armor losses can be replased unlike your guns and infantry losses.

Pelton

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I very very much disagree with the idea that the German can't counter attack from turn 70 to end of the game.

German mech an armor units must be used to counter attack because they cause generally better results then sitting on there butts all the time.

The fact is they cant generally get better then 2.6 to 1 odds attacking but they will acheive much better ratios then being forsed to retreat.

When mech or armor counter attacks a win gets you 1.5 to 3 to 1 ratio in deaths. Most of the time around 2 to 1.

If your armor is on line which it will be forsed to be at some point your ratio once your forses to retreat will be 2 to 1 and as low as 1 to 2. Mostly around 1 to 1 because of the higher loses when units retreat.

So if your looking at the big picture and the grind and German Arm output in 43 to 45 you are much better off counter attacking.

Sure the odds will not be 3 to 1, they be 2 to 1 which is better then 1 to 1.

Counter attack as many Red units that are not in forts as possible and pull back the armor after you have done your counter attack.

This will cause more loses to the Red Machine and slow them down some. Your mech and armor losses can be replased unlike your guns and infantry losses.

Pelton, that is a really insightful observation. I have been concentrating too much on overall ratios.

To reiterate your key points:
1. Attacking with a 2:1 result is better than being attacked with a 1:1 result
2. If you attack and withdraw you will probably NOT be attacked the next turn
3. By attacking with tank-heavy forces you are taking losses in tanks which are more easily replaced than infantry.

[Peltonx]

I dont thk the engine is that far off as far as the big picture goes, sure it need some tweaks. Over-all its ok for now.

I would say that the devs have bigger fish to fry before getting around to tweaking engine.

As always the game is improving with every patch, of course it not as fast as some would like or just what I want done.

Over-all things are progressing at a good pace an in a positive direction.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

If they do lower russian production from 200 to 130 then the ratio will drop from 2.6 to 1 in manpower.

The ration can also be effected by the number of armerment pts destoryed during 41.

I would say the thing that will effect the game the most is the lowered Russian output. Forts will have some effect, but can be over come. Forts can be cleared by using more guns and engineers. I don't thk most German players use art to their advantage taking out hard pts. I know I learned from reading Russian player AAR's how effective guns and eng's are at taking forts just withen the last month. Forts are kinda meaningless from the German pt of view because of the 1v1 = 2v1 rule. So belts of lvl 2 forts are just as good as belts of lvl 3and 4 forts.

It works the same way for taking out Red high level forts. Its a pain in the butt moving guns from one AG to another then down to corps lvl, but if you plan ahead almost any area can be taken even hexes that can only be attacked from 1 hex.

Pelton

[heliodorus04]

Pelton, I've really enjoyed your posts over the last month or so: you've taught me a lot about how to focus my efforts.  Thanks.

As an aside/possible digression:

What the heck does Heavy Industry do? Why is it that armament factories seem to be the only ones worth capturing?

I think to myself when considering heavy industry: shouldn't HI be responsible for the large-caliber guns like 122mm and 152mm and Katyushas (or some such)?

Is Heavy Industry de-emphasized in this production model?

[Peltonx]

c. Requirement to build up to Fort Level 3 - Must be adjacent to an enemy hex, be an urban or city hex, or be in or adjacent to a fort unit. Once the level 3 is reached, the condition does not have to continue to be met to keep the level 3 fort.

I am guessing this is wrong. The must be adjacent to enemy hex part.

If not sure saying you cant build a level 4 or level 5 fort bacisly, because to get from 2 to 4 you have to build a lvl 3 fort first and you can only do that if you next to an enemy unit.

I am 100% sure that thats not how things will work and you put that down wrong.

Pelton

[janh]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I very very much disagree with the idea that the German can't counter attack from turn 70 to end of the game.

German mech an armor units must be used to counter attack because they cause generally better results then sitting on there butts all the time.

The fact is they cant generally get better then 2.6 to 1 odds attacking but they will acheive much better ratios then being forsed to retreat.

When mech or armor counter attacks a win gets you 1.5 to 3 to 1 ratio in deaths. Most of the time around 2 to 1.

If your armor is on line which it will be forsed to be at some point your ratio once your forses to retreat will be 2 to 1 and as low as 1 to 2. Mostly around 1 to 1 because of the higher loses when units retreat.

So if your looking at the big picture and the grind and German Arm output in 43 to 45 you are much better off counter attacking.

Sure the odds will not be 3 to 1, they be 2 to 1 which is better then 1 to 1.

Counter attack as many Red units that are not in forts as possible and pull back the armor after you have done your counter attack.

This will cause more loses to the Red Machine and slow them down some. Your mech and armor losses can be replased unlike your guns and infantry losses.

Pelton, that is a really insightful observation. I have been concentrating too much on overall ratios.

To reiterate your key points:
1. Attacking with a 2:1 result is better than being attacked with a 1:1 result
2. If you attack and withdraw you will probably NOT be attacked the next turn
3. By attacking with tank-heavy forces you are taking losses in tanks which are more easily replaced than infantry.

Wouldn't it seem "gamey" to use such a tactic just to circumvent the 2:1-1:1 rule? Or is it that this rule too crude of a mechanism to tune the game balance?

Is it supposed to account for the improving Russian skill in dealing with German entrenchments? Which, since moral also is designed as a measure for training and skill, should be captured by moral in the engine? Or the improving Russian equipment, like heavy artillery and engineering stuff, for that task? Which should already be captured by all the new, better devices coming with the advancing ToEs? Or does it mimic the wavering Axis fighting morale in later years, i.e. the lower will to hold but withdraw faster? Which, again should be captured by the lowering of German morale in the engine? Somehow I am getting confused with this rule.

If the improved Russian ability to drive the Germans back would solely stem from their better training, or quality of equipment or tactics/leadership, which are all to be properly treated by the game's combat engine, then you probably couldn't cheat like that. What factor am I missing that this rule is to account for, but cannot be attributed to anything fundamental already covered by the combat engine?

[Peltonx]

Hvy converts resourses and is as important as ARM or MP,but problem is the German player cant get to enough to put a real dent in production.

To get to enough arm pts you have to really put major presure on all areas of the front early and get some breakthroughs early.

You can't worry about cutting off units ect, just drive like a crazy man with a plan for the large arm centers + Moscow for the manpower hit and Leningrad for the factory hit.

The key to the hole war is the first 7 turns for the German. I was thinking the first 5 four a long time, but I have had major screw ups I have been able to recover from.

I really beleive play testing vs the computers turn 1-7 5 to 7 times is very important to get to know the mechanics of the game. I will probably do this again once 1.05 comes out. I see a few things in the patch that will greatly help my play style.

Its really all about blitzkrieg as the German player as it should be. Some times you must expose your flanks or a few units for the greater good of the war effert. Panzer units can easly be replased, but infantry units can't.

[Peltonx]

Flaviusx has a good explination of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

I 100% dislike/hate the rule and think it should be removed after Dec 42 at the latest.

Pelton

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Sure the odds will not be 3 to 1, they be 2 to 1 which is better then 1 to 1.

Counter attack as many Red units that are not in forts as possible and pull back the armor after you have done your counter attack.

This will cause more loses to the Red Machine and slow them down some. Your mech and armor losses can be replased unlike your guns and infantry losses.

Pelton, that is a really insightful observation. I have been concentrating too much on overall ratios.

To reiterate your key points:
1. Attacking with a 2:1 result is better than being attacked with a 1:1 result
2. If you attack and withdraw you will probably NOT be attacked the next turn
3. By attacking with tank-heavy forces you are taking losses in tanks which are more easily replaced than infantry.

Wouldn't it seem "gamey" to use such a tactic just to circumvent the 2:1-1:1 rule? Or is it that this rule too crude of a mechanism to tune the game balance?

I hardly see that as "gamey", to be honest. It's certainly the way to go: bracing yourself and putting your motorized units in reserve hoping for the best most certainly isn't. The problem is that sooner or later you'll find those same units needing for refit or being the only stuff you have left so you have to use them in static defense roles.