1:1 --> 2:1 Redux

[stone10]

Without 1:1 rule, is it possible for the soviets make success counterattack in 1942 campaign?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: stone10

Without 1:1 rule, is it possible for the soviets make success counterattack in 1942 campaign?

They should be able to, but with much less success than pre 1.05 games. With the AP farming from mech units gone, and the need to build some Fortified Zones to boost important defensive positions, the Soviets are going to have a tougher time gathering the APs to quickly ramp up to a Rifle Corps based army. This, coupled with the poor quality of replacements due to their National Morale hit in 1942, as well as a host of other changes, will make 1942 a much more fluid campaign than it's been.

[Michael T]

I have a feeling that the reduction in Arm down to 130 will be a bigger hit than the 1:1 thing. The game may well be in favour of the Germans now. But time will tell. I think a game between a good Soviet player and a good German player may more than likely end in a German victory. But good Soviet players will still beat weaker German players. Just my gut instinct.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The rule is a fantasy based on nothing to start with.

The Red army never got better, it got bigger.

Eh, the Red Army never got better? What are you talking about?

As to whether it the 1:1 rule was fantasy or not, I don't know. But the fact is that the two armies did fight differently, and the Sovs generally took higher casualties. So now, as far as I can tell, we have two "identikit" armies which are basically the same (other than experience and morale, which at some point converge as well). All this in a game which tracks individual satchel charges for chrissake.

And another thing: if leadership is so important, they need to stop the constant random dismissals of commanders. I get really tired of putting a good commander in charge of some front, only to realize several turns later that he has been replaced for some unknown reason, and I need to spend another 15 AP replacing him. If I'm the CiC, I'm the freaking CiC, and I should be making the decisions about what commanders to replace and when. I find it completely ludicrous that I can make the decision to abandon Kiev, Lgrad, Moscow, everything west of the Urals, and yet, and yet, somebody else (who?) is making decisions about replacing the commander of random armies. The fact is that I put good commanders in the most challenging positions, so they will end up losing some battles, but I don't want, or expect, them to be replaced.

[karonagames]

Without 1:1 rule, is it possible for the soviets make success counterattack in 1942 campaign?

That is, I think, the biggest question about the release of 1.05, and I think the developers will look at this aspect the closest when the beta test reports (AARs) start rolling in.

[karonagames]

The Red army never got better, it got bigger.

One statement that loses any credibility you may have gained in this forum.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have a feeling that the reduction in Arm down to 130 will be a bigger hit than the 1:1 thing. The game may well be in favour of the Germans now. But time will tell. I think a game between a good Soviet player and a good German player may more than likely end in a German victory. But good Soviet players will still beat weaker German players. Just my gut instinct.

The new multiplier definitely changes up your evacuation strategy. I'm skipping heavy industry nowadays. Basically, I just get out armament, afv, and plane factories only now. And the latter two I do bare minimum withdrawals with whatever rail is left over. I'll use up to 90k rail cap each turn during 41 getting armament factories out.

And I skip the front line stuff, btw. I go straight for the big concentrations of armament factories first. (Starting with Leningrad, and then moving to the southern concentrations in Dnepropetrovsk, Poltava, and Kharkov.) Gomel, Odessa, Kiev, etc. Skip 'em.

The armament situation is very tight now. You'll be living hand to mouth well into 1942 even if you do very well with evacuations. If not, you may never be in surplus for the rest of the game.

[janh]

Sounds like the game just got a lot more potential to represent the war closer to history.  If a German player overextends his army in the south, wastes good units by assaulting well dug-in, quality Soviet division in Stalingrad, and stretches his communications and his flanks the way his historical counterparts did, the red opponent hopefully will be able to still punish him badly.  But not as badly as up to now, where I would bet a game a Stalingrad like outcome would have resulted in a continuous rush to Berlin, much like Q-Ball vs Tarhunnas style.  In contrast to the Germans actually having shored up their front, hurt the Soviets pincers significantly, and restored the situation up to the point that 1943 resulted in a stalemate with the biggest tank battle of time being fought.

Well, what will happen to the Red army if they will not follow historical orders, as gradenko_2000 suggested, will be testable now with a much more significant bearing.  Mind that if the Reds don't fight forward, the Wehrmacht will likely come out of 41/42 also with a much stronger force as well.  Historically they were quite bled down by their aggressive advances, especially before Moscow, even before the blizzards and the Russian counterstrike hit.  In fact I believe if the Russians don't stand their ground and attrit the Wehrmacht, the latter should also be in a much better shape to beat down or even prevent any successful Russian winter offensive.  Sounds like some exciting questions, no?
Fortunately, there is no such game feature as players being bound to historic orders, be it either targets/offensives, force shifts (unfortunately except...), suicidal standing orders or sacrificial attacks etc etc -- both sides.  If it were so, yes, of course the game would mimic history even better, and you'd as some point truly be in the footsteps of an Army commander pushed around by Hitler or Stalin -- but if you'd drive that concept to far, you at some point end up watching the war as a movie on your computer...

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: janh
Sounds like the game just got a lot more potential to represent the war closer to history. 

I'm afraid that this is an elusive and probably futile goal. Any game which comes "close to history" will mean that a grand German offensive in 1942 will probably result in German overstretch, with thet inevitable Sov counter-attack making such offensives imprudent. So smart Germans will soon learn to simply turtle throughout 1942, using their stack of APs to build an impregnable line of fortresses that the Sovs, with their weakened forces, will not be able to breach.

On the other hand, if the Germans regularly achieve massive success in 1942, it means that the game has veered far from historical accuracy. Why? The fact is that by avoiding the many major Soviet blunders in 1941, Sov players should be expected to do much better than historically, with the Germans doing worse. In other words, IRL the Sovs were played by a "poor player" and yet still won the war rather handily. Why should the game be different?

Thus, to a certain extent the existing game balance issues might well be simply a reflection of the fact that the Sovs will do better then historically as long as they can avoid at least some of the massive mistakes made by Sov leaders, as most players can readily achieve.

[janh]

True, I agree with every single one of your points.  Wehrmacht leadership played in a different league, for the exception of Hitlers messing with war related matters, and the exception of a few very talented and capable Russian officers. 

Perhaps turtling in 1942 is the best way to go for the Germans? Maybe in some 5 years, some more refinements, and some hundreds AARs down the road, the common conclusion might be that. Much like it seems to be in the WitP:AE community accepted today that the Japanese needs not overstretch as well, but needs to get a good foothold in Burma/Eastern India, around Darwin, and in CentPac -- trying to take India as a whole, OZ or Pearl is fun gaming, but would have resulted in utter disaster for the Japanese, as it does in the game for two comparable players. 
But maybe the situation is much more complex than that?  The best choice in 1942 might depend strongly on the character of the fighting put up until that spring: if losses are light and terrain gains have been substantial for the Wehrmacht just pursuing a withdrawing Red Army, it might be well worth to perform another full-scale summer offensive to gain some strategic centers, defensible terrain -- or perhaps force the Russians to sue for peace.  If the fighting would be closer to historical, perhaps a more focused offensive aimed at destroying more Soviet formations would be better than turtling.  That might be particularly true if a player made some "apparent" mistakes that could be exploited (or be a trap, like the balcony at Kursk).  I don't think turtling will in all cases be the best to do.  Much as in WiTP:AE sitting and waiting for the Allied steamroller to start in 44 is not the best thing to do.  Interdiction, harassment, trying to stop the opponent from gaining balance and allowing him time to set himself up properly are some things to bear in mind...

[mmarquo]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Thanks WitE devs for finally taking a stand and cutting through all the Soviet player fanboys (sorry hate to use that work but it fits here) propoganda trying to dismiss a need to time-box this rule.

This term I find particularly offensive. I know you do not mean it as a personal affront [:)], but there is a tendency in this forum to accuse anybody who has an contrary opinion as a "fan" of either camp. FWIW, I am not an Axis or Soviet "Fan," rather a fan of a historically accurate good game which affords the players an opportunity to determine the outcome based on relative skill levels and a modicum of luck. I play either side with equal intellectual curiosity and enjoyment. Since there were doctrinal differences in Axis versus Soviet tactics and strategy, the game developers made a brilliant attempt to reflect this in the CRT. Only a few games have had the ambition to attempt such a methodolgy to reflect doctrinal difference - Red Star Rising comes to mind. Once again, I think there are enough variables in the final CV calculations to make them dynamic and variable over time to effect needed game balancing changes. To evoke mythical doctrinal changes which occur at a magic point in time simply to allow the Axis the upperhand in 1942 is just plain silly; especially in a game which uses armor thickness in combat calculations.

Food for thought: the Soviet offensive doctrine called for deep operational armor advances of 100s of miles into the enemy's rear; when have we seen this in any of the AARs? Is there one example of a Bagration-like penetration and encirclment; or anything which comes close to the performance of Operation Gallop? No - all we have seen is a slow, boring Soviet steamroller grind; which btw, maynot have enough time to reach Berlin in the time limits of the game. Some of the AARs haved shown the Axis getting drained to death on the banks of the Volga, or between the Volga and the Dnepr. This makes perfect sense to me; if the German player stands 2,000 km deep in Russia, what is supposed to happen? What changes are being made to reflect the crushing operational blows so that game does not devolve into trench warfare stalemate deep in Russia? The V 1.05 changes guarantee a boring, stagnant game.

In summary, in Spring 1942, WITE now simulates a fantasy alliance between the Axis and their Alien allies; new wonder weapons deployed in the east have the desired effect.

[76mm]

I'd be really curious to know how much testing has been done on these aggregate changes, and the results of these tests?

I realize that given the size and length of the game it is impossible to comprehensively test every single change, but to me that is an argument for making a series of incremental changes over time, rather than the massive and sweeping changes included in this patch.

I think I'm going to give this patch a pass rather than waste more time starting another game...

[Magnum88]

I have not played the game in probably 5 months but lurk on the forums almost daily. One thing on the 2:1 discussion I have not seen discussed is the magnitude of the increased Soviet casaulties due to their doctrine that is the justification for the 2:1 rule. Would not another way of dealing with the problem be to increase the casaulty rate, if the Soviets are indeed being too sucessful due to this rule? More casualties equates to a lower final CV and less sucessful attacks.

[janh]

Marquo, I'd counter that:  Didn't in fact the 2:1 rule favor sluggish warfare?  And that the German players resents to a slow fighting withdrawal?  The latter surely is in part due to the fact that he won't sacrifice large formations at "Feste Plätze", having learned from history -- much as the Russian player doesn't waste a good fraction of his Army in 41 by withdrawing far too late, or by assaulting too early and carelessly, or by overextended counteroffensive that get pocketed.  So hindsight benefits both sides, and will lead to a somewhat different character of the conflict.

Yet looking at the Q-balls vs Tarhunnas game, as just one example, my impression was that the extension of the 2:1 rule actually also favors a slow trench-style warfare. Gaining a breakthrough against a well fortified line has always been a costly thing, and therefore the key concept of blitzkrieg developed, which, much simplified, is to quickly gain the depth of the enemy rear, and head free of the grinding WWI trench warfare, hit the enemy communications and force him into the open.  The German players naturally do this, as evidenced by the fact that they will otherwise simply stop all offensives in 1942 if such an exploitation after a painful breakthrough cannot be realized.

With the 2:1 rule, and the fact that the loss ratios suffered typically favor the Red Army (aside from the retreat issue), especially when easily-replaceable tanks are used extensively, a slow advance is much more favorable than a strike in depth.  The latter bears much greater risks, as it can be cut and pocketed, and does not bring out such nice fruits like getting numerous units promoted to guards from even marginal ("artificial") victories.  The latter alone renders this strategy quite useful -- it is slow, unstoppable, and bears little risk for large benefits.  You couldn't do this so easily and successfully without this rule, don't you think?

[Erik Rutins]

Hi guys,

I just want to add that you all may have noticed that this is an early Beta. You may want to play the beta through to 1942 in a new game to see how things work. While I understand that there's plenty to discuss just based on the list of changes, you really need to see how it all works together in the game. We've been testing changes to the 1:1/2:1 rule in the internal beta team for months now. The shape of the final 1.05 release will also be largely based on the testing and feedback we receive on the 1.05 public beta.

Regards,

- Erik

[Flaviusx]

Marquo, you have got this exactly wrong. 1.04 promoted trench warfare in the east for both sides. This beta is designed to open things up and make it more mobile...on both sides.

The south in particular is going to see some wild swings of fortune.

The slow attritional grind seen prebeta inevitably led to an early collapse of the Wehrmacht well ahead of schedule. Games were getting called early as a result of this, nor were the players insane for doing so. Once the German army reaches a certain tipping point in this kind of relentless attritional grind, it collapses like a bad souffle and doesn't recover. I've seen this happen -- but not so early as was happening in 1.04 games, where the process was being accelerated by a good year or more. (I've managed to do it sometime in 1944 from a 1943 scenario starting point.)

I'm pretty well convinced that the old 1:1 rule was a major factor in this, although by no means the only one. (Forts were at least as important in promoting this WWI type of fighting, if not more important. And the lack of Hiwis also made the German replacement situation more fragile than necessary.)

We're taking a chance here with these changes, sure. They may or may not pan out under heavy play. (I personally think we may have gone too far with the new armaments multiplier. It's gotten to the point now where these are almost the only thing you want to evacuate. It's now a very hard chokepoint in the Soviet replacement situation. The lower manpower multiplier in 1942 is also imo somewhat dubious. And the new 40 NM in 1942 is I think also perhaps too far.) Caveat emptor and all of that. But plainly tweaking was necessary the state of the metagame in 1.04 had reached a very predictable result between equal players, and not a very good one.

One thing I'm going to be watching very very very carefully with this beta: the HQ buildup rule. If there's anyplace the game is way way way too favorable to the Germans, this is it.

[Mehring]

I am somewhat incredulous that Soviet Attack Doctrine would somehow forgivingly change at a discrete point in time after the blizzard offensive to obligingly allow a more robust Axis 1942 offensive.

It's pragmatism. And because pragmatism can only deal with superficial issues, the problem just reappears elsewhere in a different form.

The fundamental problem is the lack of logistical representation in the game which allows players, and particularly the Russian from 1942, to attack ad infinitum. There are other tweaks that could be made to make realistic changes to play balance, like reducing the command capabilities of Russian commanders at start and allowing them to increase more than at present, with experience, both from victories and defeats. Representing aviation fuel would limit both airforces operational abilities. Loads of tweaks, too many to mention here, but so many good suggestions have been made in one thread or another. But above all, it's logistics that fail.

[marty_01]

I'm glad to see that the 1:1 > 2:1 rule has been reeled in a bit and I applaud the designers for taking this sort of step. I think most here will admit that this is not an easy decision by any means as it was bound – as this thread clearly shows – to be an unpopular decision with some proportion of players.

I enjoy playing both the Axis and Soviet sides in the game. I guess I prefer playing the Russians, but don’t have a problem with trying to play the Axis. But I had come to the conclusion some time ago that the 1:1 > 2:1 rule -- while probably a necessary balance feature in the first year of a 41-45 PBEM GC -- became too much an advantage for the Soviet side by the time late 42 to 43 started rolling around. Or at least that's what I was seeing in my own PBEM GCs. I might have been tempted to temper the change in odds required for retreat over a more extended period. For example perhaps switch it to 1.5:1 > 2:1 Post Feb 42 thru Perhaps Feb 43. Than bump it again to both sides have to live with and find appropriate tactics to deal with the 2:1 Odds rule for retreats post Feb 43. But ending the rule after Feb 1942 is a very logical time line as it comes at the tail end of the first year blizzard period.

The net effects of the 1:1 > 2:1 rule change along with what looks to be a reassessment of the entrenchment rules are yet to be determined from public play. It could be that the combination of these two aspects of the game will be all the major tweaking that's needed. But if not, I suppose something else to kick around in-light of the 1:1 > 2:1 thingy might be to reconsider stacking limits. If hex stacking were increased to four units per hex for both the Axis and Soviets it would likely prove to be a much greater advantage to the side that holds the initiative. And it might go a long way to circumvent the 1:1 > 2:1 crutch that some players have become accustomed. A 4-unit stacking limit would be very useful in allowing players to concentrate greater amounts of combat power at focal points of an offensive. During my Soviet offensive periods, Axis unit concentrations often become stretched thin in-order to maintain a continuous front. Conversely, when I am holding the initiative as the Soviets I can easily concentrate enough formations locally whereby a four unit stacking limit would provide the needed combat power I might need to force a retreat even when I can't rely on a 1:1 > 2:1 rule.

[Tarhunnas]

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

Tarhunnas, you are 100% right... you are a killjoy....






And you are right!