Why was German ratio gimped from 2.5 to 1 , to 1.25 to 1 42-45?

[Peltonx]

Enemy infantry elements fire, Rifle squads have an extremely variable performance, but SMG squads nearly always go on a killing spree.

Note to self. When I play witw as german build ALLOT of SMG squads! heheh

Pelton

[76mm]

Pelton,

You seem to be drawing wide-ranging conclusions from a couple of combat results--do you have a bigger data set in table format?

Plus, I don't think you are necessarily correct that any combat results mechanisms have changed in 1.05; ComradeP says a similar issue has existed since the beginning, and your results against Hoooper could be different for any number of reasons. In my game against Ketza, his losses in most attacks are unfavorable to him, even when he is attacking tank brigades, etc.

If there is an issue, I think it is just that you are seeing it for the first time, not that it has just arisen in 1.05. The combat system is a complete black box to me, which I don't like much.

[ComradeP]

Bletchley Geek: it's more a problem of them having significantly higher chances to fire even with poor to mediocre experience and leaders. It's also why casualties go up again as soon as the Soviets get 41c Rifle divisions: 41b Rifle divisions have a minimal amount of support weapons, but 41c Rifle divisions have plenty of mortars and also some SMG squads.

It's also caused by combat almost always ending with close quarter fights and, particularly, by virtually all elements closing in on eachother.

Normally, the SMG squads would probably just be picked off one by one by regular rifle squads in clear terrain, as there would be no reason for the riflemen to close in to a range where they're at a serious disadvantage. Currently, your infantry happily runs into a disadvantageous situation and pays the price. The SMG squads now always perform like you might expect them to perform in urban terrain, as virtually without exception, elements close in to about 50 meters.

[Peltonx]

Kamil has over 20 attacks now and all are about 1.5 to 1 odds, its a clear trend ad intended by devs.

1.04 losses were at 2.5ish to 1.

Counter attacking is also down about same.

Trade off for removing 1v1=2v1 I am guessing. Which was a piss poor idea and is wasting everyones time.

vs Kamil if the odd ratio was the same as before it would have been worth attacking during 42. There is no point if after 3 to 4 turns my army is a weak and will take forever to replase. The Red army can recover faster then before in the new games because so little production has been lost.

If they did that then nothing was balanced to get games to 44. As long as Reds evac and run they will never lose more then 40 arm pts unless they screw up and hand germans a gift. German moral is lower because of a lack of units to attack, russian moral is higher because they did not get beat up during summer ect ect

Also its very hard vs an even red to get to 3 million killed now which is lower then past games. 3.5 was normal.

So I am not so sure this patch is going to get games much more into the war.

The Hiwis did help, but its just a bunch of bodys.

One thing that could fix things is fixing Russian production like the German side. That way the russians cant exploit the best units and guns they need for 43+.

I am not really seeing any long term fixs other then size of German army. Its easyer then ever to have 5 million good russians for first blizzard turn and 7 million+ by June. Plus with all the extra armament pts floating around the russian army is stronger then before by summer.



Pelton

[Peltonx]

The deck is still very much stacked against the German. Which is why so many poeple are getting tired of hanging around an moving on.

Unbalanced moral recovery rules
combat ratios that are so unhistorical from 42 on its a joke.
Over rated rail system
Cav units that are over powered during blizzard.
The hole evac and chicken little thing during 41 is stupid.
Letting the Russian player build the perfect army is also stupid, because during the war the red army had no idea what would work so they had to try everything first. Under current system the red player know just what they need to build during each yr of war. This is a huge screw up also.
VP system uber joke also.

[KamilS]

Pelton


Kamil has over 20 attacks now and all are about 1.5 to 1 odds, its a clear trend ad intended by devs.

1.04 losses were at 2.5ish to 1.

Counter attacking is also down about same.

Trade off for removing 1v1=2v1 I am guessing. Which was a piss poor idea and is wasting everyones time.

You are referring to initial odds, that are created by extensive German fortification. Check out my eng value (rarely under 10) and amount of guns. Your forts are wiped out before battle - they go 1 level down what changes odds drastically. (Practically every corps got sapper regiment and each army has few sapper units too)

It works both direction - check out Your attacks during summer.

[Peltonx]

I know Kamil, but this is not my first game to get this far.

I can stack eng the same way and get even of lose more men then you do. Not even close to pre 1.05 odds.

Again is is not my first game into 43.

[Peltonx]

Its should be a HUGE red flag that this games been out for close to a yr and of the 1000's of games started none have gotten to 45, none to 44 and only a handfull even into 43.

The deck is stacked agianst the German to even make it to Jan 44.

I am not sure why they can't see this clear fact.

This issue will effect sales of witw.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

We need to wait for others to put in another few months to see if 1.05 did anything other then add a few 100,000 men to German army which is not going to make the game any more fun in 42 or do more then buy a few months for the German side.

[KamilS]

Pelton

I know Kamil, but this is not my first game to get this far.

I can stack eng the same way and get even of lose more men then you do. Not even close to pre 1.05 odds.

Again is is not my first game into 43.

I played some games too, and in my opinion problem is strength of Soviet army not change in battle algorithm. Strength that is consequence of year '41. Interested things pointed out by ComradeP doesn't apply here - it is not about how battle algorithm works but about changes between 1.04 and 1.05. And biggest change is common knowledge about efficient Soviet strategy for year '41, strategy that makes them so strong in '42.


Plus I think (with whole respect for You) You are not defending as good as attacking. Sorry for saying it here on forum, but a little bit of self criticism is sometimes necessary.

[ComradeP]

Pelton: games take time, so it's only logical that after almost a year, few multiplayer games got to late 1943-1945. Many people restart after big patches in any case. I don't think the situation is that different from other monster games.

As WitW is a completely different title, I don't see how anything wrong with WitE would have an effect on sales of WitW.

Also, regarding your theory that the game is heavily stacked against the Germans to survive until 1944: this is sort of a contradiction to what you're saying about games not lasting until 1944. How can you know that the Germans will be gone by 1944 if basically no games get to that point? I agree that the mid war situation for the Germans isn't pretty for a variety of reasons, but it's not like we have a dozen or more AAR's where Berlin falls.

[KamilS]

ComradeP

Also, regarding your theory that the game is heavily stacked against the Germans to survive until 1944: this is sort of a contradiction to what you're saying about games not lasting until 1944. How can you know that the Germans will be gone by 1944 if basically no games get to that point? I agree that the mid war situation for the Germans isn't pretty for a variety of reasons, but it's not like we have a dozen or more AAR's where Berlin falls.

Game ends because of many reasons, and patching is most important, but not only. I think second place of that list occupies feeling of helplessness - before 1.05 if Soviet player survived summer of '41 in reasonable shape then more often than not from autumn of '42 onwards German army was grinded, grinded and once more grinded and it was happening way way before '44.


I don't know how it will be now, after abolishing +1 rule and decreasing ARM production efficiency, but I still think Soviet advance will start quite early. It is assumption based on developments of current summer campaigns. We shall see soon.

[Swenslim]

I think the problem is in the VP system. Lets look why Soviets lost so many soldiers in 1941 and 1942. Because Stalin demanded from his generals to defend Minsk in any cost, to start immidiate counter attack at Dubno,  to defend Kiev at any cost, to defend Odessa, to retake Kerch and whole Crimea, to stand and defend every soviet city.
And what we see in game ? Soviet player only runs and runs. It is almost impossible for germans to recreate historical cauldrons.

In real life Stalin  often executed his generals for abondoning Pskov, Kerch, Minsk and other cities. In game soviets players suffers nothing for abandoning almost without any figt such cities of utter political importance as Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol and even Leningrad. Leningrad is a cradle of soviet Revolution, the loss of that city would have been catastrofic moral hit to soviet people and their will to fight. In game only loss is  few manpower points.

The loss of Moscow before 7 December 1941 would definitly had resulted in Japan attack against soviet Far East.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Bletchley Geek: it's more a problem of them having significantly higher chances to fire even with poor to mediocre experience and leaders. It's also why casualties go up again as soon as the Soviets get 41c Rifle divisions: 41b Rifle divisions have a minimal amount of support weapons, but 41c Rifle divisions have plenty of mortars and also some SMG squads.

It's also caused by combat almost always ending with close quarter fights and, particularly, by virtually all elements closing in on eachother.

Normally, the SMG squads would probably just be picked off one by one by regular rifle squads in clear terrain, as there would be no reason for the riflemen to close in to a range where they're at a serious disadvantage. Currently, your infantry happily runs into a disadvantageous situation and pays the price. The SMG squads now always perform like you might expect them to perform in urban terrain, as virtually without exception, elements close in to about 50 meters.

I see, so it's a problem about calibrating ground element attributes and also a problem about combat not having more phases (say more phases at mid ranges, between 1,000 and 50 meters). I still don't see why fixing any of the two issues would entail a major rework of the supply system, if ROF is capped proportionally to the lengthening of combat resolution ??

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

I think the problem is in the VP system. Lets look why Soviets lost so many soldiers in 1941 and 1942. Because Stalin demanded from his generals to defend Minsk in any cost, to start immidiate counter attack at Dubno,  to defend Kiev at any cost, to defend Odessa, to retake Kerch and whole Crimea, to stand and defend every soviet city.
And what we see in game ? Soviet player only runs and runs. It is almost impossible for germans to recreate historical cauldrons.

In real life Stalin  often executed his generals for abondoning Pskov, Kerch, Minsk and other cities. In game soviets players suffers nothing for abandoning almost without any figt such cities of utter political importance as Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol and even Leningrad. Leningrad is a cradle of soviet Revolution, the loss of that city would have been catastrofic moral hit to soviet people and their will to fight. In game only loss is  few manpower points.

We all know IRL this defend-at-all-costs-policy was used by both sides, by the Soviets from 1941 to 1942, by Germany from 1943 to 1945. IRL the Soviets won the war. Why do you think recreating this policy in WitE would tip the balance in favour of Germany?

ORIGINAL: Swenslim
The loss of Moscow before 7 December 1941 would definitly had resulted in Japan attack against soviet Far East.

Care to present any proof for this ... assumption?

Regards

[Swenslim]

It will not tip balance. It will only give a little bit more opportunity for germans to encircle soviets forces.

[ComradeP]

I see, so it's a problem about calibrating ground element attributes and also a problem about combat not having more phases (say more phases at mid ranges, between 1,000 and 50 meters). I still don't see why fixing any of the two issues would entail a major rework of the supply system, if ROF is capped proportionally to the lengthening of combat resolution ??

The supply system would have to be reworked because artillery, which now often fires only a limited numbers of rounds, would consume far more ammunition, and for artillery elements the ammunition costs are tougher on the supply system than that of another round of, say, rifle fire. Machineguns could also theoretically consume far more ammo.

ROF being proportionally capped to the lengthening of the firing resolution would not fix the problem because, like I said before, it would not remove the problem of the relative amount of times that elements are likely to fire. If a certain element now fires 2 times, and another 4 times, if you'd cut that in half, one element would still fire twice as often/half as many times as the other. The ROFs themselves are not too problematic, although the SMG ROF is probably too generous in general as there should probably be some penalty for the inaccuracy of the weapon at full auto. I've decreased the SMG ranges in a customized variant of the game, and that results in fewer losses.

The entire combat system would also need to be changed to take into account different weapon ranges. For example: riflemen should not normally be within 50 meters of SMG squads in clear terrain. The often heard rebutal of the distances being odd is that "the defender isn't supposed to be static", but that still doesn't make some parts of it historical. Several element types, such as SPAA, would not normally be directly at the frontline, yet they're at the frontline in the game. The only elements that seem to keep some distance between them and the enemy are artillery and (some) AT guns.

[BletchleyGeek]

Thank you for the very detailed explanation Comrade

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I see, so it's a problem about calibrating ground element attributes and also a problem about combat not having more phases (say more phases at mid ranges, between 1,000 and 50 meters). I still don't see why fixing any of the two issues would entail a major rework of the supply system, if ROF is capped proportionally to the lengthening of combat resolution ??

The supply system would have to be reworked because artillery, which now often fires only a limited numbers of rounds, would consume far more ammunition, and for artillery elements the ammunition costs are tougher on the supply system than that of another round of, say, rifle fire. Machineguns could also theoretically consume far more ammo.

ROF being proportionally capped to the lengthening of the firing resolution would not fix the problem because, like I said before, it would not remove the problem of the relative amount of times that elements are likely to fire. If a certain element now fires 2 times, and another 4 times, if you'd cut that in half, one element would still fire twice as often/half as many times as the other. The ROFs themselves are not too problematic, although the SMG ROF is probably too generous in general as there should probably be some penalty for the inaccuracy of the weapon at full auto. I've decreased the SMG ranges in a customized variant of the game, and that results in fewer losses.

Indeed, but also the expected number of actual shots the element least likely to shoot does should be higher. And the chances of the most likely element to shoot to not get an actual shot would increase. So if the ROF Ground element parameter isn't the main problem, then assuming that both ground elements have the same experience level and same leader, why would a ground element be more likely to shoot than another one? Sorry, Comrade, perhaps I'm a bit thick this morning, but something escapes me.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The entire combat system would also need to be changed to take into account different weapon ranges. For example: riflemen should not normally be within 50 meters of SMG squads in clear terrain. The often heard rebutal of the distances being odd is that "the defender isn't supposed to be static", but that still doesn't make some parts of it historical. Several element types, such as SPAA, would not normally be directly at the frontline, yet they're at the frontline in the game. The only elements that seem to keep some distance between them and the enemy are artillery and (some) AT guns.

Agreed. It looks to me that the tactical combat resolution needs to take into account formation and also, stuff like committing reserves to the front from tactical reserves (say a SPAA is committed to the frontline because the frontline ground elements falter), etc. Indeed, that's quite a complex and time consuming change.

[ComradeP]

Well, the ROF is part of the problem, but why some ground elements are more likely to shoot than others aside from ROF is as much of a mystery to me as it is to you.

As I see it, ideally some elements/element types should have their chance to fire increased whilst others should maybe have their chance to fire or to hit decreased. The problem isn't ROF per se, but more due to the haste at which a battle seems to take place, which is causing support weapons to get maybe 1 or 2 shots in and artillery often only 1 before the short-medium ranged elements start firing.

As stated, my earlier statement about the supply system not being able to handle changes was due to the increased ammunition costs that would occur if the support weapons and artillery would fire more often.

Combat results can be so variable, and the differences between how elements perform whilst attacking or defending so great that it's difficult to do more than spot trends/problems that happen most of the time. I've seen 90 experience elements perform worse in battle than 50 experience elements, and I've seen 50 experience elements barely being able to lift a finger as they get crushed by 90 experience elements.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Well, the ROF is part of the problem, but why some ground elements are more likely to shoot than others aside from ROF is as much of a mystery to me as it is to you.

As I see it, ideally some elements/element types should have their chance to fire increased whilst others should maybe have their chance to fire or to hit decreased. The problem isn't ROF per se, but more due to the haste at which a battle seems to take place, which is causing support weapons to get maybe 1 or 2 shots in and artillery often only 1 before the short-medium ranged elements start firing.

As stated, my earlier statement about the supply system not being able to handle changes was due to the increased ammunition costs that would occur if the support weapons and artillery would fire more often.

Hmmm, ranges decreasing so quickly would mean two things (correct me if I'm wrong):

• Longer range elements with low ROF (tanks with higher caliber guns, IG's, ATG's, Rifle) are severely impaired because they get less chances to get shots from a distance. I guess there are really very little elements with long range and high ROF.
• Shorter range elements are highly benefited, since they're less exposed to be smacked at a distance and they don't care about less chances to shoot, regardless of ROF (ATR's, SMG's, etc.)

There's one item that doesn't fit any of these two patterns: MG's. MG's should really own soft elements because of high ROF. Have you tried to tweak the ROF values for German MG elements (MG42, MG34). There should be a ton of those in German TOE's (every squad had one of the lighter kind, every platoon one of the heavier kind).

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Combat results can be so variable, and the differences between how elements perform whilst attacking or defending so great that it's difficult to do more than spot trends/problems that happen most of the time. I've seen 90 experience elements perform worse in battle than 50 experience elements, and I've seen 50 experience elements barely being able to lift a finger as they get crushed by 90 experience elements.

Perhaps Pavel can build for you guys a modified Debug version of WitE that collects this data and stores it into CSV format so it can be analyzed offline. I guess such logs could weight a few hundred megabytes, but that should provide you guys with a consistent stream of data so you can track performance of ground elements during combat. Say you get this and then you see that the distribution rather than being a bell curve of sorts, is skewed to either side or too flat. That should ring a few bell ring alarms. Such a tool would be unvaluable for a game like this, were small changes can get amplified in quite unexpected ways. Say someone is generating a random number and because of a typo, one of the function parameters is out of whack.

That's what I think people call Back To Back or Regression testing, or in Agile parlance, Functional testing.