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

[ComradeP]

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.)

Your second conclusion is pretty much correct. Artillery currently does only a small amount of actual damage, which is also why the performance of Soviet artillery divisions can be less spectacular than you might expect. If artillery gets to fire more often, those artillery brigades/divisions will be really scary (and we might have to do something like letting them arrive at the historical time, to avoid people going crazy with them). I have no idea why AFV's are often not performing all that well. When they fire, they tend to hit with high experience, but many never seem to fire and just absorb shots. Infantry guns have fairly good ROF and thus perform well. Soviet 76mm guns cause substantial casualties too.

We can see the performance of every element type in the debugger, but like I said: there's just too much variability to draw conclusions from aside from noticing some elements are performing well and some are not. The debugger doesn't really tell us how a certain combat result happened, it just explains in detail casualties of/caused by elements. We can even check things like hits per element, but that still doesn't explain why that X amount of elements hit anything. Currently, it's not the lack of data about the performance of the elements that's causing us headaches, it's the complete mystery that is the combat system.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

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.)

Your second conclusion is pretty much correct. Artillery currently does only a small amount of actual damage, which is also why the performance of Soviet artillery divisions can be less spectacular than you might expect. If artillery gets to fire more often, those artillery brigades/divisions will be really scary (and we might have to do something like letting them arrive at the historical time, to avoid people going crazy with them). I have no idea why AFV's are often not performing all that well. When they fire, they tend to hit with high experience, but many never seem to fire and just absorb shots. Infantry guns have fairly good ROF and thus perform well. Soviet 76mm guns cause substantial casualties too.

I'd really try tweaking the MG's. While it's a kludgy way of "fixing" this issue, you might get acceptable results without breaking apart everything. The AFV issue is really troubling. Perhaps there's a problem with leader Mech rating checks - an issue which doesn't exist with Inf rating checks. Just throwing ideas.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
We can see the performance of every element type in the debugger, but like I said: there's just too much variability to draw conclusions from aside from noticing some elements are performing well and some are not. The debugger doesn't really tell us how a certain combat result happened, it just explains in detail casualties of/caused by elements. We can even check things like hits per element, but that still doesn't explain why that X amount of elements hit anything. Currently, it's not the lack of data about the performance of the elements that's causing us headaches, it's the complete mystery that is the combat system.

Hmmm, what about modifying it, so you can get a dump with fields like:

Exp, Leader Inf, Leader Mech, Morale?, #Exp Checks Successful, #Leader Inf Checks Successful, #Morale checks successful, #Enemy elements destroyed, #Elements damaged, #Shots

This I guess would mean just to record every single event during tactical combat system and should allow you to correlate all relevant factors.

[johnnyvagas]

Here’s my jaded, rose colored glasses opinion. [:D] I’m sure retribution will include the standard issue cries of Russian Fanboyisim.

After reading through this thread and threads of similar ilk, I can’t help but come away with the impression that Pelton is frustrated as a result of a game strategy he’s employed in the past that no longer seems to work. From scanning his old AARs, his winnings appear to have been based heavily upon factory raiding. One Trick Pony. More recent AARs indicate that a number of players have developed effective defensive tactics to counter the dreaded factory raiding approach to German game play.

Pelton’s inattention toward destroying the Russian Army in vain attempts to grab factory cities before their evacuation has left him in fairly precarious position come the blizzard. The size of the Russian Army that he has allowed to develop will continue to nag at him into 1942. Since his tried and true factory raiding no longer works, the game must be broken and all that’s needed to make it perfect again is to invoke changes that will once again allow a factory raiding strategy to prevail. If only Heavy Industry meant something; If only the Russians didn’t have so much rail capacity.

Pelton’s been drug kicking and screaming into a 1942 where he has allowed the Russian Army to grow to an enormous size. He’s faced with trying to do in 1942 what he should have been focusing upon in 1941. But rather than try to wrestle the initiative back into his court in 1942, he sits on his hands and proclaims that it’s hopeless for the Germans to do anything other than dig in after 1941.

Now we get to read complaints about German combat results being nerfed in 1942 and how National morale keeps German units in 1942+ from obtaining the uberness they enjoyed in 1941. If only German units in 1942 all had morale of 75+ and were filled out to 100% TOE than Pelton could dig himself out of the holes he’s dug by his pursuit of a flawed 1941 strategy of factory raiding.

[ComradeP]

I think that's a nice summary.

There's truth to combat results turning sour for the Axis in 1942, but Pelton is indeed mostly campaigning to turn the game into a game he can win by doing the only strategy he has developed thus far: abuse HQ build-up, make ahistorical leaps to destroy factories, abusing the fact that factories magically disappear the moment a city is captured.

-

Bletchley Geek: I forgot to mention it, but a while ago, we were working on/testing an alternative combat system, but the testing was halted in favour of concentrating other things, although the alternative combat system will be used in WitW. The current combat system won't be at the core of WitW. I'm personally hoping that the new combat system can then be moved back to WitE, but the developers are not yet sure whether that might be possible.

[TulliusDetritus]

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.

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

The truth and only the truth [&o] I will always sacrifice forces to protect Leningrad. Then you see some Soviets abandon the city on turn 6 or 7. This is not the Great Patriotic War [8|]

I ONLY see a problem... Should the Germans bag 3 million Soviet soldiers, and I am only talking about captured, not KIA and disabled?

Hypothesis: OK...

Consequence: wouldn't the Germans grab WHATEVER they want (the Soviets would have LOST MANY MANY units...); what's left to defend the Soviet Union? Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov... With the new changes (new fort rules) defending the Soviet Union is HARDER. Many retreats under 1.05 would have possibly been "holds" before... So in fact the Germans basically trash everything in their path as long as they have enough forces.

If some Germans want to bag those huge amount of soldiers I want forces which CAN hold German attacks (one week here, another week there)... Because you like it or not the Soviets did keep Leningrad and Moscow in their hands (yes, despite the 3 million soldiers bagged)... This, in game terms, would not have been possible if the Soviet forces didn't manage many "helds" here and there... and quite frequently if you ask me...

I have seen MUCH LESS "holds" under 1.05 [;)]

I think Oleg was correct. This 1.05 is a gift to German players. And I am thinking about the Blitzkrieg. Not saying this has to be a mistake per se.

[TulliusDetritus]

After all, with the "few" current Soviet losses we see in almost every AAR, the Germans already grab Leningrad, almost Rostov, and manage to threaten Moscow (on my game my opponent could have PERFECTLY grabbed the city had he been lucky; I'm no Zukhov, but I am not utter incompetent either)... Imagine doing that (as a Soviet) with 3 million soldiers bagged. IMPOSSIBLE with the current rules, sorry. Simple common sense and mathematics [8D]

[ComradeP]

Well, the Soviet army is still likely to be both larger and better organized than its historical counterpart when the blizzard comes. For example: there's absolutely no reason at all to use brigades, as your Army HQ's can contain 12 divisions like their German counterparts. Soviet Army HQ's with 12 divisions were a rarity, but in the game they're the norm and have been since launch.

It's not like the Axis get all the advantages caused by the system.

[heliodorus04]

I see things the opposite way, TD.

There's a morale problem starting to emerge in the game, as I see it.
Germany desperately needs as many 86-morale (or more) infantry divisions as it can make. They need this because if they can't catch the Soviets on foot, they can't launch deliberate attacks.

But the game permanently tries to draw 86-morale infantry units back down to 70-ish. If they lose a fight it's almost a certainty that morale will drop. If they don't fight, they will regress to the mean (over time) and re-enter/remain below the 85-morale mediocrity threshold(if I understand the national morale function right, and I may not). So German infantry needs to fight and win just so it can pursue the Soviet at a reasonable speed eastward.

While I applaud the roleplayers of WitE who attach priorities based on the actual history, I still have to prepare for the typical American gamer, who is ruthlessly focused on exploiting mechanics to achieve unanticipated strategies until the game is broken.

And I think Soviets can now break the game by running east faster than Germans can get to you, pausing only to fight only at key points (which seem to fall along the axis of Valdai/Moscow/Voronezh/Rostov) and when armaments need more time to evacuate.

The advantages to running east are too high to ignore: preserve Soviet equipment, preserve Soviet unit morale, Preserve Soviet manpower. I can see no down-side, because the manpower of the cities isn't necessary over the long-game, and you're also preserving bodies by not fighting.

While running away, you're also simultaneously making Germany weaker because all of those non-fighting 86-morale divisions are seeing that advantage erode steadily over the first 11-14 turns of the game (the runaway phase, which might impact Germany's advance into Russia by as much as 20-30 hexes). The reality is losing all that land is meaningless to the Soviet production macro-game in 1941.

A VP system, or an insta-lose if Leningrad/Moscow/Rostov/Voronezh fall to Germany, etc., could go a long way here.

I don't envy the Soviet the loss of the forts. But even with Germany doing as well as it is, we're not seeing, I don't think (maybe you differ) Germany scoring insta-wins or games where we can clearly see that the Fort rules are THE determinant in causing the Soviet to be doomed in the long-game.

[76mm]

While I agree that Pelton's strategies have been rather one-trick-ponyish, I think the emerging problem is that if the Sovs simply retreat, a strategy to destroy the Sov army in 1941 is just not feasible. So what effective strategies does that leave? I've heard rumors of a mythical "grind the Reds" strategies that does not depend on encirclements but simply grinds the Sovs where they are, but have never seen such a strategy employed in an AAR...

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While I agree that Pelton's strategies have been rather one-trick-ponyish, I think the emerging problem is that if the Sovs simply retreat, a strategy to destroy the Sov army in 1941 is just not feasible. So what effective strategies does that leave? I've heard rumors of a mythical "grind the Reds" strategies that does not depend on encirclements but simply grinds the Sovs where they are, but have never seen such a strategy employed in an AAR...

I am playing against JAMiaM as Soviets, as he seems to be taking more of this approach, rather than pocketing. Losses are still pretty severe.

The Soviets probably need more of an incentive to stand and fight, like turn-based VPs. Fear of getting shot worked well IRL, unfortunately, not something we can replicated in the game.

Same thing for the Germans: Too easy to withdraw in Winter to avoid the Blizzard attacks. As it turns out, Hitler wasn't such a fan of that strategy......

[Michael T]

Some sensible auto victory conditions for 41' would put an end to these run away tactics employed by both sides in summer (by Ivan) and then in winter (by the Bosch). Even some house rule (auto victory) agreed to by both sides would work.

[mmarquo]

Soviets running too far east = inability to capture Berlin.
Axis running too far west = inability to defend Berlin.

The game ends in 1945 not '42, '43, '44 .....

Marquo

[randallw]

Preventing the Soviet Army from becoming a massive monster may have been unavoidable in real life, so how should this be clearly attainable in the game?

I keep seeing some people say the Russians are too big, big, big!  Well, they're supposed to be. [;)]

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: johnnyvagas

Here’s my jaded, rose colored glasses opinion. [:D] I’m sure retribution will include the standard issue cries of Russian Fanboyisim.

After reading through this thread and threads of similar ilk, I can’t help but come away with the impression that Pelton is frustrated as a result of a game strategy he’s employed in the past that no longer seems to work. From scanning his old AARs, his winnings appear to have been based heavily upon factory raiding. One Trick Pony. More recent AARs indicate that a number of players have developed effective defensive tactics to counter the dreaded factory raiding approach to German game play.

Pelton’s inattention toward destroying the Russian Army in vain attempts to grab factory cities before their evacuation has left him in fairly precarious position come the blizzard. The size of the Russian Army that he has allowed to develop will continue to nag at him into 1942. Since his tried and true factory raiding no longer works, the game must be broken and all that’s needed to make it perfect again is to invoke changes that will once again allow a factory raiding strategy to prevail. If only Heavy Industry meant something; If only the Russians didn’t have so much rail capacity.

Pelton’s been drug kicking and screaming into a 1942 where he has allowed the Russian Army to grow to an enormous size. He’s faced with trying to do in 1942 what he should have been focusing upon in 1941. But rather than try to wrestle the initiative back into his court in 1942, he sits on his hands and proclaims that it’s hopeless for the Germans to do anything other than dig in after 1941.

Now we get to read complaints about German combat results being nerfed in 1942 and how National morale keeps German units in 1942+ from obtaining the uberness they enjoyed in 1941. If only German units in 1942 all had morale of 75+ and were filled out to 100% TOE than Pelton could dig himself out of the holes he’s dug by his pursuit of a flawed 1941 strategy of factory raiding.

Not true at all I bag just as many Reds as poeple who dont raid. I advance far faster then most other then MT, but we generally advance only as far as most.

IF you read the current AAR's with out bias and we guessing you not going to most evnly matched games bag 3 million reds by dec.

Some more skilled Germans bag 30 to 75 armaments pts AND 3+ million russians.

I have only had 6 games of 16 so far get into the summer of 42 and 4 I won 1 I lost and 1 is on going.

I only attack during 42 IF its worth the risk, 4 times it was an paid off an 2 times it was not.

The ratio has been changed its just the facts of the matter. When Flaviusx said the ratio was changed for the russians in 41 withen hrs 2 by 3 was on the boards saying no it was not. I have said the ratio was changed for the geramns in 42 2 1/2 weeks ago and 2 by 3 has said nothing.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: 76mm

While I agree that Pelton's strategies have been rather one-trick-ponyish, I think the emerging problem is that if the Sovs simply retreat, a strategy to destroy the Sov army in 1941 is just not feasible. So what effective strategies does that leave? I've heard rumors of a mythical "grind the Reds" strategies that does not depend on encirclements but simply grinds the Sovs where they are, but have never seen such a strategy employed in an AAR...

I am playing against JAMiaM as Soviets, as he seems to be taking more of this approach, rather than pocketing. Losses are still pretty severe.

The Soviets probably need more of an incentive to stand and fight, like turn-based VPs. Fear of getting shot worked well IRL, unfortunately, not something we can replicated in the game.

Same thing for the Germans: Too easy to withdraw in Winter to avoid the Blizzard attacks. As it turns out, Hitler wasn't such a fan of that strategy......

The only chance in hell the German has is using HQ chaining build ups. At least you get 35 to 40 armament pts and the normal 3 million kia.

If your not then you get the 3 million kia but only 8 armament pt baggged

Like I been saying over and over and over and over
1. the dam rail system is a joke its way over rated.
2. 2 by 3 changed the ratio for 42 which was retarded, LAMO
3. HVY means nothing removed the useless pos things or make them mean something
4. National moral is a freaking joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5. The VP systen is another dam JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is old school before i was posting. How dumb can poeple be?

Fix this game before working on witw, I will make dam sure I am crapping on that dayly as soon as I can.

The pocket book is all that matters to these poeple.

Pelton

[Michael T]

Soviets running too far east = inability to capture Berlin.
Axis running too far west = inability to defend Berlin.

This is true Mark but I think it would make a rather boring game in 41 and perhaps beyond if employed to the extreme like I have seen in some AAR's. Thankfully you and I don't subscribe to such cowardly tactics [:D]....

[Peltonx]

Shit I forgot ComradeP
6. fix the combat system per ComradeP ideas, like SMG go on a killing spree in the clear? wth are you poeple drinking for cool-aid? Mybee in city hexs but in the clear give us all a break.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
2. 2 by 3 changed the ratio for 42 which was retarded, LAMO

I still haven't seen any evidence that this is true, any differences that you are seeing could easily be the result of any number of factors. It would be good if the devs would confirm one way or another.

[Grouchy]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Soviets running too far east = inability to capture Berlin.
Axis running too far west = inability to defend Berlin.

The game ends in 1945 not '42, '43, '44 .....

Marquo

Currently it seems too easy for the german player to keep the offensive going in 1941.

On the other hand it's also too easy for the soviet to give ground. There is no real incentive to fight in 1941 for them.
It's very difficult to give the germans a bloody nose in 1941. But even with the germans running wild in 1941, the USSR can rail out all the necessary industry & there is no moral loss.
And because they retreat their leaders won't get dismissed/kia/shot etc. C&C is also non historically good for them in 1941.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Bletchley Geek: I forgot to mention it, but a while ago, we were working on/testing an alternative combat system, but the testing was halted in favour of concentrating other things, although the alternative combat system will be used in WitW. The current combat system won't be at the core of WitW. I'm personally hoping that the new combat system can then be moved back to WitE, but the developers are not yet sure whether that might be possible.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for that last part. With this Tactical system on the West Front, it would be truly Home by Christmas for the Western Allies.

Though the discussion has been fruitful. If we could get some more info about the inner workings of WitE combat system, perhaps someone can come up with "fixes" that attenuate the problems we're seeing, by tweaking TOE's - and sacrificing historicity [:(] - or Ground element attributes.