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

[JFalk68]

Reading through this post makes me not want to fire this game up and try it again. I am not trying to troll here, just frustrated at what seems to be a game of whac-A-mole with bugs and balance issues. Fix one issue and you unbalance something else.

Should I invest time into this game at this point or just sit on it for another few months?

[carlkay58]

The game as it is currently is nothing like the game that was released. The game that it will end up as, is nothing like the game is currently. Are the changes going in the right direction? We don't know yet - we have not gotten that far in the games yet. Many of the campaign games are dropped too early to really tell - until some of the 1.05 games get into 43-44 we don't even know if the current Axis and Soviet strategies are valid ones!

I have begun to suspect in my studies of AARs and playing the game that we are all pretty far off-base as to what will really work on either side at the moment. I think that Soviets conserving their strength by running away and protecting the ARM factories over the HVY could very well not be able to support the size of army that they end up with. I think that the Axis putting it all into a "I just don't gain enough from a 42 offensive to make it worth my while" does not slow down the Soviet build up enough in troop quality and formations. There have to be MUCH heavier fighting and casualties in 1941 for both sides to have a chance to keep the game going and interesting. Until there are incentives (either through VP or game experiences) to do so, the game will flop back and forth in design balance. Unfortunately, we all want the finished and polished product NOW! Realistically, it takes about 6 to 8 months in real time just to fully test the current version.

[JFalk68]

carlkay58,

Thanks for the insightful and honest reply. I am in your camp in that I want a polished and finished product now LOL I have plenty of games and distractions, I have no problem shelving this game for a long while.
I seem to have a lot of bad luck with my game purchases. I recently bought Sword of the Stars 2 and that is in much worse state then this game. WiTE can at least be played and its stable.

[ComradeP]

As I stated around release, WitE is a rough gem. It will become more polished over time, or at least the engine will, but we're by no means quite there yet.

Still, as an overall experience, it has been fairly dramatically improved since release in some ways.

As to the whac-a-mole: it's natural for a monster game. You fix something, something else might get broken or the fix might do more than you intended it to. It all takes time. WitE is not a broken product, it's a product that gets and requires constant polishing.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Marquo
But, in terms of playing a simulation with an modicum of logistical constraint, no way, not even close. The supply aspect of the game needs a serious objective analysis and overhaul. I would like Micheal T to get what he wants: a way to funnel logistics and use them as in a discretionary manner. What he has now is the ability to attack full throttle with no restraint for over 2 straight months.

I suggested on another thread that a possibly interesting experiment to do would be to cut down Supply scenario parameters, radically, and see what would be the effect. I'm pretty much convinced by now that there's too much supply stuff around and it flows with uncanny efficiency (and it's not only the rails, also overland supply seems to me way too efficient). By increasing the AP multiplier, one would be able to use the HQ build up function to, as the name implies, build up an attacking force

[Attack]

To JFalk68:

I agree with you (and with Pelton): the game needs some polishing work.

But still, is the better strategic game I´ve never played. [&o] The problem is:

First, is a very complex game. If you changes a thing, can be undesirable consecuences.
Second, there are a lot of brains thinking how to win, how to strech the rules to advance a little more, to fight a little better...

We are playing beta because we love this game, and we´re trying to do a perfect game (well, this is not possible, but we´re trying it). It´s some kind of natural selection: the comunity of players find some holes, the developpers try to polish these holes with new rules, the comunity try to find another holes in the new rules...

I´ve not too much experience, I played only 4 PBEM, but I´d like to say something not about the supply in 41, but about the original post: why the Germans can´t attack in 42, as historically did:

I think that the air war is very important, too. Without air superiority is not possible to do a movement war.

Playing as russian, at the 42 spring I see my entire red air force with an experience of 70 and a moral 80-99. With this experience and moral, and lots of aircrafts, Luftwaffe simply can´t support the advance of Panzers or any other offensive.

I´m not an expert in the history of air war in the East, but I thing that during 41 the Luftwaffe reached total air superiority; in 42, Luftwaffe has air superiority only in the sud, was parity in the others fronts; in 43 was parity; and in 44 the Soviet Union had total air superiority. More or less.

[Farfarer61]

1942 as Sov: With 1 = 2 and fort spam gone. I am finding it much tougher to counter-attack panzer spearheads or exposed units. I should have stopped and fortified end Jan 42 vice mid Feb. Another lesson learned - Front HQs will suck all the RR Brigades out of your Army HQs if there is a lot of RR repair work to do - such as in a successful Blizzrd advance. I found out the hard way that is is prioritized over entrenching help, so you really need to set up and lock HQs for a Blizzrd advance.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Attack

I´m not an expert in the history of air war in the East, but I thing that during 41 the Luftwaffe reached total air superiority; in 42, Luftwaffe has air superiority only in the sud, was parity in the others fronts; in 43 was parity; and in 44 the Soviet Union had total air superiority. More or less.

That is not entirely true. The soviets did have huge problems in the early war and they were far behind in tactics and strategy but there never was a shortage of aircraft and pilots. In fact, the axis were starting to struggle coming end of 1941. They did however manage to create LOCAL superiority where it mattered most! The drain on machines and men was however huge.

Having aces shoot down hundreds of aircraft is all well and good but if the enemy easily replaces those losses and if your own industry and pilot training plan barely keeps up with front needs you are screwed..

I think the VVS is allowed to build up to much experience and morale currently but the actual aircraft count is not that far off....

[Attack]

May be, Cannonfolder, I said I´m not an expert about air war in WWII. But to me is strange that in a PBEM game, with me as German, with Moscow and Leningrad conquered, the bombers of Luftwaffe in turn 18 have a moral of 19.
And in turn 27, the russian fighters will have a moral of 90+ (in another PEBM game, this time playing as soviet)


In any case, in 1942 and without air superiority is near impossible to breach a carpet of Russians and after to maneouvre. At least in a sector of the front, the Germans need air superiority.

Only a opinion.

[KenchiSulla]

Thats why I said: the VVS is allowed to build up to much experience and morale...

[Peltonx]

Odds 6.2 to 1 and enemy forses routed.

Yet the attacker loses more then defender again.

[Peltonx]

4.2 to 1 odds attacker wins enemy retreas and attacker loses more men.

[Peltonx]

4.2 to 1 odds attacker wins defender retreats and attacker loses more men again?

[Peltonx]

Attacker wins odds at 1.5 to 1 as far as losses go.

Before 1.05 the ratio for attacking Germans when they won was 2.5 to 1.

Now the ratio is much lower, even vs junk units the ratio is not more then 1.5 to 1.

The average is 1 to 1.

I am still waiting on an answer why they felt the need to gimp the ratio. If you want a mobile front during 42 why gimp German attacking ratio so much?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I am still waiting on an answer why they felt the need to gimp the ratio. If you want a mobile front during 42 why gimp German attacking ratio so much?

Pelton, those screenshots are from 1943.

[KamilS]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I am still waiting on an answer why they felt the need to gimp the ratio. If you want a mobile front during 42 why gimp German attacking ratio so much?

Bletchley_Geek


Pelton, those screenshots are from 1943.

According to that logic in '44 Germans will suffer another 50% more casualties. [;)]


As a comparison these are my attack following turn.

[heliodorus04]

Kamil, I don't know where you stand editorial on the matter.
Do you think something is wrong, or that these results are within acceptable parameters?

[KamilS]

heliodorus04

Kamil, I don't know where you stand editorial on the matter.
Do you think something is wrong, or that these results are within acceptable parameters?

I don't have opinion so far, although German losses seems to be surprisingly on par with Soviet and I am attacking fortified positions.

I am waiting to see how it will be once blizzard is over and fighting takes place in snow.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

heliodorus04

Kamil, I don't know where you stand editorial on the matter.
Do you think something is wrong, or that these results are within acceptable parameters?

I don't have opinion so far, although German losses seems to be surprisingly on par with Soviet and I am attacking fortified positions.

I am waiting to see how it will be once blizzard is over and fighting takes place in snow.

Interesting shots Kamil. Without the 1:1 rule seems that attacking with the Soviet become far more predictable.

However, losses summaries only tell us part of the story. Taking a look on the detail tab would tells us to what degree those are destroyed or damaged squads, and how much retreat attrition both sides are taking due to retreat attrition.

EDIT: My guess is that Soviets are taking - proportionally - far more Destroyed than Damaged ground elements.

[Peltonx]

We had same ratio in 42 - 43. There is no real change.

The ratio was same in 42 as 43.

I did make that clear at the beginning of thread. The very first post is 42.

Thats why I did not bother with a 42 summer offensive, more examples on the AAR.

The ratio during 42 is the same ratio for losses as 43. Vs Hoooper losses during 42-43 were the same 2.5 to 1 if I counter attacked.

Devs have yet to deny it or conferm it.

I have asked with emails and here and no answers why it was changed.

Only thing I can think of it was done to make up for 1v1=2v1 getting removed after March 42. Which is fine if thats the design they are going with.

Pelton