ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) March 1943!

[Mike29]

Why you care about victory conditions? This all about fun, what the matter when Russian take Berlin?

[morvael]

These are not the victory conditions that I have in mind. I am thinking about those that make you want to fight forward as the Soviets in '41 and be rewarded for it, those that want you make bloody offensives in early '42 and be rewarded for it, those that want you to get overstretched as Germans in late '42 and be rewarded for it. Then one wouldn't need fake balancing in terms of totally crap Soviets in '41 and Blizzard of Death(TM). I call such victory conditions "soft caps" instead of "hard caps" that the current system offers in terms of it's special rules. Soft in the sense that you can retreat in one or two places or do not attack in one or two places but if you do it all along the front, you will not win the game in terms of VP. Systems with "soft caps" balance well because players are rewarded for doing things as if without hindsight. There are no "all or nothing" choices caused by "hard caps", which tend to unbalance the game.

[Flaviusx]

If victory conditions force the Soviet to fight forward in 1941 games will end in 1941. Same problem: the offense is too strong in this game. No matter how you slice it, it comes back to game mechanics. Once those are addressed then yes, maybe victory conditions can be adjusted accordingly.

[Seminole]

Try out a 44 GC and see for yourself. Or even a 43 GC. The game is severely biased towards the offense.

I'm playing a '44 GC as the Axis right now.
I'm enjoying my stint as Heinrici trying to staunch the red horde long enough for a few more Germans to escape to the West. I didn't accept it with visions of marching into Moscow, but to see if I could hang on. My opponent is playing as over-confidently as the OOB says he can, and consequently this turn I've cut off and routed several of his armored spearheads. Does it mean Berlin won't fall? I doubt it, but I'm having fun, and I bet he is too.

Kobayashi Maru!

[janh]

Too bad this ends. It was interesting to watch. The two of you seemed to be a good match of players. None so much more experienced that the other was beaten (too) quickly. Until a few turns ago, it looked still like a game hanging in the balance.

It would still be nice to see this game fought out. This is now a Stalingrad, but by design, and by replicating history, GHC should be able to recover to a point where a draw should still be in the cards. Half the game is still waiting to be fought...

[Mike29]

We now discussing with Kamil that it might be continued.

[SigUp]

I think this game suffers not only from the far too generous logistics, but also the combat system. Retreat losses are of course too high, but another issue is the low losses for attackers when their attacks succeed. Just open up the 1944 scenario as the Soviets and conduct a few attacks. It is more than easy to achieve 2-1 or even 3-1 loss ratios - as the Soviets! Historically, however, the Soviets still lost twice as many men as the Germans during Bagration. The German side also suffers from this problem. In 41-42 it is (aside from the Blizzard) close to impossible to lose more than 110.000 men per month, like they did historically.

[Flaviusx]

Yes, the disparity between attacker and defender combat losses is a large part of the reason the system favors the offense. I also think retreats are far too easily achieved in this game to begin with. The 2-1 final combat odds modifier ought to imo be modified to take into account fortification levels, including intrinsic terrain. So that for each level of fortification remaining at the end of combat (including terrain which cannot be reduced by engineers) will raise the odds requirement for retreat by one. This by itself will make cities a much tougher proposition and would also go a long ways towards making Leningrad a tougher nut to crack.

Even open terrain will be difficult to shift with level 2 forts...those will all of a sudden now require at least 4:1 odds. (Unless the engineers reduce the forts.) This will lower op tempo considerably.

[SigUp]

Well, aside from cities (especially when encircled) and swamps I don't think that retreating too easily is too much of an issue. An issue is, however, the problem of encircled units turning into crap once they are cut off, even if they have enough supplies to stay alive. Thus German attacking losses are even lower when facing encircled Soviets. Furthermore it is very hard for encircled units to break out of a loose pocket by themselves. Last but not least those famous German pockets that survived for a long time like Demyansk or Stalingrad are not possible. And those operations that needed the encircled units to help in their relieving like Cherkassy-Korsun or Kamenec-Podolski are not possible.

Another issue I have (though I know that the air model is broken beyond repair) are the low air losses, especially for the Red Airforce after 41. It seems to be the common theme for the Red Airforce to balloon to well over 20.000 planes in 43 or so. Never in an AAR have I seen a realistically big Red Airforce in the latter stages of the war. Losses are far too low. With this engine Soviet air losses won't come close to those 100.000+ planes lost. Let alone losing 4.200 planes in six weeks like in the Orel - Kursk - Kharkov area in July / August 43.

[Flaviusx]

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.

[morvael]

Of course that some (major?) changes would be required (and the false balancers removed), only then a new victory point system could breathe some life into the game. It's different experience if you know that by doing this or that (launching a failed but bloody offensive, holding fast in an encircled city) you scored 12 VP this turn, while your opponent due to cowardly withdrawal here and there scored only 4 VP, so the end result moves 8 VP towards your victory, etc.

[timmyab]

I agree that the combat system needs improving for WITE 2.
I think retreat odds should vary according to a number of factors:
1. Fortification level.Forts also shouldn't be reducible below level one and not more than one level per week.Pioneers can only do so much.Having a level four fort that's taken a year to build leveled before the first shot's been fired is ludicrous.
2. Defending unit morale.
3. Defender leadership ratings.I also think leadership ratings could determine retreat casualties.Disengaging with the enemy was a difficult skill and some were better at it than others.
4. Player preference.This would be an option to order a hold at all costs type of stance.The combat ratio needed to force a retreat would go up, but so too would the defender casualties.

Of course this would make attacking more difficult, but the idea would be to magnify the attacking side's combat power wherever they have local air supremacy and sufficient supplies.Both these aspects also need improving as part of the overall package.

On the subject of clearing pockets, I think the strength of cut off units should be partly determined by their ammo levels.I'd favor something like half CV for being isolated representing ammo rationing and then further CV reduction as ammo levels fall.On the plus side ammo usage would be half of normal.In general I think the game could make far more use of ammo supply rules.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.

The attacker simply does not take enough loses, because the hole system is based on retreat loses and not on the rounds of combat.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.

The attacker simply does not take enough loses, because the hole system is based on retreat loses and not on the rounds of combat.

Well, you can put it that way. Thks leads to the effect that the successful side takes too few losses. The defender when he holds, and the attacker when he pushes the defender back.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Well, it seems to me these two pockets would be a lot tougher to clear if my proposed retreat changes went in, due to terrain. Demyansk in particular. Stalingrad not so much depending on whether or not you choose to represent the Germans owning at least part of the city or not.

I'm wary of messing too much with the isolation penalty, a lot of pockets got cleared fast on both sides. So the trick is how to create a system that accounts for the exceptions like Demyansk and Stalingrad -- and they were exceptions -- without denying the ability to reduce pockets quickly otherwise, as was mostly the case.

Ideally the combat system would penalize these units offensively while leaving their defensive strength mostly intact. Unfortunately, the game doesn't do this. CV penalties hit units on a global basis, which I don't think is quite right. It is easier to defend than to attack all other things being equal.

The attacker simply does not take enough loses, because the hole system is based on retreat loses and not on the rounds of combat.

Well, you can put it that way. Thks leads to the effect that the successful side takes too few losses. The defender when he holds, and the attacker when he pushes the defender back.

Historically speaking the ( no surrenders straight up combat) attacker almost always took more loses then defender, unlike the current combat engine.

[Seminole]

The 2-1 final combat odds modifier ought to imo be modified to take into account fortification levels, including intrinsic terrain. So that for each level of fortification remaining at the end of combat (including terrain which cannot be reduced by engineers) will raise the odds requirement for retreat by one. This by itself will make cities a much tougher proposition and would also go a long ways towards making Leningrad a tougher nut to crack.

Even open terrain will be difficult to shift with level 2 forts...those will all of a sudden now require at least 4:1 odds. (Unless the engineers reduce the forts.) This will lower op tempo considerably.

According to 15.8.1 fortification is being taken into account when determining modified CV (and thereby who gets bounced from the contested hex).
I would think doing it your way would just reward the Soviet for being able to make more and more sappers while the Germans are stuck with however many pioneers btns they have on hand at any one time.

[Flaviusx]

Seminole, 15.8.1 notwithstanding, the final modified CV force ratio to force a retreat is always 2-1. I propose to jack up that requirement depending on fortification levels. This is not the way the game works now.

The Germans have never had a problem building oodles of fortifications. They dig in faster, too. And they can by more or less as many fortified region as they want.

Note that the entire reason we got rid of the +1 modifier for Soviet attacks past 41 was because it made it way too easy to force retreats. I think it is probably still too easy to do this from 43 on. Well constructed German defense lines simply wither away once the Soviet reaches a certain point. I'm not looking to help the Soviets here in particular, but the defense in general for both sides. The game's operational tempo needs to be taken down a notch or two, with fewer attacks succeeding, and more holds occurring, and the more holds occur, the greater the attacker casualties will be. Attacker attrition right now is much too low.

[Seminole]

Seminole, 15.8.1 notwithstanding, the final modified CV force ratio to force a retreat is always 2-1. I propose to jack up that requirement depending on fortification levels. This is not the way the game works now.

The modified CV is 'jacked up' by the remaining fort value, yes?
So if manmade fort level 2 remains after combat, and the terrain is swamp, the modified CV for defending the hex is 5x the modified CV if the unit was simply out in the clear, correct? That's a fairly significant impact.
Is there a significant difference in requiring higher odds vs. keeping the odds the same and multiplying the defending CV?

Say the attacker's modified CV is 300. If the defender's modified CV (without fortifications) is 100 (let's imagine he's in the clear with no manmade forts), he's going to get bounced. But if he was in level 2 fort, swamp terrain, his modified CV will be 500. He's not getting bounced. Would it be better in that situation to say the CV should be left unmodified at 100 for the defender, but require the attacker to attain 4 to 1 odds (2 + 2 for fort levels)? Or do you propose the defender get the bonus CV (5x under current rules) and the attacker has to mount 4 to 1 odds against that 500 CV (requiring 2000 modified CV)?

I think that would overpower forts a tad myself, and because the Soviets can build oodles of sappers and the Germans can't build pioneers (German made forts are useless when they need help taking down Soviet forts, so the comparison is not apples to apples when you state that the Germans can make FZs) I think this would do more to halt German offensives than anything else.

When the Russians can start bringing 9, 18 or 27 sapper regiments to the hex in assault, the mandmade forts I think are not going to matter a whole lot. This was the part of MT-Pelton I wanted to see play out, but the bug/corruption was interfering. Perhaps MT can comment from the assaults he made how heavy the sapper concentration was and how the manmade forts withstood.

[Flaviusx]

The final modified CV is an absolute value. The 2-1 ratio is a relative one. I'm not looking to do anything to affect final modified CVs, but rather, what is necessary to clear the bar to force a retreat. So CV calculations won't change at all. But you'll need more than 2-1 to get that retreat assuming any kind of surviving fort levels, and perhaps a lot more in certain areas with intrinsic terrain benefits than can never be reduced by engineers.

As far as the late war goes even with massive sapper support, Soviet attacks rarely clear more than 2 fort levels at once. But they can still reach 2-1 odds doing this and bounce the defenders very often. Under my proposed system this typical situation would require 3-1 odds to succeed assuming no terrain whatsoever. Very frequently it will be more like a 4-1 requirement if there is woods thanks to the intrinsic fort level. Swamp and heavy forest would turn this into a 5-1 requirement. Cities would also be tougher.

This is going to slow down the Soviet steamroller, guaranteed.

[Seminole]

The final modified CV is an absolute value. The 2-1 ratio is a relative one. I'm not looking to do anything to affect final modified CVs, but rather, what is necessary to clear the bar to force a retreat. So CV calculations won't change at all. But you'll need more than 2-1 to get that retreat assuming any kind of surviving fort levels, and perhaps a lot more in certain areas with intrinsic terrain benefits than can never be reduced by engineers.

Forts already do this by modifying CV. From what you originally wrote I wasn't sure if this was clear to you. I see you want to add this bonus on top of the existing CV multiplier that the defender gets from fort levels (manmade and natural). I think that would overpower forts.

This is going to slow down the Soviet steamroller, guaranteed.

I think it will be sand in the gears for the Wehrmacht sooner, and to greater effect (because they can't spawn oodles of engineers to contend with it like Stavka).