The core problem with WitE+

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: rmonical

By mid-July 1941, for example, and thereafter, German offensive operations developed in distinctive “spurts” or “offensive leaps,” specifically, advances of 100-120 kilometers conducted within a time period of roughly 10 days, with each of these “spurts” punctuated by 7-10-day-long pauses necessary to regroup the attacking forces and replenish them with critical fuel and ammunition.

[/quote]
That's pretty much what I've been doing in my game against loki.

Pelton, it is you who refuses to see the obvious effects of logistics. People provide examples, evidence, statements by experts, yet you claim otherwise without any backup.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran

Again your ignoring the facts, who won the battle of Smolensk 1941?

Ultimately I would say the Germans won the battle of Smolensk but it was a very costly adventure and it didn't go anywhere near their way. As someone already said, it brought about the Kiev option...actually less of an option and more like the only real alternative. The pocket of smolensk did close only much later than it could have had Guderian not attempted to hold the Yelna salient.

You simply made my point, Germany won because logistics mattered very little to the out come.

Very ignorant statement. The Germans barely held AGC's front only because of superb training and seemingly inhuman discipline in the face of disaster. Had the Germans been in full supply the Smolensk campaign would have been over in a much shorter period of time..

Stahel accounts how the Germans were heavily outgunned because they couldn't return fire against the Soviet artillery. The logistics system was heavily over burdened once the Panzer Groups crossed the Dnepr. Fuel, ammo, spare parts, tires you name it. Even after the infantry caught up there was never enough artillery ammo and spare parts.

The German army survived the first winter with a huge lack of winter equipment at the front. However I would hardly say that it mattered very little. This is one of your poorer arguments.

I think everyone agrees that the combat model is jacked for sure...however, I also agree that the current supply system is full arcade mode. One rail line couldn't sustain but 1 army iirc. However this is surely a WITE 2 fix.
[/quote]

Ok we agree

The combat model is a failure and in the future it should not be modeled based on supplies.

The short fall has more to with the lack of its reflextion on C&C and German training.

That is why combat results are so far off from historical.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: rmonical

By mid-July 1941, for example, and thereafter, German offensive operations developed in distinctive “spurts” or “offensive leaps,” specifically, advances of 100-120 kilometers conducted within a time period of roughly 10 days, with each of these “spurts” punctuated by 7-10-day-long pauses necessary to regroup the attacking forces and replenish them with critical fuel and ammunition.

That's pretty much what I've been doing in my game against loki.

Pelton, it is you who refuses to see the obvious effects of logistics. People provide examples, evidence, statements by experts, yet you claim otherwise without any backup.
[/quote]

Again the main theme of thread is the combat engines epic failure to reflect combat ratios.

You are ignoring that fact and tring to claim that logistics should be the focus of combat engine.

What are your combat ratios in your game- again stop ignoring the theme of thread 2.5 to 1 at best?

most of us alrdy know that anser as this has been posted 10+ times.

German and Russian slow down in tempo was because of a lack of equipment and men not bullets.

You can cherry pick here and there but the main reason was because of combat loses not a lack of ammo.

Again staying on topic what is your 42 combat ratio - surrendered.

NOTHING CLOSE TO HISTORICAL.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

yet you claim otherwise without any backup.

Well, he does provide a link to a Wikipedia article. And he uses large font to express his opinion.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Glantz, David M. (2012-04-10). Barbarossa Derailed: The Battle for Smolensk 10 July-10 September 1941 Volume 2: The German Offensives on the Flanks and the Third Soviet Counteroffensive, 25 August-10 September 1941 (Kindle Locations 11551-11552). Helion Pub. Kindle Edition.

In addition to affecting the Wehrmacht’s operational capabilities, all of these unexpected complications also helped shape Hitler’s and the OKW’s strategy for conducting the Barbarossa campaign. Operationally, by mid-July, increasing Soviet resistance and severe logistical and transport constraints combined to limit the scope and duration of Army Group Center’s advances. This severely constrained Blitzkrieg-type tactics, which had proven so vital for the successful conduct of previous German campaigns. By mid-July 1941, for example, and thereafter, German offensive operations developed in distinctive “spurts” or “offensive leaps,” specifically, advances of 100-120 kilometers conducted within a time period of roughly 10 days, with each of these “spurts” punctuated by 7-10-day-long pauses necessary to regroup the attacking forces and replenish them with critical fuel and ammunition. In addition, over time, the depth, duration, number, and attack frontages of these “spurts” also tended to decrease. Conversely, the pauses in between these offensive impulses provided the Stavka and its operating fronts with the time necessary to mobilize, arm and equip, and deploy fresh forces and commit these forces into action.

I find the notion that logistics did not effect AGC's advance staggeringly naive.

I find it Naïve you keep ignoring the combat ratios and cling to logistics.

The current combat engine does not and never has reflected combat ratios?

YES or NO?

Why?

Because of logistics or it completely over looks C&C and training?

Which is it?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

yet you claim otherwise without any backup.

Well, he does provide a link to a Wikipedia article. And he uses large font to express his opinion.

as in 95% of the times I bring things up people ignore the data for as long as possible or try and change the subject.

The subject is combat ratios and the game engines failure to reflect that.

Logistics has little to zero reason for its failure, but for some reason we will talk about logistics for days and ignore the combat engines failure to reflect historical combat ratios.


Before a new combat engine is made I would think 2by3 would look into why this one has failed to reflect history or we just end up with the next one having the same short comings.

I do not see why that is so hard to understand.

WitE combat engine IS NOT failing because of logistical issues

That is clear and I would think everyone can agree on that.

[SigUp]

Quote me on saying that logistics should be the focus. I've never said it should be the focus. I've been constantly saying that BOTH should be improved. [8|]

It makes no sense discussing with you if you ignore the statements by other people and accuse somebody of something that's absolutely wrong.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Quote me on saying that logistics should be the focus. I've never said it should be the focus. I've been constantly saying that BOTH should be improved. [8|]

It makes no sense discussing with you if you ignore the statements by other people and accuse somebody of something that's absolutely wrong.

The current engine is not failing because of logistics.

Can that part be improved sure, but it has little to do with its failure to reflect combat ratios.

The ratios are way way off so logistics has little to do with why.

If anything tweaking the engine in the logistics area will simply make them more towards 1 to 1 ratios, which is worse then we have now.

[SigUp]

Pelton, the logistics discussion is sparked by you. The only reason we are discussing about this is because you continuously deny that logistics had any effect on German operations which is simply untrue. The reason we aren't discussing about the combat system is because everybody knows the combat system is severely flawed.

And to say that the logistics system has no impact on the engine failing is a gross error. Why are the Soviets able to push and push and push come 1943? Not only because the combat engine doesn't reflect history, but also because they are under no logistical constraints. Historically the Soviets often exceeded their capabilities which led to combat pauses or overextension, making them vulnerable to local German counterattacks. If due to some miracle this current combat engine is fixed and the Soviets get their historical replacements etc. the game would still be far, far out of whack because there are no logistical constraints.

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, this isn't an either/or thing. It is both. You're way out on a limb here and as usual falling into your penchant for monoexplanations. You see a problem in one thing, get stuck on that one thing, and then forget that there are other things, too. Reductionism isn't your friend.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, this isn't an either/or thing. It is both. You're way out on a limb here and as usual falling into your penchant for monoexplanations. You see a problem in one thing, get stuck on that one thing, and then forget that there are other things, too. Reductionism isn't your friend.

Good point.

Ok

Logistics has it place, but WitE's combat engines failure to reflect historical ratio's has little to do with logistics.

fuel issues were and exploit and had nothing to do with ratio's as the same ratio's have been present for the last 3 yrs.

We can all agree the logistics model has greatly limited movement and rightly so.

But the core problem is the combat engine.

Tweaking logistics in the current or future engine will not improve the ratio's as the combat ratio favors the result unhistorically in the SHC favor alrdy. So by tweaking the engine in the logistics area will simply unhistorically
inflated the short comings that are clearly present in the data.

The engine does not take into account German C&C + training.

As myself and others pointed out the allies(Russia included) copied Germany training system.

Sure logistics matter, but only in the area of slowing operations.

It over all did not change the kill ratio. Sure we can cherry pick a battle, but quarter by quarter yr by yr combat ratios support his.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Pelton, the logistics discussion is sparked by you. The only reason we are discussing about this is because you continuously deny that logistics had any effect on German operations which is simply untrue. The reason we aren't discussing about the combat system is because everybody knows the combat system is severely flawed.

And to say that the logistics system has no impact on the engine failing is a gross error. Why are the Soviets able to push and push and push come 1943? Not only because the combat engine doesn't reflect history, but also because they are under no logistical constraints. Historically the Soviets often exceeded their capabilities which led to combat pauses or overextension, making them vulnerable to local German counterattacks. If due to some miracle this current combat engine is fixed and the Soviets get their historical replacements etc. the game would still be far, far out of whack because there are no logistical constraints.

Ok they limited operations, but they had little to do with the ratio

and what is wrong with the current engine.

The engine as everyone seems to agree is way off, tweaking the logistics in the current or future engine is not going to improve the engine in a way that will reflect historical out comes.

If anything tweaking the engine based on logistics will only make the ratio's worse then they are alrdy.

Which is why I keep repeating that logistics has little to nothing to do with why the engine is putting out 1.5 to 1 ratio's in 43, and in 42 in many cases.

The engine does not or is not taking into account C&C and training.

[SigUp]

Pelton, nobody is saying only logistics should be tweaked for WITE2. You are campaigning a cause against nobody with that combat engine thing, because in principle nobody here is disagreeing with you.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Pelton, nobody is saying only logistics should be tweaked for WITE2. You are campaigning a cause against nobody with that combat engine thing, because in principle nobody here is disagreeing with you.

Ok fine.

The drama part of this is over now that we have every ones attention

What is wrong with the combat engine?

Why is it so far off?

What do you think should be done?

I am stating as fact that logistics has very very little to do with why it is off.

It does not reflect German C&C ect

With out adding in something other then logistics it will keep on giving out bad data.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

It's very hard to have a discussion with someone who claims that he is stating "facts" while everyone else is stating "opinions".

I want the Soviets to attack as much as possible and be able to push back German troops. I don't see anything wrong with this. The problem is retreat losses and morale losses. None of these counterattack would be a major problem for the Axis if it weren't for retreat and morale losses. Fix this and you have an even more interesting game. In addition increase attack losses based on morale. This would limit Soviet counterattacks over time.

Just my "opinions" for making this an even better game.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

yet you claim otherwise without any backup.

Well, he does provide a link to a Wikipedia article. And he uses large font to express his opinion.

The large font trumps all....

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

I want the Soviets to attack as much as possible and be able to push back German troops. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Bozo, in the Summer and Autumn of 1941 a German unit being pushed back 10 miles or more was a very seldom occurence. What is needed is an incentive for the Soviets to do attacks even if they don't result in pushbacks. So in effect the Soviets need to be able to attrite German manpower, equipment and supplies using counterattacks, denying the Germans the chance to build up strength for an offensive unhindered by enemy pressure. Target of those counterattacks should be to buy time, even if the costs in blood are high. For that to work of course a higher replacement rate for the Soviets is needed in addition to a new combat and logistics engine.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: SigUp


. If due to some miracle this current combat engine is fixed and the Soviets get their historical replacements etc. the game would still be far, far out of whack because there are no logistical constraints.

This....

Both need to be fixed. And by the time WiTE 2 comes about, I'm guessing they will be.

But to paraphrase Flaviusx, this cake is about done.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Bozo, in the Summer and Autumn of 1941 a German unit being pushed back 10 miles or more was a very seldom occurence. What is needed is an incentive for the Soviets to do attacks even if they don't result in pushbacks. So in effect the Soviets need to be able to attrite German manpower, equipment and supplies using counterattacks, denying the Germans the chance to build up strength for an offensive unhindered by enemy pressure. Target of those counterattacks should be to buy time, even if the costs in blood are high. For that to work of course a higher replacement rate for the Soviets is needed in addition to a new combat and logistics engine.

agree up to a point - worth adding in the problem of time here (since this discussion is no longer really about WiTE1). If the Germans take a hex and then the Soviets chuck them out that is akin to stalemate, say modelling an offensive that is then caught off balance.

So you are right, the Soviets never regained terrain they had permanently lost until the winter offensive but they did drive the Germans to distraction by keeping up pressure. Remember AGS was seriously thinking of giving up its Cherkassy bridgehead over the Dniepr due to this (till it was decided to go for a massive encirclement at Kiev) and AGC was driven nuts by Timoshenko's offensives on the northern wing of the Smolensk sector.

Now I agree that what we lack is the attritional nature of that fighting, that the Soviets took massive losses doing it and that, in game, the morale impact is too high (I think it would be enough to model it as not getting any rest etc).

Now time is another issue. In reality in say a week, an infantry attack might take 2-3 days to crack open a line to allow armoured exploitation _ this is for both sides. In reality the tanks then have half a week to do their exploitation. In IGOUGO they get the full week. I really don't think WEGO is the solution but I remember the old board game on WW1 (designed by Philippe of AGEOD) that had a neat mechanic. If you attacked a hex, you placed a marker and that affected anything else that moved into that hex that turn (the same system is in the WW1 Gold computer game). Something of that would really help bring the tempo down (along with sitting hard on logistics)

[rmonical]

But the fact is it has not, because it does not reflex historical combat ratio.
The current system encourages turtling and running.

1941 6 to 1
1942 5 to 1
1943 4 to 1
1944-45 3 to 1

I do not have a clue what you are saying here.

Ok fine.
The drama part of this is over now that we have every ones attention
What is wrong with the combat engine?
Why is it so far off?
What do you think should be done?

I disagree it is "far off". IMHO:
-- The Soviets need a better way to inflict casualties on the Germans that takes advantage of their ability to expend far more artillery ammunition than the Axis. It does not involve taking terrain. Would have lower manpower casualties, higher ammunition expenditure, and be more of an artillery dual. I think this new attack mode would also better reflect the nature of Soviet attacks in 1941. I think the attrition mechanism tries to model this but as folks point out, German casualties remain low in 1941.
-- The Germans are too dependent on closed pockets to inflict high casualties on the Soviets. It impacts the entire game dynamic. tm.asp?m=3287981&mpage=1&key=Binary

Another issue is the "action point war" and how it impacts the way combat is waged. Part of this is fixed in WITW with APs not being required to change command relationships. However, using the same type of AP to change a commander as to build a tank brigade is an arbitrary artifact. Multiple games out there have more realistic production models.