The core problem with WitE+

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, I strongly suspect that the problems I have with the combat model are not the same ones you have.

You keep talking about these "ratios." Me, I'm wondering where the attacker losses are. That includes losses the Germans don't incur as attackers, btw.

The ratios you are looking for can be met and indeed wildly exceeded so long as your pet Germans are the only ones ever attacking. The combat system is wildly biased in favor of the attacker. I am doubting you are troubled by this. Your real issue is that both sides can abuse this. You'd probably be completely okay with it if it was just the Germans.

Basically, you've got this incredible axe to grind and it makes it hard to take your position here very seriously.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Having read Paul Carells "Hitler's war on Russia" It is interesting to note that it contains no references to supply problems.

Isn't Paul Carell a pseudonym for Paul Carl Schmidt who was a high ranking Nazi? I haven't read his book but because an author doesn't mention supply problems on the eastern front doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't exist.

[chuckfourth]

Hi SignUp

Point taken
But I should say Pelton is correct that using logistic constraints in place of 'correct' Combat engine modelling to
achieve a 'historical' result is the major issue.

For my part I think refining the battle algorithm as I suggested above would go a long way towards giving the 'correct'
combat ratios Pelton mentions.

I actually stopped playing when I discovered that the soviet first turn rail movement could be used to 'port'
units into blocking positions making a mockery of the soviet first turn movement restrictions.
For me it was the 'final' straw
For now I just look in at the forum occasionally.
I hope wite2 addresses these problems.
I remain hopeful largely because of the quality of the forum contributors.

Best Regards Chuck

[Flaviusx]

Chuckles, Pelton is arguing against a straw man. Attempts to fix the game's logistics were never intended to fix the combat model. We ought therefore not be surprised when solutions meant to address one set of problems fail to deal with the others. Of course they won't. I mean, duh.

Similarly, you could fix the combat model and if you left the logistical system as is, the game would still be borked.

You need to do both. We really haven't come to grips with either. And WITE 1.0 is basically finished at this point, so it's all up to how things shake out in WITW and beyond.

The best thing Pelton can do at this point is to test the hell out of WITW and make sure the next game advances the state of the art.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, I strongly suspect that the problems I have with the combat model are not the same ones you have.

You keep talking about these "ratios." Me, I'm wondering where the attacker losses are. That includes losses the Germans don't incur as attackers, btw.

The ratios you are looking for can be met and indeed wildly exceeded so long as your pet Germans are the only ones ever attacking. The combat system is wildly biased in favor of the attacker. I am doubting you are troubled by this. Your real issue is that both sides can abuse this. You'd probably be completely okay with it if it was just the Germans.

Basically, you've got this incredible axe to grind and it makes it hard to take your position here very seriously.

No as I have posted in allot of AAR's over the 2 + yrs, all personal attacks aside kind Sir.

September 42+ is less then 1/2 of historical, this is simply the ratio's battle after battle.

The current combat engine does not reflect historical, this is old news as you know and have known for a very long time.

This issue is old, yet gets ignored.

Again for the 51st time logistics can be tweaked more, but its not going to change the combat ratio.

This is a corner stone issue that will have to be addressed at some time, putting it off longer is not going to mke matters better only worse.

The current engine I believe can easly do this.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Having read Paul Carells "Hitler's war on Russia" It is interesting to note that it contains no references to supply problems.

Isn't Paul Carell a pseudonym for Paul Carl Schmidt who was a high ranking Nazi? I haven't read his book but because an author doesn't mention supply problems on the eastern front doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't existed.

Supply problem did exist Bozo, but yet the combat ratio's were what they were.

So tweaking the logistics system is not going to improve the provem.

Keep up the good work.

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, you are being totally unrealistic about this.

The combat model is done. At least for WITE 1.0. So in fact is the rest of the game. Forget it. It's over. If you really want to improve it, get cracking on your WITW testing.

It is the combat model in WITW that will be the basis for future improvements and evolution going into WITE 2.0. What you do over there is a million times more important than any grousing you do here.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Hi SignUp

Point taken
But I should say Pelton is correct that using logistic constraints in place of 'correct' Combat engine modelling to
achieve a 'historical' result is the major issue.

For my part I think refining the battle algorithm as I suggested above would go a long way towards giving the 'correct'
combat ratios Pelton mentions.

I actually stopped playing when I discovered that the soviet first turn rail movement could be used to 'port'
units into blocking positions making a mockery of the soviet first turn movement restrictions.
For me it was the 'final' straw
For now I just look in at the forum occasionally.
I hope wite2 addresses these problems.
I remain hopeful largely because of the quality of the forum contributors.

Best Regards Chuck

The main reason I keep coming back to this is because of the 100's of people like yourself.
There is a huge disconnect with the combat results and historical results- this makes the game WW1ish instead of WW2ish.
This has driven away allot of future playing/paying customers

1. Game should end in a draw 50% of the time, 45% SHC win and 5% GHC win all things being equal.
2. It should be a struggle, punch and counter punch.
3. It should still reflex historical ratios in the air on the ground and at sea, UNLESS the players are not equal.

2by3 has done and amazing job in detail, but the combat engine is a failure todate.

Logistics tweak are still needed, but will not fix the core issue.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, you are being totally unrealistic about this.

The combat model is done. At least for WITE 1.0. So in fact is the rest of the game. Forget it. It's over. If you really want to improve it, get cracking on your WITW testing.

It is the combat model in WITW that will be the basis for future improvements and evolution going into WITE 2.0. What you do over there is a million times more important than any grousing you do here.

You are mistaken as many have been at my methods to date, what was the last issue I lost/wrong on?

When and if I can say the combat engine is prefect.

People will know I am not full of BS.

You can go back in this thread and see how many people agree with what I have said.

This adds to my agreement in any future debate on this issue as it is simply true.

The world we live in now is very different from 10 yrs ago. I might be 50, but I see the changes.

With the multimedia many times the future was yesterday.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pelton

These Forums seem always to contain partisans playing the man instead of the ball
and dumbing down the game so the Germans don't get an advantage.
Congratulations on putting up with them and for so long and for your work here in the Forum.

All Power to Pelton

Best Regards Chuck.

[Flaviusx]

RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT

[SigUp]

Pelton, for the 1000th time, I'm not denying that the combat system has its deficiencies and is badly in need for a fix in WITW / WITE2 (which I'm confident it will get). I have mentioned this numerous times on the forums how broken the combat system is, how especially by 1943 the Soviet losses are ridiculously low as compared to the German ones, how on the other hand in 1941 the German losses are too low. It is not me who is sticking his head into the ground, it is you by continously ignoring what I've been saying. The only reason I've translated this lengthy stuff about logistics is because chuckles initially asked me about sources for Fall Blau's logistical troubles. Once again you are thinking you're arguing against the world, while in fact you are arguing against an imaginary opponent who is not there.

EDIT: chuckles, nobody, I repeat nobody, is defending the combat system as it is. Everybody here recognizes the need for a severe revamp for WITW / WITE2. It is Pelton who continues to ignore this and thinks everybody wants to fix logistics only that has this "discussion" going on. What I've been saying is merely that aside from the combat system the logistics also need a fix. Pelton apparently thinks that logistics are good as they are right now and fixing the combat system will complete the game which is untrue. Fix the combat model, give the Soviets and Germans their historical replacements and the game is still broken, perhaps even more so than before without an adequate logistics model.

[Michael T]

I think the simple point Pelton is trying to make is that the combat system is so far out of whack that it really pales the problems with logistics.

It is also true that we have seen numerous and significant logistics fixes that wind back the Axis in 1941. Yet, we have seen nothing to enhance the real combat advantages that the Germans had in 41/42/43. They just don't exist in this game.

If these are his points I entirely agree with him.

[SigUp]

The fixes on the logistics didn't really touch the true problem of it. They only removed the most ridiculous parts like the flying fuel cans. In WITE the logistics aren't taking capacity into account at all. Theoretically you can supply the entire Wehrmacht using a single rail line, as long as the units are within acceptable range. However, even after their rails caught up the Germans still faced problems stemming from the fact that often they couldn't max out the capacity or the capacity of the rail line itself was insufficient. In WITE neither the Germans nor the Soviets will face the dilemma of making the choice which offensive prong should be favoured if both are within acceptable range of the rail line. You can simply pursue both (or even more) at the same time, provided you have the forces to do it.

Last but not least I contest Pelton's assertion that logistics had no influence in the casualty ratio. They did. Can you imagine how much more damage the Germans could have done without logistical problems (full mobility, no lack of artillery ammo, no lack of spare parts etc.)?

[Michael T]

Now granted, some of those games were with 105/95 settings so they are not necessarily representative. Nevertheless, 8 of these 9 games ended with a complete and utter destruction of your opponents. Sometimes with encirclement of Moscow on T14 which is an absurdity in itself and just shows that the logistic system is still too much in favor of the Axis in 41.

Bozo you seem incapable of accepting that an elite player can cut a newbie to pieces. I am curious what you would think the limit of the Axis advance would be if no Soviet Army existed at all? Which in the hands of a totally incompetent player is not far from the real situation. Nothing at all can be determined from Peltons victories over some newbies, apart from the point that he is very good and they very bad.

Do you want an idiot proof version of WITE? A game where no matter how bad a player is and no matter how good the opposition a quick and decisive victory is not possible. That the rates of advance are the same no matter the level of ineptness of the Soviet player?


Surely you don't expect close to historical rates of advance no matter who plays who?

The thing I find amusing is that when the levels of skill are reversed it's quite all right with some that Germany gets no where and are totally trashed in 1941.

One thing I like about WITE is that good players whip bad players.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Having read Paul Carells "Hitler's war on Russia" It is interesting to note that it contains no references to supply problems.

Isn't Paul Carell a pseudonym for Paul Carl Schmidt who was a high ranking Nazi? I haven't read his book but because an author doesn't mention supply problems on the eastern front doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't existed.

Lt Colonel in the SS.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Having read Paul Carells "Hitler's war on Russia" It is interesting to note that it contains no references to supply problems.

Best Regards Chuck.

Smile, well i was spot on 3 4 months ago then, wasnt i. As I said then ill say it again. I strongly suggest u read some books that isnt based on die hard nazi with an agenda based on 1970s history view of eastern front. Alot has happend and been researched and written since.
Yes, i also have read the book. One should get as broad a perspective as possible. The more varied u read the more one can put the extrems in each end into perspective. This is a book from one end of the extrems.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Having read Paul Carells "Hitler's war on Russia" It is interesting to note that it contains no references to supply problems.

Best Regards Chuck.

Smile, well i was spot on 3 4 months ago then, wasnt it. As I said then ill say it again. I strongly suggest u read some books that isnt based on die hard nazi with an agenda based on 1970s history view of eastern front. Alot has happend and been researched and written since.
Yes, i also have read the book. One should get as broad a perspective as possible. The more varied u read the more one can put the extrems in each end into perspective. This is a book from one end of the extrems.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

I agree Walloc. Hitler vs Stalin is a good one based on allot of data that it new. aka after the wall came down.

I think one of the old school ideals is that if you simply tell the tale based on historical data from "both sides" and not just one your labeled a Nazis freak.

This is part of our politics now which has infected every part of our lifes.

What ever you do ignore the message and kill the messanger.

People simply do not want to hear or read about the combat ratio's as they do not fit the political message we have been feed for 50yrs.
The people that were personally effected by the conflict are passing on and now this generation can take a more objective look at the past events.
If you read history this is what almost always happens. The victor's write their version of history shortly after the conflict,
but then historians years latter write what historically happen. Which in many cases is light yrs from what the victor wanted people to believe.

Germans did more with less, German equipment was not as good the allies in most cases,
they had logistics problems ect ect. Yet they were able to do what they did on the ground and in the air being heavly outnumbered in all areas including logistics.
In the air they were out numbered 5 to 1 and still were able to inflict hvy loses on all fronts until the last quarter of 1943. They simply ran out the high % of quality trained troops and veterns and had to rush men to the front instead of properly train them all.

People want to hear the Germans were stupid, had no freedom on the battle field ect ect and
all the allies armys were as good man for man as a German,
which is simply not true as the data clearly shows no matter which set we want to look at.

The Allies did not win because of logistics, better troops, better equipment or better tactics which is clear.
They won because they heavly out numbered the Axis and could produce far more.

Industrial output won the conflict. Germany produced over 100% more equipment in 44 then it did in 42, but it did not matter as America could easly out produce Germany on its own.

We won by attrition, industrial attrition.

When Germany won on the battlefield, it was because it had far better C&C, trained army/airforse and modern tactics.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think the simple point Pelton is trying to make is that the combat system is so far out of whack that it really pales the problems with logistics.

It is also true that we have seen numerous and significant logistics fixes that wind back the Axis in 1941. Yet, we have seen nothing to enhance the real combat advantages that the Germans had in 41/42/43. They just don't exist in this game.

If these are his points I entirely agree with him.

And yet the logistics are still borked.

I really don't see how anybody can choose here between the combat model and the arcade supply system. Really, they both suck. Trying to determine which sucks worse is pointless.

Operational tempo in this game is grossly accelerated despite a bazillion fixes. It is, remains, and always has been much much much too fast. The two feed off each other here.

And I'm morally certain that the problems Pelton has with the combat system are in fact not at all the same ones I have. He would absolutely hate my ideal combat system because his pet Nazis would enter winter 1941 hurting quite badly. That is to say, attacking would actually start hurting the attacker. Bad. Cumulative attrition would add up.

No, what he wants is MOAR NAZIS.

The game is systematically biased in favor of the offense. I accept this as being true of both the Germans and the Soviets. I'm pretty sure that Pelton does not accept this, nor you in fact. You indeed want Axis offensive capabilities to increase at no cost. You'll happily pocket any penalties on the Sovs, though.

That's a mug's game.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Txema

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The combat engine simply does not reflex the historical non-surrender combat ratio's at all.

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

The in game ratios are 1.5 to 1 starting in September 1942 which is simply way way off historical.

Hi Pelton,

Could you please tell us the in game ratios for each year? Do you think that the in game ratios are accurate for 1941?

How do you calculate them?

Thank you very much for all your testing work to improve WitE !!


Txema

He doesnt calculate them. He has a percieved notion on how it should be, which happens to be far far from history.
Ok lets use the sources that Pelton has used a few times trying to make an arguement.

For russian side casulties.
Soviet Casulties and combat loses in the Twintieth Century by G.F. Krivosheev.
Total losses for all causes expect prisnors as Pelton writes non surrender casulties, including navy losses.
Table 67, page 94. Plus text on page 93.

2.138.320 during 1941.

Note that this includes sick, forstbites and every thing else. the most common number use when talking / ppl reference to german losses is that they look at what is called "Blütige Verluste"
This only included combat losses. It doesnt include discharged, sick, frostbites, non combat casulties, psy cases and so on. Not only that. If a soldier that is wounded make it back to a field aid station / hospital that is further back than the unit own. The casulty isnt counted in the unit tally but in a seperate tally again not included in blütige verluste. Even if he dies later on. As per Zetterlings statical analytic work on Kursk.

This mean u cant compare "blütige verluste" with G.F. Krivosheev as this lncludes every thing. Using "blütige verluste" is when i read the most common numbers used when stating german losses. U tend to be an underrepresentation of losses as said higher up a number of categories of losses isnt included. Even Zetterling falls in his own trap from time to time.

On German side using "Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg". From the bunderswehr history department. Total losses in 1941 1.061.000. For sake of fairness excluding prisnors/missing as a number tho not all of the missing would have been prisnors at 44k leaving a total of 1.017.000.

Then we get to a problem. The russian numbers are including losses taken fighting the axis minor. That would either have to be removed from the russian total or the axis minor casulties added. As pelton specificly say german vs russian the thing to do is try and deduct casulties casued by axi minor. Unfortunatly its prolly all but impossible to know get figurs on how many of the russian casulties was caused by axis minors. Obviously its not a teh majority but looking at losses at the Oddessa campaign alone there is clearly some thign to deduct. 200k is prolly onthe low side a but gota use some number. If any one got better numbers please share.

Then u have 2.138.320-200.000/1017000= 1.9 to 1.

So if 6-1 is the correct non surrender combat ratio per Pelton numbers, which would limit the german combat casulties too just over 300k. Some what below the "blutige verluste" numbers by a factor of around 2.5.
Then apparently teh german suffered a tons of losses not related to combat. If u look at attrition in game its around twice as high for russian side too. So apparently the game need to introduce some sorta mechanism that gives outside of combat gives a hell of alot of casulties to teh german. Or Peltron assumpion of 6-1 combat casulties is off by around 300%.

No, i dont even wana bother doing the 42 and later number.


Kind regards,

Rasmus