The core problem with WitE+

[chuckfourth]

Hi hfarrish

Much as it probably doesn't look like it I'm not trying to trash the game.

But in an ideal world someone who is familiar with the combat engine would post and say something like Yes you are right here and wrong there, this is what we are going to do about it in WITW and WITE2.
The absence of that post suggests to me that my suggestion of the 'all line up and fire' combat engine is pretty much on the money and that nothing much will be done about it.
Unfortunately that puts me in the 1 per cent.
Time will tell

Best Regards Chuck.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: chuckles
The Soviets did not inflict significant losses on the Germans in mass attacks.
The Soviets inflicted significant losses on there -own- men to achieve a normal (in casualty terms) result on the Germans
Basically this type of infantry assault without supporting arms uses up infantry(Soviet) instead or High Explosive other than that it is unremarkable.
Personally I think this feature of the war isn't really within the scope of the game or of any real importance.

Not sure that I follow what you're saying--the Germans did not suffer "significant" losses, only "normal" losses, against the Sovs? And such normal losses are not within the scope of the game?

The fact is that with their often stubborn defense and poorly-conducted attacks, the Sovs did inflict significant losses on the Germans in aggregate by the end of the 41 campaign. IIRC many German units in front of Moscow-particularly infantry units--were down to 30% strength, etc.

I think such losses should most definitely be in the scope of the game and yet you generally don't see them in this game.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The fact is that with their often stubborn defense and poorly-conducted attacks, the Sovs did inflict significant losses on the Germans in aggregate by the end of the 41 campaign. IIRC many German units in front of Moscow-particularly infantry units--were down to 30% strength, etc.

I think such losses should most definitely be in the scope of the game and yet you generally don't see them in this game.

They indeed inflicted... irreplaceable losses in 1941 (despite the catastrophic defeats and losses)... 900.000 men. Amen [8D]

This strategic German defeat clearly explains why the Germans were forced to plan a *limited* summer offensive in 1942, as opposed to a massive offensive to finish the Red Army once for all.

[chuckfourth]

Hi 76mm

Sorry for the unclear post

You said

without the 2:1 rule the combat engine cannot reflect the significant losses inflicted by the Sovs on the Germans by such attacks

I am saying this is wrong.

The Soviets did -not- inflict 'significant' (your word) losses on the Germans with their 'desperate charges'

The effect on the Germans of the 'desperate charges' vs a normal assault is exactly nothing.

The only difference between a normal (supported) Soviet attack and a Soviet desperate charge is that the Soviets get more squad casualties in the latter and use up more support weapon ammunition in the former.

According to the line up and fire combat engine I think is in place all assaults are desperate charges.
Except that all the weapons are advancing not just the infantry.

best Regards Chuck.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: chuckles
I am saying this is wrong.

The Soviets did -not- inflict 'significant' (your word) losses on the Germans with their 'desperate charges'

The effect on the Germans of the 'desperate charges' vs a normal assault is exactly nothing.

The only difference between a normal (supported) Soviet attack and a Soviet desperate charge is that the Soviets get more squad casualties in the latter and use up more support weapon ammunition in the former.

According to the line up and fire combat engine I think is in place all assaults are desperate charges.
Except that all the weapons are advancing not just the infantry.

hmmm, I agree with what you're saying, but I did not mean to imply that "desperate charges" should cause more casaulties than a "normal attack"--but the fact is that Russian attacks did cause significant losses over time, and that most of such attacks were not what I would call "normal attacks" in that the Sovs did not really use any tactics to speak of--"desperate charges" is really all I can call them...

So yes, the result was usually some number of German losses (which they could not afford, and therefore significant) and massive Sov losses.

[Tarhunnas]

Hmmm, I would caution against steroetyped views of all Soviet attacks consisting of massive Soviet Urrah! style assaults with machine guns in the rear firing at anyone wavering. I do not claim to be an expert, but Soviet tactics varied between attempts at professional coordinated supported attacks that mostly failed in 1941 to desperate charges in late 1941 and 42 and from that on the Soviet Army steadily improved in professionalism, although it never attained the same degree of expertise as the Germans. I am not denying there was a fair amount of desperate charges, but far from all Soviet attacks can be so described.

Although there was certainly a tendency to use heavy weapons in a direct support role in the Soviet Army, I have never seen mentioned anywhere that Soviet artillery was primarily used in direct fire roles as described above. AFAIK it did use preplanned fire plans and was slow to shift fire, and had negligent counterbattery capability, which is an area where the Germans excelled. I have read German evaluations from 1941 where Soviet artillery is described as occasionally being well used in the support indirect fire role in 1941.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
Hmmm, I would caution against steroetyped views of all Soviet attacks consisting of massive Soviet Urrah! style assaults with machine guns in the rear firing at anyone wavering. I do not claim to be an expert, but Soviet tactics varied between attempts at professional coordinated supported attacks that mostly failed in 1941 to desperate charges in late 1941 and 42 and from that on the Soviet Army steadily improved in professionalism...

To be clear, I am talking only of 1941. I've done a lot of reading about the 41 campaign in recent months and haven't come across many accounts of well-planned and executed Sov attacks. Obviously things changed significantly in the second half of 1942 and thereafter.

I focussed on 41 precisely because the lack of tactics on the Sov side should make their attacks easier for the simplistic combat engine to represent, and yet I don't think that is the case.

[Mike29]

Genltemen,

I think the core problem of the game is the following. We can not achieve historical results because Russian run and leave main cities like Kiev, Smolensk, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk without fight and pocketsas result of such fight. In my view one of the major events of real summer 41 was Smolensk battle and exchange time for half a million people in Kiev pocket (turn of Guderian group to Ukraine). Without heroic defense of such cities it is completely not even close to real 41.

I agree with Pelton that is not in logistics, but combat model is only part of the problem. The problem is that nothing can force SHC to play front defense and nobody can command player to hold positions at any costs. My suggestion is to connect morale of units to some important points like big cities. For exapmle loosing Kiev - minus 5 morale, Kharkov - minus 2 ect. And add fuel to GHC. And increase losses from retreat.

[Flaviusx]

Mike29, the equivalent to the Kiev pocket occurs on turn 1, and there is nothing the Soviet player can do to defend the south west of the Dnepr as a result. No fighting withdrawal can be made when SW Front is destroyed immediately. It's difficult enough to prevent a crossing of the Dnepr much past turn 5 in the south with whatever remnants are left after turn 1, never mind holding out until September.

That being said, there is nothing in the grand campaign preventing a Soviet runaway if SW is attacked conventionally on turn 1 without the infamous Lvov opener.

It's a real chicken and egg problem. The various 41 scenarios do force a more historical progression, but the trick is finding some way to translate that to the grand campaign.

None of this is really related to the combat model, btw. Which, for all its imperfections actually can give you reasonable results within the constraints of the scenarios. The problem you identify cannot be fixed by tweaks to the combat model at all.

The failure of the combat model lies in its inability to force sustained attrition on the attacker and its bias in favor of retreat losses and therefore the offense generally. And I consider this macro failure far more important than any of the micro issues Chuckles is pointing at. I do not really care about the particulars of the model at the micro level so long as it delivers useful macro results. The combat model doesn't need to be "realistic" at this tactical level to do this. It could indeed do the job by becoming less "realistic" simply by emulating a totally old fashioned CRT.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Mike29
I think the core problem of the game is the following. We can not achieve historical results because Russian run and leave main cities like Kiev, Smolensk, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk without fight and pocketsas result of such fight. In my view one of the major events of real summer 41 was Smolensk battle and exchange time for half a million people in Kiev pocket (turn of Guderian group to Ukraine). Without heroic defense of such cities it is completely not even close to real 41.

Yes, I've been meaning to raise this as well, although it is not as one-sided as you suggest. The German deployment around Stalingrad, the splitting of strategic main efforts in 1941 and 1942, stand-fast orders, etc. all played a part in determining the course of the war.

Change both sides' strategies, and the whole nature of the war inevitably changes--hence all of the turtling and/or running seen in this game. It might be a realistic enough alternate history, but it doesn't feel much like the real war, so it always rather unsatisfying to me. YMMV.

While clever victory conditions can help to some degree, I'm afraid that at root this problem is insoluble unless players are forced to repeat historical blunders.

[Gabriel B.]

ORIGINAL: Mike29

Genltemen,

I think the core problem of the game is the following. We can not achieve historical results because Russian run and leave main cities like Kiev, Smolensk, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk without fight and pocketsas result of such fight. In my view one of the major events of real summer 41 was Smolensk battle and exchange time for half a million people in Kiev pocket (turn of Guderian group to Ukraine). Without heroic defense of such cities it is completely not even close to real 41.

I agree with Pelton that is not in logistics, but combat model is only part of the problem. The problem is that nothing can force SHC to play front defense and nobody can command player to hold positions at any costs. My suggestion is to connect morale of units to some important points like big cities. For exapmle loosing Kiev - minus 5 morale, Kharkov - minus 2 ect. And add fuel to GHC. And increase losses from retreat.

THe disparity of forces is too greath in 1941 to punish the soviets even more .
It takes 3 good soviet divisions to match the ofensive CV of a single german division , as result 1941 is a year to rebuild , rebuild and rebuild some more .
Now ,that does not mean you cannot defend and ocasonally smack a some axis forces that stick their neck out in the open, but
real ofensive action such as the failed counterstrokes that the soviets put up in 1941, pays no benefit .
In a sense the game distorst the historical perception leading some not familiar with the eastern front, to think the russians did nothing but defend in 1941 , which is wrong .
Personally, I do not think that the removal of the 1:1 = 2:1 would help the game, quite posible would not hurt either but makes
1941 really boring for those of us inclined towards ofensive action .

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Mike29

Genltemen,

I think the core problem of the game is the following. We can not achieve historical results because Russian run and leave main cities like Kiev, Smolensk, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk without fight and pocketsas result of such fight. In my view one of the major events of real summer 41 was Smolensk battle and exchange time for half a million people in Kiev pocket (turn of Guderian group to Ukraine). Without heroic defense of such cities it is completely not even close to real 41.

I agree with Pelton that is not in logistics, but combat model is only part of the problem. The problem is that nothing can force SHC to play front defense and nobody can command player to hold positions at any costs. My suggestion is to connect morale of units to some important points like big cities. For exapmle loosing Kiev - minus 5 morale, Kharkov - minus 2 ect. And add fuel to GHC. And increase losses from retreat.

The core problem is that there are players who want to force historical play on the Soviets while using every bit of cheese as the Axis. The Lvov cheese is not historical in any way. The SW Front was not destroyed in less than a week.

And yes, logistics are a big part of it. You can support the entire army with one rail line. You are not forced to pause to catch your breath. Of course that works for both sides, but that doesn't make it right.

BTW, there is nothing that forces the Axis player to play front defense and hold at all costs either. It wasn't just Dec 41 that Hitler insisted on it.

[Michael T]

The combat model doesn't need to be "realistic" at this tactical level to do this. It could indeed do the job by becoming less "realistic" simply by emulating a totally old fashioned CRT.

Could not agree more.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

The core problem is that there are players who want to force historical play on the Soviets while using every bit of cheese as the Axis. The Lvov cheese is not historical in any way. The SW Front was not destroyed in less than a week.

And yes, logistics are a big part of it. You can support the entire army with one rail line. You are not forced to pause to catch your breath.

Couldn't agree more.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Personally, I do not think that the removal of the 1:1 = 2:1 would help the game, quite posible would not hurt either but makes
1941 really boring for those of us inclined towards ofensive action .

Couldn't agree more.

Two things will happen. Either the Axis player will insist on playing without 1:1 = 2:1 and with reduced blizzard and it's auto victory for Axis. Or the player will insist on playing without 1:1 = 2:1 and accepts the old blizzard and then it's even more boring then now. Rushing east in 41, then retreating west during blizzard, then rushing east again in 42. Just more then before. If the game isn't over in 42 it's counting hexes until Berlin. [>:]

However, it would be interesting to see a game where someone bargains 1:1 = 2:1 for those magical HQ buildups.

[Flaviusx]

Bozo, I don't see how you conclude that playing with mild blizzard and without the 2:1 rule is an autowin for the Axis. Really, it isn't. The 2:1 rule especially is completely unnecessary for the Soviet to attack. Attacking is pretty easy in this game for either side. People have somehow convinced themselves that the Red Army turns into a pumpkin without it. Not so.

But if you feel you must extract concessions for these, it's fairly easy to identify such points. Just ask for random weather. That by itself imo goes a long ways towards defanging the HQ buildup (which I agree is ridiculous) and taming logistics.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

The core problem is that there are players who want to force historical play on the Soviets while using every bit of cheese as the Axis. The Lvov cheese is not historical in any way. The SW Front was not destroyed in less than a week.

And yes, logistics are a big part of it. You can support the entire army with one rail line. You are not forced to pause to catch your breath.

Couldn't agree more.

I heartily second your approval of this sentiment, Bozo...

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Bozo, I don't see how you conclude that playing with mild blizzard and without the 2:1 rule is an autowin for the Axis. Really, it isn't. The 2:1 rule especially is completely unnecessary for the Soviet to attack. Attacking is pretty easy in this game for either side. People have somehow convinced themselves that the Red Army turns into a pumpkin without it. Not so.

Have you played a humanoid lately? I think we should just wait and see what happens. More data is required. And it's a good thing for the 2:1 rule to be optional. People just need to know what they are getting into.

[RBednar]

It seems like WITE has been playing tug of war with itself, as rule changes first improve Russian capability,
then German capability, and the cycle continues even today...

Every game can be modeled more realistically; our problem appears no set of known modifications
simulates the campaign to have a typical result expected from the majority of players. This has been an ongoing
discussion for 3 years now!

I do not think the encirclements are being modeled very well. They occurred for both sides throughout the war.
The Wehrmacht blamed it on bad weather and logistics; Stavka obviously wasn't going to blame itself.

In truth, mobile troops against non-mobile troops result in encirclements in war. The reason is the relative movement
rates and flow of information. In the game one has almost exactly instantaneous intelligence and all of the infantry
divisions can move 100% before any of the motorized units move at all! The other side's mobile forces can not move at all.

This poses our current dilemma. If the combat algorithm (including morale) makes the attacker to strong,
encirclements will occur, and massing attackers will result in super-encirclements.
If making the defender too strong, World War I style advances are in order. Yet
both kinds of fighting occurred on the Eastern front! Why have a good 1941 combat model when the German Army will not exist in 1944?
Why have a good 1944 model if no one cares to play that long!

We can not make a change to the combat algorithm and then hope that 6 months later after 3 teams have hopefully each finished one campaign game,
all will find the results are good across all 4 years of warfare! 3 years have after already lapsed with this technique.
Why not run 6-month mini campaigns with 30 teams covering different combat algorithms, all at the same time. From the tremendous
response of the posters for this subject, that should not be a major problem. This would all be based on beta versions. In about 3 months we
could get a good idea of what the combat algorithm should, and should not be!

[RBednar]

By the way, the mini-campaigns should cover Brest to Berlin.