National Morale

[heliodorus04]

So what I hear Chaos saying is his answer is "2"

I stopped playing people early in the game's life. People find work-arounds that shatter any semblance of adhesion to historical conditions. I don't need to name any.

You can't have a historically accurate game when players understand concisely the mistakes of history and can exert incredible command and control (and in WitE's case, where operational supply is very permissive).

I'm personally happy to hear the players who share my view that the AI provides a completely enjoyable experience (whatever one's personal settings tastes).

[RedLancer]

It's always enjoy reading these threads.

In response to the comments of I don't like it! It's broken! Fix it! My simple answer is how? Talk like that is really cheap. Do you want the combat engine to just create more casualties or actually vary result over time? For the record morale is no longer hard coded in either WitE or WitW and is an editable factor.

Keeping units on trains is outstandingly gamey. Remind me to get added increased fatigue for units held on rails or automatic unload if they haven't moved in the previous turn. A military formation cannot live on a train.

Finally it's really encouraging how people feel about WitE2.0 before we've even played the first turn. With the new logistics model things will be very different.

[chaos45]

Results should be varied in a game of this scale/detail....as to an answer I dont know enough details on how combat/losses are generated in the games underlying mechanics.

I do know that when 100k+ troops assault a fortified location defended by 30k+ troops more than a couple thousand losses total should be suffered between the two sides.

If any commander of an army broke off an assault they were ordered to make after only 1-2k losses out of over 100k+ troops they had to make the assault with they would be sacked and maybe even executed depending on which army they served in.

Same with the defender....the percentage of losses before combats end in a success/failure for each side is way to low...need a method to force combat/shooting whatever it is until sides reach a breakoff loss threshhold basically as thats how real like military commanders think....sometimes maybe battles go slightly longer or slightly shorter depending on rolls and morale of units but in general think that would be something that could be implemented.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Yeah, well, if it wasn't for Pelton most of, or all, of the improvements would have never happened.

Civil war in the forums accomplishes nothing.

Pelton has changed his behavior, used to be kind of abusive. How many of us can say that, truthfully.

Thanks, but 2by3 or morveal had to do the hard work and recode all the bug balancing ect ect ect issue.
I have played allot of games and gathered more PvP data then anyone which is why some times I am the only one saying something is broken and its takes 6 to 12 months to put boat loads of data in peoples faces to finally say ok we are wrong and you were right.


WitE is easly the best Eastern Front game out there and best game in my opinion, because the player base wants a perfect game and 2by3 wants the player base to have a perfect game.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

It's always enjoy reading these threads.

In response to the comments of I don't like it! It's broken! Fix it! My simple answer is how? Talk like that is really cheap. Do you want the combat engine to just create more casualties or actually vary result over time? For the record morale is no longer hard coded in either WitE or WitW and is an editable factor.

Keeping units on trains is outstandingly gamey. Remind me to get added increased fatigue for units held on rails or automatic unload if they haven't moved in the previous turn. A military formation cannot live on a train.

Finally it's really encouraging how people feel about WitE2.0 before we've even played the first turn. With the new logistics model things will be very different.

Its not broken, but not working right.

I have posted ideas as I always do on how to fix it or 2by3 National morale is broke or there is an armaments bug or a swapping bug, or this exploit or that exploit.

As I have stated and morveal is doing in up coming patch Russian losses need to be much higher.

The worst yr of the war for Russia was 43 not 41 or 42 but 43 and we see nothing close to historical losses in 43.

1 simple fix is up Russian losses

or

Keep German morale in 43 at 42 levels.

As myself and others have pointed out over the last several yrs the morale change is a 20% swing in CV from Germany to Russia.

The morale swing is one reason why 43 is so boring, its hard coded into the game.

No matter how good Germany did better then historical.

So Red there are my same old answers on how to address the 43 issue, but this time will they be addresses?

Your new so mybee you have no idea this has been talked about from release to present with answers

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


Finally it's really encouraging how people feel about WitE2.0 before we've even played the first turn. With the new logistics model things will be very different.

I have played WitW 15 times so I know how it works and WitE 37+ times.

1. WitW's current logistics system simply will not work on WitE 2.0 because the AI takes a very
long time doing a turn for WitW its going to take 10 hrs per turn atleast for WitE 2.0
So someone has a ton of work tring to figure out how to stream line that and the air system ect ect
not all players have super computers.

2. German movement east will be very slow after turn 2 or 3 much slower then 1.0 which means balancing issue very early in game
because its the same old combat engine
Russian loses battle per battle are FAR to low to reflect anything close to historical loses

3. Its hard as hell to get pockets in WitW and here we are again,
most Russian loses are from pockets BECAUSE the combat engine does not reflex historical loses.

I can make 10 points but I will stop at these 3 as they are the major ones that 2by3 will have to addresses no matter how resistant they are to the facts.

I have played both systems and FAR FAR more games then anyone so I have a very good idea what will happen better then yourself for sure.

So again I am not just blowing smoke I give data and fixes or if no fix point out the issue with reason thinking backed up with 10,000 playing hrs

[RedLancer]

I think you misunderstand me - I know you are saying it's not working but what do you suggest is done to fix the problem? (I understand you have a headache - but do you want an aspirin, ice pack or another beer?)

For discussion is it:

- All Combat should generate X% higher casualties.
- Combat in Year X should be more/less costly than Year Y. (If so, how would you achieve that differential? Is it morale?)
- Soviet losses should be more expensive than Axis losses. (If so, how would you achieve that differential? Is it morale? Is it certain weapons should be more dangerous?)

You can change morale levels now - Dominick added that functionality to the editor although I admit my focus is very much WitE2 (and if people didn't spot Joel's comment in a post on the WitW forum now that Torch is released that is what we are concentrating on)

Actually the combat engine (as I understand it) in WitW is quite different under the hood. For one the results are much more repeatable. In the test area we have a system that creates a text file that lists all the individual engagements that make up a combat. It is analysing that sort of data which can be useful. There is no conspiracy of ignoring issues - just a finite number of hours in the day in which to solve clearly identified problems. Most of my time as WitW test co-ord was creating a precise set of instructions for Pavel and Gary to replicate bugs. This saves their time to allow them to concentrate on the actual coding. This is a similar issue knowing what needs to be done not what is wrong is more likely to deliver positive change.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
1. WitW's current logistics system simply will not work on WitE 2.0 because the AI takes a very
long time doing a turn for WitW its going to take 10 hrs per turn atleast for WitE 2.0
So someone has a ton of work tring to figure out how to stream line that and the air system ect ect
not all players have super computers.

It's already being worked on - I think that is what Pavel was saying but it might have been lithuanian basket weaving techniques.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
2. German movement east will be very slow after turn 2 or 3 much slower then 1.0 which means balancing issue very early in game.

As it was historically! The Germans stalled at Smolensk from July - September 1941. Vast areas of the front were static from Winter 41 to 43. There will be a balancing issue all the way through the game but you cannot use WitE1.0 as a justification for arguments about 2.0. One of the first questions that we will need to answer is will Turn 1 be a whole week and will it have special rules? Although before my time the length and behaviour of T1 was all about initial balance.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

3. Its hard as hell to get pockets in WitW.

Is this using the Axis or the Allies? They are quite different because of the different TOE mobilisation levels, interdiction, the impact of trucks and fuel on MP points, resupply in turn (all difference from WitE1.0). The combat delay code does play a factor and we have already considered the importance of preparation for offensive operations. Unlikely as it may be, it might be that you are playing WitW too much like WitE - they are superficially very similar but very different in a number of areas where learning the nuances makes a big difference.

[LiquidSky]

It's really easy to make pockets in WiTW. Just play the allied invasion of Sicily. The Italians will be very much like the Russians. The allies will be a weaker version of the Germans. No trouble pocketing Italians.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

...
For discussion is it:

- All Combat should generate X% higher casualties.
- Combat in Year X should be more/less costly than Year Y. (If so, how would you achieve that differential? Is it morale?)
- Soviet losses should be more expensive than Axis losses. (If so, how would you achieve that differential? Is it morale? Is it certain weapons should be more dangerous?)

You can change morale levels now - Dominick added that functionality to the editor although I admit my focus is very much WitE2 (and if people didn't spot Joel's comment in a post on the WitW forum now that Torch is released that is what we are concentrating on)

...

to have a go at the easier one, I think that Soviet losses should be higher but keyed to two factors - (a) unit experience and (b) commander capacity.

There is already an experience rule (ie the combat flips to scouting) and the stop-range rule in WiTW is a more sophisticated version of this. In effect less experienced units are more likely to do one of two things - stop an attack too early or persevere to the point of excess losses. Given the nature of the Soviet command chain and the importance of the plan, the latter happened too often.

I think it was Gorbatov in charge of 1 Gds Army who muttered about 'us all getting killed but at least we'll carry out the plan' about one of the innumerable botched assaults by Western Front around Vyazma-Mogilev from late 42 to early 44.

So a test, if exp>z%, unit will avoid too much commitment and the level of command capability can lower z (randomly). The contrast I'm thinking of is the relative ease and elegance of Rokossovsky's liberation of Gomel in early 1944 compared to almost 16 months of incompetence on that sector?

Its a combination of command and control and doctrine. Soviet doctrine was, even at its best, accepting of losses. At its key was the idea that the violence of an attack could offset overall losses (never did but that is a different point).

edit ... I don't think this a weapons system issue, German artillery may have been more accurate, each side clearly had certain weapons that were better (the Germans liked to use captured PPSh41s for close quarters fighting etc), for 1943 the T-34 was clearly outclassed by the newer German tanks etc. All this matters but its not really the core issue?

The problem about absolute losses/army size/NM is these are tools to an end. I've never had a problem with slightly unrealistic means to gain a realistic end. What WiTE needs oddly is both to be made more constrained and more free.

By that I mean, as you say, large sectors saw no action at all from late 41 into early/mid 44. Equally both armies had large operational pauses. But the game engine doesn't capture the disruption of a breakthrough. Soviet planning was that roughly a 10km breakthrough caused 20km of chaos but if you got a 50km breakthrough the chaos was > 100km, as the losing side lost all command and control and local commanders started to make their own decisions etc etc.

The ideal is to get the Germans by early 1943 to the position where somewhere something will break and when it does they will have real problems, but the capacity to recover. rinse and repeat for the rest of the war but each time the breakage is larger and the recovery smaller.

I actually think the WiTW supply system offers the means to achieve this. It is simply harder to keep everybody in full supply and the penalty for lack of supply is more nuanced.

[chaos45]

One idea- and just an idea as I have no idea how well it might work in WiTW type system compare to WiTE1. WiTE1 it might be to powerful.

Germans get the first turn of the game with a perfectly executed plan, and due to player knowledge will most likely do better than historical most the time.

This in turn give the Germans the initiative of first player to see weather and dictate the tempo of the game until they lose the ability to attack.

Perhaps to add some uncertaintity to the game the first player turn needs to be switched at some point in the game, and give the soviet player a double turn. This gives them two turns to get a smooth breakthrough and changes the initiative for the rest of the game.

Or give the soviet player some type of surprise offensive bonus they can use once or twice a game to replicate the prepared and super successful offensives they did perform....may the preparation bonus in WiTW replicates this IDK.

That aside- Casulaties- Losses need to be higher period. More and larger variance of results, and I would honestly use 20% as a measure for realism. Most commanders wouldn't stop an attack until about 20% of their unit was combat ineffective as thats typically the real life loss threshhold commanders operated under...for Soviets probably closer to 50%+.

This, due to the extra rounds of combat to get to these loss number should burn down more ammunition and due to more/longer fighting cause even a winning defender more losses to finally drive off an attacker in theory if the system does it right.

Even for successful attacks pryrrhic victories happen.....should be cases where attackers take some heavier than expected losses.....Especially against certain enemies...KVs/T34s in 1941.....Tigers/panthers later 1942+ as examples when smalled more lethal elements often killed far more enemies than statistics would usually account for.

Some games account for this with a surprise roll that is a seperate roll before the actual combat but can modify the combat table drastically. As sometimes even a skilled attacker might walk into a well laid defensive trap or make a mistake that costs lots of troops....happened all the time. Other times a skilled attacker could overcome a well planned defense through hitting a sudden weak link.....some generals were better at this than others.

In Carius's book he talks about preparing to attack soviet positions and German artillery falling short and virtually wiping out the entire infantry battalion that was around his tiger platoon to support the attack....these things happened in the real war. Same with allied level bombers dropping short and killing lots of allied soldiers.

So more variation of results with more losses on both sides is really whats needed. A divisional/corps level attack should have consequences above well we attacked and a couple companies in 2nd battalion got bloodied so we stopped.

[xbmoore]

Been thinking on how to invoke higher casualties in the game and throwing this out for discussion

Take the printed CV value off of the counters for the side you are playing against(The CV of the enemy stays hidden until you actually attack the unit(s) and then would give you only an approximation of +/-20% of the CV for more fog of war). How many times have you looked at a stack and said, "Well I don't even have close to a 2 to 1 so I'm not attacking" (this equates to less casualties because you don't attack) or "Hey I have 99 to 1 against that hex I'm going to murder them and take fewer deaths. Or you sit there and see that all hexes have a 26+ defense but there is ONE hex 5 hexes north has only a 2 defense with 3 units in the hex, you then direct your whole offense towards that 2 defense unit as if you are omniscient. Without knowing the CV comparison I believe would increase the amount of attacks which in total would raise the death rate since you will have to attack to find out from attacks. Or on the other hand will it cause even less because people wont attack with smaller forces and will have a couple big stacks attacking? It all boils down to we as players know the other sides CV and thus won't attack a hex where in real life the Russians/Germans really didn't know they had a 2 to 1 or higher.


I see the "overall" casualty rate lower in the game because we cherry pick our fights.

[loki100]

with the Soviets, there is already substantial FoW to be honest. I've seen on map cvs inflate by 50% when the attack is made and not just against units that were out of contact at the start of turn.

the Germans suffer this to some extent in 1941 where they are moving so fast that they will encounter poorly reconned hexes.

So you should be seeing this going on, I tend to find I make at least one attack a turn that proves to have been very silly (ie the at start cv ratio is around 1-1 rather than my preferred 1.4-1) due to FoW.

The reason why many Soviet players don't make weak attritional attacks is the impact on morale. For the most part you lose 1 morale point if you lose and your opponent gains 1. If you attack with say 10 rifle divisions against 2 German infantry divisions and lose that is a net transfer of 12 morale points. Depending on where the NM is that can hasten the weakening of your army or help slow the impact of the post-1943 morale losses on the axis.

So its one way in which the game engine (overall) tends, in PBEM, to encourage a certain degree of conservatism.

Its also an example of how the AI often gives a more realistic game. It will do those marginal probing attacks and as a result you do see higher losses vs AI than PBEM. As an eg in an AI game under 1.08.03 by T76 (27 Nov 42) the Soviets had had 1.4m killed and the axis 830,000, in my current PBEM the same numbers are 950,000 and 380,000. By the time I abandoned that AI game (T157) killed were 2m axis and 4m Soviet. An older PBEM (partly under 1.07.xx, partly under 1.08.01/2) saw dead ratios of 400,000 axis and 760,000 Soviet at the same stage (T76).

While I agree with the general view that the WiTE combat engine doesn't really penalise the attacker enough (I actually think there is an indirect penalty for the Soviets via the higher attrition losses ... you can see that as a rough tool to reflect the % losses of larger combat formations).

But, I do strongly think this is one area (there are others) where the PBEM community is its own worst enemy. We tend to play optimally and then complain that a game engine that reflects the messy reality of the war fails to reproduce historical trends. Its one reason why I think its a mistake to dismiss AI games (as some PBEM players do), you see how the game engine was meant to work much more clearly.

[RedLancer]

The feedback is really interesting. This is likely to be my mantra - 'WitE2 is being developed from WitW not WitE.' This is not a mercenary pitch to buy WitW as I won't see a penny of your hard earned cash but if you haven't played WitW then you are a little behind the power curve.

Some observations and subsequent questions so far:

- If losses need to be higher on both sides is not the answer reducing manpower inflow by 20% rather than tinkering with the combat engine? I'm really interested in thoughts where you believe losses need to reflect a differential in sides and time. Is experience and morale the best way to control this difference and would it work? There have to be 'simple' levers in the code to affect the difference in combat and artificial ones can be contentious. 1=1 is 2=1 demonstrates how contraversial such a design choice can be.
- Should some failed attacks be more costly to reflect Soviet do or die attacks - what controls that - should the political rating of the commander have an effect? The leader may love you but your troops don't.
- WitW CV calculations are quite different to WitE and can deliver surprise results. In a recent Torch test game we had two retreats against the odds.
- Random switching of the sides is impossible because of how the phases play out. In an IGOUGO game players optimising T1 is inevitable. Having a free defender setup is an answer but is difficult to achieve and even more difficult when you have an AI to programme. For 22 Jun 41 I wonder if it is neccesary as the Germans did so well the Russians were on the back foot for months. Did the Lvov Pocket allow over optimisation of T1?

[VigaBrand]

Give the soviets the special ability, that in 41-42 are no morale changes after unsuccesfull attacks.
This means, the soviets can attack against all odds and only suffer the material casualties and no moral changes.
So the soviet player can attack with high casualties (1:5 or so) and didn't weak his units because of Moral drops and strengthen the germans with increasing there moral.
If I attack a german division and losse. The germans maybe suffer 200 men penalties but after that combat they are stronger, because they get one moralpoint.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: Pelton
1. WitW's current logistics system simply will not work on WitE 2.0 because the AI takes a very
long time doing a turn for WitW its going to take 10 hrs per turn atleast for WitE 2.0
So someone has a ton of work tring to figure out how to stream line that and the air system ect ect
not all players have super computers.

It's already being worked on - I think that is what Pavel was saying but it might have been lithuanian basket weaving techniques.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
2. German movement east will be very slow after turn 2 or 3 much slower then 1.0 which means balancing issue very early in game.

As it was historically! The Germans stalled at Smolensk from July - September 1941.
Vast areas of the front were static from Winter 41 to 43.
There will be a balancing issue all the way through the game but
you cannot use WitE1.0 as a justification for arguments about 2.0.
One of the first questions that we will need to answer is will Turn 1
be a whole week and will it have special rules?
Although before my time the length and behaviour of T1 was all about initial balance.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

3. Its hard as hell to get pockets in WitW.

Is this using the Axis or the Allies? They are quite different because of the different TOE mobilisation levels, interdiction, the impact of trucks and fuel on MP points, resupply in turn (all difference from WitE1.0). The combat delay code does play a factor and we have already considered the importance of preparation for offensive operations. Unlikely as it may be, it might be that you are playing WitW too much like WitE - they are superficially very similar but very different in a number of areas where learning the nuances makes a big difference.

1. I think he need more help. He is a smart person, I really admire and respect what he has done. But some times we cant see the forest through the trees and a fresh perspective might put some light to another path through the forest.

2. As we have seen in AAR after AAR if the Russians are able to hold the line in July or August you end up with a Wall Of Steel with the Russians going over to the offensive in summer 41 game set match late 43 or early 44.
This is old news which again is caused by the combat results. Russians can win by losing. We know the results of a WW I advance by German.

Really some players agree not to do the Lvov opening and the game is a joke by summer 42 with Russian on a general across the front offensive.

3. Again its hard to form pockets in 41 in WitE 1.0 now vs a good Russian player- yes they can be done but its only done because of
HQBU and in past games because of air drops. .05 will make it much harder for Germany to say nothing of 2.0.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



It's really easy to make pockets in WiTW.
Just play the allied invasion of Sicily.
The Italians will be very much like the Russians.
The allies will be a weaker version of the Germans.
No trouble pocketing Italians.

You really are just making stuff up here because you have zero exp playing WitE

The Russian army has many formations on turn 1 that do not get pocketed that have 2-8 CV and have allot of good support formations.

The Italian Army is not the Russian Army not even close and from my exp its next to impossible for Western Allies to get a pocket vs the German Army in late 44 or 45

I personally have not lost any units other then to hold a major city for VP's or to an invasion ect things that have nothing to do with WitE.

The German Army in 45 sucks and allies are as strong as Russians and yoy cant get pockets, but the Russians can get pockets in late 43.


Why the WA can not is because logistics chain, its very easy for me to know the limit because I have exp.

So low starting MP + higher cost of entering hexes for WitW

Bro its simple math less MP's = its impossible to form large pockets and hard to form even small pockets.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

...
For discussion is it:

- All Combat should generate X% higher casualties.
- Combat in Year X should be more/less costly than Year Y. (If so, how would you achieve that differential? Is it morale?)
- Soviet losses should be more expensive than Axis losses. (If so, how would you achieve that differential? Is it morale? Is it certain weapons should be more dangerous?)

You can change morale levels now - Dominick added that functionality to the editor although I admit my focus is very much WitE2 (and if people didn't spot Joel's comment in a post on the WitW forum now that Torch is released that is what we are concentrating on)

...

to have a go at the easier one, I think that Soviet losses should be higher but keyed to two factors - (a) unit experience and (b) commander capacity.

There is already an experience rule (ie the combat flips to scouting) and the stop-range rule in WiTW is a more sophisticated version of this. In effect less experienced units are more likely to do one of two things - stop an attack too early or persevere to the point of excess losses. Given the nature of the Soviet command chain and the importance of the plan, the latter happened too often.

I think it was Gorbatov in charge of 1 Gds Army who muttered about 'us all getting killed but at least we'll carry out the plan' about one of the innumerable botched assaults by Western Front around Vyazma-Mogilev from late 42 to early 44.

So a test, if exp>z%, unit will avoid too much commitment and the level of command capability can lower z (randomly). The contrast I'm thinking of is the relative ease and elegance of Rokossovsky's liberation of Gomel in early 1944 compared to almost 16 months of incompetence on that sector?

Its a combination of command and control and doctrine. Soviet doctrine was, even at its best, accepting of losses. At its key was the idea that the violence of an attack could offset overall losses (never did but that is a different point).

edit ... I don't think this a weapons system issue, German artillery may have been more accurate, each side clearly had certain weapons that were better (the Germans liked to use captured PPSh41s for close quarters fighting etc), for 1943 the T-34 was clearly outclassed by the newer German tanks etc. All this matters but its not really the core issue?

The problem about absolute losses/army size/NM is these are tools to an end. I've never had a problem with slightly unrealistic means to gain a realistic end. What WiTE needs oddly is both to be made more constrained and more free.

By that I mean, as you say, large sectors saw no action at all from late 41 into early/mid 44. Equally both armies had large operational pauses. But the game engine doesn't capture the disruption of a breakthrough. Soviet planning was that roughly a 10km breakthrough caused 20km of chaos but if you got a 50km breakthrough the chaos was > 100km, as the losing side lost all command and control and local commanders started to make their own decisions etc etc.

The ideal is to get the Germans by early 1943 to the position where somewhere something will break and when it does they will have real problems, but the capacity to recover. rinse and repeat for the rest of the war but each time the breakage is larger and the recovery smaller.

I actually think the WiTW supply system offers the means to achieve this. It is simply harder to keep everybody in full supply and the penalty for lack of supply is more nuanced.

Good stuff

+1

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

One idea- and just an idea as I have no idea how well it might work in WiTW type system compare to WiTE1. WiTE1 it might be to powerful.

Germans get the first turn of the game with a perfectly executed plan, and due to player knowledge will most likely do better than historical most the time.

This in turn give the Germans the initiative of first player to see weather and dictate the tempo of the game until they lose the ability to attack.

Perhaps to add some uncertaintity to the game the first player turn needs to be switched at some point in the game, and give the soviet player a double turn. This gives them two turns to get a smooth breakthrough and changes the initiative for the rest of the game.

Or give the soviet player some type of surprise offensive bonus they can use once or twice a game to replicate the prepared and super successful offensives they did perform....may the preparation bonus in WiTW replicates this IDK.

That aside- Casulaties- Losses need to be higher period. More and larger variance of results, and I would honestly use 20% as a measure for realism. Most commanders wouldn't stop an attack until about 20% of their unit was combat ineffective as thats typically the real life loss threshhold commanders operated under...for Soviets probably closer to 50%+.

This, due to the extra rounds of combat to get to these loss number should burn down more ammunition and due to more/longer fighting cause even a winning defender more losses to finally drive off an attacker in theory if the system does it right.

Even for successful attacks pryrrhic victories happen.....should be cases where attackers take some heavier than expected losses.....Especially against certain enemies...KVs/T34s in 1941.....Tigers/panthers later 1942+ as examples when smalled more lethal elements often killed far more enemies than statistics would usually account for.

Some games account for this with a surprise roll that is a seperate roll before the actual combat but can modify the combat table drastically. As sometimes even a skilled attacker might walk into a well laid defensive trap or make a mistake that costs lots of troops....happened all the time. Other times a skilled attacker could overcome a well planned defense through hitting a sudden weak link.....some generals were better at this than others.

In Carius's book he talks about preparing to attack soviet positions and German artillery falling short and virtually wiping out the entire infantry battalion that was around his tiger platoon to support the attack....these things happened in the real war. Same with allied level bombers dropping short and killing lots of allied soldiers.

So more variation of results with more losses on both sides is really whats needed. A divisional/corps level attack should have consequences above well we attacked and a couple companies in 2nd battalion got bloodied so we stopped.

We have seen what happens with no Lvov pocket, its a joke.

Why?

Because combat engine does not reflex historical loses and the only way to get to that is pockets.

As soon as the front goes static vs a good Russian player the games over and the Russian player can start grinding down German army by losing, then you get the NM level flip of 20% and boring the rest of the way.

You have to think big picture as one tweak can completely unbalance the game as you know Chaos.

WitW logistics and MP costs = much less MP's for Germans slower moving west and easyer for Russians to hold. As we all know for a fact the red army can simply with draw 2 hexes per turn after turn 2 in the south and 1 per turn in center and Germans will not beable to do anything because they be out of gas (MP's)
Red army will grow because there will be next zero contact. This is all very easy to see for better Russian and German players. So Russian loses will be very light, no industry over run ect ect. A very boring 41 with Russians having a massive army by 42.

Also the lower MP's will have zero effect on Russian armys grind west as pockets do not need to be formed because loses are 1.5 to 1 and morale is hard coded into system.

Russians never have much because of truck shortages which means 2.0 logistics
system will have zero effect on the grind west)

Big picture not small ball.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand

Give the soviets the special ability, that in 41-42 are no morale changes after unsuccesfull attacks.
This means, the soviets can attack against all odds and only suffer the material casualties and no moral changes.
So the soviet player can attack with high casualties (1:5 or so) and didn't weak his units because of Moral drops and strengthen the germans with increasing there moral.
If I attack a german division and losse. The germans maybe suffer 200 men penalties but after that combat they are stronger, because they get one moralpoint.

2.0 Germans will have far fewer MP's after turn 2 they be a long ways from RH's. unlike WitW the Russians can simply give ground in south and center and suffer next to nothing in losses as Germans will not have MP's to do attacks

So giving Russians more offensive power I 41 will simply unbalance the game even more.

The German Army is based on MP's far more then CV ect. If they can not get pockets in 41 after openning the games over because the combat engine can not do historical losses without pockets.

Russians will not have to fight forward other then near Leningrad which means all the best troops will be piled up there.

not hard to play things out under the current engine or future logistics

I like the systems, but they need MAJOR tweaking or we will all be playing WW I on the eastern front with a massive German and Russian army by early 42.