National Morale

[charlie0311]

This is absolutely true. The one exception is if the players agree to no Lvov pocket, but the Reds fight forward in the South and so you get a "slow" Lvov pocket. Then the axis players needs to get a kill in '42, usually because the sov player gives up, not quite knowing how to deal with the '42 panzer ball or understanding how to rebuild/build the Red army.

Given highly skilled players means no Lvov pocket = Red win.

My hope is that no one takes offense.

I am referring to the Lvov pocket post.

[RedLancer]

Pelton - it's very difficult to have a constructive discussion when you don't answer the questions posed. As always I'll persist as you do raise valid concerns.

- Actually we are about to test Pavel's new logistics code - this isn't about the rules - it's all about how quickly the game engine calculates the logistics phase which I understand is your point in this regard.

- MORALE IS NO LONGER HARD CODED!!! I hope that is now clear - in WitW Randy and I changed the WitW Italian Pilot morale for precisely the combat losses issue. I agree that morale is a huge factor and perhaps too big.

- I agree that over a period that the combat loss to manpower inflow rate can lead to ahistoric balance which manifests in a need to pocket to survive for the axis. Trust me I get it loud and clear - we are now in the let's consider how we solve it phase. Firstly you cannot logically argue that one imbalance is justified to support another. I know that logistics bores you but you cannot use perceived flaws in a combat engine to rubbish the WitW logistics system. A logistics system that I believe will better depict the factors in play on the eastern front. Two wrongs do not make a right. Liquid Sky's comments are absolutely valid - you say that you cannot pocket in WitW - this is untrue - he can and I can - but this has nothing to do with WitE or the experience of playing WitE. This is like arguing about scoring goals in ice hockey using field hockey experience to justify your approach. I appreciate that your view is that pockets are vital to maintain manpower balance under the current loss regime but there are other levers in this regard beyond combat losses. Remember in WitW that replacements cost freight so often you can't get men out of the pool.

- I agree that the Russian ability to run away at the start increases the manpower imbalance issue. However this too is not an argument to justify problems in the logistics construct. Perhaps the improved rail congestion code will impact on supply as factory evacuation causes congestion. I do not know yet but perhaps this, limiting supply to the Russians, will reduce the speed of evacuation. However we may well need to encourage the Soviets to fight forward.

- So let's turn this around a little - is the problem that the Soviets lose too little manpower or receive too much? Would we be better ignoring the combat issue and focusing our time on manpower production and population evacuation? If we made population evacuation more difficult - perhaps so that players would have to hold ground forward to get them out would that be better? So you could run away but it will mean that you will receive less men.

[chaos45]

Interesting that morale will no longer be hard coded so if a unit loses alot of combat how does it ever recover? Does rest at least restore you to a certain minimum?

Both sides take way to few losses- its not just a Soviet issue. By 1942/1943 you end up with about 1 Million extra Germans and about 1-2 Million extra soviets....so not just 1 side has to many men. Its why combat needs to increase losses for both sides.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

This is absolutely true. The one exception is if the players agree to no Lvov pocket, but the Reds fight forward in the South and so you get a "slow" Lvov pocket. Then the axis players needs to get a kill in '42, usually because the sov player gives up, not quite knowing how to deal with the '42 panzer ball or understanding how to rebuild/build the Red army.

Given highly skilled players means no Lvov pocket = Red win.

My hope is that no one takes offense.

I am referring to the Lvov pocket post.

The worst, and I've seen it done, is to agree no Lvov and then the entire SW Front appears at Leningrad 2 turns later. But it works if both sides agree to some simple constraints and if actually gives a better game for the south. But its never easy to agree constraints in PBEM beyond binary rules ... unless you trust your opponent. For myself I have no interest in Michael_T style obsessing about this or that form of rule abuse, if someone wants to abuse an agreement/game engine etc in the search for a win .. well they are welcome to it.

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Interesting that morale will no longer be hard coded so if a unit loses alot of combat how does it ever recover? Does rest at least restore you to a certain minimum?

Both sides take way to few losses- its not just a Soviet issue. By 1942/1943 you end up with about 1 Million extra Germans and about 1-2 Million extra soviets....so not just 1 side has to many men. Its why combat needs to increase losses for both sides.

not hard coded I think means that the levels are no longer hidden in the .exe but can be manipulated in the scenario editor to amend/set up a scenario.

the problem isn't losses or army size as such, its what too large an army allows to happen.

For much of the war, and esp after Bagration, a typical Soviet rifle division was <6,000 men - now quite what that means is not immediately straight forward, so its best seen as the direct combat strength excl support elements (but then the Soviet division was pretty spare in that regard). Now if you did that in game, you'd have a 1cv division, probably around an 6-7 cv corps.

Its the interaction between notional numbers and effective combat power, as you've said a few times, the Germans having too much manpower means they never get really stretched, the Soviets with too much manpower never hit constraints around replacements.

Its worth noting that in the period from March 44 - Aug 44 when Tolbukhin's Front stayed on the defensive on the lower Dneistr he got something like 15,000 replacements from Stavka ... and like all Soviet commanders tried to fill out the gaps in his divisions by forced recruitment from the recently liberated Dneipr region.

I think under WiTE2 managing the rail net is going to be very different. That and the supply system will create a different set of parameters for the game. In WiTW your rails are ferrying supplies, reinforcements and complete formations and its very easy to run into bottlenecks as a result. In 1941, Soviet factory evac is going to slow the arrival of replacements (never mind new formations), so as the year goes on the Soviets will get more ragged ... but so will the Germans.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

...

- So let's turn this around a little - is the problem that the Soviets lose too little manpower or receive too much? Would we be better ignoring the combat issue and focusing our time on manpower production and population evacuation? If we made population evacuation more difficult - perhaps so that players would have to hold ground forward to get them out would that be better? So you could run away but it will mean that you will receive less men.

yes ... I think in reality both sides ran out of manpower long before it becomes an in-game constraint. This and higher attrition would go a long way to resolving this.

[LiquidSky]

A lot of Russian formations should start the game STATIC anyways which would put a big damper on their ability to run away on their first turn.

[xbmoore]

I concur to a certain degree, not so much "static" but more of being locked in their theater of operations(unless that is what you meant by static). So the Southern front units are tied the whole first turn to the Southern front and cant be moved north of hex row X.X. in example. The Russians, in my opinion, have too much rail on the first turn & able to build a good defense in key places. Did the Russians in real life rail that many units around to different fronts?

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



A lot of Russian formations should start the game STATIC anyways which would put a big damper on their ability to run away on their first turn.

[xbmoore]

This could also be applied to the Germans for their theater of operations first turn. (cough Lvov pocket cough)

ORIGINAL: xbmoore

I concur to a certain degree, not so much "static" but more of being locked in their theater of operations(unless that is what you meant by static). So the Southern front units are tied the whole first turn to the Southern front and cant be moved north of hex row X.X. in example. The Russians, in my opinion, have too much rail on the first turn & able to build a good defense in key places. Did the Russians in real life rail that many units around to different fronts?

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



A lot of Russian formations should start the game STATIC anyways which would put a big damper on their ability to run away on their first turn.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: chaos45
Both sides take way to few losses- its not just a Soviet issue. By 1942/1943 you end up with about 1 Million extra Germans and about 1-2 Million extra soviets....so not just 1 side has to many men. Its why combat needs to increase losses for both sides.

But is too many men a result of too few losses (given that swathes of manpower are not represented so that historic statistical comparisons are difficult) or because each sides manpower pools are receiving too many people. Losses are not the only manpower regulator.

I know I'm being picky put I'm trying to focus on the key elements to try to save development time and effort and address an obvious bone of contention. I get it that manpower and morale are perhaps the key factors in game balance and we have three levers we can pull - inflow, losses and national morale levels. It is undeniable that the conduct of 1941 is pivotal as the manpower levels at the end of 41 have a huge impact on the rest of the campaign so we need to ensure that 41 cannot be easily be exploited to reap later benefits.

[chaos45]

I would say the manpower influx is close to historical for the Germans.

For the Soviets they are already generating far less manpower and unit creation ability compared to historical capabilities.

I understand what your saying Red Lancer and it shows u dont really want to mess with the combat system, but the losses from the combat system is the root of the problem. If Germans/axis are getting close to historical replacements but still not losing enough men, and you have already cut Soviet replacements by 25%+ of what historical was does it make sense to keep cutting manpower generation? or to fix the combat system to give more realistic results?

In effect no Soviet player will attack like the Soviets did historically especially considering the losses they suffered for those attacks historically. Unless they are also taking Axis forces and supplies with them. Also if the morale loss stays in the game Soviets players just wont attack unless they think they can win thus reducing losses even further than historical unless the Germans can do pocket operations.

If in real life 12 Tank Corps at 90% ToE assaults 1-2 German motorized division with a full attack the German motorized divisions would be effectively destroyed and the tank Corps probably take heavy losses. I use this as an example because it happened in me and Peltons game and the losses were laughable.

I consistiently attack 1-2 German divisions with 9+ Soviet Corps w/artillery division support and losses are only 1-2k each most of the time. The ability of the defender to retreat loss wise should also be tied to how mobile the defender/attacker is. A Mobile attack vs an immobile defender will inflict much greater losses on the immobile defender if they are forced out of their defense. A mobile defender, defending again an immobile attacker could retreat with fewer losses.

Mobile vs Mobile should be heavy losses for both as even if the defender tries to rear-guard defense the other side is going to push fast to maintain contact attempt to destroy the other formation.

Supplies will probably mitigate the ability to attack some but IMO the losses for both sides for attacking need to escalate massively this would produce the worn out formations both sides had as the war went on where they could never keep up with losses. THousands of losses for an attack defense on the division level over a one week period should be the standard loss rate for combat actions. You go larger than just a division or so and the losses should escalate.

Also these losses should be for both sides. As if that attacker losse an attack and losses a ton of guys they are probably taking a fair amount of the defenders with them. Right now attacks to often stop with like 2-300 losses for one side and like 700 for the other side. Even in big battles 1-2k per side is to low when you have virtually an entire army engaged in the combat.

[c00per]

Someone said it already but allow players some flexibility with initial setup this would be fair to both sides and would prevent the min max turn ones due to known setup

[RedLancer]

I'm wary but happy to argue to open the Pandora's Box of the combat engine but only if I know what the intent and endstate is. Always think to the finish.

I'm not convinced that the losses is the only answer. It's too simple a solution - a bit like introducing cane toads. I'm looking at WitE2 - here we have a blank canvas although the paint and brushes are chosen. This is a fleeting opportunity.

[charlie0311]

Up the combat loses for sure. Offset with replacement rate,ie, replacement formations, show up faster when the sov are absolutely getting crushed at the front. Faster train up, morale and exp. Try to keep fairly close to the known historical OOB.

Don't take away all the pocketing, that's the fun part.

We need, oh, about 50 more Peltons, for testing purposes.

Edit, and Lokis and others there are quite a few.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

He's been quoting these numbers for years because they suit him. Do a search on Walloc and you will find some lengthy and interesting discussions on historical numbers. Unfortunately, Walloc has left the forum. His posts were very informative.

We all want balance but the numbers need to be plausible. A 4,2 million German army on 1st July 42 is not plausible.

Im still around. I just dont play the series any more so doesnt post much. I was alpha/beta testing WiTW and just have to say i have another view than the design team on a number of issues and its their game to make, not mine. At core im "player" and want to "change history", but things can get to far fetched from reality. Taken into account what the premise for the different game is.
Where that line is, differs from people to people. i can just say that among others the combat and air engine results and how this plays out in how the game works is beyond my line in that regard.

ORIGINAL: jzardos


It's a game ... a game ... we're talking about a game, not the real war 41-45. Why is it not plausible for the Germans to have 4.2 million army starting on 1st July? When I play, it's not Hitler in charge and I'm not always playing against Stalin/Zhukov. Bozo, if you want to know what happened in history and re-live it .. read some books, watching some documentaries, even take some classes. An education might be good for you, I don't care. But this is a game and the reason I bought it was to play and have fun. I want to try and win as the Germans not create the Stalingrad pocket again. What you just said about the July 42 German army size is testament to how you view WitE and why you will never find satisfaction with it. You want a simulation to go through battle by battle just like history. I'm at a lose to understanding why you bought the game in the first place? Maybe just to have some credibility to come in the forums and spew your nonsense. IDC.

Obviously where u draw the line is different of game vs simulation than mine and thats fine. Non the less try add the german replacement/reinforcement on the eastern front minus any withdrawls and not count any casulties and see what the max the german army could be at 1. july 1942 from the june 22 1941 starting point. That might give an answer.
Like wise u could ask why cant u have a 20m russian man army in july 1942 or be in Berlin in july 1942 in the name of fun. From reading these forums over the years im fairly certain how the majority of people would find those situasion and i dont think it falls in the fun category.

Thats said u can do any thing in the name of balance, but from reading the current AARs not to dispairage Morveals work on 1.08+ in my opinion the game isnt better off, so the potential balance argument doesnt fly with me in this situasion.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm wary but happy to argue to open the Pandora's Box of the combat engine but only if I know what the intent and endstate is. Always think to the finish.

I'm not convinced that the losses is the only answer. It's too simple a solution - a bit like introducing cane toads. I'm looking at WitE2 - here we have a blank canvas although the paint and brushes are chosen. This is a fleeting opportunity.

fwiw, in someway both armies grow too large and that creates a set of dynamics. At periods when one is coded to have an advantage (eg Germans in 1942 Soviets in 1944) the impact escalates too much, at others its too easy to create an essentially WW1 mode of play (eg the German defense in 1943).

I know there are variations to this. and that many problems flow from the mode of play adopted in MP rather than by the AI, but to me the end result is:

a) at the moment I think 1941 sort of works
b) at tbe moment the Germans are too strong in 1942
c) at the moment 1943 seems too stalemated

... these are connected, oddly weakening both armies would unblock both periods of play and given the interaction of Manpower-NM-CV, some means to reduce manpower sounds desirable

d) I'm quite prepared to accept that in 1944 the Soviets get too strong

that b-c-d are good baselines for the game is fine as far as I'm concerned its just that at each stage the effect is too much and needs to be dampened. I think the reason for this is (i) permissive logistics and (ii) the size of both armies (or more strictly the impact of that size on cv).

I really do think that the building blocks in WiTW go a long way to creating the tools to address these problems, as such the only tweak to the combat engine I'd push for is a combination of more losses for the attacker (esp the Soviets as above) and some scaling of losses relative to the numbers actually engaged?

[Peltonx]

#

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: chaos45
Both sides take way to few losses- its not just a Soviet issue. By 1942/1943 you end up with about 1 Million extra Germans and about 1-2 Million extra soviets....so not just 1 side has to many men. Its why combat needs to increase losses for both sides.

But is too many men a result of too few losses (given that swathes of manpower are not represented so that historic statistical comparisons are difficult) or because each sides manpower pools are receiving too many people. Losses are not the only manpower regulator.

I know I'm being picky put I'm trying to focus on the key elements to try to save development time and effort and address an obvious bone of contention. I get it that manpower and morale are perhaps the key factors in game balance and we have three levers we can pull - inflow, losses and national morale levels. It is undeniable that the conduct of 1941 is pivotal as the manpower levels at the end of 41 have a huge impact on the rest of the campaign so we need to ensure that 41 cannot be easily be exploited to reap later benefits.

The big hard on (sorry but not sure what else to say)you and chaos have with losses = this is not a movie

The larger Russian and German army is from the simple fact that player are Monday morning quarter backs.

In other words fix what is wrong with the engine and not what is wrong with Middle Earth.

The lower lose and larger armys is because Russian player choose not to throw away 100,000 of lives for nothing as Stalin did the end result is lower Russian and german loses.

Chaos you simply can not magicly have higher losses and lower OOB's if players choose not to be stupid.

Gandalf

[chaos45]

Pelton if both players sat around and did nothing i could understand high OOBs....but as are game shows both sides fighting hard pretty much every single turn aside from mud and OOBs are still way to high.

How many army/army groups size major engagements did we have over the summer, and my continued winter offensive of 1942-1943 with assaults hitting 5-6 areas of front at once every single turn. Yes its causing slow grinding attrition but the losses for both of us are way to low. Both of our forces in each of those sectors should be fighting at greatly reduced strength after 4+ months of continuous action yet most of my units are still around 90% ToE......Hell the only thing im actually short on is trucks.....

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton if both players sat around and did nothing i could understand high OOBs....but as are game shows both sides fighting hard pretty much every single turn aside from mud and OOBs are still way to high.

How many army/army groups size major engagements did we have over the summer, and my continued winter offensive of 1942-1943 with assaults hitting 5-6 areas of front at once every single turn. Yes its causing slow grinding attrition but the losses for both of us are way to low. Both of our forces in each of those sectors should be fighting at greatly reduced strength after 4+ months of continuous action yet most of my units are still around 90% ToE......Hell the only thing im actually short on is trucks.....

Which is what I ben saying now for how many yrs?

Russian loses for 43-44 are way way to low, our game is a good example.

Compaired to historical loses Russian loses are far to low for 43

Historical Russian loses were 8 million for 43

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... viet_Union

German 700,000 dead/missing and another 1,100,000 wounded or 1.8 million

We looking at 4 to 1 we will never see that in 43, which is why we see a static front all of 43.

My game vs Dave has over all losses at 2.5 to 1 and should be 3.75 to 1.

If we had an historical ratio German players would try and attack in 43, but the more u attack and win with a 1.5 to 1 ratio why attack?

The same ratio with 2.0 with a much lower MP's and higher MP cost will cause even higher OOB's and a static front as early as summer 42.

Most of your loses are caused by pockets almost 3 million of the 7.4 or 40%

43-44 loses historically were from straight up combat and very few pockets.

Data is a great thing and has changed the minds of people now for yrs.

The combat ratio from no captured men to date is

German loses from combat: 2,140,000
Russian loses from combat: 4,393,000

For a combat ratio of 2.05 to 1.

This is nothing even close to historical losses

The ratio for 43 is closer to 1.5 to 1.

Now we have hard data so we can track the ratio over the next few turns.

I agree German loses should be slightly higher, but Russian losses should be 2x as high bases on historical data for 43 and 44.

This engine is giving basicly the same ratio as the WitW engine because its based on retreat loses

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm wary but happy to argue to open the Pandora's Box of the combat engine but only if I know what the intent and endstate is. Always think to the finish.

I'm not convinced that the losses is the only answer. It's too simple a solution - a bit like introducing cane toads. I'm looking at WitE2 - here we have a blank canvas although the paint and brushes are chosen. This is a fleeting opportunity.

The issue is that losses on WF were 2 to 1 or 1.5 to 1 and EF ( minus POWs 43-44 ) 3.75 to 1.

If you take a stack of WA vs German with same or close in CV to a stack of Russian vs German you get basicly same ratio.

Ok cool beans right?

2.0 will have a far more static front after turn 2 as Germans will be far from RH's and depots in general,
probably no Lvov, much lower German MP's, higher MP costs so a static front for 7 turns?

Red Army will grow like crazy, because most losses on EF are from pockets.

Russian loses are simply far to low battle per battle for EF 43-44

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Pelton - it's very difficult to have a constructive discussion when you don't answer the questions posed.
As always I'll persist as you do raise valid concerns.

- Actually we are about to test Pavel's new logistics code - this isn't about the rules - it's all about how quickly
the game engine calculates the logistics phase which I understand is your point in this regard.

Good luck

- MORALE IS NO LONGER HARD CODED!!! I hope that is now clear -
in WitW Randy and I changed the WitW Italian Pilot morale for precisely the combat losses issue.
I agree that morale is a huge factor and perhaps too big.

Not sure how that's going to effect combat losses on EF

- I agree that over a period that the combat loss to manpower inflow rate can lead to ahistoric balance which manifests
in a need to pocket to survive for the axis.
Trust me I get it loud and clear - we are now in the let's consider how we solve it phase.
Firstly you cannot logically argue that one imbalance is justified to support another.

Who is?

I know that logistics bores you but you cannot use perceived flaws in a combat engine to rubbish the WitW logistics system.

Who is?

A logistics system that I believe will better depict the factors in play on the eastern front. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Your going where with this? I am talking combat ratio's I am fine with the logistics model.

Liquid Sky's comments are absolutely valid - you say that you cannot pocket in WitW - this is untrue - he can and I can -
but this has nothing to do with WitE or the experience of playing WitE.

Again your taking an island which can be attacked from 4 sides, a very small scale and the Italian Army is not the Russian.
I am talking about Russia. You see no pockets in France or Germany, in my games. I never lost and Italian unit on Italy to a pocket other then an invasion for that matter
That's a piss poor example and you know it. I have played both WitW and WitE more then 15 times each.

This is like arguing about scoring goals in ice hockey using field hockey experience to justify your approach.

Wrong dead wrong your looking at it that way not me. For the 400th time-
The combat ratio is way off way off and losses to low for 43-44. AGAIN OR AGAIN I am not talking pockets, but straight up combat.

I appreciate that your view is that pockets are vital to maintain manpower balance under the current
loss regime but there are other levers in this regard beyond combat losses. Remember in WitW that replacements cost
freight so often you can't get men out of the pool.

Both Russia and Germany in all my games have men in the manpower pools from 42-45, freight cost, but its a simply depot chain to the front with men flowing turn by turn to front nothing different then WitE there will just be more in the river so to speak,
I know that's how I get around WA air power and my front line troops always get stuff. This has nothing to do with combat ratio.

Using logistics as a tool to slow combat( low MPs ect ect) does nothing to change the combat ratios. It simply makes the game more static. In WitW if the German player applies WitE
strategys you never see pockets in France its very static



- I agree that the Russian ability to run away at the start increases the manpower imbalance issue.
However this too is not an argument to justify problems in the logistics construct.

Combat enigne

Perhaps the improved rail congestion code will impact on supply as factory evacuation causes congestion.
I do not know yet but perhaps this, limiting supply to the Russians, will reduce the speed of evacuation.
However we may well need to encourage the Soviets to fight forward.

- So let's turn this around a little - is the problem that the Soviets lose too little manpower or receive too much?

Not an issue

Would we be better ignoring the combat issue and focusing our time on manpower production and population evacuation?

This has been tried for years and never works, this issue has been around before release like 1v1=2v1.

If we made population evacuation more difficult - perhaps so that players would have to hold ground forward to get them out
would that be better?

Data is cool bro, check out my game vs Dave. He lost far more then historical and no real effect. Industry looks to be window dressing at this time. Russians just need Rifle Corp and a few mobile Armys and they can grind east starting in late 42 ( historical loses)
or early 43 ( higher then historical ) The games will all end withen a few turns of each other

So you could run away but it will mean that you will receive less men.

Might help, but its been tried.

You can tweak pool, replacements or play with logistics ect ect that's all been done.

The combat ratio has not changed.

One small change can and generally does have a major effect long run.

You made a change to the logistics system. We can give you medals have a party or be stuborn and dig your heals in the ground, but the change has a major effect and ignoring that fact does not change the fact.

Your answer to less pockets and a combat engine that's WAY OFF is to play around with manpower? Really?

In the past this is always how the debate starts.

Someone points something out that's clear and one side ignores it and digs there feet in.

The other side gathers more data and post it over and over and finally after 6 months to a yr the problem is addressed.

This has been on going for yrs and the data is clear.

We have a new logistics system cool, but whats the effect? Less losses that's clear to everyone.

We have a combat engine that's not giving historical results so instead of fixing the core issue

We want to change manpower replacements?

Why not simply change the core problem?

we can have a new air system new logistics system, but the combat ratio's are clearly off and with pockets being taken off the table or reduced by at least 50% with 2.0 what is the effect?

Less German and less Russian loses for 2.0 - that is really not that hard to see.

Your not going to fix it by giving each side less replacements bro heheh