Good game but...

[Mehring]

Really, I never hear axis players whinging that they lost only a dozen men to eliminate 8k Soviets, attack after attack after attack. But you never hear the end when your blue haired blond eyed supermen can't deal with a few speed bumps, now that's unrealistic!

The reserve activation scenario is typical. The whinge begins because you can't deal with a depleted NKVD unit with a Pz division (always "elite", of course, while the mongol hordes, one assumes, don't even know which way to point a rifle) without losing a load pf cpp. I suggest two methods to mitigate this. Oh! But what if reserves are activated! Well then it wasn't just a depleted NKVD unit, was it? Graebner's charge over Arnhem bridge anyone? It was a trap and you fell for it, or just hubris or maybe any or all of, you guessed wrong, didn't recon and didn't/couldn't manoeuvre. It was a situation with unknown variables and you gacked it. Just like real life, you win some, you lose some. And now your subsequent movement is impeded by prior combat. Go round it. What? You mean it wasn't just a lone NKVD half squad, but an organised front line?

Maybe the loss of CPP for the division is more lifelike than you suggest. The Pz division faced a small unit but deployed for a full scale attack as it expected intervention from reserves. It's entire advance was disrupted and delayed. But you wouldn't be complaining if you smashed the NKVD unit along with the activated reserves and that undid the entire defence, would you? Now that would be realistic!

If there's any case for reducing CPP loss, I'd say it was for hasty attacks which surely do not represent a full deployment of the unit in question and its subsequent reorganisation after combat. It surely represents a smaller combat group tasked to clear the way for the division while the division waits for the way to be cleared without deploying and ready to move on. The bulk of the division in such a scenario has not lost organisation or combat cohesion.

This game takes some learning, axis logistics in 41 took me ages to even start to grasp. It doesn't recreate reality perfectly, it abstracts it quite well, better than any operational game I've ever played. It is evolving and will probably improve but each change is not a thing in itself and so alters game dynamics.

[FortTell]

that the divisons overall combat cability (CV that is) had taken more than a 50% hit

Minor nitpick, but this is also an exagerration. 100 CPP doubles your attacking CV, so even if you lose the maximum 50 CPP from an attack (100 -> 50), your attacking CV will go down by just 25%. And usually units are not on 100 CPP, making this loss even smaller. The CV also decreases due to fatigue and lost elements, but that is a different story.

[exalted]

Each attack costs much more than 25% of combat capabilities due to fatigue, ammo, fuel and so on losses. Not to speak about movement points possibly the most valuable resource of them all for the axis in 41-42. CPP is just one resource and this system is so complicated looking at one thing in isolation isn't quite right.

Step 8: After this happens a few more times, you realize that you need to start doing deliberate attacks with at least a full division against all my 0.1 CV NKVD border guards and airborne brigades. This requires wasting quite a bit of movement points on those deliberate attacks.

Step 9: You have been doing this for a few turns, and then you look at the date and the weather report, and realize that heavy mud starts next week and you still have not taken Vyazma.

I think one of the problems is that you have no clue what so ever of the chance of reserve activation, you can only engage all soviets you can and then pray to the gods, then the problem gets worse as at least in 41 it will just be divisions coming to the aid of whatever worthless division your trying to move, later on it will be guard inf corps which stops even the deliberate attack and you start to wonder about attacking with at least 3-5 full divisions when trying to move something for real.

[Jeff_Ahl]

Really, I never hear axis players whinging that they lost only a dozen men to eliminate 8k Soviets, attack after attack after attack. But you never hear the end when your blue haired blond eyed supermen can't deal with a few speed bumps, now that's unrealistic!

The reserve activation scenario is typical. The whinge begins because you can't deal with a depleted NKVD unit with a Pz division (always "elite", of course, while the mongol hordes, one assumes, don't even know which way to point a rifle) without losing a load pf cpp. I suggest two methods to mitigate this. Oh! But what if reserves are activated! Well then it wasn't just a depleted NKVD unit, was it? Graebner's charge over Arnhem bridge anyone? It was a trap and you fell for it, or just hubris or maybe any or all of, you guessed wrong, didn't recon and didn't/couldn't manoeuvre. It was a situation with unknown variables and you gacked it. Just like real life, you win some, you lose some. And now your subsequent movement is impeded by prior combat. Go round it. What? You mean it wasn't just a lone NKVD half squad, but an organised front line?

Maybe the loss of CPP for the division is more lifelike than you suggest. The Pz division faced a small unit but deployed for a full scale attack as it expected intervention from reserves. It's entire advance was disrupted and delayed. But you wouldn't be complaining if you smashed the NKVD unit along with the activated reserves and that undid the entire defence, would you? Now that would be realistic!

If there's any case for reducing CPP loss, I'd say it was for hasty attacks which surely do not represent a full deployment of the unit in question and its subsequent reorganisation after combat. It surely represents a smaller combat group tasked to clear the way for the division while the division waits for the way to be cleared without deploying and ready to move on. The bulk of the division in such a scenario has not lost organisation or combat cohesion.

This game takes some learning, axis logistics in 41 took me ages to even start to grasp. It doesn't recreate reality perfectly, it abstracts it quite well, better than any operational game I've ever played. It is evolving and will probably improve but each change is not a thing in itself and so alters game dynamics.

"Your blond haired supermen". "Mongol hords". I see you and Shaggy do not even try to read the posts I am writing. I have also exemplified with guards and stated that CPP-losses also is a problem for the reversed scenario, when the russians attack. But that is not interesting for you. Instead you are crying about me talking about "Mongol hords", when that is not the case. I am talking about unrealistic organizational losses.

With your wishes for combat system all attacks should also render a fixed procent of losses in men and equipment also? Always, no matter the resistens the attacker always should loose lets say 10% of his men? That is the same thing. A unit attacking, if facing stiff resistens, will loose alot in both men and organization. An attacking unit smashing through an unready unit with out any reserve activations will not and should not lose alot men, equipment or organization. Simple as that.

If there is a reserve activation and much better organized unit/units is/are involved, yeah, of course that should result in a higher CPP loss for the attacker. But then there should be that kind of reserve and the smashed NKVD regiment or rumanian division should only have been a bait for the attacker to be fouled by.

The CPP is a simuluation for a combat units organizational capability and it should take realistic losses. If moving, some is lost, if attacking a weak unit more is lost and if facing heavy resistence alot will be lost.

[Jeff_Ahl]

that the divisons overall combat cability (CV that is) had taken more than a 50% hit

Minor nitpick, but this is also an exagerration. 100 CPP doubles your attacking CV, so even if you lose the maximum 50 CPP from an attack (100 -> 50), your attacking CV will go down by just 25%. And usually units are not on 100 CPP, making this loss even smaller. The CV also decreases due to fatigue and lost elements, but that is a different story.

Yeah, that is of course correct.

[Beethoven1]

Really, I never hear axis players whinging that they lost only a dozen men to eliminate 8k Soviets, attack after attack after attack. But you never hear the end when your blue haired blond eyed supermen can't deal with a few speed bumps, now that's unrealistic!

If you are talking to me, FYI I have almost only played Soviets, which is also what I started off with when the game was released, and my more limited experience with Axis is mostly in the later scenarios when Axis is on the defensive. So I am a Soviet player telling you that the way nkvd etc works currently makes things too easy for me, not an Axis player complaining that it makes it too hard.

[Stamb]

Really, I never hear axis players whinging that they lost only a dozen men to eliminate 8k Soviets, attack after attack after attack. But you never hear the end when your blue haired blond eyed supermen can't deal with a few speed bumps, now that's unrealistic!

If you are talking to me, FYI I have almost only played Soviets, which is also what I started off with when the game was released, and my more limited experience with Axis is mostly in the later scenarios when Axis is on the defensive. So I am a Soviet player telling you that the way nkvd etc works currently makes things too easy for me, not an Axis player complaining that it makes it too hard.

its hilarious to read when Soviet players are asking for a nerf for a Soviets

[Mehring]

Really, I never hear axis players whinging that they lost only a dozen men to eliminate 8k Soviets, attack after attack after attack. But you never hear the end when your blue haired blond eyed supermen can't deal with a few speed bumps, now that's unrealistic!

If you are talking to me, FYI I have almost only played Soviets, which is also what I started off with when the game was released, and my more limited experience with Axis is mostly in the later scenarios when Axis is on the defensive. So I am a Soviet player telling you that the way nkvd etc works currently makes things too easy for me, not an Axis player complaining that it makes it too hard.

its hilarious to read when Soviet players are asking for a nerf for a Soviets

I play both sides, I played both sides of WitE 1 so I understand players who want to feel the game is balanced even if it's to help the side they usually don't play. I recall all the same style arguments and while many changes were rightly made over the years, so many perceived "game injustices" flowed either from people who wanted to play a punch bag but have the kudos of beating a real opponent or who just didn't understand the game yet. People's first reaction is usually to blame the game. That applies just as much to Soviet players who never found an Axis opponent able to play the game and assumed the game was at fault. Been there myself too, probably will again.

Like in real life, there are so many things which impact on the game which you don't at first see or which are not obvious. Axis mastering logistics in 41 is critical, the more so as you go deeper into Russia. I don't like using repair units to boost supply, it feels completely gamey so the pulse method is essential to master and it's just not easy. Something I only recently figured is that Soviet face value CV is greatly over represented. Axis don't need to get anything like 2:1 odds to get a win while Soviets need to pile up 4 or 5:1 to win vs a lousy Nazi regiment. This, just for example, has a vast impact upon CPP use.

[ShaggyHiK]

As far as I know, a 50% drop in CPP does not mean a 50% weakening of the division, for defense, CPPs are almost of no use at all, but a smaller number of CPPs complicates the offensive.

If the weakening of the tank division does not occur, then what to do for the Soviet side if they go and go, to make the influence of bad weather even stronger?
Even more "bonus" knocking out the Germans in the winter phase of logistics?

I want to play the game, and not be in the game as an extra for the Soviet side who pretends to do something and plays, although in fact he does not control anything at all.

[Mehring]

"Your blond haired supermen". "Mongol hords". I see you and Shaggy do not even try to read the posts I am writing. I have also exemplified with guards and stated that CPP-losses also is a problem for the reversed scenario, when the russians attack. But that is not interesting for you. Instead you are crying about me talking about "Mongol hords", when that is not the case. I am talking about unrealistic organizational losses.

With your wishes for combat system all attacks should also render a fixed procent of losses in men and equipment also? Always, no matter the resistens the attacker always should loose lets say 10% of his men? That is the same thing. A unit attacking, if facing stiff resistens, will loose alot in both men and organization. An attacking unit smashing through an unready unit with out any reserve activations will not and should not lose alot men, equipment or organization. Simple as that.

If there is a reserve activation and much better organized unit/units is/are involved, yeah, of course that should result in a higher CPP loss for the attacker. But then there should be that kind of reserve and the smashed NKVD regiment or rumanian division should only have been a bait for the attacker to be fouled by.

The CPP is a simuluation for a combat units organizational capability and it should take realistic losses. If moving, some is lost, if attacking a weak unit more is lost and if facing heavy resistence alot will be lost.

Organisation is regained when the elements of a unit are rounded up, each man finds its correct unit and they march off to wherever they're going. That doesn't take a month or more behind the lines to get to 100% does it? Maybe a day or two?

As I understand it, CPP is a very vague abstraction of combat preparedness which is neither organisation nor unit integrity, nor fatigue nor a combination of them. It is, as the name suggests, preparedness which suggests planning, focus and orientation. It is so abstract, we cannot determine what the unit has planned for, or what it is orientated to do. We can even change a unit's task from the one we had originally intended without loss of CPP or accumulate CPP without having determined a specific role for a unit in any operation. This preparation takes place at a level not represented in game.

Preparedness is not lost just through combat. It's lost through deployment and then being stood down, reorientation and commitment to new tasks without specific preparation for the new task. CPP loss, then, is not wholly dependent upon the quantity of resistance encountered but more like the % of the unit which is committed to and deployed for an action. Hence I would agree that a hasty attack should not incur the same CPP loss as a deliberate attack as I don't believe that hasty attacks are meant to represent the deployment of the entire formation. Sub-units held out of a combat of their parent unit will be reserved for other purposes and not lose CPP. That makes sense to me.

If CPP loss could be variable according to the number of elements committed to an action as determined by a random die roll, I wouldn't have a problem with that if the elements committed should be the maximum that engage in combat, not necessarily those that actually engage. I can imagine a whole new whinge here, "I attacked with an "elite" Pz div and lost, only 10% of the division joined the attack. The game's broken!" To induce a division to deploy for an attack when only a small fraction of it was necessary is a deception, as is the reverse, part of the art of war and of rear guard and delaying actions in particular. Perhaps like for air directives in which you can determine the minimum and preferred commitment, you could have an option to alter the % of a unit committed to an action with corresponding CPP loss (of be able to break down a division into battle groups of different sizes and compositions). That could take micro management a step too far for many players and applying this to defence in an igougo would open a whole can of worms. Maybe the abstraction is best.

As Fort Tell pointed out, loss of 50% CPP is not loss of 50% combat power and it is temporary loss which can be regained, particularly with 4 armies set to Assault status. To be successful, in any case, it is not necessary for the Axis to have all their units at peak CPP at all times, you just have to learn how to win with less and conserve CPP for where you really need it. War is an art which employs science but it is not a science.

[ncc1701e]

This game takes some learning, axis logistics in 41 took me ages to even start to grasp. It doesn't recreate reality perfectly, it abstracts it quite well, better than any operational game I've ever played.

And, just to know, now that you have the Axis logistics under control, are you approaching the historic lines of late 1941?
Tons of things to learn.

[Mehring]

This game takes some learning, axis logistics in 41 took me ages to even start to grasp. It doesn't recreate reality perfectly, it abstracts it quite well, better than any operational game I've ever played.

And, just to know, now that you have the Axis logistics under control, are you approaching the historic lines of late 1941?
Tons of things to learn.

No, but then I've never played an opponent as stupid as Stalin.

[Stamb]

Mehring

you are not the only one who is or was playing as both sides
and there are many people who understand game mechanics and pvp balance very well

and most of them agree that Soviets are just too OP

it is not like Axis player can not ever win, he can
but it is definitely not 50% chance to win

if there are skillful players from both sides then Soviets will win in 7-8 games out of a 10, imho


the good news are that Joel mentioned that CPP and Soviets supply are under review
so i do not think that there is a point to prove if current design is ok or not ok
its better to suggest how new design should look like

[Mehring]

it is not like Axis player can not ever win, he can
but it is definitely not 50% chance to win

if there are skillful players from both sides then Soviets will win in 7-8 games out of a 10, imho

If the question that determines Soviet OP is whether Axis can achieve the same advances as historically in 1941, then a game win ratio of 1:1 would make the Axis OP. The nazis lost and if historicity is desirable an Axis win should be more difficult.

the good news are that Joel mentioned that CPP and Soviets supply are under review
so i do not think that there is a point to prove if current design is ok or not ok
its better to suggest how new design should look like

In which case, I'd again suggest reduced CPP loss for hasty attacks.

[Beethoven1]

In which case, I'd again suggest reduced CPP loss for hasty attacks.

This is one of those things that sounds like a good simple solution at first glance, but is not necessarily when you think beyond to the potential unforeseen/unintended consequences.

This would do two things. First, depending on how small much difference the CPP loss was, it would incentivize doing a hasty attack with 2-3 divisions rather than a deliberate attack with 1, because you could bring the same combat power with potentially less CPP loss. If CPP loss from hasty attacks were small enough, you could have 3 divisions spend a few MP on 1 joint hasty attack per turn, but at the end of the turn regain enough CPP to offset the loss, meaning that their CPP would never go down and they would continue to perpetually hasty attack the whole game. Imagine stacks of 3 guards rifle corps with 9 rifle brigades hasty attacking like this with 100 CPP for the whole game with no need to ever stop.

Second, insofar as hasty attacks fail more often than deliberate, in 1941 this would give Soviets more wins from all the Axis hasties. This would let Soviets get guards units more easily and quickly, hence buffing the Soviets. Hasty attacks also typically have lower losses due to lower combat intensity, so by incentivizing hasty attacks, you will likely end up making a larger red army.

[Beethoven1]

As far as I know, a 50% drop in CPP does not mean a 50% weakening of the division, for defense, CPPs are almost of no use at all, but a smaller number of CPPs complicates the offensive.

If the weakening of the tank division does not occur, then what to do for the Soviet side if they go and go, to make the influence of bad weather even stronger?
Even more "bonus" knocking out the Germans in the winter phase of logistics?

I want to play the game, and not be in the game as an extra for the Soviet side who pretends to do something and plays, although in fact he does not control anything at all.

At least in the 4v4 team game, you are not using assault fronts on the Soviets. I suggest that if you tried using them, you would find that Soviets can actually do quite a bit to hit back actively even in 1941. This would make the game feel more active for you.

[Mehring]

In which case, I'd again suggest reduced CPP loss for hasty attacks.

This is one of those things that sounds like a good simple solution at first glance, but is not necessarily when you think beyond to the potential unforeseen/unintended consequences.

While it's a good idea to try to anticipate unintended consequences, in the final analysis, it's all in the implementation. There is nothing that would necessarily occur given that the implementation hasn't even been agreed, let alone how. Your horror at guard corps stacks has no basis in reality or any agreed way to implement any changes. As you say, it depends on the CPP loss and I believe that already both SU allocation is reduced during hasties, and non-adjacent arty cannot join.

If this were implemented, I'd suggest a three division stack losing more total CPP than a single division's deliberate attack, perhaps 20- 25% each, also a limit set on the number of elements committed as was the case even for deliberate attacks in WitE1. A three division hasty would in my view possibly represent an abuse of the concept given that a hasty attack is impromptu and against light expected resistance. There might also be an additional penalty, perhaps AP cost, for hasty attacks against level 2+ entrenchments.

I'm sure competent Axis players can weigh up the pros and cons of hasty vs deliberate attacks and play accordingly. The game system shouldn't be responsible for player's poor decision making, rather players should learn how the game works? in any case, any change to CPP is going to ripple through the entire system and require a certain amount of game relearning.

[Beethoven1]

If this were implemented, I'd suggest a three division stack losing more total CPP than a single division's deliberate attack, perhaps 20- 25% each, also a limit set on the number of elements committed as was the case even for deliberate attacks in WitE1.

Let’s work through the math. Units gain cpp in proportion to MP left at the end of the turn. Suppose we have our Guards Rifle Corps triple stack with 16 MP and 100 CPP. It uses 2 MP to move forward, then 2 on a hasty attack, then 1 to move back 1 hex after the attack, for a total of 5 MP used. Before the attack it has 98 CPP. That drops to 78.4 after losing 20%, or 73.5 if we go with your 25%.

Now, how much CPP does it regain at the end of the turn? If it is in an assault front, 50 * (16-5)/16 = 34.375.

In this case it will be back at 100 CPP and ready to do exactly the same thing with full CPP next turn. This is a perpetual motion machine offensive weapon.

If not an assault front, it will only gain half as much CPP, namely 17.1875. That doesn’t recover fully to 100, but it is not that far.

Specifically with the 20%, you would have 94.5875 CPP the following turn. If you indefinitely repeated the same process, CPP at the start of each subsequent turn would decline each turn - but at a decreasing rate - until you reach the equilibrium point where CPP lost each turn equals CPP regained each turn. For 20%, the equilibrium is 72.9375 CPP.

So essentially we are in the same perpetual motion attack machine as with the assault front, but just with perpetual 73 CPP rather than perpetual 100 CPP.

For your 25%, the equilibrium CPP would be 58.75. That makes a fairly substantial difference, actually.

Of course, in a real situation the exact MP you use each turn will vary to some degree, but working through the math should make the essential problem clearer.

A three division hasty would in my view possibly represent an abuse of the concept given that a hasty attack is impromptu and against light expected resistance.

In principle I agree it could be seen as an abuse of the concept, but in practice if you could only hasty with 1 unit this pretty much just means that any time a strong unit joined on the defending side as a reserve reaction, the attack would fail. So it would make hasties fairly useless other than on turn 1 and on potentially some follow up attacks against already retreated units. It certainly wouldn’t be useful against nkvd border guards on a developed front line due to the reserve activations. So in this case it really wouldn’t make much difference since nobody would use hasties for your intended purpose for the most part.

[Mehring]

You're not reading what I'm saying and your calculation is wrong. CPP is calculated from SMP, not MP. I don't think any unit can gain more than 45 CPP in a week even with 200 SMP. Secondly, if there is a limit on the number of elements committed to a hasty attack as I suggested, after a certain point additional units become superfluous. Thirdly it is an idealised calculation in which the guards units all gain 16 MP per turn and pay 1 MP per hex entered. Your scenario is based on misconceptions and misrepresentations of a "real life" game including also lack of attrition of the attacking unit.

[Beethoven1]

You're not reading what I'm saying and your calculation is wrong. CPP is calculated from SMP, not MP.

OK, CPP is calculated from SMP, but SMP is proportional to the share of total MP, so this is the same exact thing in terms of the math. A unit which starts the turn with 16 MP and expends 5 of them, as in our little example, will have ~137.5 SMP, which is 11/16 * 200. SMP is just a system whereby the # of movement points a unit has left, as a share of the MP they started the turn with, is normalized for all units as a proportion out of 200.

I don't think any unit can gain more than 45 CPP in a week even with 200 SMP.

Units can gain up to 50 CPP per turn. Try not moving a unit which is on an assault front and which is not bordering the enemy and it will gain 50 CPP (unless it already has more than 50, since CPP maxes out at 100 of course). Or, if you prefer divination to observation of what happens in the game, you may consult passage 23.2.1 of our holy text:

Secondly, if there is a limit on the number of elements committed to a hasty attack as I suggested, after a certain point additional units become superfluous. Thirdly it is an idealised calculation in which the guards units all gain 16 MP per turn and pay 1 MP per hex entered. Your scenario is based on misconceptions and misrepresentations of a "real life" game including also lack of attrition of the attacking unit.

Of course it is an idealized calculation (such is the nature of math!), but attrition of the attacking units is not really relevant because you can simply have the units on refit the whole time and they will get replacements - well, at least as long as you are not playing Axis in 1941. Units also get rid of fatigue etc more quickly when they have high CPP, so the unit should also not accumulate high fatigue etc (due to the fact that they will also have > two thirds of their MP left).