Alekmalek quit WITE2 because of WW1 grinding

[Stamb]

prev turn, turn 94

1.png (1.18 MiB) Viewed 925 times

[HardLuckYetAgain]

No it does not matter in the least..... Unless I wanted to pick up the Soviet side to continue on with the game to try some things. So yeah it matters for that but not with the current mindset that is already in place.

I remember the SAME exact thing back awhile ago saying how crappy Germans were, same author of this thread to be exact.


https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=385780


Lo and behold things were shown how Germans should play and the whole scales were turned upside down right after that.

I believe we are at the SAME point here in this thread, where the META needs to be nerfed with pitchforks and torches. I see it another way without the "pitchforks" and "torches", especially seeing how this game is into 43. But that is just me and I almost always swim differently than everyone else.

you cant compare games with pre and post CPP change
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6#p5012706
shows 1.02.29 beta patch

while manual says

Errata 01.02.41:
The loss of combat preparation points (CPPs) by attacking units, instead of
always being a 50% reduction in CPP, is now based on the type of attack and
the final combat odds:

if i read that correctly then CPP changes were implemented in the patch 1.02.41
long time after that AAR

My game with Beethoven here is where it was shown that the Germans were not powerless.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... &t=386348I

That was patch .32 well under the .41 where it was changed. Thus it applies. Everyone and his brother but a few were saying Soviets were OP back then. BUT since most of the writing (98% of it) took place on Kulik's discord you can read Beethoven's write-up on the matter on that discord. Then after Beethoven disappeared for a bit for family matters Veterin carried on the tradition. So for me it was a good example of before the CPP change that you brought up of .41. The problem does not lay in the CPP, although it does exacerbates the results. The problem lays elsewhere.

But again maybe I am just plain wrong and you all are correct.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Which is the highest modified CV ever seen?

There is a 803000 in the first Rommel as commander screenshot.

Seen higher myself but yeah pretty nice attack

[HardLuckYetAgain]

As an axis player I can share my own opinion on the situation:

The game has been mostly normal until late summer 42, when I realised I have to fight with so many soviet counters that any dreams of yolo pockets disappeared. So I've decided to abandon my advance further to my targets and switch to mostly defensive style with local WWI combat operations. Anytime I saw a sloppy positioning of soviets triple stacks I dislodged it first and after that let off my panzers to inflict severe losses. That strategy paid off really well in my opinion: I avoided any big blunders and didn't lose a single division in a pocket; I've mostly managed to preserve my panzer forces, as I usually located them behind infantry and when I used them panzer losses were hilariously low; I can say that I've achieved a huge psychological success over my opponent, as I feel like a constant though about possibility of such devastating losses from grind greatly affects on how bold and buoyant a possible soviet advance can be.

I can understand that frustration from my opp. We've played for like a year. I almost had the same feeling when I understood that I can't really advance further anymore.

Is this a server game or PBEM?

That was a PBEM game and I’ve got passwords to both sides.

If you would like to continue I would play the Soviet side. But having said that I would rather not have a game where one person has the password for both sides. If you would like to continue I would like to ask if the PBEM passwords could be changed (which I hope it can be done by Matrix to do) or convert the game into a server game. How does that sound?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

prev turn, turn 94
1.png

OOB looks pretty darn good for both sides.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Does it matter? It points to a serious replayability flaw that might be a major redesign issue. It will be interesting to see how the developers mitigate/nerf this style of gameplay

No it does not matter in the least..... Unless I wanted to pick up the Soviet side to continue on with the game to try some things. So yeah it matters for that but not with the current mindset that is already in place.

Good point and good luck... but this isn't the first time this "double tap" grinding method has been brought up. It will be interesting to see if a "counter" can be found within the current rules set. I suspect not. Meanwhile, since I have all the patience in the world for players/developers to work out the kinks, I'll just continue reading "The Road to Stalingrad/The Road to Berlin" books interspersed with a daily turn or so of WITP-AE

No it is not the first time. Late war the Germans are on the receiving end of this. Good luck and reading the books and your WITP-AE game. I always wanted to play the game but the draw of the Pacific doesn't hold sway over me like the Eastern front.

[Erik Rutins]

It seems to me that a unit which has retreated and is then hit by mobile force causing severe losses does not necessarily equate to "WW1 grinding" but to encirclements within the scale of the hex rather than outside of it. I'm curious to hear more input on this from the community as I believe these kinds of follow up attacks to more completely rout a unit have always been possible.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

It seems to me that a unit which has retreated and is then hit by mobile force causing severe losses does not necessarily equate to "WW1 grinding" but to encirclements within the scale of the hex rather than outside of it. I'm curious to hear more input on this from the community as I believe these kinds of follow up attacks to more completely rout a unit have always been possible.

They have been "always" possible on the follow-up.

I would like to take over this game as the Soviets if it is possible Sir. I posted a Tech link here asking for either a password change or convert to a server game if possible if the German player would like to continue https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=399650


Thank you much as always

[Stamb]

I remember the SAME exact thing back awhile ago saying how crappy Germans were, same author of this thread to be exact.


https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=385780


Lo and behold things were shown how Germans should play and the whole scales were turned upside down right after that.

I believe we are at the SAME point here in this thread, where the META needs to be nerfed with pitchforks and torches. I see it another way without the "pitchforks" and "torches", especially seeing how this game is into 43. But that is just me and I almost always swim differently than everyone else.

you cant compare games with pre and post CPP change
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6#p5012706
shows 1.02.29 beta patch

while manual says

Errata 01.02.41:
The loss of combat preparation points (CPPs) by attacking units, instead of
always being a 50% reduction in CPP, is now based on the type of attack and
the final combat odds:

if i read that correctly then CPP changes were implemented in the patch 1.02.41
long time after that AAR

My game with Beethoven here is where it was shown that the Germans were not powerless.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... &t=386348I

That was patch .32 well under the .41 where it was changed. Thus it applies. Everyone and his brother but a few were saying Soviets were OP back then. BUT since most of the writing (98% of it) took place on Kulik's discord you can read Beethoven's write-up on the matter on that discord. Then after Beethoven disappeared for a bit for family matters Veterin carried on the tradition. So for me it was a good example of before the CPP change that you brought up of .41. The problem does not lay in the CPP, although it does exacerbates the results. The problem lays elsewhere.

But again maybe I am just plain wrong and you all are correct.

When i was reading your AAR and then Beethoven's then i had an impression that you agreed, back then, that game was pro Soviet. Maybe i am wrong cuz i am bad at English and memory fails me. But your AAR and others are open to everyone, if they are willing to check

[RedJohn]

To preface I think aleks quit prematurely. As others have pointed out, his oob is still massive and it's only turn 95. Eventually German NM drops and soviets increases, and aleks was always very reluctant to actually post the map and his army organisation so it was hard to guage how well the game was going.

The issue with what we've come to understand as ww1 grinding (misnomer or no) is the sheer snowball factor of it. In this game I honestly don't think its that bad, the casualties are horrendous but he can absorb them with his oob.

This isn't a problem with just this game though. It extends to all axis games where, in general, pocketing is far too risky unless it's tighter than me at the prospect of spending money. The soviets essentially always have max mp, and will always be using admin movement to mass 150k troops to hit the weakest hex and then break the pocket. You then need to reseal this the next turn, and then wait an additional turn to surrender the units. In the meantime the soviets could very well break it again, and you're almost certainly not recovering much cpp or fatigue due to the bordering enemy units. You're also usually diving deep with pockets, straining your supply and risking air bombing as well as being cut off and dealing with all the headaches of that.

Contrast this to what we call ww1 grinding. Why spend multiple turns surrendering units and blowing all your cpp to hold a pocket when you can rest your mobile to 100 cpp, dislodge a 3 stack of RDs with just infantry or a mix of infantry and mobile, then use your rested mobile to hit these units again for 80 percent toe routs. You take negligible casualties, your mobile is safe from counterattacks, you can sit and rest for a turn to regain the lost cpp on your mobile, and you can achieve effective unit destruction with little to no risk. Repeat this throughout all of 41, 42, and it seems even 43 if your oob is in good shape. Aleks in this game has managed to preserve his oob (though that seems to be because he neaugustus wasn't grinding until late 42) quite well, but in other games I've seen the soviets meander at sub 3m and just lose massively to the snowball.

It's a deeper issue than just axis strong and soviets weak. The issue is most prominent in the early war because soviet morale and xp is garbage and German morale and xp is excellent. However, load up any late war scenario - even StB - and watch as you absolutely skull fuck the axis into submission. The soviets can grind even better than the axis can, because they have a million more tools to play with and usually far more counters. You might not be dealing 80 percent routs, but you can absolutely maul the German front line and snowball to Berlin because they can't stop you. I loaded up that one steel inferno balkan campaign with the trillion partisans, and despite my total inexperience with soviets i was ahead of time everywhere against my opponent and felt very confident in taking Vienna months and months in advance.

I have historically lost I believe every single axis game bar two or three, where there was a serious skill mismatch. In my 2nd most recent axis game against a player I've played against for years, I managed to take leningrad and 2 of Moscows hexes solely through grinding the red army down. And I'm not remotely attentive enough to fully exploit the system like for example Vetutin is.

Grinding doesn't end there, though. You can just mindlessly repeat the one two action and do really well. But you can also take it a step further and start abusing retreat path priorities to herd soviet units into clear terrain and then hit them for massive casualties. You can see this somewhat in neaugustus's battles posted in the OP. again, herding is also something the soviets can do - though they more do it to surrender the German units vs just routing them. It's important to understand that grinding and herding aren't just axis tools, we just mostly see them because it's a German dominated game early on.

Perhaps honestly the most important thing regarding grinding though is that it's not fun. Its not historical also of course, going for pockets is the wrong move as the side that historically drove deep into enemy territory and encircled units, but the main thing with this type of warfare is it's not fun. It's not fun for the axis, and it's not fun for the soviets. This is a game about the eastern front with fantastical warfare that ended with hundreds of thousands being encircled and counter encircled and a constant back and forth. Instead the game is massively snowballey and the best way to play is to grind your enemy into dust. More often than not the correct way to play is to avoid pockets unless you make them very tight.

I believe the grinding warfare is also problematic due to how good supply is for both sides. In many of my earlier games, I've seen constant battling by the Germans result in awful supply as they advance. This is I believe the intended way of things and sets up for blizzard counteroffensives. Look at any player who understands logistics though as axis, supply is masterfully gamed such that you have no supply issues whatsoever. The same applies to the soviets, but there's much less finesse involved there (supply priority 4 all the time from turn 1 solves supply in about 6 or 7 turns with negligible truck losses). Super depots for both sides can cover any gaps.

I think it's very important to remember that these aren't issues affecting just one side. They apply to both. You can't just say give the axis logistics or morale penalties to accommodate them doing these tactics, because later in the game those same penalties (more so morale past 42) will turn the game hilariously lopsided once the initiative flips. Nor can you really hose rule these things out. You can't tell the German player to purposely attack in such a way so as to avoid the 40k routs, nor can you mandate they go for pockets. For logistics you can mandate no supply priority 4 for both sides, some even saying potentially no supply 3 for axis, but I think that if we're at the point where we're outlawing half of the available logistic settings the game has serious underlying issues.

For solutions to the grinding problem, I think soviet mobility is too great and CPP is too easy to regain/keep/is too effective. The Germans just pull 500 panzers into the battle and get 99 to 1 odds against full soviet corps, and the soviets can just march 4 full armies to hit hexes and then have enough mp to retreat back to original positions. I would lean more towards hitting the effect CPP has on unit CVs, or hurting their passive gain.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Is this a server game or PBEM?

That was a PBEM game and I’ve got passwords to both sides.

If you would like to continue I would play the Soviet side. But having said that I would rather not have a game where one person has the password for both sides. If you would like to continue I would like to ask if the PBEM passwords could be changed (which I hope it can be done by Matrix to do) or convert the game into a server game. How does that sound?

Joel PM'd me and believes we can change the password for the Soviet side. If you could send the file to either Joel or myself (copy me if sending directly to Joel) so we can have the PW changed for the Soviet side that would be great. If you would like to continue the game of course and totally up to you.

1943 is hell-of-a-ride for both sides and the most fun to play. Hence my enthusiasm to play a nice looking set-up

[Wiedrock]

It seems to me that a unit which has retreated and is then hit by mobile force causing severe losses does not necessarily equate to "WW1 grinding" but to encirclements within the scale of the hex rather than outside of it. I'm curious to hear more input on this from the community as I believe these kinds of follow up attacks to more completely rout a unit have always been possible.

There are two main things for Players as I feel like.

1. Pocket Sizes
We just recently had some debates about Pockets and how big they are supposed to be and history. People are able to to Pockets of 2-3-4 Hexes, which equates to ~2.5(Hexes)x3(Units)x10k(Men)=75k, which is a great pocket already (using this small 10kMen per Unit number) from an historic perspective, altough yes there were bigger ones.
Doing such a pocket of ~2.5Hexes x 1Hex(arguably 2 Hexes deep since you need to do the Pocket) one also needs to see the Scale on map with 10mile Hexes which people like to overlook. I imagine with 1 Mile Hexes the people would see how big such a Pocket actually already is.
People want to see large pockets like Kiev or other '41 or '44 Pockets as it seems.
Understanding this PoV it's understandable that people struggle with immersing themselves into a single 10mile Hex overrun/pocket.

2. Real Pockets vs. "WW1 Grind" (in-Hex Pockets/overruns)
The issue being for many as I feel, that those "in Hex Pockets" deliver too much benefit over "real pockets", since doing real pockets always carries the risk of being encircled yourself, while that "WW1 grind" just erases 20k Men for no risk.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

2. Real Pockets vs. "WW1 Grind" (in-Hex Pockets/overruns)
while that "WW1 grind" just erases 20k Men for no risk.

Does it really "erase" 20k men?

Pocket vs grinding, what is the difference?

I am sure you know 100%

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I do have to say, "Thank You" to Beethoven to getting the forum "ALIVE" again. Beethoven has a knack at doing that

[Wiedrock]

Does it really "erase" 20k men?

Pocket vs grinding, what is the difference?

I am sure you know 100%

Some may escape, so maybe 16k.

risk vs no risk

no, I guessed you would?!

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Does it really "erase" 20k men?

Pocket vs grinding, what is the difference?

I am sure you know 100%

Some may escape, so maybe 16k.

risk vs no risk

no, I guessed you would?!

Yes, it is a song and dance over many turns. Not just a strut across the stage . Thus the risk vs no risk comes into play even more. But that is a story for a different time.

Thank you for all your contributions Wiedrock. Done some very nice deep dives into things that I am sure helped many

[ringhloth]

It seems to me that a unit which has retreated and is then hit by mobile force causing severe losses does not necessarily equate to "WW1 grinding" but to encirclements within the scale of the hex rather than outside of it. I'm curious to hear more input on this from the community as I believe these kinds of follow up attacks to more completely rout a unit have always been possible.

Why do pockets require one turn of isolation? Because it's a I go you go, and it's silly to see, say, a pz unit be encircled by the soviets and then deleted without a turn to escape. It also feels bad to have no reaction to your opponent encircling you, especially when it feels illogical.

The issue here is that there is little to no counter play because of the retreat path priorities, which will happily place your 3 rifle corps into a position where they can be attacked again for near 100% losses, and the counter play that does exist involves incredibly gamey tactics - placing air hqs on Frontline hexes where you don't want units to retreat to. Should the air force high command really be on the front lines? Are these desired outcomes?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

The issue here is that there is little to no counter play because of the retreat path priorities, which will happily place your 3 rifle corps into a position where they can be attacked again for near 100% losses, and the counter play that does exist involves incredibly gamey tactics - placing air hqs on Frontline hexes where you don't want units to retreat to. Should the air force high command really be on the front lines? Are these desired outcomes?

In 41 you may have to do some "gamey tactics" at times, yes I have done it before, but if done correctly you should be able to mitigate what you are laying out here. But by mid-to-late 42 and especially in 43 there is no reason "at all" to do this with the multitude of brigades the Soviets have. Any and all retreat priorities can be dictated without the need to "gamey tactics" by that time frame. But that is just my 2 cents and maybe you have more insight into the situation than I do.

[M60A3TTS]

It would be nice to see ground losses.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

It would be nice to see ground losses.

I have the file now & getting the PW changed so I can start on the Soviet turn. This game looks very nice, was well fought it looks like to me, on both sides. Congrats to both players.

T95 Losses.png (800.44 KiB) Viewed 630 times