Alekmalek quit WITE2 because of WW1 grinding

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I will do an AAR for the game for all to comment.

[Beethoven1]

I know by just looking at the screenshots I could take Berlin playing this game. I would even say the OOB is through the roof for the Soviets 6 million plus at this stage.

To be clear, the point of me starting this thread was NOT at all to argue that this particular game was lost or hopeless for the Soviets. I am not even sure that Alek Malek thought that was the case.

I also had no intention of trying to argue that this particular game is the best example of WW1 grinding. I do not think that it is.

Rather, the point of me starting the thread was simply to share Alek Malek's perspective and thoughts on the game after having played nearly 100 turns over the course of a year, during which time both he and his Axis opponent (neaugustus) learned a lot about the game and became better. If I had not shared it here, then people would still be unaware of it on the forum.

When they started the game a year ago, both of them were pretty new to the game and still learning. So both of them likely did a lot of things that they would do differently now if they hypothetically started over from scratch, which led to the current OOBs and current situation.

With regards to "WW1 grinding," the important point to understand is that neaugustus only began WW1 grinding in mid/late 1942, by which time the Soviet (and Axis) OOBs were both already very large, as a result of what had transpired earlier in the game. So for that reason, while the individual battles for which we posted screenshots are reflective of the damage that can be accomplished with "WW1 grinding," the turn 95 OOBs are NOT reflective of what they would be with a player who knew about "WW1 grinding" from the outset, and was consciously trying to "grind" from the outset in 1941.

There are some other games which I think better show, and which more clearly show the effects long term grinding with "proper" technique can have on the OOB. The problem is, unfortunately, none of these games have AARs posted on the forum. I think that is why people on the forum who don't hang out on discord as much tend to be less familiar with what those of us who spend more time on discord are talking about. In particular, there are several games where Vet has played Axis and done very well with WW1 grinding, but while several of Vet's Soviet games have forum AARs, NONE of his Axis games do IIRC.

EDIT - apparently you need this invite for the links below to work: https://discord.gg/BmmCbQQaMX

Specifically, these games are the following (with discord AAR links):

Vet (Axis) vs Kulik - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 6175253614
Vet (Axis) vs Thistle Tea - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 8344113202
Vet (Axis) vs Me - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 9185530911
Vet (Axis) vs jasonbroomer - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 1627118612

There are also Soviet AARs for most of these:

Thistle Tea - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 2158592124
Kulik - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 6636253194
Me - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 5567503361

None of these is the perfect example game for various reasons, but together they paint a picture.

What I will try and do over the next few days/week is post at least some excerpts/summary from some of these on the forum in the AAR section. That way people who are only on the forum can have some awareness of these games and the effects of prolonged grinding when done by a skilled player who knows how to do it well.


For a start, here is a link to a forum AAR I will do now summarizing the Vet vs Thistle Tea game:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=399655

I will probably do less detail for the other ones, I just did the Vet vs Thistle Tea one and it took a while copy/pasting everything I did (which is only a fraction of what I could have posted in the summary AAR). It is too much work to transcribe as much when the AARs are accessible for anyone who really does want to see them anyway.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

@Beethoven

Who is the "BEST" grinder you can show me that plays this game? Vet? or is there someone else that I don't know about that is on your discord.

Who is the "skilled" player. Thank you in advance for your answer.

[M60A3TTS]

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

Thanks for the info.

So the German OOB in this game has 4.1 million and almost 7 million Soviet.

For historical context the German forces in the east were at this time almost 2.6 million vs. 5.8 million Soviet.

Casualty-wise the Soviets in game suffered almost 8.6 million. Historically by this time the Soviets had suffered almost 9.2 million, this being the end of March 1943. Historic irrevocable losses for the Soviets were around 6.6 million which matches up almost exactly with this game.

I agree with HLYA that if there are other games where a grinder has been more thorough, those numbers would be informative. I can't speak for everyone here, just myself who wouldn't find a multitude of new screenies showing individual combat losses terribly useful. The overall OOB and loss numbers will help make your point, that you have made quite clear.

[RedJohn]

Historical numbers mean nothing, though. The Soviet's can't take historical casualties during Barb, or they've already effectively lost. I think it's probably the same for the Germans. The game diverts so wildly from history after turn 1 that any comparisons are fairly meaningless.

[Wiedrock]

Historical numbers mean nothing, though. The Soviet's can't take historical casualties during Barb, or they've already effectively lost. I think it's probably the same for the Germans. The game diverts so wildly from history after turn 1 that any comparisons are fairly meaningless.

Save your negativity for Discord.

[M60A3TTS]

Historical numbers mean nothing, though. The Soviet's can't take historical casualties during Barb, or they've already effectively lost. I think it's probably the same for the Germans. The game diverts so wildly from history after turn 1 that any comparisons are fairly meaningless.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But the devs place some value on it and so if you are advocating change it should still be addressed.

[Beethoven1]

It's a deeper issue than just axis strong and soviets weak.

...

Perhaps honestly the most important thing regarding grinding though is that it's not fun. Its not historical also of course.

...

I think it's very important to remember that these aren't issues affecting just one side. They apply to both.

Great post, well put and I endorse it

I think the 2 biggest things to highlight are:

1) This is not just an Axis attacking Soviets thing. It is more fundamental to the mechanics than that.
2) The issue with grinding is less so that it isn't necessarily or can't necessarily be balanced (although it is problematic for balance), the issue is more so that it is not fun or historical for gameplay to be centered on that (although it is relatively more historical for Soviets late war than Axis early war I think).

So the biggest thing is, whatever anyone takes from this thread, I would hope that it is not just complaints about Soviet losses being too high. That is not (really) the issue, and the ideal solution wouldn't be something so simple as e.g. just lowering the losses when Axis deliberate attacks Soviet units and/or follow-up attacks them. If anything, doing that might make overall balance worse, because at least "WW1 grinding" does at least provide a way for Axis to inflict losses on the Soviets, which given the difficulty of forming and holding pockets. Whereas currently, at least skilled Axis players who understand logistics and the mechanics for retreat paths etc can have a good chance to win via grinding currently (perhaps mixed with at least some pockets).

So the last thing I would hope for is that 1 week from now we have a new patch with some change designed to address this that has not been sufficiently well thought through. Ideally there should be some changes made, but not prior to sufficient discussion about it.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

@Beethoven

Who is the "BEST" grinder you can show me that plays this game? Vet? or is there someone else that I don't know about that is on your discord.

Who is the "skilled" player. Thank you in advance for your answer.

@Beethoven again

Please answer the question

or players

[Beethoven1]

@Beethoven

Who is the "BEST" grinder you can show me that plays this game? Vet? or is there someone else that I don't know about that is on your discord.

Who is the "skilled" player. Thank you in advance for your answer.

@Beethoven again

Please answer the question

I was going to and am going to, but I cannot instantly post everything that I want to post.

Gonna take a dinner break and later I will have more to say, I promise you

[HardLuckYetAgain]

@Beethoven

Who is the "BEST" grinder you can show me that plays this game? Vet? or is there someone else that I don't know about that is on your discord.

Who is the "skilled" player. Thank you in advance for your answer.

@Beethoven again

Please answer the question

I was going to and am going to, but I cannot instantly post everything that I want to post.

Gonna take a dinner break and later I will have more to say, I promise you

Keep it brief please. The long posts put me to sleep . Just names are more than fine.

[Gray Lensman_MatrixForum]

Historical numbers mean nothing, though. The Soviet's can't take historical casualties during Barb, or they've already effectively lost. I think it's probably the same for the Germans. The game diverts so wildly from history after turn 1 that any comparisons are fairly meaningless.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But the devs place some value on it and so if you are advocating change it should still be addressed.

Though historical numbers have some value in that they somewhat justify the in-game and end game design numbers statistically. They don't mean crap if the game play becomes non-mobile, non-historical, and worst of all boring.

[Veterin]

I think the losses on heavy Soviet routs could be a little lower but any changes would need to be carefully thought out for balance over a longer game. There isn't much experience in the +43 and beyond and i suspect Soviets can just as easily inflict losses on Axis late game. Perhaps limiting loss % on routs to 80% or something could be a solution.

"herding" is 100% a viable strategy as it's not just mindless clicking. You need to strategies and plan ahead to get the outcomes you want. Soviets can also use herding and it's in some ways even more viable for them as they have a lot more disposable units (ie low TOE Cav or brigades)

"WW1 grinding" is far from the only way to play this game. K62 absolutely tore my Soviet game apart and he opted for a high mobility/encirclement strategy which is still extremely powerful when done right. Similarly, JasonBroomer is a mix of positional and grinding and he uses it to great effect as Axis.

In this example of Alekmalek, he would have won this game if he persisted. I understand HYLA is taking over the game so this will be a good test if strategy can beat panzer/moto follow up on retreated soviet infantry....

[M60A3TTS]

Though historical numbers have some value in that they somewhat justify the in-game and end game design numbers statistically. They don't mean crap if the game play becomes non-mobile, non-historical, and worst of all boring.

What gives you the impression that game play becomes non-mobile?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I think the losses on heavy Soviet routs could be a little lower but any changes would need to be carefully thought out for balance over a longer game. There isn't much experience in the +43 and beyond and i suspect Soviets can just as easily inflict losses on Axis late game. Perhaps limiting loss % on routs to 80% or something could be a solution.

"herding" is 100% a viable strategy as it's not just mindless clicking. You need to strategies and plan ahead to get the outcomes you want. Soviets can also use herding and it's in some ways even more viable for them as they have a lot more disposable units (ie low TOE Cav or brigades)

"WW1 grinding" is far from the only way to play this game. K62 absolutely tore my Soviet game apart and he opted for a high mobility/encirclement strategy which is still extremely powerful when done right. Similarly, JasonBroomer is a mix of positional and grinding and he uses it to great effect as Axis.

In this example of Alekmalek, he would have won this game if he persisted. I understand HYLA is taking over the game so this will be a good test if strategy can beat panzer/moto follow up on retreated soviet infantry....

The 4 million plus German Army is "very" powerful and will be a very tough nut to crack. So I could end up eating crow if I can't deliver. But from a quick look it is doable. Will be fun or people can just laugh at me if I fail. Either way we learn in the process.

[Beethoven1]

Keep it brief please. The long posts put me to sleep . Just names are more than fine.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. You might want to grab a pillow.

First, while I am definitely happy to answer your question and to help to the best of my ability, the reason why I started this thread and also the reason I am continuing to post in it is not simply to help you personally find an opponent, but rather to try and improve community consensus understanding of the game.

Second, it's just not that simple. As I emphasized in my response endorsing Bread's post, the last thing I want is for anyone to take away from this thread that this issue is too simple and too susceptible to a simplistic easy fast one-shot solution. I adamantly refuse to oversimplify this because I do not want this to lead to some beta patch being released a week from now with some change that appears without having been sufficiently discussed and analyzed first, because that could make things worse rather than better or fix things in a less than ideal way. As Vet similarly says above, "but any changes would need to be carefully thought out for balance over a longer game."

For example, the CPP changes (while needed) in my view were implemented in a sub-optimal way because they were rushed into effect quickly - specifically they were made so that CPP loss depended on final CV odds. That is problematic because final CV odds when a defender loses a battle often collapse (final CV odds are not affected by things like fort levels), leading to these battles with lopsided final CV ratios and lopsided results. Whereas if another metric such as total number of men in a battle or initial CV had been used as a metric for the CPP changes, then today the issue with WW1 grinding would not be quite as bad (because part of the problem with WW1 grinding is that on these 99:1 final CV odd routs, you lose very little CPP even if you inflict 30k losses). Whereas the max ratio of final CV can reach absurd levels like 99:1, the max ratio of another metric like initial CV does not have those extreme lopsided unbalanced values (at the most it would be more like 10:1 max).



So, on to your question. If we want to find you the perfect grinder to play against, we need to take some things into account. I am assuming from what you said that the idea you have in your mind is you are looking to play Soviets against someone who will play Axis in 1941 and who will try to grind against you as effectively as possible, so that you can try to test if you can counter it.

If that is more or less correct, consider:

1) There are not that many people who play WITE2, and there are fewer that play multiplayer games.

2) Of those who play multiplayer games, only a sub-section post on the forum or on discord, and an even narrower number make AARs showing what they have done (whether grinding or something else).

3) Of those players who do make AARs (or play against other people who play AARs), a pretty significant number of them are Soviet-Only players. There are quite a few Soviet-only or Soviet-mostly players, but not many Axis-only players. The reason for that is that Soviets are way more forgiving of mistakes, and do not require you to pay as much detailed attention to various mechanics such as logistics and ZOC. So Soviets are just easier and more fun to play. RedJohn (Bread) for example used to play Axis, until he tried to play Axis against Vet. Due to paying insufficient attention to things like ZOC, Vet demoralized him so much with cavalry etc that now Bread has become a Soviet-only player. He has at leas 5 or so ongoing server games against random Axis opponents where he beats them in 1941, and has fun. Stamb is another Soviet-only (or Soviet-mostly) player. I am another example, although I am starting to try to branch out into Axis, and have an ongoing Axis Stalingrad to Berlin game, I still haven't (but am working on it thanks to your turn 1 guide - sincere thanks for that).

4) Of the Axis players who could grind very effectively, many or most of them do not really want to grind because they consider it un-fun and/or unhistorical. Some examples of this sort of player are Jango, who is very good with Axis, but who hates grinding because he doesn't think the game should work like that and tries to avoid it. Another example would be jasonbroomer, who I am quite sure understands grinding well enough to do it, but it is just (at least in previous games) just not his style of how he likes to play. Another example would probably be goodbyebluesky, who is currently having a good Axis game in which he did pockets (but that was only possible because he was playing a less experienced opponent, who now is starting to grind against goodbyebluesky now that they have reached 1943).

5) In order for us to have a record of AARs proving that they can grind, players have to do turns pretty quickly and reliably, otherwise the games and AARs simply won't exist (or won't go for a long enough number of turns). The subset of players who do those turns fast and reliably enough is even more limited. To some extent, you yourself, HLYA, would probably be an example of this. I am quite sure that you can grind effectively if you wish to do so, but you tend to do your turns relatively slowly, so there is not really a record of games going long enough to show an effect of grinding on OOB. Plus, besides turn speed, you often win too quickly I would also speculate that I might be another example where this would be an issue, that is if I could ever get myself to finish Axis turn 1.

6) However, players can't do turns TOO quickly either. If they do turns too quickly, they will lack the attention to detail that is necessary for efficient grinding. For example, Bread can do turns in as little as an hour or so. Some other players like dankhippos have been known to do turns even faster, in as little as 10 minutes or so in some cases. If you do that, you absolutely are not going to have enough time to plan out how you will make divisions retreat one way with ZOC and then hit them with a follow-up attack. So while we do have AARs from Bread and dankhippos for example, they don't show that they can herd and grind, because they do their turns too fast to be able to pay attention to retreat paths and the like.



So what we are left with is we are looking for a very narrow subset of players. Someone who actually wants to play Axis (as opposed to Soviets) at all, who does their turns fast, but not TOO fast, who does AARs or is a known experienced player, and who ALSO does not disdain grinding and view it as such a flawed and un-fun mechanic that they are willing to play against you and just grind rather than try to do something more difficult but more gratifying and fun like go for a pocket.

So these are some very narrow, very specific criteria.

Frankly, I doubt you will find such a person, at least at short notice currently.

Vet is the main person who fulfills all those criteria. However, Vet just had a kid, and Vet is also starting a new Soviet game against Neaugustus (the same Neaugusus who played Alek Malek). So I doubt Vet has time to start a new Axis game against your Soviets. If that's wrong though, I would love to see the game so we can see what happens.




I also think it is possible that a number of other people would be capable of doing it - pretty much anyone who has a reasonable amount of skill and experienced with Axis, and who understands how ZOC work and how to get supply, should be capable of doing it (especially if Jango can check over their logistics at the end of the turn o make sure they don't mess up the supply). For example, jubjub, skritshell, K62, fracas, jasonbroomer, jango, goodbyebluesky, albertN, as well as some old players from the forum who have been less active but some of whom have returned, like Rosencrantus, bobo, or tyronec. All those sort of people would likely be capable of it, if they started a game with the explicit goal in mind of doing that.

But it is another question whether any of those sorts of people would WANT to play a game like that which is just about grinding. Maybe, but I have my doubts.



What I think you could find, however, is someone who would grind against you in the late game, if you are willing to play as Axis in some sort of scenario or save of a game that starts in the mid-late game. For example, if you want to play Stalingrad to Berlin, 1943 campaign, or 1944 campaign (or maybe from some sort of save of a grand campaign game which is in that time period), I think you will be able to find someone to grind as Soviets against your Axis in that.

I think that is your best bet.

In particular, I would suggest that if your interest is grinding in general, and not just grinding on the Axis side in 1941, and you want to be subjected to some serious grinding, you should maybe try to play Axis against someone like Stamb in one of those late game scenarios.


Here are some screenshots of Stamb grinding as Soviets in a current unmodded Stalingrad to Berlin game. There is an experience mismatch in Stamb's favor in this game, but Soviet grinding is in any case already starting to work and take a toll very early in 1943.

Attack 1:



Follow up attack:



Second follow up against the same Panzer division (3rd attack against it in the same turn lol, yielding a 20:1 loss ratio in favor of Soviets (although on its face it looks less impressive than Soviets losing 30k in a single rout in 1941, Axis will start to fall apart after not too many of these sorts of attacks):





You could also play against me in one of those scenarios, or various other Soviet players who can grind. But Stamb would be better than e.g. me for it because he would likely do turns faster. Potentially though, I would be down for it, but it would probably take longer to get far enough to show reliable results.

BTW, I am also playing against Stamb in a StB game, but it is modded in order to test out an idea we had which could make grinding be less of a problem. Specifically, we raised the morale of both sides by 10 (and 15 for Italians/Romanians). There is also a separate game where Stamb is playing Axis with the same modded StB scenario, and it also seems promising so far. Both games are on about turn 8 or 9 or so. The higher morale on both sides makes it a lot harder to get those lopsided 99:1 routs, and as a result the problem with grinding (initially) seems to be a lot better. We can still do follow-up attacks, and they are favorable, but not so favorable to such ridiculous and unbalanced degrees. So that is promising and worth mentioning (but I would not want devs to just copy something like that as a solution without thinking and discussing more carefully).




If you are ONLY interested in seeing if Axis can grind in 1941/42 (and not in seeing if Soviets can grind the Axis in the late game), then your best bet for finding an Axis player is probably yourself. You can probably find a Soviet player to grind against fairly easily (including potentially me) if you want to be the grinder, rather than the grindee. But finding a grinder will be a lot harder than finding a grindee.



Last of all though, to a considerable extent it doesn't really matter how much you can counter grinding. I do agree there are some things a defender can do to at least partially counter grinding. In my own game against Vet, I myself did some of these things, with varying levels of effectiveness. But the larger point, as Bread said, is:

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.

So even if it hypothetically were balanced, it is not really how the game should be, in our opinions anyway.

[Beethoven1]

In this example of Alekmalek, he would have won this game if he persisted. I understand HYLA is taking over the game so this will be a good test if strategy can beat panzer/moto follow up on retreated soviet infantry....

I am pretty sure that what will happen is HLYA should be able to start to grind with Soviets against Axis, and as a result Axis will start to collapse after not too long (similar to the screenshots I posted of Stamb grinding with Soviets in Stalingrad to Berlin.

This underlines that the issue with grinding is not just Axis grinding against Soviets, it is grinding in general.

However, Soviets can also do pockets better than Axis, because Soviets have a larger number of counters and can just swarm the smaller number of Axis counters, like a bunch of ants eating a lion. And since Axis doesn't take quite as high losses (not 30k on a single rout), it can be more efficient for Soviets to herd and pocket the Axis in some cases rather than to just herd and grind them. There are some examples where Stamb is doing that in the Stalingrad to Berlin game, but I don't want to post screenshots showing the map, because it is an ongoing game. Stamb can post some if he wants if they enough turns into the past.

[Beethoven1]

"WW1 grinding" is far from the only way to play this game. K62 absolutely tore my Soviet game apart and he opted for a high mobility/encirclement strategy which is still extremely powerful when done right. Similarly, JasonBroomer is a mix of positional and grinding and he uses it to great effect as Axis.

Yes, personally I think that the optimal way to play Axis given the current mechanics would be to have a mix of pockets and grinding, and to shift back and forth between the two in a way which is hard for the opposing player to predict, depending on the situation.

This would be difficult to pull off and would demand a high degree of skill, but for the few players who can do that on the Axis side, I think it would probably make it pretty much impossible for Soviets to survive 1941/42 against them. The only chance would be No Early End, but even then it would be very difficult. If it were a sudden death game, the Soviet player might as well just resign on turn 1.

The Soviet player could have some limited chance to hit back in winter, but not necessarily a good chance if the Axis player were to do the right things.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Keep it brief please. The long posts put me to sleep . Just names are more than fine.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. You might want to grab a pillow.

First, while I am definitely happy to answer your question and to help to the best of my ability, the reason why I started this thread and also the reason I am continuing to post in it is not simply to help you personally find an opponent, but rather to try and improve community consensus understanding of the game.

Second, it's just not that simple. As I emphasized in my response endorsing Bread's post, the last thing I want is for anyone to take away from this thread that this issue is too simple and too susceptible to a simplistic easy fast one-shot solution. I adamantly refuse to oversimplify this because I do not want this to lead to some beta patch being released a week from now with some change that appears without having been sufficiently discussed and analyzed first, because that could make things worse rather than better or fix things in a less than ideal way. As Vet similarly says above, "but any changes would need to be carefully thought out for balance over a longer game."

For example, the CPP changes (while needed) in my view were implemented in a sub-optimal way because they were rushed into effect quickly - specifically they were made so that CPP loss depended on final CV odds. That is problematic because final CV odds when a defender loses a battle often collapse (final CV odds are not affected by things like fort levels), leading to these battles with lopsided final CV ratios and lopsided results. Whereas if another metric such as total number of men in a battle or initial CV had been used as a metric for the CPP changes, then today the issue with WW1 grinding would not be quite as bad (because part of the problem with WW1 grinding is that on these 99:1 final CV odd routs, you lose very little CPP even if you inflict 30k losses). Whereas the max ratio of final CV can reach absurd levels like 99:1, the max ratio of another metric like initial CV does not have those extreme lopsided unbalanced values (at the most it would be more like 10:1 max).



So, on to your question. If we want to find you the perfect grinder to play against, we need to take some things into account. I am assuming from what you said that the idea you have in your mind is you are looking to play Soviets against someone who will play Axis in 1941 and who will try to grind against you as effectively as possible, so that you can try to test if you can counter it.

If that is more or less correct, consider:

1) There are not that many people who play WITE2, and there are fewer that play multiplayer games.

2) Of those who play multiplayer games, only a sub-section post on the forum or on discord, and an even narrower number make AARs showing what they have done (whether grinding or something else).

3) Of those players who do make AARs (or play against other people who play AARs), a pretty significant number of them are Soviet-Only players. There are quite a few Soviet-only or Soviet-mostly players, but not many Axis-only players. The reason for that is that Soviets are way more forgiving of mistakes, and do not require you to pay as much detailed attention to various mechanics such as logistics and ZOC. So Soviets are just easier and more fun to play. RedJohn (Bread) for example used to play Axis, until he tried to play Axis against Vet. Due to paying insufficient attention to things like ZOC, Vet demoralized him so much with cavalry etc that now Bread has become a Soviet-only player. He has at leas 5 or so ongoing server games against random Axis opponents where he beats them in 1941, and has fun. Stamb is another Soviet-only (or Soviet-mostly) player. I am another example, although I am starting to try to branch out into Axis, and have an ongoing Axis Stalingrad to Berlin game, I still haven't (but am working on it thanks to your turn 1 guide - sincere thanks for that).

4) Of the Axis players who could grind very effectively, many or most of them do not really want to grind because they consider it un-fun and/or unhistorical. Some examples of this sort of player are Jango, who is very good with Axis, but who hates grinding because he doesn't think the game should work like that and tries to avoid it. Another example would be jasonbroomer, who I am quite sure understands grinding well enough to do it, but it is just (at least in previous games) just not his style of how he likes to play. Another example would probably be goodbyebluesky, who is currently having a good Axis game in which he did pockets (but that was only possible because he was playing a less experienced opponent, who now is starting to grind against goodbyebluesky now that they have reached 1943).

5) In order for us to have a record of AARs proving that they can grind, players have to do turns pretty quickly and reliably, otherwise the games and AARs simply won't exist (or won't go for a long enough number of turns). The subset of players who do those turns fast and reliably enough is even more limited. To some extent, you yourself, HLYA, would probably be an example of this. I am quite sure that you can grind effectively if you wish to do so, but you tend to do your turns relatively slowly, so there is not really a record of games going long enough to show an effect of grinding on OOB. Plus, besides turn speed, you often win too quickly I would also speculate that I might be another example where this would be an issue, that is if I could ever get myself to finish Axis turn 1.

6) However, players can't do turns TOO quickly either. If they do turns too quickly, they will lack the attention to detail that is necessary for efficient grinding. For example, Bread can do turns in as little as an hour or so. Some other players like dankhippos have been known to do turns even faster, in as little as 10 minutes or so in some cases. If you do that, you absolutely are not going to have enough time to plan out how you will make divisions retreat one way with ZOC and then hit them with a follow-up attack. So while we do have AARs from Bread and dankhippos for example, they don't show that they can herd and grind, because they do their turns too fast to be able to pay attention to retreat paths and the like.



So what we are left with is we are looking for a very narrow subset of players. Someone who actually wants to play Axis (as opposed to Soviets) at all, who does their turns fast, but not TOO fast, who does AARs or is a known experienced player, and who ALSO does not disdain grinding and view it as such a flawed and un-fun mechanic that they are willing to play against you and just grind rather than try to do something more difficult but more gratifying and fun like go for a pocket.

So these are some very narrow, very specific criteria.

Frankly, I doubt you will find such a person, at least at short notice currently.

Vet is the main person who fulfills all those criteria. However, Vet just had a kid, and Vet is also starting a new Soviet game against Neaugustus (the same Neaugusus who played Alek Malek). So I doubt Vet has time to start a new Axis game against your Soviets. If that's wrong though, I would love to see the game so we can see what happens.




I also think it is possible that a number of other people would be capable of doing it - pretty much anyone who has a reasonable amount of skill and experienced with Axis, and who understands how ZOC work and how to get supply, should be capable of doing it (especially if Jango can check over their logistics at the end of the turn o make sure they don't mess up the supply). For example, jubjub, skritshell, K62, fracas, jasonbroomer, jango, goodbyebluesky, albertN, as well as some old players from the forum who have been less active but some of whom have returned, like Rosencrantus, bobo, or tyronec. All those sort of people would likely be capable of it, if they started a game with the explicit goal in mind of doing that.

But it is another question whether any of those sorts of people would WANT to play a game like that which is just about grinding. Maybe, but I have my doubts.



What I think you could find, however, is someone who would grind against you in the late game, if you are willing to play as Axis in some sort of scenario or save of a game that starts in the mid-late game. For example, if you want to play Stalingrad to Berlin, 1943 campaign, or 1944 campaign (or maybe from some sort of save of a grand campaign game which is in that time period), I think you will be able to find someone to grind as Soviets against your Axis in that.

I think that is your best bet.

In particular, I would suggest that if your interest is grinding in general, and not just grinding on the Axis side in 1941, and you want to be subjected to some serious grinding, you should maybe try to play Axis against someone like Stamb in one of those late game scenarios.


Here are some screenshots of Stamb grinding as Soviets in a current unmodded Stalingrad to Berlin game. There is an experience mismatch in Stamb's favor in this game, but Soviet grinding is in any case already starting to work and take a toll very early in 1943.

Attack 1:



Follow up attack:



Second follow up against the same Panzer division (3rd attack against it in the same turn lol, yielding a 20:1 loss ratio in favor of Soviets (although on its face it looks less impressive than Soviets losing 30k in a single rout in 1941, Axis will start to fall apart after not too many of these sorts of attacks):





You could also play against me in one of those scenarios, or various other Soviet players who can grind. But Stamb would be better than e.g. me for it because he would likely do turns faster. Potentially though, I would be down for it, but it would probably take longer to get far enough to show reliable results.

BTW, I am also playing against Stamb in a StB game, but it is modded in order to test out an idea we had which could make grinding be less of a problem. Specifically, we raised the morale of both sides by 10 (and 15 for Italians/Romanians). There is also a separate game where Stamb is playing Axis with the same modded StB scenario, and it also seems promising so far. Both games are on about turn 8 or 9 or so. The higher morale on both sides makes it a lot harder to get those lopsided 99:1 routs, and as a result the problem with grinding (initially) seems to be a lot better. We can still do follow-up attacks, and they are favorable, but not so favorable to such ridiculous and unbalanced degrees. So that is promising and worth mentioning (but I would not want devs to just copy something like that as a solution without thinking and discussing more carefully).




If you are ONLY interested in seeing if Axis can grind in 1941/42 (and not in seeing if Soviets can grind the Axis in the late game), then your best bet for finding an Axis player is probably yourself. You can probably find a Soviet player to grind against fairly easily (including potentially me) if you want to be the grinder, rather than the grindee. But finding a grinder will be a lot harder than finding a grindee.



Last of all though, to a considerable extent it doesn't really matter how much you can counter grinding. I do agree there are some things a defender can do to at least partially counter grinding. In my own game against Vet, I myself did some of these things, with varying levels of effectiveness. But the larger point, as Bread said, is:

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.

So even if it hypothetically were balanced, it is not really how the game should be, in our opinions anyway.

Way too long of a post. Stopped reading it after the first three para's And it does work like that.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I will just read tomorrow. Good night.