Greetings,
Introduction:
I consider myself an experienced player of average tier, with a relative desire to not exceed into micromanagement when I get hands on a match of WITE2.
I also play PvP only nowadays.
The AI is only the limping assistant for some tests for the Mod sake; and even there I discovered it's highly unreliable when examining a save of an AI v AI I noticed that the full 1st PanzerArmee was assigned under the Italian Corps led by Messe, overloading it by 50 / 9, and keeping it at 30ish hex of distance from the units. The AI also does not pull all the tricks and gimmicks a player will do, and in general defends upfront -everywhere-.
Said that I can simply stress this Mod is PvP oriented, and I've zero interest for single-player feedback and experiences. It uses the 'No Early End' version of the game.
I am also part of the Kulik Discord community that is definitely PvP oriented, and I thank here the players thereby present and active which helped me directly and indirectly with ideas, comments, brainstorming and their own modding projects and attempts. I will also refer to some of their posts made around these forums in the explainations, in what has been a mystic revelation experience to set hands into the Editor and going through this ordeal.
I modify a lot on the impulse, and tend to simply note down the gist of what I do. So do not expect a precise and concise changelog.
I shall span explainations over multiple replies, trying to keep them ordered by topic, so that when something specific changes I can simply edit that 'reply' as thread. I will try to add some reasoning as well, the 'rationale' behind the changes.
Premises leading to Changes:
Some changes are pure 'Arbitrary'. Or pertinent to a different vision, specifically my vision - at times affected by enlightening discussions with other players or game scholars.
I define Arbitrary something that is not objective, and thus a fruit of a decision a the development / designer team. Something 'Objective' is for instance the thickness of a tank armour; or the effective range of its gun. Something Arbitrary can be the National Morale of any nation, the measurement of a leader skills and its translation in numbers like school ratings, if a unit deserves Elite status or not.
Other changes are an attempt to soak up mechanics / ratios / number crunching that gives a result not felt correct. But probably even that falls under the Arbitrary part.
Also there is the 'Holy Trinity' that sculpted my mind at the start of the Mod. Russian Logistics are far too mighty, Axis Firepower is inflicting too few losses when defending and Soviets manpower shortage. A long term goal, but I am far from there, is to reach a place where Russian logistics are stressed and strained and cannot sustain Priority 4 from the start and steamroll to Berlin once they can afford that. The historical 'gist' is that Soviets once on the offensive were like a boxer that could do now a right hook, then a left jab, and so forth. One can think at the grander line that Bagration started - as it was prepared and stocked up in a static sector. Once Bagration exhausted with what was stocked; another operation followed up - which was prepared and 'stocked up' freight; but what made Bagration in terms of force lost their punching power and had to wait and rest. In WITE the Russians, once on the move, never stop. Thus, Germans should be able to inflict more losses to the Russians, Russians should eat more freight which forces them to have downtimes, both in supplies and replacements, but they need more manpower - which I believe is absent (due to how powerful Russians already are, I assume).
The 'Should' type of changes are the ones that I believe would work in a specific way, but alas only prolonged empyrical trial and error can net the answer. And by doing a change there it may not do at all what I deem it should! Making the change redundant or even non intended. This is also why I take time to add a small commentary, so that a player knows what is my vision and intention.
There is much more I'd say but I'll keep it for the dedicated replies devoted to the various topics. - I'll keep the first thread here for the attachment of the Mod file.
Last, but not least, this is a Work in Progress (so long my interest remain alive and I have time for a velleitary project as a Mod!) and things can change over time.
PvP Orientation Mod
Moderator: Joel Billings
PvP Orientation Mod
- Attachments
-
- 1941 Campaign - MOD.rar
- (1.86 MiB) Downloaded 69 times
Last edited by AlbertN on Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Topic: National Morale Changes
Germany:
Germany starts with 80 NM.
Drops at 75 at July 42.
Drops at 70 at Sept 43.
Drops at 65 at Jan 45.
Air NM is unchanged.
Commentary: I simply feel that the Germans are losing far too much of their combat power over time, and this should help them fight a bit better in the later turns - when games eventually get there.
There is an event that hammers the German morale further, and that aspect has been removed.
It is intended that in '43 the Germans can still pack a proper punch in general.
The added '41 NM also enables Germans to advance faster, which certainly helps if they are unopposed by Soviet forces. This is intended.
Possibility in the future: Add a Rename Function to the early Panzer and Mot (Panzergren) Divisions in '43 to become Elite; as they factually maintained high standards of personnel and refined their combined arms tactics. Virtually they'll remain the same but gain more National Morale max. By then the Axis forces should not get exactly abundant victories, so it will be a pickly for the Player to make a decision: send units to the reserve to better up or keep them on map. If this change is to happen it would be at September '43. Alas the Elite Bonus is a +15 which means ironically their NM would be over the '41 one. This also would flatten the difference SS Elite and other elites had such as the GD. On the other hand if someone opens up a Vistula to Berline or Stalingrad to Berlin, some panzer divisions there have gained Elite Status, which they have not during the Grand Campaign game.
Axis Minors:
Romania has 55 NM and 65 Air NM.
Italy has 55 NM and 65 Air NM.
Hungary has 60 NM, 65 Air NM, and gains +5 Land NM at Romania Surrender. (Exactly as Hungarians and Romanians cannot stack, there was animosity between the nations. Once Romanians swap side, Hungarians know they'll come to take back what they gained during the Vienna Diktat era)
Finland has 75 NM, unchanged Air NM, and gains +5 Land NM IF Leningrad is Axis. (This change is permanent, and won't be reverted. But Finland won't sent troops anymore to the map)
I feel that the Axis Minors are far too weak and under represented in their combat efficiency (or perceived lack of). But the Axis Minors face already a quadruple dip:
A preliminary arbitrary choice is to add 20.000 manpower to Finnish pool, and 10.000 to Slovak.
Commentary: In general Axis Minors now can go and fight Russian Infantry in general and are not simply facerolled and destroyed in throves with a single rout.
Due to other Mod aspects there may even be German HQs (with German leaders) to lead a few of the Axis Minors formations, even if with the inefficient format of 3 CC per division!
This would supply to an extent to 2 of their 4 weak spots; leaving them in the sweet spot I feel they belong to.
For what concerns the Air NM - it may even still be too low. Russian pilots were pretty bad, and even one among the causes of the Italians being so backward with their airforce. During the Spanish Civil War the Italian pilots on their Cr.32 were outmatching both Russian pilots (and Russian trained Spa.Republican pilots) on I-16s and scoring more than Germans with either their He.51 or the earlier Bf109s models. This astonishing type of result (all along the 'fast bombers' that could outrun many fighters of then!) made the Italians think little of the monoplane, and in general give a wide impression that the Italian airforce was competent and modern. That led also to the design of the Cr.42 - the 'apex' of the biplane war technology. Refined and shaped over years. The thing that Italians missed out was that the monoplanes they faced were raw, early stages of the new technology. The Italian airforce was deemed modern and powerful - til as soon as France was aggressed our biplanes were simply unable to deal as good with the MS406 and D.520 of the French. Anyhow I digressed on airplane qualities - simply even there the Axis minor pilots are not that bad.
Russia:
Starts at 55, but drops to 50 at July '41, and it will drop further to 45 at September '41.
Raises to 50 in April '42.
Raises to 55 in April '43.
Raises to 60 in April '44.
Air NM remains unchanged.
Commentary: As of now this is something I am more keen to test, while I am more confident of the Axis Minors and German NM. Soviet NM affects losses early on - and how quickly they can get the strategic initiative too.
Originally I tried to give the Russians a flat +5 NM, but playing PvP in 2 turns in December '41 they pulverized 2 fresh / rested and dug in German Armies and it was clear it was too much. Simply exactly like the Germans move better at some Morale treshhold so do Soviets. And that is over 50.
Presently the friend I am testing the game with pursuaded me to give the 55 initial start - a logic I myself thought, because the pre-war formations are more trained in general, and as the massive drafts start, training gets shortened to a close to nihil value. The gimmick is that a crafty player may keep a reserve of units in the TBs at 55 Morale, and field them for the Winter Offensive. -- Now this can be a dynamic decision of deep interest IF it comes with a cost. But that is to be determined by playing experience.
Also I keep in mind the Soviet 'heavy lifting' is done by Guards, which have a flat +10 NM, and in the late war Soviet Motorized Formations gains +10 as well. This means that a Guard Armoured Corp or Mechanized Corp has 75 NM across most '43, and 80 NM across most '44. Whereas in general the non guard regular units simply sit in less heated positions.
Germany:
Germany starts with 80 NM.
Drops at 75 at July 42.
Drops at 70 at Sept 43.
Drops at 65 at Jan 45.
Air NM is unchanged.
Commentary: I simply feel that the Germans are losing far too much of their combat power over time, and this should help them fight a bit better in the later turns - when games eventually get there.
There is an event that hammers the German morale further, and that aspect has been removed.
It is intended that in '43 the Germans can still pack a proper punch in general.
The added '41 NM also enables Germans to advance faster, which certainly helps if they are unopposed by Soviet forces. This is intended.
Possibility in the future: Add a Rename Function to the early Panzer and Mot (Panzergren) Divisions in '43 to become Elite; as they factually maintained high standards of personnel and refined their combined arms tactics. Virtually they'll remain the same but gain more National Morale max. By then the Axis forces should not get exactly abundant victories, so it will be a pickly for the Player to make a decision: send units to the reserve to better up or keep them on map. If this change is to happen it would be at September '43. Alas the Elite Bonus is a +15 which means ironically their NM would be over the '41 one. This also would flatten the difference SS Elite and other elites had such as the GD. On the other hand if someone opens up a Vistula to Berline or Stalingrad to Berlin, some panzer divisions there have gained Elite Status, which they have not during the Grand Campaign game.
Axis Minors:
Romania has 55 NM and 65 Air NM.
Italy has 55 NM and 65 Air NM.
Hungary has 60 NM, 65 Air NM, and gains +5 Land NM at Romania Surrender. (Exactly as Hungarians and Romanians cannot stack, there was animosity between the nations. Once Romanians swap side, Hungarians know they'll come to take back what they gained during the Vienna Diktat era)
Finland has 75 NM, unchanged Air NM, and gains +5 Land NM IF Leningrad is Axis. (This change is permanent, and won't be reverted. But Finland won't sent troops anymore to the map)
I feel that the Axis Minors are far too weak and under represented in their combat efficiency (or perceived lack of). But the Axis Minors face already a quadruple dip:
- Bad Morale (and thus Experience)
Bad Leaders
Bad Equipment
Little Equipment
A preliminary arbitrary choice is to add 20.000 manpower to Finnish pool, and 10.000 to Slovak.
Commentary: In general Axis Minors now can go and fight Russian Infantry in general and are not simply facerolled and destroyed in throves with a single rout.
Due to other Mod aspects there may even be German HQs (with German leaders) to lead a few of the Axis Minors formations, even if with the inefficient format of 3 CC per division!
This would supply to an extent to 2 of their 4 weak spots; leaving them in the sweet spot I feel they belong to.
For what concerns the Air NM - it may even still be too low. Russian pilots were pretty bad, and even one among the causes of the Italians being so backward with their airforce. During the Spanish Civil War the Italian pilots on their Cr.32 were outmatching both Russian pilots (and Russian trained Spa.Republican pilots) on I-16s and scoring more than Germans with either their He.51 or the earlier Bf109s models. This astonishing type of result (all along the 'fast bombers' that could outrun many fighters of then!) made the Italians think little of the monoplane, and in general give a wide impression that the Italian airforce was competent and modern. That led also to the design of the Cr.42 - the 'apex' of the biplane war technology. Refined and shaped over years. The thing that Italians missed out was that the monoplanes they faced were raw, early stages of the new technology. The Italian airforce was deemed modern and powerful - til as soon as France was aggressed our biplanes were simply unable to deal as good with the MS406 and D.520 of the French. Anyhow I digressed on airplane qualities - simply even there the Axis minor pilots are not that bad.
Russia:
Starts at 55, but drops to 50 at July '41, and it will drop further to 45 at September '41.
Raises to 50 in April '42.
Raises to 55 in April '43.
Raises to 60 in April '44.
Air NM remains unchanged.
Commentary: As of now this is something I am more keen to test, while I am more confident of the Axis Minors and German NM. Soviet NM affects losses early on - and how quickly they can get the strategic initiative too.
Originally I tried to give the Russians a flat +5 NM, but playing PvP in 2 turns in December '41 they pulverized 2 fresh / rested and dug in German Armies and it was clear it was too much. Simply exactly like the Germans move better at some Morale treshhold so do Soviets. And that is over 50.
Presently the friend I am testing the game with pursuaded me to give the 55 initial start - a logic I myself thought, because the pre-war formations are more trained in general, and as the massive drafts start, training gets shortened to a close to nihil value. The gimmick is that a crafty player may keep a reserve of units in the TBs at 55 Morale, and field them for the Winter Offensive. -- Now this can be a dynamic decision of deep interest IF it comes with a cost. But that is to be determined by playing experience.
Also I keep in mind the Soviet 'heavy lifting' is done by Guards, which have a flat +10 NM, and in the late war Soviet Motorized Formations gains +10 as well. This means that a Guard Armoured Corp or Mechanized Corp has 75 NM across most '43, and 80 NM across most '44. Whereas in general the non guard regular units simply sit in less heated positions.
Last edited by AlbertN on Sat Dec 30, 2023 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Changes - Air War
Turn 1 - VVS is resting
During the First Turn of surprise the Soviet Airforce is resting. Fully.
Commentary: That erases the risk of 'lottery interceptions' during the Airfield Bombing on Day 1 business. - On a note here, I've already bundled in directives for that in the Mod, but a player can obviously redo them. I do not profess to have a bachelor in then.
This I feel it is a nice Soviet bonus though, because the Soviet planes that are not bombed in regular games simply take off to intervene, and when in range of the Luftwaffe fighters, they get minced.
This denies the LW pilots experience (which can be eventually altered but I've not gone that far) but mostly butchers an amount of Russian pilots that otherwise would live, since bombed on the ground does not mean to have certain death, while being shot down in the air, in WITE2 terms, means pilot death.
Better Reliability
All Reliability values have been halved for airplanes.
Planes should fly more this way - unless enemy action occurs.
Commentary: I feel that the Operational Losses are far too much, and in general if a player feels that their airplanes are crashing without much result, it may as well be better not to use them at all. I am also sick and tired of the suicidal runs of the Ju52, that have a far too high crash rate on fair weather, from friendly to friendly airbases, without enemy interference.
In general the Air War is something that does not work well - but ultimately I hope to make it more viable for what is not house ruled out. (In general a variety of Ground Attack types are house ruled out when I game)
This is a very much 'should' type of change, but I am far from sure if it works as factually I intend.
Air HQ, Air Support!
Air HQ ToEs now include Air Support.
Axis got Air Corps HQ again.
Commentary: This is another 'should' type of change. Air HQs can provide assistance to the Airbases on the map by lending their own Support squads, in the same guise a HQ can do to its attached ground units. This should soften the harshness that is to rebase planes around on a mobile front, but does not provide fuel and ammos and supplies to the airbase itself. But air supply missions now should be both easier (above change on reliability) and this could assist.
The Axis gets the Air Corps HQ because otherwise they've really few Air HQ while Russians have way more - roughly 1 per Front.
This will also enable extra AA attached to the HQ to protect an airfield from Ground Attack - Airfield later on. Assuming one brings the HQ on their relevant Airfields.
The change cut some manpower off from the HQ - which I may find ways later on to make up for; eventually. Russian Air HQs can be fine as they're as they're to replenish themselves and will simply 'eat' less manpower.
LW Leaders Tweak & Stukas
Commentary: I feel that the German air support is non existant in general; and I am -trying- to discover ways to make it more interesting.
There is to say that the Axis logistics tend to be strained and thus the 'meta' is to bring bombers around the NSS after Turn 1 because your ground forces need all the freight possible. I deem absurd that the LW, that was a key element to many German successes (or better an integrant part of their mobile warfare doctrine) is simply parked behind, and one simply deals with fighters because it's the Russian airforce that rules the skies since '41.
There are many threads about how the Air Leader stats are redundant or nigh useless though.
Stukas armour has been set to 2 to try it out. That's the same as the Il-2. I know Stukas are not as armoured, but right now even if used, they get shredded by the Soviet SAM ... I mean, flak.
Starting Airbase Tweaks
Commentary: Some airbases are larger than in vanilla, simply I consider it stupid that there were masses of airplanes in airstrips not appropriate for them, at the start of a large scale operation where there was time to prepare. The question is, if this was a '39 campaign, would you as player fit that many twin engine bombers in that tier 1 airfield? I know the answer, I'd not. -- I am still working on this aspect though but some airfields are larger, and some air squadrons are already based to other locations.
Turn 1 - VVS is resting
During the First Turn of surprise the Soviet Airforce is resting. Fully.
Commentary: That erases the risk of 'lottery interceptions' during the Airfield Bombing on Day 1 business. - On a note here, I've already bundled in directives for that in the Mod, but a player can obviously redo them. I do not profess to have a bachelor in then.
This I feel it is a nice Soviet bonus though, because the Soviet planes that are not bombed in regular games simply take off to intervene, and when in range of the Luftwaffe fighters, they get minced.
This denies the LW pilots experience (which can be eventually altered but I've not gone that far) but mostly butchers an amount of Russian pilots that otherwise would live, since bombed on the ground does not mean to have certain death, while being shot down in the air, in WITE2 terms, means pilot death.
Better Reliability
All Reliability values have been halved for airplanes.
Planes should fly more this way - unless enemy action occurs.
Commentary: I feel that the Operational Losses are far too much, and in general if a player feels that their airplanes are crashing without much result, it may as well be better not to use them at all. I am also sick and tired of the suicidal runs of the Ju52, that have a far too high crash rate on fair weather, from friendly to friendly airbases, without enemy interference.
In general the Air War is something that does not work well - but ultimately I hope to make it more viable for what is not house ruled out. (In general a variety of Ground Attack types are house ruled out when I game)
This is a very much 'should' type of change, but I am far from sure if it works as factually I intend.
Air HQ, Air Support!
Air HQ ToEs now include Air Support.
Axis got Air Corps HQ again.
Commentary: This is another 'should' type of change. Air HQs can provide assistance to the Airbases on the map by lending their own Support squads, in the same guise a HQ can do to its attached ground units. This should soften the harshness that is to rebase planes around on a mobile front, but does not provide fuel and ammos and supplies to the airbase itself. But air supply missions now should be both easier (above change on reliability) and this could assist.
The Axis gets the Air Corps HQ because otherwise they've really few Air HQ while Russians have way more - roughly 1 per Front.
This will also enable extra AA attached to the HQ to protect an airfield from Ground Attack - Airfield later on. Assuming one brings the HQ on their relevant Airfields.
The change cut some manpower off from the HQ - which I may find ways later on to make up for; eventually. Russian Air HQs can be fine as they're as they're to replenish themselves and will simply 'eat' less manpower.
- AirSupport.png (540.49 KiB) Viewed 1723 times
Commentary: I feel that the German air support is non existant in general; and I am -trying- to discover ways to make it more interesting.
There is to say that the Axis logistics tend to be strained and thus the 'meta' is to bring bombers around the NSS after Turn 1 because your ground forces need all the freight possible. I deem absurd that the LW, that was a key element to many German successes (or better an integrant part of their mobile warfare doctrine) is simply parked behind, and one simply deals with fighters because it's the Russian airforce that rules the skies since '41.
There are many threads about how the Air Leader stats are redundant or nigh useless though.
Stukas armour has been set to 2 to try it out. That's the same as the Il-2. I know Stukas are not as armoured, but right now even if used, they get shredded by the Soviet SAM ... I mean, flak.
Starting Airbase Tweaks
Commentary: Some airbases are larger than in vanilla, simply I consider it stupid that there were masses of airplanes in airstrips not appropriate for them, at the start of a large scale operation where there was time to prepare. The question is, if this was a '39 campaign, would you as player fit that many twin engine bombers in that tier 1 airfield? I know the answer, I'd not. -- I am still working on this aspect though but some airfields are larger, and some air squadrons are already based to other locations.
Last edited by AlbertN on Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Mixed Bag of Changes:
Here I list an amount of changes conceived as 'stand alone' type of business, and not as integrated measure of a larger mechanic.
Leaders:
Leaders end date now is August '45.
Possible Leader Stat tweaks over time.
Commentary: In general I loathe double dips. The game has already mechanics in place which can envision a leader demise. Be it from HQ being relocated forcefully by the enemy, the random chance of air crash on a transfer, a partisan attack or so (that is totally RNG each turn as detailed in the manual somewhere), or because it is dismissed and executed ... that's already all there. There is no need to write Von Bock off after a certain date, because in the real life got a heart attack at that certain date. Because maybe it won't be Von Bock in your WITE2 match but will be Von Leeb to get one! Or both. Or neither. The mechanic is already there.
Railway Artillery ???
Commentary: I thought on this an amount, both sides have it. I litterally have gone cheap here since it would not be modelled in the game aptly. I simply increased the pools of the starting big guns of both sides. Or the guns allocated to SUs already. In the end of the day these guns are the ones that one may want to batter the heavy level of fortifications here or there.
While I can rethink of that - I believe this is elegant enough for the needed bang these tools had.
Leningrad / North Front
Leningrad has to be Russian controlled, in order for the Russian Northern Offensive events to start.
Finland TB Air Attrition lowered.
Commentary: If the Axis has the main logistic path toward Helsinki, the Russian penetration in Finland can be limited and nightmarish. This means that Leningrad is a more relevant sector, as otherwise the Soviets can easily fall back an amount once Leningrad is lost, and simply secede to the Axis an amount of 0 or 1 Manpower point villages! -- Once more relevant aspects of the Mod are done, I may work on the Northern Front / Finland TB interactions: potentially the 'attrition rates' being fluctuating depending the amount of forces the Russians deploy. Right now I know the Finnish air production simply does not cope with the present numbers, and it is squandered by early to mid '43. I've not touched production nor I plan to, for the time being.
Weather:
Heavy Mud combat penalties accrued.
Here I list an amount of changes conceived as 'stand alone' type of business, and not as integrated measure of a larger mechanic.
Leaders:
Leaders end date now is August '45.
Possible Leader Stat tweaks over time.
Commentary: In general I loathe double dips. The game has already mechanics in place which can envision a leader demise. Be it from HQ being relocated forcefully by the enemy, the random chance of air crash on a transfer, a partisan attack or so (that is totally RNG each turn as detailed in the manual somewhere), or because it is dismissed and executed ... that's already all there. There is no need to write Von Bock off after a certain date, because in the real life got a heart attack at that certain date. Because maybe it won't be Von Bock in your WITE2 match but will be Von Leeb to get one! Or both. Or neither. The mechanic is already there.
Railway Artillery ???
Commentary: I thought on this an amount, both sides have it. I litterally have gone cheap here since it would not be modelled in the game aptly. I simply increased the pools of the starting big guns of both sides. Or the guns allocated to SUs already. In the end of the day these guns are the ones that one may want to batter the heavy level of fortifications here or there.
While I can rethink of that - I believe this is elegant enough for the needed bang these tools had.
Leningrad / North Front
Leningrad has to be Russian controlled, in order for the Russian Northern Offensive events to start.
Finland TB Air Attrition lowered.
Commentary: If the Axis has the main logistic path toward Helsinki, the Russian penetration in Finland can be limited and nightmarish. This means that Leningrad is a more relevant sector, as otherwise the Soviets can easily fall back an amount once Leningrad is lost, and simply secede to the Axis an amount of 0 or 1 Manpower point villages! -- Once more relevant aspects of the Mod are done, I may work on the Northern Front / Finland TB interactions: potentially the 'attrition rates' being fluctuating depending the amount of forces the Russians deploy. Right now I know the Finnish air production simply does not cope with the present numbers, and it is squandered by early to mid '43. I've not touched production nor I plan to, for the time being.
Weather:
Heavy Mud combat penalties accrued.
Last edited by AlbertN on Sat Dec 30, 2023 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
The Holy Trinity Changes:
I feel the Soviets in general as a massive uber-dog in WITE, that tend to faceroll the Germans so long a player has enough competence. That seems to go for the majority of the matches I've seen / read AARs among the group I am in.
They do receive changes and some are positive, but the bulk of the changes will be favoring the Axis side.
Soviet Manpower:
Soviet Manpower gains raised by 25%. Respective year multipliers: 41, 51, 25, 12, 12, from 33, 41, 20, 9, 9.
Soviet Events give 400.000 extra Manpower via Events diluted in August '41.
Commentary: Recently we saw even the option to shrink losses by rout, but I believe losses are okay, simply Russians need more manpower. (Albeit it has to be normalized with Axis manpower efficienty - but to that, later). The first intent is to have a game that can go in the '42, without the Axis tossing it during the 1st Winter; nor Soviets being somehow overran in the '42 if the Axis player is some uber-pro. Manpower changes are swift and easy to do, if this reveals too much.
Also I've got suggestions to tie the extra manpower events to keeping southern cities - as a common strategy is to rush away from the South and vacate it.
With the possibility to tailor their units creation to the gear they've in stock, and extra manpower the Russians are well off - so I feel.
Admin Points:
Soviet Gain is 15 AP per turn.
Events that give AP are more generous.
Axis Gain is 15 AP per turn.
German gets one 80 AP event in autumn '41, to help them setting Fortified Regions. - Also the 2 Fortified Regions starting in Romania have been changed to 2 infantry battallions frozen on the spot, so that Germany has not already 2 Fortified Zones slots taken of their precious 20.
Commentary: Russians disband for free already, they can rapidly change leaders where matters and sort their assault fronts. This will slow them down some in this process. While the 'net loss' in 1941 will be 40 APs for the Russians, a good factor is that they'll be short of 5 AP per turn and then suddenly gain 100 more when the 'Cavalry Corps' event hits. It will make their early choices more pressing and hard.
Admittedly if I could I'd mod other details pertinent to AP too, like how much will it cost to make 1 Front Assault, and how many Soviets can have at a given point.
Axis is back to the old original 15 AP, because of the Disband business below.
Divisions and Brigades:
Russian Rifle / Airborne / Naval Brigades are now 'Map Only' (Combat Units, not Multi Role units)
Russian Cavalry Divisions, Guard and Regular, are now Brigades.
Commentary: SU in general have the optimal feature - for how micromanagement intensive - that can 'teleport' in a unit, and go back to Stavka (or OKH). Plus Russians already have extra stacking due to fitting 3 corps in a same hex. Last is needed is them to attach a Brigade to a unit, or 3! - Cavalries simply were too powerful to do shennigans behind the enemy lines, flipping hexes and causing trouble while being dispsable and unready. -- Similar reasoning can be applied later on to say Tank Brigades (which could be made Support Only instead) but that is not here yet, since then Russians would factually require -Corps- of tanks or mechs to conduct their encirclements. Then again it can mirror their lack of flexibility, keeping 'regimenting' as an Axis feature. (For how presently not viable after the first turns unless one wants to give wins to Russian units).
Axis has similar units, but they're few and counted, I like that as help for making pockets, and applying the schwerpunkt concept.
Disband:
No more imposed disbands for you.
Corps / Mech HQ ought to still disband (and if they don't I've to amend that)
Afrika HQs ought to still disband, as a specific Artillery Brigade that is meant to be replacements for Africa TB.
Commentary: For the Soviet side, I do not know how it will work with 'air reforms', it will have to be seen. But on the ground at least there should not be the worry anymore that 'Let's check that this division is not disbanding before I start giving it a win!', which is odd micromanagement. For the Axis ... well ... a lot of Disbands are 'recycling' a unit due to its own historical needs. Axis has already far too few units that they do not need less.
But mostly my mind refutes the logic that 'Division Blue' disbanded that day (because it was mauled sorely, in history at that given date) and thus it has to happen as well in your match of WITE2. It makes no sense to me. The game starts with a historical photography of the Barbarossa opening... then it evolves. IF you as player feel that you want to disband Division Blue when it is mauled it's your decision. But you can also simply refit it.
Also the game does not really support 'disband and integrate' like all these small Flak Companies... the moment they disband their manpower is reverted to neuter, no Xp, folks waiting. And then you need even to bring the freight back on map to replenish the units that 'updated' their ToE, and it will bring ground elements with low experience ... there is a merge function (that I admit I do not know if it works for say, AA into Panzer unit) but ideally that is the right way, if the player wants.
This helps the player making decisions ultimately.
Similarly - without makin a voice specifically for it, ToE downgrades that happened because 'historically at that given point this was real and happened', may have been erased. Such as the 5th German Infantry Division going into being a Light Infantry Division. It's not going to happen. While the Volksturm Grenadier renames on depletion are still there (and ideally any German Division should do that, IF they get depleted, late war).
OOB Changes & Extra Units?
Axis also has some new units - in general activated units that were inactive already present in the OOB, some flavour units.
A variety of units have seen a review of their 'Special Flag', some for chrome, some for belief that they were Elite. -- Lehr stuff tend to be Elite and so Sturm (unless it comes late war), an amount of SS units now are SS Elite, instead of SS non Elite. More FJ and MNT units are Elite too.
Most of the OT / RAD units that were inactive are now active, but are Frozen into the OKH. (So a player cannot micromanage them)
CV Changes:
An amount of AFV, Mech Inf and other Ground Element types have seen their CV reviewed. - That keeps in mind that open top veichles see their CV halved (such as the Mech Inf).
Soviet Rifle Squads are now worthy 2 CV only (Used the Partisan Squad combat element type); later on they may ask for more Support too.
Axis Rifle / FJ / Mot / etc Squads are now worthy 4 CV.
Commentary: This is a first step for the 'Axis Firepower' business, for how the AFV CV change will help the Soviets tenfold later on. Right now it's just CV, and not real firepower but there are factors to keep in mind - which will be listed in a dedicated reply. It ought to make Panzer Divisions also better at the start - as they are relatively weak. The Rifle Squad change in CV was originally made via Support, and splitting Axis Support from Soviet Support; but it emerged that the game is hard coded to have only 1 Support defined ground element type. While for Rifle Squads, there are Partisans and at least also Naval Rifle are pretty much equivalent of the normal Rifle Squad. Axis troops right now have excess of Support Squads, an amount of which would be factual firepower, definitely so in defence, but instead they're the same as Soviets ... plainly wrong there. This leads to a gradual approach to ... Thanks to Zebtucker for the idea of using another type of Ground Element type pre-existing, after the Support Squad business did not worked.
ToE Changes:
Gradual alteration of OOBs to correct them to better match historical OOBs.
For instance Alpini Divisions were missing their Recon Squads, and their Rifle Squad are 13 men.
Commentary: This is a gradual approach and really a minor thing but when I saw the Alpini with 600 Support ... out of 14000 men, I knew something was wrong. German divisions too are not a joke with 11000 support out of 17000 men. There are missing stuff, or maybe Italian squads are 10 men when they were 13 men and so forth. I admit for this business I rely a lot on Wiedrock - who is a passionate researcher for these minutiae business. I also see these as 'low impact' changes too though.
Trucks:
Starting trucks incremented by 15% in units of both sides.
Axis truck production slightly augmented.
Commentary: I feel a bad joke Axis repair of 5% of trucks and how little trucks Russians require and how many they repair. Bad numbers from my perspective. But mostly I saw that since Turn2 the Axis units were really slow, with infantries moving already 11-12 MP instead of 13-15. This should help alleviating what I perceive as a problem.
Theather Boxes:
TB requirements are adjusted for changes to extent. But the desire is to allow Axis to field more units. Axis requirements slightly higher, Russian initial ones slightly lower. Unchanged Russian future ones, as they have manpower.
Soviet Garrison TB is closed entirely - to make up for the extra units on map 3 extra Railyards were added to Vienna and Prague.
Munich added as NSS to prevent / delay later was supply collapse.
Commentary: Thanks to Beethoven in particular for the input of the SG TB closed. It will enable Axis to have more troops on map, mostly rearline units (ontop of some more security units I added) that will help safekeeping Victory Cities, maintaining trenches, lessen cavalry or tank brigades meme situation and the like. The TB spawns freights into it each turn, thus the moment there are more troops on the map, more freight must go out from the NSS. I believe 3 Railyards + Munich as NSS are the sweet spot to accomodate that and some extra stuff on the Eastfront.
Moscow not a NSS
Russians get 4/5 new NSS further east. This is a main attempt to hinder the supreme supply the Russians benefits of.
Commentary: It has been proved by many players that Soviets can entirely disregard logistics; slap Stavka on Supply Priority 4 and pretty much just place new depots as needed. Be your Red Army at the gates of Moscow, or the gates of Berlin, you'll be fine. You won't have trucks shortages or anything, swimming in abundance of freight, ammo, supplies and that translates in grand CV, full mobility of your troops and so forth.
Commentary:
I feel the Soviets in general as a massive uber-dog in WITE, that tend to faceroll the Germans so long a player has enough competence. That seems to go for the majority of the matches I've seen / read AARs among the group I am in.
They do receive changes and some are positive, but the bulk of the changes will be favoring the Axis side.
Soviet Manpower:
Soviet Manpower gains raised by 25%. Respective year multipliers: 41, 51, 25, 12, 12, from 33, 41, 20, 9, 9.
Soviet Events give 400.000 extra Manpower via Events diluted in August '41.
Commentary: Recently we saw even the option to shrink losses by rout, but I believe losses are okay, simply Russians need more manpower. (Albeit it has to be normalized with Axis manpower efficienty - but to that, later). The first intent is to have a game that can go in the '42, without the Axis tossing it during the 1st Winter; nor Soviets being somehow overran in the '42 if the Axis player is some uber-pro. Manpower changes are swift and easy to do, if this reveals too much.
Also I've got suggestions to tie the extra manpower events to keeping southern cities - as a common strategy is to rush away from the South and vacate it.
With the possibility to tailor their units creation to the gear they've in stock, and extra manpower the Russians are well off - so I feel.
Admin Points:
Soviet Gain is 15 AP per turn.
Events that give AP are more generous.
Axis Gain is 15 AP per turn.
German gets one 80 AP event in autumn '41, to help them setting Fortified Regions. - Also the 2 Fortified Regions starting in Romania have been changed to 2 infantry battallions frozen on the spot, so that Germany has not already 2 Fortified Zones slots taken of their precious 20.
Commentary: Russians disband for free already, they can rapidly change leaders where matters and sort their assault fronts. This will slow them down some in this process. While the 'net loss' in 1941 will be 40 APs for the Russians, a good factor is that they'll be short of 5 AP per turn and then suddenly gain 100 more when the 'Cavalry Corps' event hits. It will make their early choices more pressing and hard.
Admittedly if I could I'd mod other details pertinent to AP too, like how much will it cost to make 1 Front Assault, and how many Soviets can have at a given point.
Axis is back to the old original 15 AP, because of the Disband business below.
Divisions and Brigades:
Russian Rifle / Airborne / Naval Brigades are now 'Map Only' (Combat Units, not Multi Role units)
Russian Cavalry Divisions, Guard and Regular, are now Brigades.
Commentary: SU in general have the optimal feature - for how micromanagement intensive - that can 'teleport' in a unit, and go back to Stavka (or OKH). Plus Russians already have extra stacking due to fitting 3 corps in a same hex. Last is needed is them to attach a Brigade to a unit, or 3! - Cavalries simply were too powerful to do shennigans behind the enemy lines, flipping hexes and causing trouble while being dispsable and unready. -- Similar reasoning can be applied later on to say Tank Brigades (which could be made Support Only instead) but that is not here yet, since then Russians would factually require -Corps- of tanks or mechs to conduct their encirclements. Then again it can mirror their lack of flexibility, keeping 'regimenting' as an Axis feature. (For how presently not viable after the first turns unless one wants to give wins to Russian units).
Axis has similar units, but they're few and counted, I like that as help for making pockets, and applying the schwerpunkt concept.
Disband:
No more imposed disbands for you.
Corps / Mech HQ ought to still disband (and if they don't I've to amend that)
Afrika HQs ought to still disband, as a specific Artillery Brigade that is meant to be replacements for Africa TB.
Commentary: For the Soviet side, I do not know how it will work with 'air reforms', it will have to be seen. But on the ground at least there should not be the worry anymore that 'Let's check that this division is not disbanding before I start giving it a win!', which is odd micromanagement. For the Axis ... well ... a lot of Disbands are 'recycling' a unit due to its own historical needs. Axis has already far too few units that they do not need less.
But mostly my mind refutes the logic that 'Division Blue' disbanded that day (because it was mauled sorely, in history at that given date) and thus it has to happen as well in your match of WITE2. It makes no sense to me. The game starts with a historical photography of the Barbarossa opening... then it evolves. IF you as player feel that you want to disband Division Blue when it is mauled it's your decision. But you can also simply refit it.
Also the game does not really support 'disband and integrate' like all these small Flak Companies... the moment they disband their manpower is reverted to neuter, no Xp, folks waiting. And then you need even to bring the freight back on map to replenish the units that 'updated' their ToE, and it will bring ground elements with low experience ... there is a merge function (that I admit I do not know if it works for say, AA into Panzer unit) but ideally that is the right way, if the player wants.
This helps the player making decisions ultimately.
Similarly - without makin a voice specifically for it, ToE downgrades that happened because 'historically at that given point this was real and happened', may have been erased. Such as the 5th German Infantry Division going into being a Light Infantry Division. It's not going to happen. While the Volksturm Grenadier renames on depletion are still there (and ideally any German Division should do that, IF they get depleted, late war).
OOB Changes & Extra Units?
Axis also has some new units - in general activated units that were inactive already present in the OOB, some flavour units.
A variety of units have seen a review of their 'Special Flag', some for chrome, some for belief that they were Elite. -- Lehr stuff tend to be Elite and so Sturm (unless it comes late war), an amount of SS units now are SS Elite, instead of SS non Elite. More FJ and MNT units are Elite too.
Most of the OT / RAD units that were inactive are now active, but are Frozen into the OKH. (So a player cannot micromanage them)
CV Changes:
An amount of AFV, Mech Inf and other Ground Element types have seen their CV reviewed. - That keeps in mind that open top veichles see their CV halved (such as the Mech Inf).
Soviet Rifle Squads are now worthy 2 CV only (Used the Partisan Squad combat element type); later on they may ask for more Support too.
Axis Rifle / FJ / Mot / etc Squads are now worthy 4 CV.
Commentary: This is a first step for the 'Axis Firepower' business, for how the AFV CV change will help the Soviets tenfold later on. Right now it's just CV, and not real firepower but there are factors to keep in mind - which will be listed in a dedicated reply. It ought to make Panzer Divisions also better at the start - as they are relatively weak. The Rifle Squad change in CV was originally made via Support, and splitting Axis Support from Soviet Support; but it emerged that the game is hard coded to have only 1 Support defined ground element type. While for Rifle Squads, there are Partisans and at least also Naval Rifle are pretty much equivalent of the normal Rifle Squad. Axis troops right now have excess of Support Squads, an amount of which would be factual firepower, definitely so in defence, but instead they're the same as Soviets ... plainly wrong there. This leads to a gradual approach to ... Thanks to Zebtucker for the idea of using another type of Ground Element type pre-existing, after the Support Squad business did not worked.
ToE Changes:
Gradual alteration of OOBs to correct them to better match historical OOBs.
For instance Alpini Divisions were missing their Recon Squads, and their Rifle Squad are 13 men.
Commentary: This is a gradual approach and really a minor thing but when I saw the Alpini with 600 Support ... out of 14000 men, I knew something was wrong. German divisions too are not a joke with 11000 support out of 17000 men. There are missing stuff, or maybe Italian squads are 10 men when they were 13 men and so forth. I admit for this business I rely a lot on Wiedrock - who is a passionate researcher for these minutiae business. I also see these as 'low impact' changes too though.
Trucks:
Starting trucks incremented by 15% in units of both sides.
Axis truck production slightly augmented.
Commentary: I feel a bad joke Axis repair of 5% of trucks and how little trucks Russians require and how many they repair. Bad numbers from my perspective. But mostly I saw that since Turn2 the Axis units were really slow, with infantries moving already 11-12 MP instead of 13-15. This should help alleviating what I perceive as a problem.
Theather Boxes:
TB requirements are adjusted for changes to extent. But the desire is to allow Axis to field more units. Axis requirements slightly higher, Russian initial ones slightly lower. Unchanged Russian future ones, as they have manpower.
Soviet Garrison TB is closed entirely - to make up for the extra units on map 3 extra Railyards were added to Vienna and Prague.
Munich added as NSS to prevent / delay later was supply collapse.
Commentary: Thanks to Beethoven in particular for the input of the SG TB closed. It will enable Axis to have more troops on map, mostly rearline units (ontop of some more security units I added) that will help safekeeping Victory Cities, maintaining trenches, lessen cavalry or tank brigades meme situation and the like. The TB spawns freights into it each turn, thus the moment there are more troops on the map, more freight must go out from the NSS. I believe 3 Railyards + Munich as NSS are the sweet spot to accomodate that and some extra stuff on the Eastfront.
Moscow not a NSS
Russians get 4/5 new NSS further east. This is a main attempt to hinder the supreme supply the Russians benefits of.
Commentary: It has been proved by many players that Soviets can entirely disregard logistics; slap Stavka on Supply Priority 4 and pretty much just place new depots as needed. Be your Red Army at the gates of Moscow, or the gates of Berlin, you'll be fine. You won't have trucks shortages or anything, swimming in abundance of freight, ammo, supplies and that translates in grand CV, full mobility of your troops and so forth.
Commentary:
Last edited by AlbertN on Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
I might reinstall the game to try this out in early 2024.
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
25hours ...24hours ...23hours ....
“Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.”
My Mods:
GE Gui & Sym Mod Depot (continued)
Rasputitsa for your eyes. Soviet colours redone.
My Tools:
Turn-Dates-Converter
Command Efficiency with Command Range Modifier
Planning map 1.02.45_Beta
My Mods:
GE Gui & Sym Mod Depot (continued)
Rasputitsa for your eyes. Soviet colours redone.
My Tools:
Turn-Dates-Converter
Command Efficiency with Command Range Modifier
Planning map 1.02.45_Beta
-
Zebtucker12
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:32 pm
- Location: Östra Aros
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Looks good sign me up as a betatester also!
Stamb and Xhoel Fanboy. Red army choir enthusiadt
Multiplayer mod/Unoffical Wite2 discord https://discord.gg/S76cWmumGp
Multiplayer mod/Unoffical Wite2 discord https://discord.gg/S76cWmumGp
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Wait, are you saying that a higher reliability number means a higher chance of crashing? This makes no sense at all! If something is more reliable, it should not stop malfunctioning in the absence of combat.AlbertN wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 5:44 pm All Reliability values have been halved for airplanes.
Planes should fly more this way - unless enemy action occurs.
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Its in the manual(section 18.3.10.)Teo41_ITA wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 6:40 amWait, are you saying that a higher reliability number means a higher chance of crashing? This makes no sense at all! If something is more reliable, it should not stop malfunctioning in the absence of combat.AlbertN wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 5:44 pm All Reliability values have been halved for airplanes.
Planes should fly more this way - unless enemy action occurs.
And it makes very much sense. Read it!
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Ok found it, right in the only two chapters I never bothered reading!821Bobo wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 7:14 am Its in the manual(section 18.3.10.)
And it makes very much sense. Read it!
Still, this is an interesting change. I will add it in the next rework of the Historical OOB 3.2!
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
It makes much sense because for Ground vehicles it's vice versa?821Bobo wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 7:14 amIts in the manual(section 18.3.10.)Teo41_ITA wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 6:40 amWait, are you saying that a higher reliability number means a higher chance of crashing? This makes no sense at all! If something is more reliable, it should not stop malfunctioning in the absence of combat.AlbertN wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2023 5:44 pm All Reliability values have been halved for airplanes.
Planes should fly more this way - unless enemy action occurs.
And it makes very much sense. Read it!
“Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.”
My Mods:
GE Gui & Sym Mod Depot (continued)
Rasputitsa for your eyes. Soviet colours redone.
My Tools:
Turn-Dates-Converter
Command Efficiency with Command Range Modifier
Planning map 1.02.45_Beta
My Mods:
GE Gui & Sym Mod Depot (continued)
Rasputitsa for your eyes. Soviet colours redone.
My Tools:
Turn-Dates-Converter
Command Efficiency with Command Range Modifier
Planning map 1.02.45_Beta
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Made an update already - adjourned above the changes made.
The big thing is that Moscow is not a NSS.
Also fixed an event I missed, that sets a requirement in the Soviet Garrison TB.
A change also in the Air section about the Luftwaffe.
The big thing is that Moscow is not a NSS.
Also fixed an event I missed, that sets a requirement in the Soviet Garrison TB.
A change also in the Air section about the Luftwaffe.
-
Beethoven1
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:23 pm
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Some comments on your changes:
1) I think the problem the Soviets have in defending early in the game, and why it is a good strategy for Soviets to abandon the south is not so much manpower, but rather is counters. Even if Soviets have more manpower, that does not make defending the south viable unless they have more counters (at least assuming a strong German opening in the south on turn 1). And in addition, many of the counters they do start with start off with low morale/experience (and 0 CPP). So if you fight with those early on, they will often take 100% losses in their first battle in early turns, whereas if you wait for their morale/experience/cpp to go up before letting them into combat (and get into some sort of fort maybe), you will often lose only 1000 men or so on a first battle.
Similarly, while extra manpower is helpful to defend the north/center from a quick Axis advance, what is more so needed are counters (because there is enough manpower to defend the north/center regardless particularly if you just focus on that).
So primarily for this reason I think it may still be the optimal strategy for Soviets to abandon the south.
2) I think that it is a bad idea to have Soviet losses remain high and give but give them more manpower because that does not give the Axis player an incentive to try to make pockets. If losses are as high as wihout the retreat game option, then the Axis player is incentivized to grind instead of pocket.
It is true that Soviets will be more able to withstand grinding with more manpower (other things equal), so that might seem at first glance like a reason for the Axis player not to grind, but it actually is not. The reason it is not is that the Soviet player Soviet player will ALSO be more able to withstand pockets, so the Axis player does not really benefit any more from pocketing than before. And if the Soviet player has plenty of manpower but is limited by counters, the Soviet player will have an incentive to defend in such a way as to preserve their counters. This means the Soviet player is incentivized to try to avoid pockets, which will make it harder for the Axis player to form pockets if they try. The Axis player will know this, and for that reason is not incentivized to try to do pockets and will just grind insteaad.
However, other things are not entirely equal. Since Axis has more units on the map (as well as more supply), as well as better leader rolls due to not being arbitrarily restricted by HQs etc. So other things equal Soviet losses from grinding will be higher for those reasons already (more Axis units to do attacks each turn etc). That may or may not be enough to offset the effects of the extra Soviet manpower by itself, but it will at least partially offset it.
3) Since the south lacks defensible terrain, the main way it can be possible for Soviets to defend it is by buiding up some forts (maybe around Crimea or Stalino or Kharkiv or something) so that there will be level 2 or 3 forts by the time the Germans arrive there. However, since you lowered the Soviet AP to 15, it is harder for Soviets to be able to build those forts in time for them to be ready before the Germans arrive. For that reason, it is more difficult to defend further back in the south for Soviets (at their choice of Crimea/Kharkiv/Stalino) than before, which is all the more reason to abandon the south.
You say the lower AP "will make their early choices more pressing and hard." But the consequence of that is to incentivize Soviets to retreat rather than to defend, so as to DELAY the choices and thereby avoid having to make them (i.e. rather than fight forward with fewer good leaders due to less AP to change them quickly, instead retreat and then fight with good leaders). This could at least partly be offset if you made Soviets start with more depots (which also the Soviet player needs to build for it to be viable to defend forward). Another thing that could be done is to have some good leaders be pre-assigned to some armies that arrive a bit later and/or start on the map locked back in Moscow or something. So that would at least be partly fixable that way.
4) While I think Moscow not being a NSS is perhaps a sensible change (although I think lowering the cap and increasing railyards to make supply quantity fixed and change supply priority to a variable that allocates a fixed supply would be better, perhaps in combination with changing the NSSes), one unintended effect is it will reduce Soviet freight to the forward depots in particular in the initial turns of 1941. That is an additional reason for Soviets not to defend forward and to just retreat/abandon at least some areas in the early turns. Given that you do not lower the cap of how much freight NSSes can send out, it will still be optimal for Soviets to have their entire army on priority 4, whereas that might not be the case if the cap were lowered and railyards increased.
1) I think the problem the Soviets have in defending early in the game, and why it is a good strategy for Soviets to abandon the south is not so much manpower, but rather is counters. Even if Soviets have more manpower, that does not make defending the south viable unless they have more counters (at least assuming a strong German opening in the south on turn 1). And in addition, many of the counters they do start with start off with low morale/experience (and 0 CPP). So if you fight with those early on, they will often take 100% losses in their first battle in early turns, whereas if you wait for their morale/experience/cpp to go up before letting them into combat (and get into some sort of fort maybe), you will often lose only 1000 men or so on a first battle.
Similarly, while extra manpower is helpful to defend the north/center from a quick Axis advance, what is more so needed are counters (because there is enough manpower to defend the north/center regardless particularly if you just focus on that).
So primarily for this reason I think it may still be the optimal strategy for Soviets to abandon the south.
2) I think that it is a bad idea to have Soviet losses remain high and give but give them more manpower because that does not give the Axis player an incentive to try to make pockets. If losses are as high as wihout the retreat game option, then the Axis player is incentivized to grind instead of pocket.
It is true that Soviets will be more able to withstand grinding with more manpower (other things equal), so that might seem at first glance like a reason for the Axis player not to grind, but it actually is not. The reason it is not is that the Soviet player Soviet player will ALSO be more able to withstand pockets, so the Axis player does not really benefit any more from pocketing than before. And if the Soviet player has plenty of manpower but is limited by counters, the Soviet player will have an incentive to defend in such a way as to preserve their counters. This means the Soviet player is incentivized to try to avoid pockets, which will make it harder for the Axis player to form pockets if they try. The Axis player will know this, and for that reason is not incentivized to try to do pockets and will just grind insteaad.
However, other things are not entirely equal. Since Axis has more units on the map (as well as more supply), as well as better leader rolls due to not being arbitrarily restricted by HQs etc. So other things equal Soviet losses from grinding will be higher for those reasons already (more Axis units to do attacks each turn etc). That may or may not be enough to offset the effects of the extra Soviet manpower by itself, but it will at least partially offset it.
3) Since the south lacks defensible terrain, the main way it can be possible for Soviets to defend it is by buiding up some forts (maybe around Crimea or Stalino or Kharkiv or something) so that there will be level 2 or 3 forts by the time the Germans arrive there. However, since you lowered the Soviet AP to 15, it is harder for Soviets to be able to build those forts in time for them to be ready before the Germans arrive. For that reason, it is more difficult to defend further back in the south for Soviets (at their choice of Crimea/Kharkiv/Stalino) than before, which is all the more reason to abandon the south.
You say the lower AP "will make their early choices more pressing and hard." But the consequence of that is to incentivize Soviets to retreat rather than to defend, so as to DELAY the choices and thereby avoid having to make them (i.e. rather than fight forward with fewer good leaders due to less AP to change them quickly, instead retreat and then fight with good leaders). This could at least partly be offset if you made Soviets start with more depots (which also the Soviet player needs to build for it to be viable to defend forward). Another thing that could be done is to have some good leaders be pre-assigned to some armies that arrive a bit later and/or start on the map locked back in Moscow or something. So that would at least be partly fixable that way.
4) While I think Moscow not being a NSS is perhaps a sensible change (although I think lowering the cap and increasing railyards to make supply quantity fixed and change supply priority to a variable that allocates a fixed supply would be better, perhaps in combination with changing the NSSes), one unintended effect is it will reduce Soviet freight to the forward depots in particular in the initial turns of 1941. That is an additional reason for Soviets not to defend forward and to just retreat/abandon at least some areas in the early turns. Given that you do not lower the cap of how much freight NSSes can send out, it will still be optimal for Soviets to have their entire army on priority 4, whereas that might not be the case if the cap were lowered and railyards increased.
-
Beethoven1
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:23 pm
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
HOWEVER...
There is one good thing about there being high losses. That does encourage the Soviet player not to be concerned about being pocketed, because if they try to avoid pockets they will end up taking similar losses regardless. So it means the Soviet player may as well leave units in cities or other rough terrain to be encircled (or attacked).
However, these are not really proper historic type pockets, they are more so intentional Soviet human sacrifice, and how many of them you get depends really just on how many the Soviets decide to sacrifice, as opposed to depending at all on skill of the Axis player encircling them.
There is one good thing about there being high losses. That does encourage the Soviet player not to be concerned about being pocketed, because if they try to avoid pockets they will end up taking similar losses regardless. So it means the Soviet player may as well leave units in cities or other rough terrain to be encircled (or attacked).
However, these are not really proper historic type pockets, they are more so intentional Soviet human sacrifice, and how many of them you get depends really just on how many the Soviets decide to sacrifice, as opposed to depending at all on skill of the Axis player encircling them.
Re: PvP Orientation Mod
Design wise I simply forfeitted the weighting in for the Soviets to defend the south.Beethoven1 wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2023 6:23 pm Some comments on your changes:
1) I think the problem the Soviets have in defending early in the game, and why it is a good strategy for Soviets to abandon the south is not so much manpower, but rather is counters. Even if Soviets have more manpower, that does not make defending the south viable unless they have more counters (at least assuming a strong German opening in the south on turn 1). And in addition, many of the counters they do start with start off with low morale/experience (and 0 CPP). So if you fight with those early on, they will often take 100% losses in their first battle in early turns, whereas if you wait for their morale/experience/cpp to go up before letting them into combat (and get into some sort of fort maybe), you will often lose only 1000 men or so on a first battle.
Similarly, while extra manpower is helpful to defend the north/center from a quick Axis advance, what is more so needed are counters (because there is enough manpower to defend the north/center regardless particularly if you just focus on that).
So primarily for this reason I think it may still be the optimal strategy for Soviets to abandon the south.
2) I think that it is a bad idea to have Soviet losses remain high and give but give them more manpower because that does not give the Axis player an incentive to try to make pockets. If losses are as high as wihout the retreat game option, then the Axis player is incentivized to grind instead of pocket.
It is true that Soviets will be more able to withstand grinding with more manpower (other things equal), so that might seem at first glance like a reason for the Axis player not to grind, but it actually is not. The reason it is not is that the Soviet player Soviet player will ALSO be more able to withstand pockets, so the Axis player does not really benefit any more from pocketing than before. And if the Soviet player has plenty of manpower but is limited by counters, the Soviet player will have an incentive to defend in such a way as to preserve their counters. This means the Soviet player is incentivized to try to avoid pockets, which will make it harder for the Axis player to form pockets if they try. The Axis player will know this, and for that reason is not incentivized to try to do pockets and will just grind insteaad.
However, other things are not entirely equal. Since Axis has more units on the map (as well as more supply), as well as better leader rolls due to not being arbitrarily restricted by HQs etc. So other things equal Soviet losses from grinding will be higher for those reasons already (more Axis units to do attacks each turn etc). That may or may not be enough to offset the effects of the extra Soviet manpower by itself, but it will at least partially offset it.
3) Since the south lacks defensible terrain, the main way it can be possible for Soviets to defend it is by buiding up some forts (maybe around Crimea or Stalino or Kharkiv or something) so that there will be level 2 or 3 forts by the time the Germans arrive there. However, since you lowered the Soviet AP to 15, it is harder for Soviets to be able to build those forts in time for them to be ready before the Germans arrive. For that reason, it is more difficult to defend further back in the south for Soviets (at their choice of Crimea/Kharkiv/Stalino) than before, which is all the more reason to abandon the south.
You say the lower AP "will make their early choices more pressing and hard." But the consequence of that is to incentivize Soviets to retreat rather than to defend, so as to DELAY the choices and thereby avoid having to make them (i.e. rather than fight forward with fewer good leaders due to less AP to change them quickly, instead retreat and then fight with good leaders). This could at least partly be offset if you made Soviets start with more depots (which also the Soviet player needs to build for it to be viable to defend forward). Another thing that could be done is to have some good leaders be pre-assigned to some armies that arrive a bit later and/or start on the map locked back in Moscow or something. So that would at least be partly fixable that way.
4) While I think Moscow not being a NSS is perhaps a sensible change (although I think lowering the cap and increasing railyards to make supply quantity fixed and change supply priority to a variable that allocates a fixed supply would be better, perhaps in combination with changing the NSSes), one unintended effect is it will reduce Soviet freight to the forward depots in particular in the initial turns of 1941. That is an additional reason for Soviets not to defend forward and to just retreat/abandon at least some areas in the early turns. Given that you do not lower the cap of how much freight NSSes can send out, it will still be optimal for Soviets to have their entire army on priority 4, whereas that might not be the case if the cap were lowered and railyards increased.
That requires structural changes to the game that the Modding cannot provide.
What -could- be done for instance is to make rivers more worthy to defend, or that they cost more MP to move around across ZoC. Or that attacking across a river costs more. But then that applies on all the map.
Thus IF I was a Soviet player, since I've absolutely no penalty in terms of losing factories (except manpower points but then I'd lose 'manpower' in units), I'd simply still abandon the South, and use whichever extra has been gifted to me in a given mod, to bolster my defences and power elsewhere.
Say the Soviet has better units so supposedly they can fight in the South? These troops will simply be shifted to Moscow / Leningrad sector.
Germans can move slower in the South? Oh sure, I'll still move my troops in other sectors.
To me the extra manpower recipe is the better right now because IF the Russians defend vaguely upfront to delay the Germans, as they should (and ideally strain their logistics better because if the Germans can march undisturbed up to Crimea for example, their 11th Army will plow through the lvl 3 forts like a hot knife in butter, because they get there fresh, rested and with 110% ammo that never got fired from Romania Turn 2).
The other alternative I see for the Soviets to defend the South is to give them a big enough 'candy' (or carrot) that justifies the stick beating they're to get.
You know already I do not see VP as a viable business, because with no army one does not defend / gain VPs. (Albeit I'd disable Soviet bonus VP in '41 as some cases can get silly where they can sneak a unit back in a City like Riga or Minsk or Odessa and gain a +6!)
I also see the 'Pocketing' in WITE2 somehow wonky. Besides the latest 'rout' loss affects only Soviets - I tuned the extra manpower for the 'grinding' factor. So that's intended and wanted.
Simply a one hex sneak can undo a pocket. That's potentially wrong.
Plus Soviets are far too nimble in '41. They can mass forces easily on need due to the power of Admin Movement.
But that's also structural. Admin Movement should not be viable if a unit moves X hexes of enemy forces that are not isolated.
Last but not least the 'Pocketing' often requires unit herding - and that's not something for everyone either, something more advanced, that players with less time or desire to go through that level of nuance may want to go through.
Pocketing surely helps - units surrendering (and manpower getting captured, for Hiwis for instance) tends to be ever favorable over the inflicting an amount of losses and 'disabling' personnel, that will return slowly and over time later on the map.
On the AP notion, if I could my way I'd have handled it differently, but I cannot mod costs to change leaders, or to set Assault Fronts. Thus I've to make do with what the game enables the modding of. I've added though 2 City Forts in Moscow (but that I did already simply it's one of the many tweaks I do not list).