what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Mynok

1350 tubes. That was the killer IMO. When some of you guys play more in the later years you will understand how utterly devastating arty is for the Soviets. You'll get battles where they have 5k tubes. And lots of Germans will die.

5k tubes. Amateurs. In my last 43 campaign I was routinely hitting with 10k tubes and 400 bombers in areas where I could concentrate a stack of arty divs. You don't have to worry too much about starting CVs when you hit with that number, because the German CVs and fort levels will spiral down to zero anyway.

Exactly.

[Mynok]

Exactly what should happen.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

It appears to me that playing with Report level set to 0 would solve most of the problems players have with this game. No overanalysing the combat reports and looking for "perks" that helped the enemy, just accepting the final battle results as they come... [:D]

Joel, I hope you're reading this, never let the players know they have some "perk" applied against them, I do agree that it's psychologically bad thing to see, even though the results are OK otherwise.

Look, the fact that the +1 odds modifier exists is evidence that their magical and hidden calculations are not good enough to suit their own design purposes, so in effect they created a cheat. Hidden or not, people will find ways to complain. The air war mechanics are hidden: how many people are happy with it?

On to the subject at hand:
At initial glance, I think this attack by the Soviets deserved a chance to succeed, and as someone else said, probably around a 30% probability. If we could run a monte carlo simulation, perhaps we could see what the distribution curve is of wins-to-losses, and casualties with standard deviations.

Thinking about the idea that this is 1350 tubes, though, Oleg, MIGHT be misleading: How many of these artillery tubes are actually direct fire, short range weapons like 45mm AT & 76mm AT and Infantry guns? How many of them were 122mm & 152mm indirect tubes? How many 50mm and 82mm mortars? That creates a more discerning method for looking at the actual tubes. Unless the 122mm and 152mm tubes were far, far higher in quantity, the likelihood of the smaller 45mm, 50mm, and 76mm guns being effectively deployed in an attack would be somewhat low, I believe.

I'm left to trust that in this particular attack, there are vast quantities, say 800 or more, of the large-caliber indirect weapons. Those would indeed force 150 1942 German tanks to think twice about staying in the open.

Now, many of you have faith that the algorithm for the combat engine works realistically. I do not share that faith. If it worked realistically, a simplistic "+1 to Soviets" would not be necessary.

But my antagonistic criticisms of WitE's failures aside, I do think these results are an example of the game being okay. I suspect that 1 fort-level would have radically changed the result, and I am almost certain that a butt-load of passed Soviet leader checks went into this, and that is a rare day for the Red Army in 1942.

[76mm]

Whew, I'd missed this debate till now...

When I launched this attack I figured I had a decent chance of success because of my arty and aircraft advantage (actually I expected a lot more aircraft to participate--like a couple of hundred bombers--not sure why they didn't). My general approach for attacks is if I can get sort of close to 1:1 on initial CVs and have at least 1000 tubes and air support, I'll go for it. I don't recall what sort of arty particiipated, but I don't buy any AT or light arty units, so I suspect is was mostly 122mm and up.

People have not commented on the one aspect of this battle: While I was pleased with the retreat in this battle, his losses were rather low, so all this really battle really represents is his mobile defense ceding an essentially meaningless hex of empty space, at the cost of fairly heavy casualties to me. To me this seems rather realistic, and if he wants the hex back next turn I don't see any real difficulties for Ketza. While I admit that this result could, and probably should, have been different if Ketza could have ordered a "hold at all costs" type order, we cannot do so in this game and really in this instance I don't see why he would want to.

In my AAR and in some correspondence with Ketza I've bitched about how final CVs are calculated, or rather how I have absolutely no inkling of how they are calculated. I've stopped complaining at this point, because now I realize that CV inflation/deflation generally seems to favor the attacker, at least if they have an advantage in arty/aircraft.

[Chunnetter]

I wouldn't mind seeing the 1-1 thing go away after 42.
Trust me...the Soviets don't need it after that.
Indeed I do not recall it ever being a factor in  the 43 campaign with Oleg I'm playing.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Look, the fact that the +1 odds modifier exists is evidence that their magical and hidden calculations are not good enough to suit their own design purposes, so in effect they created a cheat.

You call it a cheat, I call it giving sides some "flavor" to differentiate them from each other as they were different historically (not too different in fact, but somewhat different).

If that's a "cheat", then increased Sov losses from German fire is a cheat too. There are probably other "cheats", some hidden from the player, some (foolishly) described in the manual.

I really do think it would be for the better if they never described those things so the people would analyze ONLY the end result, not the process. I am not saying the end results are always perfect, but in this case presented by Ketza they surely look fine to me.

The air war mechanics are hidden: how many people are happy with it?

It's OK to complain is the end results are wrong. It's not OK to complain if the end results are fine (as in latest Ketza example), you just don't like the way game reached those results.

[Peltonx]

Its called an exploit poeple, its what things like this have been called for hmm 20 yrs. Its not cheating. Its simply exploiting an area of a game that is poorly designed. Its no fault of the players if the devs have porrly designed an area of a game.

heliodorus04 hits the nail right on the head. The devs have designed an area of the game that is poorly designed and have taken the lazy way out and tried fixing it with a +1 for the Russians.


Most times someone finds the exploit and then word gets out and soon 90% of the players are using the exploit and game becomes basicly unplayable until the exploit is addressed by the developers.

This has been going on for yrs. I am sure some of you guys have played- AC/DT,Shadowbane,WoW, DaoC, ect ect

As these exploits become more public, like they have become the last few weeks the game starts to become less and less active as this one is becoming the last few weeks. Players start spending more and more time complaining then playing. At some point the player base starts leaving the game an never return.

Any hard work 2/3 is doing on War in The West will be a waste of time if some of these major exploits are not addressed withen a few weeks.

If you done any beta testing and then seen the game go public their is one good general rule:

What works in closed beta never works when a game goes public.

Changes are always required.

Like any war the best plans are always thrown out the window when the battle starts.

The devs have done a great job so far fixing exploits and poorly designed areas of the game.

I fully beleive these areas that seem weak will be addressed as soon as possible.

Pelton

[Ketza]

Wow Pelton did you play on Asherons Call Darktide?

I played there 5 years characters were Aztek and the Imortal Captain Dasha.

http://pk.trophyhunteronline.com/player-details.php?name=Captain Dasha&server=Darktide

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Look, the fact that the +1 odds modifier exists is evidence that their magical and hidden calculations are not good enough to suit their own design purposes, so in effect they created a cheat.

You call it a cheat, I call it giving sides some "flavor" to differentiate them from each other as they were different historically (not too different in fact, but somewhat different).

If that's a "cheat", then increased Sov losses from German fire is a cheat too. There are probably other "cheats", some hidden from the player, some (foolishly) described in the manual.

Fair point.
The +1 odds shift only bothers me in the sense that it's an artifice when so many other things attempt to be realistic and deep. I simply wish it was gone after some time point in the game. At a certain point for the Soviet, good TOE types, elements in the pool, and experience/morale obviate the true need for it.

My standpoint on game vs. simulation is based on what Pelton said: In a human vs. human game, areas in the game that provide great incentive (Leningrad, which is not a bad example, and Soviet hasty withdrawls in 1941, also not a bad example) will be pursued every time. THe problem with WitE is there are only a couple incentives for Germany to do anything, making replayability very low, IMO.

Areas with great leverage, like the Air War situation we're seeing develop, and the +1 odds shift, will be leveraged to maximum advantage. The levers in the game favor the Soviet; aside from HQ Buildup, now sensibly nerfed, I can't think of any German levers. I'm not happy with how this +1 shift can be leveraged to push the German out of forts that he will desperately need in 1943-1945.

[Klydon]

Obviously I have been watching this thread. I have had mixed emotions on it and a growing indifference to the game and its issues.

One comment I saw by Ketza was those were heavy losses for the Russians. Maybe, but as a Russian I would take those results all day long. Look at your loss ratios compared to what the Germans lost, especially considering it was against panzer forces. You lost less than 2-1 on manpower and artillery and forced nearly a 1-1 loss on tanks. In this case, both sides lost about 6.7% of their manpower in the battle.

This is the same type of stuff I saw when I was messing around later in the war with the Russians. You line up an attack with about 120K attackers against a 12K division and while the Russians take far more casualties (say 5k vs 2.5k), the German unit took close to 20% casualties to the unit. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to happen in the long run.

Basicallly, one of the issues I see is there is too much emphasis on "winning" the battle because of the resulting retreat losses are typically nasty. I would like to see some sort of check to see if a unit can "retreat in good order" and take fewer losses. Essentially, there should be 4 levels of retreat with increasing losses as you go along: retreat in good order, hasty retreat, rout, shatter.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Obviously I have been watching this thread. I have had mixed emotions on it and a growing indifference to the game and its issues.

One comment I saw by Ketza was those were heavy losses for the Russians. Maybe, but as a Russian I would take those results all day long. Look at your loss ratios compared to what the Germans lost, especially considering it was against panzer forces. You lost less than 2-1 on manpower and artillery and forced nearly a 1-1 loss on tanks. In this case, both sides lost about 6.7% of their manpower in the battle.

This is the same type of stuff I saw when I was messing around later in the war with the Russians. You line up an attack with about 120K attackers against a 12K division and while the Russians take far more casualties (say 5k vs 2.5k), the German unit took close to 20% casualties to the unit. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to happen in the long run.

Basicallly, one of the issues I see is there is too much emphasis on "winning" the battle because of the resulting retreat losses are typically nasty. I would like to see some sort of check to see if a unit can "retreat in good order" and take fewer losses. Essentially, there should be 4 levels of retreat with increasing losses as you go along: retreat in good order, hasty retreat, rout, shatter.

Excellent points.

I think the game features a huge problem where it's not possible to cause Soviets casualties at rates that are comparable to history, while it IS possible to cause historic casualties to the German.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Its called an exploit poeple, its what things like this have been called for hmm 20 yrs. Its not cheating. Its simply exploiting an area of a game that is poorly designed. Its no fault of the players if the devs have porrly designed an area of a game.

Eh? Using the +! modifier is hardly an exploit, as it was deliberately devised by the devs.

An exploit is a loophole or unintended flaw in the design of a game that allows for unforeseen consequences. You can agree with the +1 modifier or not, but it is very clear that it's inclusion was a deliberate decision by the devs, not some kind of oversight. Moreover, Sov players simply cannot play without utliziting this "exploit" to some degree, since before launching an attack they never know if the final odds will be 1:2, 1:1, 2:1, etc.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Basicallly, one of the issues I see is there is too much emphasis on "winning" the battle because of the resulting retreat losses are typically nasty. I would like to see some sort of check to see if a unit can "retreat in good order" and take fewer losses. Essentially, there should be 4 levels of retreat with increasing losses as you go along: retreat in good order, hasty retreat, rout, shatter.

Yes, this is a very good point.In my opinion, the likelyhood of a retreat and also the losses suffered by retreating units should depend on a combination of factors especially leader morale/initiative and unit morale/experience.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: timmyab


Yes, this is a very good point.In my opinion, the likelyhood of a retreat and also the losses suffered by retreating units should depend on a combination of factors especially leader morale/initiative and unit morale/experience.

Add to that (particularly relevant in this case) mobility, if it's not already factored in. I would agree that this is not an "exploit," since, as a largely Sov player like 76 I have no clue what my odds are going to look like so I can hardly position my forces to try and get the most 1:1 results possible.

Right now the difficulty in 42 and beyond is that results are pretty binary...either the Soviet attack fails, and has some absurd loss ratio (like 100:1) or it succeeds, and it is always a 1:1 or 1:2 loss ratio which over time will annihilate the German army a lot quicker than it actually went down. There should be more high casualty successful attacks and a greater range of outcomes on failed attacks as well (IMO).

[76mm]

Right now the difficulty in 42 and beyond is that results are pretty binary...either the Soviet attack fails, and has some absurd loss ratio (like 100:1) or it succeeds, and it is always a 1:1 or 1:2 loss ratio which over time will annihilate the German army a lot quicker than it actually went down. There should be more high casualty successful attacks and a greater range of outcomes on failed attacks as well (IMO).

I've noticed this as well, losses resulting from combat seem too uniform. While I don't think I've seen 100:1 losses in a Sov defeat, it is pretty much always 8:1 to 10:1 when the Sovs lose, and somewhere between 1:1 and 2.5:1 if the Sovs win.

While I don't really have an opinion on the +1 modifier, I really don't like the fact that I have absolutely no understanding of how combat resolution occurs, with the single exeption that if I get 1:1, the Germans will retreat. Rather unsatisfying to play like this...

[Peltonx]

Here is some data.

Hooopers been attacking lvl 4 to 2 forts which have 30 to 50 CVs and he has won 86.5%.
The losses the russian player takes should not be equal to the german losses when defending in lvl 2-4 forts. Thats a joke.
Attacks Retreats Held This is from last 5 turns
SHC 134 96 18 86.5% are wins 11-12/42

Look at the first battle as an example, a blob of 96k attack 12k, I have more art.

Attackers losses are 2% and defenders are almost 10%.

Can you honestly tell me thats historical and not just a joke?

All these losses are caused because the defender had to retreat. aka per the 1v1 = 2v1. I get the retreat thing they are pushing on us, but the losses are a JOKE. The losses should be 10% for both sides, which would be along historical lines of 1 dead German for 5 dead Russian and not 1 dead German for 1 dead Russian.

You can keep the 1v1 = 2v1, but do something about the losses. Thats just nothing going to fly with the general playing public.

2/3 is tring to tell everyone that the attacking Russians were taking 1/5 % of the losses the Germans were when attacking?

I am sorry, but we can all see the emperor has no clothes [X(]

Pelton

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Here is some data.

The only thing I can conclude from your post is that the artillery was the deciding factor in all those battles, he concentrated 1000+ tubes for most battles, which is a lot for 42, and obtained significant arty superiority, obviously negating your fort defensive advantages.

Arty being the decisive factor is very realistic for WW2 east front.

Did all those battles end with 1:1 pushed to 2:1? If not how are they relevant for this thread?

Look at the first battle as an example, a blob of 96k attack 12k, I have more art.

???

Where is that battle? Are you sure you are reading the table correctly? There is not a single battle on your screenshot where Germans had more arty.

I see one battle where he attacked with 96k men, ALMOST 2000 ARTY and 109 AFV.

You had 12k men, 119 guns and 0 AFV.

His arty superiority in that battle was something to the tune of 15:1.

I cannot believe you have the nerve to complain about the result, really.

You Axis fanboys need to lay off the coffee.... If you can't accept that 96k men with 2000 tubes will annihilate 12k men with measly 120 guns, even if they sit in level 4 fort, you will probably never accept any result this game has to offer, short of Germans capturing Vladivostok in August 41......

[Ketza]

Oleg you really detract from the discussion when you start tossing "Axis fanboy" around.

My input in this thread is based on trying to improve the game not attempting to "buff" or "nerf" one side or the other. I am sure others feel the same way.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Oleg you really detract from the discussion when you start tossing "Axis fanboy" around.

My input in this thread is based on trying to improve the game not attempting to "buff" or "nerf" one side or the other. I am sure others feel the same way.

Pelton guy posted some COMPLETELY WRONG OR IRRELEVANT DATA, in fact he mis-read or misunderstood his own table!

He should apologize in fact.

But hey, I am the problem because I called him Axis fanboy? [:D] Tell me mate how do you call the guy who refuses to admit 96k men with 2000 guns should win over 12k men with 100 guns? Is he an Axis fanboy, or simply blind, or crazy?

In any case it's the people posting garbage like above who are "detracting the discussion" and waste our time, not me.

[Ketza]

I suppose I am still naive enough to believe that is is possible to have a discussion on the internet with different points of view and not call people names.

Thats just me.