Matrix Games Forums

Dear Pelton,
I agree with you, that the casualties exchange rate in WitE isn't historical, but please look at the manpower the soviets could use in this game and compare them with the manpower they historical used.
My opinion is, the russian should have the possibilty for a attrition campaigne against the germans. That must be a possilbe strategy in WitE, too.
So please, can you search for soviet data which compare your WitE data what the russians can draft with what the russians draft in WitE and post them.

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand

Dear Pelton,
I agree with you, that the casualties exchange rate in WitE isn't historical, but please look at the manpower the soviets could use in this game and compare them with the manpower they historical used.
My opinion is, the russian should have the possibilty for a attrition campaigne against the germans. That must be a possilbe strategy in WitE, too.
So please, can you search for soviet data which compare your WitE data what the russians can draft with what the russians draft in WitE and post them.

Your right historically, but manpower is not an issue never has been for Russian side WitE.

Chaos has 300,000 men in the pool and as will all past games I played in 43+ the Russians have 100,000's in the pool so its never and issue.

Do historical put more in the pools it simply does not matter.

not sure people see what I am saying here.

Russian pools have never run out no matter what the manpower factor so if you like to 2x the pool cool do it.

The tweaking manpower #s is not going to change anything as the pool will never run dry.

Tweak it up down all around it will always have men in it. So not sure why its tweaked over and over is all I am saying aka its impact on the game has been zero to date.

Only German manpower tweaks have an effect on a pool that matters in game

Pelton I have kept you well updated on my manpower to prove my point.

Since the patch my manpower has dropped every single turn and is still dropping even with 100k replacements a turn and fewer losses than that per turn. Yes army size is increasing because my army average ToE is only 85-90% so I still need .5M or so men to reach full strength if I didnt build a single additional unit. (think full strength and turned to rifle corps my army would need to be around 9M+ men)

Most recent turn my starting manpower for logistics was only 250k or so......and dropped to around 70k after replacement phases...most of that is probably transfer/pipeline manpower. Also I have 0 armaments every turn......

So the Soviet replacement pool is finite mass attritional attacks are not an option especially when some hit 7+:1 exchange rates. Its why I only do good attacks which on most turns equal an overall 1:1 exchange rate as they should. My troops are attacking with massive firepower edges...total air superiority and usually backed by multiple extra divisions of artillery....in these circumstances 1:1 is about right.

Historically the Soviets attacked without all those factors all the time which is why they suffered appalling losses and if you attack in the game without all those support factors the Soviets do suffer appalling losses as I have shown with multiple battles being 5+:1 exchange rates in favor of the Germans.

The exchange rate is right if the Soviets do historical poor attacks, however like you not being hitler I get the option to not be stalin. So not sacrifice my men and equipment on horrendous scales for no real gain.

Your army is still almost 4M men you still hold more ground than historical, despite me doing pretty decent overall in 1942 with my 40 NM. Instead of Stalingrad I got 3 measly German divisions in a pocket, but then I didnt take .5M-1M Soviet casualties to do it either lol. So.....

I personally feel the Soviet replacements/admin pool are abit or even way to low compared to historical capabilities. An this is one of the things thats allowing the stone-wall/slow orderly withdrawl of the German army in Russia in 1943 on. However so far its making for a good game and Im hoping the game doesnt collapse to some issue in the late game.

Your army is still almost 4M men you still hold more ground than historical,

That's because Pelton got hold of Hitlers third unpublished book in which he outlines the final solution to all German manpower problems.

Turns Left: 105 Hexes to Berlin: 91 Mud Turns: 24 Ratio: +10
Turn 105 GHC Armaments: 43,000 Manpower: 13,000 VP: 220

Armament Pts. Destroyed = 51
Heavy Industry Destroyed = 19
Factories: T-34 -60 Vehicles -25 SU2-12
Russian Units Destroyed after November 1st 1941
Corp: 7 ()
Divisions: 88 ()
Brigades: 44 ()
AP total: 1310

Stavka OOB: 8,075,000 +275,000
GHC OOB: 3,827,000 -73,000

German OOB has dropped -173,000 in just 11 turns. German loses over the last 11 turns is 379,000
Russian OOB has grown + 550,000 in just 11 turns. Russian loses over the last 11 turns is 804,000.
It is spring and there has been very little fighting.

Losses

OOB

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton I have kept you well updated on my manpower to prove my point.

Since the patch my manpower has dropped every single turn and is still dropping even with 100k replacements a turn and fewer losses than that per turn. Yes army size is increasing because my army average ToE is only 85-90% so I still need .5M or so men to reach full strength if I didnt build a single additional unit. (think full strength and turned to rifle corps my army would need to be around 9M+ men)

Most recent turn my starting manpower for logistics was only 250k or so......and dropped to around 70k after replacement phases...most of that is probably transfer/pipeline manpower. Also I have 0 armaments every turn......

So the Soviet replacement pool is finite mass attritional attacks are not an option especially when some hit 7+:1 exchange rates. Its why I only do good attacks which on most turns equal an overall 1:1 exchange rate as they should. My troops are attacking with massive firepower edges...total air superiority and usually backed by multiple extra divisions of artillery....in these circumstances 1:1 is about right.

Historically the Soviets attacked without all those factors all the time which is why they suffered appalling losses and if you attack in the game without all those support factors the Soviets do suffer appalling losses as I have shown with multiple battles being 5+:1 exchange rates in favor of the Germans.

The exchange rate is right if the Soviets do historical poor attacks, however like you not being hitler I get the option to not be stalin. So not sacrifice my men and equipment on horrendous scales for no real gain.

Your army is still almost 4M men you still hold more ground than historical, despite me doing pretty decent overall in 1942 with my 40 NM. Instead of Stalingrad I got 3 measly German divisions in a pocket, but then I didnt take .5M-1M Soviet casualties to do it either lol. So.....

I personally feel the Soviet replacements/admin pool are abit or even way to low compared to historical capabilities. An this is one of the things thats allowing the stone-wall/slow orderly withdrawl of the German army in Russia in 1943 on. However so far its making for a good game and Im hoping the game doesnt collapse to some issue in the late game.

The data is what counts not your just so storys, if you have data that supports your OOB going down post the data.

I post data I have 30+ AAR's you have?

Your manpower means zip as your under going ToE changes, opps you forgot those

POST THE DATA THAT SHOW YOUR OOB GOING DOWN, IF YOU CAN NOT STAY OFF MY ARR

My AAR is based on facts aka data not Gandalf's Magic Wand.

Post the data that shows your OOB going down, post it.

I have posted your OOB going up 55,000 per turn and you got nothing but BS.

Wouldnt classify fighting as light late may into June.

Only 1 of the last 4 turns had alot of mud the 3 turns saw significant combat with Axis losses around 40k per turn 3 of the 4 turns and my losses 70-80k.

Also think you pointed out a couple turns ago you were losing like 6 divisions and only gaining a couple in return....so that alone would explain almost a 70k loss on the German OOB.

Also in the last 11 turns 3 divisions were surrounded and wiped out, and a fourth basically decimated in the fighting for that pocket.

Just want the facts as to OOB gains/losses.

Im basically keeping you even on replacements and maybe a slight gain/deficit not sure as I dont know exactly how many men you get a week...I do know your getting about 16k men a week just from disabled returns as I can track that via losses.

Im only inflicting about 40k total losses on you from combat and attrition combined a turn so you arent losing massive OOB amounts from combat/attrition.

Over the last month of game play my losses have averaged 70-80k per week with abit over 100k replacements incoming per week. Thus my OOB should be slowly growing still as my under strength formations fill up.

Also I did post the battle reports to show the fact about exchange rates.......

Turns Left: 100 Hexes to Berlin: 91 Mud Turns: 24 Ratio: +15
Turn 110 GHC Armaments: ,000 Manpower: 30,000 VP: 218

Armament Pts. Destroyed = 51
Heavy Industry Destroyed = 19
Factories: T-34 -60 Vehicles -25 SU2-12
Russian Units Destroyed after November 1st 1941
Corp: 7 ()
Divisions: 88 ()
Brigades: 44 ()
AP total: 1310

Stavka OOB: 8,381,000 +25,000
GHC OOB: 3,723,000 -102,000

Stavka Loses: 8,929,000 +319,000
GHC Loses: 2,966,000 -156,000

Divisions Lost the Last Five Turns: 0
Combat Ratio: 2 to 1

Russia keeps winning by losing.
28 wins and 42 losses this past turn.
The combat engine rewards the Russian player by an unhistorical combat ratio.
No player skill required just attack and win by losing.


28 wins and 42 losses. Chaos is winning only 1/3 of his battles, but its does not matter.
His OOB is slowly going up and German OOB crashing quickly.

The combat engine rewards the Russian player by an unhistorical combat ratio.
No player skill required just attack and win by losing. To be clear its not really poor game play its simply exploiting a game mechanic.

Russia keeps winning by losing, most Russian player don't understand this exploit
but Chaos does as did MT, Bomazz, Kamil, Hoooper, sapper ect ect.

All the old timers never lost a single game playing as Russia even when there were 6+ fuel exploits,
none were even close ending in 44 when they did end as they knew how to crash German OOB, winning by losing.
They understood the short comings of the combat engine ratio,
exchange rates, replacement rates ect.

Whats wrong?

Loses are heavly based on retreat loses and attrition and not basic combat loses.
If you look at the 3 months around Kursk Russian loses were the worst of the war over 3 months.
Russian loses was what stopped operations in most cases not fuel.
Russian OOB goes up despite poor game play or win lose record. To be clear its not really poor game play its simply exploiting a game mechanic.


How to fix it?

If it would be possible to have German losses attacking at 2.0-1.5 to 1 win or lose October 42 -45

and German loses defending 4-3 to 1 win or lose.

This would make grinding as Germany impossible which is historical and Russia grinding forward in 42 and 43 possible,
but would not create the German OOB snowball effect.

As we all know what kills WitE are all the snowball effects.

Again I am not tring to piss anyone off and am sorry if I hurt someones feeling by posting data and possible fixes.

Dont want to get in a disagreement on the board but PM'd Pelton on why I think hes mistaken in some assumptions on losses.

Losses I think based on the engine are very close to right.

My take on the combat system avoiding arguments-

1) First off if I as the Soviet player only attacked when I could win the German OOB would only go up or stay even due to combat losses as designed in the system being to low- thus not a long term winning tactic for the Soviets. Basically from what Ive seen of the math if I win 20+ battles odds are most are 1-2k losses to the defender thus net the German OOB stays even roughly----thus Im not weakening the German Army--thus i would be losing the game lets be honest.

2) If I apply #1 above and only do attacks I can win- the Soviet Army will grow huge and bloated- this causes a massive truck issue as you then have to supply an extra million mouths, further causing the crash of the Soviet transportation system which will allow a German win---what Pelton wants, lower German losses more Soviet truck useage/destruction.

3) So the best strategy for the Soviets is find all the battles you can win, and win them. Then look for other attacks all along the line that hopefully wont be complete slaughters----and yes despite Peltons complaints the Combat system will give the Germans 10:1 exchange rates on some combats so its not a myth. In most of these battles the average exchange rate will usually be 3/4:1+ in favor of the Germans. However if you won all the good battles you will win most of them with 1:1 or 1.5:1 exhcange rates so you have some fudge factors in casualties you can absorb for the turn. Overall your objective is to try to end the Turn with a 2:1 exchange rate and hopefully lose about 100k Soviets total for the turn if your army is at an OOB you are comfortable with.

In General the Soviets replace 100k men a turn so once you reach your comfort zone OOB wise- 8M is mine I know I can afford around 100k losses even on 10:1 attacks and be happy(but want 3/4:1 on my attritional attacks---10:1 really isnt good but it happens lol). Once I reach about 100k losses I stop attacking so my OOB doesnt shrink and only might grow alittle bit. The Soviet truck issue is so massive you really dont want a 10M man Soviet army.

waiting on .08

ORIGINAL: Pelton



Russia keeps winning by losing.
28 wins and 42 losses this past turn.
The combat engine rewards the Russian player by an unhistorical combat ratio.
No player skill required just attack and win by losing.


28 wins and 42 losses. Chaos is winning only 1/3 of his battles, but its does not matter.
His OOB is slowly going up and German OOB crashing quickly.

The combat engine rewards the Russian player by an unhistorical combat ratio.
No player skill required just attack and win by losing. To be clear its not really poor game play its simply exploiting a game mechanic.

I am not getting into the OOB debate, but I do recall you posting many times on many threads that morale is king or words to that effect. If that is the case, for the russian to adopt an approach that means losing 2 out of 3 combats would be something that you should welcome. I would be delighted if 2/3rds of Brian G's attacks in our game failed. Leaving NM aside, russian morale will be going down and axis morale increasing. This benefit is even greater if his success rate is higher against worthless allies, and therefore lower against german troops: which is what I would expect.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

ORIGINAL: Pelton



Russia keeps winning by losing.
28 wins and 42 losses this past turn.
The combat engine rewards the Russian player by an unhistorical combat ratio.
No player skill required just attack and win by losing.


28 wins and 42 losses. Chaos is winning only 1/3 of his battles, but its does not matter.
His OOB is slowly going up and German OOB crashing quickly.

The combat engine rewards the Russian player by an unhistorical combat ratio.
No player skill required just attack and win by losing. To be clear its not really poor game play its simply exploiting a game mechanic.

I am not getting into the OOB debate, but I do recall you posting many times on many threads that morale is king or words to that effect. If that is the case, for the russian to adopt an approach that means losing 2 out of 3 combats would be something that you should welcome. I would be delighted if 2/3rds of Brian G's attacks in our game failed. Leaving NM aside, russian morale will be going down and axis morale increasing. This benefit is even greater if his success rate is higher against worthless allies, and therefore lower against german troops: which is what I would expect.

morale does not scale as it did in the past.

You cant go as high or low and it gravitates to NM quicker.

In other words it works.

AS you know I said for yrs after release NM was not working and was proven right dispite being the lone voice saying it was.

Morveal and D-man have almost every area WAD-with just a few tweaks left.

Morale was by far king, because players could screw with it so easly as with so many other things before morveal fixed 1000+ things.

Game is stable and hard to exploit, just need to get ratios in line with historical and I believe morveal has that worked out with .08

Morale- is very important/King really....however with the bug crushing my morale with the patch almost all my units went back to NM levels so attritional style offensives were fine because you can recover to NM easily.

As my units have started to regain morale from winning I have my key units continue to try to only go into winning fights to keep piling on morale gains while all units still stuck at NM levels can basially freely participate in attritional warfare.....as the casualties all across the line help to bleed and limit german replacements everywhere unless the german players starts to shut off quiet sectors which can then gradually be weakened through attrition assaults and just weekly attrition.

Also as I have said above the more men you feed in the Soviet army the quicker you burn up trucks....so sacrificing your men to kill/weaken german units is a much better use than just bloating your OOB