Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

Two things feels intuitively weird:

1) That the bonus is based on the German final CV strength.

2) That the Germans don't over time develop counter measures that lessens the impact of the Russian doctrine over time.

The 1-1 modifier is not an advantage to the Soviets. It is there to offset other disadvantages they get, like taking higher losses.

CM and Coockie Monster. I didn't mean that the Soviets should have the 2-1 provision to get a retreat, but that the Germans should be rid of it while attacking. Thus, as I see it, the situation when the Soviets attack will be unaffected by the change.

And no, I haven't played the Soviets, except in some lesser scenario to get a feel for the game. I never play against the AI, why it takes time to get experience in the game and my objections is mostly based on what I've read in the forum and my own understanding of the game mechanics. Basically, I wasn't really after complaining in the first place; rather wanted to understand what the tilt was all about. We haven't gotten further than GT 15 in our game yet, so I have yet to play the Germans in adverse circumstances.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

[..]

[...]

And just how do you mean that the 1-1 shift deprives the Germans of their superior ability to conduct offensive operations? Boosting the Soviets (abysmal) possibilities of making a successful counterattack in 1941 is hardly depriving the Germans of their (already excellent) attacking possibilities in 1941?

I wasn't telling the whole truth in my most recent post. I remembered that we tried a number of turns of the 1942 scenario wile waiting for patch 1.3 some time ago, and my concern stems probably mostly from that experience.

Now refering to the turns we played in the 1942 scenario, I found the Soviet front line to be so well defended, mainly by the multiplying effects of the forts, as to make any German attacks more or less counter-productive. I had to concentrate hugely to get my few breakthroughs, felt this odd and begun to search for clues in the manual and on the forum. That's when I encountered the tilt. Since the Germans are the "better" soldiers it appeared strange to me that they could not shift the Soviets with odds less than 2-1 while the Soviets could.

In my world, the Germans have capacity to attack over the entire front in 1941, over part of the entire front in 1942 and only over a rather small part of the front in 1943. You could say that they smashed, then pushed and finally pressed the Soviets backwards, until they were exhausted in manpower and finally began to give in themselves. What concerns me in the game is that it seems to go directly from smashing to exhaustion, without the pushing and pressing in between.

It seems the stated enhancement is to counter the 'typically' higher losses, and yet it is applied uniformly, whether these losses have been received or not...

It might be that the effect would be better given by considering some relationship between initial and final CV values, rather than purely the ending strength with a fixed bonus.

To capture a hex, the attacker needed to penetrate the position to a suitable depth. The German army did this by focussing on a Schwerpunkt at that depth and bypassing other resistance. This was also the IJA and USMC approach. The US Army used fire and movement on a broad front to slowly reach the necessary depth. The British Army used similar tactics to the US Army approach. The Red Army attacked initially on a broad front, but rather than trying to advance on the entire front, reserves were focussed on the few parts of the front where the advance was most successful. German defence reflected the need to cut off penetrations before they broke through. Allied and Red Army defence worked more on a broad front, with the Red Army using reserves at depth to block penetrations.

The results were that German units had the same kind of results as Red Army units, but with many less casualties. Allied units relied on supporting firepower, which meant their advance was slower, but more certain.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Did anyone actually do a statistical test of the model in this area?

I don't know, really. I was just saying that that's what the manual claims the reasoning and expected outcome to be - I barely know anything about the intricacies of combat to have an opinion either way.

I must admit though that I've certainly learned a lot ever since I started visiting this and the WITP-AE forums, especially given posts like your last one about the differences in tactical/operational doctrine