I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now...

[Tarhunnas]

I don't know if there is a thread that explains it fully. I will try here: The combat mechanisms make the Soviets take higher losses than the Axis, this is to account for Soviet tactics etc. As a sort of compensation, whenever the Soviets are attacking and the final odds is 1-1, the odds is shifted to 2-1, the odds needed to force the defender to retreat. Those two things are connected. However, forcing the defender to retreat causes the defender to take retreat casualties, which are often the majority of all casualties, so retreating or not is pretty important.

[Peltonx]

In my game vs Hoooper he attacked from north to south averaging 30 attacks per turn for 6 turns.

The first 6 ish turns of attacks were vs level 3 forts. His loses were hvy, but not that bad. Almost every single attack was at even odds but jumped to 2v1. All my hexes had atleast 30 def cv most were 40 to 50.

I posted results of attack on my thread, he was wining basicly 85% of the attacks. His losses were hvy 3-1, but he had no problem replasing them. My loses could not be replased. His army grew in strength and I was being pushed out of my high level forts. So from turn 80 to 90 he was able to break the German army completely.

So 100% because of the 1v1=2v1 rule the German army had less then 16k rifle squads on April 1st 1943!

I have been inflicting 160k deaths a turn on his army and it has grown by 1 million men. Now its turn 100 and hes got stacks of 30 to 40 attack cv and I am defending with 1 cv infantry divisions.

The 1v1 = 2v1 rule is a joke end of story.

--- Attacks --- Retreats --- Held

SHC ---186--- 160 --- 26
GHC --- 45 --- 40 --- 5

Net Hexes - 78

Losses from turn 74 to 80
------- --- Men --- Guns --- Tanks
GHC --- 330,788 --- 9,960 --- 1,315
SHC --- 964,370 --- 15,638 --- 3,985

OOB difference from turn 74 to 80.

SHC --- + 696,866 --- + 19,957 --- +360 --- +5998
GHC --- -160,288 --- -3,702 ---+120 --- +120

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

This mechanism might be ok in 1941, but in 1942 and later, it leads to some strange effects.

+1

Agree. Although if I were king, I would keep the 1:1 thingy at least through the end of the Soviet winter offensive of 41-42. I might be tempted to keep it through the end of summer of 1942 depending upon more extensive play testing results.

I'm not sure the rule is needed in 1943+ given the amount of combat power the Soviets have by that point in the game. And from a vague historical perspective their operational doctrine and the ability of the average combat formation to implement doctrine is far different in 1943 than it was in 1941. Not that the 1:1 thingy -- as far as I can tell -- is really solidly grounded in anything historical. Moreover, I'm just saying that Red Army capability, training, morale, etc. is a completely different kettle of fish in 1943 vs. what it was in 1941. A game rule that supposedly addresses doctrinal differences between the German Army and the Red Army -- operational and/or tactical contrasts in fighting styles -- would have to “realistically” be in a state of flux as the war progresses and both Armies’ doctrine and combat capabilities change. For example (and in game terms): Perhaps in 41-42 the Soviets get the supposedly high combat casualty ratios along with the 1:1 push. But by 1943 to 1945 their average combat related casualties start to decline on a battle-by-battle basis and they require 2:1 for the push.

The 1:1 thingy is a function of how the game currently depicts Soviet and German unit combat power, as well as how odds are calculated within the game engine. The 1:1 thingy arises in order to keep the Soviet player interested in the early game and to keep the German player “operationally honest” in 1941-42. As such, I think the game currently needs the 1:1 thingy for the Soviet side -- at least in 41-42. But ultimately, I think the silent majority thinks the 1:1 thingy is purely a play balance related mechanic with some vague attempts to justify its inclusion via nebulous discussions about Red Army Doctrine of the period.

Unless a complete reassessment of the games modeling of unit combat power and the CRT occurs, you can't simply toss out the 1:1 thingy without affecting many other critical aspects of game play, game balance, and game interest. Read again: Regimented-Organized-Structured (whatever) play testing needed for games that span 1941-45. And: Play testing shouldn’t be about how play testers get their favorite pet rock into the game.

[abulbulian]

I have posted many times in the past about play balance when the game first came out.  Some people initially attacked my issues and suggestion and personally was well.  [:'(]

It took a while but finally the devs and testers did make many changes to give the axis more of a chance to survive till 45.  [&o]

People have to remember why they are asking for changes.  Is it to give one side a historical trait or factor they should have or is it for balance. From what I have seen lately I don't think there's any issues with the game balance that people can prove with certainty.  By that I mean using the game victory conditions, which means Berlin does fall(or vic pt calc) in 45 for a draw game.  So far I've seen games mostly split on the AARs.  Somebody jump in and correct me if I'm wrong?  So until WitE comes out with a variant 'add-on' that will allow possibly a stronger axis which more troops or better production, axis players have to get use to the idea of struggling in 42 and being pushed back in 43 onward against an opponent of equal skill.

I still do believe that the axis player in a CG41 game has more of a challenge in 41-42 than the Soviet player as there's little room for error.  So far I've enjoyed every cent of this purchase.  As far as the 1-1 rule, I just don't think there's enough evidence to remove it or allow it only on certain years yet.

I do think the combat engine needs some tweaks as there too many examples of battles where a units exp/morale (German examples mostly) does not seem to contribute the way it should towards enemy loses or friendly loses. As wells as ANT units not being decimated when hit with 10:1 odds and caught in open.  Would be nice in future to see some sort of 'overrun' rule.

[8D]

[Peltonx]

The problem as I see it is we alrdy know whos going to win the game during the summer of 1942. I am on my 12 campiagn and have read most of the AAR's. If the German army is unable to pocket units during the summer of 42 its over for one very simple reason.

The 1v1=2v1 rule. The Red army by turn 74 will be close to 8 million strong and be able to attack at least 20 hexes a turn at even odds causing retreats.

We alrdy KNOW no guessing needed the results.

1 millionish dead russian 330,000ish dead Germans withen 6 turns. The Russian OOB keeps growing and the German cant recover.

The Russian player simply keeps attacking for another 14 turns and its over game set match German army will have less then 16k rifle squad.

All the 1v1 = 2v1 attacks also lower the German moral, which will never recover.

I am hoping Q-ball doesn't sandbag it vs Tarhunnas so we have another game proving that 1v1 = 2v1 will be the death of wite or any other product that 2/3 try to put out based on this game.

Drop the 1v1=2v1 on last turn of Dec 42.

1v1 = 2v1 is a pig of a rule.

You can put a dress on a pig and make-up, but its still a pig and not a super model.

Pelton

[ComradeP]

Pelton: the way you're attacking, making charges with your spearheads that are often isolated far away from their supply sources, in 1941 is just as ahistorical as the way you're being attacked now, so keep that in mind when you're asking for changes.

The losses have little to do with the odds modifier as such. Odds don't decide the losses. The losses are often bad for the Axis in general when defending and that's in part due to retreat attrition and in part due to the losses taken in battle that primarily seem to come from mortars, although the losses when the Germans are defending are mostly high "by German standards" and usually don't come close to the losses the Soviets can take in 1941.

And: Play testing shouldn’t be about how play testers get their favorite pet rock into the game.

Luckily that isn't the case.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It is from my game against Gids, featured in the AAR The Wolf and the Bear. I am doing well in that game, but as you say, it is really immaterial what particular game it is from, it is the effects on gameplay that is interesting, both on the macro and micro levels.

I didn't have anything against the 1-1 rule before, but I am becoming more and more doubtful about it as I play more in 1942 and 1943.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because the flow of the game is central to determining what to do here. I think your game against Q-ball and some of Pelton's games as well make a strong case for doing away with the 1-1 rule precisely because of the macro effects.

This game against Gids doesn't prove anything, and in fact tends to show that the 1-1 is necessary for the Soviets even as late as 1943 -- if we assume this to be a relatively standard game, as opposed to an outlier. But I think that all other things being equal, the 42 stalemate games are going to be more standard, and the 1-1 rule has to be judged in that context.

Also, it may just be possible that with a few changes elsewhere to make the 42 campaign more mobile, the 1-1 rule could be ok. But that rule in combination with premature stalemates at the strategic level is very problematic. Or we may have to change it anyways even with changes to the fort and morale rules to reintroduce mobility into the 42 situation.

The 1-1 rule imo has no particularly bad effect on the 1943 scenario, btw. That's because by that point the Soviet is mostly getting attacks well above that. It's in 42 that the problem arises. Getting this transitional period of the war right is quite the challenge.

[kirkgregerson]

I think the WWI type of combat that can occur in many games come 42 is more of a result of forts and Soviet ANT units. To me the 1:1 combat result is less of an issue for game play.

As stated the axis player just can't afford to hammer these ANT units in lvl 3-4 forts and take equal loses or almost equal loses. Like abulbulian has already mentioned, these ANT units usually just retreat or route back and can be recycled back into a fort line 4-5 hexes deep. An overrun rule will help to remove this as well as limiting fort building for the Soviets in 42 outside of city/urban hexes.

I guess for some reason this is a bigger problem to solve, because it really seems like a no-brainer to me.

[ComradeP]

It's a bigger problem. Opinions differ on what the problem consists of, but to me it's mostly a problem of casualties.

-Even though high experience units fire more often in battle, effects of having high experience are generally underwhelming for the Axis in terms of the casualties they take from indirect fire. Soviet Rifle squads rarely hit anything even if they fire, but as soon as the Soviets get their mortars out even barely trained conscripts give the Axis infantry a pasting that tends to ruin the loss ratio for the Axis.

-Hasty attacks usually don't do a lot of damage (which is fine), but mobile units don't have the MP's to make deliberate attacks and advance in the same turn, which is a problem.

-As there's no "chase" segment for combat, casualties caused by mobile units are often a bit underwhelming. A unit with very little mobility and no safe route for a retreat, like a Rifle brigade/division in a clear hex, can just walk away with low losses from a 90 morale/experience mobile unit.

-Retreat attrition for guns is fairly high. The Soviets can take that, the Axis can't.

-There is no period for recovery for the Axis due to the constant attrition, which shrinks the Wehrmacht every turn.

The odds modifier leads to some of these problems, it's not the direct cause of any of them.

[Peltonx]

I am kinda surpised you have no idea how this game works when you got 5 little starts by your name.

First off read what I am writing and not make up some fairtale BS.

I am talking about Dec 42 to the end of the game and not about 41 to Dec 42.

Did I say 1 single thing about before Dec 42?

LOl when a unit retreats it loses moral which lowers its CV value, plus you take loses. Because you LOST the battle. Guess you haven't figured that out yet.

Come on if your going to reply to something have some clue as to what your talking about.

1v1 < 2v1 = you retreat lose moral and lose equipment and men more then if you won the battle.

1v1 = 2v1 100% effects the game totaly throwing it out of balance starting in December 1942

Pelton

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, I think the problem actually starts before Dec. 42, provided certain conditions are met.

I myself would lean towards getting rid of the 1-1 rule as early as January of 42.

However. We've got some changes in the pipeline. It may be best to see how these other things affect the game -- they are pretty significant changes -- before doing something with the 1-1 rule.

[Peltonx]

Forts have very little to do with it.

Forts help the Red players which it should, but forts do not help the German player much at all because 1v1 = 2v1 which equals the German player retreats, loses moral takes extra losses.

I beleive if the 1v1 = 2v1 is pulled the fort issue might have to be tweaked a little, but if you look at maps of the russian front it was basicly static from late 42 to late 43 early 44 in some areas. There where some attacks and counter attacks, but nothing major.

Right now all things being equal the German player can't attack during 42 and can get steamroled by April 43 because of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

I thk the fort issue is about right now. Mybee make the time between 2 and 3 longer and 3 to 4 and 4 to 5 longer.

Pelton

[ComradeP]

I don't see how you can expect people to take you seriously when you're being offensive in almost every post and complain when your pet strategy that comes down to abusing the supply system no longer works.

There is no difference to how the odds modifier works in 1942 (or 1943, 1944 or 1945) compared to 1941, so I don't see why you see that difference. In 1942, Soviet CV values can be quite a bit better than in 1941 (most if not all divisions will be ready, for starters), so there's already less need for the odds modifier. It's mostly useful as an encirclement breaker at that point. In 1941, it gives you a chance to attack spearheads without having to plan ahead and send good troops to an area, but even without it you can still launch successful attacks.

The reduction of morale, CV or the amount of men in the unit have absolutely nothing to do with the odds modifier, which causes none of those things. There is no special rule that makes a battle that's won due to the odds modifier different in terms of defender morale, CV or losses compared to an attack that has "natural" 2:1 or more odds.

[Peltonx]

I know you guys are working on it an allot of other things also.

Thanks for hard work and I am 100% sure you guys get things right.

The nerf you guys did to the HQ build up was right on. I thought it was to much of a nerf, but it turned out to be about right other then the bug every time you guys patch (19Mp) heheh. I hate to say it, but might be best to just make it 19mp and stop fighting it [:D].

Hope you guys are taking some vacations.

Pelton

[Flaviusx]

Forts contribute to the problem.

Here is the dynamic at play. The present situation with forst allow the Soviet to create a very early stalemated situation. The entire front goes into trench warfare in summer of 42. At this stage of the game, the Red Army doesn't have the chops to do much more against German forts than to launch some low odds attacks and hope to force retreats. If the Red Army can build up a huge replacement pool, it can afford to press such attacks with wild abandon, even with the 42 Red Army.

The static nature of the front makes it relatively safe to conduct this positional and attritional style of warfare.

Now, if you can bust things open a bit and force the Soviet to respond to mobile German warfare, they're going to be too busy dealing with the enemy advances to settle down into a long grind. Right now that mobile element seems to be missing.

[Peltonx]

Almost is the key word.

If I am right I am right, I really could care less if I make you cry or not.

If I am wrong I will say so. I have had to eat more then one crow thks to Flaviusx and a few others.

If your wrong I will be more then happy to pt it out and expect the same from others. Dancing around the issue doen't sovle the issue.

1v1 = 2v1 does have its plase in the game, but it really does throw things out of balance quickly during 42.

Thats just the way it is sorry.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

Yes and no.

Many games IF the German player can hit 100ish arm pts pocketed then the Red line of forts can be broken.

If its broken then allot of Red units get pocketed and the German army can get better then 3 to 1 odds. This hurts the Red army enough so they cant ever really recover.

I thk if you nerf forts to much then any German player that gets 100+ arm pts will really crush the Red army during 42.

There seems to be a really fine line between whos winning the game come 42. I am 100% sure this is what the devs are tring to get away from.

Its a very complex issue to solve for sure, becuase the game itself is a monster.

I thk the 1v1 = 2v1 is the biggest issue that needs to be fixed and the moral fort tweaks will be the iceing on the cake.

Overall the games really good and there is nothing like it out there so the devs have issues that no one has had to tackle.

Pelton

[Reconvet]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It's a bigger problem. Opinions differ on what the problem consists of, but to me it's mostly a problem of casualties.

-Even though high experience units fire more often in battle, effects of having high experience are generally underwhelming for the Axis in terms of the casualties they take from indirect fire. Soviet Rifle squads rarely hit anything even if they fire, but as soon as the Soviets get their mortars out even barely trained conscripts give the Axis infantry a pasting that tends to ruin the loss ratio for the Axis.

-Hasty attacks usually don't do a lot of damage (which is fine), but mobile units don't have the MP's to make deliberate attacks and advance in the same turn, which is a problem.

-As there's no "chase" segment for combat, casualties caused by mobile units are often a bit underwhelming. A unit with very little mobility and no safe route for a retreat, like a Rifle brigade/division in a clear hex, can just walk away with low losses from a 90 morale/experience mobile unit.

-Retreat attrition for guns is fairly high. The Soviets can take that, the Axis can't.

-There is no period for recovery for the Axis due to the constant attrition, which shrinks the Wehrmacht every turn.

The odds modifier leads to some of these problems, it's not the direct cause of any of them.

Excellent analysis imho, highlighting that current problems of WitE ground combat definitly have more than one cause.

Some of these points ARE interdependant: Retreats and retreat casualties stemming from magical 1:1 --> 2:1 attack resolution distortions are directly connected. Retreat casualties because of combat value doping after an attack should have failed are hard to swallow. 1:1 --> 2:1 strictly reserved for one side simply STINKS, many of us here have problems with such an artificial one-sided sci-fi combat booster.

If you let Axis suffer from such a strange rule then at least adapt that rule to let Axis take fewer retreat casualties during this process. Like this you could reduce artificially produced higher Axis casualties while allowing Soviets some successful attacks and hex gains (including opening of pockets) before 1943. Consider the fact that German leadership on average was lightyears ahead of Soviet average leaders, therefore German led troops should get a bonus for orderly tactical retreats (including way less arty and AFV losses when having to fall back due to 1:1-->2:1).

In short: I'd propose keeping 1:1-->2:1 during 1941 and 1942 (though with significantly reduced retreat losses for German units forced to retreat due to the 1:1-->2:1 rule), and then get rid of this awful rule on 01/01/1943 for the rest of the game.

[heliodorus04]

I'm dumbstruck that someone can argue that the +1 odds shift might not have 'macro' implications. OF COURSE it has macro implications, because of the retreat casualties routine.

The loss of guns and the loss of morale ARE your macro implications. This speaks nothing of the irrelevance of German forts given this mechanic, and several other impacts I can't remember right now. You drain the German OOB of guns, accelerating the degradation of the German defensive capability, and you use a 'sci-fi gimmick' (well said Reconvet) that causes a defeat and a corresponding drop in German morale.

In combination, this creates compound leverage bringing about the early defeat of Germany which the German player is helpless to stop because it's hard coded.

I can accept and understand that there are difficulties balancing the game en toto because you have people who only play the AI, and you have people who are playing opponents that are dubiously inferior than they themselves, so some tradeoffs are looked at over a long time with an eye on unintended consequence. But to say that you're not sure whether or not macro impact is present flies in the face of very straight-forward game mechanics which you must obviously understand.

I'm deeply fatigued that a game which is 33% more expensive than other computer games, which is now 8 months old, is being sandbagged from logical improvements (like ending the +1 at some point in 1942, and the BS Soviet brigade ZOC/fort-building routines) through forced waiting on AARs from the public at large on its website (so not only do we have to wait for someone to play the game and write an AAR, we have to wait for someone at Matrix to READ them and compile quantitative data from them). Maybe Matrix should have anticipated ways to easily exchange data from games between players and databases.

And when someone gives a specific AAR, it seems to me at least that someone from Matrix or the Alpha/Beta testers inevitably proclaims "This AAR is an outlier." Fancy jedi mind trick, that...

[Farfarer61]

I think there is a greater aim at work - to create the "unified field theory" of game engines which will stand for 1939-1945 all countries, all fronts, no by-year tweaks. I think it is a bridge too far. I would have 1 = 2 have a blended early end end with an earlier ability to make "Corps" - with an increased cost but reducing cost in AP. For example, end it in 31 Dec 41 ( you save Moscow or whatever) , but allow Inf and Tank Corps to be made at +5 AP extra per month greater than historical availability.