WitE 2

[chaos45]

Still havent bothered to buy WiTW as it honestly just looks to be alot of managing an airwar....and I had enough of that tedium with the bombing of the reich game many years ago.

As to WiTE 2.0- A slow down in operational tempo due to supply stockpiling is needed. However the balance has already proven to be very tough to maintain as recent games show- a -5 Morale for Soviets has led to basically much more powerful German 1942 offensive capability than intended.

So stockpiling needs to be measured and fine tuned to where initially the Germans can push hard but get stopped due to waiting, however at the same time a straight 1% loss to CV per 1% under on supplies/fuel will drop German CV very quickly and may end up making breakthroughs almost impossible especially when stacked with MP delays for combat in hexes.

As Pelton says the only way to make a system like that work is where you have realistic combat attrition. Not sure facts of losses back up the 4:1 loss ratio for the Germans for the whole war as during late war aside from the assault on Berlin think the statistics dropped to 2-2.5:1 for Soviet to German losses. However as can easily be seen in the game even this doesnt happen. As the attacker unless they are attack stopped rarely lose more men than the defender. An even if they do its usually a 1.5:1 exchange rate or thereabouts.

The caveat on losses is its hard to judge for a game, because again as Pelton has said we are not Hitler/Stalin- so Soviet players in general arent going to assault every week knowing they will just fail and lose buckets of troops....so how many troops/loss ratio does this save unless the game wants to factor in these idiotic Soviet forced assaults. Is alot of evidence pointing out that an earlier end to the soviet counteroffensives of 1941/1942 could have prevented any massive German offensive gains in 1942...as by continuing assaults past the point of gaining anything Stalin burned up alot of men and equipment that would have been better used to stopping the German 1942 offensive. Right now that huge error in Stalins judgement is already baked into the game and its assumed the Soviets lost that extra million men and are weakend and ripe for German 1942 offensive. As basically the Soviet Army put 30-35 Million troops under arms in WW2....You can easily look at the Starting Soviet OOB and add up its replacements per week and see it wont total 30-35 Million...so alot of Soviets losses are already built into the current system by just not giving the Soviets the troops in the first place.

Its a very rough balancing act, and it wont be all roses on the German side either, because to make it realistic on losses German casualties on attacks and reducing pockets would have to be drastically increased, about twice or more than they are now. Divsion to corps sized assaults only losing 1-2 companies of casualties is pure fantasy.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: jamesm

It will be interesting to see how fortified zones in urban areas will be treated. In WitW it was almost impossible to take out units fortified in urban areas, while in WitE it is also impossible to hold onto urban areas such as Leningrad even if you have strong divisions in level 3 or 4 fortifications.

you can actually, in my last PBEM I cleared a well defended Antwerp in one turn. Same mix, lots of very heavy artillery, lots of engineers and a good dose of airpower.

but a critical bit in WiTW is that units in pockets don't degrade to 1-1 ants in a week.

The building blocks in WiTW are fine, its how you put it together.

@Pelton - mostly fair comments but the game has developed a lot, as you say, the Torch iteration will give a strong clue as to how things will evolve

@chaos45 - agree ... and Pelton's 4-1 fantasy has been called and disproved so many times on this forum that its a bit tedious he still feels the urge to repeat it.

So the bits for WiTE2 are there, but you can't just dump it into the game and hope it comes together.

And for what its worth, I think WiE is a pointless exercise. I've never played a strategic level WW2 game that didn't go seriously off the rails in the early war phase. Earliest its worth starting a WiE is June 1941 ... at least at that stage all the main powers are locked in

[HMSWarspite]

I think there is a lot of assuming going on here. I can summarise a lot of comments here as: this wont work as WITE 2 because it will need re-balancing. And it will, but the basic issues with Wite - lack of realistic supply, air game simplifications will be much better modelled. In my book, the measure of a good underlying game system is not needing special rules to simulate unusual events, and little need for house rules. For example, the initial opening rules for Ge, or HQ build up. These are both artificial add ons to a basic system because the basic system has holes. WITW does not have (and does not need) HQ build up. It has supply priority. This just alters where the supply goes, using existing mechanics. The Barbarossa shows what can be achieved against strategically unprepared troops by fully prepared ones. I would hope the initial conditions and supply states will enable the German opening without any special rules.

It may not be perfect but it should be way way better than the (best out there) WITE 1. I think WITW has far less house rules arising than WITE...

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: jamesm

Has work started on WitE 2?

Apart from my question I have been thinking what changes they might need to do from War in the West. The air war model may need to be changed or adapted because strategic bombing from my research hardly played a role on the Eastern front (maybe part from early on and the bombing raids on the Romanian oil fields and some German air raids on Russian Cities), while in WitW it is a very important factor in the air war.

Also the number of administrative points may have to be changed (if the same point cost system is used in WitW) is to reflect the need to constantly create airfields and depots due to the ebb and flow of the front lines.

Why would the air model need change? Yes, there was little SB in the east. Why? Because there weren't enough SB and they were needed elsewhere? This isn't a reason to change the system. If the Ge wanted to SB like mad, and had less GS instead, this is a natural consequence and a valid option.

The issue that will need addressing is the rail use of moving factories - ideally (see my previous post) factory moves wont be limited by special rules (you can move x per week), but will use rail capacity. Then the player chooses.

Oh, and of course Admin points will change. All the scenario details will need to change...

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: beekeeper

I think all this forum wait it!
wite+witw on one map and ships and more micromanagment =)

I do hope not (the micromanagement) - even at the level in WITW turns will take longer (more units). I don't want more that needs to be done.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I think we will have a better idea how things will work once Torch comes out.

I have played 14 games of WitW and don't see the current system working for WitE 2.0.

The issue is logistics as it makes for a very static game and the same old issue with the combat engine.

Supplies do build up but it takes time which means the defender can build walls of steel, even in late 44 early 45 German defenses cant be broken.

Aren't you forgetting that supplies apply to defenders as well- they are falling back on their supply, but (for Ge especially), it isn't binary (in/out of supply). You only have so much supply to go around, so building a wall everywhere shouldn't be possible (or not quickly).

and units simply can't move far enough to pocket anything even vs weak defenses.

Why do you say this?

This can be fixed IF supplies build up. France is very small area of operations and its next to impossible to get a break through.

The unit density in France is way different to the east. Also, the single biggest factor in France (dominating strategy above all else) was supply limits. It isn't as if the WA were ever close to breaking through after Sept '44... This is like saying Lemons don't grow in Scotland so planting lemon trees in Sicily is a waste of time...

I agree WitE 1.0 allows for to liberal supplies, but 2.0 has a very WW I feel to it as supplies and movement are slow aka almost static.

Confusing use of 2.0 We use it for a major revamp using WITW system, I think you are talking about latest patch of 1.0 engine.

1. Logistics aka a true build up needs to be real.
2. Combat losses really need to be historical. 42-44 4-1 not 2-1. The combat engine needs to be trashed and start over
A combat engine not based on true loses on the ground. but on retreat loses will NEVER work as its Middle Earth and not historical.

Russian loses when they were winning and driving east were 4 to 1 at least not 1 to 1 when Germans retreat.

and yes I have posted historical data supporting this as has Chaos.

Fix the combat engine and tweak logistics and we will have a historical 2.0

Interesting. You do of course realise that your frequent use of 'Middle Earth' as a term is these days seen as boring and close to trolling?

And whilst you may have data showing 4:1 losses (I haven't seen it, but I haven't been in this forum that much lately) it needs to be discussed in light of game mechanics. Units don't lose combat solely due to losses. And losses in retreat will have been a significant factor. You say 'losses on the ground'. Have you statistically valid data that shows losses (by division as a minimum, but btn or at least troop type preferable), over a week of combat and moves of a sensible fraction of 10 miles, by attacking force type/strength, and their effect on the capability of the division? I haven't. Total losses only matters in regards to manpower pools and replacement rates. Other than that, all that matters is holding ground/retreating and next week's attack/defense capability. Whether the CV is low because of dead/wounded or troops being tired, hungry, disorganised or low morale does not affect the combat engine, only the replacement/recovery engine

I am not arguing that you are wrong, just that you may not be right.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Still havent bothered to buy WiTW as it honestly just looks to be alot of managing an airwar....and I had enough of that tedium with the bombing of the reich game many years ago.

I have played both - no comparison. Weekly turns (not daily), raids can be set with almost 1 click. Even micromanaging everything you will set up all of (say) BC's raids for a week with little more than one big BTR raid. It is daunting, but nowhere near as bad as BTR.

As to WiTE 2.0- A slow down in operational tempo due to supply stockpiling is needed. However the balance has already proven to be very tough to maintain as recent games show- a -5 Morale for Soviets has led to basically much more powerful German 1942 offensive capability than intended.

So stockpiling needs to be measured and fine tuned to where initially the Germans can push hard but get stopped due to waiting, however at the same time a straight 1% loss to CV per 1% under on supplies/fuel will drop German CV very quickly and may end up making breakthroughs almost impossible especially when stacked with MP delays for combat in hexes.

This could be read as 'improvement is difficult so don't even try'. Surely not what you mean? You haven't played WITW, but on the strength of (what? Pelton's views?) you decide that the system can't work. Believe me, rolling over a 1-1 CV unit with a 20+ Arm Div works fine in WitW. It is just you wont see 1-1 units in any number in France in 1944, thus there wont be breakthroughs. Why doesn't someone model a 'eastern front' 1941 situation in WITW? The kit will be all wrong, but set up a Sov strength front line in clear terrain and see if some decent attackers can break through. Believe me, they will. It is just down to scenario design.

As Pelton says the only way to make a system like that work is where you have realistic combat attrition. Not sure facts of losses back up the 4:1 loss ratio for the Germans for the whole war as during late war aside from the assault on Berlin think the statistics dropped to 2-2.5:1 for Soviet to German losses. However as can easily be seen in the game even this doesnt happen. As the attacker unless they are attack stopped rarely lose more men than the defender. An even if they do its usually a 1.5:1 exchange rate or thereabouts.

The caveat on losses is its hard to judge for a game, because again as Pelton has said we are not Hitler/Stalin- so Soviet players in general arent going to assault every week knowing they will just fail and lose buckets of troops....so how many troops/loss ratio does this save unless the game wants to factor in these idiotic Soviet forced assaults. Is alot of evidence pointing out that an earlier end to the soviet counteroffensives of 1941/1942 could have prevented any massive German offensive gains in 1942...as by continuing assaults past the point of gaining anything Stalin burned up alot of men and equipment that would have been better used to stopping the German 1942 offensive. Right now that huge error in Stalins judgement is already baked into the game and its assumed the Soviets lost that extra million men and are weakend and ripe for German 1942 offensive. As basically the Soviet Army put 30-35 Million troops under arms in WW2....You can easily look at the Starting Soviet OOB and add up its replacements per week and see it wont total 30-35 Million...so alot of Soviets losses are already built into the current system by just not giving the Soviets the troops in the first place.

And here we see possibly the cause of massive misconception here. WITE does not model every soldier in the Soviet army. Where are the cooks? The Supply clerks? The truck maintainers? the rear area depot troops? The MPs? Some may be factored in, and the Sov 'tail' is much smaller than WA, but you cannot add game troops up and compare with the total enlistment. Any more than you can add total ammo production in game and compare with real life. Ammo used in basic training isn't modelled. The instructors aren't modelled. Ammo sent to a rear area store and forgotten isn't modelled.

Its a very rough balancing act, and it wont be all roses on the German side either, because to make it realistic on losses German casualties on attacks and reducing pockets would have to be drastically increased, about twice or more than they are now. Division to corps sized assaults only losing 1-2 companies of casualties is pure fantasy.

I think you will find that Division to corps level assaults always losing a regiment or more is a bigger fantasy...

I am not saying you are wrong, just that this being a reason why WITE 2 (from WITW) wont work is wrong

[chaos45]

HMS- Ive read alot on eastern front combat and a fair amount on western front combat- assaults for both sides were very lethal and deadly affairs.

In the game most assaults even with 100's of thousands of troops involved end up 1-2k losses its beyond dumb. In real life and as happened in pretty much every major operations of the war entire battalions/regiments/divisions/even corps could and were basically wiped from the map in 1-2 weeks of combat.

This rarely if every happens in the current version of the game unless enemy is encircled and forced to surrender- attrition by direct combat is way to low. Every major operation of the war supports this.

Turns of massive offensive pushes against entrenched defenders with reserve formations only costing 10-20k men in a week is fantasy, as the offensives you see in WiTE dwarf almost anything conducted in the real war. As the Germans will often throw 40+ divisions into a headlong offensive coving areas of 200-300 miles in 1 week in the game against similar levels of soviets in 1942. Effectively you see kursk level force committments all summer long in 1942 with miniscule losses in the current version of the game.

Im not saying to not try and make a go of it and make a balanced game just saying the system needs some fixes if its going to work right...and the current game combat system of line up both sides "units" and roll dice till one side breaks off then they take a hammering mainly from retreat losses poorly reflects the reality of WW2 combat. As that description of units lined firing/rolling dice on an open field is a how the game effectively resolves combat.....and thats the issue with why you dont get realistic combat results. Maybe WiTW has a better model but thats the current from my understanding of how WiTE combat works.....so basically he who has most/biggest shooty gits wins as all terrain does is modify final odds.

An no every advance didnt lose a regiment because many advances werent contested because the defenders retreated or where wiped out by previous combat. I think you will find any combat where the defenders fought it out in decent strength with entrenchments the attacker takes a fair amount of losses as well as the defender. Im not complaining about a panzer division overrunning a Tank BDE and only taking a couple hundred losses.....Im talking when this happens from 2-3 divisions getting hit by 2+ divisions and losses are still only in 500 or less range at times- isnt realism. This lack of realism is also why we see both armies sitting at 90+% ToE almost all the time because you dont lose near anything to launch attacks.

The cooks/ammo handlers/mechanics are in the game....those are the 20 man each support squads that both armies have massive amounts of. Also if your looking at 4.5M German forces on the eastern front in 1942 that is for sure including all these odd personnel under the support label. As I can assure the Germans probably never had more 2M actual combat troops on the eastern front...in all honesty based on the way the German Army worked prolly 1-1.5M men might have actually been combat troops at most- infantry/combat engineers/panzer crews.

As to Peltons 4:1 he gets it from a chart a guy put on his website that is wrong. As it doesnt include all losses for the Germans and inlcudes all losses for the Soviets to make the odds favor the Germans- biased statistic making basically. Also the chart doesnt included Axis-Allied losses...in fact most Stats showing how much ubermen the Germans are use total Soviet losses and only German losses to show how each German kill x amount of soviets....but then every pro german statistic out there always forgets the million+ Finnish, Hunargian, Romanians, Italians that also fought and in fairly large numbers died/were wounded fighting the Soviets...Im sure those million+ men account for a fair amont of Soviet losses as well. Not to mention when you include axis allied casualties the 4:1 ratio quickly drops closer to 2:1 give or take level. All just depends on what study you believe but basically the final odds ratio is probably around 1.5-2.5:1 Total all Axis vs Soviet.

[RedLancer]

Keep this thread going it's great....

- I have to say that IMO Historical Statistic Wars to prove a point are an interesting argument but an ultimately flawed approach unless constrained to a single finite factor in time and space like how much cargo can a rail line move in one week. Scientific practice is to have a Control against which to measure your findings. In games of this sort with so many variables and absolutely no Control render arguments over whose statistics prove a point better are almost worthless. Much better is gut feel - does it feel right? I've spent days balancing scenarios for both WitW and WitE and never used loss statistics as the game does not model all forces. Time and space is a much better indicator.

- Don't base WitE2.0 thoughts on WitE. 2.0 is being created from WitW and the WitE/W Code split over three years ago and both have changed hugely from that schism.

- Where comments in this thread are on the money is in consideration of logistics and offensive operations. Firstly the need to stockpile logistics is paramount (not really possible in WitW) and also choosing suitable avenues of advance which match supply routes. I believe the Panzer Ball will not be possible in WitE2.0 as you will be unable to sustain so many hungry formations. Also a 'planned' offensive should benefit the attacker in more than just supply. Barbarossa and Bagration were successful as they were well planned. Now a system that links planning and supply build up would be clever.

[HMSWarspite]

The element of planning is a good one. WITP has prep points for objectives (and so does WITW amphib). Some sort of system like that would be a bonus. I am not sure how to do it (it definitely isn't a case of 'target units'). Maybe corps could have objectives with a bonus if a move is towards it... would need more thought.

And my point on cooks and truck maintainers wasn't aimed at 'in combat units'. I know that is what a support squad is. I mean the ones behind the lines not the ones in HQ and combat units. Who unloads the supply trains? Who drives the trucks? Who receives the recruits in Moscow and gives them uniforms etc? This is the hidden element that isn't in the game. At present manpower magically moves from a pool to a unit, without soldiers being involved in any way... Thus an audit of manpower against totals is very hard (as Red Lancer says).

And casualties are hard to audit as you the only thing you know in RL is that is what the figure was (with uncertainty). You don't know why they were like that. Unless you create exactly the same circumstances, you cannot know what the game 'should' create. Also you dont know where you are in the distribution of RL results. On entire fronts and wars it will tend to average out, but you will never know if RL was a -2 std Dev result or a +2 Sd. In other words if you could magically run the universe again, what result would you get (chaos effects etc - tiny changes in decisions could make big differences to results).

Thus in my view you just have to decide what the engine will include and try and arrange a plausible range of outcomes. At present WITE is on/off with supply,and this makes the start/stop effect hard. WITW supply will make it at least possible to have supply driven pauses and build ups 'organically'. Of course it will need to be tuned...

[LiquidSky]

WitW has no trouble allowing blitzkrieg type warfare. The way the 8th BR and 7th US armies roll over the Italians in Sicily is a good indicator of what will happen to the Russians in 1941. Also the way they use up supplies while doing it. And the need to use sufficient force on dug in units in terrain (cities, rough etc.).

[HMSWarspite]

Indeed, my very point. The only thing Sicily doesn't have is the big encirclement battles, and that is what could be simulated with a test scenario in France if anyone wanted... the effect of MP delays due to combat on the ability to pocket, and the strength of breakout/in attacks in the 'Russian' turn, given the state of the attacking armoured units post the breakthrough. But I have no doubt that east front effects will occur almost naturally. The one big question is can you (with Current WITW logs/rules) achieve the opening of Barbarossa (without being overly powerful later in game), or is some other benefit needed? That is potentially what planning/objectives/prep point rules achieve. IF June/July 41 could only be achieved with max in unit supply, zero fatigue against average to poor supply and morale, and these conditions can't be achieved again in game (or not without huge effort), that would be good. If you cant achieve it without units being too powerful/fast in later game, that is where prep points might help. Max supply, zero fatigue, max prep could give a further 'lever'. I mean, you could have say 3 months to build up 100% prep against an objective up to (say) 5 hexes away, and have a CV and maybe move bonus if you go towards it. Then have rules like being attacked, or moving away halves prep... This would reflect perfect prep in peacetime being hard to repeat due to spoiling attacks, unit being used in reserve, etc. And prep point build up could be harder for deeper targets, thus pre=game you might prep for objectives much deeper than you could ever expect later. Players might then find Russian prep 43-44 might be only practical 3 hexes deep, encouraging the initial advance then pause whereas Germany with a 'free' peacetime 100% could prep the deepest possible (maybe even 10 hexes etc) in June 41.

Don't know, just thinking. I think the WITW supply system will transform WITE. Will is be enough to remove special rules? Who knows. It would be nice if first winter rules, opening rules and house rules all became unnecessary...

[invernomuto]

Will WITE 2.0 have weekly turn as WITW and WITE 1.0?
Thanks in advance

[RedLancer]

Yes - think WitW+ in the east.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



WitW has no trouble allowing blitzkrieg type warfare.
The way the 8th BR and 7th US armies roll over the Italians
in Sicily is a good indicator of what will happen to the Russians in 1941.
Also the way they use up supplies while doing it.
And the need to use sufficient force on dug in units in terrain (cities, rough etc.).

Get out of minors bro.

I have never had my Italians get pocketed on Sicily. Your playing newbies son not pros.

An Island with 24 hexes is not Russian.

Really that's all you got?

[>:][>:][>:][>:]
[>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:]
[>:][>:][>:][>:]

I have data 37 + games Russia and 16 WitW and u have Sicily heheheheheh

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

First, I think it's pointless to try and hit specific army size milestones 3 years in. Reality is that everybody plays with plenty of hindsight and many losses due to pointless attacks that stemmed from faulty appreciation of the situation, political pressure or just stupidity don't take place. Army Group Center in December 41 or Stalingrad are very unlikely to happen, and being able to do countless iterations of the same events leads to a measure of optimization that just can't be accounted for except by going the railroad route of WITE.

Instead, create uncertainty for the player which will lead to more mistakes.

Due to manpower allocation being heavily dependent on historical events this means a German/Soviet army in 43 that took less than historical losses would be very large, instead of having some of that manpower remaining in production. I don't see any way to manage this, except maybe give manpower that is stuck in the manpower pool some kind of positive supply/production effect so that you don't just automatically always want the most manpower possible on the map.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?

That said, loss ratios do matter because it's nearly impossible to properly attrit the enemy without encircling manoeuvres that span hundreds of miles.

Encirclements could easily take place at company or battalion/regimental level IF there was a mobility mismatch or a c&c breakdown but the current combat engine doesn't consider that. Also, less mobile units could be overrun and destroyed, even if there notionally was space to retreat. This doesn't happen in the game, so the only practical way to cause attrition is to go for the big encirclements. I doubt these will be possible very often with the new logistics and MP penalties for hexes with combat (both very good, but now the problems manifest themselves somewhere else)

Loss ratio is also important because it punishes mistakes. Right now, everybody knows far too well what is going on on the other side, mistakes seldom happen (as in a attack running in much stronger forces than expected, the reserve system helps, but it's very localised and IMO it's still too easy to know far too much). Much bigger FOW effect on enemy strength displays or making it harder to detect formations might go some way to remedy this by inducing mistakes, especially for the Germans who had much less information on the other side.

Alternatively supply restraints could act as a regulator and I have high hopes for the new logistics system.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?

As I understand the current system only uses firepower (with hit% modded by experience), with a modifier for retreat thrown in. I don't think a fixed combat ratio German-Soviet is the answer, rather a neutral system that takes more factors into account.

F.e.:
- size-space ratio
- experience differential
- mobility differential
- some kind of leadership check (for defence, is withdraw order given in time and well organized, for attack, do they actually know what is going on/where to go)
- last but not least some kind of stance like in TOAW, with minimize, limit and ignore. There needs to be some way of fighting a delaying action or only making a probing attack (recon by force goes a step in the right direction, but again cuts down on the number of mistakes).

The system could stay the same throughout, as the Soviets improve their ratio automatically becomes better.

+1000000000000000000000000

Great post

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



I am not too worried about a Red Army airforce dominating the field with massive numbers of poor aircraft if WitW is any indication.

Quality is king in the air. Low morale coupled with poor machines means the Red Army airforce will attrit itself, just by flying. What planes that do make it into the air without crashing will be easily shot down. But some planes will get through. But only a tiny fraction of the total.

The Germans will be able to bomb airfields that are closer to the front which will force the Red Army to either disperse
it's air squadrons or base them farther back in cities guarded by FlaK.

See again your exp on Western Front is important, but your not thinking EF.

1. Russians have massive amounts of flak.
2. IF German advance is historical there will be zero bases to fly planes from near the front.
3. Germans advancing across a front with no railnet will take many turns to get supplies to rebuild airfields or put ammo at front.
4. A massive Red AF will hammer what it wants at will.
5. By doing this they gain exp
6. German AF can not cover all the front so there will be areas that the Red AF can gain exp.
7. Red AF has massive amounts of TB's and as we know from WitW they are way over rated. For some reason 2by3 thinks all TB are Stukas. Ahh yes another unhistorical bone that needs picking when the time comes

Quality might be King aka morale, but quaintly wins if there are no AB's or supplies.

You need stop thinking small ball, this is Russian Front not Normandy

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is so frustrating. I get it that you think that combat losses are too few. I moved beyond that stage ages ago. But why is this so critical to gameplay?

I'm now examining the scope of that change and how the impact of the losses being too few manifests itself on the wider game. When we start running the first WitE2 tests I need to know what to look for happening in the wider game with all the new factors in play.

- Why is the loss ratio so critical?
- Is it only that OOBs get too big over time or it is something that has in turn effect?
- Do the losses to both sides need to increase equitably?
- Does the combat ratio need to change over time?

ok, my view. We all agree current losses are too low.

but its not the critical issue (imho). Your second point is the key that the result is that the OOBs get too large and this has other consequences.

By that I mean if both sides are too large then the game locks up apart from at the phases where the game rules force a break. At the moment, by that I mean Dec 41 (Sov winter offensive), June 42 (Sov NM at 40), sometime in 43 (as the impact of the 43 NM changes come to apply) and sometime in 44 (as the German army starts to fall apart). The problem of too large armies is that at each of those stages the intended effect is made stronger as the beneficiary is too large.

Too large a German army makes 1942 too effective, too large a German army makes 1943 pretty tedious, both are worsened by MP players optimising their actions for the long term and with a great deal of hindsight.

I think it would be good for Soviet losses to be higher, as above keying this to experience and leadership would be quite an elegant solution. Or their attrition losses could be higher - same effect via a different method.

But you need to put the Germans into the position in 1942 where they can attack but not on the scale we are currently seeing and in 1943 where they can defend effectively but again not in endless lines of pre-pared forts.

Final point - no, let the shifting lethality of weapons systems and the changes in army competence handle that aspect.

Good points.

Red I am looking at the snowball effect of what loki has pointed out.

1. If Russian loses are lower in 41 which they will be because pockets simply will be much harder to come by and Lvov will probably be coded out one way or the other.
We know the likely results of this in current AAR's. German gets no wheres near historical and Red Army is larger then historical because combat engine results are to low.

2. So in turn because of the snowball effect. Russian Army has a very powerfull 41/42 winter- German Army suffers heavy losses ect.

3. German Army is a shell of itself by June 42 and Russian Army is HUGE.

4. German Army runs out of steam by late July early August. Now this will be worse because of lower MP's (2.0) if the German Army can not pocket units it simply can not get 4 to 1 combat ratios so why attack? You are losing by winning.

5. Russian Army is on general offensive by September 42.

Now couple this with the fact of morale changes and lower MP's across the board you will see this happen even sooner. Russian players will have zero fear of German pockets so simply spam lose battles.

I also believe there will be issues with the massive Russian Air Force which will simply spam bombing German formations.


Your more then likely not going to see any of this doing AI vs AI tests or player vs AI test.

[chaos45]

Under the hood of the system- might be complex but hey the system is supposedly modeling every rifle shot as is right?

Combat losses should be modified by Fatigue/damage/disruption/mobility.

Soviet infantry division attacked successfully by a panzer division- should take very heavy losses if it retreats- Reasons its immobile against a very well trained and very mobile force. Even if the infantry division decides to retreat dudes on foot dont outrun dudes in trucks/Halftracks/tanks.

Maybe morale checks need added to combat to decide how many rounds of fire/combat occur before a unit retreats. Thus high morale units will fight bitterly to contest a spot before falling back causing more losses to both sides.

The above reference to Soviet infantry would apply to German infantry as well. They were mostly immobile/horse drawn especially after 1942 when alot of vehicles were stripped away to build new formations/ re-build formations for Operation Blue. Soviet tank/mobile forces successfully attack German infantry those guys should basically get run down but maybe slightly less losses due to experience factor to simulate better rear-guard actions an such. Static units forced to retreat should take very heavy losses from mobile units......as basically almost none of their heavy equipment would be mobile not to mention all the men are all on foot.....

Also heavily fatigued units/disrupted/damaged elements should also take higher losses if they retreat...hard to drag disrupted/damaged units along in a retreat especially if the attackers are mobile units and fast moving. I think you will find the Germans historically prolly lost as many if not more tanks to being unable to take them with them on a retreat. Especially in late 1943 entire major tank repair facilities were overrun costing them lots of repairable vehicles because they didnt have the capability to move them out.

Also you need different combat/loss tables based on Terrain- any type of city terrain needs to have a much much higher casualty table for combat. Keep the odds the same sure....but anything Lvl 3 fort, city, heavy woods, mountains probably need much higher loss tables. Armies in WW2 hated to directly assault cities because losses were always super high...in the game they arent at all...just as easy to attack a city as it is an open hex as long as you can get the odds. Fine with odds allowing the city to be pushed but it should be bloodbath for both sides.

[RedLancer]

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?