Soviet cavalry divisions and immortal retreats

[Stamb]

just started new game, i am playing as a Soviets obviously, turn 1

let me show you this LEGENDARY 3rd Cav division

1.png (1.18 MiB) Viewed 979 times

2.png (370.34 KiB) Viewed 979 times

just 4 retreats in a row
great 50% CPP loss in each attack for the Axis

why would Axis player be unhappy...

[loki100]

ok, and what do you want, so far in this thread we've got mixed up:

a) the combat engine is wrong;
b) the CPP loss mechanism is wrong; and
c) the modelling of Soviet cavalry divisions is wrong

Now its possible that all 3 are the case but as ever, its a lot easier to get the changes you want by being precise. And, as above, the chances of getting the combat engine opened up are closely correlated to saves and very precise statements of what you expect to see. That is how the changes for urban terrain were justified.

fwiw, CPP is under review but so far not exactly seeing consensus as to how to rework

We also get the views of a very narrow, self-reinforcing, portion of the player base in this thread, so it maybe that what is reported keys off very specific shared approaches?

Now I've come to a pragmatic, purely personal, solution from the axis pov. While CPP matters, in the opening phase it only matters for certain formations. So I basically run the CPP off for the axis motorised divisions which then do quite a number on these cavalry formations over time. So there is a gameplay solution - just one that doesn't appeal to your group. It may well be the 'wrong' solution. But like a lot for this game - I often change my mind over time. My latest view on high CPP is its nice to have but its no longer high on my priority list for the axis in the opening turns. I don't waste it, I take care over unit placement to optimise regain, but if I have a set of units on low CPP, then so be it

[Stamb]

i and many other players wrote that 50% CPP loss in any attack is a big problem

and i wrote it in this specific thread, https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8#p5005958
appropriate feature suggestions were made:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9&t=379607

as for a this

We also get the views of a very narrow, self-reinforcing, portion of the player base in this thread, so it maybe that what is reported keys off very specific shared approaches?

you are still targeting players that do not agree with a balance?

also it is good to know that CPP is under review

[AlbertN]

The problem hereby discussed I believe is about specific Soviet units suffering light casualties from widely superior forces in terms of equipment, training, etc.

The CAVs are right now something probably extremely off because they sneak around, they flip hexes despite being potentially quite weak, the embrace Axis units exploiting holes and causing the fantasy-routes, and in general require a lot of effort to be somehow mauled. And as many other weak units they exert a ZoC (Something at least in said group there is consensus weak units should not exert or at least be affected by some strength ratio).
Soviet CAVs are exceptional at soaking Axis movement points; or at performing 'scouting' attacks (as per giving you recon on the defender), etc.

I do not believe that is something pertinent to a narrow group of players sharing an approach - it is a factual way to use overly efficient units. To put it simply for the buck they demand they offer a massive bang.
Even assuming it was the same division attacking 4 times a Soviet CAV, on T1, their CCP go 100 - 50 - 25 - 12. A rack of fatigue, and a lot of ammos and supplies spent.

Thus suddenly a screen of Cavalry divisions is more efficient than a line of Rifle Divisions. It will cost less troops to the Russians, and has way more chances to not get pontially crushed. And if they get encircled, well it's 4k men per division top.

I understand the point that is being made about 'you are a group thus you play the same' but I do not believe we all play the same - but if some 'grand winning strategy' is identified, in a multiplayer environment that strategy is usually broadly adopted. Because it's winning. Not because we are some hive mind.

[Joel Billings]

Against infantry, a cavalry division would make the ideal delaying force (see Buford and the Battle of Gettysburg). German hasty attacks are pushing back and weakening the division, but only the panzer division can catch up to it and really demolish it. For most things there are countermeasures. Gary intentionally made CPP a simple system, and as loki says, there is not strong consensus on how to change it.

[AlbertN]

Against infantry, a cavalry division would make the ideal delaying force (see Buford and the Battle of Gettysburg). German hasty attacks are pushing back and weakening the division, but only the panzer division can catch up to it and really demolish it. For most things there are countermeasures. Gary intentionally made CPP a simple system, and as loki says, there is not strong consensus on how to change it.

Ideally no so much. Very different era and weaponry, civil war type of Cavalry Raids are a thing ... 1941 ones ... The intrinsic frailness of the 'horse' with modern weaponry would hardly work - twicefold so with the aerial factor (and how that comes in play with WITE2 it is another and totally different tale - probably what has been made for the sea should have been made for the ground in terms of passive interdiction radiating from airbases).

[Beethoven1]

Against infantry, a cavalry division would make the ideal delaying force (see Buford and the Battle of Gettysburg). German hasty attacks are pushing back and weakening the division, but only the panzer division can catch up to it and really demolish it. For most things there are countermeasures. Gary intentionally made CPP a simple system, and as loki says, there is not strong consensus on how to change it.

The first post in the thread from Jango32 is 4 screenshots of Panzer divisions, not infantry, attacking cavalry fwiw. Presumably cavalry ought not to be particularly good at delaying a Panzer division, even if it is against non-motorized infantry.

[loki100]

Against infantry, a cavalry division would make the ideal delaying force (see Buford and the Battle of Gettysburg). German hasty attacks are pushing back and weakening the division, but only the panzer division can catch up to it and really demolish it. For most things there are countermeasures. Gary intentionally made CPP a simple system, and as loki says, there is not strong consensus on how to change it.

The first post in the thread from Jango32 is 4 screenshots of Panzer divisions, not infantry, attacking cavalry fwiw. Presumably cavalry ought not to be particularly good at delaying a Panzer division, even if it is against non-motorized infantry.

I'd say yes and no ... they have asymetric strengths. A horse can go places a tank can't (esp an early 1940s tank) so if its a straight race over open ground the Pzr wins but even a clear hex isn't just open ground. There is enough cover, broken ground, streams to limit just where the Pzr can go, esp if the cavalry are playing a delaying action. Its notable that if the Soviet player attacks with cavalry, they can get a real shoeing as a result.

There maybe a key problem, the game doesn't have modes, like a meeting engagement, a rearguard delay etc it is fundamentally attacker-defender in what appears to be a classic hold/take ground interaction. So conceptually a lot of what goes on, esp on a fragmented mobile battlefield gets rather lost in the IGOUGO framework

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ok, and what do you want, so far in this thread we've got mixed up:

a) the combat engine is wrong;
b) the CPP loss mechanism is wrong; and
c) the modelling of Soviet cavalry divisions is wrong

Now its possible that all 3 are the case but as ever, its a lot easier to get the changes you want by being precise. And, as above, the chances of getting the combat engine opened up are closely correlated to saves and very precise statements of what you expect to see. That is how the changes for urban terrain were justified.

fwiw, CPP is under review but so far not exactly seeing consensus as to how to rework

We also get the views of a very narrow, self-reinforcing, portion of the player base in this thread, so it maybe that what is reported keys off very specific shared approaches?

Now I've come to a pragmatic, purely personal, solution from the axis pov. While CPP matters, in the opening phase it only matters for certain formations. So I basically run the CPP off for the axis motorised divisions which then do quite a number on these cavalry formations over time. So there is a gameplay solution - just one that doesn't appeal to your group. It may well be the 'wrong' solution. But like a lot for this game - I often change my mind over time. My latest view on high CPP is its nice to have but its no longer high on my priority list for the axis in the opening turns. I don't waste it, I take care over unit placement to optimise regain, but if I have a set of units on low CPP, then so be it

Regarding the 'terms of discussion' I don't think it is helpful to have a black and white view of stuff either being right or wrong (or, unless we are talking about bugs, about things being WAD or not). Similarly I don't think it helps to talk in terms of "your group'"(or again to talk about there being a tribe of "WADers" as the other closed thread was suggesting). In the end everybody is on the same team - we all want the game to be as good as can be. There will always be lots of shades of grey in that process and I feel that that can get lost if we are too quick to 'pick sides'.

In answer to your question my view would be:

a) I don't think there are any obvious issues with the combat engine in terms of outcomes/losses involving cavalry units. It makes sense to me that unless surrounded cavalry units have the mobility to minimise losses.

b) I think the CPP system can in time be made more subtle. There definitely should be a difference in CPP loss for a unit getting a marginal victory over a well prepared defensive position compared to one that is easily rolling over disrupted and weak opponents.

c) Again this is an area that in time can be made more subtle. At the moment it feels like all cavalry divisions and all cavalry squad elements are made equal. Just thinking intuitively without any appeal to expertise, it seems to me that there is a significant difference between a cavalry unit that is 'mounted infantry' with soldiers with basic horsemanship and typical infantry training who use the horses to give themselves more mobility before dismounting and fighting as infantry and a unit that is more exploitative cavalry where the soldiers would be much more specialised in terms of both horsemanship and their expertise in fighting behind enemy lines. To my very limited knowledge the Soviets did not distinguish between the two in terms of their OOB or TOEs so for me the best way to reflect that difference is by differentiating based of unit experience/morale. So for example you could say that only cavalry units with morale/experience above 50 can enter 'pink hexes' and units below that can only move into friendly hexes.

As an aside, one thing that I've noticed from reading old WITE1 aars and Wite2 aars is that in the former there often seemed to be an emphasis early on for the Soviet player to protect their cavalry units in order to use them later on in the first blizzard. For whatever reason in #2 it seems like Soviet players are much happier to treat their cavalry as expendable. As a wider point in terms of balance I do wonder if the Axis need a 'buff' through June-November 41 that is counterbalanced by trying to give the Soviets a bit more ability to cause damage over the winter? At the moment my impression is that in even games the spring 42 front lines end up roughy historical but that end point is reached by the Axis player finding it difficult to match the pace of the historical offensive but on the other hand finding it easier to manage the Soviet winter counter offensive.

[Stamb]

exactly Sammy

it is pretty bad, if not ridiculous, when players can not discuss game balance or other issues on the official game forum
so what do they do?
they find other shelters where they can do it without being bullying
and it is exactly the story of "small group" (which contains roughly 50% of active PvP players that post on a forum)

so if somebody is not agreed with what other players say, why not to act politely?
but instead we get labels "Axis moaners" who do not know game mechanics but surprisingly turns into super Soviet players that stomp Axis in `41

i told many times to a loki that everybody likes this game, otherwise they would be not here, and is ready to make it better by providing feedback, screenshots, saves, even spend spare time by making tests to provide this saves
will he finally realize it? time will show

[Sammy5IsAlive]

exactly Sammy

it is pretty bad, if not ridiculous, when players can not discuss game balance or other issues on the official game forum
so what do they do?
they find other shelters where they can do it without being bullying
and it is exactly the story of "small group" (which contains roughly 50% of active PvP players that post on a forum)

so if somebody is not agreed with what other players say, why not to act politely?
but instead we get labels "Axis moaners" who do not know game mechanics but surprisingly turns into super Soviet players that stomp Axis in `41

i told many times to a loki that everybody likes this game, otherwise they would be not here, and is ready to make it better by providing feedback, screenshots, saves, even spend spare time by making tests to provide this saves
will he finally realize it? time will show

I don't want to derail this thread as I think it is an interesting and important topic.

But given your reply I am concerned that I might not have expressed myself as clearly as I could have done.

To be more clear, the criticism (explicit and implicit) in my previous post was aimed as much at you as it was at Loki. Your reply to my post is actually an example of the kind of contribution that I think is unhelpful and unnecessary.

Anyway, back to talking about horseys

[Stamb]

yes, sorry
no more off top

[loki100]

...
not good loki, not good

...

i told many times to a loki that everybody likes this game, otherwise they would be not here, and is ready to make it better by providing feedback, screenshots, saves, even spend spare time by making tests to provide this saves
will he finally realize it? time will show

Ok, I've really had enough abuse - and from the discord screenshots I was sent - what can only be called hatred - from some posters.

treat this as the last time I contrbute, its really not worth it for the cumulative impact on my mental health

well done

[Stamb]

Ok, I've really had enough abuse - and from the discord screenshots I was sent - what can only be called hatred - from some posters.

which you will obviously not show cuz they do not exist, right?

[exalted]

a) I don't think there are any obvious issues with the combat engine in terms of outcomes/losses involving cavalry units. It makes sense to me that unless surrounded cavalry units have the mobility to minimise losses.

There might be when attacked by mechanized forces, who would easily outrun and gundown cavalry elements. I'm no expert but trying to ride away from tanks sounds dangerous.

[Zebtucker12]

a) I don't think there are any obvious issues with the combat engine in terms of outcomes/losses involving cavalry units. It makes sense to me that unless surrounded cavalry units have the mobility to minimise losses.

There might be when attacked by mechanized forces, who would easily outrun and gundown cavalry elements. I'm no expert but trying to ride away from tanks sounds dangerous.

A cavalry divisons is not only cavalry.
and it seems like people are describing more of a ZOC situation for cavalry anyways than actually defending i mean it takes the same CPP movment points etc attacking a cavalry divison that just runs away as it does attacking a entranched guardcorps....

[ElizabethWizard]

IK I've commented on it before but it's absolutely hilarious to me how some members of this community (Stamb is one example) seem to take the stance that if something doesn't work exactly how they think it should work then it's broken.

Like I've had double routs from 50 morale 50 exp 70% toe stacked divisions because the 110 morale AI attacked with a division. I've seen 20k losses in single actions. I've seen Axis divisions rout and take fewer casualties than the attackers.

But when a cav division takes 15:1 losses four times in a row this is an overpowered travesty that must be corrected immediately or the game is No Fun.

Here's a thought: were there strategic choices you could have made differently, knowing that you will (unfortunately) have to deal with a Soviet formation that doesn't immediately crumble to dust when you look at it sideways?

Or you can rage at Loki idk. It's all the same to me.

[Stamb]

I am a Soviet player. I am more than happy to see such results over and over again. Why wouldn't i be?

There was not a single post made by me where i say that something must be fixed immediately.

[Zebtucker12]

Most of those members along with Stamb are indeed soviet players angry at the game being too easy as soviets

[malyhin1517]

Seriously, the wartime Soviet cavalry divisions were raiding and had a reduced composition, had almost no artillery and were adapted for a quick change of position and guerrilla warfare behind enemy lines. Therefore, although I most often play for the Germans, the Soviet cavalry was created for a quick attack and retreat, and in the game it works correctly. In addition, the speed of the cavalry is higher than the speed of the tanks of that time in off-road conditions. Therefore, with high experience, it can really bear few losses. However, when creating new divisions, they have low experience and also suffer heavy losses.