Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I don' think the whine (and cheese) is so much about the 1:1 as it is about the increased casualties that come about from the forces retreats of the Germans.

Pelton's whine is distinctly and repeatedly about 1:1, he's made that pretty clear. I agree that to the extent there is a problem, it stems from excessive retreat losses rather than the 1:1 rule itself.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I don' think the whine (and cheese) is so much about the 1:1 as it is about the increased casualties that come about from the forces retreats of the Germans.

Pelton's whine is distinctly and repeatedly about 1:1, he's made that pretty clear. I agree that to the extent there is a problem, it stems from excessive retreat losses rather than the 1:1 rule itself.

There's something to this, but I personally think the 1:1 can be abused for purposes beyond naked attrition. It's all about momentum, racking up wins and morale.

Getting lots of cheap wins matters a lot to the Soviets over the long run. This would still be true even if the combat engine were changed to produce lower retreat losses. The Soviet has every incentive to take easy wins given the effects on morale generally and guards specifically. So long as the losses to the Soviet aren't beyond replacement capacity, you still want to run up the score regardless of attrition on the German.

So, even though Pelton is in danger of becoming a bore on the subject...he's got a point.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Getting lots of cheap wins matters a lot to the Soviets over the long run. This would still be true even if the combat engine were changed to produce lower retreat losses. The Soviet has every incentive to take easy wins given the effects on morale generally and guards specifically. So long as the losses to the Soviet aren't beyond replacement capacity, you still want to run up the score regardless of attrition on the German.

By "cheap wins" I presume you mean wins that squeak in at just above 1:1? Let's say the Sovs launch ten attacks in which their initial CVs match the German CVs at 1:1. If the combat engine is functioning as it should, the Sovs should lose many of these combats, and when they lose, they typically lose 10x what the Germans lose. So how are any wins a "cheap win"? For the Sovs to be reasonably confident of ending up with a 1:1 result, they should presumably start with at least 3:2 odds, maybe 2:1. Given the disparity between the German and Sovs in experience/morale/CVs in 1941 and 1942, I think that it will generally be very difficult to get 2:1 odds in most instances in 1941-1942.

It's a cheap win, yes.

The Soviet will always want to make as many such low odds attacks as possible so long they don't exceed his replacement capacity.

Let's assume, arguendo, that the Soviet is getting 100k a turn in manpower. Let us further assume that expensive low odds attacks will cost the Soviet 5k men each on average. The Soviet will still want to launch 20 such attacks a turn, knowing that his army will not shrink in size, and will be gaining wins, morale, and guards conversions. If you are looking at AFV losses, you'll be willing to accept even higher losses.

Hmmh, how about the average Red Army capabilities assuming there were no 1:1 rule?  Could it in 1943 amass say enough arty, guard rifle corps and supports to score a local breakthrough through a 3+ fortified, infantry held line like the 4 TK Army did achieve in Model's flank at Bryansk, which contributed  to stopping the northern pincer at Kursk?  And in 1944, could it perform several such local breakthroughs along AGC's line and throw it into retreat?  From the experience of those of you who played the later scenarios, would both things be impossible without the rule, just the improving qualities of the Red Army, or does it really need this rule to come out right?  

The 1:1 rule is mostly irrelevant in 1943. If you have anything resembling the historical 1943 Red Army you will blast your way through any German fortified position. It's merely a question of the proper application of overwhelming force, and particularly your artillery. You cannot do this across the entire front, to be sure, but you don't need to.

It's in 1942 that it is a problem.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The Soviet will always want to make as many such low odds attacks as possible so long they don't exceed his replacement capacity.

I guess this is what I'm saying...in my experience, if I lose, I lose big--generally 10x German losses--which, especially together with losses to encirclement, etc., certainly exceed my replacement capacity. Even when I win I generally suffer 2-3x losses. All of this means that launching attacks which qualify as "cheap wins" is a losing proposition in my view, and when I attack, I try to get the highest odds possible (within reason) and hope that given my crappy morale, experience, leadership, etc., I can still achieve a 1:1 result. I don't really consider these cheap wins, indeed, they are the only wins I can get...

You've got a lot more experience with the game than I do, but at least in 1941-1942 I think that removing the 1:1 rule will cause issues, and that the "fix" should be sought elsewhere.

Frankly, I've never felt that strongly about this issue and am generally only posting about it now because I don't want Pelton's rather fanatical rants to be the only opinion expressed on the forum. Any fix needs to be carefully considered and tested and not a knee-jerk reaction to the loudest voice on the forum on the topic.

Well, it's only one piece of the puzzle, to be sure. You could arguably leave it as is and throw in all the other changes we've got going and be ok. My own playtesting at this point is showing a very different metagame, and these tester versions haven't altered the 1:1 rule. There's a lot of new stuff being tested at the moment (not all of which has been revealed.)

The game is vast, and contains multitudes.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The Soviet will always want to make as many such low odds attacks as possible so long they don't exceed his replacement capacity.

I guess this is what I'm saying...in my experience, if I lose, I lose big--generally 10x German losses--which, especially together with losses to encirclement, etc., certainly exceed my replacement capacity. Even when I win I generally suffer 2-3x losses. All of this means that launching attacks which qualify as "cheap wins" is a losing proposition in my view, and when I attack, I try to get the highest odds possible (within reason) and hope that given my crappy morale, experience, leadership, etc., I can still achieve a 1:1 result. I don't really consider these cheap wins, indeed, they are the only wins I can get...

You've got a lot more experience with the game than I do, but at least in 1941-1942 I think that removing the 1:1 rule will cause issues, and that the "fix" should be sought elsewhere.

Here you're assuming that the only possible change is to remove entirely the rule, while I think the devs can do something more nuanced and addresses both concerns: yours, when the Red Army is utter crap and Flavio's when the Red Army is coming of age.

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Here you're assuming that the only possible change is to remove entirely the rule, while I think the devs can do something more nuanced and addresses both concerns: yours, when the Red Army is utter crap and Flavio's when the Red Army is coming of age.

Yeah, I think most people agree that it is most relevant in 1942, and to a certain extent 1941. I haven't gotten to 1943 in any PBEM games, but it sounds like most Sov attacks after 1942 will be in excess of 2:1 anyway...

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Well, it's only one piece of the puzzle, to be sure. You could arguably leave it as is and throw in all the other changes we've got going and be ok. My own playtesting at this point is showing a very different metagame, and these tester versions haven't altered the 1:1 rule. There's a lot of new stuff being tested at the moment (not all of which has been revealed.)

Now THAT is intringuing [:)]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The 1:1 rule is mostly irrelevant in 1943. If you have anything resembling the historical 1943 Red Army you will blast your way through any German fortified position. It's merely a question of the proper application of overwhelming force, and particularly your artillery. You cannot do this across the entire front, to be sure, but you don't need to.

It's in 1942 that it is a problem.

So basically after 42 the rule is superfluous, and the capabilities of the Red Army are already represented properly by their improved morale (training, part of doctrine?), leadership (another part of doctrine?), and better devices and formations?

So the common agreement is that for 41/42 the Red Army needs it as a benefit to achieve some offensive successes: i.e. without it, assuming average losses on both sides to match historical proportions, the Red Army cannot pull off limited, more-or-less local offensives like the 41/42 winter offensives, or the May Iszum operations with similar to historic progress (i.e. good in some areas, and quickly dissolving offensives in others), right? Does it need it only against well-entrenched units, or does it also need the extra benefit if attacking poorly fortified low-quality units like the Axis Allies units at the flanks of the Stalingrad operation in winter, for the Uranus offensive?
Well, then it seems like this rule, or anything similar to the Red Army's beneft, has to remain in place until winter 42/43, if that ensures that the Soviet capability is a closer match to the historical one (assuming correspondingly similar progress/losses on both sides).

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Frankly, I've never felt that strongly about this issue and am generally only posting about it now because I don't want Pelton's rather fanatical rants to be the only opinion expressed on the forum. Any fix needs to be carefully considered and tested and not a knee-jerk reaction to the loudest voice on the forum on the topic.

I think you are missing the boat if you think Pelton is the only one speaking out against the 1:1 rule. There are a lot who have posted on the subject and posted the reasons why they oppose it, not that it just "sucks" as a rule.

I also agree that any fix with it should be carefully considered and I think the staff and testers are doing just that as it represents a major change to game play. The rule has a lot of hidden ramifications in the game. As Flaviusx has mentioned as well, a Russian who is absolutely trying to use it as part of their offensive doctrine can cause some severe damage.

What is interesting to that particular issue is if the reserve role would work more frequently, it would put a stop to using it as a deliberate tactic. Of course, then the Russians could try for fewer attacks and go for higher odds so that any reserves showing up would not matter.

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I think you are missing the boat if you think Pelton is the only one speaking out against the 1:1 rule. There are a lot who have posted on the subject and posted the reasons why they oppose it, not that it just "sucks" as a rule.

I also agree that any fix with it should be carefully considered and I think the staff and testers are doing just that as it represents a major change to game play. The rule has a lot of hidden ramifications in the game. As Flaviusx has mentioned as well, a Russian who is absolutely trying to use it as part of their offensive doctrine can cause some severe damage.

What is interesting to that particular issue is if the reserve role would work more frequently, it would put a stop to using it as a deliberate tactic. Of course, then the Russians could try for fewer attacks and go for higher odds so that any reserves showing up would not matter.

Of course Pelton isn't the only one who doesn't like it, he is just the most repetitive, and it has gotten kind of old. I think even he thinks the 1:1 rule could stay until some point in 1942, so maybe I'd even agree with him, dunno...

I think that given all of the other changes the devs are making, changes to the 1:1 rule as well should be tested very very thoroughly, which is very difficult in a game of this complexity and length.

A couple of points about using 1:1 attacks as a deliberate tactic:

First, I think if it is possible to deliberately use 1:1 attacks, there is a problem with the combat engine. Combat results are supposed to be variable, right? So Sov players should not be able to launch multiple attacks with initial 1:1 odds and assume that they will win enough of them to make it worthwhile (bearing in mind that they will lose 10x casualties if they lose, and maybe 2x casualties if they win). I suggest that if the Sovs are launching lots of 1:1 attacks, Sov losses should exceed any acceptable range, unless they are winning more of these 1:1 battles than they should be.

Second, your comment on reserves is interesting. I've noticed reserves being committed fairly often during my attacks, and while I don't think it has ever turned a loss into a victory, it is one of the reasons why I go for higher odds.

ORIGINAL: 76mm
By "cheap wins" I presume you mean wins that squeak in at just above 1:1? Let's say the Sovs launch ten attacks in which their initial CVs match the German CVs at 1:1. If the combat engine is functioning as it should, the Sovs should lose many of these combats, and when they lose, they typically lose 10x what the Germans lose. So how are any wins a "cheap win"? For the Sovs to be reasonably confident of ending up with a 1:1 result, they should presumably start with at least 3:2 odds, maybe 2:1. Given the disparity between the German and Sovs in experience/morale/CVs in 1941 and 1942, I think that it will generally be very difficult to get 2:1 odds in most instances in 1941-1942.

I my campaing 1:1 attack has backfired for my opponent many times when my 10-15cv panzer reserves activate it results combat where soviet lose 10k men and german 200. It has sometimes happened like 5 times per turn.

I dont think 1:1 can be abused if there is proper reserves around without considerable risks of those massive hold casulties.