The core problem with WitE+

[Michael T]

Two things will happen. Either the Axis player will insist on playing without 1:1 = 2:1 and with reduced blizzard and it's auto victory for Axis

When the new optional rule comes out I challenge you to a game. You Axis me Soviet.

You can have whatever weather you like, random or not. The removal of the 1:1 rule. The mild winter.

Lets see how your *I win button* goes.

But I bet you find some excuse not to back up your BS.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Bozo, I don't see how you conclude that playing with mild blizzard and without the 2:1 rule is an autowin for the Axis. Really, it isn't. The 2:1 rule especially is completely unnecessary for the Soviet to attack. Attacking is pretty easy in this game for either side. People have somehow convinced themselves that the Red Army turns into a pumpkin without it. Not so.

Have you played a humanoid lately? I think we should just wait and see what happens. More data is required. And it's a good thing for the 2:1 rule to be optional. People just need to know what they are getting into.

I'm waiting for the next (and presumably last) patch before playing anything, but mostly because I don't want my games wrecked by late war swapping logic bugs.

But I do not think that the game is balanced against the Red Army right now.

I don't need any further testing regarding the 2:1 rule. I have disliked it for 3 years. My mind is quite made up on the subject. Recent and very exhaustive testing shows me that attacking is as easy now as it has ever been. If I had to generate combat wins the old fashioned way, I am absolutely confident that I could do so based on that recent testing. Attacking is easy. The entire combat model is biased in its favor. Always has been, there is nothing new here.

(I have discovered a few quirks along the way, mind you.)

[Michael T]

I'm waiting for the next (and presumably last) patch before playing anything

Same here.

[Flaviusx]

It's still not a bad idea to solo test some stuff, though, MT. But I didn't find anything super different doing so, just some quirks. Nothing that changes my mind about the 2:1, but mostly ideas in how to squeeze the most out of it. The combat model is behaving slightly differently now than it used to.

[Michael T]

I intend to do a full combat analysis once we get a stable near to final patch. Then its all systems go. I think running loads of tests right now probably a waste of my time. I am just tinkering here and there with different things now, mostly logistical stuff.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

But I bet you find some excuse not to back up your BS.

I really hoped that someone from Matrix/Slitherine would have contacted you regarding your attitude towards other players. Your macho attitude is very annoying.

I wouldn't play with you if we were the only two people stuck on an island, with two computers, two copies of WitE and an unlimited power supply. But thanks, mate!

[Michael T]

Like I said. Excuses. Your all talk and no substance.

BTW, the feeling is mutual. But that wouldn't stop me from rubbing your nose in it.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Flaviusx

I do not really care about the particulars of the model at the micro level so long as it delivers useful macro results. The combat model doesn't need to be "realistic" at this tactical level to do this.

I would suggest that the micro level model delivers badly flawed macro results. Rather than 'useful'

Micro Indirect fire weapons not modelled
Macro Losses of indirect weapons too high. Production implications
Playbalance Soviets favoured due to higher production.

Micro AT weapons not restricted to destroying AV's
Macro Losses of AT weapons too high. Losses of AV too low. Production implications
Playbalance Soviets favoured due to higher production.

Micro Too High Losses of heavy and specialist weapons
Macro Formations lose their Heavy firepower too quickly. Production is distorted.
Playbalance Soviets favoured due to higher production.

Micro Tactics not coded into Combat engine.
Macro German units are considerably underperforming in battles.
Playbalance Soviets favoured they have poorer tactics.

There are no doubt more of these to be identified.

It is exactly because of these 'micro' problems that you have all the, oft complained about, forum clogging, 'dodgy' macro rules.

Trying to fix a micro problem on the Macro scale is not possible .

You do exactly two things in the Game, Move and Fight.
How many battles do you fight in a campaign?
224 turns times lets say 60 battles per turn, that's about, 13000.

So times each tiny little macro problem by 13000 and your telling me that's not a problem?
Your telling me that's not a macro problem?

[quote
The combat model doesn't need to be "realistic" at this tactical level to do this. It could indeed do the job by becoming less "realistic" simply by emulating a totally old fashioned CRT.
[/quote]

That is exactly what it is at the moment a CRT.

Best Regards Chuck

[76mm]

chuckles, I have not watched a line-by-line playback, but doesn't the impact of those various issues pale in comparison to the effects of retreat losses on the Germans? I used to be amazed by the number of artillery pieces lost by the Germans when I was able to force a retreat. Same with AFVs.

Again, even if technically separate from the combat engine, I consider the retreat mechanic part of the combat engine because it seems retreat losses are used (mis-used?) to "gross up" combat losses.

[Flaviusx]

Chuckles, yeah, to me the problems of the combat model are macro: they generate losses primarily via retreats. The rest to me is just details.

And because of this, no, it doesn't emulate a CRT. In an old fashioned CRT you can indeed get combat results where no retreat occurs but heavy losses apply (on both sides, even.) Loss rates aren't strictly tied to retreats. Or vice versa: retreats with minimal or no losses. Or retreats where the attacker takes a pasting and the defender gets away with little or no losses.

So, ironically, the old fashioned CRT can actually be a much more sophisticated combat model than WITE combat engine for all of its pseudorealism. It allows for greater diversity of results.

[chuckfourth]

Hi

I would suggest the easiest way to force the Soviet to play forward would be to relax the gradual logistical stranglehold that stops the Germans before Moscow in game.
If that is done the Soviets have to play forward

or they lose.

To compensate the movement points of the armoured divisions could be lowered a bit. and the German first move advantage rule dropped.
Lowered how much?
Lower the movement points just enough to stop the LVOV pocket forming.
Anyway
The current movement points are to model historical German first week or so penetrations, but what actually arrived at those points?
Was it a regiment? because that is the smallest unit in the game, probably not maybe just an AC and 3 motorcycles. So 50 it too high.

Problem solved

Best Regards Chuck.

[chuckfourth]

Hi 76mm

I agree you are probably right in what you say.
but
If the retreat losses were "realistic" then the micro problems become more important.

I believe in the vast majority of cases withdrawals and retreats were really well handled by the Germans.
Especially with respect to heavy weapons which everyone new were in short supply.

Best Regards Chuck.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Like I said. Excuses. Your all talk and no substance.

[>:]

BTW, the feeling is mutual. But that wouldn't stop me from rubbing your nose in it.

[>:]

[821Bobo]

Bozo

If you do not wanna play MT you can try me. Michael is right and I am pretty confident that in best case you will make it to the historical lines. No axis I win button at all.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
So, ironically, the old fashioned CRT can actually be a much more sophisticated combat model than WITE combat engine for all of its pseudorealism. It allows for greater diversity of results.

Agreed...

[Bozo_the_Clown]

If you do not wanna play MT you can try me. Michael is right and I am pretty confident that in best case you will make it to the historical lines. No axis I win button at all.

Thanks for the offer. Lets just wait and see. If I'm wrong I will openly admit it. I'm not one of those guys who hast to be right all the time. What I know about the game at this point tells me that removing 1:1=2:1 and using reduced blizzard is too much.

However, I will not accept anyone calling another person's opinion "bullshit."

[Tarhunnas]

In the big picture, on the macro level, I think two things are needed:

* A better VP system that encourages the Soviets to defend forward (Points per turn per location for example).

* Nerfing the Lvov pocket.

These two should be done together, they cannot be done separately. If the Lvov pocket is removed with no incentive to fight forward the Soviets will just run with even more troops, and with the Lvov pocket much of the troops for a Soviet forward defense will not be there.

Ideally, the VP system should also encourage the Germans to hold terrain for as long as possible.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
So, ironically, the old fashioned CRT can actually be a much more sophisticated combat model than WITE combat engine for all of its pseudorealism. It allows for greater diversity of results.

There's far too much in this thread to talk about but I think that the most important conclusion for me is that the old fashioned base CV x modifiers + dice roll is a much better way of doing it.
For one thing it's transparent so that players can see why their elite panzer corps was stopped dead by a rifle brigade. "Oh I see, I threw a double one. Let's get over it and move on." You can also see exactly what effect combat modifiers are having.
It's a more solid system as well. There are so many quirky results in WITE that just can't be explained and they often repeat which means that it's not just dice rolls that are causing them. If the quirkiness is due to extreme dice rolls as with a CRT system then it's far easier to deal with mentally. I can just imagine some plausible scenario or maybe make a note to sack a general who seems to be suspiciously 'unlucky'.
A CRT system is also relatively easily adjusted if results don't comply with historical parameters.
With computers, the results tables can be made as complex as necessary. I use the word 'necessary' deliberately because simplicity should always be the aim.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I used to be amazed by the number of artillery pieces lost by the Germans when I was able to force a retreat. Same with AFVs.

Once against the AI I lost over 90 of 110 tanks in a single retreat. Was so infuriated by it that I reloaded the save and pulled back that panzer division...

ORIGINAL: timmyab


For one thing it's transparent so that players can see why their elite panzer corps was stopped dead by a rifle brigade. "Oh I see, I threw a double one. Let's get over it and move on." You can also see exactly what effect combat modifiers are having.

Agreed. The problem is not only that it's intrasparent, it's also that the CV modifications are fluctuating that much. I see something between 0.5 and 3.5 on a regular basis. I even saw something in the ranges of 8 for divisions with low CV (like a cavalry division jumping from 11 to 91).

@Bozo, I also think you are overdramatizing the +1 rule a little, though I agree that some testing is needed. Because right now the Soviet can bank on getting to a raw 2:1 on a regular basis with 1:1 initial odds, provided he can mass enough units. With the +1 rule any kind of uncertainty is basically eliminated. The Soviet knows if he gets within 1:1 initial odds he will win the battle. Heck, even getting within 70% of the German CV is enough most of the time.

Last but not least, I get the idea what CRT is, but what does this acronym stand for? [&:]

[Mundy]

Combat Results Table.
 
Ed-