Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It is certainly true that many Soviet attacks in 1941 are made not for the attack itself but for "Guards farming".

I am pretty certain the Soviet generals in 1941 did not think "Hmm, i see a weak German/Rumanian unit there, lets attack it with as many divisions as possible so all of them get a better chance at becoming Guards units in a couple of months." As a matter of fact, i suspect they thought more along the lines of "Lets counterattack and drive the invaders back" or even "I know this counteratack is doomed, but if I don't execute it I am doomed...".

So an idea: Why not simply say that victories counting for Guards conversions start accumulating on say 1st november or something? That would at least eliminate Guards farming as a motive for attacks.

The problem in 1941 is the 1v1=2v1 no one really cares about guards.

If you read Sapper vs Pelton Sapper wins nearly 100% of the time because of rule.

Flaviusx took the time and knows how it is done.

Currently because of MP nerfs coupled with 1v1=2v1 its simply impossible to get anyways as GHC and SHC can start driving down GHC OOB in JULY 1941-yes july 1941.

The guard bug of which you probably know nothing was fixed a few patches ago, so guards are really not the problem.

The game will have to be rebalanced starting fresh is the sad truth.

ORIGINAL: smokindave34

I notified Callistrid that I am going to resign from our game. This is the third game in a row (Sapper, M60, Callistrid) where I have been handled decisively in '41 by solid Soviet opponents and I see no reason to go forward. I decided to stand and fight and have 7 divisions surrounded two turns into the blizzard. I used to be able to handle the axis well enough to produce a competitive game even against very good players (The Pro's) but no longer. This game is extremely challenging to play as axis right now against solid opponents (as other axis players better than I have noted) and I no longer seem to be able to make it into '43 with any real chance of standing up to the Soviets. Excellent game by you Callistrid - sorry to end it on you so quickly! I'll have to hang up my Field Marshall's baton for a while.....

This is the problem and BOTH sides see it not just one.

ORIGINAL: Callistrid

This game is over, and Dave was a very good opponent. Fighting on the Germans side is tough. It's enough to make a little mistake, and the war is lost. Let's see what I learn with the Soviet

1. Playing with the Soviet is easy. The sapper an construction brigades build fortification easily, and if you retreat on the first six turns, the saved troops with the reinforcements can hardly hit the advancing German troops. With the new rule the German can't pocket troops, because the encirclement can be broke easily.

2. Mild winter. Strong Soviet defeat the German, weak not. So the successful winter operation depend on how powerful is the Soviet army, not what my opponent did. On my game against Dave there infantry stack in level 2 fortification was easy to beat.

3. Paratroops. I never drop them, but using them could DE devastating. Easy method to break the supply line, or to isolate troops.

ORIGINAL: Callistrid

4. The Soviet have more rail yard then it should to have. With 100k+ it's easy to transport full fronts to threatened sectors. Using your short transport lines, the German will always face with strong troops in the critical sectors. And the factory evacuation is too fast. In the first seven turn, all what is unorganised sent to the urals.

5. Retreat, retreat, retreat. There is no reason to stand and fight on the first seven turn. Only around Leningrad, but that could be managed. The German could move close to Moscow, but never capture.

6. nonrandom weather. The nonrandom weather is not just a German favors. Because always the Soviet moves second, it's easy to be brave without consequences. You know when will be mud, and when could rest the troops, move forward to refit, or launch attack, when normally never do, because you don't know what will be the next weather.


And the most important. The 2/1 rule. It wag ugly when I start beating the German army around turn 14. The clear terrain gains no bonus defenses, and 6~9 cv into can be hit, without fear. And what is real worse, when you start attacking the front, launch 10+ successful attack.

The player base sees it-everyone.

Personally, I enjoy the game more knowing that support units attached to combat units won't draw excessive supplies while at the same time failing every single leader roll. I enjoy the game more knowing that support units attached to HQ units won't be resupplied out of thin air. I'm happy that Germans won't run 2 hexes per winter turn all along the front. I'm happy that HVAP and HEAT ammo will work, killing hundreds of Soviet tanks more. I'm extremely happy to know that support units will use proper amount of trucks, whether they are assigned to combat units or HQs (where previously they used 10x as much with combat units and 0x with HQs). I know balance may have been thrown out of the window by these fixes, but balance built on bugs is not something I would really call a balance. How can you balance the game, if you operate under false assumptions that something works as described in the manual while in fact it is not? I understand the position of some of you, but this game gives me a lot of fun since my PBEM started in September 2012 on 1.06-something and it continues to be so to this day. Still, some core ideas of the game cannot be altered before WitE 2.0 and that's something I accept, because since WitE 1.0 those things worked so, and since this was the game that I bought, it would be strange if suddenly I couldn't bear with it's quirks (design decisions) anymore.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It is certainly true that many Soviet attacks in 1941 are made not for the attack itself but for "Guards farming".

I am pretty certain the Soviet generals in 1941 did not think "Hmm, i see a weak German/Rumanian unit there, lets attack it with as many divisions as possible so all of them get a better chance at becoming Guards units in a couple of months." As a matter of fact, i suspect they thought more along the lines of "Lets counterattack and drive the invaders back" or even "I know this counteratack is doomed, but if I don't execute it I am doomed...".

So an idea: Why not simply say that victories counting for Guards conversions start accumulating on say 1st november or something? That would at least eliminate Guards farming as a motive for attacks.

Keep the current victory counting, but no Guards divisions until Sep 18th 1941, when Order #308 came into being to award distinguished service for the Yelnya offensive. (part of the Smolensk battles.)

Hi Morvael
This is great work, thanks.
I am more than willing to wait until WitE2.0 for its implementation, But a more sophisticated combat algorithm would be a great improvement.
You said earlier the combat results are plausible, that may be true, but the ratios of various types of equipment's casualties from combat must be very distorted exactly because the combat 'engine' is too simple.
That is a bit advantage to the Soviets.
for a more detailed explanation of this point see,

tm.asp?m=3428981

Best Regards Chuck.

I couldn't agree with you more, Moravel. The 1:1 --> 2:1 "doctrine" has been around since the game's inception, and some Soviet players have been attacking relentlessly since day 1. It was more of a killer in terms of morale accumulation in the days prior to the newest patch.

There is no Soviet, "I win button." I if you play with Sudden Death variant then the game gets very tense. I am currently Axis against Hffarish, and he is playing a forward defense with multiple attacks against me. In fact the lines just about settled at historic by winter but Leningrad fell. His blizzard offensive knocked me back a bit, but now in 1942 his morale has fallen - I survived the blizzard - and his units are very brittle. I may not be good enough to win, but feel good about at least a draw.

IMHO this game remains very fun and winnable by both sides, and the silent majority is still having a very good time with it.

[;)]

ORIGINAL: Marquo


There is no Soviet, "I win button."
[;)]

Personally I like to stick with facts unlike most people around here.

Your saying if a person wins 97 out of 97 battles it is not a I win button?

Yes the Middle Earth Rule has been around for a while, but other rules have changed, which have made 1v1=2v1 and I win button.

You can as many others figure out that you only need to bomb the hex with 5-10 planes and then attack with X cv and you win 100% of the time, this is new unlike the 1v1=2v1 rule.
Them are the facts and not an opinion.

1:1=2:1 can do this attack. WiTE is strategic game, not casino. Maybe 1,5:1 (1,3 ore 1,4) for victory more right then 1:1

This example really makes the game look farcical. No more need be said.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

This example really makes the game look farcical. No more need be said.

+1 No more need be said.

ORIGINAL: Saper222

1:1=2:1 can do this attack. WiTE is strategic game, not casino. Maybe 1,5:1 (1,3 ore 1,4) for victory more right then 1:1

The 1:1 -> 2:1 rule is fudge. There's no need to further beat that old horse.

By focusing on that single problem alone, you guys are glossing over how it is possible to get an attacker such as a random 1941 rifle division to engage and defeat an enemy 3 times its size anywhere close to 1:1 effective odds:

[*] How much sense it makes that 3 Soviet engineer regiments can be concentrated in that way, at such an early date, and they have such an effect in 1941.

[*] How is it possible that a Soviet commander can turn the tables so dramatically on a defending enemy in open terrain like that (note that the Soviet CV got multiplied by 4, those are the leader checks). That Soviet infantry fight like Finns in the forests.

[*] If 75% of the Rumanian losses happened during the Retreat phase - as I imagine, even if you don't show it - I can't other than wonder how awesome is that an infantry force, poorly motorized, without armour support, would be able to conduct a pursuit battle in such an effective manner. WitE tactical combat, in that respect, harks back to the times of Hannibal and Alexander, where most of the casualties happen when one side starts to run.

That's a quite barefaced example at 'gaming the game': 1) fill a Soviet army with engineers up to the gills, 2) send the very best and brightest to the Crimea, of all places and 3) rely on the odds of leader checks multiplying your CV. That's one of the things that I most hated in WitE: that in order to win I had to toss out of the window everything that I had been learning about how war was conducted in World War 2 over the years. Who needs combined arms? That's wasting your time, when all you need is the magical Spade of Destruction and leaders with an ability to influence outcomes that would make the Witch-King of Angmar glow green with envy. The actual problem with the game balance is, therefore, that Germans don't have as many of those spades and witch-kings as the Soviets do.

Sapper, you say that WitE is like playing in a casino. But if the owners of a real-life casino had a player able to influence the outcomes like the guy behind that attack in the screenshot did, chances are that player house would mysteriously burn one night, or suffer some other untoward unhappy mishap.

Some measure of self-restraint, in the form of HR's or customized scenarios, is required in a game like WitE, especially when bugs/loopholes are notorious and well-known.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

This example really makes the game look farcical. No more need be said.

agree, but its the result of Saper222 exploiting every gap in the game system.

The problem is there are two groups of people playing this game. Saper, you, Pelton, etc to whom if it is not banned its valid is the underlying frame of mind. No complex game is going to cope with that, so we end up in an arms race of exploits. Saper would probably argue this nonsense is needed in response to a super-Lvov or something.

If a game is well enough played by a small group to whom winning is all and any grounding in reality totally irrelevant then this will happen.

The game isn't farcical, but it can be made to appear so. This sort of idiocy, Pelton encircling Moscow on T12, Pzrs in Stalingrad in T14 - yeah the game engine obviously allows it, but these are things that couldn't, not didn't happen.

In a way, its the player base that needs to take care here or it will become something you either play for cheese (like fiddling with AGEOD's ACW so the Confederates capture New York in summer 1861) or against the AI. Both will be a real pity, as ever the fun is to be had PBEM and its a shame that some of you are intent on wrecking any scope for good competive PBEM for the rest of us.

ORIGINAL: loki100
In a way, its the player base that needs to take care here or it will become something you either play for cheese (like fiddling with AGEOD's ACW so the Confederates capture New York in summer 1861) or against the AI. Both will be a real pity, as ever the fun is to be had PBEM and its a shame that some of you are intent on wrecking any scope for good competive PBEM for the rest of us.

Loki, I think that's going a bit too far. Just sayin' mate.

As players or former players, I gave up on H2H long ago yet I've started several GC's playing against myself and giving up every time as my other 'evil half' found himself doing the same old thing on my 'good half', we will probably be right when identifying an issue with gameplay or balance. But we'll most probably be wrong when it comes to actually find a solution for those problems.

Here, the only one who has chance to set things right is Morvael, at the moment, as I imagine that Gary and Pavel are working full-time on WitW. And that doesn't mean he needs his PM inbox to melt because of an avalanche of messages either [:)]

Err, Loki. What has Sapper done here that is exploitation? Looks like he bombed the defenders first then made an attack. What on earth is the cheese? The example shows how warped the combat engine is. Nothing else.

As for your other ramblings. Well I can only say you belong in the group that believe that no matter how bad a player is he should never be thrashed by good players. You seem to think the game should be idiot proof and save bad players from defeat. Thank goodness I am not part of that group.

And why do you think if something did not happen therefore it cannot happen? That is a silly belief. The reason many gamers play these games is to see if they could do better than there historical counterparts. It's like you have this fixation that the historical high water marks must never be crossed.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The reason many gamers play these games is to see if they could do better than there historical counterparts.

Absolutely Michael - I am completely in this Camp. But when does divergence from history become evidence of a broken game? This argument cuts both ways. Unfortunately the answer seems subjective and depends on where it is applied: tactical or operational (and perhaps strategic). I know that I don't have the answer.

My comment about farce relates to the example Sapper provided. Which is an example of how bad the combat engine is working. First the 1:1 > 2:1 thing, which thankfully will be a thing of the past for most of us. Second is the X5 CV mulitplier, which is just nuts. But AFAIK nothing can or will be done about that. IIRC it has been toned down for WITW. Third the 3 Sapper Regiments attached to the Soviet XX is IMO wrong, but lies in the realm of the possible so I can live with it. But really there should be a limit of perhaps 1 Sapper unit per XX in the attack.

Instead of redesigning the entire combat mechanism, why not simply have another random roll to see if the defender retreats. The probability could be linearly extrapolated from the following points, for example:

Final Odds Probability of Defender Retreat
0.80 0%
1.00 25%
2.00 70%
3.00 95%
4.00 100%


This makes attacking at low odds acceptable if high casualties can be tolerated, and advances are required. The Germans and Russians could then use the same combat table, since the German player cannot afford the extra casualties in the long run.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The reason many gamers play these games is to see if they could do better than there historical counterparts.

Absolutely Michael - I am completely in this Camp. But when does divergence from history become evidence of a broken game? This argument cuts both ways. Unfortunately the answer seems subjective and depends on where it is applied: tactical or operational (and perhaps strategic). I know that I don't have the answer.

Sure, do better. But it has to be plausible, No "imagine German planes landing on the grass and rolling gas cans down a plank" stuff. Gaming the system does not mean you did better than the historical counterparts.

Your not going to get a bite out of me Aurelian. No matter how many times you try. If you want to start another thread to debate the merrit of having an imagination versus not having one feel free. I will be glad to discuss the physical possibilty of the example you cite in the full context of the statement.

But regardless, don't you think its time to move on? I mean the issue was resolved. I accept it. They took with one hand and gave with another. In balance nothing really changed.

ORIGINAL: RBednar

Instead of redesigning the entire combat mechanism, why not simply have another random roll to see if the defender retreats. The probability could be linearly extrapolated from the following points, for example:

Final Odds Probability of Defender Retreat
0.80 0%
1.00 25%
2.00 70%
3.00 95%
4.00 100%


This makes attacking at low odds acceptable if high casualties can be tolerated, and advances are required. The Germans and Russians could then use the same combat table, since the German player cannot afford the extra casualties in the long run.

Indeed, making the "defender retreats" trigger to be non-deterministic is something worth exploring. I'd say something similar was proposed a long time ago. It would make it harder to line up things so that outcomes of attacks become so predictable. But it wouldn't solve the problem with pursuit: I can see three rifle corps achieving those 4:1 final odds against a Panzer division, triggering retreat losses all the same. And tying it to the odds - which I think are basically measuring effective unit fire power - is a bit counter intuitive.

Superior fire power pins down the defender, encouraging troops to bunker down. That superiority enables maneuver - i.e. overrunning or outflanking - which is what actually makes troops to withdraw, or destroys the enemy when it becomes exposed, and that depends on mobility, command & control. The Red Army usually had more trouble executing maneuver than in achieving superior firepower, from my point of view.