Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

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.

The retreat losses can be adjusted independently of the combat computations. It seems some of the changes were to give the Russians more attack capability (or encourage more attacks) by lowering initial losses. If the main loss mechanism is to be based on the defender retreating, the combat mechanism gets downplayed. It seems low odd attacks should result in heavy attacker casualties, whether the defender retreats or not.

Postulating theoretically what would happen if 3 understrength Rifle Corps attacked 1 understrength Panzer Division, the infantry ratio for the attacker would be overwhelming! It looks like somewhere between 18 to 27 infantry battalions against 4 infantry battalions. If the German were 6:1 better at the beginning of the campaign, they certainly weren't that during the middle and last stages of the war. So I would expect the Panzer Division to retreat, more than not. Of course, using Uber-fortifications clouds up everything, since there is no historical precedence outside of the battles for major German cities. For the latter, dwindling supplies quickly eroded combat capability. I would expect the Russian infantry to take massive losses since the Panzer Division had so much firepower, especially in the tank and self-propelled artillery areas.

Sapper's example is ridiculous... EVEN IF the retreat outcome is common.

Why?... Because in that very example, that Russian Division would be isolated and exterminated on the next move... So no intelligent Russian player would ever expose that division in that way. You can't afford it in 41-42, if you want to have an army in 43.

I don't agree with the combat system outcome either, but once again, as throughout this forum, German Fanbois continue to post ridiculous crap to justify further nerfing of the Russian side of the game. This includes all the whinning for sudden death rules for quick German wins... in a simulation of a WW2 Front that took 4 years to resolve...

The stench of German Fanbois bias is strong on this thread.[8|]

This includes all the whinning for sudden death rules for quick German wins

Let me be the first to inform you of some good news. You don't need to play sudden death. Its an alternative scenario. You and your opponent can freely play the original scenario [:)]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Sapper's example is ridiculous... EVEN IF the retreat outcome is common.

Why?... Because in that very example, that Russian Division would be isolated and exterminated on the next move... So no intelligent Russian player would ever expose that division in that way. You can't afford it in 41-42, if you want to have an army in 43.

I don't agree with the combat system outcome either, but once again, as throughout this forum, German Fanbois continue to post ridiculous crap to justify further nerfing of the Russian side of the game. This includes all the whinning for sudden death rules for quick German wins... in a simulation of a WW2 Front that took 4 years to resolve...

The stench of German Fanbois bias is strong on this thread.[8|]

Gamer - I exclusively play the Russian side (at least in the GC) and am supportive of early SD rules. With the end of the flying gas can circus the Russians really do need to fight forward for a good game. A runaway / wall of steel strategy will work all too easily otherwise.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

The stench of German Fanbois bias is strong on this thread.]

That kind of accusation will not bring the debate forward. We all want a better game, I Think no one here wants certain victory for one side or the other.

I have played both sides extensively, but nowadays I mostly play the Soviets. I am definitely in favour of some kind of SD or VP system that discourages Soviet runaways.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I am definitely in favour of some kind of SD or VP system that discourages Soviet runaways.

I'm hardly a German fanboi and I am, and have consistently been, in favor of SD rules for the same reason. But I did have a couple of experiences where when the German player missed the SD, they suddenly disappeared, which was very frustrating for me as Sov player, I got tired of playing the first ten or twelve turns and then the game ending. And it's not like I was even doing that well...

"Why?... Because in that very example, that Russian Division would be isolated and exterminated on the next move... So no intelligent Russian player would ever expose that division in that way. You can't afford it in 41-42, if you want to have an army in 43. "


Gamer:

While I appreciate your spirit, best to have deeper understanding of the game's mechanics. Isolation and extermination takes at least 2 moves, can't be done in one move. Just saying....[:)]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I am definitely in favour of some kind of SD or VP system that discourages Soviet runaways.

I'm hardly a German fanboi and I am, and have consistently been, in favor of SD rules for the same reason. But I did have a couple of experiences where when the German player missed the SD, they suddenly disappeared, which was very frustrating for me as Sov player, I got tired of playing the first ten or twelve turns and then the game ending. And it's not like I was even doing that well...

That is a very good point, and actually that is the reason I mention both VP or SD. A VP system could be made to be more forgiving, with a possibility to recover or at least play the game to an end. Personally, I lean towards a VP system rather than pure SD, or some combination.

A VP/SD combination sounds good to me. So that VPs gained due to early city captures affect the total required for SD. The difference between 260 and 250 is significant and 240 is downright dangerous for the Soviets. Compensate by nerfing Lvov and HQ buildup. Also lose the 1-1 rule and reduce Soviet leader ratings in 41/42.
That would probably work but I'd actually like to see a more complex system where every city on the map had a VP value, some more important than others.

Yes, the VP system in the campaign isn't really well thought out. Kind of puzzling seeing that the VP system in the scenarios is quite good in my opinion. I'd like to see more of that, or a system like in WITP.

Yes, the present system with all cities being the same VP value based purely on size is too simplistic. Especially as some areas, the Crimea for example, are totally devoid of VP cities despite being of great importance to both Hitler and Stalin.

It would be far better with a value set to reflect the relative importance of the various cities as percieved by the Soviet and German leasership of the time.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
That is a very good point, and actually that is the reason I mention both VP or SD. A VP system could be made to be more forgiving, with a possibility to recover or at least play the game to an end. Personally, I lean towards a VP system rather than pure SD, or some combination.

But I don't think that VP will really solve the problem, which is that from what I've seen many German players don't want to play a 4 year game, they want to win by '42 or they lose all desire to continue the game.

^That's always going to be a problem with Eastern front games. Main thing is to find a reliable opponent either through previous experience or recommendation.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex
The stench of German Fanbois bias is strong on this thread.[8|]

Now now, we are on patch 11, and are having a good game. And YOU have 3 and 3/4 years to get to Berlin.

I apologize to the forum for my opponent, who is old and grumpy and missing his dacha in Moscow.

But the combat system that allows these ridiculous results IS a problem.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
That is a very good point, and actually that is the reason I mention both VP or SD. A VP system could be made to be more forgiving, with a possibility to recover or at least play the game to an end. Personally, I lean towards a VP system rather than pure SD, or some combination.

But I don't think that VP will really solve the problem, which is that from what I've seen many German players don't want to play a 4 year game, they want to win by '42 or they lose all desire to continue the game.

True, but with a better VP system that generated continuous excitement, I think playing as the Germans late war would be more interesting.

An alternative victory system would be the way it is done in the AH game 'Russian Front', where there is a check every 6 months and Campaign Points (CP) are awarded, 1 to 3 depending on victory points held at the time. It is possible to score enough CP to win at the first check, but in practice that requires a blow out.

This method allows granular scoring and thereby a trade off decision for the players on how far/fast to run & how hard and for how long to push during their respective offensives.

It would also give the Axis something to fight for in '43 and later.

Russia Besieged has a different system.

The Axis have to have a certain number of major cities at the end of the Russian player turn or they lose.

16 in 42, 9 in 43, 4 in 44.

Something similar could be made for WiTE I suppose

After all, the Germans were the invaders, so any kind of AV/SD should be their burden to avoid.

I think we need something to put pressure on both sides! Especially we want to discourage Soviet runaways in 1941.

The SD scenario does put pressure on both sides. It was inspired by the old AH Russian Front system. It's failing is that it puts no pressure on the Soviets in 1941, something I advocated for at the time but was not taken up by the devs. Anyway thereafter it works. For example if the German runs away in late 41 or simply does not do well enough in summer 41 he will lose the game in the April 42 check. Which is what may well happen to Pelton in his game v Sapper if its SD.

A SD or VP system should not only include 41-42 regarding a German victory/blowout or Russian runaway. It should also include 43-45 to pressure the Russians if they are taking their time moving west, as well as discourage a German runaway. The German player should be rewarded for solid defensive play in later war years.

Also, I'm convinced that the use of Admin Pts for unit creation by the Russians is not the way to go. It puts AP pressure/crunch on the Russians that wasn't historically there. Currently, the Russian player needs to play carefully after Nov 41 because they don't get any auto rebuilds and losing too many units creates an AP downhill runaway. Historically, the Russians just built more and more replacement units. It was a meatgrinder on a gigantic scale, but they kept on rebuilding Rifle Divisions, seemingly endlessly from the German point of view. I think a Russian player that knows they will have a virtual endless supply of units (not replacements, just unit shells), would play more aggressively and a more forward defense like they did historically. Right now, losing units for the Russian player is a major punishment, resulting IMO in less reckless Russian game play.