1:1 --> 2:1 Redux

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

That has never stopped people from making statements before.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I am somewhat incredulous that Soviet Attack Doctrine would somehow forgivingly change at a discrete point in time after the blizzard offensive to obligingly allow a more robust Axis 1942 offensive.

It's pragmatism. And because pragmatism can only deal with superficial issues, the problem just reappears elsewhere in a different form.

The fundamental problem is the lack of logistical representation in the game which allows players, and particularly the Russian from 1942, to attack ad infinitum. There are other tweaks that could be made to make realistic changes to play balance, like reducing the command capabilities of Russian commanders at start and allowing them to increase more than at present, with experience, both from victories and defeats. Representing aviation fuel would limit both airforces operational abilities. Loads of tweaks, too many to mention here, but so many good suggestions have been made in one thread or another. But above all, it's logistics that fail.

This, a thousand times this.

Too lenient logistics allows German units sticking to the "historical" timetable to be too well supplied. Because they are too well supplied, the Soviets have no chance even against nominally overextended units without the 2:1 help.

Too lenient logistics allows the Soviets to have a much too high optempo later on, which in turn brings the Wehrmacht to a collapse much too soon.

There is no way to prioritise (what should be) scarce Logistics except via HQ buildup. However the current form is a defacto abuse by largely ignoring timeXdistanceXcarrycapacity constraints, however too expensive to be widely used.

IMO HQ buildup is a wonderful mechanism. Make the general supply situation much worse, make HQ buildup much cheaper but much less powerful, f.e. 10 hex limit from nearest Railhead-> instant simulation of having finite logistical capacity and the cost/benefits of prioritising it.

But anyway...in the meantime we have 2:1 at least partly eradicated....

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

That has never stopped people from making statements before.

yes, one of the joys of this forum is the fact that lack of data does not constrain the Forumites [:D]

[Ketza]

I think the 1.5 changes will go along way to balancing the game. I am sure there will be more tweaks but this is a positive step. I for one am looking forward to a game as Soviets that will be more challenging and where I can spend hours and hours of time reorganizing the Soviet forces without having the Axis player surrender after 10 turns [:)]

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I think the 1.5 changes will go along way to balancing the game. I am sure there will be more tweaks but this is a positive step. I for one am looking forward to a game as Soviets that will be more challenging and where I can spend hours and hours of time reorganizing the Soviet forces without having the Axis player surrender after 10 turns [:)]

Amen! [:'(]

[Pipewrench]

what ? kick the tires ,check under the hood, start the car but you want a test drive before forming an opinion??

heresy I say, Killjoys are not productive to the discussion at hand. A preconceived rationalization to form half-baked conclusions must be maintained.  

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

No, but someone might call you a sceptic. If logistics is the problem, in a complex game like this with so many inter relations, deleting an historical representation of Russian tactics won't solve the play imbalance. You don't need to try it to know it, it's entirely predictable.

Some of the changes, like the cost of fortification are steps in the right direction but we need roads, port capacity, double and single track rail, supply stockpiling to make attacking possible.

[cherryfunk]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Some of the changes, like the cost of fortification are steps in the right direction but we need roads, port capacity, double and single track rail, supply stockpiling to make attacking possible.

But then we also need the ability to lay new rail, and distinctions between hard and dirt roads, and density of road networks, no? I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but if the logistics modeling becomes too complex the game risks becoming unplayable for some of us. That said, perhaps there are simple and intuitive ways to handle these issues, but it would take some very skillful game design to realistically model East Front logistics in a way that doesn't drive players to hair-pulling frustration...

[KenchiSulla]

Supply stockpiling to be able to attack sounds interesting, but you have to be careful not overmodeling this game.. Not everything can be put in you know...

Perhaps just lower the supply throughput and model the limited amount of trains on both sides would be sufficient to deal with the problem. Von Manstein describes the importance of supply and reinforcement trains in his memoirs.. You have to be careful what you wish for though..

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Some of the changes, like the cost of fortification are steps in the right direction but we need roads, port capacity, double and single track rail, supply stockpiling to make attacking possible.

But then we also need the ability to lay new rail, and distinctions between hard and dirt roads, and density of road networks, no? I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but if the logistics modeling becomes too complex the game risks becoming unplayable for some of us. That said, perhaps there are simple and intuitive ways to handle these issues, but it would take some very skillful game design to realistically model East Front logistics in a way that doesn't drive players to hair-pulling frustration...

I don't know if you're familiar with the Operational Combat System (OCS), but it's a board game with, given the medium, a pretty good logistics system. It has all the disadvantages of board games but it works pretty well. One of the good things about computer games, and many aspects of this game are testament to it, is that the computer (and programer) does the hard work while gamers do the gaming. Complex calcualtions are done in seconds without bothering the player.

There's been much discussion about road type and density. Personally, I'm not for trying to replicate all the detail of the OCS road net at a game of this scale but roads were a vital feature of the operational level.

There are some features of the game which are already present but in an undeveloped way. Two examples-

The three types of supply are, potentially, a better logistics solution than the two types in OCS. But there's something wrong with its production, transport and the effects of (not) having enough of it. Attention to how this works, and in the different relations of attack and defence, could greatly improve logistics probably without adding anything radically new.

There is the mechanism for employing captured equipment but the levels at which the game does this are both ahistorically low and virtually pointless in game terms. Why have the mechanism and not use it?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

That has never stopped people from making statements before.

Indeed. Soviet attacks with the 1:1->2:1 rule are a lottery. And I also hate attacking with 10:1 odds and suffering thousands of losses because of the extra shots Axis ground elements get at attacking Soviet ground elements.

Nonetheless, the concern about the armaments is true, but I don't think it was more true than in 1.04. If anything, now the choices are more clear cut and easier to do. Not evacuating much heavy industry hurts, but let me remind everyone that the Soviet Unit gets a fair deal of supplies and vehicles through Lend and Lease.

Anyways, to keep the tone of the thread ( although I don't agree with Marquo I appreciate the sense of humour). Even if this beta feels like having to do this



I think the possibilities of achieving this



and this



are yet in the game.

Keep the games rolling!

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Food for thought: the Soviet offensive doctrine called for deep operational armor advances of 100s of miles into the enemy's rear; when have we seen this in any of the AARs? Is there one example of a Bagration-like penetration and encirclment; or anything which comes close to the performance of Operation Gallop? No - all we have seen is a slow, boring Soviet steamroller grind; which btw, maynot have enough time to reach Berlin in the time limits of the game. Some of the AARs haved shown the Axis getting drained to death on the banks of the Volga, or between the Volga and the Dnepr. This makes perfect sense to me; if the German player stands 2,000 km deep in Russia, what is supposed to happen? What changes are being made to reflect the crushing operational blows so that game does not devolve into trench warfare stalemate deep in Russia? The V 1.05 changes guarantee a boring, stagnant game.

One way to solve this could be make artillery divisions more powerful busting trough forts but make them replenish ammo more slowly.

This way Soviet can go through fortified lines faster and start exploiting faster (and more historically) but artillery divisions cannot be used with full potency very often as their ammo recover very slowly. Slow ammo recovery would limit use of artillery divisions only for few selective operations during year.

Slow ammo recovery would also limit how much soviet can use their super fort buster artillery.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Some of the changes, like the cost of fortification are steps in the right direction but we need roads, port capacity, double and single track rail, supply stockpiling to make attacking possible.

But then we also need the ability to lay new rail, and distinctions between hard and dirt roads, and density of road networks, no? I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but if the logistics modeling becomes too complex the game risks becoming unplayable for some of us. That said, perhaps there are simple and intuitive ways to handle these issues, but it would take some very skillful game design to realistically model East Front logistics in a way that doesn't drive players to hair-pulling frustration...

I don't know if you're familiar with the Operational Combat System (OCS), but it's a board game with, given the medium, a pretty good logistics system. It has all the disadvantages of board games but it works pretty well. One of the good things about computer games, and many aspects of this game are testament to it, is that the computer (and programer) does the hard work while gamers do the gaming. Complex calcualtions are done in seconds without bothering the player.

There's been much discussion about road type and density. Personally, I'm not for trying to replicate all the detail of the OCS road net at a game of this scale but roads were a vital feature of the operational level.

There are some features of the game which are already present but in an undeveloped way. Two examples-

The three types of supply are, potentially, a better logistics solution than the two types in OCS. But there's something wrong with its production, transport and the effects of (not) having enough of it. Attention to how this works, and in the different relations of attack and defence, could greatly improve logistics probably without adding anything radically new.

There is the mechanism for employing captured equipment but the levels at which the game does this are both ahistorically low and virtually pointless in game terms. Why have the mechanism and not use it?

You have a lot of praise for the OCS supply system but it's not all sunshine and glory. How about having so little supply that you can't even fuel your panzer divisions for turns (3d per turn) on end. While foot can just march along when in trace supply which is also very easy to have. not very historical either.

The big difference with OCS and why, it plays so fluently versus more stagnation in WitE, is the map scale difference. For each WitE hex, you have 4 OCS hexes (15 miles versus 5km). Its just not possible to have a coherent line from the top down everywhere. To aggrevate this you are at very simular unit "order" lots of Div. and only the panzer and tank/mech and some other formations are slit in regiments and battalions. Add to this that the maximum stack per hex is slightly higher (not counting Rifle Corps) than WitE and defending is much harder in OCS.

I really don't think you can compare the two. I'd certainly buy an Empire eddition of WitE with 4 hexes per hex now [X(][&o]

Regarding the 1:2 rule, here too the scale of the game is a bit too high to accurately follow history. While the Germans certainly at times retreated before an assault of the Sovs. I haven't found any example that Panzer divisions were thrown back 15miles by a Russian attack up until September 1941. Ther eis one counter offensive in late August when Konevs 19th Army pushed back and mauled serveral Germans divisions, and beat back a counter attack by the 7th Panzer, even then they advanced only a few km.

My hunch is that perhaps it would have been better to modify the combat engine to produce more losses for the Germans at lower odds, but without retreats. But I'm certainly not complaining as things are changed now.

Let's see how it goes. About to go into one Winter with the Russians and one with the Germans, will be interesting to see it both ways.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Food for thought: the Soviet offensive doctrine called for deep operational armor advances of 100s of miles into the enemy's rear; when have we seen this in any of the AARs? Is there one example of a Bagration-like penetration and encirclment; or anything which comes close to the performance of Operation Gallop? No - all we have seen is a slow, boring Soviet steamroller grind; which btw, maynot have enough time to reach Berlin in the time limits of the game. Some of the AARs haved shown the Axis getting drained to death on the banks of the Volga, or between the Volga and the Dnepr. This makes perfect sense to me; if the German player stands 2,000 km deep in Russia, what is supposed to happen? What changes are being made to reflect the crushing operational blows so that game does not devolve into trench warfare stalemate deep in Russia? The V 1.05 changes guarantee a boring, stagnant game.

One way to solve this could be make artillery divisions more powerful busting trough forts but make them replenish ammo more slowly.

This way Soviet can go through fortified lines faster and start exploiting faster (and more historically) but artillery divisions cannot be used with full potency very often as their ammo recover very slowly. Slow ammo recovery would limit use of artillery divisions only for few selective operations during year.

Slow ammo recovery would also limit how much soviet can use their super fort buster artillery.

That is a good idea. +1
Simular to TOAW which models ,that very well. You just can't effectively fire your arty every turn in TOAW. You need to stock up.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Would I be a complete killjoy if I suggested that discussion might be postponed on the effects of 1:1 until people have had time to actually test the change?

Why should discussion be postponed? I'd be interested to see prognosis on how things will turn out, especially from the devs. Moreover, the discussion is hardly about the effects of 1:1, but rather all of the changes they've decided to make at one time, including 1:1, fortif rules, and decrease in Sov production. I think making all of these changes at once is a travesty, but let's see how it turns out.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We've been testing changes to the 1:1/2:1 rule in the internal beta team for months now.

Well gee, somehow this is far less than reassuring...how long have you been testing changes to the 1:1 rule + changes to fortifs + changes to Sov production?

I mean seriously, if you're going to make these kind of massive changes to the game I have very little interest in starting a new game, because a couple-several months into it you'll change the rules and I'll need to scrap the game.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We've been testing changes to the 1:1/2:1 rule in the internal beta team for months now.

Well gee, somehow this is far less than reassuring...how long have you been testing changes to the 1:1 rule + changes to fortifs + changes to Sov production?

I mean seriously, if you're going to make these kind of massive changes to the game I have very little interest in starting a new game, because a couple-several months into it you'll change the rules and I'll need to scrap the game.

To be fair 76, a lot of people (including myself) have been asking for changes and I also play both sides. I think it really looks promising and they didn't just do this without thinking. I still wonder how supply will impact fort building for the German before winter. Far from the supply lines and the cost becomes higher and higher the higher the level. I wouldn't be surprised if that balances out again.

Also, higher forts can be build, you just need to pay AP for forts so it can be done, you'll have to be more careful though and good play will be rewarded.

[CarnageINC]

I'm all for these changes.  If they are too harsh on the Soviet player I do believe the developers will adjust and fire again.  Just like arty, fire short (original)...fire long (possible betas)...adjust and hit the target (finalized versions).  Make no mistake about this Matrix game, just like other Gary Grigsby games, this will have continued support for a very long time.[;)]  Let the developers experiment with the formula they get it right.

[mmarquo]

> Marquo, you have got this exactly wrong. 1.04 promoted trench warfare in the east for both sides. This beta is designed to open things up and make it more mobile...on both sides.

Okay; time will tell. Hard to see how neutering the Soviets and strengthening the Axis will make things more mobile. The AARs showing slugfests on the Volga are humorous; of course the Axis player is going to get bled to death in that manner.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Well gee, somehow this is far less than reassuring...how long have you been testing changes to the 1:1 rule + changes to fortifs + changes to Sov production?

I mean seriously, if you're going to make these kind of massive changes to the game I have very little interest in starting a new game, because a couple-several months into it you'll change the rules and I'll need to scrap the game.

You're certainly welcome to stay with the official version, but if you strongly disagree with these changes on paper, my best advice to you is to try them out in the game. Within a complex system, it's very hard to judge how things will interact purely in theory. We will be watching the public beta feedback and results and making further adjustments as necessary. The consensus on the development team is that these changes (yes, all of them in combination) are for the better, though we want to make sure we have enough testing and that the balance is where it should be before 1.05 becomes official.

Regards,

- Erik