Reserve Activations, over the top?

[Flaviusx]

Michael, you sure are picky for a guy who has obliterated each and every Soviet player he has gone up against.

[Michael T]

That has nothing to do with this Flavius. I said between two evenly matched players. BTW its much much easier for me to obliterate Axis players.

Anyway I can now see why Pelton disbands most of his Corp units and switches to a Soviet command structure style once he is defending. It makes perfect sense. You get a much better reserve activation chance plus 100's of K worth of extra Manpower.

This needs to be fixed because it fly's in the face of the superior German command structure. Can you imaging the German High Command telling Hitler that they are going to mimic the Soviet Command structure as its superior to ours! I don't think so.

[Flaviusx]

Well, if you have to fix it, it's like Mehring said uptopic: knock down Soviet leadership values. They are frankly too high for 1941. They represent, so far as I can tell, a wartime average. But this will involve a redesign of leadership rules for the Sovs. Problem is the existing one is non dynamic. This is fine for the Germans, they start high and stay high, but the Soviets ought to start low and then improve over time. Right now they start relatively high and have very little or no room for improvement due to caps.

Right now the Soviet secret weapon in terms of reserve activation is Zhukov. Stick him in STAVKA and he works wonders (and makes up for a lot of the crappier Soviet leaders down the command chain.) But he is also too high for 1941. This is the Zhukov we might be seeing around, say, Kursk.

The HQ thing you propose can be gamed.

[Michael T]

Well a HR has limits. I agree. But what else can one do unless an official change happens? The Soviet leader ratings could be fixed with Die roll modifiers on a per year basis. ie. +3 41, +2 42, +1 43 etc.

I am curious what will transpire from my post about this issue in the tech forum.

[Flaviusx]

I like the annual die roll mod idea, actually. That's a quick and dirty fix we could apply to existing code. Down the line in WITE2 would want to see something more elaborate.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Well, if you have to fix it, it's like Mehring said uptopic: knock down Soviet leadership values. They are frankly too high for 1941. They represent, so far as I can tell, a wartime average. But this will involve a redesign of leadership rules for the Sovs. Problem is the existing one is non dynamic. This is fine for the Germans, they start high and stay high, but the Soviets ought to start low and then improve over time. Right now they start relatively high and have very little or no room for improvement due to caps.

Yes please, bring it on.The growing consensus on this issue is long overdue.
As I've said before somewhere, it should also be harder to swap Soviet leaders out, possibly through much higher AP costs.Another idea is to link the AP cost to the leader's performance so that the more defeats a leader has the cheaper it is to fire him and the more victories he has the cheaper it is to promote him.
I also like the idea somebody mentioned about not knowing for certain exactly what a leader's ratings are.You'd have a rough idea but the real figure could be plus or minus one point.

[Flaviusx]

I've never bought into this swapping thing, Sovs swapped leaders amazingly frequently in 1941. (Track the career of the fellow in my avatar! He was all over the place in 41.) In fact command turbulence was at its highest in 41. It declined over the course of the war. If leadership values are brought into line, we need not worry about this. The stronger leaders will emerge and improve over time and just as you'd expect, command changes will slow down as a result.

[gingerbread]

The player on the offensive can also game the reserve function due to not having to pay attack costs.

In the bug thread it looks like the defensive reserve (10TD) does not receive fort benefits, though that could be FoW.

[Michael T]

According to the rules the defending reserves do not get fort bonus. They are meant to be counter attacking IIRC.

[janh]

I think the suggestions about leadership values are pretty good, though even without respect to reserve activation.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Consider in the summer of 1941 that Axis units approaching a defence line will most likely be moving thru a few enemy controlled hexes so having any spare units with enough MP for offensive reserves will be unlikely in this context.
...

That surely adds to the lower usage as Wehrmacht to even consider using reserves on the offensive in 41, but frankly, the Wehrmacht quality is so superior that you rarely need much more. Even with spare MP to get them into the fight, pretty much the only reason to use them would be morale building. The only good units from the Soviet arsenal, assuming the survive the extended Lvov thingy, can only be at a few spots, and that won't be much trouble as long as an Axis player does not make the mistake to concentrate too much and focus on a single or few avenues of approach.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Anyone who may take the time to set up a simple test will see what I mean. I have tested a situation that may be considered typical. And the Soviets always get more activations than the Axis.

One offensive XX reserve doesn't make much difference when the defender gets 2 extra XX in to the battle.

Also consider that most Axis Inf XX will have a MP of 10-12 while Soviet ID will have 14-16. Again favouring their rolls for activation, mulitple times I might add.

What was the test setup? Something under pretty ideal circumstances or a mess that typically prevails in most Soviet areas?

I kind of wonder what I must be doing wrong that my Soviet Army is always in such a chaotic state in 41 that I hardly have these MPs you mention. ID with 11-12 are more in line with what I see. And those MP I commonly need to rearrange my fronts and regain some semblance of a front line after each Axis thrust. Maybe 1/4 of my ID can be set in reserve mode, i.e. the 1st line should not. Those hardly suffice to create many helds -- more than often I wish they had not committed and been wasted that way.
As long as I keep being pressed, this situation remains that bad. Only if the enemy stalls, I can start to get some order back into the chaos. This is very unlike playing the German side as defender later in the war. My Mot and Tank divisions are even worse, you basically can't move them else they won't have enough MP to be used as reserves, and on an offensive role they are also, say "suboptimal". And that is not yet mentioning my lack of AP to reorganize the chaotic C&C structure and put some better leaders in place. Yes, hindsight tells me that Soviet C&C was poor, and needs to be fixed as much as the Germans learned that investing Leningrad and hoping no bad would come from it was stupid, but AP are just too short. Here I would favor more flexibility with assignments, but leaders that start out with poorer values.

I hardly get to use the reserve mode extensively, not even to think of situations of 2 fully filled Armies with 24 units nearby, ready and combat worthy to be used in reserve as you mention. If that would happen, wouldn't it mean the Axis side has made huge errors already? Like the Soviet Army that is wrecked beyond repair after a bad 41 or 42 summer? It seems what you describe might be one more of those spirals in this game, like the morale growing/declining spiral, the Soviet losses spiral, or the Axis breaking later one. When you are ahead or on "the curve", reserves play a small role, but if you do badly, then you get stuck?

ORIGINAL: Michael T
...
4. The whole reserve activation system favours the defender
...
People can choose to do what they like but I will not enter in to anymore games as Axis without some form Soviet reserve limitation in 1941. That will be a matter between me and my opponent to sort out.

I am not so sure it is too effective, but it is the only thing that makes WitE look different from bowling. Reserve mode is surely meant to give the non-phasing player a chance against the offensive player's initiatives while not being able to move his counters actively. Else all one could do on the defense is to place counters in hopefully lucky spots and see what happens -- that would be a very dull game, and a far abstraction of anything real. If anything, the reserve mode alone I find is not enough to generate things like meeting engagements, or stop units from circling around empty hexes like the Lvov opening while you units sit around idle. There would be more needed to make up for the lack of simultaneity.

Curtailing the reserve chances should be done indirectly by reviewing the leader stats and development, but reserve actions should be there and other Soviet options during Barbarossa be strengthened. I find the Barbarossa phase is really too easy and cheap when I play Axis, and having the blizzard penalties in place to punish you for that is just as silly. The Soviets cannot counterattack effectively as significant losses only arise for the retreating side, nor are the typical casualties of the Wehrmacht near what they should be...

Playing without random weather, and then cutting Soviet options much further? You already win all Axis games in 41, but isn't this getting boring? A lot of fun is in the long run, there is where Axis skill really comes in. If anything, I would be aiming at the blizzard penalties, but that would only be needed if you aim for the long games.

[KenchiSulla]

I would like to remind people that MT is not the guy to benchmark balance against..

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Right now the Soviet secret weapon in terms of reserve activation is Zhukov. Stick him in STAVKA and he works wonders (and makes up for a lot of the crappier Soviet leaders down the command chain.) But he is also too high for 1941. This is the Zhukov we might be seeing around, say, Kursk.

This probably explains why I see reserve activations across armies and even the odd stavka activation...

[KamilS]

Cannonfodder

I would like to remind people that MT is not the guy to benchmark balance against..

I totally disagree.

His ultimate gaming approach (skill and ability to utilise every aspect of game mechanics) reaveals limitation of the system what in my opinion is starting point for balancing process.

In order to know what is right it is necessary to learn what is wrong and Micheal exploits (underestood as both gaming prowess and gamey approach) shows were we WitE fans stand at the moment.

[Flaviusx]

I do find it amusing that Michael insists on making his opponents play with any number of restrictions when they are plainly unnecessary. He ought to be giving them handicaps, if anything. What's even more odd is that they agree to these conditions. They shouldn't.

There may or may not be a problem with reserve activation, but you could hardly tell that is the case from any of his games. The next person who stymies him in this manner -- or any manner -- will be the first.

[821Bobo]

Michael has made many statements that he will play with these same conditions any side so I wouldn't blame him for it. However the truth is he dont need such harsh HR as was proved by all his games.

[RedBunny]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

<snip>
What's even more odd is that they agree to these conditions. They shouldn't.
<snip>

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no concern of mine...

[Flaviusx]

Red Bunny, with all due respect, MT here is openly advocating changes to this game. So what he does with his games and his experience with them is a matter of concern to me as someone who plays this game. He's lobbying. All well and good. It's a free country. (As is Australia.) But when you do this, expect to be challenged and peer reviewed.

I'm not convinced there is a problem here, and based on the evidence his own games I'm having some problem taking it entirely seriously. Although the leadership values are inflated for the Sovs.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T


Anyway I can now see why Pelton disbands most of his Corp units and switches to a Soviet command structure style once he is defending. It makes perfect sense. You get a much better reserve activation chance plus 100's of K worth of extra Manpower.

.

Bro your way off and same for Flaviusx.

SHC command structure is better then GHC in wite.

Really kinda funny and a total flip flop of history. Its more like 400,000 men.

If GHC starts disbanding then turn 1. I am considering disbanding 27 infantry Corp HQ turn 1.

[Flaviusx]

Pelton...you planning to attach a bunch of stuff directly to armies? You're going to miss a lot of rolls that way. That corps layer of command gives you an extra bite at the apple.

The Soviet command structure is simpler, but simpler doesn't mean better here.

[Aurelian]

Don't see why an Axis player would give up that extra bite.