what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

My problem with the 1-1 retreat shift is the added casualties from the Axis retreat. When added to the actual casualties from battles in 1942 I am finding the Axis typically lose more troops and equipment then the Soviets in almost even odds encounters. From all I have read this is not how it was on the eastern front. This is a distinct advantage to the Soviets that in 1942 and beyond is very imbalancing.

The 1-1 retreat shift is only part of the problem. WitE uses a combat resolution algorithm that produces historically unrealistic casualties. I doubt it will change, so you'll have to live with it.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Ketza

My problem with the 1-1 retreat shift is the added casualties from the Axis retreat. When added to the actual casualties from battles in 1942 I am finding the Axis typically lose more troops and equipment then the Soviets in almost even odds encounters. From all I have read this is not how it was on the eastern front. This is a distinct advantage to the Soviets that in 1942 and beyond is very imbalancing.

The 1-1 retreat shift is only part of the problem. WitE uses a combat resolution algorithm that produces historically unrealistic casualties. I doubt it will change, so you'll have to live with it.

Probably so but it is impacting my enjoyment of the game.

[Scook_99]

You know, the longer I am playing, the more I am believing this is a non-issue. At first yes, I was outraged to a point. I also was outraged at Mud, the First Blizzard, oh, heck a lot of aspects. Now that I have a bunch of time in on both sides, I give the makers of this game a lot of leeway. The 1:1 Russian attacks can be removed without changing too much, as it is very ill-advised to repeatedly attack that way. If you have 80,000 men attack, you will generally have 8,000 casualties, highly unacceptable. It is somewhat useful early, up through the end of the 1st winter, to dislodge Germans next to cities that still have factories to move, and to help move Germans out of forts. You can't make a living at 1:1.

I have also concluded the number of initially shocking aspects of the game are what make the game great, it is so different than most games you will play on this subject. Operationally, this is the best game I have played. Think about it: the Germans are doing their best when the Panzers never fire a shot, and are rolling across the Russian Steppes attacking the supply lines. Most other games you are loading up the tanks on attack to achieve an automatic overrun to eliminate units.

[Peltonx]

A very easy and simple fix is 1.5 vs 1 = retreat, but that be to easy.

1.25 vs 1 = retreat.

or something along those lines.

Game is good now just needs some tweaks.

Pelton

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

I do love these threads I really do![8|]

I'll say it again the Russian 1-1 is hardly an advantage.

Attacking at low odds and relying on 1-1 combat odds,

Would rapidly turn the Soviet Army into Swiss Cheese.

The casualties are horrendous, and now that reserve unit commitment has been patched the situation can only be worse.

Although slower the Soviet Army does have to attack in force to preserve the Army.

Casualties are high, of course because defending will favour the Axis for a large part of the War.

I really do hope you've battled all the way from Stalingrad to Germany with the Soviet Army before formulating an opinion.

Quoted for absolute truth, right from the page one.

[Ketza]

Well here is an example that frustrates me. A Panzer Corp in the open after it launched one deliberate attack after sitting on rails for a month absorbing replacements and in good shape. No command and control problems and minimal Soviet air in the vicinity.

Final CV value is 299 Soviet to 261 Axis after they attack with a bunch of infantry and get the 2-1 odds bump and take the hex.

I would not have an issue if it were a crushing attack but it was not. To me this is a broken mechanic that really gives the Soviet an advantage that is not historical.

End of rant and back to the game [8D]

[Oleg Mastruko]

I see nothing wrong with this attack, he had three corps worth of troops, pretty solid arty support (1350 tubes) + 60 bombers (probably Sturmoviks) and 60 fighters flying in the open skies with no fighter defence on your side, so yes he pushed you back - barely - with atrocious losses on his part. What's wrong with that?

He was lucky too, he might have failed (with 1:1 bonus) and in that case it would be very very very bad result for him indeed. He gambled and in this case succeeded. I think it's pretty fair attempt and fair result. I mean, it's not like 1:1 turned what would otherwise be super realistic result into a comedy. It gave pretty realistic result in the end.

[cookie monster]

I agree with Oleg.

[Ketza]

So what your saying is in the Summer of 1942 a full rested Panzer Corp with 276 CV cannot stand its ground against Soviet infantry when the odds are even.

I need to read more about war on the Eastern front because after 30 years of reading about it and gaming it somehow I got it all wrong.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

So what your saying is in the Summer of 1942 a full rested Panzer Corp with 276 CV cannot stand its ground against Soviet infantry when the odds are even.

I am not saying it "cannot stand". It can stand. It almost did. With some luck it could have won this battle, but it didn't - barely! I find both outcomes realistic. You happened to have dice go against you this time, that's all.

I also think that with the forces he used, he had every right to be given a chance for victory. He gambled and he won. With or without 1:1 bonus I do think he had a solid claim on winning this battle, just like you. He was luckier this time though.

Besides, you do realize that 189 AFVs, standing in the CLEAR hex, with NO forts, with NO air cover AT ALL, were probably just a nice target practice for those 60 Sturmos or whatever bombers he had in action on that fateful day [:D]

[Wild]

I agree with Ketza. There is no way a Panzer corps that is in good shape in summer '42 should be retreated by russian infantry attacking with even odds. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Ketza]

The issue is the Panzers should have stood and would have stood except for a "perk" that the Soviets get.

I am not sure what the planes were in this battle but I have had battles where 200+ Axis bombers flew and no Soviet planes flew and had 15-1 odds and had even casualties even after the Soviet retreat but that is another matter.

As far as the dynamic of this battle I would argree that if it were an even odds tank battle it should go either way but that was not the case.

The Panzers in my games get beat up not by Soviet tank and mech corps but stacks of infantry with low odds attacks that result in Axis retreats.

There are reasons why Axis players quit. I have played around 10 games as Soviets and all of my Axis players have melted away. In my game against 76mm I am sticking it out to try and see what happens. The main gripe I have is this odds shift mechanic.

I suppose I will have to disagree with other folks on this matter but its ok to agree to disagree [:D]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

The issue is the Panzers should have stood and would have stood except for a "perk" that the Soviets get.

That's a wrong way to look at it. OK so without the perk Panzers would stand. That's obvious. But should that be the desired, and ONLY possible outcome of this battle?? I don't think so.

The question to ask is - had the Soviets ANY right to win this battle? I think they had the right to win. Germans had the right to win too. That's why we have dice, and rules and random number generators and they went with the Sovs this time. Nothing wrong with that, given the forces they used.

So... forget the game, forget the calculations, just look at the numbers, and do you REALLY think that the only, AND I MEAN ONLY outcome of 1350 tubes and 60 bombers attacking a clear, unfortified hex with no fighter CAP, is Axis defensive victory?

If you really claim that, then you're an Axis fanboy, and we obviously disagree.

If you happen to think, as I do, that based on engaged forces, Soviets had some claim on winning this battle, then 1:1 bonus is actually a good thing, because it gave them that chance. I think they deserved to have a good CHANCE to win this battle, and that's EXACTLY what 1:1 thingie gave them.

[Wild]

I think they deserved a chance to push back that panzer corps most definitely. i just think they should have to achieve at least 2-1 odds to do it. I don't know, am i crazy? I don't think i'm speaking as a German fanboy, it just doesn't make much sense to me.

[cookie monster]

Hang on a minute that was 92,000 Soviets vs 43,000 Germans.

The Soviets should stand some chance of winning the battle with over twice the amount of men.

As I said before the battle looked ok to me.

[jomni]

Here's how I look at it...  That perk is a way to simulate the difference in doctrine as stated in the manual.

The Panzer Divs will stay put if they are given the "Hold at All" costs command.  But apparently we cannot alter the ROE of troops in the game so they stick with "Force Preservation" stance by default.  The complicating factor is that the Russians have the "Attack at all cost" ROE by default.  So if we can theoretically give the Panzer Divs a "Hold at All" cost command, then the battle for the hex will still continue until one of the units is decimated. Ketza's battle can be won if the Panzer Divs were to hold on for longer but apparently their default ROE told them to save their strenght for another day.

[Oleg Mastruko]

In fact this is a good example of game working as designed, and why 1:1 perk is OK.

Without that bonus Soviets could not win this battle and IMO they had right to win.

2by3 did a mistake they published how 1:1 bonus work, they should just have made it secret, and I guess less people would complain about battles like this, with realistic results.

With rules published, whenever Germans see 2:1 and they KNOW 1 has been added as per the rules, it does hurt and seems unfair. "GRRR I WOULD HAVE WON THIS IF IT WASNT FOR 1:1 THING!" I understand that on a personal and emotional level, but that's a wrong way to look at it.

If the complete process was hidden from the players, people would not complain and would accept their fate. I am generally against making the formulas known to public. What matters is only the final result, and here I think the final result is OK, within the realms of realism and quite possible. So what's the problem? Ketza would you accept your fate easier if the game gave the final odds of, say, 5:1, so that you know 1:1 perk wasn't at work here? [:)]

[Michael T]

Looking at those units involved if the attack were transposed to a FITE/SE (Europa) attack I reckon the Soviets would have around a 1.5 to 1 attack with a -2 DRM. Don't have my charts with me but I reckon about a 33% chance of success, and about 33% chance of disaster. I would like to see the same attack run over about 20 times and assess it. But prima facie the attack looks like it could succeed sometimes, certainly not always and sometimes end with disasterous results for Ivan. I think leadership is the big unknown. It would be good if we could get a report that included failed/passed leader checks and the affect on CV.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Hang on a minute that was 92,000 Soviets vs 43,000 Germans.

The Soviets should stand some chance of winning the battle with over twice the amount of men.

As I said before the battle looked ok to me.

Yes, but they only had 28 afv's vs 189 for the germans.

I like your idea about changing ROE"S Jomni.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Wild

I think they deserved a chance to push back that panzer corps most definitely. i just think they should have to achieve at least 2-1 odds to do it. I don't know, am i crazy?

Wild they DID achieve the 2:1 odds!

The game reports they have 2,1:1 odds!

The only problem here is that you, the player, know HOW they reached 2,1, with a little help from their friends, and you don't like that [:D]

Otherwise, the result is OK.

If the complete process of reaching those 2:1 was hidden, as it should have been, you would not complain.