Realism discussion

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Walloc

First off. If u read this Sigup and u had an a game vs AI at turn 52 right?
If so, as we cant possibly see the pool from the minors, as they arent listed in the AARs so would u check urs and post them here please.

Yes, I'm playing the AI, right now it's turn 53 and the German (my) summer offensive is under way. As for the manpower pools:

Germany: 264.329
Finland: 2.167
Italy: 36.820
Rumania: 8.993
Hungary: 83.594
Slovakia: 19.872

EDIT: The OOB numbers for the minors

Rumania: 670.622
Hungary: 450.927
Italy: 325.689
Finland: 247.725
Slovakia: 40.005

So in this case for the rumenians approximatesly as its a few turns earlier its not 100% accurate.
715+33k reinforcement+126k replacements= 874-670+9k om pool = 195k losses-3k is in replacements for teh last 2 turns as this is 53 vs 55 or around 192k in all.

Hungarians. 450k and start at 434 addation of 16k and withdrawls/reinforcements are equal
107k in replacements 83k in pool +16k more on map for a loss of 8k!

Slovaks 40k man on map. Starts with 81-43 in withdrawls = 38k = 2 more on map.
Replacement 23k pools, 20k for a combined loss of 1k!!

Finns 248k on map. Starts 358+80k-135k( i did recheck amd revised the withdrawls number)
303k-248k lost 55k replacement 33k in pool 2k another 31k lost for 86k.

Italians irrellevant but if u want numbers. 906*27*9/10 + 906*25*8/10 38k ish replacements and pool at 36k for 2k lost.

Now sigup game isnt Mike vs Kamils, so u cant directly apply those number. Still it gives some pointers.

I said the rumenians would lose 150-180k it was 192k and i used the 170k number in my calcs.
22k to low.
Hungarians only lost 9k vs my bet of 45k 36k to high
Italians 2k vs by bet of 10k 8k to high.
Slovaks lost 1k vs my bet of 10k, 9 to high
finns 86k vs my 40k

In all added and subtrackted in the case of Sigups game a difference of 15k out of a guess of 275k.

If my bet in the Mike vs Kamil was 15k off it would make the percentage of lost of total for axis minors at 13.25% not that u can directly make that conclusion, but its interresting.

This isnt any thing conclusive and maybe Sigup is willing to give us his full loss number including disabled pools so that can be back tracked so see how high the % was of axis minors losses in his game so far.

Still this do indeed point toward the problem in ur numbers not taking into account the pool and counting all replacement as losses.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Gabriel B.]

I did a mistake for which I whish to appologise , I was looking at the overal casulties on turn 47 instead of 55 .

[Walloc]

We all make mistakes, nothing to apologiese for. [:)]

[Gabriel B.]

I did not bother to compute slovakia , italy or hungary because i was certain their losses were low.

RAsmus in your opinion from where the extra german manpower comes , ariving units or returning disabled ?

the manpower production seams ok except maybe for Poland .

[gingerbread]

Hiwi?

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

Hiwi?

That is certainly part of it, in particular in regards to the date they are introduced in game. IIRC in the math i did that is on the other computer i put that number in the 100-130k range as a conservative estimate based on what i saw in my own games and when i asked ppl for numbers from AARs. A problem is that the variation between games depending on number of PoWs and captured cities makes the number vary by a fairly large degree from game to game. That said the math was from before a bug was found concerning Hiwi creation. I dunno how much and if so it has possibly affected the hiwi numbers.

Any how i got a pbem turn waiting and then dinner ill answer more fully later. There are more to the story than Hiwi's.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Powloon]

I think this debate will always center around people who see this as simply a game with a historical setting and thus play it within whatever parameters the game allows versus those who would prefer it to be more of a historical simulation and hope that it will play out with some semblance of history. I don't think this kind of debate is unique to WITE and it will take a very clever games company indeed to create a game which caters to both these groups.

Some of the problems I think with treating this game as a historical simulation are the number of factors which are not modelled for probably very good design reasons ie the designers have commercial concerns and don't have the luxury of spending a decade producing a game which covers every facet of the conflict.

One of those historical factors with this conflict which is not modeled is the dead weight of the command decisions which both dictators made such as their insistance on no retreat during various periods (other than the odd commander being executed or retired). Without this modelling a historicaly plausible outcome goes out the window on turn 1 with the Soviets free to retreat from the border in 41 and the Germans having the option to retreat during the blizzard. Having said that I'm guessing a proportion of gamers would want the freedom to make there own decisions and would not want to play the game constrained by the crazy decisions of Hitler or Stalin.

One decision I have never really understood (and again was probably made for very good reasons) was giving both sides differing methods of production. Whilst this probably works in single player I think it will always cause problems in muliplayer where the human player in charge of Soviet production can create very ahistorical OOBs.

Still in summary I still think this is a great game which will hopefully be revisited after the release of WITW

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Powloon

I'm guessing a proportion of gamers would want the freedom to make there own decisions and would not want to play the game constrained by the crazy decisions of Hitler or Stalin.

The designer's intent was just that. You get to make your own mistakes/decisions. And really, as the Axis player, do you *really* want to deal with Hitler's? decisions? He did lose after all.

[Dangun]

I think this debate will always center around people who see this as simply a game with a historical setting and thus play it within whatever parameters the game allows versus those who would prefer it to be more of a historical simulation and hope that it will play out with some semblance of history.

I don't really see any difference in the core interests of these two groups.

Both 'gamers' and 'historians' want the average game to run close to the historical time line and result. They both want variations from history to be a result of luck, historically available choices, and skill.

Neither 'gamers' nor 'historians' like the game to introduce conditions that cause a big variance from history e.g. the vicious blizzard we apparently have.

But what creates the most discord between 'gamers' and 'historians' is when the gamers find an effective a-historical and historically unavailable/implausible strategy. But this is not their fault. Neither 'gamers' nor 'historians' like it when the game design creates strong incentives to use historically unavailable/implausible strategies like: the Soviet flee on turn 1, of the German blizzard retreat.

[Powloon]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The designer's intent was just that. You get to make your own mistakes/decisions. And really, as the Axis player, do you *really* want to deal with Hitler's? decisions? He did lose after all.

I'm sure some players would [:)]

Personally I would like to see some indirect affects possibly such as a revised victory points system where major cities give VPs per turn and thus incentivise a Soviet player for holding forward whilst conversley discouraging German players retreating into Poland during the blizzard (a good example of what a gamer might do because it can make sense in context of the game but anathama to a historical player). Or possibly during the periods where a stand fast order is in place leaders must make a successful roll against there political stat or else have their units suffer further penalties on their movement points

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Dangun

I think this debate will always center around people who see this as simply a game with a historical setting and thus play it within whatever parameters the game allows versus those who would prefer it to be more of a historical simulation and hope that it will play out with some semblance of history.

I don't really see any difference in the core interests of these two groups.

Both 'gamers' and 'historians' want the average game to run close to the historical time line and result. They both want variations from history to be a result of luck, historically available choices, and skill.

Neither 'gamers' nor 'historians' like the game to introduce conditions that cause a big variance from history e.g. the vicious blizzard we apparently have.

But what creates the most discord between 'gamers' and 'historians' is when the gamers find an effective a-historical and historically unavailable/implausible strategy. But this is not their fault. Neither 'gamers' nor 'historians' like it when the game design creates strong incentives to use historically unavailable/implausible strategies like: the Soviet flee on turn 1, of the German blizzard retreat.

I do agree that the blizzard is far too strong. But you ought to mention the unrealistic logistics in this game. More than anything, the logistics are one of the central problems, as the logistics allows offensives for both sides to be sustained close to indefinitely, especially if you use aerial resupply. German advance effectively doesn't stop until the blizzard, with the exception of mud. And from 1943 onwards the Soviets can fuel their offensives until game's end, once again only stoppable by the mud.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Powloon

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The designer's intent was just that. You get to make your own mistakes/decisions. And really, as the Axis player, do you *really* want to deal with Hitler's? decisions? He did lose after all.

I'm sure some players would [:)]

[:D]

True, then the Sovs would get to deal with Stalin's. But then again, he did win.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Dangun

Both 'gamers' and 'historians' want the average game to run close to the historical time line and result. They both want variations from history to be a result of luck, historically available choices, and skill.

Neither 'gamers' nor 'historians' like the game to introduce conditions that cause a big variance from history e.g. the vicious blizzard we apparently have.

I think this is spot on. In part as, as I;ve confessed above, I don't have a clue where good game play and legitimate understanding of the game systems ends, and cheese begins. Equally if I want to see a perfect re-enaction I'll watch a documentary or reread Erickson.

The first turn and the blizzard problems are well rehearsed but I still think the root issue is the permissive logistics system. I can cope with an over the top turn 1, and would still be prepared to gamble on a fighting retreat, if the axis side was using MPs in the 20-30 range for a portion of their army. Add in the turn 1 destruction and MPs>30 and you have a radically different game. Equally I think in turn, an axis active defense in the blizzard is more feasible if the Soviets are struggling with their supply lines.

if there is someway to dampen down the logistics model then I think a lot of the current split on this forum between 'gamers' and 'historians' would die down. There is so much in this game that is brilliant that its a pity to see the PBEM potential lost in a welter of min-max strategies. In some ways SP against the AI can give a better game (even if it is the impact of mud, not logistics that imposes a rythym to a campaign) but what you then lack is the creative intelligence a human opponent brings. The AI is good tactically and operationally, but its the last bit, worrying what your opponent is up to, that is missing.

[swkuh]

And the logistics & transportation factors cannot be adjusted to moderate the issue?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: rrbill

And the logistics & transportation factors cannot be adjusted to moderate the issue?

well that is exactly what we are trying to test at the moment ...

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: rrbill

And the logistics & transportation factors cannot be adjusted to moderate the issue?

well that is exactly what we are trying to test at the moment ...

I've been thinking of adjusting the logistics and transport settings for a while, but never gotten around to it. What is being tested? Settings at 50%? 75%? ...

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: rrbill

And the logistics & transportation factors cannot be adjusted to moderate the issue?

well that is exactly what we are trying to test at the moment ...

I've been thinking of adjusting the logistics and transport settings for a while, but never gotten around to it. What is being tested? Settings at 50%? 75%? ...

Logistics at 75. And for a player of my caliber (an admittedly not good one, go to the AAR and convince yourself [:D]) 75 is perhaps even a little bit too low. Without bomber fuel supply my logistics crashed on turn 3 and even on the following turn the mobile units were more or less on standby. For historical play this little test match is positive. My pacing is more or less exactly like the historical one. Though in the GC I think I could have had more trouble with reinforcements not being locked for a time like in the Smolensk scenario. What I am curious about is, whether these settings can also put a damper on the unrealistic penetrations of the Soviets during the blizzard.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Schmart
I've been thinking of adjusting the logistics and transport settings for a while, but never gotten around to it. What is being tested? Settings at 50%? 75%? ...

the link is here, I'll try and put up the Soviet T5 later this evening but as SigUp has said, it looks and feels very close to the historical outcome.

now in the main the 'Road Tos' can give realistic outcomes as both sides are locked into their historical OOB on a given sector, but in that sense the outcome is re-assuring. In terms of dynamism, we may have dampened things down too much, but then as the Soviets, I've fought an active defense and T6 has produced the third major pocket of the game.

[swkuh]

Interesting to see the value of adjusting "logistics" and "transport."

Thanks to Loki & friend for giving logistics at 75 a try. Watching that thread.

I've found that "morale" that favors GHQ makes a better AI game. (Used GHQ105/SOV100) Others?

Guess I'll be trying adjustments to all factors in a serious way (vs AI) when able. But not able just now.

[carlkay58]

I have tried 50% logistics before and I think there is an AAR in the list that did too. Both games came to the conclusion that 50% was too big of a cut and that around 70% was probably the next one to try. So I am monitoring the 75% to see how that one goes.