Trying To Like The Game But...

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

I am going to repeat this one more time for the latecomers to this thread (and also because I want to emphasize the point, since it is glaringly crucial in my opinion)... The game design model handycaps the Russian player entirely too much in the 6/41-6/42 time period of the campaign.
To whit:

1) The "Lvov Pocket" was and is an historically impossible event as I have explained in detail in other threads on this forum.
Players who use it are playing a fantasy version of wargaming the East Front.
I have suggested a house rule to correct it that is simple and only affects the first two turns of the game in the south.
(Wheat and I used that HR in our current game and he has still reached Stalingrad by July 42.
The difference the HR has made though is that the whole Russian front didn't just collapse on turn 2 and leave the Russian with no troops to defend with.

vs a good to expert SHC player the Lvov pocket is a speed bump. You are wrong, the SHC players that can not recover are not that good or playing an expert GHC player and they are average to poor SHC player.

2) Because of the ridiculously overgenerous German logistics and morale levels, combined with the equally ridiculous isolation "pocket" effects, the Russian cannot afford to stand and fight literally anywhere west of Moskow until mid 42, when he can begin to form Corp sized units capable of combating the Germans. Due to the initially low CV, low morale, and low command rating penalties enforced upon the Russian side from 6/41-6/42, attempting a forward defense is simply not practical, given the way the combat resolution sytem is designed. This could be solved by increasing the Russian reinforcements to historical levels (as some have pointed out, the game levels are low by historic comparison) to enable them to afford massive casualties and still maintain sufficent numbers to carry the war into 43 and beyond.
This would also give the Russian an incentive to fight a forward defense in order to extract casualties out of the German Army with a long term view of attrition.

The logistics system has been nerfed to the point it is easy as pie even with a mega Lvov pocket to set-up a wall of steel by turn 7 from Leningrad to the Oka. Play Katza, Flaviusx,MT, Saper, Bomazz, Kamil or Hoooper and you will have zero chance of getting past the wall.


3) The Commander "Win-Loss" mechanism is more appropriate to a game of "Chutes and Ladders"... I don't mind reasonable variability in combat results, but completely negating my command appointments is a non-starter. This mechanism should be removed or we need an option switch to turn it off. Grigsby was drunk when he included it.

Has little effect to war over all and SHC commanders did learn from their mistakes and got better dispite losing 1000's of battles. As long as they did not get shot they improved.

4) The Victory Conditions are not consistent with the historical imperatives that drove the event. The VP should vary year by year and be won by both sides on a piecemeal basis over time, while playing out the the entire span of the war. Victory or defeat should be something measured against historic reality benchmarks. For example, if the Germans can succeed in stabilizing the front before the historic collapse in the war time frame, adding perhaps something like they did in WITP/AE where points are awarded for destroyed units and points awarded for certain positions controlled over time. As everything else, balance is the key.

Your wrong about pts 1, 2 and 3, but 100% right about the VP system it simply sucks to be honest.

[GamesaurusRex]

Hi Pelton !

With regard to point #1... The facts you are missing are these:
* There are no less than 4 river crossings that are missing from the WITE map between the Polish border and Rovno and Tarnopol. There is also missing intermittent "swamp" terrain there as well, so the movement cost across that area of the map should be much higher.
* The weather during the first two turns of the game on the South Front was closer to "mud" than clear, with intermittent downpours. More missing movement cost.
* Hitler insisted that no rapid assault be pursued in the South so as not to trigger a counterattack by the Russians toward Ploesti Oilfields. He even ordered the Rumanian and German troops that eventually went through Rumania not to go anywhere near the border with Russia until a week after the invasion had begun for the same reason.
Lvov never happened and couldn't happen. That's one of the reasons why the war didn't end in 1942.

With regard to point #2... I thought your whole strategy was to use your well documented AAR reported techniques of exploiting the flaws in the logistics and combat systems to smash through the Russian lines and collapse the whole Russian Army in 14 turns ? Are you now telling me that you can't do that and the exploits don't exist ?

With regard to point #3... Unlike you, I dislike random negation of primary combat decisions that I make in wargames. If it was "Chutes and Ladders" I would understand..., but to each his own.

[Wheat]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I don't know why you keep insisting on that point when enough players show it to be untrue. Just watch how sapper manages to stifle Pelton's assault. And Pelton's one of the best German players out there. I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting your opponent Wheat, but I doubt he is in the same category as Pelton.

I'm not remotely in the upper echelon of German players so as Michael T, Pelton, MK tours and others, so no disrespect inferred. I'm having fun.

Gamesaurus just needs more experience, and playing as the Germans would help him to see your points. I do think some of the absolutely crazy openings hurt the game though. But I"M HAVING FUN AND AM GLAD I PURCHASED THE GAME.

Along those lines, we need to remember to support that which we enjoy, even if imperfect. Otherwise it all goes away....just like the running russians.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: Wheat

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I don't know why you keep insisting on that point when enough players show it to be untrue. Just watch how sapper manages to stifle Pelton's assault. And Pelton's one of the best German players out there. I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting your opponent Wheat, but I doubt he is in the same category as Pelton.

I'm not remotely in the upper echelon of German players so as Michael T, Pelton, MK tours and others, so no disrespect inferred. I'm having fun.

Gamesaurus just needs more experience, and playing as the Germans would help him to see your points. I do think some of the absolutely crazy openings hurt the game though. But I"M HAVING FUN AND AM GLAD I PURCHASED THE GAME.

Along those lines, we need to remember to support that which we enjoy, even if imperfect. Otherwise it all goes away....just like the running russians.

LOL.. I'M HAVING FUN AND GLAD I PURCHASED THE GAME TOO...

and the truth is that, except for the blizzard of 41, I have probably defended Russia west of Moskow about as much as I imagine Flaviusx would have. The only place I did just "rail out" was the South Front with Poland. Everywhere else I formed delaying lines with checkerboard units, I did counterattack overextended panzer spearheads where possible, and stalled until I got the industry out, while retreating in order... What I did NOT do was allow Russian troops to be grouped in large numbers that could be pocketed and isolated (that happened anyway in some places) and eventually began defending in earnest when I reached positions forward of Moskow. But doing that, even including the ocassional counterstrike at the panzers, does not qualify in my view as a tooth and nail fight for the forward areas of Russia because it was rather a "strategic conservation" of troops to preserve mass, concerned too much with avoiding casualties. I also detested the necessity of surrendering Leningrad without a fight.

My criticism of the game relates to the fact that historically the Russians did much more than that. They fought like animals for every foot of Russian soil and paid a horrendously high price for doing so... That is not possible in the 6/41-6/42 time period in this simulation as it now stands, if the Russian intends to avoid running out of troops by 43. Doing so is suicidal. So my complaint is not that the Russian can't defend... it's that they can't AFFORD THE LOSSES to defend and fight like they did in the real event.

There is no reason I can see that the combat/morale/logistics/reinforcements can't be adjusted and refined to allow that to happen, without stalling out the German advance. The balancing may be tricky, but I think it can be done with the right tweaks.

[gingerbread]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

There is no reason I can see that the combat/morale/logistics/reinforcements can't be adjusted and refined to allow that to happen, without stalling out the German advance. The balancing may be tricky, but I think it can be done with the right tweaks.

It would take considerably more than some tweaks.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

There is no reason I can see that the combat/morale/logistics/reinforcements can't be adjusted and refined to allow that to happen, without stalling out the German advance. The balancing may be tricky, but I think it can be done with the right tweaks.

It would take considerably more than some tweaks.

Well I said it would be tricky. [;)]

[Tom Hunter]

Gamesaurus maybe you're not a programmer or have no systems architecture experience?

The combat model is loaded with subroutines, and some of the other parts are as well. Each change impacts the routines in ways that can be very hard to predict. That makes it very hard to successfully change the model.

When War in the Pacific came out it had a bug that made the main battery on the battleships check fire but no one noticed for about a year because the game was so complex. It's entirely possible that there is a class of tank that does not fire on infantry somewhere in the game, we would never be able to tell. All that complexity makes fixes very difficult.

I know a lot of Russians are missing, but I don't actually want them back in this game as its designed.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

2) Because of the ridiculously overgenerous German logistics and morale levels, combined with the equally ridiculous isolation "pocket" effects, the Russian cannot afford to stand and fight literally anywhere west of Moskow until mid 42, when he can begin to form Corp sized units capable of combating the Germans.

I don't know why you keep insisting on that point when enough players show it to be untrue. Just watch how sapper manages to stifle Pelton's assault. And Pelton's one of the best German players out there. I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting your opponent Wheat, but I doubt he is in the same category as Pelton.

See this AAR: tm.asp?m=3492242&mpage=3

And I don't know why you keep ignoring the fact that such results cannot be LEGITIMATELY achieved in this game. Note well, I said LEGITIMATELY. That excludes illegitimate techniques such as rerolling combats an infinite number of times until one achieves the result they want before returning the turn for the next move. (There... is that clear enough for you ?)

[SigUp]

I have yet to see any evidence that sapper is cheating. It would be helpful if Pelton posted a list of all the battles with units involved, unmodified and modified CV. Then we can see if something is really amiss. Right now you are just accusing somebody with no proof but your gut feeling, which isn't really a solid basis.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I have yet to see any evidence that sapper is cheating. It would be helpful if Pelton posted a list of all the battles with units involved, unmodified and modified CV. Then we can see if something is really amiss. Right now you are just accusing somebody with no proof but your gut feeling, which isn't really a solid basis.

No... I make this statement based entirely upon my direct experience with the combat system while playing the game.
Anyone who is interested can easily demonstrate this fact for themselves by observing results directly without relying on anecdotal "stories" from others.

[SigUp]

I just repost what I've written in the other thread:

You don't need to repeat attacks to get consistent success in counterattacking as the Soviets. Morvael has confirmed this long ago, the combat engine benefits the side with the more elements, resulting in higher CV modifications. Flav has also done his tests about Soviet CV modification (obviously they benefit more, as the Soviet side has a much easier time throwing hordes of units into the battle) and it can be stated as a fact that getting beyond x2 on the modified CV is easy stuff for the Soviets on the attack. Even x3 isn't a rare occurence. So with that in mind to counterattack you simple need to roughly equalize German displayed CV to get a near guaranteed victory (actually due to the Germans often getting reduced modified CV on defence less than 100% is needed). With the +1 odds ruling you can slice that percentage nearly in half. So in effect in 1941 the Soviets can beat German units on a regular basis by bringing in 50-60% of the German CV. And that isn't hard to do. A single German infantry division in the open has on average perhaps some 8 to 9 CVs at best, so you can get good chances by bringing in 6 CV. That is 3-4 divisions.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I just repost what I've written in the other thread:

You don't need to repeat attacks to get consistent success in counterattacking as the Soviets. Morvael has confirmed this long ago, the combat engine benefits the side with the more elements, resulting in higher CV modifications. Flav has also done his tests about Soviet CV modification (obviously they benefit more, as the Soviet side has a much easier time throwing hordes of units into the battle) and it can be stated as a fact that getting beyond x2 on the modified CV is easy stuff for the Soviets on the attack. Even x3 isn't a rare occurence. So with that in mind to counterattack you simple need to roughly equalize German displayed CV to get a near guaranteed victory (actually due to the Germans often getting reduced modified CV on defence less than 100% is needed). With the +1 odds ruling you can slice that percentage nearly in half. So in effect in 1941 the Soviets can beat German units on a regular basis by bringing in 50-60% of the German CV. And that isn't hard to do. A single German infantry division in the open has on average perhaps some 8 to 9 CVs at best, so you can get good chances by bringing in 6 CV. That is 3-4 divisions.

Sig... you are trying to support an insupportable arguement. Simple observation by anyone possessing a copy of this game and running a few sequential attacks can prove to themselves that what you are suggesting is untrue. On top of that, I'm much to old and experienced to buy B.S. [:D]

[SigUp]

Then how about you show me by doing some sequential attacks? I don't even need to do this, I just look at the results of the last three turns from my game against loki:



Battles standing out:

104,38 - Initial CV: 238 - 97 (40.8%)
104,55 - Initial CV: 133 - 71 (53,4%)
105,57 - Initial CV: 149 - 68 (45,6%)
105,40 - Initial CV: 91 - 51 (56,0%)
99,47 - Initial CV: 285 - 123 (43,2%)
99,43 - Intial CV: 145 - 73 (50,3%)

During the last turn 6 of 7 counterattacks succeeded, on average Soviet CV flipped by 2.19 times. The prior turn 3 of 4 counterattacks succeded, on average Soviet CV increased by 2.60 times. Yet another turn earlier 5 of 6 counterattacks succeded, Soviet CV were modified by 2.31 times on average. So where exactly am I wrong?

EDIT: I should mention that we are playing with Soviet morale on 95.

[GamesaurusRex]

As I said... I'm too old to buy manufactured B.S. as supporting arguement.

If I could prove that on my own game copy against a player like Wheat (who I know is experienced sufficently on the German side enough to avoid exposing his troops to "illegitimate" opportunity fire... wink, wink, nod, nod, know what I mean? [;)])

Maybe then, I would consider your point, but knowing it can't be done, I'm not moved.

[SigUp]

Manufactured BS, what, are you now accusing loki of cheating?

EDIT: To make it very, very slow. Where exactly am I wrong? I stated that the engine benefits the side with more elements, which is something morvael confirmed. Then I stated that with their more elements the Soviets tend to double their unmodified CV, which I showed with screens is also true (unless you want to accuse my honourable opponent of cheating). Then to say that with the 1:1 = 2:1 you only need 50-60% of the German unmodified CV to take the victory is simple mathematics. None of these points have anything to do with how good a player is.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Manufactured BS, what, are you now accusing loki of cheating?

Let me repeat... I'm not accusing anyone of anything. All I'm stating is that anyone possessing a copy of the game can test what your selling and demonstrate to themselves that it is a false proposition.

You cannot legitimately produce 10 to 20 1:1 back-to-back successful attacks against a competent German player per turn in 1941. The combat system won't return those results without rerolling battles.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

The combat system won't return those results without rerolling battles.

Again, the key is CV modification, which can easily surpass x2 on a regular basis.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

For those who are curious: after running the Soviet AI for 1 turn on the 44 GC I obtained a total of 7 deliberate attacks in excess of 3x initial CV out of a total of 23 attacks. The Sovs got 11 hasty attacks over 3x initial CV out of at total of 23 hasty attacks. Of 46 total attacks there was only 1 hold.

There were a handful of cases where the final CV was inflated by 5x (!) or more.

STAVKA starts off this GC under the direction of Zhukov. (Vasilevsky gets no respect, lol.)

This wasn't even a very good opening turn by the AI as it failed to pocket anything. I know I could do much better than this.

[Flaviusx]

Grex, SigUp is basically correct here. You can test this for yourself, solo. (But make sure you leave out combat results for the surprise attack of the 41 GC; it's a one off that produces results you will never see again, German CVs are very inflated for that single turn.)

This is for deliberate assaults, mind you, the German can get 3x pretty often on hasty attacks, but that aside, the Soviets will get 3x much more frequently on deliberate assaults. 3x deliberate assaults for the Germans is pretty rare outside the surprise attack.

[GamesaurusRex]

Flav:

I'm not disputing the fact that the Soviet can find an occasional battle that will net him a German retreat... but neither you, nor any of the snake oil salesman, can show me any legitimate evidence that a Soviet player can achieve "10 to 20 1:1 once-rolled battles that sequentially result in retreats per turn" against a reasonably competent German player who is cognizant of the potential and does not leave his troops hung out in vulnerable positions at the end of moves.

It is statistically impossible to legitimately achieve this. It could only be achieved by rerolling combat results until the string of retreats was arrived at. That is illegitimate.

The 1:1 = 2:1 rule can be manipulated to do this very thing (and apparently it is being exploited), but it is still an illegitimate exploit of the rule.

[Flaviusx]

Grex, the trick to doing this is imposing static conditions on a sector of the front, and forcing meeting engagements on unfortified and probably fatigued Axis units inadequately supported by defensive reserves.

This can be done, and we have several AARs showing how. Not just Pelton's, btw.

The Soviet has to plan things out from the getgo to make it happen and understand exactly what his line will look like 4-5 turns in advance. And build a wall on at least a portion of the front -- basically from the Smolensk corridor up north, or north of Vitebsk, depending on how much emphasis you put on Leningrad. Once you build that wall, then you can start launching counterattacks in significant numbers and with some security. The south gets by with odds and sods and zocs and the supply problems that arise once the Axis crosses the Dnepr and is deemphasized in favor of this northern concentration.

Try this in your next game.