Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: morvael

...

Now let's look an impact of a brigade defending 30 miles of terrain (hex + 2 in ZOC) vs advancing panzer division. With less than 1 men per meter of frontline, the brigade would never be able to achieve "prepared/fortified defense" and only "hasty defense/delay" would be possible (this may not be present in the article, but it's in the literature ("Numbers, Predictions and War"). As we know from WitE a brigade would have 1 CV or less, compared to 15 CV or more of a panzer division, so that would result in a ratio greater than 6.0. It turns out the brigade has no impact on the speed of advance... maximum advance of 60km/day is still possible, but of course less will be achieved due to terrain and roads. And for those protesting that a brigade surely has bigger impact than a void in its place on the speed of advance, then yes, it will have an indirect impact for the following days, since a combat will occur, losses will be taken, and fatigue gained. But at the core there is not much a weak brigade on too long front can do against a strong armored force coming its way.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a brigade strung out over a long front can do anything meaningful to hold a Pzr division.

The debate (to me at least) is if the zoc cost is a realistic if imperfect rendering of the defenders ability to react (something lacking in igougo engines).

Lets assume you are part of an airborne corps and you've been told to delay/detect any German advance. No doubt your orders are expressed with usual Stalinist subtlety and concern for your well being. In your favour, if it really is an airborne brigade, you have a unit trained in small level actions and for sabotage. So I'd spread out a picket line, make sure the obvious roads were well boobytrapped etc. Once you'd detected where the enemy was moving through, I'd let the tanks go and look for ambushes on the HQ elements and other support units.

What you are describing is the operation of partisans or a unit being dissolved to create partisans.

Conventional large units do not and can not operate this way.

ORIGINAL: loki100
So the zoc cost is a sort of imperfect way to reflect that the defending side is not just going to sit static - you could see the counter as a sort of indication of centre of gravity for the unit but with some tactical capacity to shift as the situation develops. You're not going to stop the enemy, but if you do it right you could well annoy and frustrate them.

I agree this is the best case for some kind of ZOC existing, however this IMO must be tied to the units potential to actually influence the area you want to give them ZOC for. Foot mobile, smallish units (compared to geographical scale) will find this impossible to do. They can't shoot far enough, they can't move far enough and once they get there they are almost irrevocably committed, so must be subject to attack/losses.

The usual suspects do this every time. They shy away from the basic simple question. Which is should a regiment/brigade be as sticky as a whole stack of divisions. They never answer it with a yes or no. They are like politicians, they muddy the water, dance around the issue, over complicate it, lose focus and never answer the question. Progress is never made.

I see this pattern over and over by the same people.

best to stay civil please, it's only a game, nothing more nothing less, passions and feelings aside that is everyone.

thanks

I think you are thinking in western terms. In 1941 or later Russian units did not have withdrawal or even survival as a priority for high command. End result of my scenario is not an effective combat unit, it is a delay and prisoners or partisans.

To reiterate my position, I would love a better reflection of thr different capabilities of units in defending points vs covering ground but we need to be careful what we wish for , as shown by the examples being brought out now. Also we need to think on the large scale and not get too twitched about the single hexes.

A perfect example is that poor fuel state units have less MP. So they move less far. But do they move slower all week or do they move quickly for less time.. How does this sit with better ZOCs? A partially out of supply Panzer unit needs to be delayed for less time than a full fuel one (assuming it is still burning fuel while sorting out the delay. So how does this impact on the CV based ZoC. The unit might have the same CV in each case...

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The usual suspects do this every time. They shy away from the basic simple question. Which is should a regiment/brigade be as sticky as a whole stack of divisions. They never answer it with a yes or no. They are like politicians, they muddy the water, dance around the issue, over complicate it, lose focus and never answer the question. Progress is never made.

I see this pattern over and over by the same people.

But have you actually read the discussion. People are now generally agreeing with the point but there is much discussion of how to do it and what the new issues might be from any change.

Also, remembering the cost benefit aspect, is WitE broken by this, and what information do we have on WitE2 to even judge benefit. Just cos it isn't exactly 'right' on the micro scale does not make it wrong if it works on the macro scale.

Completely agree.

ORIGINAL: MechFO


At the map scale of the game, a hard ZOC makes no sense.

Totally trivial point, but in my hazy memory of classic board warganes (SPI etc) a hard ZoC would be one that forced the moving unit to stop on entry, and only move out next turn, possibly with prohibition on moving directly from ZoC to ZoC. We are talking variations of soft ZoC (additional movement costs but no other effect).

Accusations of senility gently please

With prohibitive MP costs soft ZOC becomes hard ZOC in all but name

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

I have followed the discussion a bit and i agree with Micheal T. The question is not whether a small brigade has a ZOC and is able to delay an advance in a certain way. But it will never ever reach the influence three stacked rifle corps or big armoured formations can have. So i fully agree that there must be a difference. I vote for a calculation based on offensive CV, maybe in combination with MPs? here. On this way, all the factors like mobility, experience&morale and supply are included because they influence CV.

Just to point out the pitfalls in such. The rules also have to work down the line. Mid game if based purely on CV could have a german bde with for example a tiger btn attached having the same CV as 2 3 rumenian divs. That bde would have little artillery, the mobility of tigers isnt necesarrily the best. So u get an example of very few combat troops 2 3 btns of inf with little art and tanks strung out over 48 km(1 hex each to side) of front with all things given limited. Having the same "interdiction" as units much larger with many more men to cover the actual hexes and much more art. Art as such have little to no CV value at leased in WiTE1. Considering that by nature of the rules the russian is alrdy limited in mobility and the rules have to work in 43 and 44 too. How is this different than the issue of "ants"

@Walloc: Is there a source for the calculation? I would be very interested how they did the calculations.

Ill PM u. As it wasnt in public forums. Nor do i want to have peoples work given out with out their consent and knowledge. So ill ask around.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

Thanks for looking for the calculation!!!

Tiger Batallion and Romanian Div: I am not familiar with late war CVs, but I assume your CV for the romanian div is correct: The Tiger Bt. is attached to a bigger unit. So it does not work alone but together with its units. Imo not a problem because soviet tank commanders will maybe stop because they encounter the feared tigers supported by other tanks and infantry.
So it is not "tigers alone have similiar ZOC to romanian divisions" but "tigers together with its uhead unit, then tiger have comparable impact to a romanian division".
But this really is a minor question. What counts is the principle which is correct in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Tiger Batallion and Romanian Div: I am not familiar with late war CVs, but I assume your CV for the romanian div is correct: The Tiger Bt. is attached to a bigger unit. So it does not work alone but together with its units. Imo not a problem because soviet tank commanders will maybe stop because they encounter the feared tigers supported by other tanks and infantry.
So it is not "tigers alone have similiar ZOC to romanian divisions" but "tigers together with its uhead unit, then tiger have comparable impact to a romanian division".
But this really is a minor question. What counts is the principle which is correct in my opinion.

I might not have explained it well enough but i think ur missing my point. Its a Inf Bde with 3 btns. So that infantry backing up the tigers is not necesarrily more in numbers of infanterists than a russian bde in 41. They might get higher CV for being better soldiers and better tactically, but their numbers are the same non the less. So u have the same 1 inf btn per 16 km of front as many complains about higher in the discussion. Thats the same low density as for a RU BDE in 41. While germans might be better tactically they can only be at one place at a time. Tiger btn have high CV(for reasons) compared to actual men/machines in it. Again they can only be at 1 place at one time in space.

U can ofc have some of the germans being mobile, but giving a tiger btn commander the task of patrolling 50km of front im pretty sure would cause him quite a bit of grief. Tigers arent fast, neeed specialized bridges and prone mechanical failtures. Playing light cavalry is doing Tigers a disservice. Not to mention the the fuel ussage for tigers make such non desireble.
So u have a situasion of 3 btn backed up by tigers with little artillery and recon capability has the same influence of adjecent hexes as maybe 15+ romenian btns of inf plus loads more artillery which has next to no CV value. Those 15+ btn could much better spill over into adjecent hexes.

The point being that CV isnt neceassrily a good meassure of units ability to cover terrain through out 41-45.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

ORIGINAL: Walloc


The point being that CV isnt neceassrily a good meassure of units ability to cover terrain through out 41-45.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

I agree, and I don't claim that my suggestion of DV is much better. If WiTE 2 does end up with the perfect and realistic model for ZOCs, that will be the only part of WiTE 2 that is.

@Michael - I don't think anyone has ever suggested that a small unit could IRL impose the same level of delay as a load of big ones, but size on its own is never enough to provide full satisfaction.

A focus on the combat effectiveness of the defenders (however defined or calculated) in isolation as the sole criterion for its ability to cause delay is IMHO not going to produce the 'right' result. Eighth Army's infamous 'boxes' in the desert were useless against Rommel's armour whereas if the same strength force had been facing the same enemy in terrain with few avenues of approach, it would have been able to spread out and delay the same attackers much more effectively. A unit defending the Dnepr is not going to impose much if any delay on a unit on the other side going parallel to it (assuming that the moving unit moves sensibly, but will make it very difficult to cross that same river in what WiTE calls an empty hex on its flank as I hope I explained properly earlier. The 300 Spartans would not have been remembered if they'd tried to stop the Persians on the plains of Thessaly.

The 3rd important factor relating to delay is how much the attackers know about the defenders' dispositions. That's all about recce, though that also takes time of course. However, effective recce has been probably the most important factor in the success of a force in slipping past the enemy (going through a ZOC and sometimes ZOC to ZOC in game terms) in all history.

I can't imagine any game meeting the gold standard on this issue. One that focusses simply on force levels alone certainly never will, because that is the factor most helpful to the attacker. The current rules distort the issue of force effectiveness in favour of D. It's fair to criticise that distortion, but simply to negate the effectiveness of small defending forces just increases the distortion in favour of the bigger attacking unit.

The answer therefore has to be to give proper weight to the other 2 factors I've described.So where does this post get anyonefrom a practical perspective? I hope it reduces or ideally removes the 1 dimensional focus that has dominated the issue so far, but that on its own won't help improve the current ZOC rule. I would like to think that a ZOC cost tied in to the terrain the attacker is moving into/across could be factored in simply enough to be doable, even if only as an optional rule recommended to PvP only. I suppose I'm thinking eg of small units (however defined) not having a ZOC into clear terrain, but ZOC costs into /across other terrain being higher than they are now.

My thinking may well improve once I start testing WiTE which will be next week. My son is coming over this w'end and do the necessary fiddling around to install wite 2 which is beyond me. It may be that other proposed rule changes will change the extent/nature of the ZOC issues.

NB I know sweet FA about game design/coding so, on the issue of the helpfulness or otherwise of my suggestions, I defer totally to those that do especially those who have to design effective AI with very few resources and competing/opposing demands.

I'm a simple soul/boring old fart (delete as you choose but the latter is the one I use). I don't want a simulation of something said to be 95% boredom and 5% terror, but I want a game that is easy to play but hard to play well (ie fun) and balanced (more fun and as exploit-free as possible) and with all the geeky stuff that makes wite the game I've played more than any other.

@HMSWARSPITE

Myself and others have been through this process on numerous occasions. We raise a valid point and put a case forward for a change/improvement. At some stage certain individuals get involved who do as exactly as I said above. Not just here but in the WITW dev forums as well.

Anyway as an aside, this issue of different zoc strengths for less capable units AND the issue of better stacking rules has been raised before, circa 2011/2012/2013. Both points were commented on by Joel and other 2by3 people as, things that should or could be addressed in WITE 2.0.

Well here we are. Trying to get them addressed. Alas all to late I fear, not sure when or even how we get involved in the process (if there is one) of improving a game before it's too late.

We should aim for stacking next. Anyone want to kick that ball...

FWIW I have received emails from Pelton in relation to this zoc issue. He of course would like to post himself but can't.

He is in agreement with my assertion that ant's should not have a zoc.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
We should aim for stacking next. Anyone want to kick that ball...

I'd go with something like this.
Stacking points - corps = 3, division = 2, all others = 1, HQs stack for free. Soviet stacking limit = 9 points, Axis = 6 points. Stacks limited to 6 units.

BTW, in all the years that Pelton has been playing the game and pointing out issues (and whatever I feel about his style of post and analysis of the desired outcomes, his detection and highlighting of game issues is very good), I don't recall him ever highlighting diffuse carpets of brigades as an issue. I haven't kept up wit the forum continuously, but he has complained about 3 deep continuous walls (divisions at the front and maybe brigades at the rear), not these 'zoc walls'.

This is completely false. Pelton has complained previously about ant carpet zoc's. And is in complete agreement with my, and others opinions that the zoc costs for ant carpets should be nil or much less.

I'm just going to pipe up again saying I disagree its an issue in the current WITE 1.......with the force concentrations removing the current ZOC rules would make the game auto win for the Germans.

If WITE 2 removes the ability to concentrate 20-30 mobile divisions off one railhead then maybe Zoc reduction can be looked at. However in the interest of game play/balance in current WITE 1 its not needed.

The IGO/UGO is already very tough/bordering on unbalanced in the current game even with current zoc rules. If you remove the IMO limited ability for BDEs to cause Zocs the huge mobile AG in the game will easily just wipe the soviets from the board in 41/42 and if somehow a soviet player survives they can then have the advantage from 43 on against the german back line of reserve regiments. To me the critical issue is balance, and yes IMO even real life backs up that BDEs should slow enemy movement...sorry but in real life friction causes issues....Ive seen attacks bog down horribly in a complete training environment let alone in a real life situation when actual peoples lives are on the line. Its already been pointed out as well that units have some very high/bordering on unrealistic movement abilities in WITE as is after the opening blitz, so why is it ppl are arguing to make the situation even worse/more unbalanced game play wise?

I disagree. I would simply convert my 150+ INF brigades in to 75+ divisions. Still more than enough to create a proper defense and crush the life from any German player you care to mention.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

I think you are thinking in western terms. In 1941 or later Russian units did not have withdrawal or even survival as a priority for high command. End result of my scenario is not an effective combat unit, it is a delay and prisoners or partisans.

I am now throughly confused. Your "delay" was supposed to represent notional elements of a brigade in neighbouring hexes slowing the enemy down. Now you agree their loss % would be very high? You are asking for battalions on the map and have been for several posts, even if you don't seem to realise it.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
A perfect example is that poor fuel state units have less MP. So they move less far. But do they move slower all week or do they move quickly for less time.. How does this sit with better ZOCs? A partially out of supply Panzer unit needs to be delayed for less time than a full fuel one (assuming it is still burning fuel while sorting out the delay. So how does this impact on the CV based ZoC. The unit might have the same CV in each case...

Sorry, don't understand your point.

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Tiger Batallion and Romanian Div: I am not familiar with late war CVs, but I assume your CV for the romanian div is correct: The Tiger Bt. is attached to a bigger unit. So it does not work alone but together with its units. Imo not a problem because soviet tank commanders will maybe stop because they encounter the feared tigers supported by other tanks and infantry.
So it is not "tigers alone have similiar ZOC to romanian divisions" but "tigers together with its uhead unit, then tiger have comparable impact to a romanian division".
But this really is a minor question. What counts is the principle which is correct in my opinion.

I might not have explained it well enough but i think ur missing my point. Its a Inf Bde with 3 btns. So that infantry backing up the tigers is not necesarrily more in numbers of infanterists than a russian bde in 41. They might get higher CV for being better soldiers and better tactically, but their numbers are the same non the less. So u have the same 1 inf btn per 16 km of front as many complains about higher in the discussion. Thats the same low density as for a RU BDE in 41. While germans might be better tactically they can only be at one place at a time. Tiger btn have high CV(for reasons) compared to actual men/machines in it. Again they can only be at 1 place at one time in space.

U can ofc have some of the germans being mobile, but giving a tiger btn commander the task of patrolling 50km of front im pretty sure would cause him quite a bit of grief. Tigers arent fast, neeed specialized bridges and prone mechanical failtures. Playing light cavalry is doing Tigers a disservice. Not to mention the the fuel ussage for tigers make such non desireble.
So u have a situasion of 3 btn backed up by tigers with little artillery and recon capability has the same influence of adjecent hexes as maybe 15+ romenian btns of inf plus loads more artillery which has next to no CV value. Those 15+ btn could much better spill over into adjecent hexes.

The point being that CV isnt neceassrily a good meassure of units ability to cover terrain through out 41-45.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

Take it up with the CV calculation formula. I agree artillery missing is not good.

That said if ZOC is supposed to represent friction, and I agree that the only real point of them, then the "friction" imposed by any given unit is heavily dependent on what the threat perception of the opposition is. Those tigers aren't producing ZOC by being spread out across 40-50 km, but by being a compact unit able to mount an attack in x hours over y kilometres. Any unit moving into proximity will have to honour the threat and incur delay.

The threat an attack by an infantry battalion represents is very different to that of a tank battalion (doesn't really matter if tigers or not), because

- speed, an attack by an armour unit can develop very quickly, this reduces response times and restricts the location of reserves

- protection, effective weapons against tanks are limited, and if immobile should ideally be prepositioned. This again increases the needed reserves.

hence it has a very disproportionate effect. Which is why I think mobility is an important part of any ZOC formula, but some measure of combat power is needed as well.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
A unit defending the Dnepr is not going to impose much if any delay on a unit on the other side going parallel to it (assuming that the moving unit moves sensibly, but will make it very difficult to cross that same river in what WiTE calls an empty hex on its flank as I hope I explained properly earlier.

Only with sufficient artillery.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
The answer therefore has to be to give proper weight to the other 2 factors I've described.So where does this post get anyonefrom a practical perspective? I hope it reduces or ideally removes the 1 dimensional focus that has dominated the issue so far, but that on its own won't help improve the current ZOC rule. I would like to think that a ZOC cost tied in to the terrain the attacker is moving into/across could be factored in simply enough to be doable, even if only as an optional rule recommended to PvP only. I suppose I'm thinking eg of small units (however defined) not having a ZOC into clear terrain, but ZOC costs into /across other terrain being higher than they are now.

This might seem counter-intuitive, but difficult terrain actually reduces the ability to exert ZOC. Less approach avenues means once can be screened/covered much more effectively. Difficult approach slows down the speed of advance and the ability to observe for artillery is extremely affected. One is basically reduced to hail mary grid attacks hoping that the maps are sufficiently accurate, but this is wasteful of ammo.


There is also a problem with recce being much too good, but IMO no so much at the micro level, but the fact that the attacker "knows" fairly well what's around in a 200-300km radius of his chosen penetration. This encourages brinkmanship without it being punished often enough. If the situation were more unclear, the attack would have to be more conservative, or actually run a real risk.