Matrix Games Forums

Understood kirkgregoerson

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

kirkgregerson, I don't see where you're coming from that no one is taking an objective look at this: Paul McNeely laid down a pretty convincing argument back in page 1 that this is possible within our current understanding of the game's mechanics.

Yes, as you said within the game mechanics. Exactly where the flaw would have to be. Did you look at my list of advantages for each side in this battle. I have yet to see any compelling arguments that the battle outcome was modeled properly by WitE in this case.

You're not telling me anything that I don't already know about the game mechanics having the issue, where else would the results come from? The point is they don't give a realistic outcome for *some* battles based on all the factors.

What do you think? Is there something about this sov rifle div that would have realistically cause more causality to the attacker in this case? Put the game mechanics stuff aside, an just give opinion and maybe why?

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

So I completely disagree about this concept about battles being random. I think given all the factors on the table... such as in WitE reason outcomes can be established.

Well, the OUTCOME of this battle, the retreat of the RifleDivision is not that unlikely…

I agree that in general who wins a battle is in a great proportion a deterministic event. However, regarding casualties, perhaps chance can affect the numbers, especially when we are taking into account such small losses (5% for the attacking side). I do not see impossible that some (fortunate?) well-placed salvoes from a Guards BM Howitzer Regiment could decimate a couple of companies….

Surely it is difficult to find in the books numeric examples when those figures are to be found, but that could be mainly because those (relative) small engagements are not usually dealt with in detail in the general books about the Eastern front. This difficulty can be gauged from the fact that even you could not provide a numeric example to back up your point, only that the Panzer Div “smashed trough”…How many Russian Divisions were “smashed through” in 1941, only to arrive at a situation where most of the Panzer Division were depleted?

Obviously if only the most extreme (“tail”) results of a random casualty distribution are provided, the information is biased. That a bias is present can be already seen from the title of this thread. And from post 1. The image of some players waiting with a pencil and a notebook to register whatever they consider weird and then come here to the forum to call the game ridiculous, broken, or poorly designed is one for which I was not prepared.

In a more positive note, will it be possible to repeat that battle a number of times to really know how much of the casualties are “random” and how much purely due to combat mechanics? I would think that this should be done before, in order to criticize the mechanics with some data, if necessary. As it is, the post seems of very little help to developers.

Panzer units usually attracted the cream of the troops available to the army especially up to late '42, before the setting up of multiple airborne and later the deviation of the best men into SS units. It should be noted that even in a battle like Kursk, where the Russians enjoyed every advantage one could concieve (in intelligence, materiel etc), Panzer forces nearly got through in the south, with STAVKA having to release reserves that were originally intended for the counter attack. Panzer forces were extremely good with a high esprit de corps, training and were also the best equipped forces of the Wehrmacht. Truth is, that until '43/'44 there were few formations of comparible size in the world that could go head to head with a Panzer or even a PG division.

By this I'm not saying that they were invincible or invulnerable, but they were pretty tough clients. (One might add that even the infantry arm was very good especially those divisions raised in the first 3 waves and had been through a lot together). And although there could be a few freak accidents, I'm not really sure that a Soviet division (normally pretty weak in AT weaponry if I remember well) could have stood up to a Panzer Division in the open. I wouldn't really mind it if it was a one off result (a lot of vodka going around maybe??? [:)]) it would be weird if such a result was repeated all that often.

Well, the Soviets did have air support and a Guards Howitzer Regiment (I would assume that Guards formations held up much better than their regular/conscript counterparts), and they did end up retreating all the same.

I will be the first to admit though that the inability of the game to display "damaged" units, as a class between "OK" and "disabled" can muddy the outcomes somewhat, and even keeps coming up as a thorny perception issue in the Blizzard-losses discussions.

EDIT: As for your remarks about Bastogne, I think we can chalk that up to fog-of-war. That is, hindsight tells us that the 101st was really well prepared to defend the town well, and the Germans were not in a good position to take it ... but that's the advantage of hindsight. We can only assume that at the time the battle was actually happening, the German commander make the real-life equivalent of ordering a WITE attack without considering all of the factors involved (or indeed, that some factors were unknowable from his end) ... and being just as shocked as abulbulian was with the results.

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
What do you think? Is there something about this sov rifle div that would have realistically cause more causality to the attacker in this case? Put the game mechanics stuff aside, an just give opinion and maybe why?

Soviets had artillery unit + IL-2s on their side, of course you forgot to list that.

Gradenko pointed you to Paul McNeely's post on page one of this thread that sums up the combat (dis)advantages nicely. Go read it.

Right, apples to apples.

It's not about Soviet offensive capabilities, like zheir spring offensive, but about defense.

1. OP's Panzer div with eighty tanks was understrength, compared with in 1942 now fictional TOE.
2. We are talking about 1 turn each player, which together make one week. Abstraction is incorporated.
3. Rifle division retreated. And not became annihilated. This happened. Not every hasty attack resulted in a complete rout.
4. I doubt that within a week lvl 0 entrenchement means zilch entrenchement at all. I remember German accounts from 1941, telling all the same. Just night was enough for Russian inf to reorg. and dig in. And fight stubbornly.

Please leave out the superhuman talk.

Regards

Regards

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Now this was a hasty attack, so only a portion of the Pz Div was involved, but either way the loss report indicates that the Rile division was able to stop the initial attack cold and then pull back in good order. This, to me, seems a very unlikely outcome given the lack of Fort levels, terrain and force matchup. Also, the Axis losses do at least indicate that a fair amount of heavy fighting has taken place, so it wasn't just a hasty attack by the lead KG which was beaten off.

Either way something doesn't add up.

If this is supposed to represent an attack by the lead forces being stopped and the Rifle Division then withdrawing in good order, the German losses seem to be too heavy (would represent an entire Battalion being more or less wiped out).

If this is supposed to represent a successful break in and overrun the German losses are ok, but the Russian losses are much too light "especially" in terms of guns.

I think what this battle represents is the Soviet air units catching the advancing columns off-guard, disrupting them with some good attack runs, while at the same time, the Rifle division's FOs called in some pre-targeted artillery barrages from the Gds Howitzer Rgt, which further delayed, disrupted, or broke off the attack of the Panzer division, giving the Rifle Division time to retreat in good order. Then, the commander of the Panzer Division (the player, in this case) lost his nerve and called off any further attacks and did not actively pursue the fleeing Russians.

Rather simple, explainable, and realistic, during the course of a war with thousands of engagements - almost none of which ever went according to plan.

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

MechFO, thanks for being one of the first to do some analysis. The issue here where did the sov rifle div gain some advantage over the attack 11th Panzer div in order to cause more loses to it?


So lets do a simple list... people can fill in what I missed

In German favor (attacker)
- *exp (off the charts)
- *moral
- unit strength and unit formation type
- terrain: mobile units love to fight in the open
- defender not entrenched
- *leadership


In Sov favor
- defending: some intrinsic game mod? (don't think always is the case in real ware fare)


What did I miss?

* indicates probably a large advantage

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I think what this battle represents is the Soviet air units catching the advancing columns off-guard, disrupting them with some good attack runs, while at the same time, the Rifle division's FOs called in some pre-targeted artillery barrages from the Gds Howitzer Rgt, which further delayed, disrupted, or broke off the attack of the Panzer division, giving the Rifle Division time to retreat in good order. Then, the commander of the Panzer Division (the player, in this case) lost his nerve and called off any further attacks and did not actively pursue the fleeing Russians.

Rather simple, explainable, and realistic, during the course of a war with thousands of engagements - almost none of which ever went according to plan.

Regardless of force matchup, a range of results should be always be possible, just not necessarily probable. After all, history is filled with examples of, on paper, underdogs winning a fight, it just doesn't happen very often.

But what's not clear here is what actually happened in the first place, so there is no way to quantify what a reasonable distribution of results would look like. F.e. the factors you list influence the probability of events (below) 1, 2 and 3, but we can only infer which event took place from the casualty figures, and due to everything getting mashed up, there's a lot of fudge in them as well.

Taking it apart, a Hasty Attack means:
only a portion of the division (probably only the lead elements, say about a Regimental KG)try to pierce part of a defensive line, make the defenders positions untenable and force it to retreat.

Reasonable (IMO) outcomes in the above scenario:

1) forced Retreat with exploitation: the lead KG is successful in dislocating the defences, follow on forces exploit the breach and overrun the Rear areas
Expected results: fairly light German losses, medium Russian infantry losses, high gun losses, fairly heavy disruption of retreating units.

2) forced Retreat with no exploitation: the lead KG is successful in dislocating the defences, but proper exploitation is not possible due to the time needed to clear the break in area of resistance
Expected results: fairly light German losses, medium Russian infantry losses, low gun losses, fairly heavy disruption of retreating units.

3) successful defence: the lead KG is stopped cold by the defenders, everybody stays where they are
Expected results: fairly heavy German losses, light to medium Russian losses

What bugs me is that the losses on both sides indicate 3) happened (very heavy German losses considering the forces actually involved) while the "Retreat" message IMO indicates that 1) or 2) happened.

IMO 3) "could" happen now and then, if not very often, but casualty figures don't add up either way. Also, a non motorized Rifle Division doesn't just "retreat in good" order in the face of motorized troops in the above conditions. The disparity in mobility is too big for that.

MechFO, you're still neglecting another likely outcome - that which I posited. An orderly unforced withdrawal after attack is called off, due to disruptive artillery and aerial bombardments, with little to no exploitation or pursuit by the Panzer Division.

Why is it so out of the realm of imagination for some of the posters to see that often commanders did hesitate when they felt like they were walking (charging) into what seemed to be a trap?

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

MechFO, thanks for being one of the first to do some analysis. The issue here where did the sov rifle div gain some advantage over the attack 11th Panzer div in order to cause more loses to it?


So lets do a simple list... people can fill in what I missed

In German favor (attacker)
- *exp (off the charts)
- *moral
- unit strength and unit formation type
- terrain: mobile units love to fight in the open
- defender not entrenched
- *leadership


In Sov favor
- defending: some intrinsic game mod? (don't think always is the case in real ware fare)


What did I miss?

* indicates probably a large advantage

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I think what this battle represents is the Soviet air units catching the advancing columns off-guard, disrupting them with some good attack runs, while at the same time, the Rifle division's FOs called in some pre-targeted artillery barrages from the Gds Howitzer Rgt, which further delayed, disrupted, or broke off the attack of the Panzer division, giving the Rifle Division time to retreat in good order. Then, the commander of the Panzer Division (the player, in this case) lost his nerve and called off any further attacks and did not actively pursue the fleeing Russians.

Rather simple, explainable, and realistic, during the course of a war with thousands of engagements - almost none of which ever went according to plan.

Regardless of force matchup, a range of results should be always be possible, just not necessarily probable. After all, history is filled with examples of, on paper, underdogs winning a fight, it just doesn't happen very often.

But what's not clear here is what actually happened in the first place, so there is no way to quantify what a reasonable distribution of results would look like. F.e. the factors you list influence the probability of events (below) 1, 2 and 3, but we can only infer which event took place from the casualty figures, and due to everything getting mashed up, there's a lot of fudge in them as well.

Taking it apart, a Hasty Attack means:
only a portion of the division (probably only the lead elements, say about a Regimental KG)try to pierce part of a defensive line, make the defenders positions untenable and force it to retreat.

Reasonable (IMO) outcomes in the above scenario:

1) forced Retreat with exploitation: the lead KG is successful in dislocating the defences, follow on forces exploit the breach and overrun the Rear areas
Expected results: fairly light German losses, medium Russian infantry losses, high gun losses, fairly heavy disruption of retreating units.

2) forced Retreat with no exploitation: the lead KG is successful in dislocating the defences, but proper exploitation is not possible due to the time needed to clear the break in area of resistance
Expected results: fairly light German losses, medium Russian infantry losses, low gun losses, fairly heavy disruption of retreating units.

3) successful defence: the lead KG is stopped cold by the defenders, everybody stays where they are
Expected results: fairly heavy German losses, light to medium Russian losses

What bugs me is that the losses on both sides indicate 3) happened (very heavy German losses considering the forces actually involved) while the "Retreat" message IMO indicates that 1) or 2) happened.

IMO 3) "could" happen now and then, if not very often, but casualty figures don't add up either way.

couldn't the defending division have conducted a delaying action? so its a planned withdrawal after contact. The Attackers are forced to deploy something, they get shelled, they hit some withdrawing troops, their artillery isn't heavily engaged and losses are about equal. The attackers may never have been quite sure of the size or location of most of the defending forces.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Now this was a hasty attack, so only a portion of the Pz Div was involved, but either way the loss report indicates that the Rile division was able to stop the initial attack cold and then pull back in good order. This, to me, seems a very unlikely outcome given the lack of Fort levels, terrain and force matchup. Also, the Axis losses do at least indicate that a fair amount of heavy fighting has taken place, so it wasn't just a hasty attack by the lead KG which was beaten off.

Either way something doesn't add up.

If this is supposed to represent an attack by the lead forces being stopped and the Rifle Division then withdrawing in good order, the German losses seem to be too heavy (would represent an entire Battalion being more or less wiped out).

If this is supposed to represent a successful break in and overrun the German losses are ok, but the Russian losses are much too light "especially" in terms of guns.

I think what this battle represents is the Soviet air units catching the advancing columns off-guard, disrupting them with some good attack runs, while at the same time, the Rifle division's FOs called in some pre-targeted artillery barrages from the Gds Howitzer Rgt, which further delayed, disrupted, or broke off the attack of the Panzer division, giving the Rifle Division time to retreat in good order. Then, the commander of the Panzer Division (the player, in this case) lost his nerve and called off any further attacks and did not actively pursue the fleeing Russians.

Rather simple, explainable, and realistic, during the course of a war with thousands of engagements - almost none of which ever went according to plan.

Right. The attackers may never have had a complete picture of the location or strength of the defense.

I'm impressed with the thoughts most people have put forth here.  How many times in a boardgame have you thrown the die and the result was not what you wanted? Was the game then broken?  It happened here, doesn't mean it is broken, just a result.  If I take the original posters take, a panzer division should never lose against an inf div in open terrain.  If that was so then the soviets should be toast throughout the war.

It seems the more info we have the more people want.  For me it seems the soviets defended better then the germans attacked.  Heck maybe the officer leading the attack was a rookie and screwed up the attack.  The final result was the loss of more men then normal. 

It's amazing how contentious people become over a difference of opinion.

Would the Detection Level of the hex being attacked have anything to do with the Combat Results? Just wondering!!!

Actually all this kirkgregerson thing is doing is defending the whiner (first post). And puking insults in the process [:D]

And he is tricking you [:-] You must NOT prove the first poster of this hilarious thread is wrong. The starter of this thread and this kirkgregerson MUST prove what they say is 100% RIGHT (on the game and on real life): that the game is not working here. Which is a totally different thing... On what world is this personage living? If you want to send someone to prison you don't force him to prove he is innocent. You prove he is guilty [:D]

And as far as I know they haven't done this... The starter said "Probably the last straw with my play WitE as axis until the ridiculous combat mechanics (not isolate case) is fix. Let me give you the facts". Well, what are the other cases? Where are they? Are they the norm? What was his methodology? Etc etc etc...

P.S.: this is what he said to Mynok: "Well from what I've seen on this thread and others, Mynok just has no control over his posting of insults. Can't change a person like that's behavior and I don't want to even attempt it. Better just to ban them if that can't contribute and be respectful to other's comments without bashing them personally"

Now simply count the many insults he's vomited on this single thread. And then simply deduce...

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, bigmouth [8D]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Now this was a hasty attack, so only a portion of the Pz Div was involved, but either way the loss report indicates that the Rile division was able to stop the initial attack cold and then pull back in good order. This, to me, seems a very unlikely outcome given the lack of Fort levels, terrain and force matchup. Also, the Axis losses do at least indicate that a fair amount of heavy fighting has taken place, so it wasn't just a hasty attack by the lead KG which was beaten off.

Either way something doesn't add up.

If this is supposed to represent an attack by the lead forces being stopped and the Rifle Division then withdrawing in good order, the German losses seem to be too heavy (would represent an entire Battalion being more or less wiped out).

If this is supposed to represent a successful break in and overrun the German losses are ok, but the Russian losses are much too light "especially" in terms of guns.

I think what this battle represents is the Soviet air units catching the advancing columns off-guard, disrupting them with some good attack runs, while at the same time, the Rifle division's FOs called in some pre-targeted artillery barrages from the Gds Howitzer Rgt, which further delayed, disrupted, or broke off the attack of the Panzer division, giving the Rifle Division time to retreat in good order. Then, the commander of the Panzer Division (the player, in this case) lost his nerve and called off any further attacks and did not actively pursue the fleeing Russians.

Rather simple, explainable, and realistic, during the course of a war with thousands of engagements - almost none of which ever went according to plan.

Well in the air combat the axis had numerically a 2:1 advantage in fighters (exp advantage too?( and the Soviets did lose 5 planes. If in fact those 20 bombers were still able to cause that much of a problem for the axis attack even when the axis had fighter superiority, I'm scared to think what will happen later when the sov plane masses really hit the battlefield.

Seems to me the "utter madness" is simply a result of inexplict, incomplete, and inconclusive feedback from the game itself. Including, perhaps especially, the direct result of any randomizing "dice throw".

Few wargammers enjoy suffering results that cannot be rationalized. Mere speculation about how the result might have occured is useless, as there exists insufficient detail about the combat mechanics so as to make results appear as if a D6 die was thrown on a Tactics 2 CRT.

I like this game and respect the devs, but generic answers like the one given in Joel's post above are not helpful for me.

This thread has gotten a bit "chippy". I suggest that could be mitigated by acknowledging that there could be a problem, or not, we don't have enough information.

In several threads the devs and playtesters want detailed, specific information about problematic situations. As a paying customer, my feedback is I need more of the same from the game. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Zort

I'm impressed with the thoughts most people have put forth here.  How many times in a boardgame have you thrown the die and the result was not what you wanted? Was the game then broken?  It happened here, doesn't mean it is broken, just a result.  If I take the original posters take, a panzer division should never lose against an inf div in open terrain.  If that was so then the soviets should be toast throughout the war.

It seems the more info we have the more people want.  For me it seems the soviets defended better then the germans attacked.  Heck maybe the officer leading the attack was a rookie and screwed up the attack.  The final result was the loss of more men then normal. 

Well to be fair to the decent board games. This battle on a board game would have been on a column which would have only resulted in minor loses to the attacker even with the worst roll, but still many more loses to the defender.

If anybody has a an old board game around. Give it a try. I found an old SPI game and put a full strength 1942 Panzer Div vs a Sov Rifle div in the open and not fortified. The worst result I could get was 1/2R which was one step lose to the Panzer Div (it has 3 Regt each with 3 steps) and 2 steps to the Rifle Div (3 steps total) with a mandatory retreat. BTW the next worst result was a 0/2R. If the unit was in better defensible terrain or fortified the loses get more even.

[;)]

So looks like even the board games with dice have a more realistic variance of loses, IMO.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

MechFO, you're still neglecting another likely outcome - that which I posited. An orderly unforced withdrawal after attack is called off, due to disruptive artillery and aerial bombardments, with little to no exploitation or pursuit by the Panzer Division.

Why is it so out of the realm of imagination for some of the posters to see that often commanders did hesitate when they felt like they were walking (charging) into what seemed to be a trap?

& MengJiao

The German losses are much too heavy when put in relation to attack forces and involved Art/Air for it to be just an initial attack that got disrupted and then called off.

The delaying action you describe is to me a HOLD result combined with movement during the players turn. AIUI, and the way it is referred to in the Manual, a RETREAT result is always a forced displacement.

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson
If anybody has a an old board game around. Give it a try. I found an old SPI game and put a full strength 1942 Panzer Div vs a Sov Rifle div in the open and not fortified. The worst result I could get was 1/2R which was one step lose to the Panzer Div (it has 3 Regt each with 3 steps) and 2 steps to the Rifle Div (3 steps total) with a mandatory retreat. BTW the next worst result was a 0/2R. If the unit was in better defensible terrain or fortified the loses get more even.

So you think that losing 1/3rd of the Panzer Division would be more realistic? [;)]

Ok everyone, please calm yourselves. There is no place for personal attacks. Anything can be discussed with respect and if you can't come to an agreement, agree to disagree.

Abulbulian, please try a bit less hyperbole in your thread titles.

Regards,

- Erik