Drums of War - No BigBaba

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown
Where are the SHC fan club realism guys and why aren't they commenting on this? [:D]

That's really condescending you know. Most of the guys who commented on the absurdity of the aerial resupply also supported a weakening of the blizzard and are no fans of the +1 rule either. [8|]

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Bozo, the guy you need to convince is Gary. This is his pet rule. Nobody else really believes in it. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. If you think this rule is a product of the Soviet mafia, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't know. There definitely is an SHC fan club in this forum and they love to slaughter Axis players. And when an Axis player like mktours comes up with a new strategy there is this incredible hostility. You might want to read the posts in his AAR again.

I don't care about realism. I want a competitive game.

[Flaviusx]

Yes, I was part of that lynch mob and stand by every word I said against Mktours, who was just abusing the game engine beyond belief.

Compared to what he was doing, the 2-1 rule is a mere pecadillo.

But I'm not going to defend the 2-1 rule. You hear those crickets? Yeah. Nobody is defending it.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Bozo, the guy you need to convince is Gary. This is his pet rule. Nobody else really believes in it. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. If you think this rule is a product of the Soviet mafia, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't know. There definitely is an SHC fan club in this forum and they love to slaughter Axis players. And when an Axis player like mktours comes up with a new strategy there is this incredible hostility. You might want to read the posts in his AAR again.

I don't care about realism. I want a competitive game.

Oh, so anybody who wants to have a game that is fulfilling it's aim for a historic wargame is a SHC fanclub member? You don't care about realism, but want a competitive game. So how about the Soviets having 50 guards divisions pop out of nothing if the Axis gets to Tambov in September 1941? It does create a competitive game. Or the Germans getting 20 SS Panzer Divisions if he can't capture Smolensk by September. Once again, it is a historical wargame, so it ought to only allow things that are plausible in reality. Or do you think it is okay if in FIFA you suddenly can fly around the court on broomsticks if it makes for a competitive game?

[Bozo_the_Clown]

That's really condescending you know.

I guess I need a spanking!

[hugh04]

People have commented many times that the casualties under the combat system are over focused on who has to retreat. I think reversing this might be better. Tactical efficiency always favored the germans, but the gap lessened as the allied powers (both the west and soviet) learned to fight modern war. Currently, this is represented in the game by the different units and toe's that make up Soviet Army 2.0. Another way to address this point is to make casualty levels much higher regardless of odds and any retreat result. You might change the system such that the soviets suffer very high attack casualties until they have suffered a certain level of casualties. Once that level of casualties was reached, they would get a better efficiency score and, therefore, lower casualties on future battles. This would not effect the chance of retreating a axis defender, it would only affect the attackers casualties. The same dynamic would be true in 1945 when, for many german units, quality was suffering and attack casualties were much higher. This could have a by product of encouraging the soviet to fight in 41 as it will take time to gain battle field experience and, until you suffer through the poorly executed attacks you could never get to a more competent tactical table. Higher attack casualties, lower retreat casualties is my suggestion.

vandev

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: vandev

People have commented many times that the casualties under the combat system are over focused on who has to retreat. I think reversing this might be better. Tactical efficiency always favored the germans, but the gap lessened as the allied powers (both the west and soviet) learned to fight modern war. Currently, this is represented in the game by the different units and toe's that make up Soviet Army 2.0. Another way to address this point is to make casualty levels much higher regardless of odds and any retreat result. You might change the system such that the soviets suffer very high attack casualties until they have suffered a certain level of casualties. Once that level of casualties was reached, they would get a better efficiency score and, therefore, lower casualties on future battles. This would not effect the chance of retreating a axis defender, it would only affect the attackers casualties. The same dynamic would be true in 1945 when, for many german units, quality was suffering and attack casualties were much higher. This could have a by product of encouraging the soviet to fight in 41 as it will take time to gain battle field experience and, until you suffer through the poorly executed attacks you could never get to a more competent tactical table. Higher attack casualties, lower retreat casualties is my suggestion.

vandev

This would help a lot to address the snowball issue of wins=increased morale=more wins which combined with the retreat casualties can cause either side to lose control quickly in a bad situation. The Germans clearly (IMO) don't suffer enough casualties in 41 and the Soviets almost certainly don't in the out years...

[M60A3TTS]

What's wrong with that second combat result, Terje? You were defending with two panzer divisions. Remember each panzer division has one motor infantry regiment. He attacked with at least 6 rifle divisions it seems. So the relative numbers of grunts in foxholes heavily favored your opponent and the battle results tend to jump up the modified value when one side has a numbers advantage. You did better on the first battle by stacking the SS motorized division with panzers, resulting in a 2:1 battle. Still a loss I grant you, but you'll do better with a little more focus on little things.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: vandev

Another way to address this point is to make casualty levels much higher regardless of odds and any retreat result. You might change the system such that the soviets suffer very high attack casualties until they have suffered a certain level of casualties.

This is an interesting idea. Maybe there could be some special additional losses modifier AFTER combat results, tying losses to Soviet historical abilities, or maybe unit morale, etc. Attacking with +100,000 men I think should result in more than 2,500 losses for the Russians in 1941...

[Flaviusx]

M60, the odds adjustment to attacks in 1941 makes things a bit too easy imo.

It's really not needed at all and doesn't make a lick of sense as a historical matter. It's completely a made up thing. To this day I myself do not understand the basis for it either in terms of realism or game balance. People have a right to be irritated by it. What they are less justified in is believing that the Soviet Mafia is to blame for this nonsense.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: vandev

Another way to address this point is to make casualty levels much higher regardless of odds and any retreat result. You might change the system such that the soviets suffer very high attack casualties until they have suffered a certain level of casualties.

This is an interesting idea. Maybe there could be some special additional losses modifier AFTER combat results, tying losses to Soviet historical abilities, or maybe unit morale, etc. Attacking with +100,000 men I think should result in more than 2,500 losses for the Russians in 1941...

Or, to be quite honest, at any time. These losses are really quite trivial at any point. They will never create the kind of attacker attrition that leaves the Red Army with 3,000 man rifle divisions in 1945. (Or the scarecrow Wehrmacht divisions of autumn 1941 which had lost a great deal of their strength.)

It's one of the longstanding problems of the combat model.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

What's wrong with that second combat result, Terje? You were defending with two panzer divisions. Remember each panzer division has one motor infantry regiment. He attacked with at least 6 rifle divisions it seems. So the relative numbers of grunts in foxholes heavily favored your opponent and the battle results tend to jump up the modified value when one side has a numbers advantage. You did better on the first battle by stacking the SS motorized division with panzers, resulting in a 2:1 battle. Still a loss I grant you, but you'll do better with a little more focus on little things.

Well, Pz Divs had 2 Mot Inf Regts of 2 Bns each, so only 4 Bns but with all the additional firepower that regimental assets give. However, point taken, as a Pz Div in the open doesn't have as much defensive capability as an Inf Div. Fatigue and supply of the Pz Div would also play into it. Generally, Pz Divs weren't meant to be used to defend the front line, and can be a bit fragile in that sense. Similarly, Russian Tank Corps (especially in 42-43) are very vulnerable to counter attack. Probably best not to leave them open to attack. Then again, these are highly mobile units so maybe even if they are pushed back, their retreat losses should be minimal? Terje's tank losses in those battles were pretty high, which doesn't feel right...

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Or, to be quite honest, at any time. These losses are really quite trivial at any point. They will never create the kind of attacker attrition that leaves the Red Army with 3,000 man rifle divisions in 1945. (Or the scarecrow Wehrmacht divisions of autumn 1941 which had lost a great deal of their strength.)

It's one of the longstanding problems of the combat model.

Agreed. We can only hope that there will be effort put into the combat engine itself for 2.0...

[Bozo_the_Clown]

What's wrong with that second combat result, Terje? You were defending with two panzer divisions. Remember each panzer division has one motor infantry regiment. He attacked with at least 6 rifle divisions it seems. So the relative numbers of grunts in foxholes heavily favored your opponent and the battle results tend to jump up the modified value when one side has a numbers advantage. You did better on the first battle by stacking the SS motorized division with panzers, resulting in a 2:1 battle. Still a loss I grant you, but you'll do better with a little more focus on little things.

Both of these combat results are absurd. You have human wave attacks with rifle men against veteran German tanks with probably 88+ moral and plenty of support units. The losses for the Soviets are minimal while the German player loses more then 1/3 of his tanks and a higher percentage in men then the Soviet player. And it's pretty much a guaranteed victory. There is no strategy here. You don't have to do anything fancy as SHC.

And on the other side you get absurd results for the Germans attacking. Like rmonical's 5 attacks on my cavalry division in swamp terrain with support of 100 bombers. All Held! He posted this in a different thread.

[terje439]

I have an issue with the ease the USSR pushes back the Axis panzers. At the same time, I needed 4 consecutive deliberate attacks with a 30+ CV stack to dislodge an infantry division and an infantry brigade with 3 CV just because they were in a forest...
(Sorry for nto giving more replies, but off to work, just read this while the car is defrosting)
 
Terje

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

What's wrong with that second combat result, Terje? You were defending with two panzer divisions. Remember each panzer division has one motor infantry regiment. He attacked with at least 6 rifle divisions it seems. So the relative numbers of grunts in foxholes heavily favored your opponent and the battle results tend to jump up the modified value when one side has a numbers advantage. You did better on the first battle by stacking the SS motorized division with panzers, resulting in a 2:1 battle. Still a loss I grant you, but you'll do better with a little more focus on little things.

Both of these combat results are absurd. You have human wave attacks with rifle men against veteran German tanks with probably 88+ moral and plenty of support units. The losses for the Soviets are minimal while the German player loses more then 1/3 of his tanks and a higher percentage in men then the Soviet player. And it's pretty much a guaranteed victory. There is no strategy here. You don't have to do anything fancy as SHC.

And on the other side you get absurd results for the Germans attacking. Like rmonical's 5 attacks on my cavalry division in swamp terrain with support of 100 bombers. All Held! He posted this in a different thread.

It's absurd but the absurdity works both ways: the game is heavily biased towards the offense. Attacker casualties are light across the board. This isn't a Soviet bias thing. It's about the peculiarities of the combat model in general, which produces weird results all over the place.

Attacker losses just need to go up all around. The Axis, while mostly on the attack in 1941, doesn't experience anything like the losses it should. That is why these attacks by the Soviets stand out: then and only then do they take any kind of real damage. What you are not noticing are the many many many attacks that you are making as the Axis where you take the most trivial damage, even more trivial than the Soviets take when they attack.

The butcher's bill in this game is pretty much all on the defender's end up until about 1943. (When Soviet defenders start inflicting very heavy casualties on the Axis attackers, but not the other way around.)

[M60A3TTS]

Friends, we're not talking tiger tanks in '41. There's a lot of thin skinned Panzer IIs and IIIs and 38-Ts. Of course they would be vulnerable to ATR and ATG fire. The panzers here aren't being subjected to bayonet attacks. At least I hope not. [;)]

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

What's wrong with that second combat result, Terje? You were defending with two panzer divisions. Remember each panzer division has one motor infantry regiment. He attacked with at least 6 rifle divisions it seems. So the relative numbers of grunts in foxholes heavily favored your opponent and the battle results tend to jump up the modified value when one side has a numbers advantage. You did better on the first battle by stacking the SS motorized division with panzers, resulting in a 2:1 battle. Still a loss I grant you, but you'll do better with a little more focus on little things.

Both of these combat results are absurd. You have human wave attacks with rifle men against veteran German tanks with probably 88+ moral and plenty of support units. The losses for the Soviets are minimal while the German player loses more then 1/3 of his tanks and a higher percentage in men then the Soviet player. And it's pretty much a guaranteed victory. There is no strategy here. You don't have to do anything fancy as SHC.

And on the other side you get absurd results for the Germans attacking. Like rmonical's 5 attacks on my cavalry division in swamp terrain with support of 100 bombers. All Held! He posted this in a different thread.

It's absurd but the absurdity works both ways: the game is heavily biased towards the offense. Attacker casualties are light across the board. This isn't a Soviet bias thing. It's about the peculiarities of the combat model in general, which produces weird results all over the place.

Attacker losses just need to go up all around. The Axis, while mostly on the attack in 1941, doesn't experience anything like the losses it should. That is why these attacks by the Soviets stand out: then and only then do they take any kind of real damage. What you are not noticing are the many many many attacks that you are making as the Axis where you take the most trivial damage, even more trivial than the Soviets take when they attack.

The butcher's bill in this game is pretty much all on the defender's end up until about 1943. (When Soviet defenders start inflicting very heavy casualties on the Axis attackers, but not the other way around.)

Seriously guys, in games with good Axis players this kind of stuff just doesn't really happen. Not saying this to be a jerk (I play exclusively as Soviet, and I have played a lot of the good players on this board) but I have NEVER seen any unit in swamps (infantry or otherwise) repel 5 assaults in a turn. Nor have I seen 4 deliberate 30+ CV assaults result in four straight helds, or wild Soviet counterattacks all over the place. To be honest, it is really hard for the Soviets to seriously counterattack (even with 1-1 = 2-1) in the summer of 41...and even if you are successful you are often setting those units up for encirclement.

I just think there is a lot of hyperbole going on here. I understand Terje's frustration - playing the Axis is hard, and only players who take the time to really learn how to do it do well. The problem is that once ppl know how to use them, they can be devestating...and you really can't design the rule set to accomodate ppl who don't know how to use them, for obvious reasons.

[2ndACR]

Actually, I been toying against the AI on Challenging using base morale etc, and I dang sure see counter attacks around turn 5, especially in the land bridge area. I just had a whole Panzer Corps thrown back by the Russian AI using 6 inf div's. Start next turn, I faced solo units again. Next Soviet turn, I had a 2nd Panzer Corp tossed back, along with 3 German stacked inf div's in another hex. The 2nd Panzer Corp got smacked by 9 div's. The Inf got hit by 6 div's.

I had a Russian armor div get 3 holds on turn 2 versus 2 German inf Div's in first 2 attacks and then held a 3rd time against a solo inf div. They got smashed the 4th attack though. Of course I resisted and did not Lvov them. Should have, pissed me off.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

Friends, we're not talking tiger tanks in '41. There's a lot of thin skinned Panzer IIs and IIIs and 38-Ts. Of course they would be vulnerable to ATR and ATG fire. The panzers here aren't being subjected to bayonet attacks. At least I hope not. [;)]

That's no justification. There is no circumstance of a German Panzer Division losing half of it's tanks during a single counterattack by rifle divisions only. Yeah, these Panzers may be vulnerable to anti-tank gun fire, but it would be news to me that inexperienced rifle divisions managed to outmaneauver German tanks with anti-tank guns during an assault and got into firing range for a massed anti-tank gun attack. We are not talking about tank losses during defending, for which your argument may make sense. We are talking about attacking. German tank losses were high, but they stemmed from the attacking phases, as well as breakdowns, not due to Soviet counterattacks knocking the s*** out of them. Against the AI on high morale I once had a Panzer Division losing 90 of 120 tanks, which is absurd.

As for the losses, the game is really heavily biased towards the attacker. German divisions attacking will never lose the number of men they did historically in 1941, unless you play the AI on high morale. The same counts in an even bigger fashion for Soviet counterattacks in 1941-42, during the blizzard and then the Soviet offensive phase till 1945. And as Flav pointed out, once Red Army 2.0 comes up with those corps, counterattacking losses will suddenly soar up for the Germans. That's really a problem, and I hope WITW and then WITE2 will correct this (don't think anything can be done for WITE). Because that's one reason, besides the logistics system, for the Soviet assaults to spiral out of control once they break through. The Red Army never has to deal with operational pauses due to supply difficulties and units decimated to a fraction of their starting strength in WITE.