Matrix Games Forums

I used to be OK with the 1-1 rule, I understood that it was connected to the Soviets taking higher casualties. But now I have had two examples in the same turn of situations where that rule seems to skew things a little too much.

First. I have encircled some Soviet units near the Crimea. This is after my turn.



Edit: Typo in header.

The Soviets naturally counterattack to free their entrapped units. I would have done so myself. The attack succeeds, solely because of the 1-1 rule, and I take a lot of tank casualties retreating.

Here is another one from the same turn. Exactly the same thing! I had surrounded an advancing stack of Soviets, but naturally, they blow away my encircling units thanks to the 1-1 > 2-1 rule!

This mechanism might be ok in 1941, but in 1942 and later, it leads to some strange effects. It is futile as the German to try to cut off Soviet spearheads, something the Germans were experts at. You will only incur greater casualties yourself as the German. And it is so easy to do as the Soviet. I do the same thing myself. Once you calculate you have somewhat better than 1-1 odds, it's fix bayonets and "Hurrah!"

Tarhunnas, I'm not a huge fan of the 1-1 rule myself, but...really?

You're using the wrong game to make your point here. This is the match where you are on cruise control to either win on points or perhaps even nab an autowin.

There's simply no evidence in this particular game that the 1-1 rule is having a poor effect on balance at the macro level because, well, you've basically won the game. If anything, this game is practically a poster child for keeping the rule, if you were to examine this game only.

That being said, I do think there are good games out there spotlighting problems with the 1-1 rule.

I am not trying to make a case for the 1-1 rule causing problems in the macro sense. On the contrary, I am saying it causes problems in the micro sense! Tactically, it is just futile for the Germans to try to cut off Soviet spearheads, because the inevitable counterattack will succeed in most cases due to the 1-1 rule. This is not the first time this happens.

For me as a matter of design philosophy it's more important to determine if the rule is delivering the correct results at the macro level.

Individual combats don't matter very much. They are practically anecdotal evidence. Statistical noise, really, and they tend to be terribly subject to confirmation bias. We remember the worst ones and don't always extrapolate correctly from a handful of results.

I do think a case can be made, however, that the 1-1 rule causes problems at the macro level. (Although it is difficult to determine if the 1-1 rule is itself the problem, or it is a problem in combination with other things, e.g. forts, morale, etc.) But I wouldn't draw that conclusion from this game in particular. The opposite in fact.

Certainly, it is important that the game yields the correct results at macro level. Nevertheless, as my point here was its effect on the micro level, it really doesn't matter what game it was in.

Not sure you picked very good examples at all, lets see both cases outnumbered at least 2 -1 in inf, 4 -1 arty and 4-1 afv's in 1 and also air support in 1. Also the attacker has taken double your casualties.
 
I can also dig up results showing zero , big fat zero german casualties v 1-2000 soviets.
 
Cant see a problem here.

The thing is as an Axis player in 1942 onwards knowing the Soviets have the odds shift impacts the way you play.

Say you have a situation where you can get a pocket created and cordon it off with Panzers in open terrain. The Soviet player does not need to "pile on" to get good odds on one stack to break the ring. He can launch multiple attacks along your whole corridor with less troops and potentially retreat/rout several stacks of Axis Panzers. I do this as a Soviet Player. It makes sense from a mathematical approach. The shift allows the Soviet the freedom to launch more attacks which in turn causes more Axis retreat casualties that either even up the casualties or skews them in the Soviet favor.

Now as an Axis player after you have been smacked around like this a few times you begin to wonder why you are even risking your best troops in this type of manner. It actually makes the best sense to attack and scoot behind forts as staying out in the open is mathematically going against you.

Does any of that make any sense?

Ketza, that makes a lot of sense, and is in fact the kind of macro effect I would take seriously. We're seeing this happening in some games.

It's not clear if the problem is the result of the 1-1 rule as such, or that in combination with other things, but it has to be considered.

It's the stalemated games in 1942 that are testing the game engine to destruction. This game that Tarhunnas is using here just isn't very interesting from a design standpoint, it isn't showing anything wrong or overpowered about the Soviets. (If we were looking at this game only, we might even consider the Soviets need help, or that the Germans needed to be ratcheted back. Note I do not actually believe this, but that's the conclusion I would draw from this single and very exceptional example. I don't in fact believe this is going to be a standard game result. It's an outlier.)

Nevermind.

The rule kicked in. Any final combat odds result greater or equal to 2 or less than three will include the modifier in it.

However, what we're not seeing in this particular game is some kind of situation where the Soviet has managed to abuse the rule to create goofy results at the strategic level. Quite the contrary. The Soviet is hanging by a thread. I would therefore conclude from this game, that the Soviets need all the help they can get, if this sort of game was standard. It is not. It's an outlier.

I think it 1942 onwards a capable Soviet Player should be able to implement proper attacks using appropriate units, leadership, refit, organization and army makeup (expenditure of APS to build units).

Part of what the shift does is "dumb down" Soviet play by allowing success when some of the above mentioned is not done properly. Now this is not so bad if you have an untested Soviet player but in the hands of an expert Soviet player you begin to see the macro impact. Someone doing everything right and fielding a corp heavy army, led by good leaders, organized and logistically sound with the shift bonus is a nasty combo.

Yes, and an experienced Soviet player with a good intuition of the game can also contrive to maximize the number of such marginal, but successful attacks. The high casualties from them act as a break only when the Soviet has nothing in the kitty.

If the experienced Soviet player can force a stalemate, wait a while, build up a hefty replacement nest egg, and then go nuts...then, yeah, I can see things going off the rails. By the time the Red Army runs dry, the Wehrmacht will be smashed to pieces.

This is the dynamic that worries me.

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

Not sure you picked very good examples at all, lets see both cases outnumbered at least 2 -1 in inf, 4 -1 arty and 4-1 afv's in 1 and also air support in 1. Also the attacker has taken double your casualties.

I can also dig up results showing zero , big fat zero german casualties v 1-2000 soviets.

Cant see a problem here.

Look at the combat values. The 1-1 is there supposedly to offset the Soviets taking greater casualties, and they do, but those same losses should also reduce their combat value. In the first example, German CV goes from 138 to 64, Soviet CV goes from 135 to 92, almost similar change. The Soviets still win the battle because of the 1-1 rule, thus inflicting a lot of retreat casualties, probably the majority of the German casualties here. The Socviets don,t take twice the German casualties, they take 1.5 times the German casualties, and that is a rate the Germans can't sustain. Admittedly, the Soviets have a massive air superiority here that is probably affecting things, but the 1-1 is the crucial thing, and one might ask if the 1-1 is there to enhance the effect of the Soviet air force?

In the second example, German CV goes from 100 to 106, Soviet from 134 to 133. 1-1 kicks in and the Soviets win. In this case, Soviet losses are twice the Germans, but even losses of 2-1 is advantageous for the Soviets in the long run, especially as losses like these will grind down the German mobile units.

The effect is that from 1942 onwards, the Germans cannot risk using their mobile units in the role they were used, in penetrations and cutting off of enemy forces, not unless they have a massively superiority and can create at least a two-hex wide line of encirclement. This will have the effect of the game tending towards a grinding slugfest.

I have myself as the Soviets ground down German attempts at penetrations in 1942 by counting on the 1-1 to kick in and it is fairly easy.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Ketza, that makes a lot of sense, and is in fact the kind of macro effect I would take seriously. We're seeing this happening in some games.

It's not clear if the problem is the result of the 1-1 rule as such, or that in combination with other things, but it has to be considered.

It's the stalemated games in 1942 that are testing the game engine to destruction. This game that Tarhunnas is using here just isn't very interesting from a design standpoint, it isn't showing anything wrong or overpowered about the Soviets. (If we were looking at this game only, we might even consider the Soviets need help, or that the Germans needed to be ratcheted back. Note I do not actually believe this, but that's the conclusion I would draw from this single and very exceptional example. I don't in fact believe this is going to be a standard game result. It's an outlier.)

I dont think it should matter if the particular game in question is one in which the Germans are rolling. If this is the game between him and Q-Ball, then Tarhunnas got smacked around fairly well by an opponent that not only lost its largest industry base in the north, but its own capital. And I bet when 1943 and 1944 rolls around the crushing manpower advantages are going to allow Q-Ball to field massive stacks of doom. Already, German spearheads are getting pushed aside.

What should matter is if the rule is needed or simply used as a fudge factor in order to generate more than the usual German casualties. I dont know, but am reading the arguments for both side with interest.

ORIGINAL: pwieland

I dont think it should matter if the particular game in question is one in which the Germans are rolling. If this is the game between him and Q-Ball, then Tarhunnas got smacked around fairly well by an opponent that not only lost its largest industry base in the north, but its own capital. And I bet when 1943 and 1944 rolls around the crushing manpower advantages are going to allow Q-Ball to field massive stacks of doom. Already, German spearheads are getting pushed aside.

What should matter is if the rule is needed or simply used as a fudge factor in order to generate more than the usual German casualties. I dont know, but am reading the arguments for both side with interest.

It is from my game against Gids, featured in the AAR The Wolf and the Bear. I am doing well in that game, but as you say, it is really immaterial what particular game it is from, it is the effects on gameplay that is interesting, both on the macro and micro levels.

I didn't have anything against the 1-1 rule before, but I am becoming more and more doubtful about it as I play more in 1942 and 1943.

The odds modifier can, and does, in many cases make it easy for the Soviets to break an encirclement that's only 1 hex wide. Now before you say "encirclements should have a ring that's more than 1 hex wide": that's not going to be possible when encircling spearheads or when wrestling your way into a Soviet carpet. The rule also turns the game into a mathematical exercise for the Soviets.

Aside from that, Axis casualties are still fairly high from those attacks. The only kind of attacks where you can get good loss ratios as the Axis are usually the attacks where the defenders have few mortars, because mortars cause the majority of the casualties and even 50 morale/experience crews can do a lot of damage. A single mortar battalion/regiment in support tends to inflict more casualties than 6 artillery regiments, even though the artillery regiments have (when full strength) 6 times as many guns, with a higher calibre in most cases, combined.

Can someone point me at a thread expliang the 1-1 rule please? I think i'm coming across something similar in my '42 GC vs JZardos Soviets. Even when attacking with overwhelming odds and winning, i'm getting 1-1 casualties! Is that what it means?

Forum search function. yada yada yada........[&:]