1:1->2:1 rule

[sven6345789]

Hi, might sound a little like living behind the moon, but

What exactly is the effect of this rule?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Hi, might sound a little like living behind the moon, but

What exactly is the effect of this rule?

The effect of this rule was to automatically increase the CV odds in combat when:

1) The Soviet side was the attacker
2) Final combat odds lied between 1:1 and 2:1

paired with this rule were the extra losses the Soviet side suffers during combat resolution due to extra shots defending Axis units get. This had the effect of reducing final Soviet CV.

[gradenko2k]

You need final odds of 2:1 to win a battle and cause a retreat (or worse).

If you're playing the Russians, and your final odds are better than 1:1 (such as 1.1 : 1), your final odds automatically get increased by +1, so 1.1 : 1 becomes 2.1 : 1, and you win the battle and cause a retreat.

In contrast, the Germans get no such bonus, and will always have to come up with a "natural" 2:1 or better to win their battles.

However, as Bletchley_Geek said, the Russians take more losses on their attacks, so it's (at times) more difficult for them to reach the minimum required odds in the first place, all other things being equal.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

You need final odds of 2:1 to win a battle and cause a retreat (or worse).

If you're playing the Russians, and your final odds are better than 1:1 (such as 1.1 : 1), your final odds automatically get increased by +1, so 1.1 : 1 becomes 2.1 : 1, and you win the battle and cause a retreat.

In contrast, the Germans get no such bonus, and will always have to come up with a "natural" 2:1 or better to win their battles.

However, as Bletchley_Geek said, the Russians take more losses on their attacks, so it's (at times) more difficult for them to reach the minimum required odds in the first place, all other things being equal.

It is also worth to mention that Soviet logistics works more poorly in the long run (especially when rail lines are overextended) which makes it harder to maintain proper offensive CV in the long run because of Supply, ammo and fuel shortages.

In most cases Soviet troops cannot recover their supply and ammo levels as fast as Axis side. Also large number of Soviet troops needed for offensive operations puts strain on Soviet vehicle pool pretty early on. This drops their offensive CV

[BletchleyGeek]

Now this thread starts to look like an obituary.

[Peltonx]

This says it all.

[PeeDeeAitch]

[:)]

[Reconvet]

Nice pic of Cato the Elder. I'll be so free and add one of Carthage ruins. [:D]

[Peltonx]

1.05

[Krec]

somebody over thought the game when this rule was made. i say get rid of this dog, its really not good. also i say that the russian side should either have to stay and fight of suffer stiff penalties when they run away in 41. thats just my 2 cents fwiw.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[CarnageINC]

ORIGINAL: Krec

somebody over thought the game when this rule was made. i say get rid of this dog, its really not good. also i say that the russian side should either have to stay and fight of suffer stiff penalties when they run away in 41. thats just my 2 cents fwiw.

I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Now this thread starts to look like an obituary.

Indeed! LOL! [:D]

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.

That is an interesting suggestion. There have been a number of suggestion on different ways of penalizing the sides for losing cities, both via morale and VP-wise, but unfortunately there seems to be nothing coming out of it. I wholeheartedly agree there should be some mechanism to make players reluctant to lose cities and territory, as that was a strong imperative for decisions in the real campaign.

[Peltonx]

Historical results for s historical game?

Intesting idea for sure.

I am guessing at some pt that will happen.

They have really changed the game allot form its original form.

[Flaviusx]

Sigh.

National morale isn't morale, guys. It's a proficiency rating that has nothing to do with territorial objectives per se. In retrospect, this should have been called something else (like, say, proficiency rating!) to avoid confusion.

This suggestion keeps cropping up and keeps getting rejected because it is the product of semantic confusion.

Anyways, the new and dramatically lower armament multiplier (going from 200 to 130) gives the Soviet excellent reason for hanging on to cities, at least long enough to get out the factories.

Also, Soviet national morale craters in 1942 in 1.05. Like, down to 40. So, yeah. They really don't need to take any more hits beyond that.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Sigh.

National morale isn't morale, guys. It's a proficiency rating that has nothing to do with territorial objectives per se. In retrospect, this should have been called something else (like, say, proficiency rating!) to avoid confusion.

This suggestion keeps cropping up and keeps getting rejected because it is the product of semantic confusion.

Anyways, the new and dramatically lower armament multiplier (going from 200 to 130) gives the Soviet excellent reason for hanging on to cities, at least long enough to get out the factories.

Also, Soviet national morale craters in 1942 in 1.05. Like, down to 40. So, yeah. They really don't need to take any more hits beyond that.

You are right, morale is not the right thing to take a hit from losing cities. A more dynamic VP system would be the way to solve it IMHO.

[gradenko2k]

I quite agree with you on this. But I think it should go both ways. I always thought that anytime a key city fell, the national morale should fall a bit. Only 1-3 pts should do, this will add up over time. There should also be a time factor added on to this. As the game progress for the Soviets it gets smaller, for the Germans it should have a starting time of say maybe the summer of 43 and get larger. The only exception I would have to this rule is elite units like SS or Guard units are immune to it or have a smaller impact.

This will force the Soviets to resist more at the beginning or face worse morale in the later stages of 41 resulting in more routs. For the German's it forces them to make a bigger commitment to defend like the Battles of Stalingrad and Kharkov. Once the Soviets hit the start line then the morale of the Germans should definitely go down per city.

I disagree with this, because Morale in this game represents more than just the will to fight, but also encompasses things like command structure and training levels and overall Force Proficiency (I think the stat should be renamed to that, actually).

Soviet Force Proficiency was in shambles at the start of the war and slowly-but-surely improved as the war went on, but I don't think there's a need to link it to the loss of major cities. It's not as though the average Soviet soldier fought worse as the Germans got closer to Stalingrad. In fact, they only got better.

Similarly, the loss of combat power in German formations reflects in the growing scarcity of men and material to fill out TOEs with. Yes, the replacements that these formations did get from 43 onwards was of decreasing quality as training regimens were shortened and the age of the recruits edged more towards the very old and young, but that already reflects in their National Morale being reduced as time wears on.

By the time you're rolling into Germany itself, the loss of the factories and manpower centers themselves should be such a blow to the Wehrmacht's limited resources as to not need another National Morale reduction on top of it. You can perhaps make a case for the gradual National Morale reduction to be unrealistic if the Reds are threatening the Polish-German border in 1943, which means German National Morale is still relatively high, but that means that your game has gone sufficiently off the rails anyway.

I suppose I do agree with the need to convince the Soviet player to take a more forward-fighting stance, but the devs seem to be taking an alternate route to that - primarily by reducing the ARM production bonus from 200% to 130%. That 35% decrease means you need to save as more factories than you otherwise would have pre-1.05

[Krec]

i think we can all agree that something needs to be done so the russians just dont run away as soon as the game starts. The city/morale thingy sounds interesting. At this point i am game for just about anything, because the way it is now is no good. As for the 2v1 rule........all in favor of getting rid of it say "I" ............"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"............ok the I's have it lets move to the next topic.[:D]

[PeeDeeAitch]

Any Russian who simply runs away at the get go will get mopped up (in terms of forces, he may well be safe for industry) around turn 10-13. That imposing looking carpet of units are weak ants, and in the next iteration will likely only be fort level 2 at the maximum with a decreasing morale. Any german player worth his chops will love bagging 50-60 units each in massive encirclements that can be done. Plus, losing Leningrad, Moscow, the Donbas Cities, etc will hurt. The German player will have fewer preparations for winter, but a huge empty area to retreat into in the face of a less effective winter assault.

There is no need for artificial game mechanisms to make the Soviet player stand and fight, experience will teach them that the actual existing game mechanics are there to make this a rather worthless option.