Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Pelton

This will make the blizzard historical.

Its the main reason the blizzard is unhistorical.


1v1=2v1

Remove 1v1=2v1 the last turn of November 1941.

While I don't think that a rule change with such a large impact will be done at this stage, it could actually benefit the Soviets as well since the increased casualty rate (increased vulnerability) is tied to the +1 odds modifier.

Joel has already said this will not happen and you know that Pelton. This and quite a number of other issues will be revisited in WitE 2 but there will be no more major changes to WitE.

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

While I don't think that a rule change with such a large impact will be done at this stage, it could actually benefit the Soviets as well since the increased casualty rate (increased vulnerability) is tied to the +1 odds modifier.

As we know most (65% to 75%) of losses are caused by retreats ( and Morale). As we know between 25% and 33% of battles won during blizzard are from 1v1=2v1.

Basicly this would very much nerf SHC blizzard.

Its really a minor change removing a unhistorical rule. Tweaking here there and every where to try and over come an unhistorical rule seems like a minor easy fix.

When we got it removed from April 42 to the end of war it was a huge positive change.

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Joel has already said this will not happen and you know that Pelton. This and quite a number of other issues will be revisited in WitE 2 but there will be no more major changes to WitE.

I haven't seen JB post anything on this to-date, but if its to much to put in game thats fine.

Hopefully it will be done away with for wite2

Now tell me if Im wrong here, but is this rule meant to model Soviet political commissars forcing the Military commanders to attack when everyone knew it was going to result in very very large casualties? (ie they had no supporting artillery or noone aware of tactics etc)

If thats Right,

Then shouldnt the result be as for a normal battle ie 1=1 stays 1=1. just with lots of extra casualties for the attacker?
Maybe extra moral loss for the battles loser?

The correct implementation would be to have a die roll that applies to all Soviet units adjacent to an Axis unit each turn and if succesful then the Soviet Unit is FORCED to attack the German unit (obviously without regard to the ODDS)

This will give you the Desired result, increased soviet casualties, Little Military effect other than possibly on Morale and the confusion caused by Stalins Meddling.

Best Regards Chuck.

you must not have play russia
if you FORCE to attack because being adjacent
all you will have is a quicker loss of the army
only real possibility to make losses to axis in the firsts month is through attrition and you would leave that
how would you attack if your division have ATT 1 vs DEF 8[&:]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I haven't seen JB post anything on this to-date, but if its to much to put in game thats fine....

His reply is immediately following your post in the tester forum, Moscow 41-42 thread.

Edit - It has also been said several times in the public forum that there won't be major changes to the game at this point. It's in maintenance mode (my terminology) with bug fixes and minor tweaks being about the extent of any changes going forward.

Seems a thread for WitE 2.0 would be interesting. Is it already being posted?

Applaud the idea of getting past the craze of the latest change or "good" idea and getting 2.0 done. Of course, ctd bugs & some others need to be addressed, but the game plays well at current level.

Hi Cpt Flam

True I have not played Russia,. I will get there though.
For what I am suggesting, there is a die roll so maybe 1 in a hundred units would be forced to attack or 1 in 250 whatever is deemed appropriate.

"all that you will have is a quicker loss of the army" that is correct because this "attack doctrine" resulted in exactly that and nothing more.

It is exactly the same as the Japanese banzai charge. Unsupported charging infantrie/cavalry as we learned in WW1 will take very large casualties.

I believe that this sort of attack isnt "army doctrine" at all. I see it as a purely local event instigated by political commissars(stalin). They are also less concerned at the 1 to 8 odds than the less Zealous Military commander.

Historically the Russians had about 30 million men that could be conscripted, Germany had pretty much maxed out at 3 million. So trading the soldiers lives for time worked for the Soviets, plenty more where they came from.

As currently implemented the 1v1 = 2v1 rule is I think something made out of nothing, and needs to go.