EF loses seem way too inflated

[jzardos]

Ok, the logic involved in East Front loses is really getting to be a problem with historical accuracy.

The conditions the turn before the below loses:
- Sov Potential 21
- mid Feb
- Axis combat value was nearly 2x > than the Stable+ threshold!
- have moved over several Pz div over last months

So how the heck can I be losing 1,000k AFV in a week! That's pure and total lunacy. Does anybody else see this as an issue?
If this is not addressed, I plan to just keep the bare minimum units in east and just pull out the rest. At least I can have fun in the west because putting stuff in east really is a waste of unit the way it is abstracted. I really could care less, loses in east or not. But game is one dimensional (front) because having a choice to put units in east is really not a choice since it serves no benefit IMO for play-ability. For those that tell me I can turn it off, I say 'no'. Will use EF to my advantage and pull all out from it and fight on west front with those units. IDC anymore about east front victory stuff with WitW as game stands. I lose cause of Stalin ... oh well.

[jzardos]

Sorry, just frustrated that I went down path of putting many more good units on east front in hopes to a bit more gain stability and less overall loses. Sure, I know can't win on east start with historical post Kursk date. But getting hammer with these loses was hard to stomach. Means my investment in this human vs human game is going to have a tragic ending (worse than historical) for axis because I had very wrong logic on my east front approach.

Please excuse my venting. [:(] If anybody can please show me these loses make sense for a week given my investment in the east front, please help me see the light.

[KenchiSulla]

This is February, right? In a 1943 game, right? Looks like Stalin just broke through (although you were thinking it was stable which the Eastern Front can't really be expected to be...).. Soviet potential seems to build up over time. What turn number is it?

[jzardos]

Also, lost > 1,000 planes as well. Haven't taking any AG out, just put several in! [:(]
[:-]

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

This is February, right? In a 1943 game, right? Looks like Stalin just broke through (although you were thinking it was stable which the Eastern Front can't really be expected to be...).. Soviet potential seems to build up over time. What turn number is it?

Yeah, which is what my new approach will be unless this is address. DON'T PUT ANYTHING (well maybe HQs) in the east front. PULL all out and keep minimum. Nothing will change your crazy loses. Use units on West front is much smarter. Was hoping game would allow some more historical levels of reduced loses if more good units transferred to the east. IT DOESN'T. Once again the choice to put more units in the east is sheer folly.

Only way this really gets fix, IMO, is when the massive marriage between WitW and WitE occurs in many years. [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

When this happens an allows Multiplayer for sides, I'll let Pelton play the Axis in east and I'll play Axis in West. He'll be doing so well, that all sorts of units will be available for transfer from east to west. [8D]

[KenchiSulla]

The way I read it having enough troops to meet stable doesn't really mean all that much. You could still get a Soviet breakthrough and that breakthrough apparently results in catastrophic losses...

On the other hand, pulling out all strong forces out of the east pretty much guarantees a breakthrough and Berlin by summer of 1944?

[cmunson]

Something may be amiss. I've never seen losses that high for one week on EF. The 3-July 1943 has higher than average losses to model the Kursk offensive but you say this is Feb (I assume 1944?).

Joel or Red Lancer will have to weigh in on this. There may be something I'm not aware of that triggered this.

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

The way I read it having enough troops to meet stable doesn't really mean all that much. You could still get a Soviet breakthrough and that breakthrough apparently results in catastrophic losses...

Yeah! I know now. But had to learn the hard way, unfortunately. My ass going to feel very sore now every time I do a turn for this current game.[:(] Trust me, won't make that mistake again.

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: chris.munson

Something may be amiss. I've never seen losses that high for one week on EF. The 3-July 1943 has higher than average losses to model the Kursk offensive but you say this is Feb (I assume 1944?).

Joel or Red Lancer will have to weigh in on this. There may be something I'm not aware of that triggered this.

yeah, this is for Feb 26th, 1944

[jzardos]

Will be happy to send the turn file to a developer if needed.

[Joel Billings]

If you can send the save before the German logistics phase, we can run it through and see what kind of losses we see. Can't exactly say if it's WAD or not, but having the save would allow me to get an answer from Gary. Thanks.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: jzardos
Yeah, which is what my new approach will be unless this is address. DON'T PUT ANYTHING (well maybe HQs) in the east front. PULL all out and keep minimum. Nothing will change your crazy loses. Use units on West front is much smarter. Was hoping game would allow some more historical levels of reduced loses if more good units transferred to the east. IT DOESN'T. Once again the choice to put more units in the east is sheer folly.

That's not been my experience. Sure, you can have some bad turns, but sending forces East generally does slow down the Soviet advance and you don't have serious losses every turn.

Regards,

- Erik

[bairdlander2]

What was the reason not to put the EF units on map and controllable?With an ai always playing as SU so human Allied player never has control of Soviet units?

[bairdlander2]

Also the concern about where EF units transfer when going west is kind of goofy,units appearing in the middle of alps or in isolated areas.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander
What was the reason not to put the EF units on map and controllable?With an ai always playing as SU so human Allied player never has control of Soviet units?

Just several more years of development to effectively add in another game to this one. [;)]

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander
Also the concern about where EF units transfer when going west is kind of goofy,units appearing in the middle of alps or in isolated areas.

If you run into anything odd, please send us a save, I'm sure we can easily adjust for any corner cases on unit arrival.

Regards,

- Erik

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: jzardos
Yeah, which is what my new approach will be unless this is address. DON'T PUT ANYTHING (well maybe HQs) in the east front. PULL all out and keep minimum. Nothing will change your crazy loses. Use units on West front is much smarter. Was hoping game would allow some more historical levels of reduced loses if more good units transferred to the east. IT DOESN'T. Once again the choice to put more units in the east is sheer folly.

That's not been my experience. Sure, you can have some bad turns, but sending forces East generally does slow down the Soviet advance and you don't have serious losses every turn.

Regards,

- Erik

Yes, I have turn before logistics. Where do I send it?

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

If you can send the save before the German logistics phase, we can run it through and see what kind of losses we see. Can't exactly say if it's WAD or not, but having the save would allow me to get an answer from Gary. Thanks.

Oh, Sorry. Joel where do I sent it again?

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: jzardos
Yeah, which is what my new approach will be unless this is address. DON'T PUT ANYTHING (well maybe HQs) in the east front. PULL all out and keep minimum. Nothing will change your crazy loses. Use units on West front is much smarter. Was hoping game would allow some more historical levels of reduced loses if more good units transferred to the east. IT DOESN'T. Once again the choice to put more units in the east is sheer folly.

That's not been my experience. Sure, you can have some bad turns, but sending forces East generally does slow down the Soviet advance and you don't have serious losses every turn.

Regards,

- Erik

Sure Erik. I agree can have some bad luck and maybe just not my time to have luck in this game. But I still think even bad luck should have some reasonable thresholds? I mean really, how can I lose 1,000 good AFVs in one week when I have almost 2x the need stable + amount and it's the 3rd week in Feb 44? Played some fairly horrible games of WitE and got my ass kicked, but never remember losing 1,000 German AFVs in a week.

Heck even in the week of the battle of Kursk the Germans didn't lose even half this amount of tanks and assault guns. So what the heck happened here in Feb?
Sorry, just don't buy the argument 'I had some bad luck'.

[jzardos]

Ok here's the next turn, lol and WTF. March 4th, 1944. My loses are WORSE. Dammit. Looks like I just can't play this game. Going to drive me insane and lose my mind with stuff like this. I lost 2,000 tanks and assault guns in 2 weeks? Please, something is wrong. I understand if nobody wants to fess up. But makes me sad.

have to throw up my hands and just surrender to WitW. Paid a lot of money to get 'pwned'.
FYI - lost 1000 combat points in this one week.