Low Axis losses

[Bozo_the_Clown]

I am sure this has been mentioned many times before but the losses for routing Axis units out of pockets are ridiculous. I am fine with the super high Russian losses but the Axis losses in the following battle are just silly. I get the same losses from two decent air attacks. The game needs to reward risk-taking.

[eskuche]

That's twice as many losses as I got for doing it! I believe it could be justifiable by assuming it was an emergency extreme retreat rather than a rout.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

I am sure this has been mentioned many times before but the losses for routing Axis units out of pockets are ridiculous. I am fine with the super high Russian losses but the Axis losses in the following battle are just silly. I get the same losses from two decent air attacks. The game needs to reward risk-taking.

If any consolation, you will take less losses next turn in Sept than in Aug ;-P

Actually the numbers you received against the Germans is pretty nice in retrospect compared to results from over a year plus ago.

[king171717]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

I am sure this has been mentioned many times before but the losses for routing Axis units out of pockets are ridiculous. I am fine with the super high Russian losses but the Axis losses in the following battle are just silly. I get the same losses from two decent air attacks. The game needs to reward risk-taking.

totally agree!

[gamer78]

One reason I stay a way from playing pbem WITE. Combat doesn't look natural. It should award player doing this in 1941. One side is not alien great with technologies. Routed means routed for military terms.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Sorry for reporting on this again (0 Panzer lost) but now that I am playing this game again I am noticing just bizarre combat results and it gets weirder and weirder. The way the game engine calculates losses is just messed up.


It doesn't matter for this game because I am a year ahead of schedule but I wonder what will happen if it's a nail biter in 41 and 42 and there are practically no tank losses for the Axis.

[Telemecus]

Remember the balancing mechanism for wite is attrition. So whatever the results of individual battles, the key point is how much attrition each side gets to make the game balanced to what is desired.

While the individual results can seem out of whack, the only true way of assessing is the game correct or not is by seeing what are the losses after attrition in the logistics phase. The losses in each battle during the action phase were never meant to represent the overall game balance.

[thedoctorking]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Sorry for reporting on this again (0 Panzer lost) but now that I am playing this game again I am noticing just bizarre combat results and it gets weirder and weirder. The way the game engine calculates losses is just messed up.


It doesn't matter for this game because I am a year ahead of schedule but I wonder what will happen if it's a nail biter in 41 and 42 and there are practically no tank losses for the Axis.

If you damage a tank and then the unit is retreated, I think the damaged stuff is lost, or has a higher chance of being lost, anyway.

I know, 5 AFV's destroyed is hardly an improvement.

Losses in the attrition phase should represent actual operational losses and not be some sort of a kludge to make up for losses that aren't being inflicted in combat. The combat model needs to be improved so it more accurately reflects actual combat losses. Germans lost plenty of AFV's in combat even in 1941.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Remember the balancing mechanism for wite is attrition. So whatever the results of individual battles, the key point is how much attrition each side gets to make the game balanced to what is desired.

While the individual results can seem out of whack, the only true way of assessing is the game correct or not is by seeing what are the losses after attrition in the logistics phase. The losses in each battle during the action phase were never meant to represent the overall game balance.

I understand and appreciate that. WitE is a game of attrition and encirclement. Both sides need to encircle enemy troops or it gets very hard in the long run.

It's just not very satisfying to see results like that.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Losses in the attrition phase should represent actual operational losses and not be some sort of a kludge to make up for losses that aren't being inflicted in combat. The combat model needs to be improved so it more accurately reflects actual combat losses. Germans lost plenty of AFV's in combat even in 1941.

+1

[mrblonde1]

Sometimes you can get decent results.

post an image

[countrboy]

That's from 1944, all the other posts are from 41 and 42. Plus the Germans are attacking in blizzard conditions.

[mrblonde1]

I know. Such high afv losses are rather unusual even in 44.

[tyronec]

Losses in the attrition phase should represent actual operational losses and not be some sort of a kludge to make up for losses that aren't being inflicted in combat. The combat model needs to be improved so it more accurately reflects actual combat losses. Germans lost plenty of AFV's in combat even in 1941.

From an historical point of view would agree.
However high logistics losses is a great game balancer, it means that as you go into '42 and '43 the combat and pocketed losses from the early game are less significant. Without this the snowball effect would be stronger and even less games would go the course.
So on balance I think the approach in the game works well

[Vifee]

The only way to cause significant casualties in combat in 1941 is to set up a situation where the German unit has to make multiple ZOC to ZOC moves during its retreat, ideally crossing a river while doing so. You can sometimes set this up with pocket walls made of regiments, but it's so unreliable as to be irrelevant in an actual Soviet strategy. I'll say that, in my experience, winter 1941 and 1942 is much better in terms of casualty ratios, but still insufficient to cause any significant drop in CV of German units.