Matrix Games Forums

Answer yes
The Russians lost about 10 million troops in WW2 Germany lost about 5 million on all fronts.
Obviously attrition rule should reflect this with at least 1:3 or thereabouts in favour of the Germans.

I thought you did not own WitE2?

The rule might appear biased but the results it creates are not. I ran Ai vs Ai on a pre production version (took ages on my machine), it ended in Feb 1945, Soviet Victory, and as you can see the Attrition seems to be 1: 3+ and Retreat (Attrition) seems to be 1:5+. Why is it so? Attrition is impacted by the morale of the unit, amongst others, and most German Units have double to triple the morale of Soviet units..

Hang on a sec, I have changed my mind, the rule is biased (again) in favor of the Axis. Therefore, if action is not taken immediately, I will officially declare the game as BROKEN, and I am not going to play any more. [:'(]

Now who would like to hazard a guess as to whether I wrote this post before or after pre dinner drinks. [:D]

offering a more sober (ahem [8D]) judgement. As the axis player up to late 1942 attrition losses are not something you notice. As the Soviets on some sectors you have divisions flipping to unready simply due to attrition (not only does it hit low exp formations more heavily, they in turn are more vulnerable to becoming unready).

so you need a degree of a local reserve and some rotation back to a depot to refit.

By 1943, again you tend to stop noticing this in terms of it having much of an impact

same table for late March 1945, human Soviet, AI axis:



so looks like its biased vs the Soviets [;)] as that is far more than the 1:3 cited by the OP.

I definately noticed this for when I left Italian or Romanian divisions to hang around outside Odessa or Sevastapol. They basically just attritioned themselves now to 40% ToE without performing a single attack.

That a low value unit degrades to 40% when just sitting in the lines tells you that Attrition is way too high. It is an example of the game doing the Russians fighting for him.

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

Answer yes
The Russians lost about 10 million troops in WW2 Germany lost about 5 million on all fronts.
Obviously attrition rule should reflect this with at least 1:3 or thereabouts in favour of the Germans.

Sorry, but how did you calculate what a part of these losses was by WitE-game term "attrition"? 10 vs 5 so simple math yes. What about how many Soviet POWs died in German captivity?
Attrition is too abstract game thing.

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

That a low value unit degrades to 40% when just sitting in the lines tells you that Attrition is way too high. It is an example of the game doing the Russians fighting for him.

Let me guess: you still haven't played the game yet.

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

That a low value unit degrades to 40% when just sitting in the lines tells you that Attrition is way too high. It is an example of the game doing the Russians fighting for him.

Let me guess: you still haven't played the game yet.

And he probably never will since he doesn't get to play with his German supermen that just waltz into Urals without breaking a sweat.

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

That a low value unit degrades to 40% when just sitting in the lines tells you that Attrition is way too high. It is an example of the game doing the Russians fighting for him.

Let me guess: you still haven't played the game yet.

And he probably never will since he doesn't get to play with his German supermen that just waltz into Urals without breaking a sweat.

That's a shame, I love using my Panzer SpaceshipX Mark III to take Kirov turn 4.

LOL

And he probably never will since he doesn't get to play with his German supermen that just waltz into Urals without breaking a sweat.

Mocking someone is certainly not the way to go about this in a decent way. There is nothing wrong with asking questions that might need to be asked. Unless this game was made by God, my guess is the game is chock full of errors and omissions, and bias. But, since we humans are inherently bias (yes, most definitely includes me), we never see the bias, if it is in our favor.

That being said, he does raise a good question about the unit that lost 40% while remaining in the line. Is it conceivable that 40% is unrealistic? Possibly. More research would be needed to done to either confirm or deny the reality of such casualties, while not being in active or engaged in heavy combat.

ORIGINAL: brianreid

And he probably never will since he doesn't get to play with his German supermen that just waltz into Urals without breaking a sweat.

Mocking someone is certainly not the way to go about this in a decent way. There is nothing wrong with asking questions that might need to be asked. Unless this game was made by God, my guess is the game is chock full of errors and omissions, and bias. But, since we humans are inherently bias (yes, most definitely includes me), we never see the bias, if it is in our favor.

That being said, he does raise a good question about the unit that lost 40% while remaining in the line. Is it conceivable that 40% is unrealistic? Possibly. More research would be needed to done to either confirm or deny the reality of such casualties, while not being in active or engaged in heavy combat.

a unit doesn't lose 60% of its strength due to attrition in a turn. A unit that has low morale/exp is more vulnerable to suffer attrition - think of it as just not having the training for small scale trench warfare/sniping/partrols etc - was def the case in WW1 where it took fresh formations several rotations into the line before they learnt to keep such losses down. Look at how the Allies handled the US formations in 1918 to get them used to the grim reality of low intensity tours of duty when the two armies were in close proximity.

in turn low morale units are more vulnerable to rule 21.9.2 where slowly losing elements makes them more vulnerable to being unready.

So since I have tested the game, here's an eg. I put a 50 morale Soviet RD into the line on the Volkhov. Its probably starting at around 70% of its TOE. It sheds say 2% per turn due to attrition, so in 15 turns its vulnerable to going unready.

I know this happens on that sector as its hard to get replacements to Soviet formations there, the Rumanians have a similar problem of relatively low morale and a relative lack of replacements.

Now unfortunately both on this forum and for WiTE1 the OP has a history of rather over the top claims. At least he played #1 which gave his assertions some basis, he hasn't #2 and is quite clear about that. So I suspect some people respond to his statements taking all that into account.

Thanks for the quick reply. That all makes sense. It is very likely that this rule does affect the Soviets more then the Germans. I also have not purchased the game, as I am trying to determine whether it is an upgrade over the first version (which I have and have played extensively). Thanks again for your input on the discussion.

ORIGINAL: brianreid

And he probably never will since he doesn't get to play with his German supermen that just waltz into Urals without breaking a sweat.

Mocking someone is certainly not the way to go about this in a decent way. There is nothing wrong with asking questions that might need to be asked. Unless this game was made by God, my guess is the game is chock full of errors and omissions, and bias. But, since we humans are inherently bias (yes, most definitely includes me), we never see the bias, if it is in our favor.

That being said, he does raise a good question about the unit that lost 40% while remaining in the line. Is it conceivable that 40% is unrealistic? Possibly. More research would be needed to done to either confirm or deny the reality of such casualties, while not being in active or engaged in heavy combat.

If youre going to make the claim that something is "chock full of errors, ommissions, and bias", then you better have data to back it up. And without owning or playing the game then any point made is irrelevant, since its often made on conjecture using bad information (such as OPs misunderstandings of how supply works in the game and attrition). Its fine to criticize, but its not ok to make blanket statements when theyre demonstrably falsifiable (and easily at that), easily proven false, and do not provide sources for their claims.

The two aren’t even close. The first is, for all of its vast detail, essentially a giant board game with finicky bits automated and some large scale yet fundamentally simplistic modeling of the stuff that made the east the east. The second is much a better computer war game that really utilizes computing power to let operational realities come to the front. It’s not a version update to WitE1, it’s a different game that has the same roots.

As for biases, exploits, and the like: there are some small holes in the structure (right now I think there is a slight bias towards whoever is on the large scale offensive - so early war Germans and late war Reds), but that isn’t really what gets people in a tizzy. What has happened is that advantages that used to be modeled as “make this guy Uber!” are now reflected in subtler, more realistic, and more nuanced advantages under different constraints. They are still powerful advantages, but no longer cater to people’s Guderian/Zhukov fantasies nearly as much. The panzers are wildly dynamic, but far more subject to burning out if used as wrecking balls or disconnecting from the supply net; the first winter is a great opportunity for the Russians, but largely because the axis logistics is falling apart in the blizzard while the heavy snow is muffling the German mobility advantage, not because the soviet soldier is suddenly fighting with guns akimbo.

ORIGINAL: brianreid

And he probably never will since he doesn't get to play with his German supermen that just waltz into Urals without breaking a sweat.

Mocking someone is certainly not the way to go about this in a decent way. There is nothing wrong with asking questions that might need to be asked. Unless this game was made by God, my guess is the game is chock full of errors and omissions, and bias. But, since we humans are inherently bias (yes, most definitely includes me), we never see the bias, if it is in our favor.

That being said, he does raise a good question about the unit that lost 40% while remaining in the line. Is it conceivable that 40% is unrealistic? Possibly. More research would be needed to done to either confirm or deny the reality of such casualties, while not being in active or engaged in heavy combat.

Chuckforth didn't say the unit lost 40%, he said it went down to 40%, so it could have been at 41% beforehand. From the old game and from memory front line attrition caused losses up to 0.4% per turn. And also remember he hasnt played the game.

Look its no wonder I have concerns about the game. Moderators in both games are Bias or at best too ignorant to be in the role. WITE 1 was definitely bias making it a 80$ lemon. I am not making that mistake again.

In WITE 1 bullying me was condoned by the Moderator. Same thing is happening here, that tells you there is still a problem with the game.

@chuckfourth - At this point it looks like you are just trolling. You are bashing the developers and a game you won't ever buy, by your own words above. Don't you have anything better to do with your life?

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

Look its no wonder I have concerns about the game. Moderators in both games are Bias or at best too ignorant to be in the role. WITE 1 was definitely bias making it a 80$ lemon. I am not making that mistake again.

In WITE 1 bullying me was condoned by the Moderator. Same thing is happening here, that tells you there is still a problem with the game.

Don't insult real bullying victims by describing your little charade as "bullying". You threw out some questionable statements, got called out on it, doubled down by throwing out more questionable statements and insults, so live with the consequences instead of further wasting everybody's time with victim playing.