Matrix Games Forums

Firstly before reading this, i want you to know i have some 800 hours or so in this game now, and have played purely against players in PBEM or server games, aswell as modded scenarios for most of them. I say this so you know i genuinely have enough experience and have seen enough battles and situations to know for certain if something is off or wrong, and that's before my historical knowledge aswell which helps emphasizes what i'm about to say(and others suggestions also).

From the 1942 scenario, i have one major problem with combat i specifically want to bring up.

Main issue

1. German armored divisions are horribly modeled on defense, specifically in plains tiles. A Soviet player can easily attack a full strength division, SS division with 90 morale, or elite panzer division, and the results will be as follows:

If Soviets attack with a couple rifle corps and an artillery division, the Panzer division will barely fight or most tanks will not even fight. The tanks will be unrealistically disrupted by artillery, which fundamentally has the problem in this game of having no diminishing effect the more artillery you stack, so if you stack 3-4 corps with supporting artillery, the defending German divisions, whether 1 or 3 fully strength SS/Panzer divisions will barely even fight(their tanks just refuse to fight), and worst of all (the most irritating part) is that they take LESS losses then the Germans defending and the Soviet losses further reduce the more artillery you stack. Even with 0 Soviet armored support, just mass infantry assaulting after artillery bombardments, these favorable casualties are repeatable, aswell as retreat losses mentioned below.

1.5. This brings up another issue, RETREAT LOSSES. The majority of the "DISRUPTED" panzers in these divisions will simply be lost to retreat losses because the division was pushed back 1 tile. You will have LSSAH(99% TOE) take more losses on the defense(lol) then the attacking Russian infantry corps, all while 35% of their tanks are lost to retreat losses, and 10% to combat. Keep in mind also, THERE IS NO MOBILE SOVIET UNITS IN THESE ATTACKS. This division is not out of fuel, these divisions are not out of ammo, these divisions have elite morale and experience, in real life they have recovery vehicles also, why on earth is almost half the division lost to retreat losses?????
Do developers not know what withdrawal is in battles also? Oh wow we should pull back, guess lets just abandon our tanks here because we uh lost the battle and have to move elsewhere, oh that tank has a locked up turret ring from a shell? cant drive it away, abandon it here(theres no distinction ingame either about different damage to a tank, i guess every damaged vehicle is a destroyed engine when u "lose" a battle, that will be overrrun by infantry at 3km/h).
I mean it just makes no sense at all and makes combat so unpredictable, if i put LSSAH, 7th panzer division and an elite mechanized division on a plains tile, they firstly should not lose the battle just to a stack of guards rifle corps and an artillery division in the rear, nor should they somehow take worse losses defending against that, but more importantly they should not lose near half their tanks to retreat losses from moving back/withdrawing a single plains tile.


My current game against a player for an example on artillery is in December 1943, turn 59. Almost every battle Russia attacks in the Northern front and elsewhere ends with favorable casualty ratios, which is just beyond unrealistic. In Army Group North, my defending divisions are 80%-95% toe, and defending woods, marsh, and frequently fort lines also. But because of how artillery stacking works and the ability to just stack 1200-3000 artillery, these defending units LITERALLY DO NOT FIGHT, AND THEN TAKE RETREAT LOSSES ALSO after "losing" the battle because of disruption. This leads to 9/10 battles being favorable casualties for the Soviets at this point in the game while on the offensive in horrible terrain, which is just so unrealistic/unhistorical and utterly drains my will to play. This artillery stacking and defensive combat in plains needs to be fixed if anyone expects to play past early 1942 as Germany against a player, the Soviets are just too strong due to this oversight and the way combat works like this.

Recap: Artillery stacking is game breaking late game, Soviets can stack thousands of artillery pieces, and when they attack anything, it disrupts them and they do not fight, leading to favorable casualties no matter where they are attacking. Retreat losses are overall poorly modeled for numerous reasons, but especially for German tank divisions when facing 0 enemy armor or mobile units in plains or light woods even due to this disruption and stacking. This also has an effect and creates the problem of Soviet players barely using their tank divisions/corps if at all in offensive attacks late game against German armor, because their guards/rifle corps can more efficiently do their job and cause the same amount of retreat losses also. This is not predictable from a realism and historical standpoint and is poorly modeled.

-Id post photos of battles if i knew how.

I know we played once some time ago - but it was many patches ago too!

I've noticed Soviets are mighty strong too.

Do they also just spam 'artillery attacks' with their artillery divisions? Litterally just range combat to shank the Germans from distance with pure superior amount of guns and pipes massed? (or rockets)
German counterbattery fire is puny and insufficient when maybe it's 'Battallion of Heavy Guns' shooting back 2-3 Rocket / Art large units!

The interactions might be even more complex.

After leadership die rolls and determination of early withdrawal vs "scout" stuff. The firepower works by starting out the engagement at a range and then the devices and squads that can exchange pleasantries at that range engage in combat. GS happens first. Thus should be an effective means of disrupting attacks if unabated or disruptive of the defense.

1) Massive artillery attacks in modern warfare only work as part of a combined arms effort. If there are not enough squads and mobile devices to keep the defender busy - the counter would be to counterattack with mobile forces and destroy the artillery. The other possibility for mobile devices and squads is to simply move to avoid the onslaught of iron and cordite. Massive artillery strikes depend on the forces to the front to fix the defender into a position resulting in destruction. IRL "Uncle Adolf" helped things a bit with stand at all costs orders that supplemented the Soviet Combined forces in pinning forces in place. I am not sure this burden is a good thing to force in a game situation.

2) What happens if the German's throw in GS or even a GA vs the Massive Artillery stack? Concentrated Artillery is a nice target. This would be a primary counter to such a tactic. (Answer: not enough). IRL the Luftwaffe was exhausted by the time the Soviets were using massive rolling "arc light" missions. The game flow might be much different. So the game allows for effective GS/GA to strike and demolish concentrated artillery positions.

The point of this posting is that a wargame must not produce a single tactic that can be predictive of a result. A successful game has a "Rochambeau" feel and the WITE (1 and 2) engine has the means to produce multiple combinations and permutations to keep players engaged for a lifetime. What cannot happen is for predictable results that cannot be countered.

That is why games end early ... once a stage is reached where a player perceives there is no more decisions to change the outcomes -- they resign. Whether this is chess or Monopoly.

ADB_Iceman wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:15 am The interactions might be even more complex.

After leadership die rolls and determination of early withdrawal vs "scout" stuff. The firepower works by starting out the engagement at a range and then the devices and squads that can exchange pleasantries at that range engage in combat. GS happens first. Thus should be an effective means of disrupting attacks if unabated or disruptive of the defense.

1) Massive artillery attacks in modern warfare only work as part of a combined arms effort. If there are not enough squads and mobile devices to keep the defender busy - the counter would be to counterattack with mobile forces and destroy the artillery. The other possibility for mobile devices and squads is to simply move to avoid the onslaught of iron and cordite. Massive artillery strikes depend on the forces to the front to fix the defender into a position resulting in destruction. IRL "Uncle Adolf" helped things a bit with stand at all costs orders that supplemented the Soviet Combined forces in pinning forces in place. I am not sure this burden is a good thing to force in a game situation.

2) What happens if the German's throw in GS or even a GA vs the Massive Artillery stack? Concentrated Artillery is a nice target. This would be a primary counter to such a tactic. (Answer: not enough). IRL the Luftwaffe was exhausted by the time the Soviets were using massive rolling "arc light" missions. The game flow might be much different. So the game allows for effective GS/GA to strike and demolish concentrated artillery positions.

The point of this posting is that a wargame must not produce a single tactic that can be predictive of a result. A successful game has a "Rochambeau" feel and the WITE (1 and 2) engine has the means to produce multiple combinations and permutations to keep players engaged for a lifetime. What cannot happen is for predictable results that cannot be countered.

That is why games end early ... once a stage is reached where a player perceives there is no more decisions to change the outcomes -- they resign. Whether this is chess or Monopoly.

That's absolutely not how the game works.

If GS is left on during the opposing turn, unless one has totally and litterally micro'ed their bombers to the obsession, you're going to be trashed.
And anyhow even with turbomassive micromanagement designating specific GS targets only, once determined them, AA traps are made and things like that to deliberately lure air assets over and over and over and over.

It's a binary type of business.
Even at the cost of not damaging Germans, CAV divisions can hasty, hasty and hasty again on Germans, have their bombers intervene, waste freight and fuel, etc... and then they'll be spent for when the real attack is to come. (or oppositely a repeated chain of hasty attacks brings forth a batch of bombers from the active players to sap resistance)

The present air-war model is just not working at multiple levels in general and cannot be relied there to counter 'massed artillery fire'.
Which anyhow is made by divisional units that are in the rearlines and do not risk anything pretty much.

Albert .. I was not proposing that is how the game works .. I was proposing that is how the game should work ... decisions with risks and benefits.