Matrix Games Forums

...why is nothing in pipline to try and fix the most two obvious flaws to this other great game? At the moment I my self rate this at 3,5/5, but this game should be a 5+++/5, beacuase it is so historical accurate, realistic and detailed in all other aspects. I really have to give credits to the developers, it can not be an easy task creating this monster and done it so well in almost all ways.

Before I start my little rant, I enjoy playing both Soviet and Axis. Have no bias towards either side. Just want the game to be as historical accurate and realistic as possible for an IGOUGO-game.

CPP-drain:

It is not even remotly realistic or historical accurate that a pitchfork unit with low CV, and which is routed or shattered, is able to drain a elite formation of the amount of CPP it currently do. It is, to say the least, astonishing that a game so remarkable good in so many aspects, is so flawed in this regard.

"A battle plan do not survive first enemy contact." as we say in the swedish army. That is often correct, not always of course, BUT it does not mean that a battle plan will be impacted negative, it can actually be the other way around. That you are instead faced with a better outcome than expected and the battle plan has to be re-written to maximise explotation.

So, lets say a weak soviet cavalry division or a weak rumanian division is thrown in front of an advancing elite formation to plug a gap. If the attacker routes this formation, IRL that would mean even more chaos for the opponents defensive plan as the front is more and more shattered. So if abstracted correctly the CPP should instead rise for the elite formation that routes or shatters an defending formation (to simulate that the attacker has managed to get an upper hand in the operations) and at very least not be affected at all.

I can not understand why the CPP-question has not been taken seriously and fixed and tested in a Beta by the developers yet. Those who do not want to participate in "experiments" sticks to the official updates and the rest of us that goes with every new update have to live with the fact that stuff can be drasticly affected.

With the combat delay, which I see as positive thing if it stands for it self, added with the CPP-drain there is to few times and not close to simulate the overwhelming chock-effect that a operational breakthrough would give irl, especially in a IGOUGO-game. Those who do succeeds now, because it is of course possible, should be even more succesful, which should be added to forecome the usual "but I have managed to make operational breakthroughs". Yes, I have that to and so have my opponents. But not in the expected scale or as often as it should have been.

The logistical unrealism


How is it possible that the soviets have so exceptional good logistical situation in 1941? The Soviet logistics in '41 was utter trash. But in the game? Just spam depots level 4 and always be sure that a new frontline will be formed solid and well supplied - as solid as it can be '41 of course, not talking about walls but unrealisticly good obstacles. Hell, even throw divisions around the rail network and there is still no problems with logistics. Try railing a divison with Axis and you have to postpone the planned offensives. Combined with throwing trash formation to drain CPP and the combat delay, this problem is a poison for the GC Campaign.

Solution? Increase cost drasticly for depot-building in '41 for the soviets and then decrease it as the game moves on. Maybe have a constant cost increase for both Axis and Soviets when building alot of new depots in the same turn. So, for example, one depot in a turn costs one point to build, the next costs two and so on, to simulate the fact that it is affecting the logistical staffs negativ to plan and re-plan the logistical grid. To easy to build a logistical grid as it is now in my opinion.

Especially affects '41 games

My frontlines has been trashed as the soviets in '41, but I never gets this overwhelming effect where I really feel that I am forced to take bad or even worse decisions where to build my new frontline. Just throw what ever trash-formation I have in reach to drain CPP and build a new frontline at my own wish with fresh units. Never felt the "Holy crap, he is dictating the events and I will lose in this Sudden Death game" so far as the soviets. Even though the initial breakthorugh should have resulted in that feeling. "Gamey"? I do not care. The game is what the game is and I will exploit it as all players should if they are playing as the soviets.

Finishing lines

So, is the game unplayable? No, it is still a really good game and enjoyable, even the GC. SO DO NOT GET MY CRITICISM THE WRONG WAY. To many brittle people now a days taking citicism as bullying, especially those taking heat for third persons and breaking down mentally on there behalf. I have no tolerance for that kind of crap. So please stay out of my face. With that sad, there is probably those loving the current system and I am eager to here those persons explain in detail why they like it and why it is realistic and historical accurate.

In most aspects this game is the best game there is in the genre. But the game would rise like a star and crush all other operational games by light years if something was done do get rid of this problems. If I personal had to choose the most pressing issue I would say it is the CPP, because it affects both sides equally bad. Scrap the whole CPP-system or fix it, I actually love the system but is totally flawed as it stands right now.

Important addition to the subject

Of course, this problems is when facing simular good and/or experienced player. I have no doubts that a better and/or more experienced player will crush an newbie. I my self was grinded as the Axis in my first MP-game against more experienced opposition. I played SD as well, so I did some really high risk operations in late november to even try to get over the SD-line and there was a Stalingrad-like pocket and som minor pockets where the Rumanians and Hungarians where trashed. Another subject as well...the minor axis allied problem. But I refrain from taking that disussion now. I do not see it as a big problem. Only a minor.

+, were talking about this problems for many months now
people already wrote that CPP and Soviet logistics are under review
i think it would be enough to have very balanced game (except of an air war)

also Axis allies are a separate thread (actually there were a couple of them )
battles with Axis allies are just hilarious

Looking at this game since a while, I am reading the manual to learn about it.

About CPP, in section 23.2.2, it is indeed saying:

23.2.2. LOSING COMBAT PREPARATION POINTS
CPP ’s will be lost at a rate of one per hex as they move using the tactical movement mode.
Units that participate in an attack will lose half their CPP once the battle is resolved.
If a unit is attacked and forced to retreat it will lose all its CPP. If it is attacked and the attack fails the lost CPP will vary according to the final odds and the intensity of the attack:
§ if the odds were >=1.5 to 1, then the defender will lose
half their CPP
§ if the final odds were >=1 to 1, the defender will lose
one quarter of their CPP
§ if the final odds were less than 1-1 the defender will lose
10% of their CPP
A SU gains or losses CPP according to the actions of the unit they are attached to. In addition, if a SU is re-attached (either to a different HQ or to or from a Combat Unit) it will lose 50% of its existing CPP.
Units sent to the National Reserve will also lose all their retained CPP.

There are already conditions for the defenders if attacks are failing. Why not introduce the same for the attackers?

I mean if an attack succeed and odds are >= 10 to 1, the attacker will lose 25% of their CPP only, for example, and not half of their CPP after each battle whatever its outcome. The ant tactic is indeed working due to this imo.

What do you think of this Joel?

The CPP and combat delay mechanisms are great ideas but I think we all acknowledge they are a work in progress. The trick, I believe, is to keep things simple.

So one suggestion: a successful attacker loses a % of the defenders initial CP. So with the current 50%, a 90% CPP Panzer driving over a shell infantry division at 10% loses just 5% (not 45%), but at 50 V 50 CPP the attacker will lose 50% of 50 to end up at 25 (as now). An attacker with a lot less CPP than the defender will probably have their CP wiped out, even if they win. Quite right too. The loser loses 100% every time.

And for Combat Delay there could be a process where very high CD spills over into neighbouring hexes, so say a CD of 4 causes CD of 1 in adjacent hexes, 5 causes +2 etc. In theory it could chain down the line as other attacks are pushed over 4 by the adjacent modifier, making timing crucial (a good nerf for late war Soviets benefiting from CPP gains).

But does the overflow delay affect every adjacent hex, or just enemy held ones? Or ones that contain enemy units? Again, it needs to be simple. The best rule is no rule if you can make the underlying process create the simulation.

In fact, I haven't really seen much historical research on Soviet logistics.

Therefore, your statement about the fact that Soviet logistics is garbage is erroneous. Although there is some truth in it, but the message itself is wrong enough that it could be rejected as absolutely wrong in the context.

Also, many of your suggestions may not work correctly, foresee the mental game. Imagine tanks don't lose CPP. How to play a player on the USSR? An extra waiting for winter to come?

Do you know how in reality the USSR defeated Germany? Or do you still believe in the Soviet Mongol hordes that reached Berlin as a wave of corpses?

If you have not seen much historical research, it does NOT follow that his assertion is erroneous.

About logistics, this video is giving few inputs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIeyq2mE9t8

Basically, it looks like Soviet logistics did not collapse in 1941. They had stocks and locomotives. And they were used to supply armies, divisions with bad road networks thanks to horses.

It is more the Germans that were unprepared logistically speaking.

But, coming back to the game, there are two things in this thread. I think it would be best to act on one item first and not on both of them at the same time. Maybe add conditions to the attacker CPP lost against weak units will be enough to erase the logistics point.

Just my opinion.

davesnoke wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:30 pm If you have not seen much historical research, it does NOT follow that his assertion is erroneous.

Soviet logistics during the war were much better than German, but they were not perfect. And in the game now she is too good. Warehouses are constantly overstocked. It is very rare for the Germans to see excess cargo in warehouses.

Any potential changes to soviet logistics should probably have a different impact over time. In 1941/42 i agree they get way too much supply too easily but my understanding is that changes very quickly if the game progresses past then.

Veterin wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 5:51 am Any potential changes to soviet logistics should probably have a different impact over time. In 1941/42 i agree they get way too much supply too easily but my understanding is that changes very quickly if the game progresses past then.

Not really from my experiance i supplied a full front outside riga via singletrack....

Zebtucker12 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:36 am Not really from my experiance i supplied a full front outside riga via singletrack....

Supplying along the coast is easier, try doing something around the Carpathians, you get max 2-3k per depot.

FortTell wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 8:16 am

Zebtucker12 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:36 am Not really from my experiance i supplied a full front outside riga via singletrack....

Supplying along the coast is easier, try doing something around the Carpathians, you get max 2-3k per depot.

I had no ports or even leningrad. Well soviets got stuck there did they not?

Sorry but I am confused. In order of priority, which one is the most important to you?

1. Attacker CPP whatever the outcome of the battle
2. Logistics that seems too good for Soviets in 1941

Zebtucker12 wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:19 pm I had no ports or even leningrad. Well soviets got stuck there did they not?

Having no ports makes supplying a front harder, for sure.

But where and when exactly were the Soviets stuck around Riga, I assume it was in 1944? In autumn, it took them two months during the Baltic offensive to liberate Estonian SSR and the remainder of Lithauian SSR, incuding Riga, while cutting off the German forces in the Courland Pocket.

In July, during the Siauliai operation, the direct push towards Riga got stalled and the 1st Baltic Front had supply problems, but this was because the could not secure the Polotsk-Daugavpils-Siauliai rail around Daugavpils (the city was taken on the 27th of July 1944, at the tail end of the operation). Receiving supply from Polotsk or, I guess, Vilnius (taken on the 13th of July) while fighting near the Baltic coast is not very good. Also the Germans sent significant reinforcements to the area, while 1st Baltic had 4th Shock Army taken from it. In return they got the 39th Army, which could not be put in combat immediately, and the 11th Guards and 51th Armies, which arrived mid-July.

So the history does not provide us a direct parallel there, unfortunately. Maybe USSR actually could supply the front using this railway, maybe not.

ShaggyHiK wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:32 pm In fact, I haven't really seen much historical research on Soviet logistics.

Therefore, your statement about the fact that Soviet logistics is garbage is erroneous. Although there is some truth in it, but the message itself is wrong enough that it could be rejected as absolutely wrong in the context.

Also, many of your suggestions may not work correctly, foresee the mental game. Imagine tanks don't lose CPP. How to play a player on the USSR? An extra waiting for winter to come?

Do you know how in reality the USSR defeated Germany? Or do you still believe in the Soviet Mongol hordes that reached Berlin as a wave of corpses?

Well, trash was a bit of an exaggeration, that much I can agree upon. But up until august '41 they struggled with bad logistic organization. They did not had this overwhelming capacity.

Well, I really have detailed information about how the USSR defeated Germany. They grinded them down slowly, but do you seriously mean that an panzer divisions combat capability took more than a 50% hit to its combat capabilities from rolling over a trash formation?

You might just start by reading what I wrote instead of creating your own fantasies. I did not say that the panzer formations was not to loose any CPP at all at any time, only when trashed formations makes a panzerformation to loose 50% of their CPP. I am saying that they should loose CPP to a well prepared (high CPP) and dug in unit, but not to an almots depleted or unprepeared unit.

You are sounding like a Soviet-biased whiner then you do your assumption that I believe that it was "corpses" that invaded Berlin. Grow up.

This is your perception of realism and how history played out:

An almost depleted NKVD regiment, that had have no time to do any defensive prepations (zero CPP that is) or dig in are standing in the way for the advancing Panzergruppe 2 in the summer of 1941. Heinz Guderian are told from the divisional commander of 18 Panzer Division Walter Nehring, which is facing this trashed formation, that his battle plan and organization (CPP) had been severly negative affected due to smashing this formation to pieces with almost no effort. His plan and organization had taken such a mayor hit, that he is reporting to his commanders that the divisons overall combat cability (CV that is) had taken more than a 50% hit.

That is not even remotly realistic or historical accurate. But you believe it is. A well entrenched and prepared soviet division, well, that is another question. The topic was about unrealistic CPP-draining. Not realistic CPP-draining.

TallBlondJohn wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:08 pm The CPP and combat delay mechanisms are great ideas but I think we all acknowledge they are a work in progress. The trick, I believe, is to keep things simple.

So one suggestion: a successful attacker loses a % of the defenders initial CP. So with the current 50%, a 90% CPP Panzer driving over a shell infantry division at 10% loses just 5% (not 45%), but at 50 V 50 CPP the attacker will lose 50% of 50 to end up at 25 (as now). An attacker with a lot less CPP than the defender will probably have their CP wiped out, even if they win. Quite right too. The loser loses 100% every time.

And for Combat Delay there could be a process where very high CD spills over into neighbouring hexes, so say a CD of 4 causes CD of 1 in adjacent hexes, 5 causes +2 etc. In theory it could chain down the line as other attacks are pushed over 4 by the adjacent modifier, making timing crucial (a good nerf for late war Soviets benefiting from CPP gains).

But does the overflow delay affect every adjacent hex, or just enemy held ones? Or ones that contain enemy units? Again, it needs to be simple. The best rule is no rule if you can make the underlying process create the simulation.

I agree that CPP and Combat Delay is awesome as systems, if done correctly.

Well, yeah, you might have right that it should be handled easy and not to complex. If it could start there, that would be an wast improvement and then it would be possible to see if more is needed to be done or not.

I do believe that the CV values should have some influence as well, not to much of course for several reasons, but some. An almost depleted NKVD regiment or rumanian division with 100 CPP should not be able to severly effect a german SS division or a soviet guards formation to much. But if we could start with getting rid of the problem where almost depleted units, that are thrown infront of a well prepared, refitted and intact elite formation are able to thrast their CV - that would be a big step in the right direction.

As to combat delay, I think it is just fine as it is now. Should not be altered.

Jeff_Ahl wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 7:47 pm An almost depleted NKVD regiment, that had have no time to do any defensive prepations (zero CPP that is) or dig in are standing in the way for the advancing Panzergruppe 2 in the summer of 1941. Heinz Guderian are told from the divisional commander of 18 Panzer Division Walter Nehring, which is facing this trashed formation, that his battle plan and organization (CPP) had been severly negative affected due to smashing this formation to pieces with almost no effort. His plan and organization had taken such a mayor hit, that he is reporting to his commanders that the divisons overall combat cability (CV that is) had taken more than a 50% hit.

That is not even remotly realistic or historical accurate. But you believe it is. A well entrenched and prepared soviet division, well, that is another question. The topic was about unrealistic CPP-draining. Not realistic CPP-draining.

If Nehring's such a hot commander, he'll either find another unit to sweep the NKVD unit aside or break his division down and deal with it with a regiment. Sounds like he needs to learn to play the game.

[/quote]If Nehring's such a hot commander, he'll either find another unit to sweep the NKVD unit aside or break his division down and deal with it with a regiment. Sounds like he needs to learn to play the game.
[/quote]

So a refitted, well prepared elite regiment should still suffer against a unprepeared and almost depleted unit? Nothing solved and the division as a whole will still loose untealistic amount of CPP if merged again. There might be no rumanian division hanging around either.

Or if there is a stack, one or two divisions has to be sent back, break down the remainig division. Use one regiment. Then move the earlier stacked divisions forward again, now with less MP because that is how this unrealistic mechanic should be handled? And so on...

Other mechanics that should be turned unrealistic and unhistorical? So that we have to find half bad solutions to work around the problem?

You also talk about "game" solution. Was not this game meant to be realistic and historical accurate as possible for an IGOUGO game?

Mehring wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 8:16 pmIf Nehring's such a hot commander, he'll either find another unit to sweep the NKVD unit aside or break his division down and deal with it with a regiment. Sounds like he needs to learn to play the game.

Step 1: You spot my NKVD border guard unit hanging out in some nice unfortified clear terrain, blocking your path to Moscow.

Step 2: You break down your Panzer division into regiments.

Step 3: You use one of your Panzer regiments to do a hasty attack against my 11% TOE 317 man NKVD border guard unit to sweep it aside.

Step 4: Your Panzer regiment has 5 CV, my NKVD border guard unit has 0.1 CV, so surely it will be an easy win.

Step 5: My 15 CV, 67 morale Mountain Division joins the battle with a reserve activation.

Step 6: The result is a hold, thanks to the reserve activation.

Step 7: Now you are going to have to attack again, and there is *already* a combat delay from the first battle, so this means you are going to end up with at least 2 combat delays even if you win this second attack, so your mobile units are not going to get very far this turn.

Step 8: After this happens a few more times, you realize that you need to start doing deliberate attacks with at least a full division against all my 0.1 CV NKVD border guards and airborne brigades. This requires wasting quite a bit of movement points on those deliberate attacks.

Step 9: You have been doing this for a few turns, and then you look at the date and the weather report, and realize that heavy mud starts next week and you still have not taken Vyazma.