Matrix Games Forums

So to start, the most recent patch changes around CPP are definitely a step in the right direction in addressing some of the issues with how the CPP mechanic works (thanks devs!). That being said, it raised some bigger questions around CPP that I wanted to discuss. This is not meant to discuss balance of the game at all only how the CPP mechanic works.

TLDR
1. Do most players enjoy how CPP works in the game and does it achieve its design objectives?
2. Does CPP do anything that the fatigue mechanic doesn't or couldn't do?
3. Could we get a game option to disable CPP? (my assumption at this point is CPP probably won't be removed from the game and a significant overhaul of how it works won't be done so an option to disable might be the most likely solution)


I realize these are fairly significant questions but the CPP changes in the latest patch really got me thinking about CPP as a whole and some of the drawbacks of it. On paper, the CPP mechanic seems like a good idea to try to simulate units preparing for a major offensive operation instead of just pushing forward every turn but IMO, I don't know that the current mechanic really achieves that goal (that is at least my understanding of what it is supposed to simulate). Instead it seems to mostly just cause a lot of micromanagement of units where experienced players end up cycling units and minimizing how much CPP each attack costs. But they still push forward attacking turn after turn for the most part.

The main drawbacks I see of the current CPP mechanic are:
1. CPP loss per attack was the same for any battle regardless of odds and other factors. This is partially addressed in the latest patch by having different CPP loss per type of attack and final odds but I think this is mostly putting a band aid on what is kind of a broken mechanic. You still end up with lots of micromanagement to minimize CPP loss, it just isn't quite as bad as it was before. Now the question is do I break up the unit into regiments to minimize the number of units losing CPP or do I try to do a hasty attack with enough strong units to push the odds high enough to only take 10-20% CPP loss. So better but still not great...
2. CPP loss can cause unlucky battles to have more severe consequences. An example is if you attack a significant battle at say 3 to 1 odds but get unlucky leader rolls and lose, if you had high CPP to get those odds than follow up attacks often have even worse odds meaning that single unlucky battle had a major negative impact on the turn instead of a small set back. In comparison, without CPP you would instead just have some additional fatigue, losses, and combat delay but probably can win on the next attempt and still have a decent turn.
3. CPP system is very similar to fatigue except its more swingy and less gradual. Without CPP, units are primarily limited by fatigue which makes them less effective and supply. Fatigue seems to be a more gradual mechanic in terms of how much is gained and how it lowers vs CPP which losing 50% of it after a single battle makes units significantly less effective very quickly.

These drawbacks lead me to question whether CPP is a good mechanic as it works currently or whether the game would be better off just having fatigue to slowly make units less effective so players have to rest/conserve their forces. So I wonder whether a game option to disable CPP would be possible or if the devs would consider more drastic changes to how CPP works? For more drastic changes, I would suggest something like making CPP a smaller bonus say 25% that takes a few turns to build up but it lasts for the entire turn that the unit first attacks and then is set back to 0% at the end of the turn. This makes it better simulate a build up and then offensive operation and minimizes most/all of the drawbacks. It also makes it more of a unique mechanic that works differently from fatigue and should require less micromanagement and address the clear issues that the latest patch are just starting to tackle.

Anyways, I'm interested in other players thoughts on CPP and see what is possible to continue to improve the game. I don't consider myself an expert and maybe I'm just missing something but personally I don't really find the CPP mechanic fun and rewarding but maybe I'm in the minority.

redrum68 wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:27 am 2. CPP loss can cause unlucky battles to have more severe consequences. An example is if you attack a significant battle at say 3 to 1 odds but get unlucky leader rolls and lose, if you had high CPP to get those odds than follow up attacks often have even worse odds meaning that single unlucky battle had a major negative impact on the turn instead of a small set back. In comparison, without CPP you would instead just have some additional fatigue, losses, and combat delay but probably can win on the next attempt and still have a decent turn.

This seems like a particularly good insight that I have not thought of previously, at least just speaking for myself it didn’t ever occur to me.

I think your suggestion of having CPP last for the entire turn could potentially address that. Also, in theory the 2 ground phases are really simultaneous rather than sequential, so it is a bit strange in that respect that losing a battle during the “German turn” means that you have no CPP during the next “Soviet turn” or vice versa.

However, one thing I think you are overlooking about the difference between fatigue and CPP is that CPP primarily affects offensive CV, whereas fatigue affects offensive and defensive cv more or less equally. In this way, CPP is geared more specifically to promoting attacking and that can help make sure the game remains dynamic and doesn’t end up like world war 1.

For anyone who has played HOI4, CPP is similar to planning bonus in the sense that planning bonus only affects attack values, whereas entrenchment only affects battles where you are on the defensive.

So CPP is sort of like the counterpart/opposite of entrenchment, and it is the antidote to entrenchment (along with pioneers etc of course).

Beethoven1 wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:29 am However, one thing I think you are overlooking about the difference between fatigue and CPP is that CPP primarily affects offensive CV, whereas fatigue affects offensive and defensive cv more or less equally. In this way, CPP is geared more specifically to promoting attacking and that can help make sure the game remains dynamic and doesn’t end up like world war 1.

Good point. I would probably have fatigue impact attack CV more than defense CV as that is generally realistic anyways (units often would still defend ok but rarely attack effectively at higher fatigue levels). But yeah, we currently already have more ww1 stand offs than we want so would definitely want to consider that depending how CPP was changed...

I have no particular comment re CPP at present, but rather one about WW1 stand offs.

It has been many many years since I played wite#1 but I do recall there were a lot of issues re WW1 type stand-offs in that game depending on the patch.

The devs, however, I am confident are very familiar with many of the issues that wite#1 had and possibly still have, and thus have tried very hard to eliminate those in #2.

They have the game's best interests at heart and will not be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What are the CPP changes? I can't find patch notes for 39, or anything else explaining how CCP works now

Thanks

Just think Automatic Overrun, similar to the old board war games. You need high odds, and the better = less CPP loss.

Excellent fix/add for CPP loss when you have a Tank Corps or Panzer Division attacking a battalion or a roughed up NKVD regiment or a shattered, routed and low TOE division and only use 10 or 20 CPP instead of 50% on a speed bump.

DesertedFox wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:09 am It has been many many years since I played wite#1 but I do recall there were a lot of issues re WW1 type stand-offs in that game depending on the patch.

I think the general consensus is the last few versions of WitE 1 didn't have a WW1 standoff issue and if anything panzers were too strong and had too much movement. You can ask some of the other WitE 1 veterans but looking at some of the most recent WitE 1 AARs or loading up the game with the latest patch should show that.

TallBlondJohn wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 1:28 pm What are the CPP changes? I can't find patch notes for 39, or anything else explaining how CCP works now

Thanks

The latest patch notes can be found here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6&t=385750. The CPP changes which primarily start to address the first drawback I highlighted around CPP loss being 50% regardless of the battle are:
• The loss of combat preparation points (CPPs) by attacking units, instead of always being a 50% reduction in CPP, is now based on the type of attack and the final combat odds:
o Deliberate attack
<10 to 1 odds – 50% reduction
>=10<20 to 1 odds – 40% reduction
>=20<50 to 1 odds – 30% reduction
>=50 to 1 odds – 25% reduction
o Hasty attack
<10 to 1 odds – 50% reduction
>=10<20 to 1 odds – 35% reduction
>=20<50 to 1 odds – 20% reduction
>=50 to 1 odds – 10% reduction
• When the sub units of an Axis Division or Soviet Corps reform into the larger unit, the unit with the lowest CPP value is weighted as if it was two units, when calculating the unit CPP. Example: When units with 25, 50, and 100 CPPs recombine, the combined unit will have 50 CPPs ((25x2)+50+100/4).

Zovs wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 2:23 pm Just think Automatic Overrun, similar to the old board war games. You need high odds, and the better = less CPP loss.

Excellent fix/add for CPP loss when you have a Tank Corps or Panzer Division attacking a battalion or a roughed up NKVD regiment or a shattered, routed and low TOE division and only use 10 or 20 CPP instead of 50% on a speed bump.

Yeah the CPP changes are moving towards that which is definitely better than losing the 50% CPP as it worked before. Though that still doesn't address some of the other drawbacks I outlined with the CPP mechanic.

Thanks for the notes. Definitely an improvement.

My suggestion in the "Good game but..." thread linked the CPP loss to the defender's CPP rather than their combat strength (by using the final odds):

"a successful attacker loses a % of the defenders initial CPP. 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 CPP wiped out, even if they win. Quite right too. The loser loses 100% every time."

But now I realize that makes it trickier for the attacker to predict the CP loss as they can't see the defenders CP, just their strength (hopefully). I look forward to trying the new beta.

I remember when WiTE2 was first released and CPP was introduced as a recent change / new feature in comparison to WiTE1.

I immediately felt like this was an added game mechanic meant to degrade the initial combat strength of offensive forces, especially at the onset of Barbarossa - overlaid on top of the pre-existing combat game mechanics.

(isn't this what fatigue/supply was meant to handle? so now we have fatigue, supply and CPP in the mix?)

I was fairly neutral regarding CPP, but a little concerned on the rate that CPP degrades.

Going from 100 CPP to 50 CPP after 1 attack felt extreme.

Did not take too long where it became apparent that CPP could easily dominate combat mechanics.

Do people feel that the latest beta has got the right balance of friction versus disruption caused by opposition?

(I have been holding off jumping back into the deep end of the pool.)

Thanks.