The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

[Michael T]

If they took everything out of WITE that is 'gamey' I am not sure there would be any game left

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

If they took everything out of WITE that is 'gamey' I am not sure there would be any game left

That might be very true. Hench me saying about the Lvov pocket: Any how its in the game now and we just have to deal with that [:)]

That should stop some one from calling a spade a spade tho,

Rasmus

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

If you cut Mp's then SHC games sytem running.

Many guys make the Lvov pocket leaky so the SHC will send in help, then bag even more units on 2nd turn. The "cut off" panzer units will be 90% full of gas so as you get to them they still have 40MP's.

Flaviusx has got it right, it is what it is because of the game mechanics.

No reason to mess up 225 turns because of 1/3 of a turn.

I don't understand your logic here. The editor allows you to adjust the MPs for each unit on the 'first' turn of a scenario. On the second turn the MPs will be at the normal setting based on type of unit, experience, supply etc. Why would this mess up 225 turns anymore than the Lvov Pocket does or doesn't do already?

I agree that the first turn is not right but I am faintly amazed that the player community's only approach is to suggest numerous changes that can only be implemented by the Devs. The same Devs who I presume are much more focused on WitW (the source of new revenue) and therefore unlikely to implement any such changes. This 'Dev fix it' approach is adopted on a number of other elements which can be easily fixed using the editor (e.g. the Stalingrad unit withdrawals)

I am not saying that using the editor will deliver a 100% solution - but then again neither do I believe that changes to the first turn rules would solve all the problems. What I am saying is that a sub optimal solution (but still an improvement) may be availble now and might be worth exploring further.

[Helpless]

Thanks for the good post, John.

[gradenko2k]

I see the Lvov Gambit as really the result of a 'perfect storm' of multiple factors.

Any historical turn-based wargame is in a position where the player that goes first always knows his opponent's first-turn dispositions, but it's quite a few other things as well that makes the Lvov Gambit possible:

First: The relative strengths of the forces - if this was something like a Fulda Gap scenario where the competency/quality, if not the quantity, of forces is fairly even, the Red Army player going first probably would not be able to execute the same first turn every time because he wouldn't be able to guarantee that the sequence of attacks A then B then C would all succeed. The Soviets in WITE however are weak enough that the German player can make the same attacks over and over across multiple games and still be fairly confident that they'll all go off as planned.

It's somewhat akin to if the Japanese player knows that this percent of the US BBs will always sink during the Pearl Harbor attack, and so he rations his escorts under the fated knowledge of that happening.

The other big factor that makes this possible is the scale involved, both in terms of distance and time. A single turn in War in the Pacific is one day, and save the first-turn-movement-bonus of the Japanese on Dec 7 1941, getting ANYWHERE takes multiple turns, giving the defender a chance to discern your movement. Even if WITP used an IGOUGO system instead of simultaneous execution, the fact that you need several days to march through jungle or sail to an island means you're going to telegraph your intentions at some point or another, which gives the other side a chance to react.

In contrast, the Lvov Gambit works because it can be pulled off in a single turn due to the week-long time and panzer-driving distance, and because there's very little randomness to the success or failure of the sequence of attacks involved, due to how weak the Soviets and how strong the Germans are.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: lycortas

That is one of the saddest things about this game; it is in some ways less advanced than Grigsby's games from the late 80's early 90's.

I am semi okay with igo ugo for this as it shows tempo of the campaign. But to make this work the game should have constriction penalties. I have played games a decade, 2 decades ago that had a +1 movement point addition to a hex for every unit that moved through it on your turn. That would have fixed this problem in Lvov.

This game has an illusion of depth due to its huge counter mix but it is extremely simple in many ways, weather, movement and combat.

As an example, IRL the Germans took about 900,000 casualties by November '41, about the same as they took in two months against France. However, i have been watching AARs, playing my own games, etc and i have never seen a German opponent take 900,000 casualties by November. So the designers made winter extra harsh. Balances things or something.

I am not sure if this would be a fix but turn by turn VP for cities might make a better campaign. Maybe that would be breakable by the Cult of cheese on the forums though.

Mike

Not sure where you get these numbers, German ARMY casualties in all of 1939-1941 June, STILL had not reached 900.000. I would imagine there were also naval and Luftwaffe casualties, but cannot imagine they were more than the army which had done most of the fighting.

[Flaviusx]

Seaton quotes Halder as stating that German casualties were in the neighborhood of 686,000 as of 4 November. No doubt that went up a lot before the year was out. 900,000 is plausible.

Even as early as mid August German casualties exceeded 440,000.

In general, the game's combat engine simply doesn't generate these kind of losses for the Axis in 1941, and the numbers get made up for during the blizzard. It's all a bit contrived.

At the same time, I have real doubts that the game's replacement system could handle the historical losses. (This is also true for the Red Army during the same time period, which starts falling apart after 3 million in losses or so, and if anybody got up to the 5 million historical, the game would be over. The replacement system simply can't handle those numbers. It doesn't even produce that many replacements during this period.)

[janh]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

ORIGINAL: lycortas

That is one of the saddest things about this game; it is in some ways less advanced than Grigsby's games from the late 80's early 90's.

I am semi okay with igo ugo for this as it shows tempo of the campaign. But to make this work the game should have constriction penalties. I have played games a decade, 2 decades ago that had a +1 movement point addition to a hex for every unit that moved through it on your turn. That would have fixed this problem in Lvov.

This game has an illusion of depth due to its huge counter mix but it is extremely simple in many ways, weather, movement and combat.

As an example, IRL the Germans took about 900,000 casualties by November '41, about the same as they took in two months against France. However, i have been watching AARs, playing my own games, etc and i have never seen a German opponent take 900,000 casualties by November. So the designers made winter extra harsh. Balances things or something.

I am not sure if this would be a fix but turn by turn VP for cities might make a better campaign. Maybe that would be breakable by the Cult of cheese on the forums though.

Mike

Not sure where you get these numbers, German ARMY casualties in all of 1939-1941 June, STILL had not reached 900.000. I would imagine there were also naval and Luftwaffe casualties, but cannot imagine they were more than the army which had done most of the fighting.

Mike's number's sound quite right. A while back there was already a discussion about that. There are some original German records in the Offical Reports of the OKW, which I recall were a similar ball-park figure. I can look it up tonight, if necessary. Generally in most AARs the German casualties seem comparably low, which may be due to the different course and nature most AARs take from history. Back in time there seems to have been a lot harder fighting on both sides - for whatever myriad of reasons.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing "some statistics" to "in-game statistics", though, is to be sure that the counting is done in same way. For instance I read German statistics that counted German wounded only as wounded if they'd not be able to fight anymore, whereas others also counted only lightly injured as well. I noticed this trick was used on the Soviet casualties to exaggerate the latter and lower the former. The Soviet'd probably used similar tricks. WiTE does the accounting its own way, and may or may not be comparable to any given data.

[Scook_99]

I play both sides, and as the game stands, it is an evil necessity. I like to think of it as the Kiev pocket, but early. I read where German casualty figures are too low. I am feeling players here are aping what they see, on both sides, and attacking is easier than defending. The early Soviet game play isn't evolving, it seems to be run, run, away. If you can fight along the way as Russian, there will be more German casualties, and that number will approach 900,000 in November, give or take 150,000. I am not saying forward defense, as that is Russian suicide in the game we currently have.I won't state anything new, but the best fixes I see:

- 2 turns a week instead of 1
- Dynamic victory conditions making you fight or lose
- op tempo needs to come down (Flaviusx is right, but with a caveat)


I think more turns is the best solution, moving only 25mp instead of 50 opens up the Lvov pocket, and makes for more interaction of pocketing units. Since the turn length is pretty set in stone, this one is out.

Victory conditions making you fight, kinda cheesy in the grand scheme of things, Russians and Germans mostly fought and died horribly while not falling back. This will put USSR in a severe bind, as we know fighting forward early will take out too many Russians because of....

Op-tempo, which should come down somewhat. People do like offense more, so it is high, too high. Bringing it down will help, but that would mean in the current state of the game, Axis players will be further behind as they cannot catch up to retreating Russians. On it's own, this wouldn't work either.

So, multiple things would have to change in order to "balance" the game out, as it stands. Otherwise, we get the Lvov Pocket as it stands. My faith has waivered, but it is back with the 2X3 crew, as this is still the best eastern front game for me. This is still one of the most active sections on the Matrix boards. No matter what you think, this has done what entertainment should do: evoke strong emotions.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

ORIGINAL: lycortas

That is one of the saddest things about this game; it is in some ways less advanced than Grigsby's games from the late 80's early 90's.

I am semi okay with igo ugo for this as it shows tempo of the campaign. But to make this work the game should have constriction penalties. I have played games a decade, 2 decades ago that had a +1 movement point addition to a hex for every unit that moved through it on your turn. That would have fixed this problem in Lvov.

This game has an illusion of depth due to its huge counter mix but it is extremely simple in many ways, weather, movement and combat.

As an example, IRL the Germans took about 900,000 casualties by November '41, about the same as they took in two months against France. However, i have been watching AARs, playing my own games, etc and i have never seen a German opponent take 900,000 casualties by November. So the designers made winter extra harsh. Balances things or something.

I am not sure if this would be a fix but turn by turn VP for cities might make a better campaign. Maybe that would be breakable by the Cult of cheese on the forums though.

Mike

Not sure where you get these numbers, German ARMY casualties in all of 1939-1941 June, STILL had not reached 900.000. I would imagine there were also naval and Luftwaffe casualties, but cannot imagine they were more than the army which had done most of the fighting.

Mike's number's sound quite right. A while back there was already a discussion about that. There are some original German records in the Offical Reports of the OKW, which I recall were a similar ball-park figure. I can look it up tonight, if necessary. Generally in most AARs the German casualties seem comparably low, which may be due to the different course and nature most AARs take from history. Back in time there seems to have been a lot harder fighting on both sides - for whatever myriad of reasons.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing "some statistics" to "in-game statistics", though, is to be sure that the counting is done in same way. For instance I read German statistics that counted German wounded only as wounded if they'd not be able to fight anymore, whereas others also counted only lightly injured as well. I noticed this trick was used on the Soviet casualties to exaggerate the latter and lower the former. The Soviet'd probably used similar tricks. WiTE does the accounting its own way, and may or may not be comparable to any given data.

Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland..the German records of their own war casualties, published by the West German government some ..16 yrs after the war's end...shows ~~around 47.000 killed and missing from the army in the campaign in the west(France, Belgium, Netherlands combined) And show approximately 250.000 killed or missing, from June 1941-November 1941. Playing either side in this game, those have been fairly close..as the German side, of course, being that this is a game, we already expect the vicious winter, etc..so THAT advantage cannot be overcome, just as the Soviet side, obviously since this is ABOUT the war, already knows the Germans will attack, which is a bit of information denied to them by Stalin in the historic example.So, all in all, there always will be gamey things that you cannot get rid of, since, in fact, you are playing a game.

[Flaviusx]

Kg, those numbers don't include the wounded, presumably, and are therefore not a complete accounting of casualties. Leaving out the wounded will considerably understate losses.

[Walloc]

As casulties are being discussed.

http://ww2stats.com/index.html

Among other things there are listings of the original OKW 10 by 10 day loss reports and also adding them up. Its quite easy to for example finding losses on the eastern front at any given periode. Note on finding the pre 1941 figurs. They are there, just for some reason listed seperately. Also there are pictures of photocopies of various OKW/OKH/OKM/OKL loss reports and many other things.

Yes im aware and have studied Dr Per Rüdiger Overmans studies and his critic of OKW figurs. One should be keenly aware that there are problems in comparing numbers, not that i say his figurs are incorrect, but he just has a different methode in giving figurs.
Also critisc/comments on his works has been made. Unfortunatly Nicklas Zetterlings isnt available online any more, at leased that i know off.

Here is a very brief overview of Dr Per Rüdiger Overmans studies. Tho wiki, figurs seem to be correct and the same as on atop sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cas ... rld_War_II

Here are some comments on his critic on OKW figurs from the site listed atop.

http://ww2stats.com/Overmans.pdf

Nicklas Zetterling has also made statiscal analysis's on losses and they are available in book form again as his site have been down for quite a while.


Any how, enjoy. What ever is thot of the different schools of thot on this i find this a good site to begin at, if u wana know some thing about german losses.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Walloc
http://ww2stats.com/index.html

Nice, these are exactly the tables I was thinking of. Obviously they reprinted them almost identically in the edited version that was published post war. I like that, means it is "raw data".

For about 200,000-300,000 death reported by the different studies between June and December 1941, the rule of thumb would say about another 600k to 900k, were long-term wounded or permanently out of action. So by October being around some 900k may be a gross but reasonable estimate.


Scook_99, you are pretty much on the mark and state the same things a lot of people here have said, and would agree with. Surely the fact that the Soviets contested the territory much tougher, and counterattacked on many opportunities on many force scales "attritted" the Germans, but the Germans seem to also have fought things out on more engagements -- as players with all these CVs and other stats, fog of war or not, we can be much more selective. And we have the benefit of hindsight, none of us believes that the war can never be lost, and must be over by Christmas -- so a few extra casualties won't make a difference, the Russians are inferior anyway... all this kind of illogical thinking that misguided (many of) the Germans.

I am more and more convinced that with the recent changes in the patches, the Soviets can't survive the casualties, strategy and tactics their historical counterparts showed without getting so far off track that Berlin by May 45 would still be reasonably possible. The more forces they risk, the quicker they will loose their long term prospects. One must keep in mind that despite all the mistakes they made and the chaos and casualties, they were still strong enough to stop the Germans at Leningrad and at Moscow.

Even if you take hindsight on both sides into account (which would allow the German smarter strategies, less uneconomic fighting and the realization that the long run counts as well; and the Soviets to realize that their fate was about preserving their Army more so than terrain or a few factories, while not loosing too much population), defending Moscow and Leningrad simultaneously seems to be a tough nut to crack, if not almost impossible even without huge losses prior.

Unfortunately with Lvov, the impossibility to adjust within a turn as a defender (and cause a meeting engagement or so), and this rule that units pockets become cripples pretty immediately, at least one large case where the Germans where slowed down and suffered severely is already taken care of. And there is indeed no chance that the Soviets can change that, i.e. also have the possibility to do better than history (like the Germans with sending more units to AGS) since they can only react after the deal is closed already. Imagine the isolation only taking effect in the next opponents turn, i.e. after a complete weeks turn, and the units in the pocket still be unaffected in Soviet part of the same turn. It would still not be the same as being able to react rather than to blind-guess your defensive positioning, but it would change the Lvov (and the rest) dramatically.

I would very much like an alternative rule where pockets suffer less immediately and just loose some effectiveness per turn. Maybe allow pockets automatically to function under "beach supply rules" for the next two weeks. Even it were only an "unsupported rule", in case it breaks other issues or the AI. It might improve things a lot.

[amatteucci]

Speaking of the impossibility of bleeding the Wehrmacht white during the first stages of Barbarossa in WitE, has anyone toyed with the logistics, morale, transport etc. levels trying to obtain a casualty rate more similar to the actual one (without hampering the Germans' ability to advance as fast as thei did)?
I wonder whether the issues with the current combat and logistic model might be partially addressed dialing some (variable with month?) ad hoc values into the options panel.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Kg, those numbers don't include the wounded, presumably, and are therefore not a complete accounting of casualties. Leaving out the wounded will considerably understate losses.

Ah..Good point, not sure how I missed that..Thanks!

[kg_1007]

Generaly, Flavius' earlier comment is about right also..the blizzard effect seems almost designed to "make up" for the ease of earlier for the Axis side.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Generaly, Flavius' earlier comment is about right also..the blizzard effect seems almost designed to "make up" for the ease of earlier for the Axis side.

Almost? [:D]

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I don't understand your logic here. The editor allows you to adjust the MPs for each unit on the 'first' turn of a scenario. On the second turn the MPs will be at the normal setting based on type of unit, experience, supply etc. Why would this mess up 225 turns anymore than the Lvov Pocket does or doesn't do already?

I agree that the first turn is not right but I am faintly amazed that the player community's only approach is to suggest numerous changes that can only be implemented by the Devs. The same Devs who I presume are much more focused on WitW (the source of new revenue) and therefore unlikely to implement any such changes. This 'Dev fix it' approach is adopted on a number of other elements which can be easily fixed using the editor (e.g. the Stalingrad unit withdrawals)

I am not saying that using the editor will deliver a 100% solution - but then again neither do I believe that changes to the first turn rules would solve all the problems. What I am saying is that a sub optimal solution (but still an improvement) may be availble now and might be worth exploring further.

While what you say is true, part of the issue is the community has not deemed player made mods to be something they will play. If it isn't "official", it sees very little interest.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I don't understand your logic here. The editor allows you to adjust the MPs for each unit on the 'first' turn of a scenario. On the second turn the MPs will be at the normal setting based on type of unit, experience, supply etc. Why would this mess up 225 turns anymore than the Lvov Pocket does or doesn't do already?

I agree that the first turn is not right but I am faintly amazed that the player community's only approach is to suggest numerous changes that can only be implemented by the Devs. The same Devs who I presume are much more focused on WitW (the source of new revenue) and therefore unlikely to implement any such changes. This 'Dev fix it' approach is adopted on a number of other elements which can be easily fixed using the editor (e.g. the Stalingrad unit withdrawals)

I am not saying that using the editor will deliver a 100% solution - but then again neither do I believe that changes to the first turn rules would solve all the problems. What I am saying is that a sub optimal solution (but still an improvement) may be availble now and might be worth exploring further.

While what you say is true, part of the issue is the community has not deemed player made mods to be something they will play. If it isn't "official", it sees very little interest.

This would be very bad news, as I have spent a great deal of time creating a mod...almost since I purchased the game.....

[lycortas]

I hope you guys don't mind me morphing the topic but it was touched on...

What is up with replacements? I am experimenting playing with the Soviets to maybe start a MP game soon. I saved essentially all of my armaments industry. By early '42 my armaments points are huge and growing, and my manpower is not quite as huge but is also growing. But every turn i get 150,000-160,000 new men into the line. Um, guys, could we add a few more? I have like 20,000 already formed infantry squads in the pool, etc.

I cannot get the troops into the field, i have tried lots of refit, some refit, no refit, everyone is at 100% toe.
Is this normal? And is this stupid? I do not need to save armaments since i never use them all any way.

thanks for anyone's help
Mike