Attack/SHC retreat loses screwed up? Close enough.

[mmarquo]

Pelton,

Logically it should cost the attacker a high butcher's bill to attack large stacks, +/- fortified, with defensive reserve activation, no? What do you think the overall attack/defender loss ratio should be? I get the feel that results are calculated as a percentage of the total forces in play, not the absolute numbers. This leads to real quirky things like 3 panzer divisions attacking a lonely tank brigade an inflicting 200 men loss - when in fact it should shatter or otherwise be wiped off the map.

Marquo

[Seminole]

Its not if you like or dislike results- they are and have always been the standard 43-45 results.

Pelton vs Hoooper / Pelton vs TDV ect ect ect I have the most 43-45 exp and have been posting results-Kamil/Katza?MT to name a few in my AAR's and other threads all have agreeded the results seem "wierd.messed up, not historical ect ect ect"

Take a crack at responding to what I actually wrote:

Why not turn up the detail level during combat and see where/what is causing these casualties?

If you're interested you could sandbox a few of these using the editor and playing both sides so you know what you're dealing with.

It's a lot more useful than saying every result you don't like (understand?) is broken.

If you'd take a second to read it you'd note I have not debated about whether or not it is broken. Instead I've encouraged you to dig a little deeper into what is making the difference. Bitching and guessing won't accomplish that.

The end results screen provides some info, but in other ways it is like displaying the average price of a product in Walmart. That average won't tell you what the cost is of the clock radio, or the LCD TV that is driving the cost average.

You love crunching the numbers, so watch some battles at high detail and figure out what is slaughtering your squads in these situations.

[randallw]

There's some major, perhaps even critica,l info missing from these battle results that Pelton is presenting: the fatigue and supply level of the units involved; obviously some won't be available to one side, but with none of that info we are left with making assumptions about what's causing the results, with incomplete data on the factors.

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: Seminole


Why not turn up the detail level during combat and see where/what is causing these casualties?

If you're interested you could sandbox a few of these using the editor and playing both sides so you know what you're dealing with.

Shouldn't be the combat system more transparent that at least it tells in the manual firing phase and sequence of combat? That's why I love HPS games with good manual telling the most essential part leaving out unnecessary stuff.
-----------------
IMHO players shouldn't be guessing when replying to absurd situation in combat if not proficient with the code. While I enjoy this game very much I still feel not comfortable after hearing battle engine will be better in our next game. [;)]

[morvael]

Players may be unhappy knowing the system works as a giant Warhammer Fantasy Battle, with tons of models (elements) standing across a wide (empty) battlefield and taking shots in turns and then reducing ranges until close combat starts. It's a bucket of dice combat system and there are generally no maneuvers on the battlefield (just like in WFB), plus the leaders get to make a few Leadership rolls. Of course that's a generalization, but that is how the system basically works. I call those bottom-up systems (thousands of individual shots/attacks determine outcome of the battle), which should average nicely (but sometimes don't). Unfortunately, I'm a fan of top-down systems which in their most crude form are represented by a CRT on which a die is rolled, but which on the computer (and in some monster boardgames - TitE) can be also made very feature-rich, but guarantee historical results (because those results are used to construct the system first).

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Pelton,

Logically it should cost the attacker a high butcher's bill to attack large stacks, +/- fortified, with defensive reserve activation, no? What do you think the overall attack/defender loss ratio should be? I get the feel that results are calculated as a percentage of the total forces in play, not the absolute numbers. This leads to real quirky things like 3 panzer divisions attacking a lonely tank brigade an inflicting 200 men loss - when in fact it should shatter or otherwise be wiped off the map.

Marquo

Marquo your changing subject again P stay on topic

I am 100% talking about SHC stacks in CLEAR HEXES WITHOUT FORTS

That route in many cases.

I am NOT talking about (+/- fortified, with defensive reserve activation,) or even high CV stacks.

P stay on topic.

These are clear cases of what should be huge wins for the attackers vs clear/small cv/no reserves/ no forts and route because there are 2 to 3 rows of 3 high stacks behind them.

There is no reason why the attacker should be taking more loses because they route the enemy.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Its not if you like or dislike results- they are and have always been the standard 43-45 results.

Pelton vs Hoooper / Pelton vs TDV ect ect ect I have the most 43-45 exp and have been posting results-Kamil/Katza?MT to name a few in my AAR's and other threads all have agreeded the results seem "wierd.messed up, not historical ect ect ect"

Take a crack at responding to what I actually wrote:

Why not turn up the detail level during combat and see where/what is causing these casualties?

If you're interested you could sandbox a few of these using the editor and playing both sides so you know what you're dealing with.

It's a lot more useful than saying every result you don't like (understand?) is broken.

If you'd take a second to read it you'd note I have not debated about whether or not it is broken. Instead I've encouraged you to dig a little deeper into what is making the difference. Bitching and guessing won't accomplish that.

The end results screen provides some info, but in other ways it is like displaying the average price of a product in Walmart. That average won't tell you what the cost is of the clock radio, or the LCD TV that is driving the cost average.

You love crunching the numbers, so watch some battles at high detail and figure out what is slaughtering your squads in these situations.

Submachine guns, but thats old news as it was pointed out to me over a yr ago by a bunch of other poeple on another thread.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: randallw

There's some major, perhaps even critica,l info missing from these battle results that Pelton is presenting: the fatigue and supply level of the units involved; obviously some won't be available to one side, but with none of that info we are left with making assumptions about what's causing the results, with incomplete data on the factors.

Supply is good ect ect.

This is from more then one game and over 16+ months. This is not a new issue.

The units were at the point of attack so hardly and movemnet and at a railhead.

Fat and supplies have nothing to do with the issue.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Players may be unhappy knowing the system works as a giant Warhammer Fantasy Battle, with tons of models (elements) standing across a wide (empty) battlefield and taking shots in turns and then reducing ranges until close combat starts. It's a bucket of dice combat system and there are generally no maneuvers on the battlefield (just like in WFB), plus the leaders get to make a few Leadership rolls. Of course that's a generalization, but that is how the system basically works. I call those bottom-up systems (thousands of individual shots/attacks determine outcome of the battle), which should average nicely (but sometimes don't). Unfortunately, I'm a fan of top-down systems which in their most crude form are represented by a CRT on which a die is rolled, but which on the computer (and in some monster boardgames - TitE) can be also made very feature-rich, but guarantee historical results (because those results are used to construct the system first).

The basic problem is that there are not enough ranged combat and infantry weapons do far more damage then they should. Thats why submachine guns are over powered once squads upgrade.

You can fight the same units before upgrades and retreat loses are 1 to 3 ish. Once upgrades are done attacking you lose more even when u rout units.

Again I am talking clear hexes no forts no reserve reactions and defender gets crushed with no plase to retreat to.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Pelton

...Semi there is NO debate about SHC retreat loses being to low and GHC winning results causing to many loses to GHC.

The real question is WTH are they going to fix it IF they even can.

66% of WitE is GHC defending and the results from the battles is just plain wrong.

The main reason why the issue has been ignored by 2by3 is because 99% of WitE games end by March 1942.

So if WitE results from 43-45 are wrong and then why would anyone beleive that WitW's combat engine is anything other then wrong?

...

There has been plenty of discussion on this issue in the public and tester forums in the past. It's been around for a long time and certainly has not been ignored. As I said above, if there was an easy and safe fix it would have been done already. Making significant changes to the combat engine in WitE would involve months of retesting the campaigns and late game scenarios and even then we might not catch all the problems it could cause. Results could easily turn out worse rather than better which would then involve months of rebalancing and more testing. Joel has said many times that the devs and most testers are now focused on WitW. So while bugs will still be fixed in WitE there will not be major changes to the game at this point.

Please do not draw any conclusions regarding combat in WitW. Many changes have already been made to combat in that game from the baseline WitE routines. More changes will certainly be made as testing moves forward. The reason it is much safer to make changes to WitW is simply due to it being in test, not an already published game like WitE.

Ok I will agree that WitW can and hopefully wiill be better then wite after October 1942.

From 10/1942 to 1945 GHC can not do a thing other then sit and get punched in the face which is not fun and not historical.

If the GHC attacks an wins (clear hexes, not forts ect ect Marquo) it will suffer the same loses as defending and retreating 3 to 6 times.

So you would be a moron to attack from late 42 to 45 because you will be shortening the life of the German army.

It is what it is and we are stuck with it.

No tring to change the subject with change the results.

[Seminole]

Submachine guns, but thats old news as it was pointed out to me over a yr ago by a bunch of other poeple on another thread.

So you've watched these battles at high detail to see that's where the squad slaughter is taking place in these instances, or are you simply assuming that is what it taking place here based on what someone else told you over a year ago?

If you're confident that SMGs are the operant difference than it should be cake to sandbox and observe this with identical conditions (same hex type, weather, attacking units and values - just create different TOE defenders and run it through a few times to avg out die rolls).

If SMGs are overpowered, I don't understand why dialing that back would otherwise break the game. Seems like something that could be corrected when identified.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Submachine guns, but thats old news as it was pointed out to me over a yr ago by a bunch of other poeple on another thread.

So you've watched these battles at high detail to see that's where the squad slaughter is taking place in these instances, or are you simply assuming that is what it taking place here based on what someone else told you over a year ago?

If you're confident that SMGs are the operant difference than it should be cake to sandbox and observe this with identical conditions (same hex type, weather, attacking units and values - just create different TOE defenders and run it through a few times to avg out die rolls).

If SMGs are overpowered, I don't understand why dialing that back would otherwise break the game. Seems like something that could be corrected when identified.

Its not so easy from what I have been told.

As with everything one little tweak has far reaching effects when your talking 100's of turns, 1000's of battles and 100,000's of die rolls.

I am confident now witw will not have same issues, which means wite 2.0 will also not have same issue.

[mmarquo]

A juicy Soviet Tank/Cavalry Stack is exposed after trouncing an Axis fortified hex:

[mmarquo]

An experiment: the infantry adjacent to the stack attaks alone, after a preliminary air-ground attack:

[mmarquo]

Now, imagine what would happen if I amassd multiple panzer units for the counterstrike after the same air-ground attack...

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Now, imagine what would happen if I amassd multiple panzer units for the counterstrike after the same air-ground attack...

Interesting results, but they are 180 degrees from the ones I posted and have in the past.

Post#2 and #9

[mmarquo]

What I do not understand:

1st Case: Modified CVs 307/84, odds 3.6:1, and no air units from either side participate

2nd Case: Modified CVs 1115/121, odds 9.2:1, robust air support

And...losses in both case about equal?


Why do 6 infantry divisions attacking at lower odds without air support inflict about equal damage to 2 Tank Corps/1 Cavalry Corps as 6 panzer/PzG divisions and 2 infantry divisions at much greater odds?



I am not suggesting that anything is broken, rather I would like to know why things work this way:

Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantyl greater damage at lower loss?

However, this does debunk claims that the attacking is not wise - it is very wise as the routed units are unavailable next turn, the moral equilibrium is favorably shifted and the loss ratio is favorable.

Final note: I replayed this from my last move with TD after I sent him the finished move; for the record I want to assure him that I do not reload saves when I play - this was an experiment to explore the notions raised in this thread.

Thanks,

Marquo

[Peltonx]

This is really standard results after 10/1942.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

What I do not understand:

1st Case: Modified CVs 307/84, odds 3.6:1, and no air units from either side participate

2nd Case: Modified CVs 1115/121, odds 9.2:1, robust air support

And...losses in both case about equal?


Why do 6 infantry divisions attacking at lower odds without air support inflict about equal damage to 2 Tank Corps/1 Cavalry Corps as 6 panzer/PzG divisions and 2 infantry divisions at much greater odds?



I am not suggesting that anything is broken, rather I would like to know why things work this way:

Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantyl greater damage at lower loss?

However, this does debunk claims that the attacking is not wise - it is very wise as the routed units are unavailable next turn, the moral equilibrium is favorably shifted and the loss ratio is favorable.

Final note: I replayed this from my last move with TD after I sent him the finished move; for the record I want to assure him that I do not reload saves when I play - this was an experiment to explore the notions raised in this thread.

Thanks,

Marquo

Thats because if you watch the rounds, before the retreat The loses are like 1700 German and 1700 russian, the retreat loses causes the 2500 extra loses NOTHING to do with tanks/guns/planes or men.

So you can have 1000000000000 or 500 CV the result will be about the same.

Its really not all that random, the retreat losses that is.

The round by round loses can be random.

[mmarquo]

"Interesting results, but they are 180 degrees from the ones I posted and have in the past."

I can't explain that, however what I posted above is my routine experience counterttacking the Soviet in 1943; they suffer greivously while I incur acceptable losses. And beleive me, 5 such attacks per turn has kept the SU in check; and often I lose even less and the Soviet more. My questions above stand:

"Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantly greater damage at lower loss?"

Hopefully there is some logic to this - I really want to understand what is going on.

IMHO you have lost many valuable opportunities to smack MT around in your match with him; most turns he left victorious but spent stacks next to you in unfortfied hexes; without even moving a unit you could have counterattacked and really hurt him.

Marquo