PBEM: Eastern Front 1941-1945 or EA 2012?

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
Just like to add my pitiful whine to all the rest moaning about the effects of 3.4 on defense. I've been tending to play pre-WWI and other funny scenarios for quite a while now. I've seen the debate here and on Matrix, but didn't really take it in. Now admittedly I've never been a master player, but in this EA game against Mr Clubber it's turn 16 and I've taken Poland: taken Denmark: failed in an assault on Norway, failed to take Holland or Belgium (which mobilised when the Western Allies declared war) and have just about driven the French back across their border. The Finns are crumbling and I've lost Persia. I've taken 30+k HRS losses and am not especially confident of taking Paris, let alone attacking the Balkans or the USSR. The patch really has swung things in WWII games in favour of the defense, hasn't it?

Even Mr C reckons that a decent Axis player might do best just to advance to a defensible river line in Russia and dig in, hoping that the Red Army will bleed itself to death in fruitless assaults.

This certainly isn't the scenario that Ulver and I, with help from countless others, designed over the years. :cry::cry::cry:
I understand your initial shock. Most usual EA players had it also when changing from the previous TOAW version to the current.

The RFC (retreat from combat) calculations concerning defensive units on fortified status (entrenched at a lesser scale) were overrated on 3.4 version.
Some scenarios suffer more than other. EA is one of those that suffers more because Arty availability (on both sides) is rather scarce compared with smaller scale scenarios. Without vast concentrations of fire support is now difficult to cause even a small (fortified) enemy unit to RFC resulting on a slower game flow.

However thanks to your and Ulver incredible design EA is much more than pure combat results. It's strategical planning, resouces management and critical options players must take that definitively influence the result of the game and still brings a lot of fun.

I had already several games under this last version (2 played until 300ish turn, both sides) and can assure you that this scenario keeps intact all the simulation possibilities EA is well known for providing and only players' decisions, skill and strategic options will determine the winner - same as before.
You must remember EA (like WWII) has two big moments - Axis attacking initially and Allies later - so both sides will benefit at different moments from the "3.4 defense bonus bug". It's a bit more difficult to be Axis on the first half of war but it's also a bit more difficult to play Allies on the second half.

And... if somebody "official" would care, some more adjustments could be implemented and would make EA better adapted to 3.4 version... but that's another story...
 
Last edited:

sealclubber

Recruit
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Seal City
Country
llCanada
Just like to add my pitiful whine to all the rest moaning about the effects of 3.4 on defense. I've been tending to play pre-WWI and other funny scenarios for quite a while now. I've seen the debate here and on Matrix, but didn't really take it in. Now admittedly I've never been a master player, but in this EA game against Mr Clubber it's turn 16 and I've taken Poland: taken Denmark: failed in an assault on Norway, failed to take Holland or Belgium (which mobilised when the Western Allies declared war) and have just about driven the French back across their border. The Finns are crumbling and I've lost Persia. I've taken 30+k HRS losses and am not especially confident of taking Paris, let alone attacking the Balkans or the USSR. The patch really has swung things in WWII games in favour of the defense, hasn't it?

Even Mr C reckons that a decent Axis player might do best just to advance to a defensible river line in Russia and dig in, hoping that the Red Army will bleed itself to death in fruitless assaults.

This certainly isn't the scenario that Ulver and I, with help from countless others, designed over the years. :cry::cry::cry:
I like the higher losses incurred from combat. I like that you need to put more thought into strategy now rather than choose the shock TO and attack in a straightline to Paris, but the defence is definitely overblown. We'll try that house rule as a 3.4 fix, but I think TOAW 3.5 needs to tone down retreat cancellation chances, allow the assault ratio to influence the retreat cancellation chance (both positively and negatively) and EA needs its entrenchment rate significantly lowered so that it takes maybe ~6 weeks to reach fortified status from scratch rather than 3.

That would mean that breaking open a prepared defensive position would still incur heavy losses, as it should. You would still want to look for ways to avoid prepared defences, as you should. But once you crack the line it'll be much harder for the defender to re-fortify.

France would still be a pig though because you only need to defend Paris. That could be easily fixed by moving the Paris supply point to Orleans or elsewhere so that the turtle around Paris strategy would be easily circumvented. The French would be forced to maintain communications to the coast or Orleans for supply purposes.
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
I like the higher losses incurred from combat.
Latest Veers 2012 EA version decreased AD (atrition divider) from 10 (default) to 8 - meaning more combat losses (both sides). The rationale behind this change was increasing losses in order to force RFC on defensive units. However as attacker losses also increase this should have been be done together with a timed adjustment on equipment / reinforcements' levels. As it is - on long play terms - these higher losses unbalances Axis side more than it should. Wise Axis players tend to be much more carefull and less bold in their actions, slowing even more the game flow. Chech here (post 5 - point 6) what was suggested more than a year ago about this matter.

EA needs its entrenchment rate significantly lowered so that it takes maybe ~6 weeks to reach fortified status from s cratch rather than 3.
That would mean that breaking open a prepared defensive position would still incur heavy losses, as it should. You would still want to look for ways to avoid prepared defences, as you should. But once you crack the line it'll be much harder for the defender to re-fortify.
That's very true and was done on lastest Veers 2012 EA version. Entrenchment rate was decreased from 100 to 80. However i fully agree with you and entrenchement should be lowered even further.


France would still be a pig though because you only need to defend Paris. That could be easily fixed by moving the Paris supply point to Orleans or elsewhere so that the turtle around Paris strategy would be easily circumvented. The French would be forced to maintain communications to the coast or Orleans for supply purposes.
That's a simple and very good idea. I wouldn't choose Orleans but a port on the channel or Britanny.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
As we discussed separately, I think a quick and dirty solution, avoiding honour rules, might be to set Entrenchment to zero until this is fixed. Then units in IL represent those ordered to entrench and hang on to the bitter end. It would certainly restore fluidity to what was intended to be a fluid scenario.
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
As we discussed separately, I think a quick and dirty solution, avoiding honour rules, might be to set Entrenchment to zero until this is fixed. Then units in IL represent those ordered to entrench and hang on to the bitter end. It would certainly restore fluidity to what was intended to be a fluid scenario.
At first sight 0% entrenchment seems too extreme... but probably you're right. It definitively would restore fluidity. I wouldn't mind testing it.

But in that case i'd suggest re-setting AD to 10 (default).
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
I'd be willing to give that a crack, even if we end up falling about with laughter as the Germans storm into Paris in October 1939.

Might need to look at the fixed settings of some of the starting garrison/static units.

Where's the SP I put in Riga so that the Balts don't wither away from the start? It wasn't in the EA 2012 I downloaded.
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
I'd be willing to give that a crack, even if we end up falling about with laughter as the Germans storm into Paris in October 1939.

Might need to look at the fixed settings of some of the starting garrison/static units.

Where's the SP I put in Riga so that the Balts don't wither away from the start? It wasn't in the EA 2012 I downloaded.
Even if it was anounced Veers missed Riga SP for some reason. However Baltic surrender city should still be Kovno (112,62), right?

0 moviment units can keep fortified status. Why not?

If i can be of some assistance please use jrrusso at mail dot telepac dot pt previous to first turn.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Surrender point should also be Riga, but that did get incorporated in EA2012, so there must have been some discussion about it. I may get in touch re O entrenchment, I want to play around with it first, it may be too extreme.
 

The Vince

Recruit
Joined
Nov 18, 2002
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Can you make it so that it takes 8 weeks to get a unit into fortified. Thats would force players to think where they wanne defend and plan ahead.
Germany needs a few artillery units extra from the start also imo. By the time they come its already late in the game. Russia has so many overpowered artillery units its drives me mad.
Just a few would help Axis to overcome hardened Russian positions.

thx for your attention:)
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
The problem as I understand it is that the 3.4 patch makes it incredibly hard to shirt fortified units on Ignore Losses, so even extending the entrenching period to eight weeks will still leave open the potential for lines and/or layers of rock solid defenders.

I'm going to try out zero entrenchment first: it seems a pity to have to explore that option, but there's a wealth of evidence that the patch has seriously unbalanced things. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3056061
 

sealclubber

Recruit
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Seal City
Country
llCanada
Latest Veers 2012 EA version decreased AD (atrition divider) from 10 (default) to 8 - meaning more combat losses (both sides). The rationale behind this change was increasing losses in order to force RFC on defensive units. However as attacker losses also increase this should have been be done together with a timed adjustment on equipment / reinforcements' levels. As it is - on long play terms - these higher losses unbalances Axis side more than it should. Wise Axis players tend to be much more carefull and less bold in their actions, slowing even more the game flow. Chech here (post 5 - point 6) what was suggested more than a year ago about this matter.
The only issue I see with this is it seems that on IL, units ignore losses to trigger a retreat check, so you're only relying on morale checks. Granted, they sort of go hand in hand (a unit that takes heavy losses is probably hurting on readiness/supply as well) but as far as I understand the TOAW engine, the loss of readiness/supply is more a function of how many times a unit is attacked (or for how long) rather than based on losses.

That's very true and was done on lastest Veers 2012 EA version. Entrenchment rate was decreased from 100 to 80. However i fully agree with you and entrenchement should be lowered even further.
I think it just makes sense personally. Once a prepared line is cracked it should not be easy for the defender to throw a couple of sacrificial rear guards in the way and then have another fully fortified line for the attackers to go through again. It never worked that way in reality. Prepared defences at Kursk for example took months to prepare to that depth and to me that is the what Fortified should represent. So if a defender's main line is breached and they want to setup another one, they should have to give up a lot of territory. The enjoyment and magic of the defensive game, for me anyways, is not just in the counter-attacks, but in anticipating the attacker's moves and knowing where to start putting up the next line


That's a simple and very good idea. I wouldn't choose Orleans but a port on the channel or Britanny.
My only concern is, based on my Axis EA game, the French are basically speed bumps in a mobile war, assuming the Axis player takes steps to control the air over the western front. And with pre-war builds and an intelligent air campaign (that takes advantages of the ranges of different air units) it is virtually impossible for the Allied player to put up a strong, sustained defence against a good Axis air deployment. The inverse is not true - unless the Axis player makes a mistake in his deployment, the Allied player cannot really win air supremacy in the West. At best, the Allies can fiercely contest the air for most or all of the campaign.

I also think if putting the SP in Brittany or somewhere far away would encourage unrealistic Axis campaigns where they would breakthrough somewhere and just roll up all the coastal SPs to starve the French. Shadow initially is the one that suggested it and I like the idea of Orleans mainly because the French can still prepare defences as they would have in real life, but they cannot simply turtle around Paris... if they do it'll be easy for the German player to put them out of supply. So they must defend a much larger area if they want to just build up Fortress Paris.

But at this point, I think putting all options on the table and trying them out is the only way to really figure it out. The house rule of not allowing units to be on IL works - but it's an unenforceable honour rule that is a pain in the backside to manage while playing. It'd be better if the 0 entrenchment option worked, but I fear it'll make Russia a push over
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
The only issue I see with this is it seems that on IL, units ignore losses to trigger a retreat check, so you're only relying on morale checks. Granted, they sort of go hand in hand (a unit that takes heavy losses is probably hurting on readiness/supply as well) but as far as I understand the TOAW engine, the loss of readiness/supply is more a function of how many times a unit is attacked (or for how long) rather than based on losses.
Sorry to disagree but problem isn't exactly with ignore losses. IL works as always did. Of course, under IL units get stubborn as intented.
3.4 version left IL untouched.

On 3.4 version were made RFC adjustments (especially with fortified units / fortified terrain). Check Bob Cross (Curtis Lemay) tests and see for yourself.
The adjustments were overrated. These adjustments had (have) a sound rationale behind them as many times in the past people claimed it was "too easy" to play the attacker in TOAW. However the changes were disproportionated with the results we all know now. When more than a year ago a few of us pointed this problem out most usual posters didn't follow or even recognized the problem. However today is common knowledge in our community these 3.4 RFC adjustments being TOAW biggest issue.

As you can imagine adding units on IL to these overrated adjustments obviously worsens the problem.
Creating a house rule avoiding fortified units to be on IL it will ease things up but how can you create a house rule both players can't verify? You can never be sure on which losses setting your opponent has his units.
On a test with a trustworthy opponent it will work but isn't a simple solution for common playing.
 

Cfant

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Location
wolfskuckucksheim
Country
llAustria
Interesting discussion. Had only one match with EA2012, but my Axis-opponent didn't break the French defensive line und asked to stop the game. Still the Russians will have to dug in to stop the german attack - so an "entranchement 0" rule will only cause new problems. Not to speak of the minors like Finland, who won't last long without entranchement. I guess a "normal losses" houserule would be best - and quite often you see what status an enemy counter has - if your opponent breaks the rule several times (we all can forget from time to time) - he is just cheating.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Sorry to say that the zero entrenchment doesn't seem to work, I don't think it's even worth asking for a volunteer to test it with me. I've no list of detailed results, but it's just too easy for large German infantry corps with motorised/armour to push aside unfortified enemy units, even if you put the latter in stacks on Ignore Losses. I've not got so far as trying it against the USSR, but it certainly b*ggers the Poles, Dutch, Belgians and French unless they're in huge stacks in dense urban and on Ignore Losses. Possibly a better player than me might make a better defence than I did when I tried this out, so if anyone's keen do give it a try by all means. Back to house rules or pray for the next patch.

(You also have to pay a great deal more attention to Tactical and Local Reserve settings that you would normally: it almost makes it a different scenario.)
 

The Vince

Recruit
Joined
Nov 18, 2002
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
I really think giving the Germans 3 armoured artillery divisions at the start of scenario would do the trick. Many games i just take the theater option Build Siegfried Line just for the extra artillery units.
Armoured, cause they less vulnerable for counterattacks and defensive artillery counterfire. Attack fortified positions with panzers and all available artillery works fine in EA.
Dont use infantry units in the first attackrounds cause they will get butchered if there is defensive artillery active.
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
I really think giving the Germans 3 armoured artillery divisions at the start of scenario would do the trick. Many games i just take the theater option Build Siegfried Line just for the extra artillery units.
Armoured, cause they less vulnerable for counterattacks and defensive artillery counterfire. Attack fortified positions with panzers and all available artillery works fine in EA.
Dont use infantry units in the first attackrounds cause they will get butchered if there is defensive artillery active.
Of course, more Axis Arty units will help Axis side. And will harm Allied side.
EA is a very well balanced scenario. Thoroughly tested over the years. Making such changes would affect general balance and replacements & inventory tables which are nicely balanced.

IMO EA's adaptation to TOAW 3.4 version combat's resolution should be done using the many new design tools supplied by the 3.4 version and easily retroverted if / when new TOAW patch justifies it.
Please keep in mind that if it's difficult to play Axis as for first half of the war it will be also difficult to play Allies later.
 

The Vince

Recruit
Joined
Nov 18, 2002
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Nah i dont think so. Could be done for example by let 3 of the bonus artillery units that come moveup to a earlier date and make them armoured. In that case no need to try balance entrenchments levels. if you balance the level only, Germans still have the same problem when they encounter a heavy defended fortified hex that reached 100% and all units at fortified status and artillery behind it. Imo arty is way better easy fix to balance the game. Your fix only works for adhac positions and not pre planned and prepped postions.

You know how i dislike those big bloody strong Russian arty units. All i want is 3 small armoured division ones early on and the war wont be a static WW 1 one struggle imo. I think its a good and reasonable fix.
Without the Siegfriedline the Germans have like 1 arty unit. Not balanced imho. Its the complete lack of +1 range artillery that causes that.
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
Nah i dont think so.
It's more than normal two equally informed persons getting to different conclusions...

Could be done for example by let 3 of the bonus artillery units that come moveup to a earlier date and make them armoured.
Let's check facts...

Allies don't have any range 2 Arty units. Axis do.

During a "normal" game Axis have 10 perfectly operational Arty units available (2 of them armoured and 1 unit with range 2 - Allies don't have any of these).
Most of them aren't deployed at the beginning of the war but much in line with Soviet Arty deployment. "Super" Luftwaffe (w/ steady shock bonus) is more than enough to defeat the French, British, Soviets or every other small country at early stages.
Then Axis can get 2 extra Arty units (range 2) if Siegfried line is activated and 1 more if Maikop is taken.
I'm not even considering Axis Wunderwaffen Arty units which arrive late in the game.
Important: German Arty units recover supply and readiness from combat must quicker than Soviet units. And they reconstitute.

Now let's compare with Allies:
British or Americans have no Arty units. Later in the war both have a strong strategic air command.
Soviets have 13 Arty units available during "normal" game. Only one is available within 10 turns of Barbarossa. The other will show up as follows:
2 x 30 turns + after Barbarossa
4 x 40 turns + after Barbarossa
2 x 60 turns after Barbarossa
2 x 65 turns + after Barbarossa
2 weak units on turns 100 and turn 176
Soviets will only receive these units in case Axis don't previously capture the deployment location of these units which is very likely.
Soviets have the chance of receiving an extra one if Moscow is in close danger (otherwise it will not show up) and an extra in Eastern crusade option.
Soviet Arty units are far from "bloody strong" as you mention after 3/4 turns of a steady support effort. Soviet Arty units hardly reconstitute.

Do you really still think it's unbalanced??


In that case no need to try balance entrenchments levels.
Unfortunatelly we must adjust entrenchments levels. There aren''t simple solutions but we must avoid units to fortify in 3 turns.

You know how i dislike those big bloody strong Russian arty units.
I know. But i think you have been playing Axis too many times lately...:bite:
 
Last edited:

The Vince

Recruit
Joined
Nov 18, 2002
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
"Do you really still think it's unbalanced??" Yes:)

Those German artillery units specialy if Build Siegfriedline is not chosen come really slowly late in the game when Barbarossa Bonus time is long over. By the time you get some off them most players will already be in a slugfest WW1 style.
I seen Germans even got stuck in France with latest patch. In our game i lost so much in France i thought for weeks if i even should invade Russia.
Russia got enuff time to plan and prep defences.
If you wanne prevent a slugfest and give the Germans some flexibilty you gonne need armoured arty sooner.

If you dont choose Siegfriedline you got 1 artilleryunit at the start of Barabarossa, that yes is unbalanced in my opnion.

Without early arty units Germans gonne get stuck fast in the East in a normal game.
 
Top