%10? Again, where did you source this figure, it is not comparable to the vast majority of studies on German POWs in Russia. Further, you should read Stalingrad by Anthony Beever to get a good idea of how much a German life was worth to the Russians (the same as a Russian life to a German).

Xeno426 'That's a much closer to parity. It's also useful to keep in mind about 60% of those losses were in 1941 and 1942, the period of time when Russia was still suffering from the complete upheaval of its military thanks to Stalin's purges.' - Only three quotes allowed, QQ.

That and Stalin's belief that Germany would not invade... Even twelve hours after the invasion he was reluctant to allow his units to strike back... Despite thousands of Aircraft getting destroyed on the runway et cetera...

Point is, the Soviet Union got absolutely decimated by the Axis, lost many times the amount of men and material and still came out victorious. Hell, they'd have destroyed the Allies too no doubt if they kept their T34s rollin.

_________________
Alias - Cpt.Fantastic

That's simply because they hade the means to produce/field more troops.

If instead of one big country, Russia had been a series of small countries, then the story would have been completely different.

Your point is "I can win with absurdly dumb losses".

Yeah, on a massive scale.

On a smaller scale, losing the units in the area means that reinforcements have to be called, approved, move, arrive, possibly depriving an other area from it's reinforcements because it's simply in a less dire situation. This more often than not means that the area itself will be lost because there is not a strong enough presence in the area.

Remember that you are managing a battle, and for that battle you have been told "Acceptable losses are THIS, deal with it, and inflict as many losses to the enemy as you can", or "This is an attrition war, until reinforcements arrive, you have to inflict as many casualties as possible to the enemy!" for a time battle.

If you could win with absurd losses, it would only make sense for PACT, unbalancing the bloody game. Nato never was about "victory at all cost" but "excellence against numbers". Losing those excellent units against hordes never, ever was a viable tactic.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

What you say is right but there is one problem. Even if I take a certain amount of losses in battle it shouldn't lead to directly losing the battle itself. A battle is not won until the enemies conquer your land(here they take up sectors to give the same effect I think). If I attack and somehow fail while attacking doesn't mean I lost the battle. The enemy didn't even come forward to secure any land so how can he be called the victor?

One of the problems is you can't include all of the parameters that make a battle "a victory". There is always a background, a reason, numbers of troops in the area, supply lines, sabotage, weather... So much stuff.

You just can't include them all in a Video Game that doesn't call itself a simulation, and it would be hard to implement in a real time strategy game.

Bringing in real life reasons is a valid thing, but wanting realism at all costs would include so many petty things...

Just to show how absurd it is: Infantry squad members die, all right? But, seriously, do you believe that in real life they all die? No, you have wounded members that have to be brought back to a hospital off map, this means 3 members of the squad out. Fun to play? Nope. We wouldn't ever see the stupid situation where there is one guys of a squad remaining with the RPG, strolling around "Calm". Seriously? The guy's squad has been wiped out! He should be in perma-rout mode!


What I mean is that the point system is a different approach of realism. Most RTS games end up as meatgrinders with the guy with an explosive economy just sending wave after wave 'till the other dude crumbles, just because you don't bloody care about your losses. [This is of course subjective and highly simplified]

In this game, this can only happen in high points long time games. The rest of the time, you win because you had less losses, not because you killed more. At least, this is how I see it, the logic behind it. [And the reason why I'm unhappy that a game with such a system doesn't suit my tastes anymore, but that's an other topic]

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

Because that is the entirety of my argument isn't it? Dear lord, am I arguing with children? Perhaps if you read my entire argument and not picked up on a part of it you wouldn't have had to write all of this.

_________________
Alias - Cpt.Fantastic

Maybe because the conclusion is different, senile old man?

(See how nice to be on the receiving end of reductive comments. I could list all the attempts to say "all other arguments aren't really worth it because damn, aren't you all stupid" in the topic, but it would be no fun)

Edit: By the way, i agree with the overall idea. You could have made it shorter with "If it was kind of like battlefield, with territory control + kills as a reason to score, I'd love it". Just not the way of saying it. It's just that the way the game is made is kinda unique, and I like that. Too bad there wasn't so much press about it.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

I disagree that the victory conditions is bad, i like how it is now.
I have had this discussion over at project reality forum also at Steel panther: world at war forum and i strongly believe that any type of "zone" orientated victory conditions leads to unreasonable tactics and loss of soldiers for things that wouldn't be done in that manner.

I am coming from Men of war: Assault Squad, over there we have both "assault zones" and "combat". Combat plays like how this game plays and assaut zones like you want this to play.

Assault Zones indeed just creates a lock down then a struggle feast over the capture zone in the middle of the map that god (or satan) decided was of paramount importance and required the deaths of hundreds of my pixel soldiers for holding until a magic ticker in the sky reached zero, instead of allowing my to flank around or refusing center. I can admit that for ladder games to force the game to end assault zones works, but i find that it encourages unreasonable tactics and loss of soldiers for the magic spot and is less enjoyable.

Combat mode in comparison don't force your hand and don't slap a set of go to areas on the map, you are free to maneuver around, you can refuse a flank to make a strong push somewhere else without getting artificially punished like you get with assault zones, i mean the important thing is that the enemy will lose in the end not if i hold the right flank 5 min in the game. In combat you actually get punished for real if you make a tactical mistake in the seance that you will lose manpower. It also makes you try to keep your soldiers alive and don't kill them off like flies.

And against the turtle player argument i find that if the enemy if compacting himself you can always shell him while remaining maneuverable seance you control a much bigger maneuver space that you can scoot around in. Also military maxims dictates that a local strong attack on a small local point of this defense will give you victory, seance you can use your maneuver space to concentrate a larger force then he can seance he tries to defend everywhere.

If you are a couple of friends the combat mode allows you to more freely organize your strategy for the fight since there is less focus on holding all the zones and more on actually having a game plan that will kill of the enemy and not your guys. Also there is the straw man/idiot argument that in real life there is no "zones", they get changed according to how the battle develops, this don't happen in the game, the victory points stays at the same spot all the time.

I agree 100% that the current victory condition is not great by any means.

"Okay sir we have been pushed back into a corner, and we cannot make any map progress forwards, but we still win" makes sense....

But on a serious note, i would love the implementation of another victory condition, where holding sectors matters a lot more, because the new siege mode (in my opinion) is terrible. I love Eugen and the support that they provide be it with patches or interaction on the forums But even i have to admit, the meta game is getting more boring each time i play it, i couldn't tell you exactly what but something needs to change for the better.

_________________

The very point I am trying to make. Couldn't have put it better.
How can someone win a war without even pushing an army but instead just camping at their base?

General Disarray - Great post


This would be complex to implement but for a game like WEE, I'd like to see an Area of Control AoC algorithm implemented to calculate score and and resupply points. Well, technically I'd like them to totally get rid of resupply and just run set-piece battle but that's another topic...

Back to my point. There would be no zones but rather just a calculation based on the total area that a side controlled. This would be a bit tough to calculate and result in endless pages of people championing the zone system.

The inherent problem with this idea is that it too is unrealistic unless certain areas carried more weight in the points calculation than others. Using the whole Highway as an example, all towns and main roads would be worth x^3 where as the areas surrounding the towns and roads would be worth x^2 and everything else just worth x. Simplistically said...

This way, what you earn is based on the total area you control making the whole map important with some areas being more important than others.

Victory conditions would be both a combination of what you earned (reflects area controlled) and what you killed.