Combat ratios

[Seminole]

Don't want to hijack an AAR with these observations, so I decided to open this thread:

We know what the loses were historically, if the ratio is 1 to 3 we know its simply way off nothing close to 1 to 1.

I have a 3 to 1 KIA, 3 to 1 captured, and 3 to 1 disabled advantage on S2Tanker in our first game. Is the game broken, or am I doing something right/he's doing something wrong?
I'm concerned that what is 'way off' is trying to draw micro conclusions about the game engine based on gross aggregates across a multitude of variables.
I listed most of the battle reports in my counter attack on Denmark, and the frankly the loss ratios vary wildly because the types of combat varied.

Sure there are factors, but I play all games the same way.

To what degree do you think your play style of attrition and bean counting contribute to your loss ratios?
My aggregate loss ratios are running better than yours, and my play style is different (and not even the same game to game).
I'm not even saying your style is wrong, if it works for you and you enjoy it that's what matters, but I'm trying to get across that what you do matters to the outcome
How much of your results do you attribute to your chosen style of play?
Do you get 50% credit, 5%?

I have 2 games on going and have many from the past.
Combat ratios are a center issue to any game.

How one executes the art of war is central to their loss ratios.
It's as if you think no matter how we play the game the loss ratios should come out as historical. Why would that be the case?

Lets keep trending the data.

Let's also realize the game, while based on math, isn't as deterministic as you keep portraying it. The results of others speak to that.

Here's my first game with S2Tanker, ended on turn 70 with nearly 3-1 KIA advantage for the Axis over the war:



Rematch against S2Tanker is on turn 38 now, running about 2 to 1 KIA the Axis.



I ran 2 to 1 KIA on Bomazz. That game went 17 turns, so I'm including the Italians like above.



Against Zephir the ratio is much closer to 1 to 1.



Against DicedT (this is turn 24, game went about 40 turns but ended without me getting a later losses screenshot). This includes Italians, and I'm positive the loss ratio improved from .8 to 1 as he kept slogging through Sardinia and then invaded Corsica to find a brick wall. I still had him crammed in the toe and while he was finally trying to move forward, I was slapping him back with successful counter attacks.




Zephir and DicedT also played much more conservatively than Bomazz and S2Tanker.

[loki100]

Here's all the data I have. Covers 4 games and I've shown the loss table in the turn before the invasion of France and then 8 turns later.

context

Game 1 was vs AI, pre-Torch, the 1943 scenario on challenging;


Game 2 was vs AI, post-Torch, the new 4 Command scenario on challenging;


Game 3 was PBEM, pre torch, 1943 scenario (I was playing the allies)


Game 4 was PBEM, post Torch, 1943 scenario (I was playing the axis)



analysis

So key ratios (I'm excluding surrenders):


Game 1 loss ratio before invasion: 120,000 (ax): 206,000 (al)
Game 1 loss ratio after invasion: 230,000 (ax): 313,000 (al)

So was .6:1, became .73:1, ratio in invasion period .75:1

Game 2 loss ratio before invasion: 170,000 (ax): 270.000 (al)
Game 2 loss ratio after invasion: 285,000 (ax): 370,000 (al)

So was .6:1, became .77:1, ratio in invasion period 1.15:1

Game 3 loss ratio before invasion: 110,000 (ax): 108,000 (al)
Game 3 loss ratio after invasion: 210,000 (ax); 195,000 (al)

So was 1:1, became 1.08:1, ratio in invasion period 1.15:1

Game 4 loss ratio before invasion: 113,000 (ax): 170,000 (al)
Game 4 loss ratio after invasion: 150,000 (ax): 217,000 (al)

So was .75:1, became .78:1, ratio in invasion period: .79:1

conclusions

Play style matters? In both PBEMs neither of us have sought combat just to fight (I think both as the allies have been particularly careful). From your data, I think this is the key. Play ahistorically and you get an ahistoric outcome?

In the AI games, I think the improved loss ratio is down to me having a much better handle on the airwar.

[LiquidSky]

In general the losses seem to be around 1:1 for me. However, there are just so many ways that this can change. I've bombed german units being railed up to an invasion for large casualties. Units retreated through zocs over rivers. Through heavy interdiction.

If one side plays aggressively...assaulting the mountains of Italy for example. Then the losses can be skewed. Poorer quality divisions that are left behind to buy time.

All of this seems to average out, but what metric should we even be looking at?

Killed vrs Killed?

What about AFV's? does the loss of the vehicle include the crew under Men? Or is the AFV also the crew? Same with guns. And airplanes. It could be that the Men killed stat is only ground troops.


That is one of the two issues I have with the whole 'not enough casualty' complaints. (The other being not enough data, I mean tracking only 3 turns in one game? That isn't math.

We need to agree first what is a casualty in the game. Secondly we need a lot of compiled data. Over many games, many battles, many days.

Then you will see a trend to the combat engine.

Otherwise it would be like tracking the battle in the Pacific against the Japanese and only looking at the battle of Midway and concluding that Japanese CV's suck, and American ones are great and all battles should favour the Americans.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

...

We need to agree first what is a casualty in the game. Secondly we need a lot of compiled data. Over many games, many battles, many days.

...

in this respect, its important to remember that the game engine codes lightly wounded as disruptions not as losses. So historic WiA figures have no comparison to the game (this or WiTE) as a significant block of wounded are never shown as such. Typically the sort of people a well organised forward medical service could get back to their units in a couple of weeks.

but I agree with all your points, and also the critical point - does it matter? To me in-game losses from combat (and attrition) are tools to trigger certain consequences, so its not just losses its also reinforcement rates and so on

[Seminole]

Trying to think about things that could also be different, I wonder if the SU rotation and/or KWG's ammo depletion strategy are not having their own influence.

Are landing zones considered level 4 supply sources for refit purposes in addition to supply/morale trace?

Ost battalions come in with something like 30 exp, not sure about morale. It appears they list simply as German rifle squads, so could they be sapping his manpower pools at a higher rate if he keeps replenishing them and putting them under Allied air and artillery? Is there any limit on their creation relative to regular German rifle squads?
Let's assume 9 Ost battalions (~500 men), you're talking about 4-5k men that can be attached in a single hex before HQ SU commitment. Aren't morale and experience of the elements in question a determinant of the losses they'll suffer in combat? It would be interesting to learn where (what elements, combat locations and results) the losses are being suffered.
I see such variability in individual battle results in my own games with regard to losses that I find it hard to draw conclusions with such limited information and gross aggregates. Were there multi hex retreats/routs through high interdiction?
I hope as the combatants get farther along they can go back and share more information about the type of combat during this period.
Pelton seems to be playing into KWG's strategy of facing him in the eye of a hurricane.

[KWG]

"Trying to think about things that could also be different, I wonder if the SU rotation and/or KWG's ammo depletion strategy are not having their own influence."


Just To clarify my ammo strategy. There was a sector of the line that was low on ammo for several weeks, so that is where we attacked. To keep their ammo low and maybe take ground. I did not attack just to make a enemy unit expend ammo.

We hit the beaches of Italy in late October and bad weather was a norm. After I saw I could not capture Rome without heavy casualties if even then, I kept hiting parts of the Gothic line to keep the Germans from getting too fat over the winter.

I did make some bad attacks over the winter due to interdiction bug and my tactics. I like to do small areas of interdiciton which was what the bug covered.

There is no way to keep PRESSURE on the enemy with ground forces but to attack. There are attriction losses for units on the line but no way to increase them. Like more patrolling, probing trenches, artillery barrages.


"I hope as the combatants get farther along they can go back and share more information about the type of combat during this period."

Ask anything.
Are there any screenshots you would like to see from this turn? Iam on work computer but will be back on my War Computer tonight as I finish my turn.

[LiquidSky]

The Ost battalions never survive until d-day when I am the Germans. I always disband them for the squads. They come back as Germans into infantry division replacements.

They probably should have been their own device instead of being a German rifle squad.

[Peltonx]

Tracking total loses is silly, until Italians are gone.

That's like tracking total loses on EF counting Romanian/Huns.

1. Track loses after Italy is out of the war.
2. Do not count surrender loses.

Combat ratio is based on straight up combat aka WitE.

Also each yr gives different combat ratio's and each front.

You can't just blob all loses into a count.

Also its very easy to exploit the lose count as KWG is doing with the air war, which is a good thing.

Sure ratio's are different game to game, but over all you see a trend + when one game has a huge spike its easy to pick out the exploit.

If the exploit is not fixed soon the hole player base uses the exploit and the "trend/ratio" becomes the norm.

Data is important to help 2by3 fix things that are WAD, but a poor design.

Examples:
Invasion spam
1v2=2v1
HQBU exploits.
ammo bugs
swapping bugs
armament sinks
9999 bugs

ect ect ect

[Seminole]

1. Track loses after Italy is out of the war.
2. Do not count surrender loses.

I disagree philosophically on ignoring surrender losses (not talking about Italians) as I engage in combat to set them up that is frequently at poor odds and outcomes in order to net the captures.

Combat ratio is based on straight up combat aka WitE.

But combat isn't 'straight up'. It's a combination of strategy, tactics and units.
Different strategies, tactics, and unit density/quality will create different outcomes.

Also each yr gives different combat ratio's and each front.
You can't just blob all loses into a count.

But that's what aggregating a year's worth of combat does. It ignores the differences in losses between the 198th Security regiment getting slaughtered by Canadian armor, and averages it in with that same Canadian armor compelled to retreat through level 4 interdiction across a river and through two over stacked hexes.
I've played through a fair number of games at this point, and things within the ground combat engine don't really jump out at me as wacky.

Also its very easy to exploit the lose count as KWG is doing with the air war, which is a good thing.
Sure ratio's are different game to game, but over all you see a trend + when one game has a huge spike its easy to pick out the exploit.
If the exploit is not fixed soon the hole player base uses the exploit and the "trend/ratio" becomes the norm.

Is KWG achieving these losses with unit bombing or ground interdiction? Some combination thereof? Have you been able to break down where most of the losses are suffered (his air execution phase?, your unit movement through interdiction? retreats by your units through the interdiction?)

I've noticed from the outset your opponents in your AARs seem to be still learning the air war. We might be reaching a point where sufficient competency has developed in the player base to see how powerful it can be. The Allied learning curve is definitely steeper, and without competent air management they just can't win.
This is in part what the VP system is intended to offset (by requiring the v-weapon bombing, etc), so I hope neither of you guys quit and we can see how this does work on the ground and in the VP count.

Another consideration with respect to air power is you're currently enjoying the seasonal modifier. Perhaps the summer bonus to air power may call for different tactics at certain times. Piling up under Allied bomb sites might not be best, even as strategically you desire to contain him with everything you can spare. Imagine the breakout is inevitable, and then imagine how to have it on your terms...

[RedLancer]

I've noticed from the outset your opponents in your AARs seem to be still learning the air war. We might be reaching a point where sufficient competency has developed in the player base to see how powerful it can be. The Allied learning curve is definitely steeper, and without competent air management they just can't win.

I agree - everyday I play the air war I realise how complicated it really is. WitW is not WitE by some distance for the Allies.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

1. Track loses after Italy is out of the war.
2. Do not count surrender loses.

I disagree philosophically on ignoring surrender losses (not talking about Italians) as I engage in combat to set them up
that is frequently at poor odds and outcomes in order to net the captures.

Combat ratio is based on straight up combat aka WitE.

But combat isn't 'straight up'. It's a combination of strategy, tactics and units.
Different strategies, tactics, and unit density/quality will create different outcomes.

Striaght up combat is zero surrenders - I was more then clear on this.
It is a combination of all factors. Unit density/quality can create different outcomes, but rarely does. Only exploits can create very different out comes as we have seen in the past. This is nothing new and has proven right for tracking exploits.
AGAIN to be crystal clear when a majority of games so x ratio and a hand full so x ratio designers should be concerned. If they are not and don't look into the issue we know the results. The X nonhistorical ratios become the norm for the majority of games as the player base simply copies the minoritys exploits.

Also each yr gives different combat ratio's and each front.
You can't just blob all loses into a count.

But that's what aggregating a year's worth of combat does. It ignores the differences in losses between the 198th Security regiment getting slaughtered by Canadian armor, and averages it in with that same Canadian armor compelled to retreat through level 4 interdiction across a river and through two over stacked hexes.
I've played through a fair number of games at this point, and things within the ground combat engine don't really jump out at me as wacky.

Again cherry picking is just that and is simply ignoring the over all general trend and data. Ignoring exploits or bugs or poorly designed parts of a system based on cherry picking has NEVER fixed anything.

Also its very easy to exploit the lose count as KWG is doing with the air war, which is a good thing.
Sure ratio's are different game to game, but over all you see a trend + when one game has a huge spike its easy to pick out the exploit.
If the exploit is not fixed soon the hole player base uses the exploit and the "trend/ratio" becomes the norm.

Is KWG achieving these losses with unit bombing or ground interdiction? Some combination thereof? Have you been able to break down where most of the losses are suffered (his air execution phase?, your unit movement through interdiction? retreats by your units through the interdiction?)

I've noticed from the outset your opponents in your AARs seem to be still learning the air war. We might be reaching a point where sufficient competency has developed in the player base to see how powerful it can be. The Allied learning curve is definitely steeper, and without competent air management they just can't win.
This is in part what the VP system is intended to offset (by requiring the v-weapon bombing, etc), so I hope neither of you guys quit and we can see how this does work on the ground and in the VP count.




Turn 51
WA Loses: 273,000
GHC Loses: 326,000

Turn 52

WA Loses: 280,000 7,000
GHC Loses: 362,000 46,000

Loses from ground combat 12k, total loses for the turn 46K. Most of those 34k from bombing (111 combats) of a handful of hexes.

Lose ratio 1 to 5 Again completely unhistorical for Normandy



Another consideration with respect to air power is you're currently enjoying the seasonal modifier. Perhaps the summer bonus to air power may call for different tactics at certain times. Piling up under Allied bomb sites might not be best, even as strategically you desire to contain him with everything you can spare. Imagine the breakout is inevitable, and then imagine how to have it on your terms...

Because of the air exploit the VP system is trashed. WA's simply need to bombing a few hexes and can inflict around 30k loses per turn and only need to ground assault 2 to 4 hexs per turn using a snake tactic/ coupled with supply drops to break any German defence withen 4 to 6 turns.

[Peltonx]

111 bombing attacks and as can be seen on just a few hexes.

[Peltonx]

tm.asp?m=3957709

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Pelton


...

Because of the air exploit the VP system is trashed. WA's simply need to bombing a few hexes and can inflict around 30k loses per turn and only need to ground assault 2 to 4 hexs per turn using a snake tactic/ coupled with supply drops to break any German defence withen 4 to 6 turns.

as you know, German losses don't contribute to the VP system.

I'm sorry but all this reads as special pleading. You've developed a particular mode of defending, kwg is hammering you for it. But to do that he's hoping that the trade off is to destroy your army so fast he can grap city VPs at the game end, he's losing strategic bombing pts as a consequence. There's a simple solution - be more flexible in your own game play, equally you may yet get a win as he must have traded off a lot of VPs (its noticeable you are not offering a VP screen which would put things into context).

I can't see this as an *I win* button, simply he's outplayed you by exoloiting your chosen approach.

Not least no-one else reports the combat ratio you are seeing and in my current AI game I'm doing a variant of KWG's approach (not as single minded). Oddly the AI has a good solution.

[Seminole]

Because of the air exploit the VP system is trashed.

Like I said, I hope this game is played out so we can see how the VP system handles it. When Joc was complaining as the WA about the U-boat bombing VP I expressed the opinion at the time it was the one thing in the game that would keep the Allied player from hyper focusing the immense Allied air force on CAS.
But we want data, not conjecture, right?
You're the one who said the Allies need help with the VP system, is that no longer the case? Did anything change in the game, or has an Allied player just started to get a handle on things?

WA's simply need to bombing a few hexes and can inflict around 30k loses per turn

For that to be the case they require a hefty concentration of German forces in those few hexes, and we also have to take into account this is happening at a very short distance from the bulk of Allied airfields, and at a time of the year when air attacks are +30% effective (vis-a-vis -30% effective in December). What kind of losses can this strategy obtain when you're spread thinner, in the woods, in bad weather, the sun is setting early, and you're no longer a stone's throw from dozens of Allied air bases?
For air attacks, does the game engine treat clear/bocage/woods/rough differently? If so, is bocage closer to clear terrain for air attacks than it is to rough or woods? I don't see anything about this in the manual. It only speaks to how the different terrain types affect ground elements.

Gathering under the shade of Allied bomber formations to get out of the summer sun is probably going to be ineffective for the Germans, but that doesn't mean the effectiveness of LBs against ground forces isn't overstated. It gets a lot of attention with the Cobra bombardment, etc., but it really seems the success of that operation hinged on the depletion of German reserves countering Monty moreso than aerial bombardment. I've mentioned I notice in my games that people try to use B-17s for railway interdiction and ground interdiction, and the results are laughable. KWG may have found a sweet spot with respect to air frame, load out, and mission type.
There may be more that needs to be done with regard to diminishing returns for spamming bombing attacks on a single hex. Even after the massive Allied bombardment to open Operation Cobra they made it about half a mile on day one because resistance was not obliterated. The break out itself was more about lack of German reserves than racing around bomb craters and dead Germans.

and only need to ground assault 2 to 4 hexs per turn using a snake tactic/ coupled with supply drops to break any German defence withen 4 to 6 turns.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion the game is broken because someone found an effective way to handle your preferred defensive arrangement. You might, just maybe, need to consider different tactics and strategies for different opponents.
I like to retreat, or feign retreat, and then counterattack the enemy in more suitable terrain. Think of the Allied advance as inevitable, and focus on how best to delay it and make it costly. e.g. the plains southeast of Foggia offer some nice chances to withdraw and counter attack. And the threat of such action can make a cautious Allied general waste weeks building up works to protect his advance. Running pell mell a few hundred miles north to sit tight only guarantees the Allies don't have to fight their way forward. I'm dubious of that strategy on the whole, especially as Allied player skill builds.

[LiquidSky]

Actually...when I played the Germans in my last campaign game, I noticed the exact same thing that Pelton is noticing. That the allies can and will rudely attrit my forces. But because I knew what was happening and why it was happening....so I took several measures to mitigate it. And in the end, I won that game because I exploited the weakness in the allied army.

But as Seminole has stated....it is an allied dream to have the Germans on a tight front, close to multiple airfields.....that are fully supplied without shipping that supply across water.

You are living the allied dream.

But since this is a thread about combat ratios over the few turns that the Germans are up against an allied invasion close to British airbases.

Pelton is right. The Germans can and will lose more then the allies in this very limited case. The allies are not bound to do all those stupid attacks on Caen. The are allowed to build up and use their strength as they see fit. The same way the Germans are allowed to defend in strength...as they see fit. That's the game.

So here is how you slow the allies down.

1) Every division on the front line gets three flak units as support.
2) Every town/airfield behind the front where it will probably not get taken by the allies gets a flak regiment.
3) In random places every turn, move all your RR Flak units in areas where he likes to interdict. I like to put them adjacent to an allied airfield where I know he likes to fly air transport missions for supply. Not always possible though.
4) Keep the Luftwaffe away from him. You are going to need it later.
5) After the allies build up enough strength and look like they are causing enough casualties to break your army before the end of the game, retreat. This will dilute the allied army since you have more divisions then they do and will open up counterattack. And it will pull you away from his airforce, and force him to resupply through ports.
6) Now that the allies are spread out...unleash the Luftwaffe in the areas of your choice. Preferably farther south along the line. At the very least it will prevent the allies from using every fighter as a bomber. But I think you will find that you can kill around 1-2 thousand allies a turn until your dwindling Luftwaffe disappears.

[Seminole]

Delving deeper into the particulars:



It would be interesting to sort this page by location, so that the attacks were grouped by hex.
But let's look at this series of attacks on 76,195.
Can you provide battle reports to show us why these attacks vary so wildly in outcome?
e.g. one attack got zero kills, whereas another got over 500 and another only 7.
What air frames, load outs, and altitude is he operating at that he doesn't suffer any flak losses? Seems odd.
What are the differences, because 111 attacks causing 7 casualties each isn't the same as 111 attacks causing 515 casualties...

If I understand correctly the flak in HQs will fire, have you considered concentrating flak in HQs to umbrella your units?

[KWG]

This shows Iam not just slaughtering Germans with every raid. Iam not bombing 1 hex with 1 mission of 1000's of aircraft. Iam taking losses also. And even with all these bombings my ground forces are still taking losses.

Plus as Seminole pointed out, Iam hitting large concentrations of troops in a small area. I could not have this same effect all over France, and for sure not Russia.

This is no different than, bombing only aircraft plants, or fuel plants for a week.

Been experimenting with loadouts and some did have higher results.

[Seminole]

This shows Iam not just slaughtering Germans with every raid. Iam not bombing 1 hex with 1 mission of 1000's of aircraft. Iam taking losses also. And even with all these bombings my ground forces are still taking losses.

I'd be interested in seeing your ADs and some battle reports showing loadouts, losses, etc.

Plus as Seminole pointed out, Iam hitting large concentrations of troops in a small area. I could not have this same effect all over France, and for sure not Russia.

I sense good recon, short distance to target from base, summer bonus, and enemy concentration are all playing into the scope of German losses. If the Allies could do this kind of thing every turn wherever they wanted on the map I think it could be a bigger issue, but we also have to learn the countermeasures (dispersion, flak assignment, etc.).
I've seen Allied players try to get this kind of effect using LBs in southern Italy, but the results were always poor. Not sure to what degree lack of recon, terrain, distance to target (does the wintertime air power reduction affect the Med, or just N Europe?) and ultimately player skill/experience in setting ADs were the cause.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Gathering under the shade of Allied bomber formations to get out of the summer sun is probably going to be ineffective for the Germans, but that doesn't mean the effectiveness of LBs against ground forces isn't overstated. It gets a lot of attention with the Cobra bombardment, etc., but it really seems the success of that operation hinged on the depletion of German reserves countering Monty more so than aerial bombardment.

There may be more that needs to be done with regard to diminishing returns for spamming bombing attacks on a single hex. Even after the massive Allied bombardment to open Operation Cobra they made it about half a mile on day one because resistance was not obliterated. The break out itself was more about lack of German reserves than racing around bomb craters and dead Germans.

I agree.