German losses?

[mktours]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Unfortunately these numbers were virtual, hiding true losses behind a simple equation calculating losses as number of men in destroyed elements and half the men in damaged elements, while in fact no men were lost from damaged elements and only some from destroyed elements. Currently the game is displaying actual immediate losses, so they correspond with losses screen, but because of that they are much lower. Think of them as not showing lightly wounded soldiers, which would return to duty in less than 7 days. I measure losses (in terms of loss screen numbers) for each version using the same set of tests, and actually the game is much more bloody now than before, and the ratio is much more realistic.

Thanks for the reply. I played two campaigns as soviet against Saper222, one in 1.07.11, one in 1.08.04, the second one the soviet transport level was set at 50%, which forced me to stand and fight, the combats were 10% more than the last campaign, the total loss at T15 is 20% less for both sides, (which were shown at the total loss reports page, which should be the true number, I think).
Comparing the two campaigns, soviet won more battles in the second, but Axis loss were 20% less in the display of total loss (the added up number for 15 turns) page in T15.

[EwaldvonKleist]

The low Axis combat losses in early war can be balanced by a tac bos campaign. Most attacks leave the defender with max det level in a hex without fortifications and the chance to do two bombing runs again (circa 120 extra dead + 15 artillery)
This being said, please don't reduce the tac bos. They are the ONLY way to make Germans bleed during early war, blizzard aside.

[Stelteck]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
The low Axis combat losses in early war can be balanced by a tac bos campaign. Most attacks leave the defender with max det level in a hex without fortifications and the chance to do two bombing runs again (circa 120 extra dead + 15 artillery)
This being said, please don't reduce the tac bos. They are the ONLY way to make Germans bleed during early war, blizzard aside.

But then with a mandatory tactical air campaign you face a gameplay issue. The game (unlike WITP, for example) is not an air war game. Neither the interface nor the mechanism are adapted for massive use of air forces, and so doing a truly effective air campaign require tons of micromanagement which we are not supposed to do, nor did not expect from a game like this.

The game shine with ground combat and shall use its strong points instead of relying with secondary gameplay.
Air war shall stay a secondary, nice to have support of what is happening on the ground.

If we want to increase looses in my opinion the best way would be to increase the damage done by well supplied artillery and heavy equipment during battle phase. (It would also restore the role of artillery support units).

[Stelteck]

Whatever our opinion about the proper amount of looses, the current system looks quite consistent. Damages and looses are predictable and we can understand them.

But there is one case where i wonder if maybe there is a technical issue. The case of routed units.

I just had an example here :

This turn i decided to do bad thing to the viking SS motorized divisions, and first hit it with my best cavalry corps.



I got unlucky, and got a fighting withdrawal and not so much looses. The amount of looses is normal for this type of battle. No problem.
But while the ennemy retreated, it was then easy for me to perform another attack while cutting all retreat path, so i did it.



So i sent my tank corps against it, won the fight, and as the unit cannot retreat, i got a rout.

But the damage is really low. I killed less tanks than in previous battle !! I did not even destroyed the 6 tanks i damaged in the previous battle.

It is such a surprise that a rout did not do more damage than a normal retreat (not even normal, a fighting withdrawal !!!), that i may suspect a technical issue or a bug here. Maybe it is just the looses display that are wrong. Maybe calculation for a rout have an issue.
But it is really surprising.

Ps: I just noticed that i got a fighting withdrawal in the second battle too. Did fighting withdrawal allowed when routed ? It is really surprising too.

[EwaldvonKleist]

There should be no fighting withdrawal for a routed unit, I have repeatedly seen this as well. Must be kind of a computer joke.
My exp confirms that something isnt right with routing. A ZOC to ZOC retreat is by definition still a retreat, but seems to cause equal losses to a rout.

In addition losses of artillery, guns and tanks must be separated. Increasing the losses by a generic multiplier might get one area ok while messing up another one.

[morvael]

Fighting withdrawal is disabled for retreating across rivers and through ZOC.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Maybe I musunderstand things here. My take is: routing>ZOC to ZOC to ZOC retreat or ZOC to ZOC over a river>ZOC to ZOC retreat or retreat over a river>standard retreat

A fighting withdrawal should never happen together with a rout as this contradicts itself.

[morvael]

Yes, every hex moved through ZOC or river applies another round of post combat losses. I will have to check routs, technically they may result in less rounds than retreat through multiple ZOC (because there is nowhere to move and unit is teleported to safe hex immediately).

[Crackaces]

One thing in "real life" that artificially added casualties were "stand or die" orders. Ordering (whether the orders are followed or not) sacrificing blood for time and space with the much higher risk of rout/shattering. Does the game already calculate this in the battle sequence?
I posted this under German losses because historically this was a cause of additional losses on both sides.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yes, every hex moved through ZOC or river applies another round of post combat losses. I will have to check routs, technically they may result in less rounds than retreat through multiple ZOC (because there is nowhere to move and unit is teleported to safe hex immediately).

Does this algorithm cover only a unit routed that turn or were you also going to check the retreat of an already routed unit within a pocket? It would seem a Pz div or Russian Tank Corps finding themselves rolling over a routed unit would inflict much higher casualties if not shatter the unit right then and there ..
Not doing so I believe leads to a tactic of isolating routed units and going out of the way not to get near them ..rather than finishing them off ..

[Stelteck]

I have interesting picture showing the effect of a single anti tank regiment in the battle phase.
Quite interesting.

First attack, my brigade + sapper regiment. 2 tanks damaged.
Second attack, same brigade against same panzer division + well trained AT regiment. 6 tanks destroyed and some damaged.



You can also see that CV do not matter in damage. (except if it cause a retreat).

[Nuklearius]

I have some really juicy screenshots from my recent campaign against challenging AI but sadly forum will not let me post them [&:]. In one battle I got attacked during mud-turn by Axis, managed to hold but lost over 450 KIA while Axis had 10 wounded!
The entire 1941 year was complete nonsense casualty-wise. I eventually had to change difficulty back to normal because half of my divisions where on unready after the first 3 weeks of blizzard counterattack while Axis TOE remained unchanged.

After seeing mktours screenshot I'm almost inclined to downgrade to an older version of the game. In my campaign which is currently in mid 1942 I still did not have a single battle where I destroyed a double-digit number of tanks in battle. Even my 100s of IL2s haven't yet destroyed a single tank!

[Denniss]

With 'Fog of War' enabled you may not see all casualties in battle reports

[decourcy2]

The Germans also start with 200,000 free replacements that they did not have. IRL the Germans lost 1.1mil by Feb 28th '42. That lowered them from 3.3mil to 2.2mil. They gained in that time period, including wounded men coming back to the colors, 550,000 men. 2.75mil in time for the spring mud.

However, in this game the average German player is losing a bit more than 600,000 men, 2.7mil at that point and ending up at 3.5mil on Feb 28th. Which is a gain 200,000 replacements that did not exist.

Only real question is did the 550,000 replacements of all types include the 80,000 men poached from the FBDs for the infantry battalions in October, November, December? I don't know and I have never seen convincing evidence either way. Anyway, Germans start with 200,000 free men.

[Denniss]

Per end of 2/42 the overall Wehrmacht losses were 221k KIA, 769k WIA and 58k MIA.
Of these losses in the East: 209k KIA, 738k WIA, 50.k MIA. For Army this excludes losses in Finland.

I have not found any info about percentages of wounded recovered/fit for service again vs permanently disabled/unfit for service.
I would really like to get medical data showing this for both sides so we may adjust the disabled recovery rate + having a small portion going to KIA and a another portion disappear (as unfit).

[chaos45]

THe problem is the WIA I think are almost being returned automatically to the Germans instead of in a more realistic out of action for 3-6 months after being wounded.

Either way the German losses or replacements are out of whack and have been for a long time...and the soviets are vastly under represented numbers wise. It has led to slow balancing of the game for game play but with really fantasy Army numbers though.

[Denniss]

Damaged elements returning to pool have 40% of manpower sent to disabled. Disabled pool return rate is AFAIR 0.5% for Soviets and 1% for Germany. Axis minors probably 1% too.

[chaos45]

I'm talking about the light wounded that arent factored into the combat system at all really. This issue has been discussed to death in the past, and due to the limitations of the combat system in the current WiTE can't be fixed is what I was told as any attempts to get realistic losses basically made the German army disintegrate over the long game to fast compared to historical.

So the best thing is to get it close enough that game numbers work to give a decent game to both players.

Hopefully in the work on 2.0 WITE they get losses and army numbers closer to correct as the war goes on. Its well documented and even reasonably argued by historians that the Germans lost the war in the winter of 1941 and Stalingrad didn't really even matter....as the attrition rate of German troops and equipment was to high to be able to maintain. The German army never recovered from the first 6 months in Russia due to losses sustained, you will never get that effect in WITE 1.0+ patched.

I think the game has come a long way, but still has alot of issues as well when trying to truly replicate the campaign and conditions both armies fought under.

[ericv]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

I'm talking about the light wounded that arent factored into the combat system at all really. This issue has been discussed to death in the past, and due to the limitations of the combat system in the current WiTE can't be fixed is what I was told as any attempts to get realistic losses basically made the German army disintegrate over the long game to fast compared to historical.

So the best thing is to get it close enough that game numbers work to give a decent game to both players.

Hopefully in the work on 2.0 WITE they get losses and army numbers closer to correct as the war goes on. Its well documented and even reasonably argued by historians that the Germans lost the war in the winter of 1941 and Stalingrad didn't really even matter....as the attrition rate of German troops and equipment was to high to be able to maintain. The German army never recovered from the first 6 months in Russia due to losses sustained, you will never get that effect in WITE 1.0+ patched.

I think the game has come a long way, but still has alot of issues as well when trying to truly replicate the campaign and conditions both armies fought under.

The germans lost the war in june 1941. I don't think there is any way the Germans could have stopped the attrition of their core. Officers, Trained NCO's, material. They were just too unprepared, prepared as they were. As a result much too overconfident and completely mistaken in the willingness of the Soviets to achieve victory at an absurdly high cost.

This game, fun as it is, doesn't reflect the brutality of the actual campaign, the extreme harshness of the terrain, and the subsequent unavoidable attrition of the Wehrmacht in anyway. That's something for WitE 4.0.

[GamesaurusRex]

Yes, 1941 is an non-historical mess.

* "Lvov" pocket in the south.
* "Panzer Ball Madness" in the north and center - Leningrad by turn six and Moskow by turn thirteen. (Yes, you can try to defend... if you want a fast train to a POW camp.)
* "Pocket Insta-Death" - (although this has been improved somewhat in recent patches).

But none of this is the question... the question is, "Is it entertaining ?"

DEFINITELY !