AltHist-A: Shall We Try Again?

[IronWarrior]

Another thing to consider is that this is also directly tied to drafts and replacements. You have to consider this in the calculation to get an accurate net attrition sum. Does anyone know what the historical draft levels were? and how fast they replaced attrition losses? Even if we go with the most historical attrition level, an ahistorical draft/replacement rate would throw this off.

From a gameplay perspective, having higher attrition levels means needing higher food production to account for manpower loss. If you want to maintain your forces, you will have to raise your agriculture slider to account for this loss, else suffer lower production because of the manpower loss. Increasing the agriculture slider may also mean slower province/textile/ or other production. So basically, it appears as a gameply issue and whether or not it is an aspect we want to include in the game or not.

[Marshal Villars]

It seems that there may be too much slack in the advanced economy! I almost wish that we could have all of our AltHist PBEM game members involved in the testing and that we could transfer this entire thread into the DevForum. I may just do that. Most of us are already anyway.

Or maybe, we will open a parallel thread in the dev forum for discussion.

[Marshal Villars]

If you go from 42 to 14, then you will get a different percentage loss than if you go from 14 to 42 (I hope I remember that much from my math [:(]). Remember, I assumed that 10,000 men were not "march attrition" losses, but losses due to lack of supply, and disease while in their winter quarters. I went from 42,000 to 24,000 (to account for the 18,000 men who didn't starve or die of disease in winter quarters--the 18,000 men who evaporated due to march attrition).

If one does a little guessing, using

42,000*.9225*.9225*.9225*.9225*.9225*.9225*.9225=23,900 or approximately 24,000.

1-.9225=0.0775
0.0775*100=7.75%

So, assuming 10,000 men died due to disease or starvation, it looks like the Poltava campaign number will lie close to 7.75% Not the 6% I mistakenly calculated. Again, under miserable conditions (except we know they probably didn't force march into Russia, based on the description I quickly pulled from Wikipedia instead of my book on the Northern Wars).

Perhaps if one were to assume ALL of the losses "march attrition" losses, one might come up with a number which is about 50% higher? But it would be assuming an awful lot to assume that ALL of the losses were march attrition--and even then one might hit 11%?

However, there are better ways to calculate this. The best way to do it would be to add and remove losses on a monthly basis. Remove the losses for starvation in late December and in the winter, when little food was to be had (Peter the Great obliterated all of the approaches to Moscow) And then remove the men they lost in winter quarters. Finally removing a % of men for march attrition in June. A much more complicated calculation than the one I did. But doable. Maybe I will think about it tomorrow. At all time, march attrition would be represented by the variable x, and in the end you would solve for it.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

When I redid the calculation going the right way, I came up with a lower % rate of 5.75% losses per month (I think! I actually graduated with a Chemical Engineering degree--13 YEARS ago, but have forgotten how to do most of the math!).

Can anyone confirm my calculation?

I am gonna kick the numbers around, but for now I will just launch the game with Wellington attrition, agree with Ironwarrior that the gameplay aspects, ie ease of replacing losses, comes into effect a great deal in what is a "realistic" level of march attrition in the game.

In Precalc last quarter we actually did some problems using a function that predicted our ability to retain what we were learning based on the time elapsed and your performance on the midterm. We were able to predict our performance after 6 months, 1 year, etc.

[:D]

[Anthropoid]

I have done more reading in 17th and 18th century warfare in the last 4-5 months than I care to even think about, and those seem like high levels. And in these cases Mus is talking about, the guys are in supply! What happens if you are out of supply and foraging? 7500? LOL

If those are losses for a 3 province march in good weather, I would definitely recommend we go with Wellington. But I do appreciate your calling my attention to this.

Have not been keeping up with this discussion; got sick last Thursday (bad head cold) and I'm totally slammed by work. However, as you all probably realize, I am keenly interested in March Attrition. I may well be biased or wrong, but my gut is that it is not exactly "balanced" with respect to the ecology of the game overall, though it may well be "set" algorithmically to approximate rather accurately real historical numbers.

Anyway, just a gut feeling on my part, which I fully acknowledge is not based on either a sound knowledge of the period (like Barb has) nor on having done any math.

I do teach intro statistics, so if you guys want to jet some numbers my way I could try to fiddle with them and see what they have to say. Might be till next week till I get back to you though.

ADDIT: seems there is not much that can be done about it, but I think the key problem with the March Attrition in the game is what Marshall has pointed out: as long as they remain in supply, units suffer "attrition" only when they move. No matter how "realistic" is the rate at which they the suffer "march attrition," the fact is that only suffering attrition when marching but not when encamped (nor when 'at sea') is fundamentally not realistic. Non-combat losses of various sorts occurred _all_ the time: when marching, when encamped, when in supply, when foraging . . . Each of these factors (as well as weather, hostility of the surrounding environment, and "richness" of the surrounding environement) all _moderated_ the rate of non-combat losses, but no single one is the sole mediator. The way it is set up: marching, and supply status are the two mediators of non-combat losses; this is not right. Non-combat losses should just _occur_ ALWAYS at some rate (even for units in supply, in home provinces, with foraging spec ability, etc.) there should be some month-to-month flow of men in and out of units. Instead, that flow only occurs when they either move (with March Attrition on) or when they are not in supply, and exceeding foraging limits.

The other closely related issue is the way the forager special ability works; it operates dichotomously (losses ON without; losses OFF with) when it should operate probabilistically (and perhaps moderated by other factors too). A good example is what Kingmaker is (quite cunningly [:D]) pulling with some cav units in Russia right now in "Another PBEM" (at least this is my guess). He (GB) DoWed me (Russia) for having sneak attacked Prussia. Couple turns later I see 3 of his cav units (individual on per province) show up inside Russia. As far as i can tell they are not losing very many men, either from march attrition or from foraging. I'm guessing that they are really high morale, and they have the forager spec ability. So in the span of two turns, he has sent three Cav Divisions all the way to Moscow, Tver and Orel, some thousand miles? from the Prussian border (just guesstimating that distance). Other than catching me with my pants down (no militia garrisoned) in Tver, I'm not exactly sure what they are accomplishing for him, but there you have it. Is it realistic that three _BRITISH_ divisions can operate (IN WINTER no less!, freaking December) hundreds and hundreds of miles inside Russia for months at a time??

You may ask "what does this have to do with March Attrition," well it is related. In reality, militaries suffered non-combat attrition. Every feature of the game that deals with non-combat attrition is thus part of a related whole "ecology" (including the naval units, and potentially (depending on how nitty-gritty you wanted to get) also civilian population) and to deal with any one component of "non-combat attrition" in isolation from its interaction with the whole system is liable to produce incongruities like we presently have.

Not huge incongruities, but little niggling ones.

[Marshal Villars]

NEW HOUSE RULE 11.0 ANNOUNCEMENT
11.0 FORAGER ABILITY ABUSE PREVENTION
11.1 Players may only give the "forager" special ability to up to three irregular cavalry in their army. Additionally, players may give up to two light infantry units in their service this ability--but NO MORE. Other than this, units with "forager" ability are not allowed. If a player discovers that he has more than three irregular cavalry or more than two light infantry units operating with forager ability at any time, he must immediately eliminate the excess. Note that this is based largely on the honor system, but allies are encouraged to check each other's units from time to time, because if there is a mistake it will likely be an honest one.
11.2 Exception: The Austrian, Ottoman, Polish, and Russian players may have up to 10 irregular cavalry AND 5 light infantry with this ability.
DESIGN NOTE: I am adding this rule because in our "nofrills" game it took one surrender and I converted virtually my whole army into forager troops, virtually eliminating my need for supplies of any kind. Additionally, historically it was the irregular, light cavalry from certain eastern regions of Europe (notably, Croatia, Hungary, and the Cossacks) who were exceptional foragers. The irregular infantry from these regions was also well known for it. Cavalry was much better equipped to forage and could cover larger distances to do it, as well as carry more once they found it. Note that what was key about the units from these areas was their long history of fighting in regions which had little or no supply/population. They had grown used to it. Additionally, in these areas--even if their country wasn't officially at war--there was usually ongoing border raiding and low level conflict. When absorbed into the greater European armies of the time, these units could also be counted on to not "melt away" into the countryside when they dispersed to do their foraging. A strong unit identity and sense of belonging and a major tradition of this behavior was required to prevent the major loss of man power while on "grand forages"--and these eastern units had just that. Additionally, such troops were often known for their ruthlessness and often took more than they were "allowed" to, and were at times difficult to control by their leaders. They acquired quite a reputation and many populations in Europe feared them. After their successes while fighting for the Austrians in the War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years War, attempts were made in other capitals to copy them (most notably the widespread copies of the Hungarian Hussars), but the results were usually a pale imitation.

Concerning the "forager" ability, in any future versions of CoG:EE, I would strongly recommend that this be "turned down" somewhat, and that it reduce losses by 66% if an infantry/artillery unit, and by 80% if a cavalry unit. I think total immunity makes some funny things happen. IMHO, it is a bit overpowered as it is in Vanilla CoG:EE.

[Mus]

Forager units don't lose strength from being out of supply, but they still suffer the penalty for being out of supply in quick combat, which is a big enough deal to swing a close run fight from a win to a loss.

I agree it shouldn't 100% exempt them from foraging losses though and have always thought it was the most OP unit upgrade out there.

Had planned on setting up the game last night, but something came up, so will get it done tonight.

[IronWarrior]

...dichotomously... when it should operate probabilistically...

Sometimes I think my Italian is better than my English, albeit a second language lol. BTW those things happened to you in pbem 109 I believe. [;)]

Agreed that the Forager ability is OP and totally unrealistic... even if it is expensive as a unit upgrade. OTOH I'm still on the fence about the new supply source rules. A Russian campaign is near impossible at the moment (IMO). The Forager ability may be the only saving grace for a Napoleon to conduct such a campaign, and also means less experience for offensive/other upgrades. In combination with many of the other house rules, it may work out ok though.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Is it realistic that three _BRITISH_ divisions can operate (IN WINTER no less!, freaking December) hundreds and hundreds of miles inside Russia for months at a time??

No it isn't.

You have to show him why this wasn't done in real life by smashing those 3 divisions flat and capturing all the horses.

[:D]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

A Russian campaign is near impossible at the moment (IMO).

Given the historical examples of people trying to invade Russia that might be about right.

[;)]

[Mus]

BTW I have set the game up and done my first move, just waiting on the full email list (still missing 2 emails, the 2 guys I haven't played a COG PBEM with yet, everyone else I have) and word to begin and I can mail it out.

Set for Wellington MA and put duration at 23 years, although I am not down to play it out that long, even if the rest of the group is.

I would have suggested some hard glory limit but put it at highest glory.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

A Russian campaign is near impossible at the moment (IMO).

Given the historical examples of people trying to invade Russia that might be about right.

[;)]

Hehe good point, I guess we'll see if it's even feasible at all without it. I do agree the ability is OP.

Although at 5 years we may not even get past the "building up" stage.

[Marshal Villars]

We can play longer than 5 years (indeed, I personally hope we do), but I have a feeling that we will get a patch that will not allow us to install it and keep playing and then most of us will want to start again anyway since most people are not even allowed to have two copies of the game installed without two serial numbers. I just hate saying "23 years" when it is highly possible that any patch will make the game uninteresting to us. However, we can always keep lengthening by 5 years at a time otherwise!

Concerning the statement about Russia by IronWarrior:

"A Russian campaign is near impossible at the moment (IMO)."

1. Charles XII, 2. Napoleon, 3. Hitler

The first two were certainly military geniuses. The last one did make some stunningly good calls in his early years, but really tanked in is ability to reason after that. Only one got to sleep in Moscow.

I would hate to have it any other way.

[Marshal Villars]

QUESTION: does anyone here think that eliminating the unlimited forager ability thing was going too far? In my opinion, this will make the game much more realistic. I just almost couldn't believe it when I turned 60% of the French army into foragers and had about 110 points in reserve in case I had to go all the way. In addition to the allowed units above, I could allow 3 wild card units to each player, and 6 to the Austrians, Ottomans, Russians, and Poles. Any thoughts? My only concern is the amount of counting which would have to be done to make sure limits aren't exceeded. And it really is mostly an honor system, since only allies can see units. This whole thing makes me wonder if we should find another player and simply have me be the referee, with access to each player's password so I can do the checking and rule monitoring.

Does anyone feel we really need the "wildcard" allowance of 3/6 units for foragers?

P.S. I may ask Gil to be our planned invasion records keeper.

[IronWarrior]

Yeah I probably worded that wrong, it's hard enough to campaign outside one's home territory as it is... let alone Russia. Might be ok though, let's see how it plays out.

I'm all for eliminating the forager ability. It's unrealistic and too strong of an ability.

[vaalen]

Why not eliminate the forager ability altogether? No troops were immune to starvation and disease, though some were much hardier than other.

Consider the fate of the Grande Armee in Russia, 1812. The best foragers in Europe, yet almost all of them ended up as attrition casualties.

I'm not quite sure why see a need to be a referee? Surely everybody could count for themselves, if you allow any units to use the ability.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

QUESTION: does anyone here think that eliminating the unlimited forager ability thing was going too far? In my opinion, this will make the game much more realistic. I just almost couldn't believe it when I turned 60% of the French army into foragers and had about 110 points in reserve in case I had to go all the way. In addition to the allowed units above, I could allow 3 wild card units to each player, and 6 to the Austrians, Ottomans, Russians, and Poles. Any thoughts? My only concern is the amount of counting which would have to be done to make sure limits aren't exceeded. And it really is mostly an honor system, since only allies can see units. This whole thing makes me wonder if we should find another player and simply have me be the referee, with access to each player's password so I can do the checking and rule monitoring.

Does anyone feel we really need the "wildcard" allowance of 3/6 units for foragers?

P.S. I may ask Gil to be our planned invasion records keeper.

[terje439]

I myself have no problem with Marshal Villars reciving and keeping the invasions plans AND remaining in the game.

[Marshal Villars]

Okay. Let's go with the new rule 11.0 as it is posted in the official living rules. I don't think that will be a problem. In fact, it may better represent the abilities of these units and the national contingents of these exceptional irregular troops.

I should hear back from Gil R today on being records keeper.

Other than that, I think we are ready to play!

Good luck to everyone. And have fun! Welcome aboard!

[vaalen]

I agree.

ORIGINAL: terje439

I myself have no problem with Marshal Villars reciving and keeping the invasions plans AND remaining in the game.

[vaalen]

The only problem with this example as a model is that 1708-1709 was not a typical Russian winter. Unless I misremember, this was one of the harshest winters ever recorded, even for Russia.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Another interesting example campaign is Charles XII's Poltava campaign. The Swedish army of almost 44,000 men left Saxony on August 22, 1707 and marched slowly eastwards, crossing the Vistula after it had frozen on December 30. They then took Grodno on January 28, 1708 and went into winter quarters around Minsk. 8000 dragoons were left in western Poland as the army advanced. The Swedish army, that had suffered badly from different epidemic diseases during the winter, left its quarters in early June of 1708 and marched towards Smolensk. They were joined by 6000 men and Charles XII resumed his advance. By that point, the army had been reduced by 1/3 due to starvation, frostbite, and the other effects of winter. In June of 1708 they reached Poltava in southern Russia (Ukraine today). When the battle of Poltava began, Charles XII had 14,000 men at his disposal.

So, we have 44,000-8000+6000 men to account for on that morning of June 28, 1708, or 42,000 men. 14,000 men were on the battlefield not far from Poltava. Meaning 28,000 men had "evaporated". I don't know off the top of my head how many provinces that march is in CoG:EE. I would love it if someone could measure for me.

One thing interesting about this campaign, is that aside from the 6,000 half starved men he received as reinforcements, Charles XII didn't get any other replacements. They had no supply lines. Other things we know, the Swedish infantry had a very high "morale". They marched into the Russian winter. And probably up to 15 CoG:EE spaces without any roads and in "non-friendly" and enemy terrain (Poland was not friendly to Sweden). They probably didn't have the "baggage train" upgrade (as it would be developed almost 100 years later by some nations in CoG:EE LOL). They didn't have the organized forage upgrade (same story).

We also know that many of these losses were from disease and starvation. If we put the starvation losses at 10,000, then we need to account for 18,000 men--lumping the diseased men into "attrition", even though many were lost in winter quarters (and in CoG:EE, you don't lose men sitting still or in winter quarters).

I would love it if we had some math wiz in here who could do the quick calculation which would say what kind of a monthly interest rate one needs on $28,000 if you are going to build it up to $42,000 in (August to February + June) seven months. We would then get an approximate rate of attrition for the campaign I believe (though there are more accurate ways of doing it, I am looking for an approximation).

Nevermind. I did it. The answer is about 6% (recalculating probably 7.75%). In a brutal, winter campaign though unforgiving and unfriendly country.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

I'm all for eliminating the forager ability. It's unrealistic and too strong of an ability.

Ditto.

Still waiting on valeen's email and (IIRC) Randomizer's email before I can send out turn 1.

I agree with Terje that we probably don't need a referee, although if Gil wouldn't mind I suppose it wouldn't hurt.