Sixth ArmyTraining Center: Empirical test of combat effects.

[springer]

Having run these simulations, I think the relationship between upgrades, experience, support weapons and infantry is pretty clear.  The effect of upgrades is linear.  I don't think there would be any other surprises.

As mentioned before, the most interesting finding in all the simulations is the interaction between support weapons and infantry upgrades. Specifically, upgrading infantry, which has the direct of effect of only increasing infantry's durability (armor played no role in the simulations) but not adding to it's infantry attack power, still has a large, indirect impact on improving the unit's overall firepower.

[springer]

One of the issues that face any AT player are replacements. Within the Sixth Army Campaign, I wanted to know which would work best: Build units with high XP and then let the replacement form their own green units. Or would it be better to put the replacements into the experienced units and bring down the unit XP a little. Generally, I try to keep my veteran units at high experience and let the recruits fend for themselves. I've also read about such preferences throughout the various discussion boards.

But I thought I would test this using the testing ground. Here, I had the standard situation given in the initial graphic with support weapons (Mortars and Infantry Guns) at 20 XP and Infantry is set to Infantry II. Then, I had the two German units attack in different combinations of experience that averaged out to 50 XP (i.e., 20XP and 80XP; 30XP and 70XP, 40XP and 60XP, 50XP and 50XP). The results of the simulations (200 attacks) show no reliable differences:

Experience of Units: Infantry lost; Soviet Power Points destroyed
20 and 80: 22.5; 133.9;
30 and 70: 22.7; 130.4;
40 and 60: 22.3; 133.8;
50 and 50: 22.6; 126.5;

I find these results interesting. Because I couldn't look at individual unit casualties, I don't know if AT weighs casualties toward the less experienced units or whether it destributes casualties using weighted averages across the entire attacking force. My guess, looking at the results, is that AT averages unit experience across the entire attack.

What is also interesting is that it seems to suggest that neither strategy (letting units start green or seeding them with experience) is clearly better in terms of absolute casualties. However, there is a tactical advantage to keeping veteran units: When an attack must succeed, the veterans can be concentrated to ensure high experience in the attack.

On the downside, it may be very likely that when an attack that mixes a veteran unit with a green units, the veterans run a higher risk of being destroyed (because they may function in the battle like the average of all units rather than highly experienced units). Does anyone's experience with the game support or disconfirm this idea?

[abulbulian]

Great research springer. [&o]

Being somebody who still is convinced that 2 + 2 = 22 [:'(], I appreciate you crunching all the numbers. I had some theories myself, some correct and others now have been disproved.

By the way, how did you run the 200 simulated attacks in your last test?