Why do I stop taking casualties?

[NinetyNine]

Just trying to make sense out of these battle results. I do a deliberate attack, take 475 casualties while they take some, then suddenly they just start dropping like flies and my men become bullet-proof. I know the end results part is their taking routing casualties, but the rest makes no sense at face value. Did they run out of bullets or was I just marching behind them shooting them in the back?

[morganbj]

Here's the best answer I can give you.

It's a computer program. It has a series of subroutines which, AFTER THEY ALL RUN, will provide simulated casualties. These simulated casualties are the result of a combat model that the programmer has devised to estimate what the casualties should be based on all the variables in the model using that series of subroutines. As the calculations are completed for each sunroutine, they show up in the reports. BUT, the only report that really matters is the last one. All of the others are just work in progress. So, it the routines that calculate your casualties run first, then that number of casualties will not change anymore. If the casualty routines for the other side are still happening, then those results will change.

[NinetyNine]

That doesn't make any sense, as the combat model, to my understanding, is supposed to calculate by element, not just by overall CV. It would also allow for a division that has one tank left to have the tank destroy a bunch of units late in the calculation, and then turn around and be destroyed on the first shot when the opposing side's routines were run.

[cookie monster]

Only way to analyse when the casualties were created is to run the combat at level 4-7 detail.

Press key 4,5,6 or 7.

Your initial casualties were from artillery. If you disrupted them enough they may not fire at the closer ranges with their rifles.

As I say watch a few combats at a high detail level. You can then see what happens.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: NinetyNine

That doesn't make any sense, as the combat model, to my understanding, is supposed to calculate by element, not just by overall CV. It would also allow for a division that has one tank left to have the tank destroy a bunch of units late in the calculation, and then turn around and be destroyed on the first shot when the opposing side's routines were run.

Well, it doesn't make any sense because you don't understand my point. I said nothing about using the entire CV, now did I?

Yes, combat is done by element, but IRL it is not. So, by doing it by element, some results are applied first, and others later. The only result that really matters is the total of all the elements once the combat is over. The final result is all that matters.

Do you think, for example, that in a real battle, the artillery fires, then the infantry autmatic weapons, then the small arms, followed by an armored assault, etc. No, it can all happen at once. Most combat models do it element by element these days. So, you see the results of one lement, then another, then another. In your example, the ones that caused your casualties were run first. So, your guys aren't bullet proof, it's just that all the casualties you tok were calculated early on.

It's simple when you realize that there's no real guys shooting in your computer.

[NinetyNine]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Only way to analyse when the casualties were created is to run the combat at level 4-7 detail.

Press key 4,5,6 or 7.

Your initial casualties were from artillery. If you disrupted them enough they may not fire at the closer ranges with their rifles.

As I say watch a few combats at a high detail level. You can then see what happens.

These were from the same battle, run at detail level 4, with screenshots taken periodically.

Pretty much my main contention with the results is that there appears to be a point where I stop taking casualties at all, but continue gunning them down. I'd say that they should have routed at that point. The detailed combat messages just makes it look like they sit there as I shoot them.

[NinetyNine]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: NinetyNine

That doesn't make any sense, as the combat model, to my understanding, is supposed to calculate by element, not just by overall CV. It would also allow for a division that has one tank left to have the tank destroy a bunch of units late in the calculation, and then turn around and be destroyed on the first shot when the opposing side's routines were run.

Well, it doesn't make any sense because you don't understand my point. I said nothing about using the entire CV, now did I?

Yes, combat is done by element, but IRL it is not. So, by doing it by element, some results are applied first, and others later. The only result that really matters is the total of all the elements once the combat is over. The final result is all that matters.

Do you think, for example, that in a real battle, the artillery fires, then the infantry autmatic weapons, then the small arms, followed by an armored assault, etc. No, it can all happen at once. Most combat models do it element by element these days. So, you see the results of one lement, then another, then another. In your example, the ones that caused your casualties were run first. So, your guys aren't bullet proof, it's just that all the casualties you tok were calculated early on.

It's simple when you realize that there's no real guys shooting in your computer.

Actually, I'd disagree with most of that having watched the detailed progression of results at level 7.

Air combat is first determined, remaining bombers bomb enemy positions, then artillery is fired. Shots then are exchanged between ground assets as ranges close, and artillery and bombers stop dropping bombs and shells on the advancing troops. It's all very realistic. There's even a point when you can see the route beginning.


Again, my main problem is that this was a route times two. They apparently routed in the battle, then it applied the routing casualties routine to those already routed forces.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: NinetyNine

Actually, I'd disagree with most of that having watched the detailed progression of results at level 7.

Air combat is first determined, remaining bombers bomb enemy positions, then artillery is fired. Shots then are exchanged between ground assets as ranges close, and artillery and bombers stop dropping bombs and shells on the advancing troops. It's all very realistic. There's even a point when you can see the route beginning.

And what I'm saying is that it apprears realistic becaue the developers make it seem so. But, it is not a tactical simulation, so the combat model does not provide reality at that level. It is meant to provide results for the end of the battle that are reasonable. I view the individual element reports as "chrome." They add a great deal to the fun, but should not be taken as reality. The underlying code is simply crunching out results in a predetermined sequence that may or may not be "realisitc" and then text is displayed to how the results. It can be instructive to see what the results are by element, sot hat future battle results can be more predictable, but it really just code crunching away to get a final combat result.

The point is that your "guys" don't get bullet proof. The first few routines have calculated your losses for you, and other routines start. Yes, sometimes, those might cause additional casualties, but sometimes not, depending on the variables used in the calculations. That's all Im saying.