baseline attrition ratio, will we ever find out what it is?

[chuckfourth]

Hi Sammy5IsAlive, you said "I'm only doing one more post on this as it is not really relevant to Hans' original post."

So I made my own thread on the subject so you can help me here.

you said
"Just to add to the figures I gave from my own game. Total losses to date are 3906k Soviet losses and 454k Axis losses. So the attrition losses (which as above were 4:1 in the Axis' favour - broadly comparable to the figure you cite from Dupuy) comprise 2% of the Soviet losses and 4% of the Axis losses. So my conclusion from those numbers would be that a) in 1941 at least the Soviet side suffers a significant higher loss rate from attrition and b) that whilst attrition losses will accumulate over the course of a campaign they will not make a significant difference in comparison to combat losses."

Aha that is very interesting, but your total loses are irrelevant because they include losses from fighting and from the logistics phase -adjusted- attrition which again depends very largely on how you play rather than the base line attrition ratio. ie your total losses tell you exactly nothing about what the base line attrition ratio is. To make matters worse you start with total losses and then call them attrition losses, they are not the same thing.

I would put good money on the base line ratio being 1:1. I would suspect changing this to a more realistic 1:5 would make a significant difference what do you think?

You said
"Re the bit in bold, historically each man lost was more damaging to the Axis than to the Soviets."

This is sort if irrelevant as well, It takes about a month or so to make a good soldier, It takes about 8 years to make a good staff officer. The reason the Germans army always had a better casualty ratio in all engagements was that they had superb leadership, not better soldiers or equipment. That excellent staffwork was maintained throughout the war. On the other hand Soviet leadership remained poor throughout the war.

You said
I may have misunderstood your point but it sounds like you are suggesting that 'baseline' attrition should be set to counteract this historical Axis disadvantage. Which seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

Yes you have misunderstood my point. No I am not suggesting that baseline attrition ratio should be set to counteract anything. I am saying that it should be the same as it was in reality, not 1:1 as it most likely is in the game.

I can supply relevant quotes from "Numbers, Predictions and War by Colonel T.N. DUPUY" if you are interested? that show a baseline 1:1 attrition rate is totally wrong.

Calling all Devs, Calling all devs can we please be allowed to know what the baseline attrition ratio is in the game?

I mean is it really that hard to tell us what the baseline attrition ratio is?

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Hi Sammy5IsAlive, you said "I'm only doing one more post on this as it is not really relevant to Hans' original post."

So I made my own thread on the subject so you can help me here.

you said
"Just to add to the figures I gave from my own game. Total losses to date are 3906k Soviet losses and 454k Axis losses. So the attrition losses (which as above were 4:1 in the Axis' favour - broadly comparable to the figure you cite from Dupuy) comprise 2% of the Soviet losses and 4% of the Axis losses. So my conclusion from those numbers would be that a) in 1941 at least the Soviet side suffers a significant higher loss rate from attrition and b) that whilst attrition losses will accumulate over the course of a campaign they will not make a significant difference in comparison to combat losses."

Aha that is very interesting, but your total loses are irrelevant because they include losses from fighting and from the logistics phase -adjusted- attrition which again depends very largely on how you play rather than the base line attrition ratio. ie your total losses tell you exactly nothing about what the base line attrition ratio is. To make matters worse you start with total losses and then call them attrition losses, they are not the same thing.

I would put good money on the base line ratio being 1:1. I would suspect changing this to a more realistic 1:5 would make a significant difference what do you think?

You said
"Re the bit in bold, historically each man lost was more damaging to the Axis than to the Soviets."

This is sort if irrelevant as well, It takes about a month or so to make a good soldier, It takes about 8 years to make a good staff officer. The reason the Germans army always had a better casualty ratio in all engagements was that they had superb leadership, not better soldiers or equipment. That excellent staffwork was maintained throughout the war. On the other hand Soviet leadership remained poor throughout the war.

You said
I may have misunderstood your point but it sounds like you are suggesting that 'baseline' attrition should be set to counteract this historical Axis disadvantage. Which seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

Yes you have misunderstood my point. No I am not suggesting that baseline attrition ratio should be set to counteract anything. I am saying that it should be the same as it was in reality, not 1:1 as it most likely is in the game.

I can supply relevant quotes from "Numbers, Predictions and War by Colonel T.N. DUPUY" if you are interested? that show a baseline 1:1 attrition rate is totally wrong.

Calling all Devs, Calling all devs can we please be allowed to know what the baseline attrition ratio is in the game?

I mean is it really that hard to tell us what the baseline attrition ratio is?

I think it depends on what you mean by "baseline attrition ratio"?

From what you are saying about the numbers I gave you, it seems that you are working under the assumption that there is a separate and fixed level attrition that is applied to either side separate to the attrition routines that are carried out as part of the logistics phase. I am 99% sure that this is not the case and that the way the attrition is worked out is that each element has a baseline chance of becoming subject to attrition which is then modified by various factors (e.g. it is increased by poor supply/low CPP as per the manual; I also suspect that experience levels affect the attrition chances as this is a value that frequently seems to be relevant; there may also be leader checks involved).

As in the other thread I don't know what that baseline chance is but I suspect that it is the same for both sides - maybe in the region of 0.05%? Depending on how the programming is done the baseline chance could even be 0%???

What my figures would suggest is that over the first c.6 months of the war there was roughly a 0.1% chance each turn of a Soviet element being lost to attrition whilst the chance for an Axis element was around 0.02% each turn.

What kinds of figures are you getting in your game for combat/retreat/attrition (you can find this info in the event log)??? What kind of figures are you expecting to see in your games?

[Joel Billings]

If by attrition, you mean "front line" attrition taken during the logistics phase, I don't know the exact formula, and knowing the way Gary usually does things, it likely has many factors. IIRC, Gary has said in the past that experience is a major factor.

[Wiedrock]

I am also not quite sure what you guys mean.

• There's the mentioned frontline attrition.
• Movement attrition (elements getting damaged when moving/expending MPs)
• Attrition from standing afk in save areas (yes you get elements damaged when stading in savety behind the lines) - not sure if it is purely RNG or has to do with "training"/gaining EXP for Elements.
• Then there are Elements that are/were damaged before the logistics and are now being sent to repair or being scrapped, this stuff also gets listed in the Logistics "Losses" filter (I guess).

[chuckfourth]

Hi Sammy5IsAlive,

The manual says this

"suffer additional attrition losses representing low intensity combat;"

So Joel what I mean it combat attrition and only combat attrition. My question is

As the Germans consistently received less casualties in these combats than the Russians (see "Numbers, Predictions and War by Colonel T.N. DUPUY") these combat attrition losses should be less for the Germans. I bet you at the start, before the modifiers are applied they are the same for Russia and Germany, So when you calculate what the losses should be you can either start the Germans at a lower baseline and apply the modifiers the same, or you can start the attrition calculation form the same baseline for both sides but for combat attrition there would have to be a -nationality- modifier which for example halves the attrition combat casualties if you are German. I bet nationality is not considered with either method when combat attrition is calculated.

what I mean by baseline attrition ratio is do Germany and Russia have the same -starting- point when the attrition modifiers are applied. Germany should have a lower start value because they suffered less casualties in any particular engagement.

Sammy5IsAlive If as you say each element has a "baseline chance of becoming subject to attrition", then less German elements should qualify for that baseline chance and it should remain so throughout the war in a ratio of at least 1:2. but I don't think that is how it works. I am not assuming anything is separate.

I would think that the logistics attrition phase just selects a fixed ratio of elements to attit from both sides and that number is the same for both sides, giving a 1:1 ratio. -Then- the logistics phase applies the attrition modifiers. If one of the attrition modifiers is nationality then that would be OK but is it?

I am not interested in the absolute values or final values just in the relative starting values /numbers/ratio that the beginning of the attrition adjustment process.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Joel
Just to be crystal clear is -nationality- considered when the combat attrition is calculated? On a national level the Germans in any particular combat had a much lowered casualty ratio than the Russians. The reason for this was mainly consistently excellent German staff work at all levels through the war and consistently poor staff work by the Russian throughout the war.

(see "Numbers, Predictions and War by Colonel T.N. DUPUY")

[Joel Billings]

I don't know re nationality, but I doubt it. Gary tends not to go that way, he usually uses other factors. I'd be surprised if you are seeing the same front line attrition for both players. Seems to run between 2 to 1 and 4 to 1 Soviet vs Axis in my latest test game (remember Axis is German plus Axis Allies).

[chuckfourth]

Hi Joel thanks for your answer.

Ok so you dont know OK fair enough, but can we find out then? or is this whole thread pointless?

The attrition we see in the game is irrelevant. I am asking if the starting point for the caculation is the same for Germans and Russians.

So is it impossible to find out how the combat attrition is actually calculated? Or is it a secret?

[Joel Billings]

Not impossible, just likely not practicable. The starting point is probably the same (probably no nationality distinction), but likely varies based on the unit stats/situation, including experience of the unit (which for Germans is significantly higher in 1941). I'll ask Gary about it next week in case there's a simple answer, or if he can provide some general info, but if it's more involved, we're not going to provide a formula.

[chuckfourth]

Very good Joel thank you.
I don't know if you or Gary have read Dupuys book, But really if anyone is going to design a game about the eastern front it is compulsory reading.
The Germans had excellent staffwork -throughout- the war not just in 1941. Experience of the German troops may have declined but the standard of their leadership did not, it was excellent throughout. If you read Dupuys book you will see that in -any- type of battle, in -any- year, between Germans and Russians the Russians -always- took way more casualties, even when the Germans were seriously outgunned and outnumbered. This is because exemplary German staffwork ensured the various German units were thoroughly coordinated in battle. Not so the Russians they relied on numbers and High Explosive right up to the end of the war. Russian attrition compared to German attrition should be something like 5:1 in every year of the game, irrespective of experience.

There are of course other factors, staffwork would be worthless without radios, The German army throughout had a sophisticated functioning radio network that allowed the command and control to reach right down to where it was needed. The Russians tankers for example where waving flags at each other out of turret hatches. There is no comparison.

I understand that the end result varies according to "stats situation". The -starting point- for the calculation should be different for the Germans and Russians throughout the war. Starting point reflected each countries staffwork abilities.

My concern is that this rule is actually doing the Russians fighting for him. Attrition doesn't hurt the Russian one bit because he has low value units and plenty more to come. But it is really hard on the German because his quality units are being eaten up by this rule -no matter how he plays-.

[Joel Billings]

I'm pretty sure both Gary and I have read Dupuy's book as I remember discussing it with him many years ago. It's definitely a foundational text. Gary's about as well read on these issues as anyone I know. I remember is when Gary decided he wanted to create a better simulation of the logistics for War in the West. He didn't like the simplicity of the War in the East system, so he dove into the US Army Green book about logistics in the European campaign. IIRC that's when he started to get into the tonnage of freight being used in shipping to Normandy, and how it was being disbursed down the chain. I'd read some of the green books before, but never focused on the logistics. The WitW system that resulted from his study eventually moved east in WitE2 (with many modifications). He'd be the first to admit that none of these systems are perfect. In the end, we are producing a game, not a simulation.

[chuckfourth]

So then you can see my point then I guess. The book shows how for all the battles the Germans fought whether they were attacking or defended, outnumbered or not, no matter who they were fighting, they always took less casualties. For the Russian campaign the ratio is about 1:5. This is not an opinion its a fact, the book contains all the relevant stats to prove this ratio.

Are you familiar with the principle "all thing being equal"? So what I am saying is this. If a Russian and a German unit are adjacent they will both suffer combat attrition in the logistics phase. So "all thing being equal" that is if the units are identical in every way and status, then in that situation they should -not- both suffer the same "baseline" attrition. In that situation the Russian should suffer about 5 times as much combat attrition as the German unit. Because that is what happened the stats are there to prove it. So what I am saying is that the baseline ratio should be about 1:5 then all the relevant adjustment for fatigue or whatever are applied. so the starting point in the combat attrition calculation, whatever it is should not be 1:1. It should be at a minimum 1:2 and a maximum of about 1:5 exactly what I have have not looked into as yet as I am trying to find out first how combat attrition is actually calculated?

[chuckfourth]

So its been a month now, Gary to busy to tell us if the baseline attrition is 1:1 or not?

[Joel Billings]

Sorry, the delay is on me as I got the answer the week after your last post but forgot to post what I found out. The attrition formula uses experience and morale (the higher each is, the less attrition taken). That's all Gary found in the attrition function, although he wasn't willing to say for sure that something else comes in somewhere else (but he doesn't think so). Since some elements can be damaged versus destroyed, it's dealing with the damaged elements that supplies and support come in during the logistics phase. That's the basics of the system.

[56ajax]

Morale and experience, so attrition favours the Axis. Another reason for the Soviets to run.