1943 German manpower

[chaos45]

Yep have read personal accounts of the battle from the commanders on the ground- they differ completely from your telling of the situation. They didnt call the exit from the pocket hellsgate because it was a pleasant experience......also the casualty figures tell the true story of how bloody a fight it was.

You do realize thats like 3,000 men per day of action just at this pocket? Thats pretty much a full regiment+ of combat troops lost every single day......that is telling in and of itself of how brutal this combat situation was.

Also to get a rough idea of casualties just look at total losses for the war- a quick rough estimate for German losses from 1941 until the end the lost an average of around 3,000 KIA/MIA per day...wouded and sick probably 3x that from most what Ive seen.

So every single day of WW2 on average your looking at the German Army lost 10,000-15,000 men----per day- now im sure mud/weather weeks were lower operations/lower losses but as an overall average.

So in a given week the total average for the war would around 70,000 men KIA/WIA/MIA/POW....yes some weeks more some less but as a rough overall average- and probably on the low side for overall average....short of major encirclements you will never see this, in this game. (another roughly 10 million total POWs from the last year of the war I didnt include)

The Soviets average...much higher, just some quick math probably 10,000 KIA/MIA/POW per day with apparently alot lower percentage of wounded from what I see guess so many more captured is another reason. So about 10k wounded per day.

So average weekly losses rock in around 140K+ give or take a couple thousand. Alot are permanent losses due to alot of POWs, about half.

An if you really want to start counting 1945+ losses and German POWs the German POW count skyrockets in 1945 and the losses per day about triple or more due to massive surrendering to the western allies. Also you have some massive surrenders in North Africa and after Normandy.....

So its very easy to see with just some basic research the game is all wrong on casualties. As most of the time there werent massive encirclements going on and entire armies being wiped out. Pure daily combat along a thousand miles of frontline adds up to a ton of dead/wounded/missing/POW every single day....and that number then skyrockets when major operations actually kick off.

In modern war we get upset over a squad being wiped out- in WW2 nobody really cared when a squad/company/even battalion was wiped out- that was standard combat losses. The Germans knew going into barbarossa they were going to lose at least Half a million men- they knew this.....and those estimates were provided the war was done by Fall.

Now the issue in the game is trying to make this happen without either army collapsing due to losses being to high suddenly from combat. I think in the game if the German player suddenly starts burning close to 50k men a week for operations they will soon have to curtail operations due to attrition especially by the summer of 1942. Now given mud turns both sides would lose alot less....and this goes a long way towards explaining why in the real was there were period of just static operations neither side had the men to conduct major costly assaults because manpower is finite.

Even in mid to late 1943 when the soviets go over to the attack they attack for awhile...then they have to halt and rebuild...then attack for awhile...casualties are one of the big reasons.....their units would be effectively destroyed after several weeks of combat....same with the German units in the Ukraine during this time....most of the German divisions were down to less than 10K total manpower and probably closer to 5-8K in total manpower often with only 1-2K of that being actual combat infantrymen/pioneers.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

It makes some sense, but not alot of sense in that
the German army is already artificially much stronger than
it should be as the war progresses. Im wondering why attrition
losses were reduced several patches ago if you read the patch notes-was
awhile back in the patches, as that might have something to do with it.

For all logical purposes its a valid fix.
Going forward though hopefully .05 increase losses a fair amount but from morvaels comments
im not sure thats really going to happen as he seems skeptical. I dont care if losses are completely
historical but they should be a close approximation to be realistic.

The lower loses are because of what I have clearly posted 15+ times each time someone questions the loses.
The patch lowered the loses because they are cooked into the books at 2 to 1 then one Russian gets Infantry Corps they are 1 to 1.
The combat engine is based mostly on retreat loses, which means 120,000 Russians running across a field only lose 5000.
Choas your complete ignorance of this make everything you say a non factor as it never address the facts of the matter(how the engine works).
Also I am not Hitler and your not Stalin.


The loses were lowered because the combat engine can not be historical in any way shape or form.

Historical loses, again for the 1000000 time. 42-44 there were very few pockets so the average loses for 42 should be 6 to 1
Which as we know for a fact are 2 to 1 so the only way Germans can reach historical loses is pockets.

1942
1st—————280,000——————1,686,000———-6 to 1
2nd—————220,000——————1,395,000———-6.3 to 1
3rd—————383,000——————2,371,000———-6 to 1
4th—————177,000——————1,281,000———-7.2 to 1
1943
1st—————498,000——————1,908,000———3.8 to 1
2nd—————110,000——————444,000———-4 to 1
3rd—————533,000——————2,633,000———-5 to 1
4th—————381,000——————1,939,000———-5 to 1
1944
1st—————423,000——————1,859,000———-4.4 to 1
2nd—————352,000——————1,021,000———-3 to 1
3rd—————879,000——————1,771,000———-2 to 1
4th—————297,000——————1,086,000———-3.6 to 1

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Well currently me and Pelton just finished up April 1942 last turn-
German OOB was 3.7M mine was
6.7M so by historical standards Germans about 1 million stronger
than historical and Soviets about 500-600k stronger at this point.

At some point can you stick to the facts and not just make things up as you go along?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_F ... ld_War_II)

The Russians had 5.3 million men on the Russian front June 42.

We are in the summer of 42 not 43 silly pants

^ Glantz, David, The Soviet©\German War 1941¨C45: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay.

If we are going to quote people at least quote them correctly

[Callistrid]

Pelton has the right, the posted losses are historical, but the german reinforcements are high, and gains 2x, one from manpower, second from full strengthen divisions.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: morvael

There was a huge increase in losses of AFV due to combat, way above historical in 1.08 due to unlocking of secondary squad weapons and heat weapons in general. By adding repair after move we reduced the problem somewhat, but losses were still greater than IRL, so they are going to be nerfed again. But I think losses in infantry are too small and could be raised. Thus there would be higher expenditure of manpower, but smaller of specialized equipment. If raising rate of fire is not a solution due to ammo constrains, there perhaps easing to obtain a kill/damage result on soft targets is in order.

edit: I do agree with chaos45's assessment of tactical/operational/strategic levels of (in)competence for both sides.

The problem with balancing WitE is lack of real feedback. To get a good (from statistical POV) sample, there should be a hundred of you guys playing WitE PBEM 24/7, giving us results from finished campaigns using latest version on weekly basis. As it happens it takes months (or years) to finish a campaign, so they are not very useful for balancing (started many patches back they do not relate to current meta). And AIvsAI tests are good for testing stability but are not representing what happens in PBEM games at all. AI can only push back enemy and requires many tricks to work. PvP games work in a different way and expose different problems.

As we know from historical data and game data of which I have collected and posted more then anyone by 100000% not AI vs AI junk.

The problem is retreat loses and plan old combat loses are way way way off.

The loses the germans take are slightly low, but the combat loses the Russians take ( no pockets as per 42-44) are 3 times to low and the combat engine will NEVER EVER reflex this.

If German loses are increased Russian loses need to be 3x increase, but the combat engine can not do this and Russian rifle Corp are hugely over powered, but that is another story for another thread.

Yes Chaos is right Russian loses should be far higher and germans slightly higher.

The loses were lowered because ALL AS IN ALL THE GAMES all things being equal ended in summer of fall 44 in Berlin and the Red Army was on the offensive in late 41 YES 41.

Because eevery moron figured out you simply spam attacked and lost 90% of the time but you could grind down german OOB easly.

Why because Russian combat loses are 2 to 1 and should be 5 to 1 minus all surrendered troops

[chaos45]

Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

The German totals do not include WIA and the Soviet totals are including WIA from just a quick look at the numbers.

So whoever did that chart did it to put the results showing more favorable German ratios.

Which is why you wont believe my numbers which are including WIA/POW Germans in them. You chart is KIA only and maybe MIA...but it sure isnt including German POW/WIA.

Over 6 million German WIA and over 10 million POW by wars end......you chart is only showing 4 million total or so losses. which goes along with the estimate 5 million+ total German KIA by the end of WW2.

As to Soviet spam attacks wearing down the German OOB- well thats kinda historically what happened. Now is just to figure out how to get the game to work without it causing the German army to collapse pre 1944. As historically the Soviets did lose alot of the attacks but the key thing was they took some Germans with them each time.

Also----as to historical and the game fall of Berlin in late 1944----You do realize that I think they termed it the "October miracle" that the German army halted the Soviets at all in late 1944. Things were looking pretty grim in the Summer of 1944 for the Germans and german high command/Hitler thought it was game over.

I havent studied Soviet operations super in depth in that period as it was pretty much game over for Germany by fall of 1944...but I do know some thought has been conjectured that the Soviets could have stormed berlin before 1945 but Zhukov decided to be safe and wipe out the German forces in Prussia/along the north coast before moving on Berlin. As he was worried/overestimated German capabilities for a counterattack from that direction into his flank. In all reality the German threat was minimal but Fog of war and perceptions. Least from my limited study on those operations is my understanding.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

The German totals do not include WIA and the Soviet totals are including WIA from just a quick look at the numbers.

So whoever did that chart did it to put the results showing more favorable German ratios.

...

you'll find that Pelton has a long history of producing that chart as definitive proof that he is right ... and there is a long history of people making exactly the response you've just made (quite correctly).

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

The German totals do not include WIA and the Soviet totals are including WIA from just a quick look at the numbers.

So whoever did that chart did it to put the results showing more favorable German ratios.

...

you'll find that Pelton has a long history of producing that chart as definitive proof that he is right ... and there is a long history of people making exactly the response you've just made (quite correctly).

As you know loki I have posted the links more then once not sure why you making this claim?

General Krivosheyev became widely known after the 1993 publication of the book titled Ãðèô ñåêðåòíîñòè ñíÿò: Ïîòåðè Âîîðóæåííûõ Ñèë ÑÑÑÐ â âîéíàõ, áîåâûõ äåéñòâèÿõ è âîåííûõ êîíôëèêòàõ (Transliteration: Grif sekretnosti snyat: poteri vooruzhyonnyh sil SSSR v voynah, boevyh deystviyah i voennyh konfliktah), originally in Russian, and about Soviet military casualties in various conflicts of the twentieth century, particularly in World War II.[1] With Krivosheyev being the general editor of the book, this analysis prepared by historians based on declassified Soviet archival data represents the first comprehensive attempt to scientifically address the losses of the armed forces of the former Soviet Union during World War II. Previously, the number of human casualties was mostly a matter of political speculations, and widely fluctuated with changes in political expediencies. In 1997 Krivosheyev's book was translated and published in English under the title of Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century.[2]
A follow-up book also under editorship of Krivosheyev addressed Russian and Soviet combat losses in the wars of the 20th century, titled Russia and the USSR in the Wars of the Twentieth Century: Losses of the Armed Forces. A Statistical Study, was published in Moscow in 2001.[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoriy_Krivosheyev


This blog has the chart posted:

Unless you like to buy the book of course.


http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... front.html

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

The German totals do not include WIA and the Soviet totals are including WIA from just a quick look at the numbers.

So whoever did that chart did it to put the results showing more favorable German ratios.

Which is why you wont believe my numbers which are including WIA/POW Germans in them. You chart is KIA only and maybe MIA...but it sure isnt including German POW/WIA.

Over 6 million German WIA and over 10 million POW by wars end......you chart is only showing 4 million total or so losses. which goes along with the estimate 5 million+ total German KIA by the end of WW2.

As to Soviet spam attacks wearing down the German OOB- well thats kinda historically what happened. Now is just to figure out how to get the game to work without it causing the German army to collapse pre 1944. As historically the Soviets did lose alot of the attacks but the key thing was they took some Germans with them each time.

Also----as to historical and the game fall of Berlin in late 1944----You do realize that I think they termed it the "October miracle" that the German army halted the Soviets at all in late 1944. Things were looking pretty grim in the Summer of 1944 for the Germans and german high command/Hitler thought it was game over.

I havent studied Soviet operations super in depth in that period as it was pretty much game over for Germany by fall of 1944...but I do know some thought has been conjectured that the Soviets could have stormed berlin before 1945 but Zhukov decided to be safe and wipe out the German forces in Prussia/along the north coast before moving on Berlin. As he was worried/overestimated German capabilities for a counterattack from that direction into his flank. In all reality the German threat was minimal but Fog of war and perceptions. Least from my limited study on those operations is my understanding.

Your data is cherry picking.

You are talking 1942 or say 43.

Look at the data for 42 and 43 and its clear that - Stalingrad German OOB would be historical.

And your wrong about Russia OOB in 42

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_F ... ld_War_II)

The Russians had 5.3 million men on the Russian front June 42.

Dude it not to hard to google info.

Get the facts straight.

The totals for the war have little to do with 42 and 43.

and my charts have links where are you getting your data?

If its anything like your 42 Russian OOB claims I will ot believe it unless you post something to back up your wild claims.

[Callistrid]

Check this:

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

and this:

http://ww2stats.com/1941_11_MIA.jpg

[Peltonx]

Also peeps

The Russian player is never going to be a stupid as Stalin and let 1,000,000's of men get pocketed,
The German player is never going to be as stupid as Hitler and have Stalingrad happen.

After turn 1 you can throw out all the history books, because WitE is a game of what ifs not you have to play out the game just like Stalin vs Hitler.

I am guessing all the Russian players build 100's of sapper or whatever they want, again after turn 1 the Russian player can build what he wants not what Stalin built.

The combat engine is mostly based on retreat loses which is why the ratio is 2 to 1 and not what was historical for 42 or 43.

Just because history says xyz does not mean Chaos has to be stupid like Stalin, which is why the Russia OOB for 42 is much higher and why hes suffered far less in loses.

And the same for me I am not going to attack all along the front just because.

[Peltonx]

Loki you know what really really funny?

Chaos link in post# 17 is the very same blog chart I have been posting for YEARS ..

Which is from the book

Again its funny is it not?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

bro bro bro heheheheh

Look at your post #17

The chart I posted was from that site [:D]

Go down the page [;)]

I know I am right the chart is based on data.

So your wrong and I am right, thanks for the link.

[8D]

[Peltonx]

All joking aside.

I think Chaos and I agree that German losses seem slightly low and that Russian losses are massively low.

But again we are just not going to make the same mistakes as Hitler and Stalin.

So we can't really follow those charts to a tee.

I think on balance morvael, Denniss and 2by3 have a great game. Clearly the best to date on the Eastern Front.

[chaos45]

Agreed its a solid game, and alot of my comments are comments to improve the game.

More data is for sure needed I think overall from more plays- currently both sides have an extremely steep learning curve for 1941.

Despite what you say about Soviet players being allowed several mistakes and still doing okay I kinda disagree, especially early on in the game when forces are sparse a mistake then can cost the soviets game as you have shown several times in your AARs.

However the Germans have the same very steep learning curve. In that a missed turn or two of forward moment can doom the campaign very early.

I do feel the casualty issues are causing alot of run away play by both sides though. As effectively you have never ending offensives that only end if your rail line doesnt keep up.

Also as to my chart- I using the chart where he talks about total front strength. The casualty chart is still wrong and as you can see where he references it from are two different sources for German/Soviet.

The Soviet records on the chart are official records, the Germans he got from a Forum.....so unless he has a solid source to back up the German losses they are effectively made up.

An I can tell you they dont include all losses as they dont add up to the over 10 million total German KIA/WIA and 10 million POW by wars end. When the majority of German losses were suffered on the eastern front.

Total German losses against the Soviets is somewhere around 10 million plus for the 4 years they fought when you include WIA/POWs.

[Peltonx]

By 45 everyone was MIA or surrendered, we can hardly call them part of the data. The Allies generally love to because that evens things out, but causes games to miss the boat.

42-44 was a blood bath and Russia was getting ground down by Germany. Population were only 2.5 to 1

Russia was suffering 4.5 to 1 loses at best 42-44.

IF and its a big if it was only Germany vs Russia its clear looking at the data Russia could not keep up with those loses.

Young people easly see the data for what its is over 40ish forget it.

The game is Germany pushing forward followed by a short stalemate then Russia pushing forward.

Look at my game vs smokendave 258 VP's and hes going to get a draw atleast, going to be close never seen a game played out where Germany draws or wins for that matter.

I should add game game where 2by3 does not have to add a million AP points.

[chaos45]

I agree on the POW issue which is if you noticed I didnt include POW in my main averages. If I had the averages would have been double to triple what I put.

Also the Germans did suffer over 1 Million POWs to the soviets pre-1945 im pretty sure, would be a stat I would have to research more...but when you count stalingrad, bagration, and numerous other smaller encirclements pretty sure they hit over 1 million POWs before the end run in 1945. Then a couple million more in 1945 from everyone that couldnt get to the west.

In 1945 from January on they also suffered much more attrition losses to POWs as some units were just giving up at times especially the new units being thrown into the front with little training.

Historically speaking Berlin most likely could have been taken in late 1944 I think. However Political and industry objectives won out I think in the overall plan. As stalin wanted as much of Europe as possible before the war ended and Zhukov was being a tad bit timid at the end thinking he was still facing early war German maneuver forces. He really was worried about a massive German counterattack force that just didnt exist...as the force he was worried about had mainly been defeated in the fighting to re-open lines to riga and in the defense of Prussia. Alot of really good German armored units where ground up and basically completely destroyed in those battles.

As to your statistics and ratios- a few things do really mess with that theory...first off if the war is only Germany vs Russia the chances are truly that the Soviet union might win out on pure statistics----I think the chance is honestly probably 50/50 because historically the Attacker does always take more losses and from late 1942 on the German army was the strategic defender...to eventually win the war the Germans would have to go on the offensive again and if you compare German losses in their offensive/counteroffensive operations from 1943 on there were much closer loss ratios. Also Stalin was in a hurry in the last year of the war to take Europe thus his men were expendable to achieve political objectives. In a 1v1 war thats no longer an issue and in 1944 the loss ratios were much close between the two armies...in fact pretty sure operation bagration one of the biggest operations of the war the Soviets actually did better than 1:1 with the germans for irrecoverable losses. They did suffer more losses when wounded were taken into account but most returned to duty whereas the Germans actually suffered more KIA/MIA/POW losses than the Soviets in that operation.

Now no lendlease would be the biggest issue for the Soviets as the mobility gained via lendlease trucks and rail road engines/cars was critical to their war effort. In general Germany would probably win if you take out all western assistance however it would still have been a very long drawn out bloody affair. Think they made a tv show or series about what if the western allies had sued for peace and left it between Germany and the Soviets and the war was still going into like the late 40s/50s...it would probably be something like that.