Move-wise FitE

[larryfulkerson]

I've found a reason to grab the objectives as soon as possible. As you can see from the picture below, despite the horrific losses the Soviets have suffered they are more than keeping up with the number of rifle squads assigned to units out in the field. They are almost keeping up with the number of rifle squads being killed each turn. So this is why the Axis player needs to grab those objectives that cut down the percentage of replacements so that the Soviet army doesn't grow invincible over time.

[larryfulkerson]

A story can be told about the number of Axis heavy rifle squads.

We're told that the Axis can produce 428 HRS each turn.

Of the total HRS's were assigned in turn 1 some 1.5K were killed and the number of assigned HRS's went down in turn 2. But the turn 2 on-hand number went up, presumably because some of the losses due to battle went back into the reinforcement pool. Then in turn 3 the number of on-hand HRS's went back down by 1.3K but the number of assigned HRS's went up by some 5K or so. So some of those that were "damaged" in battle got reassigned to some units I guess. So I'm guessing that the number of "lost" HRS's doesn't reflect the number of "damaged" units. I'm guessing that the number of "damaged" HRS's get's reflected in the next turns on-hand number.

Somebody correct me if this isn't correct.

[cantona]

can someone explained how this cahrt works, on hand, rate, assigned and lost
 
thanks
 
idiotic request i know, especially after playing the game for so long

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: cantona
can someone explained how this cahrt works, on hand, rate, assigned and lost
thanks
idiotic request i know, especially after playing the game for so long

Here's my understanding:

The amount on-hand is the number of "equipment" in the replacement/reinforcements pool that's waiting to be assigned to some unit in the field.

The amount rate is how many is produced each turn, brand new ( not veterans yet ).

The amount assigned is how many are already out in the field part of some unit somewhere.

The amount lost is how many were actually lost from the game. Not the number damaged, because the ones damaged are actually put into the amount on-hand, next turn.

[larryfulkerson]

While I've been waiting for Menschenfresser to return his moves I ran a test of the game engine. I set up a test scenario ( actually the opening turn of FitE ) and assigned all the aircraft to make airstrikes at minimum losses setting. Then I saved the game to the name "airstrike test.sal" and then did the attacks and saved the results to a gif file. Then I reloaded "airstrike test.sal" and re-did the attacks. I did this five times and here's the results.

I always had 90% of the turn remaining but the numbers of aircraft lost varied quite a bit.

[larryfulkerson]

Then I ran the exact same test but set all the aircraft to limited losses. I got an early turn ending twice in a row but the losses were higher than in the min. losses test.

[larryfulkerson]

Then I ran the exact same airstrikes but had all the aircraft set to ignore losses and here's the results:

[larryfulkerson]

I thought it might be more instuctive to run BETTER tests. Which is to say more tests and get the results from the right source. The air reports are known to lie about the number of enemy aircraft destroyed. So I got the number of Axis destroyed aircraft from the Axis air report and the number of Soviet aircraft destroyed from the Soviet air report and ran 10 tests this time and here's the result: [ I always got 90% of my turn remaining ]

These test results are with minimum losses settings on all aircraft:

[larryfulkerson]

Then I ran the exact same airstrikes with all aircraft set on limit losses and got these results:

[larryfulkerson]

Then I ran the exact same airstrikes with all aircraft set to ignore losses settings and got these results:

[larryfulkerson]

Here's what these test results tell me:

[larryfulkerson]

I thought that I might apply the same kind of test to see how much more bomber support means for the ground troops. But before I apply some bomber support I thought I'd do a a ground combat without any support at all to get a baseline figure. And here's the results: [ keep in mind that the result(s) for any individual ground combat will PROBABLY be in the teens instead of 30%...the results were skewed by two separate 100% results in the tabulation of the figures. ]

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the results with just one bomber squadron being dedicated to the exact same attack. I think the results argues for the running of a lot more than just 10 test cases since the results are worse than no bomber support at all.

[larryfulkerson]

I re-ran the bomber support test with only one dedicated bomber supporting, used the exact same attack, ran 25 trials and got the following results:

[ there was 2 instances of 80% turn remaing, one early turn ending and all the rest of the attacks ended with 90% of the turn remaining ]

This time the averages are lower for Axis losses, like they're supposed to be.

[SMK-at-work]

Yes that looks better - a rule of thumb from vague memory of stage 1 stats is that 30 trials is a reasonable minimum for somethign like this.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Yes that looks better - a rule of thumb from vague memory of stage 1 stats is that 30 trials is a reasonable minimum for somethign like this.

I agree completely. By the way, the Z man sent his turn ( finally ) and I have some of his comments to post here [ thanks, Z man ]:

SOVIET COMMENTS:

The Dvina is a very easy place to catch AGN early on. There's no way in hell anyone should be able to hold this line. It's just a delay so the Soviets can get enough north of Moscow to stop the Germans before they cut off Leningrad.

I am very satisfied with the forward defenses of the Dvina, Minsk, the Stalin Line and the Dnestr. Especially Minsk. I don't think I've ever gotten such a solid looking defense (solid for such a forward line during Op. Barbarossa). The rest of the Soviet strategy is to cart as much north to insure Leningrad won't be cut off in '41; build a buffer defense that can absorb the Soviet attempt on Moscow through the winter; spread out in the south so that I don't suffer a major breakthrough too early; and try to hold the Crimea as long as I can. Of all places, the Moscow & Kalinin fronts are the best to skimp on early. By skimp, I don't mean a hollow defense--simply not as much as one could shove into this area given the proximity to Gorky and Moscow. I'm falling way back against the Finns (to the border). They are easier to defend. I'm retreating everything toward Murmansk in the extreme north.

It is important to get all of the Soviet engineers spread out early before the Germans move too far east and start to tear up the German rail net with bridge attacks. Not sure that's Larry's approach, but there is no better task for them. I'm going to lose more than I have in the past to the defense of the Stalin Line, Minsk, etc. But that should buy an extra turn or two for the real line further east. I've kept Larry's strategy of pulling back all air units to safe fields. Turn four sees the lessening of the Soviet airshock. I'll stick with this strategy at least until I get back up to 100%.

I have no other strategy for '41 than to survive and not lose too many of the industrial cities.

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the numbers of units in play even as we speak. The overwhelming propunderance of Axis units cries out for a really long front line. By that I mean I can create a longer front line than he can at this point....which means I can outflank him, perhaps at multiple points and surround his units and eventually starve them out of supply. Maybe.

So I'm rethinking my original plan....which was to have three major thrusts, one to Leningrad, one to Moscow, and one to Kiev ( and other points south ).

I'm thinking that if I concentrate on one long finger pointing at Moscow that would make a really really long front line in the middle of his country. I have Greymain ( spelling ? ) to thank for this idea ( he's a genius because he agrees with me ). The idea is that if I make one major thrust to Moscow, once it's captured I can swing either north or south and the Russian dude won't know which direction I'll go next and end up having to defend both directions, diluting his forces making neither strong enough to stand toe-to-toe with the Axis.

The plan depends on the Soviet not being able to delay my drive long enough to gather enough forces to thwart it unduly.

[larryfulkerson]

I don't know about you guys but I have a checklist that I like to follow whenever I get a turn from my PBEM opponent and I'm starting my turn.

1. I disembark all the railroad embarked units.
2. Take a look at the airplanes and rest those that are tired and assign missions.
3. Have the rr engineers repair the rails.
4. Move the reinforcements by rail to where they are needed.
5. Move the pioneers to where they are needed ( cross rivers, re-build bridges, etc. )
6. Move the combat units as necessary.
7. Move the arty and Korps HQ units to the best places for them to be.

after combat I take a look at the airplanes and rest/assign to missions as needed
then go to step 5. Rinse and repeat.

I debarked all the rail travelers so now I go through the air force and take them off ignore losses and put them all on limited losses and assign missions ( Combat support for the bombers and some fighters, and air superiority for some of the fighters ). I'm trying to maintain an umbrella over all the Axis forces just in case the Soviet dude has any of his planes on interdiction duty. Just one fighter squadron per area is cool. The rest of the fighters go on combat support for now.

[larryfulkerson]

And seven squadrons covers the entire force ( so far ) with air superiority missions:

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the rail line I'm going to need for the long finger plan to work. So I'm going to ship in at least 1/3 of all the rr engineers to work on the broken lines and get this thing started in earnest.