What you have to look forward to as German come 43?

[Peltonx]

This is a little over the top but go to this thread and follow along. Many more examples.

tm.asp?m=2942809

29.5 to 1 odds and you win and lose more then the Russians, totally historical.

I am starting to think the game engine is off just a little.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

This is a little over the top but go to this thread and follow along. Many more examples.

tm.asp?m=2942809

29.5 to 1 odds and you win and lose more then the Russians, totally historical.

I am starting to think the game engine is off just a little.

I've had my gripes with some combat results, but you're misinterpreting things here. First off, the odds were not 29.5 to 1. The initial odds were more like 5:1, since the Combat Values were 528 to 109. The 29.5 to 1 that you're referring to is what the final odds are after the combat has occurred, the myriad leader rolls made, and what is left over, effectively, to determine who holds the ground. In this case, the 29.5 to 1 shows that your forces remaining were much stronger than the current value of the defenders.

Secondly, the numbers shown on the loss reports are, admittedly, somewhat misleading. If you were to instead, show the permanent losses tallied for the two sides, both before and after, you will get a better idea of the net losses between them. You will generally find that the losses listed on the screenshot, are far higher than what is actually lost once the disruption/damage/destroyed is finally parceled out, and reported in the "Show Losses screen" button, in the "Info Screens" tab.

I realize that it's confusing, not very well displayed, nor documented, but that's the true measure of the losses.

[Peltonx]

Thanks for info.

I will start looking closer.

Pelton

[Michael T]

Odds don't have anything to do with losses at all. Apart from determining if anyone retreats. Losses are generated from all the elements firing at each other. Really I am not sure even why odds above 2:1 are even displayed. It makes no difference whether you have 2:1 or 1000:1.

This is where old boardgamers are getting confused. Odds in many other games have a direct effect on losses. EG a 10:1 attack would normally mean barely nothing lost for an attacker. But WITE is entirely different. The combat model tries to stage combat in a virtual mini battlefield with some hidden algorithm that takes in to effect many variables. Odds mean nothing in combat.

You need to dig deeper and look at all the variables in the battle. But that is next to impossible because its a black box.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Odds don't have anything to do with losses at all. Apart from determining if anyone retreats. Losses are generated from all the elements firing at each other. Really I am not sure even why odds above 2:1 are even displayed. It makes no difference whether you have 2:1 or 1000:1.

This is where old boardgamers are getting confused. Odds in many other games have a direct effect on losses. EG a 10:1 attack would normally mean barely nothing lost for an attacker. But WITE is entirely different. The combat model tries to stage combat in a virtual mini battlefield with some hidden algorithm that takes in to effect many variables. Odds mean nothing in combat.

You need to dig deeper and look at all the variables in the battle. But that is next to impossible because its a black box.

Just looking at it from a historical stand point, its way off as in flying pig off.

Its a clear hex no fort and the defending russian units are junk basicly for 43.

The modified combat is 1240 to 41 hehhe

110,000 vs 27,000 I have more guns 3x and 468 afvs vs 0 its a CLEAR HEX no fort being attacked from several sides

Its really a joke.

How can anyone in there right mind explain this result?

Pelton

I couldn't resist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

[Michael T]

Perhaps Blizzard makes a difference?

It can't be explained away by bad die rolls. Because I am assuming that every time an element fires a die roll is made so in any combat there must be 1000's of die rolls. So it would even out.

I see two things that might have a bad influence in this battle. Rumanians and the Weather. Maybe the Russians had lots of mortars. Apparently they are somewhat over rated in the current model. But who knows?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
This is where old boardgamers are getting confused. Odds in many other games have a direct effect on losses.

If someone wanted to try and put this particular result into an "old boardgamer" context, it would be like rolling a 1 in the 5:1 column and getting an EX result. Fairly common for most old-school boardgames. Or, in an OCS table (IIRC) as an A1D1r.

[Michael T]

But how can bad rolls be blamed when there are so many made? Unless there is some global *bad/good luck* roll made early that has an overall influence on all future rolls.

We need to know if there is some other factor at play here that we can not see or understand completely.

[Michael T]

Ground combat is conducted by an automated tactical combat system that consists of a variable number of rounds where ground elements engage each other. In general, the computer first determines the opening range at which combat will take place. This is largely based on defending terrain, with battles in city and urban hexes commencing at shorter initial ranges. The attacker fires first at ranges of 3000 yards or greater, while the defender fires first at ranges less than 3000 yards.

The next step is to determine which ground elements will be able to fire. There are multiple factors involved, to include the type of attack (hasty or deliberate), enemy unit detection level (DL), defending fortification modifier, attacking unit morale and supply status (especially ammo), individual ground element experience, fatigue, ammo usage and range of their equipped devices, and leader initiative and ground combat rating (mech or infantry) checks (11.3). Due to Soviet attack doctrine, defending Axis ground elements will have a better chance to fire at attacking Soviet ground elements.
Ground elements that have successfully passed their checks will then fire their equipped devices that are within range at an opposing ground element. The number of shots taken, the ability to hit the target, and for AFV and combat vehicles where the target is hit, are dependent on the same factors listed above as well as ground element speed, size, and the firing devices accuracy, rate of fire, and blast radius against soft targets.

The amount of ammo on hand impacts the number of shots taken in combat. If over 100%, the combat unit may get an extra shot. If less than 50%, the combat unit will likely get fewer shots, Longer range artillery units will fire less often if ammo is under 75%. Soviet Artillery Divisions firing from 2 hex range and artillery in support units will tend to fire more often, depending somewhat on ammo on hand. Artillery ground elements in support units and on-map artillery combat units will be more willing to use up ammo when they are in a battle than artillery ground elements in other combat units, because the support units and on-map units are less likely to be in additional battles while a non-artillery combat unit must retain ammo for other possible battles in the turn.
If the targeted ground element is hit, then the result is determined based on the defending fortification modifier, the defending ground elements speed and armour, and the attacking ground element‟s device lethality and penetration capability. The result could be no effect, disrupted, damaged or destroyed. AFV ground elements may become damaged during combat due to breakdowns or mines (9.6.1, 15.3.2.5). Any result other than no effect removes the targeted ground element from further participation, to include contributing to the overall combat value, in the current battle; however, disrupted and damaged ground elements may suffer additional effects depending on which side wins the battle.

Generally, the range at which firing takes place will decrease for the ground elements such as infantry squads as they manoeuvre to come to grips with the defending ground elements, though indirect fire and longer range direct fire ground elements may continue to fire at longer range. After all engagements between ground elements are complete, the computer will move on to the next step of determining the winner of the battle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The above comes straight from the manual.

So ammo could be a factor: Were you low on ammo?

Maybe some Soviet artillery units within 2 hexes? Would this show up in the report?

Leader initiative?

DL?

Rumanian morale?

[Michael T]

There is also this:

--------------------------

New Rule– Added a fire penalty in combat when there is a large number of attacking units. The force value of the attacking side is calculated using the following values for each non-support, non-artillery division unit attacking:
Corps 15
Division 9
Brigade 5 (unless the brigade has less than 2000 men in which case it is 3)
Regiment 3
Once the force value exceeds 28 there is a chance that elements will not get to fire during combat. Artillery elements are much less effected (only impacted at closer ranges in combat), and the chance that elements will not fire increases as the force value increases. In general though, adding more units should result in more elements firing, but a lower percentage

--------------------------------

Looks like you had quite a few Divisions attacking, from different commands too. So not everyone would get to shoot. How many divisions were attacking?

[Peltonx]

Comrade has had a bitch for a long time that submachine guns are way way over rated during the combat rounds.

I can see where submachine guns would be top dog in swamp, hvy woods and citys, but in clear hexs rifles would kill them long before they closed.

Its clear terrain I have 1350 guns 460 afv's it should have been huge kia for russians.

Its just a piss poor result that can't be wished away with die rolls, its part of the engine design.

It needs to be changed, because its just plain wrong.

Ranged weapons in clear terrain should have 2,3 or even 4 rounds of combat before submachine guns start firing.

Shit I even lost more guns and had 3 to 1 odds and he retreated?

Explain that result away.

Thats just wrong. Sure his horse towed guns can out run tanks in clear terrain?

Pelton

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Odds don't have anything to do with losses at all. Apart from determining if anyone retreats. Losses are generated from all the elements firing at each other. Really I am not sure even why odds above 2:1 are even displayed. It makes no difference whether you have 2:1 or 1000:1.

This is where old boardgamers are getting confused. Odds in many other games have a direct effect on losses. EG a 10:1 attack would normally mean barely nothing lost for an attacker. But WITE is entirely different. The combat model tries to stage combat in a virtual mini battlefield with some hidden algorithm that takes in to effect many variables. Odds mean nothing in combat.

You need to dig deeper and look at all the variables in the battle. But that is next to impossible because its a black box.

As far as I know game engine takes note density of attacking troops and blast ranges of weapons like air bombs and artillery shells if there is 100 000 men attacking there is lots of good targets for defensive artillery fire and weapons that have blast range. More men attack more of them get inside the blasts of heavy weapons. At that point 1943 Soviet artillery is already an experienced and skilled. Attacking troops are always more exposed to artillery fire than defensive troops.

Numbers dont tell anything in artillery warfare if you can see enemy you can kill him. It is very easy to spot attacking troops.

In this attack Germany have lots of troops concentrated in tight space and only twice number of artillery which is not enough to suppress defensive artillery fire. Casualties on the other hand come from simple density of troops that are exposed against blasts effects.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Odds don't have anything to do with losses at all. Apart from determining if anyone retreats. Losses are generated from all the elements firing at each other. Really I am not sure even why odds above 2:1 are even displayed. It makes no difference whether you have 2:1 or 1000:1.

This is where old boardgamers are getting confused. Odds in many other games have a direct effect on losses. EG a 10:1 attack would normally mean barely nothing lost for an attacker. But WITE is entirely different. The combat model tries to stage combat in a virtual mini battlefield with some hidden algorithm that takes in to effect many variables. Odds mean nothing in combat.

You need to dig deeper and look at all the variables in the battle. But that is next to impossible because its a black box.

As far as I know game engine takes note density of attacking troops and blast ranges of weapons like air bombs and artillery shells if there is 100 000 men attacking there is lots of good targets for defensive artillery fire and weapons that have blast range. More men attack more of them get inside the blasts of heavy weapons. At that point 1943 Soviet artillery is already an experienced and skilled. Attacking troops are always more exposed to artillery fire than defensive troops.

Numbers dont tell anything in artillery warfare if you can see enemy you can kill him. It is very easy to spot attacking troops.

In this attack Germany have lots of troops concentrated in tight space and only twice number of artillery which is not enough to suppress defensive artillery fire. Casualties on the other hand come from simple density of troops that are exposed against blasts effects.

That rationale doesn't work, because we don't see the same proportion of casualties when the Soviets attack with hundreds of thousands of men against similar numbers of guns.

[Strv103C]

Another way to see it is that the germans lost less than 3% of their force while the soviets lost 10% of theirs. I wonder what the result would have been if they had even numbers at start. On the other hand the soviets were about 1/4 of the german numbers while losses are about the same so the soviets were 4 times more effective with their fire, seems odd... good die rolls?

[BletchleyGeek]

Pelton, could you please post the combat report we're discussing here showing the "details" panel?

[Q-Ball]

I also wonder how many of those losses were suffered by the Romanians. The Romanians should , and will, suffer more losses than the Germans on an attack.

Involving the Axis Allies usually inflates the losses for the Axis

It would help to see the detail report, for sure, as well as a report for all attacks that turn.

Is this typical, or an outlier?

[Peltonx]

Server game, but I will and hopefully Kamil will also start posting the full details.

It is 100% possible thats this is how the game is designed by 2 by 3, but if you are following the other thread we both have allot of battles posted over allot of turns.

I guess we all have allot more questions then answers, but I will start posting the full battle reports.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

I have data and allot of it.

It has changed from 2.6 to 1 to 1.7 to 1, but coupled with the effects of - armament production and the removal of 1v1=2v1 ect it might be a wash or still a + for German.

I do have an open mind, hmm not at first, but I eat crow if I am wrong. Ask Flaviusx hehehe

tm.asp?m=2851126&mpage=9

Pelton

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
That rationale doesn't work, because we don't see the same proportion of casualties when the Soviets attack with hundreds of thousands of men against similar numbers of guns.

Soviet use huge number of artillery to suppress German units something like 1:5 ratio especially in late game.

In this battle German have 1200 art, Soviet have 500. 1:2 ratios in artillery cannot suppress enemy artillery fire. This means that in this battle Soviet artillery men see 100 000 axis storming they fire every round they have to cause big casualties to German and flee before those 100 000 axis even get chance to fire their rifle.

It is called consuming enemy force in military terms. Holding the ground is not only goal in defense. If holding is not possible because of overwhelming numbers of attacking forces then defensive side call artillery barrage to kill 2000 attackers with artillery fire and then flee happily without losing a men. It is easier for defender to cause casualties this way because defenders are hidden or inside fortified positions deployed in wide area but attacker is in the open terrain and in consentrated tight formations.

Sending more men and tanks in combat do not chance the fact that defender can fight this way. Sending more men and tanks only increase chance of taking the objective but it doesn’t say anything about casualties. Sending more men and tanks give defender better targets to kill even more with artillery fire before they flee happily.

This is one of the first wargame that even takes semi realistic way of simulating artillery fire in combat and consuming attacking force while in defence. Sending overhelming numbers of troops in combat do not take away defenders chances to consume attacking force. Sending more troops in attack increases defender chances by giving more targets.