Game engine and combat ratio need and over haul.

[Peltonx]

Historical losses on Eastern front, only includes KIA,MIA,WIA

——————German——————-Russian————Ratio

1941
3rd—————551,000——————2,795,000———-5 to 1
4th—————280,000——————1,598,000———-5.7to 1
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

As can be seen in many of the AAR's 1.05 or before 1.05 the combat ratios are not close to historical.

In most games by March 1st 1942 the ratio is 3.5 to 1 at best 1.5 millions Germans to 4 million Russians. 50% of German losses are during the blizzard which is still causing more losses to Germans then was historical.

Personally I can live with the June 41 to March 42 game as it stands now. This is probably being caused by the general withdraw to the east tactics used by most russian players now, which seems completely withen historical limits. This causes higher then historical losses.

The problem I have with the game as it stands now is the combat ratio during 1942 is not close to historical at all. Over all during 1942 the ratio was 6 to 1( there were very few surrenders during 1942, nothing like 41). So the basic ratio for a normal retreat should be at least 1 dead german for every 6 russians.

Most combat ratio's even when the russian is forsed to retreat is 3 to 1.

Historically speaking the combat ratio for 1942 was the same or better then 1941.

2 by 3 for some unknown reason has desided to lower the combat ratio during 42.

Now the combat ratio during 1943 was 4.5 to 1, but in game its 2.5 to 1.

Again why has 2 by 3 lowered it to 2.5 from 4.5? Why?

This is why come late 1943 the russians can do a front wide offensive which again is not historical and by mid 44 break the german army. Once broken the Russian can advance 4 to 6 hexes per turn and pocket many German divisions.

Its simple math guys. 1+1=2

Russians get 5 men for every German replasement.
Combat ratio is 2.5 to 1 during 43
Russians out number Germans 2.5 to 1.
Thats why German army is breaking so easly during late 43 to early 44 and games will end months before may of 45.

If the combat ratio was historical the German army would not break so easly, losses would be almost 1/2 of that they are now.

The russian army is way over rated or the german army is way under rated as per 2 by 3.

Right now the game is broken late war because of 42-43 combat ratio's being so far of from historical.

Pelton

[KenchiSulla]

Assaulting a german position in 1941 blizzard and failing an attack results in 50 dead, wounded german soldiers and 6000 dead, wounded russian soldiers....

You can't compare the game to history... period

[Cavalry Corp]

Interesting figures - never seen those before. 3rd q of 44 was the worst - Bagration and all that. But the Germans were also losing a lot of men in 41.

I think the game designers realise there are issues ( the repl rate seems to be the newest one that needs correcting) but in vast and complex game its not going to be easy to keep everyone happy - In the scenarios I have played however I have thought the Russians overpowerful.

[Klydon]

There should be historical and then there should be the potential for a variance from that based on the actual conditions in game. This could lead to one side doing better than historical or worse than historical up to a point. It should not mean that we consistently see a result that is in one direction or another compared to historical as it appears it is now.

I would also point out that in a game this complex and that there has been much more experience with the 1941-42 time period that it is going to take time to get it right. As it is, the game has generallly been extending the period that things seem to be right or close to right as we go along. When the game first came out, it got really broken into the late fall and winter of 41. Now, it seems to do fairly well through 1942 for the most part.

[alfonso]

a) Pelton, unless you correct me, it seems that you are including the Soviet soldiers killed by Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian bullets, and you do not include the Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian soldiers killed by Soviet bullets. Why? Look at your figures for the last quarter of 1942, that show the worst-ever ratio for the Red Army, even when their Uranus offensive almost vaporized two Romanian Armies.

b) According to Krivosheev, as much as 1 million of Soviet soldiers that were recorded as missed when surrounded, were drafted again to the Red Army when the Soviets liberated their territory.

If you combine those two facts, perhaps the historical casualty ratio is not the 6:1 that you claim.

[Joel Billings]

I have seen very different numbers and ratios. Posting your sources would be useful. As some have mentioned, there are many apples to oranges comparisons, and even if we had numbers we all agreed on the game system does not neatly provide all of these numbers to us (all wounded are not accounted for in disabled, for example, all Axis losses are lumped together). In addition, there are are more reinforcements that enter the game than withdrawals take them away, thus a net gain of German troops in the East aside from replacements. Soviets made many foolish attacks in 1942 that human players will never do (that's a whole topic in itself, re how much control players should have and/or why players are not incentivized to attack more). Too many items to get into a long discussion with you. Given all of these factors, we do not claim to have everything perfect, and we are always open to new information, but I don't have time to get into a big debate with you, and we do the best we can given the difficulties of data and game system. The game is not perfect, but also is not "broken". If you post your source for your information, let me know, otherwise I will stay out of this thread and the rest of you can debate the issues all you want (just please keep it civil). Happy Holidays.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Assaulting a german position in 1941 blizzard and failing an attack results in 50 dead, wounded german soldiers and 6000 dead, wounded russian soldiers....

You can't compare the game to history... period

As 2 by 3 always says post it or its BS.

And 1 or 2 battles is not a trend.

Sounds like a story or in Flaviusx words some goofy post.

[randallw]

All of this goes back to the old question that may never be answered to everyone's agreement: are results supposed to be close to historical, even if the players don't play the game like the real leaders did?

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Assaulting a german position in 1941 blizzard and failing an attack results in 50 dead, wounded german soldiers and 6000 dead, wounded russian soldiers....

You can't compare the game to history... period

As 2 by 3 always says post it or its BS.

And 1 or 2 battles is not a trend.

Sounds like a story or in Flaviusx words some goofy post.

Fine, 37 to 3500 then...

First example, failed attack

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: randallw

All of this goes back to the old question that may never be answered to everyone's agreement: are results supposed to be close to historical, even if the players don't play the game like the real leaders did?

I guess that the main source of divergence between historical loss ratios and game loss ratios, lies in the number of POWs bagged during large encirclements. Obviously, I'm talking about ratios because absolute numbers could be very different from the actual figures, if the gamers are more cautious than their historical counterparts. But if we disregard POWs and MIA in the calculation, the ratios should be comparable (the idea is that KIAs are directly related to tactical combat effectiveness, while POW numbers are more dependent on strategic choices).

So, trying to calculate a ballpark figure:

Number of killed in action on the Eastern Front from June 22nd 1941 to August 31st 1943:
Germany: 559260 (according to the Heeresartzt documents)
Soviet Union: 2989480 (according to Krivosheev)
Other Axis: 200000 (estimate calculated taking two thirds of the KIAs for the whole war period)

KIA ratio USSR/Axis = less than 4:1 for the whole 1941-1943 period.
Of course the result is heavily dependent on the Axis Minors' losses estimate. I considered about 130k for Hungary, 70k for Romania, 40k for Italy and 60k for Finland. If someone has better data to suggest...

[KenchiSulla]

Succeeded attack but look at the amount of damage by firing...

[KenchiSulla]

Example 3, again great result... but look at results by firing

Soviets can't hit the broad side of a barn in 1941... You will get your "historical" casualties, if you hold your ground.. Failed attacks bleed the soviets dry.. Players tend to not like failed attacks and thus prevent them as much as possible...

You will never get your "historical" casualty rate... at least not in 1941..

[gradenko2k]

Did Cannonfodder even have to post all of that? It seems pretty intuitive that the Russians aren't going to see as many losses historically because A.) they're not launching as many counter-attacks and B.) they're not launching as many failed counter-attacks

[carlkay58]

The point that Cannonfodder made was that Pelton is not including everything in his major statement. When Pelton blames the Soviet actions for the non-historical losses, Cannonfodder responded with specific examples that showed that the loss ratio is caused by actions on both sides, not just the Soviet one. A runaway defense will release both sides from the attrition battle. When the Soviets run in 41 followed by the Axis fallback defense in the Winter, Soviet casualties are less - but then so are the Axis. The ratios are going to change - because neither sides are fighting a war of attrition but rather one of mobility.

[DTurtle]

Sorry for the large screenshots, and that the first one isn't sorted by attackers killed. But yes, during the first Blizzard pretty much all losses inflicted by the Soviets is only because of the destruction of damaged/disrupted/other elements during retreats forced on the enemy.

If you look at the losses during attacks by the Axis before that, you can see the same thing (though not as extreme). Once the Soviets go on the attack later in the war, they once again profit from the high degree of losses inflicted during retreats. The problem is that too much of the variation in the losses is caused by one question: retreat or not:




I also have screenshots of the losses incurred during retreats, and some detail shots of later turns. But I think that this is enough for now.

[delatbabel]

DTurtle, thanks for the useful data point. So perhaps the thing that needs tweaking is that higher losses need to be inflicted in battle, and lower losses inflicted as a result of retreats? Without going through every minor engagement at a high level of detail, it seems to me that, in general, soldiers take casualties first and then run away second.

Perhaps someone needs to point out that World War II wasn't actually won by the Germans, and that a reasonable historical simulation of the war in a game isn't going to end in a German victory in every possible scenario.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I have seen very different numbers and ratios. Posting your sources would be useful. As some have mentioned, there are many apples to oranges comparisons, and even if we had numbers we all agreed on the game system does not neatly provide all of these numbers to us (all wounded are not accounted for in disabled, for example, all Axis losses are lumped together). In addition, there are are more reinforcements that enter the game than withdrawals take them away, thus a net gain of German troops in the East aside from replacements. Soviets made many foolish attacks in 1942 that human players will never do (that's a whole topic in itself, re how much control players should have and/or why players are not incentivized to attack more). Too many items to get into a long discussion with you. Given all of these factors, we do not claim to have everything perfect, and we are always open to new information, but I don't have time to get into a big debate with you, and we do the best we can given the difficulties of data and game system. The game is not perfect, but also is not "broken". If you post your source for your information, let me know, otherwise I will stay out of this thread and the rest of you can debate the issues all you want (just please keep it civil). Happy Holidays.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cas ... rld_War_II

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59330786/Stat ... ir-Own-Los


A long list of books:

http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/sourcespage.htm


Here are sourses you asked for.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

I have played now 19 games with 9 getting into at least 1942.

I know what the basic combat ratios are, I have them listed in more then 1 AAR using 10 turn trends not 1 or 2 or 10 battles at a time. 100's

I track them by 10 turns and the over all combat losses of Axis and Russian, not just German losses.

This is what it is, JB is not questioning what we know the combat ratio is in WitE, thats set in stone.

Any player can can trend this for them selfs.

Losses during 41 are close to historical, until blizzard generally 500,000 to 3,000,000 or 6 to 1.

Losses during 42 and 43 are 50% of what is historical. There were no major pockets during that time frame so it was basicly combat ratio's only. KIA and WIA with some MIA.

It is what it is. historically the ratio during 42 was the same as 41, but its 3 to 1 in WitE and 2.5 to 1 during 43.

Ok I have backed up historical data as per JB's request and the AAR'S back up the in game data.

The question is why has 2 by 3 set the combat ratios to 1/2 of historical during 1942 and 1943 or basicly 1944 levels.

Pelton

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

a) Pelton, unless you correct me, it seems that you are including the Soviet soldiers killed by Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian bullets, and you do not include the Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian soldiers killed by Soviet bullets. Why? Look at your figures for the last quarter of 1942, that show the worst-ever ratio for the Red Army, even when their Uranus offensive almost vaporized two Romanian Armies.

b) According to Krivosheev, as much as 1 million of Soviet soldiers that were recorded as missed when surrounded, were drafted again to the Red Army when the Soviets liberated their territory.

If you combine those two facts, perhaps the historical casualty ratio is not the 6:1 that you claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Fr ... Casualties

Romania: 81,000 KIA/MIA 200,000 more died in captivity.

Hungary: 100,000 KIA/MIA 200,000 more in captivity

Italy: 32,000 KIA/MIA 50,000 more in captivity.

Finland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

[Peltonx]

Great job Turtle.

Very good data.

Your not cherry picking a single battle or 2 or 20, but showing a trend based on allot of battles.

Pelton