Page 1 of 1
Q_15.8
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:43 pm
by HOTEC
Section 15.8:
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:49 am
by loki100
no - and you wil find that anywhere in the manual this sort of formulation is used its not by accident [;)]
there is a very low chance of pretty much any leader being killed so that represents non-combat accidents and so on
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:03 am
by Hanny
ORIGINAL: loki100
no - and you wil find that anywhere in the manual this sort of formulation is used its not by accident [;)]
there is a very low chance of pretty much any leader being killed so that represents non-combat accidents and so on
We have the German General officer casualty rate, this is an area where the game could improve on, 136 General Officers died in combat or from wounds from combat, a Div General was lost on average every two weeks, 23 Corps Generals, one every 14 weeks, 3 Army Generals, one every 95 weeks. In addition they shot 84 General Officers for treason.
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:09 am
by loki100
ORIGINAL: Hanny
ORIGINAL: loki100
no - and you wil find that anywhere in the manual this sort of formulation is used its not by accident [;)]
there is a very low chance of pretty much any leader being killed so that represents non-combat accidents and so on
We have the German General officer casualty rate, this is an area where the game could improve on, 136 General Officers died in combat or from wounds from combat, a Div General was lost on average every two weeks, 23 Corps Generals, one every 14 weeks, 3 Army Generals, one every 95 weeks. In addition they shot 84 General Officers for treason.
well as you know, the game doesn't track divisional commanders
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:39 am
by Hanny
ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: Hanny
ORIGINAL: loki100
no - and you wil find that anywhere in the manual this sort of formulation is used its not by accident [;)]
there is a very low chance of pretty much any leader being killed so that represents non-combat accidents and so on
We have the German General officer casualty rate, this is an area where the game could improve on, 136 General Officers died in combat or from wounds from combat, a Div General was lost on average every two weeks, 23 Corps Generals, one every 14 weeks, 3 Army Generals, one every 95 weeks. In addition they shot 84 General Officers for treason.
well as you know, the game doesn't track divisional commanders
Except that it does, it tracks all 5 General Officer grades, the same 5 grades I just posted the casualty data for, to which I can add 30 died by accident, 60 by suicide, so as to better model leader casualty, the game already tracks General Officers, it just makes them immune from becoming a casualty until they rise to higher command, and does not appear to use historical norms for leader casualty rates when that occurs, or causal agent which is something else I know.
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:05 am
by Sammy5IsAlive
ORIGINAL: Hanny
ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: Hanny
We have the German General officer casualty rate, this is an area where the game could improve on, 136 General Officers died in combat or from wounds from combat, a Div General was lost on average every two weeks, 23 Corps Generals, one every 14 weeks, 3 Army Generals, one every 95 weeks. In addition they shot 84 General Officers for treason.
well as you know, the game doesn't track divisional commanders
Except that it does, it tracks all 5 General Officer grades, the same 5 grades I just posted the casualty data for, to which I can add 30 died by accident, 60 by suicide, so as to better model leader casualty, the game already tracks General Officers, it just makes them immune from becoming a casualty until they rise to higher command, and does not appear to use historical norms for leader casualty rates when that occurs, or causal agent which is something else I know.
IIRC in #1 at least the leaders who historically died during the war (also those wounded/reassigned to other theatres) are removed from the list on their month of death if they are not already assigned (which in turn exposes them to the risk of dying 'in-game').
History being what it is most of the leaders who died IRL before they had the opportunity to demonstrate their capability at a higher level later in the war have fairly low ratings in game and so the player doesn't notice them drop off the list.
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:05 am
by Hanny
Historic casualty of General loss
Air attack 32%
Art attack 14%
Small arms 13%
Anti Tank 9%
Grenade 5%
Tank 4%
Partisans 9%
Minefield 9%
Sniper 5%
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:42 am
by Hanny
Re small chance, here is the historical % of loss by agent.
Air Attack 32%
Art attack 14%
Small Arms attack 13%
Minefield, A Tank fire, Partisans 9% each.
Grenade, Sniper 5% each
Tank fire 4%
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:46 am
by Hanny
ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
ORIGINAL: Hanny
ORIGINAL: loki100
well as you know, the game doesn't track divisional commanders
Except that it does, it tracks all 5 General Officer grades, the same 5 grades I just posted the casualty data for, to which I can add 30 died by accident, 60 by suicide, so as to better model leader casualty, the game already tracks General Officers, it just makes them immune from becoming a casualty until they rise to higher command, and does not appear to use historical norms for leader casualty rates when that occurs, or causal agent which is something else I know.
IIRC in #1 at least the leaders who historically died during the war (also those wounded/reassigned to other theatres) are removed from the list on their month of death if they are not already assigned (which in turn exposes them to the risk of dying 'in-game').
History being what it is most of the leaders who died IRL before they had the opportunity to demonstrate their capability at a higher level later in the war have fairly low ratings in game and so the player doesn't notice them drop off the list.
In game the player gets to put anyone he wants, and so as a German quickly establishes an effective command structure, now as the SU how can you erode that advantage if you don’t know how best to cause a leader casualty and get close to the historical loss of leadership to the Germans.
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:39 am
by Sammy5IsAlive
ORIGINAL: Hanny
We have the German General officer casualty rate, this is an area where the game could improve on, 136 General Officers died in combat or from wounds from combat, a Div General was lost on average every two weeks, 23 Corps Generals, one every 14 weeks, 3 Army Generals, one every 95 weeks. In addition they shot 84 General Officers for treason.
I think that those are the total figures for both fronts not just in the East. Do you have the breakdown between theatres?
Aside from that even if the number of leaders that die in game is slightly off the historical number I think this might be one of those situations where 'game' and 'simulation' need to be balanced. It is not good from a gaming perspective if a player arbitrarily loses their best generals early in the game to a die roll aimed at producing a historical number of deaths. At the other extreme you want an element of historical accuracy and so those generals can't just be invulnerable. So the balance between the two is the solution that I imagine the developers have chosen.
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:21 am
by loki100
we've seen rare instances in testing where say Zhukov commanding Stavka has died.
On one hand, its clear that there is a small chance of pretty much anyone having a fatal accident. On the other, I'm sometimes a bit uneasy about this sort of rare, uncontrollable but significant event.
edit: now what would really worry me is a return to the rules in the very early versions of WiTE1 where both sides put a lot of effort into killing off leaders and by late 1942 both armies were led by a collection of 2-4 numpties.
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:48 pm
by HOTEC
As you see the data from the old WitE, the Soviets have so few good and fair leaders in hand. All can be counted by one hand. If they are all killed, the mobility and firepower of the Red Army would be seriously impaired. Although the leader ratings are allowed to grow up to rating 6, the Soviet inferiority remains. In order to boost the chance of success, the Soviet leaders are very likely to be placed close to the front exposing them to be killed. If WitE2 still provides so few good and fair Soviet leaders, the incentive to kill them will not diminish.
It seem that you have done something to prevent the killing. What have you done?
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:46 pm
by loki100
ORIGINAL: HOTEC
As you see the data from the old WitE, the Soviets have so few good and fair leaders in hand. ...
...
regular reminder, trying to map WiTE1 onto the rules for WiTE2 is not really a good idea. The code base split and WiTE2 has been designed as a completely new game (with some familiar building blocks)
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:43 am
by Hanny
ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
ORIGINAL: Hanny
We have the German General officer casualty rate, this is an area where the game could improve on, 136 General Officers died in combat or from wounds from combat, a Div General was lost on average every two weeks, 23 Corps Generals, one every 14 weeks, 3 Army Generals, one every 95 weeks. In addition they shot 84 General Officers for treason.
I think that those are the total figures for both fronts not just in the East. Do you have the breakdown between theatres?
Aside from that even if the number of leaders that die in game is slightly off the historical number I think this might be one of those situations where 'game' and 'simulation' need to be balanced. It is not good from a gaming perspective if a player arbitrarily loses their best generals early in the game to a die roll aimed at producing a historical number of deaths. At the other extreme you want an element of historical accuracy and so those generals can't just be invulnerable. So the balance between the two is the solution that I imagine the developers have chosen.
....
Decline of leadership and erosion of combat power from reduction of it is certainly well understood and used in conflict simulations, using historical data sets, for instance in the WBTS the CSA command structure over time became less effective through high volume of casualties and lack of suitable replacements, just as is the reverse, ie retention in command and gaining experience in the Northern forces, it’s just that this game prefers to use made up numbers instead.
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:57 am
by Hanny
ORIGINAL: loki100
we've seen rare instances in testing where say Zhukov commanding Stavka has died.
On one hand, its clear that there is a small chance of pretty much anyone having a fatal accident. On the other, I'm sometimes a bit uneasy about this sort of rare, uncontrollable but significant event.
edit: now what would really worry me is a return to the rules in the very early versions of WiTE1 where both sides put a lot of effort into killing off leaders and by late 1942 both armies were led by a collection of 2-4 numpties.
Another use of small chance, this time it means the 30 German Generals who died from accidents is the same historical ratio of 7 times that losing their lives in combat.
Does the game have anything close to the historical ratio of death from accident and death from enemy activity?, I see nothing in the manual so far as to inform the player this is so, still less the numpty explanation you have provided.
RE: Q_15.8
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:02 am
by loki100
thread locked, going off topic with abuse of forum members