Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Final Statistics

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports >> RE: Final Statistics Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Final Statistics - 8/25/2008 8:45:51 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Very good table. Presents a great deal of information and must have been a bear to compile. Good job.

However, I suggest that you either delete the two “Totals” rows or redesign the table so that the totals are actually summing equivalent units. By this I mean that you need a common denominator for the various equipment type totals that are being summed. You’re good with math, so I’m sure you know what I mean.

If you want to make the summations meaningful, I suggest adjusting the data columns for common denominators such as:

1) Express equipment types in AP strength X totals
2) Express equipment types in AP+AT strength X totals
3) Express equipment types in the number of personnel lost X totals

As is, adding German “Squads 92,374” + “Aircraft 2,833” has absolutely no meaning, but adding “Squads 12K AP + “Aircraft 3K AP = 15K” AP has a common point of reference and expresses a relevant total.


I suspect that table deluged readers with more information than they really wanted as is. The totals express the total equipment figures. That seems meaningful to me. Since the breakdown of the totals is obviously right there in the table, readers can gauge for themselves what the significance of it is. What you're suggesting might be interesting, too - but that's far too much work. I guess I could just post a table with the figures for each individual equipment item. But that would definitely be information overload.

By the way, I'm posting this from Bintulu, Sarawak (island of Borneo).

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 91
RE: Final Statistics - 8/28/2008 4:52:45 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I suspect that table deluged readers with more information than they really wanted as is. The totals express the total equipment figures. That seems meaningful to me. Since the breakdown of the totals is obviously right there in the table, readers can gauge for themselves what the significance of it is. What you're suggesting might be interesting, too - but that's far too much work. I guess I could just post a table with the figures for each individual equipment item. But that would definitely be information overload.

By the way, I'm posting this from Bintulu, Sarawak (island of Borneo).


I decided a bit more delineation might be useful for that table. The revised version is attached. Now, squads are broken down into frontline and rear-area parts. Light weapons are broken down into machineguns, AT rifles, AT guns, light guns, mortars, and AAA guns. Artillery is broken down into field, medium, and heavy. Transport is broken down into jeeps, and transport. AFVs are broken down into armored cars, tanks, and assault guns. Finally, aircraft are broken down into fighters and bombers.

This does reveal that the Germans' frontline squads got hit hard, as did their bombers (which had to deal with AAA as well as AS). Assault guns were more located in the infantry units, accounting for their lower loss rates.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 92
RE: Final Statistics - 8/28/2008 4:54:57 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
And here are the new figures for the Soviets. It doesn't reveal much new about them. They were getting hit from every direction. (Note that the Soviets don't have light guns, jeeps, or assault guns.)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 8/28/2008 4:55:25 AM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 93
RE: Turn 11 - 9/30/2011 4:52:13 PM   
Anchovy

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 9/29/2011
Status: offline
Thanks for this after action report. I happened to browse through this one by chance yesterday. Since the units used in this scenario consist of corps and armies, I assume that the scale is at 50km/hex. I remember the Barbarossa scenario included in pre-TOAW III packages: A bit too much for me as it uses divisions and 20km/hex. I also remember another Barbarossa scenario from elsewhere which even go way down to regiment/brigade scale! As a test, I had AI vs. AI try that one out and it was taking soooooooooooo long! For the most part, Barbarossa type campaigns are huge to begin with, so anything at a lesser scale than corps/army feels a bit too much. Instead, more emphasis should be placed in theatre options. Since Barbarossa is operational-strategic in scale, how the Soviet player manages factory evacuations and wartime mobilization is far more crucial than worrying about individual divisions. You hit the nail on this one! :D

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 94
RE: Turn 11 - 9/30/2011 6:52:06 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one.

_____________________________


(in reply to Anchovy)
Post #: 95
RE: Turn 11 - 10/1/2011 5:12:11 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anchovy

Thanks for this after action report. I happened to browse through this one by chance yesterday. Since the units used in this scenario consist of corps and armies, I assume that the scale is at 50km/hex. I remember the Barbarossa scenario included in pre-TOAW III packages: A bit too much for me as it uses divisions and 20km/hex. I also remember another Barbarossa scenario from elsewhere which even go way down to regiment/brigade scale! As a test, I had AI vs. AI try that one out and it was taking soooooooooooo long! For the most part, Barbarossa type campaigns are huge to begin with, so anything at a lesser scale than corps/army feels a bit too much. Instead, more emphasis should be placed in theatre options. Since Barbarossa is operational-strategic in scale, how the Soviet player manages factory evacuations and wartime mobilization is far more crucial than worrying about individual divisions. You hit the nail on this one! :D


Thanks for your comments.

(in reply to Anchovy)
Post #: 96
RE: Turn 11 - 12/30/2020 5:33:56 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Just a design curiosity: why did you use badlands for marsh and how does TOAW(4) now deal with having two different terrain types in the same hex? It's a useful option for making maps look smoother but how doe sit affect game play?

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 97
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports >> RE: Final Statistics Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.828