Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

In a .05 AI vs AI testgame (Axis at 110%) GER built 410k manpower (excluding reinforcements) by the first turn of 1942. FIN 20k, ITA 230k, ROM 75k, HUN 60k, SLO 13k, CZE 36k, POL 110k. Overall 950k manpower produced. Note the theater limits apply to all nations so not all manpower is available in-game.
In campaign games Axis minors except ITA have 100% available. Available CZE/POL manpower gets moved to GER pool at below 10%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blubel

The Soviets take several million men less losses in 41 than historical. Honestly, I think it is more a problem of ahistorical play by both sides than the game engine. I had a game with hoooper, in which I made reckless attacks and he defended in hopeless situations. This did make for a great game and also produced more historical loss rates. I think in december we were by about 950k / 4.2m. As I understand it, the game does not count lightly wounded men which would be able to recover within a week as wounded, so I think it is possible to get to "realistic" casualties figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Bah bah bah for the 1000 time.

This is not a book or a movie.

You are not Stalin and I am not Hitler.

Once turn 1 starts you can throw out what you think you know.

The game clearly models replacements and attrition losses.

In the old war reports wounded include lightly wounded that return to the front.

Just because players choose to do things in a diffent way does not make things broken.

Your a newbie this has all been talked about more then once in the past 3 yrs and things tweaked closer and closer to historical as possible.

If players don't have good skills vs a highly skilled player things will not follow historical patterns

This is why I play 4-6 games under each patch as I get a true feel for the game.

You are simply not as skilled a rkimmi, smokendave and Brian which is why your OOB is 500,000 lower and I have taken less losses.
They know which areas of the front are more important and how and which units to attack.

You should have 450 AP banked before summer of 42 and you have ZERO which is a huge mistake.

The game is not broken you simply are new and learning.
Your a quick learner and I expect you will be one of the top 10
players very soon, but you simply don't understand the game as good as the other 3
players which is clear based on the data an not politics.

Turn 38 March 8th 1942

Pelton vs smokendave Russian OOB: 6,978,000
Pelton vs rkimmi Stavka OOB: 6,924,000
Pelton vs Chaos45 Stavka OOB: 6,449,000

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bob12

German casualties in 1941 (before blizzard) are all caused by attrition from fighting, there are no Stalingrad or blizzard type strategic reverses for the germans to confuse the situation.

From every AAR I've seen German casualties for this period are much lower than they were historically, If the result was based on player skill then it should vary above or below the actual total depending on what happens/skill etc, but it is always significantly below the real figure.

This consistent and significant deviation is clear evidence that casualties from fighting are too low (this applies for both sides), and is supported by the fact that the German OOB is always able to remain steady or increase, instead of decreasing like in reality.

I believe you wrote somewhere that the game relied too much on pockets instead of fighting to account for casualties and I agree with that assessment. I think with some tweaking the game can be made more realistic in this regard, it will be very interesting to see the effect of the changes in the upcoming patch in this regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bob12

German casualties in 1941 (before blizzard) are all caused by attrition from fighting, there are no Stalingrad or blizzard type strategic reverses for the germans to confuse the situation.

From every AAR I've seen German casualties for this period are much lower than they were historically, If the result was based on player skill then it should vary above or below the actual total depending on what happens/skill etc, but it is always significantly below the real figure.

This consistent and significant deviation is clear evidence that casualties from fighting are too low (this applies for both sides), and is supported by the fact that the German OOB is always able to remain steady or increase, instead of decreasing like in reality.

I believe you wrote somewhere that the game relied too much on pockets instead of fighting to account for casualties and I agree with that assessment. I think with some tweaking the game can be made more realistic in this regard, it will be very interesting to see the effect of the changes in the upcoming patch in this regard.

Lvov pocket on Turn 1 in AGS area is a HUGE difference in German casualties.
GHC players use minimum force necessary to eliminate T1-T6 pockets, to the point of letting the Romanian army destroy the Lvov pocket over a couple months of time. Surrounded units are very weak in the vast majority of 1941 cases. These have a direct impact.

You seem fixated on getting agreement that the status quo is unacceptable. You're not going to get it. Other respectable minds feel very differently.

It's a simulation not a recreation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

So your saying a 1942 historical start = Soviets win by 1943 I doubt it.

Starting 1942 OOB is 2.5M Germans vs 6.1M Soviets. Which when you add Axis allies to the mix means 3.5M-4M vs 6.1M Soviets....yep the Germans actually have to use the allied armies to make up for manpower.

My point of contention on this whole issues is why are German losses ridiculously lower than historical yet Soviet OOBs remain only slightly larger? If say the German player is going to end up with an extra 1 million men then the average Soviet OOB in 1942 would have to be roughly 8M+ for any type of parity in combat value to historical. Then you run into issues of supply an such until Soviet industry gears up in 1943. Yep my OOB was alittle lower but some of that is also the way I guess im building my army as I never have armaments and it seems alot of stupid squad swaps require extra armaments so I have alot of guys on leave for some reason because they arent using the latest and greatest ToE lol.

IDK the perfect answer but it really would seem that higher casualties for both sides would fix it....Im guessing higher attacker losses period would be a big fix...as it would cause the Axis to burn more men in 41/42 to get closer to actual loss rates if they want to take alot of the Soviet union...and then when the Soviets counterattack/go over to the offensive in 1943 it would reduce their ability to keep a massive army as attacking would burn up the army over time.

Perfect example in me an Peltons game in march 1942- first off axis on the offensive in march is a joke when you look at their capabilities historically.....that aside....

We have been fighting a massive battle over voronezeh or however its spelled lol...Anyway Titanic amount of combat with basically 2-3 panzer armies slamming headlong into a full soviet front w/about 5 full armies+ defending a fortified river line and backed by 4 entire shock armies(16 strong Cav Corps+infantry divs). Over the so far two week struggle losses have maybe been 20-30k per side.......thats stupidly low for the amount of forces involved. So far over the 2 weeks of actual fighting im talking both sides threw 5+ attacks each on their turns with 3+ divisions/corps involved in each and every assault and the defender about as stong typically 2-3 divisions.....The losses should have been staggering and most likely debilitated both sides for some time....instead most the units involved took less than 10% losses and are basically fine for further combat. An lets not forget the thousands of aircraft involved from both sides...each combat 150+ aircraft from each side and bombing units each turn as well.

Having 6+ corps of Soviets w/armor support slamming into 2-3 German panzer divisions in full on drive mode should be a bloody bloody affair for both....end results ends up being like a couple thousand losses for the loser and a 1-2K losses for the winner.

As I have said the game treats combat like a bad day of fighting which is the issues as a turn is a week of fighting a deliberate assault takes most of a units movement thus even in movement percentages = more than 1 day of fighting. Maybe hasty attacks = 1 day fights and a different more bloody chart for deliberate assaults. IDK the answer just suggestions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

IMHO the patch will adjust losses in proper direction, and the debate should be postponed until then. We will have to find out whether new level of losses will be OK or not enough yet.