RE: Osinovets

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: Osinovets

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Osinovets

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Osinovets - 5/15/2019 11:47:38 PM

joelmar

Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline

Small parenthesis... I agree... no Hitler was not responsible for everything, and no his generals weren't always right. They didn't even agree among themselves, leading to constant bickering and rivalties during Barbarossa, but also in other campaigns. Von Kluge and Guderian being of course the most famous example. If they didn't agree, it means that at least one of them was wrong. ;-)

Still... in spite of all that, there is no denying that Hitler is directly to blame for most of the blunders and bad decisions that caused the worst defeats Germany suffered in the war. And worst, when it happened, he became even more adamant about doing things his own way, concentrating more and more power into his hands and creating divisions in the high command to make sure there would be no one able to stand up to him, starting with how he continuously created unclear delimitation and competing jurisdictions between OKH and OKW. And furthermore he asked for complete responsibility.

Since he so desperatly asked for it, why not give it to him? lol!

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 31

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 12:10:16 AM

Hardradi

Posts: 571
Joined: 2/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

A common mistake that I am sure many people have made. I have long grown out of that and have no illusions about what the Germans or the Soviets were capable of. TIK makes good series and I enjoy the attention to detail that he puts in his videos. I have erased the "it was Hitlers fault" idea from my head entirely and am more than capable of seeing that the failures of the German Army were given to a dictator who was long dead as an attempt by those surviving generals to put themselves in a better light, thus ignoring their own mistakes when writing their Autobiographies and other books related to the war. Hitler had faults and intervened in operations time and time again but that doesn't mean that German generals always knew what was best and it was always Hitler who ruined everything.

Yes but is this really the case. I like this TIK blokes work but he can sometimes be a bit sensationalist. He seems to be pushing this Hitler was not a madman and the German generals were incompetent view quite a bit (maybe too much).

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 32

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 5:59:07 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm so happy I made a Kiev once :-)

As in a pocket that netted you 650k POWs?

Well, maybe half that number:

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 33

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 9:31:24 AM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm so happy I made a Kiev once :-)

As in a pocket that netted you 650k POWs?

Well, maybe half that number:

Congrats! I pulled off a similar feat in a multiplayer game that ended the game as my opponent surrendered because he had no units left in the south.

However I mentioned Kiev and Bagration in terms of losses, not operational scope. In Bagration the Germans lost around 400k men and in the Battle of Kiev the Soviets lost around 828k men. Those kind of figures are hard to be recreated in game. That was my point.

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 34

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 9:34:04 AM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hardradi

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

A common mistake that I am sure many people have made. I have long grown out of that and have no illusions about what the Germans or the Soviets were capable of. TIK makes good series and I enjoy the attention to detail that he puts in his videos. I have erased the "it was only Hitlers fault" idea from my head entirely and am more than capable of seeing that the failures of the German Army were given to a dictator who was long dead as an attempt by those surviving generals to put themselves in a better light, thus ignoring their own mistakes when writing their Autobiographies and other books related to the war. Hitler had faults and intervened in operations time and time again but that doesn't mean that German generals always knew what was best and it was always Hitler who ruined everything.

Yes but is this really the case. I like this TIK blokes work but he can sometimes be a bit sensationalist. He seems to be pushing this Hitler was not a madman and the German generals were incompetent view quite a bit (maybe too much).

Yes he does indeed push that view a lot and I don't fully agree with him. But I think it would be a mistake to blame Hitler for every military failure that the Reich suffered.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hardradi)

Post #: 35

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 10:05:29 AM

chaos45

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline

As youtubers do....but I like that TIK backs up a lot of what he says with facts.

I would have to see where you pulled the stats on 1941/42 german tank losses...I had only recently been studying the 1944 losses and so used those as an example...most my library is packed up in boxes like 3,000 miles from where im currently located but I found a long time ago the actual German production numbers and losses reported to OKW ever month of war online somewhere and printed them off and stuff them in my library as those are hard to find..but again not on hand and it was years ago I found the information online.

Also the game counts armored cars an such in AFV losses so make sure your source is also counting all the light armored vehicles in the loss reports. An honestly the soviet losses in you example are all easily within a couple percentage of margin of error...as they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game.

My initial point was at no point in 1 month will you destroy anywhere near the almost 4k reported German tank losses in July 1944 and 3k in AUG 1944....as well the Germans lost something like 25k and 20k trucks in both of those months. As well I don't think Bagration answers where those losses come from---only 20th panzer division was destroyed in Bagration and a couple PzGren divisions--20th panzer only had 1 panzer battalion with only Pz III/IVs at that time....so you only had a couple actual panzer battalions in AGC when Bagration kicks off...that's nowhere near 4k tanks/assault guns...again my point is the only way/reason the Germans lose that many tanks is the losses to "long term" repair tanks that were effectively destroyed already finally having to be removed from the books.

Now my take would be you need average out those huge months of German armor losses to show the actual case of German tank/assault gun losses. You can see another massive spike in German tank write offs around Stalingrad--why because they lost the "long term" repair yards---again my argument is that these were effectively destroyed tanks that were unlikely to ever be repaired. The break out of Normandy also shows a huge similar spike, and I think when you look at the actual operational rate of combat vehicles in panzer/mechanized division you will see the percentage of actually useable tanks is often quite low unless the division was recently issued a huge batch of replacement tanks.

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 36

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 12:37:09 PM

joelmar

Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline

@chaos45: "...but I found a long time ago the actual German production numbers and losses reported to OKW ever month of war online somewhere..."

really good reference! lol!

That said, seems to me xhoel already answered with the stats he provided from his own previous game experience. The game gives the real ingame values for tank numbers, not some inflated propaganda numbers and it seems they are higher than real figures. And what is written off is written off as it happens. I don't understand why some phoney propaganda mechanism should be reproduced in the game if the net result is already there.

I like TIK, he is funny. But to me he is primarily an entertainer. So I don't count him in the serious historians ranks. To create controversy is his butter and bread. In french, we call this kind "puta-click". You can look up what "puta" means if you wish.

If you want to assess the overall quality of the german officer corp, you have many other sources than the German generals. Like those who fought them. And their deeds are also there to testify. Anyone who thinks Manstein by example is not a top of the rank tactician and strategist must go back and look at what he actually did on the field.

< Message edited by joelmar -- 5/16/2019 12:38:39 PM >

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to chaos45)

Post #: 37

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 2:40:26 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

I would have to see where you pulled the stats on 1941/42 german tank losses...I had only recently been studying the 1944 losses and so used those as an example...most my library is packed up in boxes like 3,000 miles from where im currently located but I found a long time ago the actual German production numbers and losses reported to OKW ever month of war online somewhere and printed them off and stuff them in my library as those are hard to find..but again not on hand and it was years ago I found the information online.

By all means go ahead and provide another source. The German Institute for Military History at Potsdam places German losses at 2.839 (tanks+SPG) and most sources seem to agree that these are the losses taken in the Eastern Front for 1941.

I am using the Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis by Nigel Askey. The numbers are taken from page 185.

quote:

Also the game counts armored cars an such in AFV losses so make sure your source is also counting all the light armored vehicles in the loss reports.

The game separates AC/SP losses from the totals but I did include them in the first answer I gave. However, since I cannot find a source that counts the ACs in the totals, I will just revise the numbers from the game to only show tank losses. Here are the revised numbers [Only AFVs (Stugs included), not SP/AC]:

Xhoel vs Bitburgerdraft, T29 (1st of January 1942), AFV losses: 3.129 (Axis), 15.577 (Soviet).
BrianG vs HLYA, T33 (T33, 29th of January 1942), AFV losses: 4.478 (Axis), 16.724 (Soviet).
STEF78 vs Stelteck, (T32, 22nd of January 1942), AFV losses: 3.406 (Axis), 15.410 (Soviet).
2by3+ team game, (T29, 1st of January 1942), AFV losses: 2.580 (Axis), 15.124 (Soviet).

Historical AFV losses for 1941: 2.839 (German), 20.500 (Soviet).

So you can see that historically the Germans achieved a Kill loss ratio of 7.2 against the Soviets. This is stated in the book by Askey.

Now let's check the K/L ratios in game shall we?

Xhoel vs Bitburgerdraft, K/L ratio: 4,97
BrianG vs HLYA, K/L ratio: 3,73
STEF78 vs Stelteck, K/L ratio: 4,52
2by3+ team game, K/L ratio: 5,86

So it appears that not only isn't the game inflating Soviet tank losses (since they are lower than historical by a huge margin of around 5.000 tanks) but you can clearly see that the Axis/Germans take losses that are above historical losses in all the examples that were shown above.

quote:

An honestly the soviet losses in you example are all easily within a couple percentage of margin of error...as they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game.

First of all that is not a margin of error, it is a difference between losses in game and historical losses. And secondly I see that you reverted to your old tactics again, of changing the point and ignoring what I said. Why do you ignore the fact that in all cases Axis losses are higher and the Soviet losses are lower? Please provide evidence or facts if you want to convince anyone with what you are saying.

quote:

The issue is the game simulates Soviets taking massive Tank losses so its not an issue of soviet inflation. The issue is the game buys into the invincible German armor myth to much.

This is what you said and what made me start this debate/argument with you. I have proven you wrong using evidence and facts. It appears that contrary to what you keep repeating, the Soviets not only aren't taking massive Tank losses but are taking way fewer losses than they did historically. See the revised numbers above. So it isn't as much that the game "buys into the German armor myth too much", it's that you for whatever reason want to show that the Soviets are very weak and want them to be better. At the same time you fail to make coherent arguments that are based on factual evidence and keep jumping from one point to another, drawing conclusions that you pulled out of thin air. And then you write a whole paragraph about you not being a Soviet fanboy. Sure.

quote:

My initial point was at no point in 1 month will you destroy anywhere near the almost 4k reported German tank losses in July 1944 and 3k in AUG 1944....as well the Germans lost something like 25k and 20k trucks in both of those months.

You won't destroy that number because no player would let the German Army in game be at the terrible state that it was in historically. Almost always the in game Armies will have better morale, exp, TOEs, C&C, better commanders, more trucks, better supply, better defensive positioning than the armies had historically because the players are taking care of all these variables with depth and are aware of what will happen. Try playing the 1944-45 campaign and see if you can reach those numbers.

And can you provide a source for those numbers?

Unless you address my points directly and provide proper sources and evidence for what you claim and have been claiming all this time I won't waste my time and reply to you. I am making this clear so you are aware of it. The readers, are free to make their own conclusions about which one of us is right.

Best regards,
Xhoel

< Message edited by xhoel -- 5/16/2019 2:46:02 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to chaos45)

Post #: 38

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 2:43:15 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar

If you want to assess the overall quality of the german officer corp, you have many other sources than the German generals. Like those who fought them. And their deeds are also there to testify. Anyone who thinks Manstein by example is not a top of the rank tactician and strategist must go back and look at what he actually did on the field.

There is absolutely no doubt that the German Officer Corp was excellent in what they did and they produced a lot of brilliant officers. I don't think anyone would be so stupid as to not consider Manstein a masterful commander.

_____________________________

(in reply to joelmar)

Post #: 39

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 4:26:42 PM

joelmar

Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline

quote:

@xhoel
I don't think anyone would be so stupid as to not consider Manstein a masterful commander.

As a matter of fact, yes, I had the discussion somewhere else before, and I was flabergasted. But I agree my example was a bit extreme and I didn't want to imply it was anyone's opinion in this discussion.

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 40

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 4:43:10 PM

chaos45

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline

Well for one you have to trust German numbers on losses and the first thesis I brought up is that German numbers are suspect due to the way kept records, I think the circumstances of when German AFV losses spike points to this suspect record keeping. As how do you only lose 200 AFVs a month then suddenly when you have to give up some ground your AFV losses multiply by 5 to 6 times normal. The combat alone does not equal those losses it because the massively damaged/scrap tanks finally had to be written off....another common practice is when you know a vehicle is destroyed but still listed as repairable you just start taking parts off of it to keep whats left of your vehicle fleet operational- its an extremely common practice and was admitted to by German logistics officers as well. Not sure if your a military man yourself but if you are you would know this. Yes another office may need to approve of this but that's easy enough if it keeps another vehicle in action.

Again at the moment I'm not digging into 1941 numbers so have nothing on hand. As to 3/4k losses numbers I would have to dig back into the 500+ page document to find it. Its accurate though as it has been noted in several other publications as well and I remember the actual German records even backing up the huge losses around the time periods I state.

Also your arguing around me by talking 41/42 losses when I specifically talked 1944 losses.

As to the most recent document I read https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5310&context=open_access_etds this is part 2 of the document. It has his sources and lists on each chart where he pulled the numbers from...and it looks like the German Army is where he pulled the numbers from. Page 867 and 868 is truck/motor vehicle losses. For tanks/AFV is 854 and 857 for the 2 months and my initial memory was abit off think I used the total losses but still- 2,918 AFVs in July alone, 1,489 in August alone on the eastern front. Is a really well done oldish 1990s doctoral thesis on Bagration IMO.

If look around the time of Stalingrad you can also see a huge increase/spike in German losses when Stalingrad surrendered--why because the Army had to finally write off all the vehicles that were in a repairable state inside the pocket, I bet that same German source he uses in the document has the spike of sudden tank losses in Jan 1943 as well, been a couple years since ive looked at the actual German paperwork but its has the spike on it I do remember.

Also as to players not losing as much, first off the soviets really cant or they lose the Game since they don't get as many digital men to sacrifice....secondly if its accurate the German army will eventually wear down as combat isn't a bloodless event...even when you win ppl usually die. Anyway my source is posted and I tire of debating this with you.

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 41

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 5:13:46 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

You didn't refute anything that I said, simply chose to ignore it and are going on with this inane point about how the Germans counted losses which proves nothing as in the end those losses will be added to the total as well. No comments on why Soviet tank losses are so low. No comment on why Axis losses are so high. Nothing. You sure know how to defend what you say!

I didn't argue around you by talking 41/42 losses. I gave you factual evidence that the Soviets are losing way less tanks than they actually did and the Germans are losing more. Two posts earlier you said that: "they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game." and now that you were proven wrong are telling me that you were specifically talking about 1944 losses. Sure.

Thanks for the source of your number.

I won't be arguing with you anymore since there is nothing to argue about.

All the best to you,
Xhoel

_____________________________

(in reply to chaos45)

Post #: 42

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 6:58:49 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

You didn't refute anything that I said, simply chose to ignore it and are going on with this inane point about how the Germans counted losses which proves nothing as in the end those losses will be added to the total as well. No comments on why Soviet tank losses are so low. No comment on why Axis losses are so high. Nothing. You sure know how to defend what you say!

I didn't argue around you by talking 41/42 losses. I gave you factual evidence that the Soviets are losing way less tanks than they actually did and the Germans are losing more. Two posts earlier you said that: "they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game." and now that you were proven wrong are telling me that you were specifically talking about 1944 losses. Sure.

Thanks for the source of your number.

I won't be arguing with you anymore since there is nothing to argue about.

All the best to you,
Xhoel

This is why I have Chaos45 ignored .. the posts never appear for me.. Chaos45 has simple rants but nothing meaningful to add to the conversation .. Worse .. Chaos45 leaves Rostov with a single line of weak units, and after getting isolated .. rants that the opponent must have cheated .. etc etc etc. Just turn the green dot to red ..

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 5/16/2019 6:59:39 PM >

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 43

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 7:01:05 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

Xhoel, I'd say balance of AFV losses is fine:
A) Soviets do not attack relentlessly even if they have no chance of success.
B) Soviets do not let big encirclements to happen.
C) Germans have to pay for this.
Hence, in game loss ratio moves towards Soviets.

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 44

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 7:10:38 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Xhoel, I'd say balance of AFV losses is fine:
A) Soviets do not attack relentlessly even if they have no chance of success.
B) Soviets do not let big encirclements to happen.
C) Germans have to pay for this.
Hence, in game loss ratio moves towards Soviets.

Morvael I am not complaining about the balance. I am happy with the state the game is now and save for minor tweaks that we have talked about that I hope will fix everything in the new patch, I have 0 complaints about how the game plays.

My answer was directed to chaos45 because I am tired of hearing the same old argument of "Germans take too little tank losses, the Soviets take too many" repeated 1000 times when there is no factual evidence that that is the case. That's all.

_____________________________

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 45

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 7:11:14 PM

joelmar

Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline

quote:

@chaos45

As to the most recent document I read https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5310&context=open_access_etds

Interesting document. If you wish to know what the author of the document thought about Adolf Hitler's leadership just read his concluding words, pages 782-783.

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 46

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 7:32:27 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Xhoel, I'd say balance of AFV losses is fine:
A) Soviets do not attack relentlessly even if they have no chance of success.
B) Soviets do not let big encirclements to happen.
C) Germans have to pay for this.
Hence, in game loss ratio moves towards Soviets.

This is at the crux of the problem in my opinion. Player 'A' has no clue how the game really works.(For example, one of the posters insists that there is a HQ supply chaining exploit). Does multiple things that is not optimal. gets whacked. Complains game is borked.

This is by far one of the best designed games I have played to date. I have been at this for 4 years now, and I am still trying to grasp the fundamental concepts. One can never tire of trying to master this game. Maybe someday!

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 47

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 7:34:44 PM

joelmar

Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline

@Crackaces +1

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 48

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 7:41:23 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

On the other hand it's a fact the game does not model rear area workshops that indeed in some cases were overrun by speedy Soviet advance. In WitE damaged elements move with units or go to safe global pool. Of course bumping those units multiple times will increase losses, but nothing as dramatic as overtaking a huge workshop.

(in reply to joelmar)

Post #: 49

RE: Osinovets - 5/16/2019 11:19:13 PM

56ajax

Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline

Just on AFV losses, the winner controls the battlefield and gets to recover their vehicles whereas the loser does not. So I would expect the Axis losses to be low in 41/42 and much higher in 43 and onwards.

(A post battle study of Axis losses in France found that the majority were breakdowns or lack of fuel. And the Allies controlled the battlefield.)

_____________________________

Molotov : This we did not deserve.

Foch : This is not peace. This is a 20 year armistice.

C'est la guerre a�rienne

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 50

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 3:39:56 AM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

You didn't refute anything that I said, simply chose to ignore it and are going on with this inane point about how the Germans counted losses which proves nothing as in the end those losses will be added to the total as well. No comments on why Soviet tank losses are so low. No comment on why Axis losses are so high. Nothing. You sure know how to defend what you say!

I didn't argue around you by talking 41/42 losses. I gave you factual evidence that the Soviets are losing way less tanks than they actually did and the Germans are losing more. Two posts earlier you said that: "they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game." and now that you were proven wrong are telling me that you were specifically talking about 1944 losses. Sure.

Thanks for the source of your number.

I won't be arguing with you anymore since there is nothing to argue about.

All the best to you,
Xhoel

This is why I have Chaos45 ignored .. the posts never appear for me.. Chaos45 has simple rants but nothing meaningful to add to the conversation .. Worse .. Chaos45 leaves Rostov with a single line of weak units, and after getting isolated .. rants that the opponent must have cheated .. etc etc etc. Just turn the green dot to red ..

A simple, "put him on ignore" would have sufficed. To me Xhoel handled the matter appropriately for ending a conversation he no longer wanted to continue. The added character assassination by Crackaces was not needed and very unprofessional.

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 5/17/2019 3:40:29 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 51

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 7:07:47 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
Just on AFV losses, the winner controls the battlefield and gets to recover their vehicles whereas the loser does not. So I would expect the Axis losses to be low in 41/42 and much higher in 43 and onwards.

This is taken into account in the formulas. The question is whether to correct degree. Also, it's very hard to adjust the formulas to achieve predetermined % gain in end numbers, as the probability formula of multiple various random tests with many subvariants is very hard to calculate.

I see a bigger problem - there is only one "damaged" status, whereas as a minimum I would love to have separate heavy (battle) damage from light (mechanical) damage. The second one should be easier to incur, especially when you move your unit a lot, but also quite easy to repair once you wait a bit, allowing for the correct large fluctuation of ready AFVs in mobile operations. Heavy damage would in turn be harder to repair, especially in restricted supply condition, and such vehicles should mostly be lost in a unit forced to retreat. Currently, the single damage status is forced to be a middle ground of the two, and it doesn't represent either of the two correctly.

(in reply to 56ajax)

Post #: 52

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 8:05:03 AM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
Just on AFV losses, the winner controls the battlefield and gets to recover their vehicles whereas the loser does not. So I would expect the Axis losses to be low in 41/42 and much higher in 43 and onwards.

This is taken into account in the formulas. The question is whether to correct degree. Also, it's very hard to adjust the formulas to achieve predetermined % gain in end numbers, as the probability formula of multiple various random tests with many subvariants is very hard to calculate.

I see a bigger problem - there is only one "damaged" status, whereas as a minimum I would love to have separate heavy (battle) damage from light (mechanical) damage. The second one should be easier to incur, especially when you move your unit a lot, but also quite easy to repair once you wait a bit, allowing for the correct large fluctuation of ready AFVs in mobile operations. Heavy damage would in turn be harder to repair, especially in restricted supply condition, and such vehicles should mostly be lost in a unit forced to retreat. Currently, the single damage status is forced to be a middle ground of the two, and it doesn't represent either of the two correctly.

That sounds like a really interesting idea actually. I don't know if it would be possible to add it properly, but I like the idea.

_____________________________

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 53

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 8:50:10 AM

Colbert

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
A simple, "put him on ignore" would have sufficed. To me Xhoel handled the matter appropriately for ending a conversation he no longer wanted to continue. The added character assassination by Crackaces was not needed and very unprofessional.

The HYPOCRISY stinks here - you are by far the biggest bully on this forum and character assassin number one. It is funny the first time I stood up to you I had a flood of messages about you - with plenty of screenshots. To start with - where is your apology to ledo? and to thedude357 for calling him a cheat repeatedly together chaos45 - and you are not even in that game. How can you have the cheek to blame Crackaces for what you started. The personal attacks on Crackaces, Ewaldvonkleist, Telemecus, Tyronec, beender, Hortlund - the list goes on and on and on. I literally had a mountain of them. I am sure I will get plenty more messaging after this. It is the biggest pot calling the kettle black here.

< Message edited by Colbert -- 5/17/2019 9:54:39 AM >

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 54

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 1:55:19 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

Double post

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 5/17/2019 2:44:36 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Colbert)

Post #: 55

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 2:39:20 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Colbert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

You didn't refute anything that I said, simply chose to ignore it and are going on with this inane point about how the Germans counted losses which proves nothing as in the end those losses will be added to the total as well. No comments on why Soviet tank losses are so low. No comment on why Axis losses are so high. Nothing. You sure know how to defend what you say!

I didn't argue around you by talking 41/42 losses. I gave you factual evidence that the Soviets are losing way less tanks than they actually did and the Germans are losing more. Two posts earlier you said that: "they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game." and now that you were proven wrong are telling me that you were specifically talking about 1944 losses. Sure.

Thanks for the source of your number.

I won't be arguing with you anymore since there is nothing to argue about.

All the best to you,
Xhoel

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

This is why I have Chaos45 ignored .. the posts never appear for me.. Chaos45 has simple rants but nothing meaningful to add to the conversation .. Worse .. Chaos45 leaves Rostov with a single line of weak units, and after getting isolated .. rants that the opponent must have cheated .. etc etc etc. Just turn the green dot to red

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
A simple, "put him on ignore" would have sufficed. To me Xhoel handled the matter appropriately for ending a conversation he no longer wanted to continue. The added character assassination by Crackaces was not needed and very unprofessional.

The HYPOCRISY stinks here - you are by far the biggest bully on this forum and character assassin number one. It is funny the first time I stood up to you I had a flood of messages about you - with plenty of screenshots. To start with - where is your apology to ledo? and to thedude357 for calling him a cheat repeatedly together chaos45 - and you are not even in that game. How can you have the cheek to blame Crackaces for what you started. The personal attacks on Crackaces, Ewaldvonkleist, Telemecus, Tyronec, beender, Hortlund - the list goes on and on and on. I literally had a mountain of them. I am sure I will get plenty more messaging after this. It is the biggest pot calling the kettle black here.

Oh!! you are using the "Tu Quoque" Fallacy type argument. Your hatred RUNS very deep here Colbert, or whoever you are hiding behind another name if that is the case. You pointing the finger at me has the other fingers on the hand pointing back at you and the people you named. As such what I said about Crackaces stands and is true as anyone can read it. No retraction, no regrets, and by all means 100% meant it.

So I give you, Colbert, along with anyone else that wishes to join, the option of meeting me either in person or to talk on Discord. No more of the back and forth on Matrix forums solving nothing behind fictitious names. I will buy lunch/dinner for anyone that wants to meet in person(I travel often so I am sure I can meet people, even in the UK) So your choice Colbert and whoever else wants to come to an understanding and better forum friends (mates for you British people). Is that too hard for you to do Colbert? Or will you continue the "HATRED" I am sure I already know the answer but I have to try at a minimum

Reference for "Tu Quoque" fallacy is:

The �tu quoque,� Latin for �you too,� is also called the �appeal to hypocrisy� because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn�t solve the problem, or prove one�s point. Focusing on the other person�s hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In this way, the tu quoque typically deflects criticism away from one�s self or another by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable.

Merriam Webster Dictionary definition = a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what the adversary criticizes in others

I added in the content that was left out to not lose any context.

_____________________________

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 56

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 2:56:30 PM

helpmenow

Posts: 7
Joined: 2/28/2019
Status: offline

The above kissy face remarks from HLVA come from the guy who refused to respond to many PMs from me and peace offerings. Gee whiz, seems this guy is a liar and a fraud. Hmm, and what does a liar do when called, err, err, they lie some more.

The former charlie0311, had to change it, browser was hijacked, lots of stuff has been throw at me.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 57

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 3:13:49 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: helpmenow

The above kissy face remarks from HLVA come from the guy who refused to respond to many PMs from me and peace offerings. Gee whiz, seems this guy is a liar and a fraud. Hmm, and what does a liar do when called, err, err, they lie some more.

The former charlie0311, had to change it, browser was hijacked, lots of stuff has been throw at me.

I have all my emails and PM's saved. You have zero PM's or emails sent to me for peace offerings under this name. So who is the liar? There was ONLY one person who sent me any form of "lets work this out". Everyone else was quite as a church mouse.

But that is ok. You can continue your "HATRED" or I offer you the same offer I offered Colbert(plus anyone else that wants to come out of the woodwork) to either meet in person or on some form of voice chat. There really is no need for any of these accusations behind fictitious names. Are you a real man to come to the table???? We shall see.

_____________________________

(in reply to helpmenow)

Post #: 58

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 3:25:35 PM

helpmenow

Posts: 7
Joined: 2/28/2019
Status: offline

I have the PMs, will dig them out for anyone.

Make up something else.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 59

RE: Osinovets - 5/17/2019 3:36:06 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: helpmenow

I have the PMs, will dig them out for anyone.

Make up something else.

You really do "HATE" don't you. There are only a couple of people on the forum that has this much "HATE" I can think of towards me. I hope that person isn't logging in his low post count accounts to continue a defamation campaign against me. But that looks like the case. Lets work this out in person and/or Voice chat. I am sure we can get rid of the "hatred" and have a much better forum.

_____________________________

(in reply to helpmenow)

Post #: 60