Question about non-combat losses

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Question about non-combat losses

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 2 >> Question about non-combat losses

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question about non-combat losses - 10/31/2021 1:41:19 PM

D511

Posts: 14
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

Hello!
I am just a start to learn WITE 2 after WITE so need some help with understanding a few things.
One of them is a relation of moving distance and non-combat losses for units.
For example, i look at Soviet`s 2nd Tank Division (loc 181, 144 on 22 of June 1941). It was not attacked yet and its stats are on pictures from the left. I spent all its movement points to march to loc 181, 143, and back, and again, and again so it moved about 280 km. And after that, i looked at unit stats again (it is on the picture's right side).

I do not notice big changes in a TOE - not tanks, not heavy artillery, not even vehicles not seriously changed their numbers. From 17 KV-2 tanks, only 2 were damaged after a 280 km march. And all towed artillery made a march without serious losses.
Because i do not understand how the game`s mechanics calculate such types of damages, can somebody say how it works, please? :) I mean vehicle`is durability, its difference for various models of tanks and other machines and damage from deterioration of their parts (like engines, track and so on).
I know about reliability of a vehicles in WITE, but what if its reliable, but too shabby?
Is there are any effect of the long marches on the unit`s TOE or only on Fatigue?
P.s. I am still at version 1.0.0.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by D511 -- 10/31/2021 4:19:15 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Question about non-combat losses - 10/31/2021 3:13:59 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

I'm also newbie at this game and I played only a couple of scenarios as Axis and I can tell that moving tanks in a bad weather through a bad terrain with no roads could damage a lot of them.
Also i did a test and moved tank division that come as a backup for the all 50 MP. And something like half of the tanks were damaged. Much better to use trains to get divisions where you want. Just be careful not to overload the rails.

(in reply to D511)

Post #: 2

RE: Question about non-combat losses - 10/31/2021 11:29:56 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

You will take damage to elements and fatigue when moving. Fatigue can have an impact later on in the logistics phase as it may have an impact on how fast damaged elements are repaired or written off (although I don't know that as a fact). There is a reliability rating for all ground elements and this has an impact.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 3

RE: Question about non-combat losses - 11/4/2021 9:53:52 AM

malyhin1517

Posts: 1426
Joined: 9/20/2015
From: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

You will take damage to elements and fatigue when moving. Fatigue can have an impact later on in the logistics phase as it may have an impact on how fast damaged elements are repaired or written off (although I don't know that as a fact). There is a reliability rating for all ground elements and this has an impact.

Historically, the Soviet tank corps at the beginning of the war mostly lost their equipment not in battle, but during marches to various lines on the orders of the high command. Non-combat losses amounted to up to half of the tanks, especially of new types. Perhaps this is also the reason why now the Soviet tanks in the game are so effective at the beginning of the war.

< Message edited by malyhin1517 -- 11/4/2021 9:54:30 AM >

_____________________________

Sorry, i use an online translator :(

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 4

RE: Question about non-combat losses - 11/4/2021 10:04:47 AM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

You will take damage to elements and fatigue when moving. Fatigue can have an impact later on in the logistics phase as it may have an impact on how fast damaged elements are repaired or written off (although I don't know that as a fact). There is a reliability rating for all ground elements and this has an impact.

Historically, the Soviet tank corps at the beginning of the war mostly lost their equipment not in battle, but during marches to various lines on the orders of the high command. Non-combat losses amounted to up to half of the tanks, especially of new types. Perhaps this is also the reason why now the Soviet tanks in the game are so effective at the beginning of the war.

+1

German crews in general were trained to solve many technical problems on the field of their panzer, that did not required a workshop / heavy machinery.
Russian crews were just able to drive the tank, so when it had a breakdown it had to either be abandoned or the crew had to wait for mechanics to come by.

(in reply to malyhin1517)

Post #: 5

RE: Question about non-combat losses - 11/4/2021 10:31:32 AM

malyhin1517

Posts: 1426
Joined: 9/20/2015
From: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN
German crews in general were trained to solve many technical problems on the field of their panzer, that did not required a workshop / heavy machinery.
Russian crews were just able to drive the tank, so when it had a breakdown it had to either be abandoned or the crew had to wait for mechanics to come by.

I disagree with you! Repairing German tanks, especially Panthers and Tigers, was technically very difficult and required a lot of sophisticated equipment. However, the Germans had time and facilities to repair their tanks. Soviet tanks were much easier to repair, but at the beginning of the war, the troops had not yet had time to learn new equipment and did not have spare parts for repair. In addition, there were a number of childhood illnesses, such as bad engine air filters and problems with the clutch box, which led to the need for overhaul of tanks, which was impossible with the rapid advance of the German troops. After 1943, Germany found itself in the same situation when it was forced to abandon faulty tanks. Take an interest, for example, how to disassemble the chess suspension of the Panthers and Tigers or change the engine there. For Soviet tanks, this was much simpler and was designed for low-skilled crews.

_____________________________

Sorry, i use an online translator :(

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 6