governato
Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
|
Btw this AAR is based on EF V5. The game has concluded and I am now writing the AAR :).
Now to your question on the Attrition divider, the answer is relevant to all version of EF41-45. I realized I had not addressed that choice in my already too long scenario notes :) so thanks for asking!
The Attrition Divider was set to AD=10 pretty early in the scenario development to match infantry losses in a number of test cases and then the first year of the campaign. AD=10 reduces losses compared to AD=1 (although by less than a factor of 10). Other scenario at similar scales may work better with slightly different values.
Most importantly in most PBEM/PO testing it seems to work well over the course of the entire campaign, with both sides eventually having understrength infantry units and putting more emphasis on firepower in 1943 and later years.
Note that the 'combat density penalty' parameter was also lowered to 65 as the hex size is 25km (the closest choice allowed by the engine), but in real life each hex represents 32km. That choice also reduces *combat losses* a bit. I decided that the effect of density on losses was an area effect (not linear with frontage) as arty does most of the killing. Again, it works :).
You had me check and in this game from June 41 to June 42 Soviet to Axis (Germans+others) infantry losses ratio is about 4.5:1 and medium tank losses 3.5:1 In the historical ball park for that timeframe. Previous versions had similar results.
I must add (you asked a good question, now you get a looong answer!) that TOAW has many interdependent parameters that can be used to simulate different aspects of warfare once considered together.
The scenario adds true attrition losses via pestilence effects to simulate low level combat (snipers, patrols, breakdowns, whatever happens in a 'quiet' sector of the front) 2) AFVs breakdowns via 'sink units' and using a specific eqp file tank losses are slightly boosted by high(ish) AT values for infantry and pioneers and then the introduction of AT squads in later years.
Overall the scenario losses may be similar to AD < 10 BUT they are driven by other factors than just combat, for example moving units causes permanent losses, and units will lose infantry even if not involved in 'TOAW combat'. This approach has several good advantages (discussed in the scenario thread) and it's transparent to the players.
Let me know if you get to play EF41-45!
< Message edited by governato -- 2/23/2022 5:11:31 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Eastern Front '41-'45 Fabio (Axis) vs Jason (Soviet) - 
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