Advantage of German leadership

Advantage of German leadership (Full Version)

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

Message

Toidi -> Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 7:19:39 AM)
I made two graphs. First one is for Soviets, without tertiary check (assumed STAVKA is overloaded). The x axis is the rating of the general leading the troops to battle, the y is the chance of passing a check. The secondary HQ - front, is assumed to be 10 hex away, and leaders in that HQ have ratings from 6 to 9. [NOTE: edited to correct error pointed out by Gingerbread Thanks!!! ] [image]local://upfiles/39528/8EDF28ED989D4C09B1CCF5AB8B946BE3.jpg[/image]

Toidi -> Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 7:20:35 AM)
For Germans, the same graph, with assumption of tertiary HQ check at distance of 20 hex looks like that: [image]local://upfiles/39528/82A79D63754A405E8D64767EF264AED1.jpg[/image]

Toidi -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 7:27:54 AM)
As such, assuming STAVKA is overloaded, the addition of extra layer gives around 5 % advantage, less for very good leaders. Additionally, each point in direct commander gives around 8% advantage. Thus, average Soviet chances of passing a test (leader rating of 6) are about 70%. As German ratings are 1-2 points higher, and adding additional layer of command, increases this chance to around 85%. As multiple checks are done in each battle, also to give units MP, ammo, etc., I believe that German leadership is vastly superior. I can understand that dealing with corps may be annoying, that the structure is a bit rigid and transferring units is expensive. However, the command and leadership of German army is superior to that of Soviet. [NOTE: edited to correct error pointed out by Gingerbread Thanks!!! ]

gingerbread -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 10:07:19 AM)
Please note the definition of Random(x)in the glossary: Random(x): The computer generates a random number from 0 to x-1. So a rating 6 check would have a 60% chance, a rating 9 would have 90% - direct attached and w/i 5 hexes in both cases. I looks like a rating 9 have an 80% chance in your charts. A player centric problem: Say we have a Soviet front, 3 armies with ea 12 divisions and 4 leaders - three 6 and one 7. Which rating do you place in the front HQ? We will assume a distance of 20 hexes [Edit: was 10] from front to each unit, this is not realistic but we have to assume something. Divisions are all w/i 5 hexes of resp army. Chance of failed check at army(6) level = 40% Chance of failed check at army(7) level = 30% Chance of failed check at front(6) level = 80.0% 1-(Random(102+10)<6) Chance of failed check at front(7) level = 76.7% 1-(Random(102+10)<7) Chance of fail in 6-6 chain = 32.0% Succeed 68.0% Chance of fail in 6-7 chain = 30.7% Succeed 69.3% Chance of fail in 7-6 chain = 24.0% Succeed 76.0% With 7 at front: 360.693=24.95 With 6 at front: 240.68+12*0.76=25.44 Slightly better to favour one of the Armies, with the assumed parameters. Edit: Sorry, omitted the range modifier effect, so change distance to 20 hexes between front and units.

Toidi -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 11:37:23 AM)
Thanks !!! I corrected the graphs :)

ComradeP -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 12:14:59 PM)
Considering that the majority of the Soviet leaders had little to no practical experience with actually fighting a modern war, as well as possibly being imprisoned during the purges, and that the Germans had been fighting since late 1939, the gap is pretty generous towards the Soviets with the initial leader ratings, even more so because you'll be using far fewer HQ's than would historically have been needed, and can thus put mediocre to good leaders in command.

Flaviusx -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 12:53:06 PM)
Considering the Soviet's experience is capped in certain areas to 6, that gap is very generous to the Germans, who will never have to face opponents much better than the ones they started against. Exhibit A: tank army leaders. They are a joke in this game.

Baelfiin -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 2:16:49 PM)
Nice graphs Toidi!!

ComradeP -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 3:21:51 PM)
Flavio: but the German ratings are also at their cap if above 6, so those 6 mech rating leaders would mostly be facing 7 mech rating leaders. I don't think that means the Tank army leaders/Soviet mech ratings are "a joke." Some of the best German mech leaders are likely to be in army level commands to begin with, which makes it even more likely that the corps commands will be held by 7 rating leaders. Sure, initiative is likely to be better for the Germans, but I would say that's historical.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 4:27:23 PM)
None of the so-called 'axis leadership advantage' is as large as would appear at a basic review (such as this) of the leadership graphics. In fact, those graphs don't look significantly different, and I would suggest you run a regression of the model to tell me what the p-value of significance is for Soviet leadership modeled on German leadership. I would expect it is not significant at even 10 percent value, but I can't be sure till I run it myself. A cursory look shows about a .05 percentage point difference. Am I to believe German leadership is only 5% better than Soviet? At what point in the war? In 1941, should it not be greater than 5 percentage points? The issue that lowers ALL German advantage is that Soviet has Administrative advantage throughout the game, which I have proved in this thread (pages 4 to 5). To whit, Germany has roughly a 15 to 17 percent advantage in Admin ratings at the Corps level (compared to Soviet armies) and roughly the same when comparing Armies to Fronts. However, Germans have to spend 350% to 700% (the lower number if leadership rolls pass) more in AP to move divisions around (which does not factor in the hundreds and hundreds of divisions that the Soviet Union gets that arrive at Stavka). It is absurd to say that the German leadership advantage in initiative and morale is as the numbers suggest when you have to factor in the Admin DISadvantage that Germany has in the war (at least until corps combat units become the majority combatants in the Soviet arsenal, but even then, divisional administrative advantages still belong to the Soviet). Further, Germany starts the game with 5 armies over-command, further denigrating their leadership values, and unlike the Soviets (who will see their over-command burden even itself out by virtue of dead divisions that come back for free and are attached at Stavka, thus are free to reassign without AP expenditure). The punitive cost to move divisions around as Germany means that its over-command burden is far more significant a constraint than anything the Soviets face in leadership ratings. Here you have an example of a statistician whitewashing a factual issue with facts that are divorced from their real-world context. This is deliberately misleading data analysis intended to obscure the problem I have proven exists. Why would you 'assume' a tertiary leadership check when you can be certain that Army Group Center and Army Group South are more over-burdened than any Front the Soviets have?

barbarrossa -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 6:18:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 None of the so-called 'axis leadership advantage' is as large as would appear at a basic review (such as this) of the leadership graphics. In fact, those graphs don't look significantly different, and I would suggest you run a regression of the model to tell me what the p-value of significance is for Soviet leadership modeled on German leadership. I would expect it is not significant at even 10 percent value, but I can't be sure till I run it myself. A cursory look shows about a .05 percentage point difference. Am I to believe German leadership is only 5% better than Soviet? At what point in the war? In 1941, should it not be greater than 5 percentage points? The issue that lowers ALL German advantage is that Soviet has Administrative advantage throughout the game, which I have proved in this thread (pages 4 to 5). To whit, Germany has roughly a 15 to 17 percent advantage in Admin ratings at the Corps level (compared to Soviet armies) and roughly the same when comparing Armies to Fronts. However, Germans have to spend 350% to 700% (the lower number if leadership rolls pass) more in AP to move divisions around (which does not factor in the hundreds and hundreds of divisions that the Soviet Union gets that arrive at Stavka). It is absurd to say that the German leadership advantage in initiative and morale is as the numbers suggest when you have to factor in the Admin DISadvantage that Germany has in the war (at least until corps combat units become the majority combatants in the Soviet arsenal, but even then, divisional administrative advantages still belong to the Soviet). Further, Germany starts the game with 5 armies over-command, further denigrating their leadership values, and unlike the Soviets (who will see their over-command burden even itself out by virtue of dead divisions that come back for free and are attached at Stavka, thus are free to reassign without AP expenditure). The punitive cost to move divisions around as Germany means that its over-command burden is far more significant a constraint than anything the Soviets face in leadership ratings. Here you have an example of a statistician whitewashing a factual issue with facts that are divorced from their real-world context. This is deliberately misleading data analysis intended to obscure the problem I have proven exists. Why would you 'assume' a tertiary leadership check when you can be certain that Army Group Center and Army Group South are more over-burdened than any Front the Soviets have? Without going into statistics..........There are advantages and disadvantages to either side. It's how you employ them to maximize and minimize that make the simulation enjoyable. The Luftwaffe doesn't have to upgrade almost every aircraft group either. That costs points. The Soviets WERE very flexible at shifting commands: "A forty-eight hour lull in this sector had begun the result of one of those lightning command switches at which the Russians were now so adept... Zhukov had passed command of the area east of the upper Vistula to Rokossovski." pg. 423 Barbarossa, Clark. The Soviets probably became adept at this out of tactical necessity in trying to simply survive after 22 June 41. Army Front shifts cost around 50+ points every time you do one. In the midst of raising incredibly inexperienced units, building fortification belts and trying to modernize the Soviet Air Force while trying to maintain unit cohesion to stem the German tide. It balances out in my 2 cents. Personally, I think the Soviets surrender too easily when their pockets are reduced

Toidi -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/19/2011 10:28:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 None of the so-called 'axis leadership advantage' is as large as would appear at a basic review (such as this) of the leadership graphics. In fact, those graphs don't look significantly different, and I would suggest you run a regression of the model to tell me what the p-value of significance is for Soviet leadership modeled on German leadership. I would expect it is not significant at even 10 percent value, but I can't be sure till I run it myself. A cursory look shows about a .05 percentage point difference. Am I to believe German leadership is only 5% better than Soviet? At what point in the war? In 1941, should it not be greater than 5 percentage points? The issue that lowers ALL German advantage is that Soviet has Administrative advantage throughout the game, which I have proved in this thread (pages 4 to 5). To whit, Germany has roughly a 15 to 17 percent advantage in Admin ratings at the Corps level (compared to Soviet armies) and roughly the same when comparing Armies to Fronts. However, Germans have to spend 350% to 700% (the lower number if leadership rolls pass) more in AP to move divisions around (which does not factor in the hundreds and hundreds of divisions that the Soviet Union gets that arrive at Stavka). It is absurd to say that the German leadership advantage in initiative and morale is as the numbers suggest when you have to factor in the Admin DISadvantage that Germany has in the war (at least until corps combat units become the majority combatants in the Soviet arsenal, but even then, divisional administrative advantages still belong to the Soviet). Further, Germany starts the game with 5 armies over-command, further denigrating their leadership values, and unlike the Soviets (who will see their over-command burden even itself out by virtue of dead divisions that come back for free and are attached at Stavka, thus are free to reassign without AP expenditure). The punitive cost to move divisions around as Germany means that its over-command burden is far more significant a constraint than anything the Soviets face in leadership ratings. Here you have an example of a statistician whitewashing a factual issue with facts that are divorced from their real-world context. This is deliberately misleading data analysis intended to obscure the problem I have proven exists. Why would you 'assume' a tertiary leadership check when you can be certain that Army Group Center and Army Group South are more over-burdened than any Front the Soviets have? 1. That is why the leader in tertiary is of rating 6. I can put rating 7, this would count for quite a bit of overloading 2. The advantage is huge, as multiple checks are being made each turn, and during each battle. The Germans are only failing around half (15%) of the checks the Soviet fails (Soviet fail around 30%). That is a lot and is unchanged during the whole game. As such, the advantage is there and is very substantial. To shape this differently one can say: "German leadership is 100% more efficient than Soviet, as they fail only half the amount of checks the Soviet do" 3. Germans do not have really other AP sinks than moving divisions around and creating fortified zones in late game. As such, you can easily bear with some inefficiencies until '43. At that time you get Army group A & B and you sort it out. 4. Again, with all the overloading, the third layer will maybe go from 5% to 4% advantage. That's all. Do the calculations yourself - math is simple enough.

janh -> RE: Advantage of German leadership (12/20/2011 10:57:32 AM)
Even the effect of these 15%, which in relative terms comes indeed to a 100% benefit, sounds to me like a "substantially better C&C". With the law of large numbers, this becomes meaningful. Especially if you integrate the benefits over some 200 turns, that will amount to quite a lot. One thing that is mixed up here is the flexibility of the German Wehrmacht command structure (hence factors in reassignment), and the true C3I capability (in game mainly combat and logistics). The latter would be best represented by these rolls on combats, and the logistics support once a unit is well settled in its new formation. This seems to be accounted for by the above. The Soviets were surely not a third world army, and at least after the first few months became more experienced at this. However, what a better German command structure flexibility would come down to effects to would be most felt in the first few days or weeks until the new command structure is ironed out, and the lower command has established the right connections to the appropriate positions in the higher staff to talk to, and vice versa. There ideally would be some effect in the first one or two turns after switching a unit around which would say based on a dice roll lower supply, or limit leadership roles in combat and reserve functions. However, this is not modeled in game. The question that arises here is rather what expectation ones does have? What do you understand under "substantially better"? And where do you derive this opinion in a quantitative way from? I doubt this criterium "better C&C" can be put easily into any quantitative measure since so many other factors play a role in determining those things, in which C&C plays an important role and from which one could attempt to derive a performance to "number-in-game-model" representation. This is unlike comparing the armor of two tanks.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.75