RE: Missing Weapons (Full Version)

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



Message

marty_01 -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/11/2012 5:40:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

SMGs tear up at 50metre range. The LMGs and MGs should tear up at the 100m -300m range but this is not being reflected in the combat routines atm.


ah so...thanks. Interesting observation regarding in-game weapon system effectiveness vs. actual weapon system effectiveness.

Sort of related but also unrelated to the intent of the thread (sorry not trying to derail but rather to enhance my understanding of the in-game combat model and what’s doing what to whom), I'm curious if folks have tested the relative effectiveness of in-game weapon systems and their performance vs. typical operational studies coming out of WWII. By that I mean Operational Studies that delve into relative weapon system effectiveness in terms of ability to produce casualties. Moreover: Does the current in-game combat model reflect typical casualty ratios from High Explosive vs. Small Arms? Are we seeing a realistic ratio of casualty ratios from artillery and mortars vs. say casualties produced from small arms -- Rifles\MGs\SMGs etc.?



Tentpeg -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/11/2012 11:54:39 PM)

BigAnorak;

Will it be reflected in a future combat routine (a patch) and how does the combat routine actually work now? Please sir, I would really like to know.



Richrd -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 3:54:00 AM)

I wish that the logistics were managed by the player, right down to the last pumpernickel. I also wish that German manpower was managed by the player. But I don't see it. I made officers and NCOs devices, each with a small anti soft, anti hard combat value. The Germans start heavily laden, but a replacement rate that compels their numbers to dwindle. The Red Army starts with few but gradually they increase. I forget the source, maybe Charles Sharp, but in 43 the Soviets had huge numbers of officer and NCO candidates in schools. Only some will pan out. I think eating your horses will keep you alive but not fighting. Maybe somehow you set it up so that if you eat a few of your horses and you leave the hex you leave some of your heavy weapons behind. Is that what you wish the editor to do? What about foraging? Shouldn't you be able to do that too? Maybe eat the civilian horses first.



Richrd -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 4:14:40 AM)

I guess then you have to increase the number of partisans generated in the hex to avenge comrade horse. I wish all this stuff was in an east front game.



Tentpeg -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 4:33:35 AM)

Richrd;

You have a dry sense of humor. I appreciate you taking the "eat the horses" concept and running with it. Hopefully no one will take it serious and demand an option button or claim it would be a gamebreaker.

As you know, through the editor we can do what we want with manpower pool and manpower factories (offmap). Both sides historically had manpower issues. The Soviet manpower crisis may be lessened by conserving forces through ignoring Stalin's ghost "screaming attack... attack". The same can be said of the German. No player is going to hold a hex based on its name (unless that name is Berlin).

We also can adjust the size of the support element or create unique ones to "fit" a type of Divisions. (Tell it true, designers, why is the support element for a SS PzG Division the same in size and quality as a Volksgrenadier Division? Why is a Axis support element rated the same as a Soviet in size and quality?)

I like your concept of a device that identifies the chain of command. What was the a cost benefit(s)? Did it improve CV?

Something I did was make unique SS Infantry elements that have an accuracy of 1 vs. 0. I am testing to see if it has an actual battle effect.



Peltonx -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 9:13:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

SMGs tear up at 50metre range. The LMGs and MGs should tear up at the 100m -300m range but this is not being reflected in the combat routines atm.



The way SMG's are so over rated by the game engine and more then over rated in clear terrain vs longer ranged rifles I would LOVE to see wite stick to the historical values as far as SMG go for German units.

This would increase Russian losses.

My guess is we will never see that.

Also germans have no armament issue at all post 1,05. I had almost 600,000 saved vs Kamil.




karonagames -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 9:42:55 AM)

quote:

Will it be reflected in a future combat routine (a patch) and how does the combat routine actually work now? Please sir, I would really like to know.


As far as I know, it is on the "being looked at" list. As a non-programmer, I see major difficulties in representing in serial, something that is done in parallel. The combat calculations are done in a certain order, and that order can have impact on the next calculation etc. etc.

If you have the patience to look at the level 9 combat results you will see that MG fire does not have much opportunity to disrupt the thousands of SMG squads before the 50m calculations start; or the MGs are disrupted because the hundreds of 120mm mortar rounds have forced them to keep their heads down; or the sturmoviks have knocked out the artillery that could have disrupted the 120mm mortars etc. etc.

edit: Interestingly enough, if you used the infamous "+1" combat routines, the german MGs would get an extra chance to disrupt the SMGs but certain vocal players wanted this to be removed, and player power won the day.

Fortunately Pavel has a great analysis tool to look for these quirks, what he does not have is the time to see whether the quirks that favour the SU are balanced by the quirks that favour the Axis.

As far as I can tell, SMGs are "Maybe" a problem and not yet confirmed as definite. I felt that 14.5mm anti-tank rifles was "maybe" a problem when I saw them knock out 40+ panzer IVs. It took 9 months for that to be confirmed and fixed.

The problem with late war combat calculations, is that the numbers involved are massive: in the case above 4,500 14.5mm anti- tank rifles had the chance to shoot at PZIVs, so the chances of throwing "double 6" 3 times in a row to achieve the hit/penetration and damage parameters were enough to kill 40+ panzer IVs. (I am simplifying here - there is much much more involved in the calculations)

Would fixing the so-called "SMG problem" make a game-changing difference? It would probably make as much difference as the current rules that convert unarmed support squads to armed rifle squads (just to keep the thread on topic!!) - i.e. nobody notices that it happens and nobody claims that they held/lost Berlin because it happens.

Patience, young Padawan.



karonagames -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 11:14:42 AM)

quote:

The way SMG's are so over rated by the game engine and more then over rated in clear terrain vs longer ranged rifles I would LOVE to see wite stick to the historical values as far as SMG go for German units.


I you really understood the game engine you would realise that the casualties caused from weapon v weapon calculations represent about 1/3 of the losses seen in the game; 2/3s come from attrition and the losses that are calculated when retreats and routs are triggered. SMGs cause a tiny percentage of weapon v weapon losses. Pavel could probably calculate them for you if he had the time.

So what if Soviet SMGSs kill a few less and Axis rifles a few more - they will never account for or explain the OOB differentials that we are seeing in late war AARs.

If you are going to get on yet another bandwagon, get on one that is going to make a real difference to the game.



karonagames -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 11:31:25 AM)

quote:

This would increase Russian losses.


Keeping +1 would increase Russian Losses.



Tentpeg -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 5:45:04 PM)

BigAnorak;

Thank you for again providing insight on what the man behind the screen is doing. My own limited testing on using the +1 Accuracy in the creation of elite gound elements (paras and SS) produced interesting results.

On the SMG topic I have not explored that path enough to to form or express an opinion.

The ripple effect of sequenced fire is a bad system but it is better than all the others. I wish I could tell you about some of the nonsense the military and civilian contractors used to analyze and jusitfy weapons procurement and force structure. I was amazed at what people would do to justify the next silver bullet or gold plated AT gun.




Tentpeg -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 6:04:34 PM)

Pelton;

Excess armaments and combat value increase is a reason I am exploring this concept. An arms points pool of hundreds of thousands is impractical. An arms point is not going to eliminate the enemy, an LMG or SMG will.

BTW when I place the Company and platoon Headquarters elements in the late war OOB's it seems to increase the combat value enough to (partially) offset the lowered morale effects. The Soviets get the same benefit in the first summer. Gives them a reason to hold ground and perhaps even counteraatack.



randallw -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/12/2012 6:27:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

As far as I can tell, SMGs are "Maybe" a problem and not yet confirmed as definite. I felt that 14.5mm anti-tank rifles was "maybe" a problem when I saw them knock out 40+ panzer IVs. It took 9 months for that to be confirmed and fixed.

The problem with late war combat calculations, is that the numbers involved are massive: in the case above 4,500 14.5mm anti- tank rifles had the chance to shoot at PZIVs, so the chances of throwing "double 6" 3 times in a row to achieve the hit/penetration and damage parameters were enough to kill 40+ panzer IVs. (I am simplifying here - there is much much more involved in the calculations)

Patience, young Padawan.


This sounds like the unit-density question that I sometimes think of but isn't talked about much.
Games are designed with the idea that any piece of equipment in a battle could reach any piece of the other side, but what if the unit density of one side is not that much? For your example are all those 4500 AT rifles in a position where a PZ IV may wander over close for a shot to happen?
That is, couldn't those Pz's be on a narrow frontage, leaving a few miles without no Pz's attacking?



MechFO -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/13/2012 12:01:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

As far as I can tell, SMGs are "Maybe" a problem and not yet confirmed as definite. I felt that 14.5mm anti-tank rifles was "maybe" a problem when I saw them knock out 40+ panzer IVs. It took 9 months for that to be confirmed and fixed.

The problem with late war combat calculations, is that the numbers involved are massive: in the case above 4,500 14.5mm anti- tank rifles had the chance to shoot at PZIVs, so the chances of throwing "double 6" 3 times in a row to achieve the hit/penetration and damage parameters were enough to kill 40+ panzer IVs. (I am simplifying here - there is much much more involved in the calculations)

Patience, young Padawan.


This sounds like the unit-density question that I sometimes think of but isn't talked about much.
Games are designed with the idea that any piece of equipment in a battle could reach any piece of the other side, but what if the unit density of one side is not that much? For your example are all those 4500 AT rifles in a position where a PZ IV may wander over close for a shot to happen?
That is, couldn't those Pz's be on a narrow frontage, leaving a few miles without no Pz's attacking?



Not a unit density question but another element that's AFAIK not accounted for in the combat model.

Only a certain percentage of weapons/units should be able to fire. Even when a Corps attacks a Division, only a portion of the close range elements are fighting each other at any one time.

The percentage able to fire should be inversely proportional to range, so the lower the range, the fewer shots (adjusted for ROF) it can make. The defender would get a bonus, since it can normally bring a much bigger % of it's weapons to bear, and SP elements should also enjoy a bonus to account for their mobility and ability to redeploy several times. TOAW IMO modelled this quite well.

This should work out to all the Artillery being able to fire, a sizable % of the mortars und Inf guns, etc, descending to the mighty SMG. This would give Artillery it's proper due while also giving some help to the defender.

As it works now, Artillery fires a bit, mortars making a killing because they can fire in more than on range band and SMG dominating the close range fire fight because they are not penalised for their very short range.



Karri -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/13/2012 1:17:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The defender would get a bonus, since it can normally bring a much bigger % of it's weapons to bear, and SP elements should also enjoy a bonus to account for their mobility and ability to redeploy several times.


Can you elaborate a bit please, as I don't see how defender can bring a bigger amount of weapons to bear.



MechFO -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/13/2012 3:21:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The defender would get a bonus, since it can normally bring a much bigger % of it's weapons to bear, and SP elements should also enjoy a bonus to account for their mobility and ability to redeploy several times.


Can you elaborate a bit please, as I don't see how defender can bring a bigger amount of weapons to bear.


Short answer, play any Infantry Simulation at Company/Battalion/Regimental level.

Long answer:

The higher % should account for several factors which are vital for the defender but are difficult to model at this level of abstraction. The defender will always have much higher relative % of its elements actively fighting at any one time due to the attacker running into space/terrain and range constraints.

Classic case, 3:1 odds, a Regiment in column attacking a Battalion in a linear defense. Looking only at the % of infantry squads engaged at various specific points in time, the Regiment, because it is attacking with a frontage of roughly 1 Battalion, will only be using at most, a bit more than 1 Battalions worth of infantry at the same time, the rest is out of range, masked by terrain, moving to contact etc.. So, effectivly, it's 100% vs. 33-40%.

Next come direct fire weapons with range to 1000m, HMG's and AT Guns, here the differences are smaller, some of the defenders weapons won't be in the right place, with the right fire zones. However the defenders elements are disproportionately effective and less vulnerable because they could presight their weapons, choose masked positions, coordinate firezones etc.. The attackers equivalent weapons are active but some are either out of range (parent unit not actively engaged, or no longer in a useful position), masked or moving to new positions. So depending on terrain, maybe 75% vs. 50%-60%, but accounting for the greater effectiveness of the defender, bump their share up to 100%

Next comes indirect fire weapons, mortars and Inf guns. Here, pretty much everything on both sides can fire in the beginning, though the attacker gets penalized for the fact, that again a certain % of it's units will be out of position and/or moving forward further into the battle. The defender could also be out of position, but are still likely to have targets in range and they get a bump to account for preregistering, prepared positions etc. Say 100% vs. 80%.


The above %'s are terrain dependant and don't make sense at very low force/space ratios, or when ants are involved because then the attacker actually has the space to deploy the extra combat power at this hex scale which should result in some kind of overrun result (at least with deliberate attacks).

It's also conceivable for a Corps to attack a Division on the equivalent of a Regimental frontage (Soviets late war), which would mess up the ratios a bit as well, but either way something like the above would IMO make more sense than the current system.




marty_01 -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/13/2012 5:54:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

As far as I can tell, SMGs are "Maybe" a problem and not yet confirmed as definite. I felt that 14.5mm anti-tank rifles was "maybe" a problem when I saw them knock out 40+ panzer IVs. It took 9 months for that to be confirmed and fixed.

The problem with late war combat calculations, is that the numbers involved are massive: in the case above 4,500 14.5mm anti- tank rifles had the chance to shoot at PZIVs, so the chances of throwing "double 6" 3 times in a row to achieve the hit/penetration and damage parameters were enough to kill 40+ panzer IVs. (I am simplifying here - there is much much more involved in the calculations)

Patience, young Padawan.


This sounds like the unit-density question that I sometimes think of but isn't talked about much.
Games are designed with the idea that any piece of equipment in a battle could reach any piece of the other side, but what if the unit density of one side is not that much? For your example are all those 4500 AT rifles in a position where a PZ IV may wander over close for a shot to happen?
That is, couldn't those Pz's be on a narrow frontage, leaving a few miles without no Pz's attacking?



Not a unit density question but another element that's AFAIK not accounted for in the combat model.

Only a certain percentage of weapons/units should be able to fire. Even when a Corps attacks a Division, only a portion of the close range elements are fighting each other at any one time.

The percentage able to fire should be inversely proportional to range, so the lower the range, the fewer shots (adjusted for ROF) it can make. The defender would get a bonus, since it can normally bring a much bigger % of it's weapons to bear, and SP elements should also enjoy a bonus to account for their mobility and ability to redeploy several times. TOAW IMO modelled this quite well.

This should work out to all the Artillery being able to fire, a sizable % of the mortars und Inf guns, etc, descending to the mighty SMG. This would give Artillery it's proper due while also giving some help to the defender.

As it works now, Artillery fires a bit, mortars making a killing because they can fire in more than on range band and SMG dominating the close range fire fight because they are not penalised for their very short range.



Agreed. Good post.



Tentpeg -> RE: Missing Weapons (1/14/2012 12:29:09 AM)

Both sides have certain advantages that are inhereent to the status they have chosen.

The defender chooses and prepares the ground.
The defender is harder to detect.
His weapons are sighted, coordinated with other weapons and the fire more accurate.
He has the advantage of internal lines of communication and supply
He can use barriers to channel an attacking force.
Economy of force allows him use a small force to hold a larger area than the attacker.

The attacker has mass on his side.
The attacker has the initiative.
The attacker chooses the time and place of the attack. (Surprse)
The attacker has greater firepower. It may not be as accurate but the fire is greater.
The attacker has speed on his side.

All of this can be debated but wars are won by offensive action. A platoon may cover 400 meters in the defense but its attack frontage may only be 50 meters or less. The attacking platoon may spend quite a bit of time identifying the defending posions and crew served weapons. The attacker will then let others (mortars, infantry guns, artillery and air) e;iminate or suppress the positions while they move close enough to use their weapons to effect. Once a hole is created rolling up the flanks and goimg for deeper softer stuff is easier.

Does th game simulate all of this? I think it tries to but it is limited by abstractions and human preference on what they think is important. It works until someone does it better.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875