RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (Full Version)

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



Message

sjohnson -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/3/2013 1:50:00 AM)

Hi Marquo - I would be curious if in your counterattacks you are looking at the actual loss screen before and after the attack for comparison.

Can you run the attack and provide say:

Axis KIA, MIA, DIS prior to the attack and after the attack and the same for the Soviet Union?

My experience is that I can achieve those loss ratios posted in the combat screen, but, when I look at actual KIA totals it is quite more a 1:1 ratio. At this point, all you are doing is trading men 1:1 for some time, some morale, and some equipment by attacking.



gamer78 -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? (1/4/2013 12:47:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

Are people assuming that the programmers know there is a fault, know how to fix it, and simply refuse to? It seems more likely to me a problem where they don't know how it exists.

If the situation was the first case, that would mean they are evil. [sm=00000622.gif] ( I kid )


Maybe the distraction can happen in language in which I'm not familiar with. For my part I was voicing Marquo and Pelton's concerns. For sure the team is no evil with this support level of their games. [:)]



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 2:46:22 AM)

Turn 113 Data Very Interesting

OOB Start of Turn

[image]local://upfiles/1355/F083F8C9DF1944AC97855801E31DA900.jpg[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 2:47:38 AM)

OOB Start of Turn 113





[image]local://upfiles/1355/02386FE13373494993C59EFAA2FB68FA.jpg[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 2:48:41 AM)

Loss screen end turn 113

[image]local://upfiles/1355/CC7D67BB94714A43B9B2C1AD8DB6C822.jpg[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 2:49:30 AM)

Loss Screen End Turn 113


[image]local://upfiles/1355/ED5960CC8151432886970F232F137404.jpg[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 2:57:37 AM)

So here is the breakdown:

Germany Turn Losses = 7,745
Losses Start T 3,260,034/K 1,605,588/D 1,622,722
Losses End T 3,267,642/K 1,612,443/D 1,623,475 Differences: T 7,608/K 6,885/D 753
OOB Start 3,391,052 (3,136,449)
OOB End 3,382,784 (3,116,420) 8,268 (11,761) The difference means -3,493 too many lost as damaged (not explained by losses incurred)

Soviet Turn Losses = 21,718
Losses Start T 8,281,863/K 2,612,321/D 3,085,611
Losses End T 8,295,845/K 2,617,683/D 3,093,927 Differences: T 13,982/K 5,362/D 8,316
OOB Start 7,344,145 (7,149,020)
OOB End 7,323,526 (7,134,058) 20,619 (14,962) The difference = 5,657 permanent loss


On balance the Soviet losses are more or less explained; however for the Axis the OOB fell by 3,493 "damaged" men which are not accounted for by the losses incurred.



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 3:00:12 AM)

Example of a Single Attack Losses on Battle Report versus Losses/OOB Screens:



[image]local://upfiles/1355/736F7CEE572549A4A7DED014E3C1DDC8.jpg[/image]

This lays to rest Pelton's contention that such Axis/Soviet loss ratio is not possible - it is.



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 3:01:42 AM)

Losses After this Attack

[image]local://upfiles/1355/331E0AF6CE354EAB85A6D9BD226BB83E.jpg[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 3:04:45 AM)

OOB After this Attack



[image]local://upfiles/1355/7F48F7004AF44744A1E095968545CA60.jpg[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 3:13:12 AM)

The following calculation is done comparing the screen shots after this first attack of the move with the starting OOB/Loss screen shots posted above.



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 3:48:02 AM)

Germany Attack Losses = 1,509
Losses Start T 3,260,034/K 1,605,588/D 1,622,722
Losses End T 3,260,900/K 1,606,347/D 1,622,829 T 866/K 759/107
OOB Start T 3,391,052 (3,136,449)
OOB End T 3,390,206 (3,134,232)
OOB Difference = T 846 (2,217) --> -1,371 excess lost to "damage;"¨and unaccounted for by the results; attack losses = 1,509 but OOB falls only 846, and more troops are damaged than possible per the loss tally.

Soviet Attack Losses = 3,140
Losses Start T 8,281,863/K 2,612,321/D 3,085,611
Losses End T 8,283,383/K 2,612,965/D 3,086,470 T 1,520/K 644/D 859
OOB Start T 7,344,145 (7,149,020)
OOB End T 7,341,557 (7,147,762)
OOB Difference = T 2,588 (1,258) --> 1,330 permanent loss

So for both sides the loss and OOB screens immediately after the battle showed total losses less than reported on the battle screen. In fact, the Soviet losses seemed overall less, whereas the Axis losses were more given the inordinate and unexplained increase in "damaged"¨ men noted on the OOB screen.

Disclaimer: I am perfectly possible of screwing up the math and perhaps there is a logical explanation for these figures.



Joel Billings -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 5:14:03 AM)

For permanent losses, the only thing that is recorded is when a ground element is destroyed. It doesn't matter if it was ready or damaged before it was destroyed. When destroyed, it counts as a permanent loss. If an element is damaged, it does not count in the permanent losses.

The "Current Casualties" column tracks things very differently. In this column (and in the battle reports), a ready element that is damaged counts 1/2 the manpower as lost. A damaged element that is destroyed counts as 1/2 the manpower. A ready element that is destroyed counts as a full loss. I realize this can be very confusing, but if we only counted destroyed elements as losses in combat, it would also be misleading because in many battles there might be 0 losses as no elements were destroyed, but many could be damaged. These damaged elements can be destroyed later on in the logistics phase when repair checks are made.



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 6:38:45 PM)

Well, yes it is confusing [:(]

I have been playing and trying to learn this almost from the moment it was released, and I still have a ways to go. In fact, given the time and effort I am am putting in, I feel that an honorary degree of some sort is in order. [:)]

Marquo



Joel Billings -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/5/2013 7:44:40 PM)

We hereby acknowledge and bestow upon you an honorary Master's Degree of Eastern Warfare (WitE 1.0). [:)] For a Doctorate you have to write the paper.



mmarquo -> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough (1/6/2013 9:07:27 PM)

Thanks; I am going to frame this diploma and hang it in my office.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7041016