Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Turn 24

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turn 24 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Turn 24 - 8/20/2008 12:48:38 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGS front at the end of turn 24. Note the microscreen in the NW corner for reference. (The AGC screenshot will again be skipped due to inaction).

The Ukrainian offensive was halted without further attacks. I felt that, with the blizzard phase about to start, it was too risky to keep driving for little hope of VP gain. The Axis needed to attend to defensive positioning.

Of the 33 manpower levy units scheduled this turn, 13 were manually disbanded, 7 were auto-disbanded, and 13 were denied due to German capture. There was one new Soviet cadre, and it was destroyed. The last of the RR units were withdrawn, ending rail repair for the winter.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 61
Turn 25 - 8/20/2008 12:52:55 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Turn 25


The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGN front at the end of turn 25. The blizzard phase has begun and the Axis now suffer a 25% shock penalty plus a 3% pestilence penalty. There were too many German units reorganizing to continue any attacks. Nevertheless, the Soviets were forced to send the 3rd Shock Army to this sector, joining the 2nd Shock Army. That will probably end any hopes of the offensive continuing, but it has served its purpose.

Meanwhile, the Soviets tried an offensive of their own down between Moscow and Smolensk. Two full-strength armies (attack strengths ~ 39) attacked one German corps. The corps turned out to be supported by an Army HQ and the results were a disaster for the Soviets. One army evaporated and the other was reduced to half strength. The German corps was reduced somewhat, but remained in place and fortified. The soviets had to sub-divide a nearby army to fill the gap created by the evaporated one.

Readers may have felt that I’ve been too passive with the Soviets up to this point. But this episode illustrates how poor they are at attacking. Relative combat strengths can be deceiving.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 62
RE: Turn 25 - 8/20/2008 12:56:18 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGS front at the end of turn 25. Note the microscreen in the NW corner for reference.

No action by either side took place in this sector. Neither side could risk a disaster, since both are sitting on expensive territory. And it should be obvious from the Soviet attacks near Smolensk that supported German positions are very costly to attack. And the German positions here are not just supported by HQs, but also by CS air. Note that the Romanians went into Garrison deployment this turn. I had anticipated that when I halted the offensive in the Krasnodar sector earlier.

Of the 33 manpower levy units scheduled this turn, 11 were manually disbanded, 7 were auto-disbanded, and 13 were denied due to German capture. There was one new Soviet cadre, and it was destroyed.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 63
Turn 26 - 8/20/2008 12:59:49 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Turn 26


The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGN front at the end of turn 26. The presence of both the 2nd & 3rd Shock armies has stabilized the front for the Soviets. That will shut down the German’s offensive. But, after last turn’s attack disaster, the Soviets aren’t likely to take the offensive either. So, this sector should be quiet for the remainder of the game. The Germans are the winners here, though, since they’ve occupied those two shock armies in this defense, rather than permit them to be used elsewhere in an offense.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 64
RE: Turn 26 - 8/20/2008 1:02:38 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGC front at the end of turn 26. There was no new action here, but I just wanted to show that the 4th (and last) shock army was sent here, in hopes of regaining Voronezh.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 65
RE: Turn 26 - 8/20/2008 1:06:06 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGS front at the end of turn 26. Note the microscreen in the NW corner for reference.

No attacks by either side took place in this sector for the same reasons as last turn. But note that Soci (bottom of map) has been left undefended by the Axis and will soon be retaken by the Soviets.

Of the 33 manpower levy units scheduled this turn, 14 were manually disbanded, 7 were auto-disbanded, and 12 were denied due to German capture. The Atlantic Lend Lease disbandments were received as well. There were no new Soviet cadres.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 66
Turn 27 - 8/20/2008 1:09:06 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Turn 27


The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGC front at the end of turn 27. Note the microscreen in the SW corner for reference.

No frontline attacks by either side took place anywhere. But I’m showing this sector to note that the Soviets have repositioned forces for an approaching attempt to retake Voronezh. Meanwhile, Soci has been retaken by the Soviets as predicted last turn (not shown).

Of the 33 manpower levy units scheduled this turn, 13 were manually disbanded, 7 were auto-disbanded, and 13 were denied due to German capture. The Pacific Lend Lease disbandments were received as well. There were two new Soviet cadres and both were destroyed – one involved a huge air battle that the Soviets lost.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 67
Turn 28 - 8/20/2008 1:11:50 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Turn 28


The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGC front at the end of turn 28. Note the microscreen in the SW corner for reference.

No frontline attacks by either side took place anywhere. But the Soviets have continued repositioning forces for a last-turn attempt to retake Voronezh.

Of the 34 manpower levy units scheduled this turn, 11 were manually disbanded, 7 were auto-disbanded, and 16 were denied due to German capture. There were two new Soviet cadres and both were destroyed – again with an air battle that the Soviets lost.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 68
Turn 29 - 8/20/2008 1:14:45 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Turn 29


The attached screenshot shows the situation on the AGC front at the end of turn 29. Note the microscreen in the SW corner for reference. This is guaranteed to be the last turn, and the Soviet player gets to play last. That’s an edge too irresistible to pass up.

The Soviets finally launched their last-turn attempt to retake Voronezh. Unlike the attempt at Smolensk, earlier, this one was well supported by HQs & CS air. And the ground assault force was proportionately greater as well. But there was Axis HQ & CS air support, too. The result was another disaster. After the attack, all the Soviet air was reorganizing, as were some of the assaulting armies. The Soviets had even suffered slightly higher proportional (37% vs 30%) ground losses as well. The German defenders hadn’t even been knocked out of fortified deployment. I felt a second attempt would be an even greater disaster, so the follow-up attempt was canceled.

The two failed efforts at Soviet offensives illustrate that the Soviets need the Axis to first shatter their forces in their last offensive efforts for the Soviets to have a chance to launch a winter counteroffensive. Since I shut down all offensive efforts and prepped for defense with them, they were in condition to repulse even the best Soviet efforts.

There were no more manpower levy units scheduled after turn 28. There was one new Soviet cadre and it was destroyed.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 69
Victory Message - 8/20/2008 1:18:19 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Victory Message


The game ends automatically at the end of turn 29 and victory is determined. The attached screenshot shows the victory message. The result was a draw. The final total was 34 in the Axis favor (the draw boundary is at 200). But note that if I had not stupidly left the Leningrad 2 factory in Leningrad after releasing it, it wouldn’t have been destroyed, and the Germans would have had 27 less VPs, making the final total 7 in the Axis favor.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 70
Movies - 8/20/2008 1:21:27 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		The attached file is the movie of the game using the Axis player-turn saves. So most of the Soviet force is usually invisible due to fog-of-war.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 71
RE: Movies - 8/20/2008 1:23:57 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline 		Similarly, the attached file is the movie of the game using the Soviet player-turn saves. So most of the Axis force is usually invisible due to fog-of-war.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 72
Loss Penalty - 8/20/2008 1:26:00 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Loss Penalty


Now let’s do some statistical analysis. The attached screenshot charts the loss penalties over the course of the game. The red line is for the Soviets, and the blue line is for the Axis. Remember that replacements reduce the loss penalty, explaining how both lines often decrease, especially the Soviets, due to their huge replacement edge. The biggest losses occurred at the start. Then losses slacked off, until the second defense line was reached. Then they slacked off again for the mud phase, then picked up again for the frost phase. And they finally slacked off for the blizzard phase (not so much the Axis, due to the pestilence) except for the final failed attack.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 73
Squad Losses - 8/20/2008 1:27:22 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Squad Losses


The attached screenshot charts squad losses (everything in the equipment list up to machine guns). The gridlines are 50,000 squads. The Axis initial-shock, proficiency, and organizational edges account for their better results here. But this is still the most favorable chart for the Soviets. They can better afford these sorts of losses. You can clearly see the flat spots in the curves during the mud and blizzard phases. The Soviets losses during the mud phase were due to the unsupplied forces in Leningrad and the Axis losses during the blizzard phase were due to pestilence.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 74
Light Weapon Losses - 8/20/2008 1:28:41 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Light Weapon Losses


The attached screenshot charts light weapon losses (machine guns, AT guns, light guns, mortars, AAA guns). The gridlines are 10,000 weapons. The chart partly reflects that the Soviets had to defend with much of their rear-area elements out of desperation. But this can also be attributed to the same Axis edges mentioned under the squad loss chart.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 75
Artillery Losses - 8/20/2008 1:30:03 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Artillery Losses


The attached screenshot charts artillery losses. The gridlines are 2,000 weapons. This chart reflects the fact both that Soviet HQs often came under attack, and that a higher proportion of Soviet artillery was retained in the frontline elements.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 76
Transport Losses - 8/20/2008 1:31:28 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Transport Losses


The attached screenshot charts transport (horse teams, trucks, APCs, ferries) losses. Also, I merged the Scout Car losses with this chart, since the Soviets don’t have any. About half of the Axis “Transport” losses shown were actually scout cars. The gridlines are 10,000 vehicles. Again, the higher exposure of Soviet rear-area elements is reflected in this chart.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 77
AFV Losses - 8/20/2008 1:32:47 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
AFV Losses


The attached screenshot charts AFV (armored cars, SPAT, Tanks) losses. The gridlines are 2,000 vehicles. Among other things, this chart reflects that the Axis losses were focused on their armored elements, by choice, as the attackers.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 78
Aircraft Losses - 8/20/2008 1:34:06 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Aircraft Losses


The attached screenshot charts Aircraft losses. The gridlines are 2,000 planes. It’s clear from the chart that, after the initial surprise attack, the Soviets kept their airforce out of action until the air shock penalties were ended (that allowed it to rebuild, too). Then they were thrown back into the fray, with mostly abysmal results.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 79
Total Losses - 8/20/2008 1:35:38 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Total Losses


The attached screenshot charts total losses. The gridlines are 50,000 items. Similar to the loss penalty chart, you can see the initial Soviet slaughter during the surprise attack and the flat areas during the mud and blizzard phases. The Axis edge in losses slowly degraded, but a significant advantage remained to the end.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 80
Victory - 8/20/2008 1:36:59 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Victory


The attached screenshot charts the victory level. The yellow line is the victory level. Grid lines are 200 VPs. Other lines show how it is formed. Blue lines are Axis; red are Soviets; black dashed lines show the level points. There are three Soviet lines showing awards, loss penalty, and objectives. The three Axis lines show the same things for them. The three level points are at 200, 400, and 600. Note that the two objective lines are mirror images of each other (a gain for the Axis was a loss for the Soviets). The Soviets have a 250 VP award on turn one, while the Axis received VP awards by event for Soviet exercise of factory release TOs and factory destruction. The loss penalties are the same as on the earlier chart.

The victory level began as Soviet Overwhelming, then gradually fell into the Soviet Marginal Victory level. The Axis capture of Leningrad finally pushed the value into the Draw category. The final level was slightly in favor of the Axis.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 81
Final Statistics - 8/20/2008 1:38:25 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Final Statistics


The attached screenshot shows the final statistics for both sides. Notable was the Soviets’ 2-to-1 edge in total equipment that was somewhat blunted by the Axis’ nearly 3-to-1 edge in losses. The important exception was the loss ratio in squads, where the Axis edge was just over 2-to-1.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 82
Conclusions - 8/20/2008 1:39:34 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
Conclusions


As the scenario designer, when a test ends in a draw it’s a good thing. Furthermore, all the myriad, complicated event sequences worked as designed. But, there is some disquiet due to the fact that I made so many errors on both sides. Clearly, the Soviet defense of Lagoda could have been better. And, without question, the Leningrad Factory 2 should have not been forgotten and left in Leningrad to be destroyed. That would have made the Axis capture of Leningrad more of a contest and somewhat less of a bonanza, though it might have still fallen, eventually. The same is true for the Soviet defense of Kerch. On the other hand, I now feel that the Axis sent too much force into the Crimea, which probably fatally weakened the Ukrainian offensive, resulting in Rostov and nearby targets never falling.

Also, note that several strategic decisions by both sides were not entirely the same as historically done. The Axis didn’t dawdle a month before sending the Panzers to Kiev. The Soviets didn’t launch ill-advised attacks on the Germans left to cover that move, either – making any Operation Typhoon unlikely. I think that if the mistakes and different strategic decisions are factored in, the scenario performed quite close to historical.

Furthermore, the draw result indicates that the scenario is probably in good balance (best play may have given the Soviets a marginal victory, though, if it meant that Leningrad didn’t fall). Players taking a conservative historical approach should find that the game turns on the battle for Lagoda. But the neat thing about Barbarossa scenarios is that the players are not restricted to such conservative approaches. There are riskier options that could reshuffle the possibilities a lot.

One obvious one is for the Soviets to forgo establishing a secondary defense line along the Dnieper and retreating much further before setting up a defense. This preserves more of the initial force and avoids any Kiev pocket. But it will, obviously, lose more production sooner, and may allow the Germans to slam into the most valuable Soviet territory before the defense is ready. And the Dnieper is a good defense line.

The other obvious one is for the Germans to not redirect the panzers to Kiev, but to strike straight for Moscow. This is probably the only real chance the Germans will have to take Moscow, given best play by the Soviets, and success would garner a bunch of VPs and a serious strategic dislocation of the Soviet position. But a failure would likely leave the Soviets much stronger and in possession of most of the Ukraine. But if the Axis player wants a victory instead of a draw, capture of Moscow is vital.

I only had one thing that I thought the test revealed a need for adjustment to. The Mud Phase shock penalties have some unintended consequences. They just about halt rail repair and they slash force supply levels. Some of the decrease in force supply levels might be reasonable (due to the mud), but not all. I may try to adjust the supply levels upward for that period. And rail repair shouldn’t have been affected by the mud, so I will try to add some auto-rail repair for that period. Of course, I first have to find the event slots to do so. If the number of slots is ever increased again, I’ll also auto-disband the rest of the manpower levy units.

Like its companion scenario, Germany 1945, the scenario is fun and not that difficult to play. The test was started on July 12th and ended on August 17th with only a few interruptions. The actual total days gaming was only 31 (for 29 turns, playing both sides). Plus, like with Germany 1945, the absence of ant-unit tactics allowed me to focus on realistic deployments – Leningrad, for instance, was impregnable until rendered unsupplied. Finally, the game scale allowed strategic factors to be concentrated on: How far to fall back? Go for Moscow or Kiev? What targets to concentrate on? Etc.

The test reaffirmed the lesson of the Germany 1945 test about the importance of HQ support for defensive positions. It also affirmed my comments in the briefing about the Soviets being poor attackers. In fact, I really didn’t determine for sure just how good they may or may not be at defending, either, especially if unsupported. An early strike at Moscow by some enterprising Axis player might settle that.

Having played the game, I have a new appreciation for some of the decisions both sides made. It takes a very brave Axis player to forgo the envelopment of Kiev for a risky strike at Moscow. And those powerful looking Soviet armies sure appear to be ready for the offensive while that envelopment is going on. It takes a very disciplined Soviet player to not fall for that (probably false) offensive opportunity. And Leningrad’s defense is a really complicated problem for any Axis player to solve.

Once again, happy operational wargaming!

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 83
RE: Conclusions - 8/20/2008 8:03:45 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline 		Excellent, Bob.

I think this is the only Barbarossa scenario I've seen where the Russian player is constantly facing disaster and yet still coming away undefeated at the end of it- which of course is exactly how the campaign played out. A very valuable lesson for the designers of monster scenarios (something to which both you and I have been at times).

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 84
RE: Conclusions - 8/21/2008 4:29:43 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Excellent, Bob.

I think this is the only Barbarossa scenario I've seen where the Russian player is constantly facing disaster and yet still coming away undefeated at the end of it- which of course is exactly how the campaign played out. A very valuable lesson for the designers of monster scenarios (something to which both you and I have been at times).


Thanks, Ben.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 85
RE: Conclusions - 8/21/2008 7:29:43 PM   
noxious


Posts: 177
Joined: 6/13/2008
From: Montreal, Qc, Canuckistan
Status: offline 		Thanks for the excellent AAR !
Now, could you please elaborate on the differences between this latest version and the one included with TOAW III ?
Cheers !



_____________________________

Be Kind. Everyone is fighting a hard battle.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 86
RE: Conclusions - 8/21/2008 8:37:15 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: noxious

Thanks for the excellent AAR !
Now, could you please elaborate on the differences between this latest version and the one included with TOAW III ?
Cheers !


I discussed that a bit in post #1, but here is what I've written in the scenario document about version changes:

VERSION 2 CHANGES

1. Fixed refinery equipment back to “spare equipment” after TOAW III used the first “spare equipment” for the T-64A.

2. Increased the path routes from Siberia to the main map, for possible improved Soviet PO operation.

3. Used the additional 499 event slots to automatically disband the manpower units of the top ten population centers (270 of the 894 units). Axis capture of the center cancels the automatic disbanding. Soviet recapture will cause the manpower units to arrive on map for Soviet player manual disbanding. I’ll need about another 1300 event slots to automate the rest of the disbandments.

4. Set MRPB to 3.

5. Revised this document from an addition to the scenario briefing to a combined full briefing. Note that the scenario briefing that can be viewed in the game contains only a part of this document.

6. Revised House Rule 3, so that it is now applied to the German Brandenburg division just like the Finns. But, unlike the Finns, the Brandenburg division is released from the rule if the main force links up with the Finnish front.

7. Made an equipment edit to model the German 610mm guns and Soviet Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers. Stored that file in the scenario’s special graphics sub-folder.

8. Copied marsh tile files into badland tile files and stored in the above scenario folder – badlands now look like marsh on the map for this scenario.

9. All German tanks were given the recon flag (nod to Ben Turner for this idea).

10. Added the revised Numbers.bmp file to the scenario’s special graphics sub-folder. This is the same mod used in my “Germany 1945” scenario that has Army Group & Theater unit sizes. Edited all unit sizes to display correctly with this file.

11. Soviet elements around Minsk have been redeployed from “Entrenched” to “Local Reserve” mode. This will model Pavlov’s sending those forces into the Bialystok pocket, stripping the Minsk defenses.

But note that I said the test revealed a few items to adjust due to the mud phase. So there may be a few additional changes beyond these.

(in reply to noxious)
Post #: 87
RE: Conclusions - 8/22/2008 12:46:30 AM   
noxious


Posts: 177
Joined: 6/13/2008
From: Montreal, Qc, Canuckistan
Status: offline 		Thank you.
Btw, I had quite forgotten post #1 by the time I posted ;)

_____________________________

Be Kind. Everyone is fighting a hard battle.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 88
RE: Final Statistics - 8/23/2008 12:08:24 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Very good table. Presents a great deal of information and must have been a bear to compile. Good job.

However, I suggest that you either delete the two “Totals” rows or redesign the table so that the totals are actually summing equivalent units. By this I mean that you need a common denominator for the various equipment type totals that are being summed. You’re good with math, so I’m sure you know what I mean.

If you want to make the summations meaningful, I suggest adjusting the data columns for common denominators such as:

1) Express equipment types in AP strength X totals
2) Express equipment types in AP+AT strength X totals
3) Express equipment types in the number of personnel lost X totals

As is, adding German “Squads 92,374” + “Aircraft 2,833” has absolutely no meaning, but adding “Squads 12K AP + “Aircraft 3K AP = 15K” AP has a common point of reference and expresses a relevant total.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 89
RE: Final Statistics - 8/23/2008 10:58:29 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

As is, adding German “Squads 92,374” + “Aircraft 2,833” has absolutely no meaning, but adding “Squads 12K AP + “Aircraft 3K AP = 15K” AP has a common point of reference and expresses a relevant total.


I see what you're getting at- but counting AP strength would be time consuming and not exactly all that useful. A lot of aircraft have very low AP ratings compared to their value.

You could work out some formula to discover the total value of each item, but if you want a cheap and nasty calculation of the relative losses of the two sides, I'd suggest just coming up with a multiplier for each category. For example 1 for squads and light weapons, 2 for transport, 3 for artillery and tanks and 4 for aircraft. Or something like that.


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turn 24 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.766