Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Well, it cannot be a real historical game if it cannot match what happened in history. I am not talking about what real players will or will not do. I am asking IF the game has been tested this way, and do advance rates match as well as the other factors like casualties.

for the metrics we used - yes its a good match, above I told you the ones we mostly relied on.

Has anyone sat with a divisional history and modelled every move exactly as it happened - not as far as I am aware.

But I don't think that is a valid criticism of the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Well, it cannot be a real historical game if it cannot match what happened in history. I am not talking about what real players will or will not do. I am asking IF the game has been tested this way, and do advance rates match as well as the other factors like casualties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Zemke - the problems you are encountering in your attempt to duplicate the historical shifts of the Panzer Corps are to be expected. Why? Because I have yet to see any human play the Soviets and do out right attacks starting on turn 1 and continuing to attack with just about every unit within a few hexes of the front. Even the AI is too smart to do that. When the Battle of Smolensk started around July 10, the Soviets had five armies that stretched from Polotsk to Mogilev with no troops from Polostk to Idrista or Mogilev to Gomel (as per Glantz in his Battle for Smolensk). What Soviet player would do that AND attack with every unit possible? The Soviets lost 6M men from June 22 to December 31, 1941. This is according to three different experts (Glantz, Sharp, and Nasfinzer something that I can't remember off the top of my head). If the Soviets lose 6M men in this game, the Soviets will have roughly 1.8M men at December 31. This is quite possible as all three experts agree that the Soviets lost over 1M men just in December while attacking.

What you are asking is just too hard to test. What was extensively tested was the strategies and the outcomes. They came out pretty close to historical in territory and numbers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
...
Why? Because I have yet to see any human play the Soviets and do out right attacks starting on turn 1 and continuing to attack with just about every unit within a few hexes of the front. Even the AI is too smart to do that.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

This idea of testing could even be done on a smaller scale, of a few divisions, and do several runs to see what the average results are, and answer some basic questions. Do the combat results match, can units match the historical advance rate, and so on. I think the computer program can handle several runs to get an average and let's see what that average is, not impossible at all.

I would be interested to know if anyone has been able to shift 3rd Pz Group to the North and match the historical attacks.

Anyway, I can see I am swimming upstream on this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

This idea of testing could even be done on a smaller scale, of a few divisions, and do several runs to see what the average results are, and answer some basic questions. Do the combat results match, can units match the historical advance rate, and so on. I think the computer program can handle several runs to get an average and let's see what that average is, not impossible at all.

I would be interested to know if anyone has been able to shift 3rd Pz Group to the North and match the historical attacks.

Anyway, I can see I am swimming upstream on this one.

I do understand what you mean but how can we possibly guarantee what specific experience or morale level would be for each unit? What about the replacements and supply provided that is done via the AI. We can't know that level of detail for most units in RL so how to model etc. I know it's details but those things also add into the combat results and also the RL advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke
I find it very difficult (impossible) to execute a historical maneuver, and I will use the following example. The 3rd Panzer Group was sent north to aid Army Group North in surrounding Leningrad, after Smolensk falls on 17 July 41. To get the 39th Pz Corps in position to attack and take Novogorod by 25 August 41 rested and with some CCP is well difficult while at the same time maintaining the gains made around Smolensk. The same would apply to the 57 Pz Corps attacking towards Demyansk, which fell on 8 Sept 41. The combination of moving, resting, CCP accumulation, and last the terrible terrain in both axis of advance all combine in this game to make this (for me) an impossible move to replicate. This is why I ask the above question, has the game been tested in this way to see if the programming matches the historical results?

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke
I find it very difficult (impossible) to execute a historical maneuver, and I will use the following example. The 3rd Panzer Group was sent north to aid Army Group North in surrounding Leningrad, after Smolensk falls on 17 July 41. To get the 39th Pz Corps in position to attack and take Novogorod by 25 August 41 rested and with some CCP is well difficult while at the same time maintaining the gains made around Smolensk. The same would apply to the 57 Pz Corps attacking towards Demyansk, which fell on 8 Sept 41. The combination of moving, resting, CCP accumulation, and last the terrible terrain in both axis of advance all combine in this game to make this (for me) an impossible move to replicate. This is why I ask the above question, has the game been tested in this way to see if the programming matches the historical results?

It would be interesting to see an experienced player give this a try. I expect it could be done to a reasonable degree. I'm not sure outside of experimenting with it that you'd ever really want to though. With that said, there are many, many variables that make it hard to get a truly controlled experiment hence the focus tends to be on broader strokes.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke

This idea of testing could even be done on a smaller scale, of a few divisions, and do several runs to see what the average results are, and answer some basic questions. Do the combat results match, can units match the historical advance rate, and so on. I think the computer program can handle several runs to get an average and let's see what that average is, not impossible at all.

I would be interested to know if anyone has been able to shift 3rd Pz Group to the North and match the historical attacks.

Anyway, I can see I am swimming upstream on this one.

I do understand what you mean but how can we possibly guarantee what specific experience or morale level would be for each unit? What about the replacements and supply provided that is done via the AI. We can't know that level of detail for most units in RL so how to model etc. I know it's details but those things also add into the combat results and also the RL advance.

That's just it, the test would confirm if current experience and moral settings are close, based on results, (and several runs, not just one), along with the other measures that quantifiable, like casualties and advance rates. If the current logistics model is close, then there are not issues. IF not then adjustments could be made to exp or moral settings or the logistics model. Anyway, I was just asking if these tests had been done, which they have not. And doing them will require a research effort that is more than likely beyond the desire of 99% of us.

I would assume that some of the scenario designers would be much more qualified to test this, or already have.

(I think asked this same question for the first WitE.) I know it looks like I am saying the "baby" is ugly here, which I am not. I love the game, it is the best we have. I was just asking how deep was the testing, and I know now.