PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

User avatar
heliodorus04
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Nashville TN

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by heliodorus04 »

ORIGINAL: herwin

I'm just learning the game, but I know something historical about the effect of odds--as of Friday, btw, when I completed the Bayesian analysis. Rather than calculating the odds in the traditional way, define a 1-1 attack as one the attacker has a 50-50 chance of a breakthrough with the defence being forced out of its position. So the combat power ratio corresponding to a 1-1 attack would be about 100% for an encounter battle, 200% for a hasty attack on a hasty defence, 300% for a deliberate attack on a positional defence, and 400% for a set-piece assault on a fortified line. The casualty percentage in a 1-1 attack averages about 15%, with the winner averaging about 10% and the loser averaging about 20%. The standard deviation of the casualty percentage is about a factor of 2. Now you say you want a 95% chance of a breakthrough? You have to increase your combat power by a factor of four. That doubles the casualty percentage on both sides. As a defender, you want to reduce the chance of a breakthrough to 5%? Again, you have to quadruple your combat power. National differences, tactical expertise, morale, and asymmetric warfare act as multipliers on the combat power needed for 1-1. And there ain't no such thing as auto-win. Well, there is, but it requires an 8-1 battle--a 3200% combat power ratio for an attack on a fortified line.

I'm always interested in improving my ability to apply statistics to problems. It's all very new to me (statistics), and some of your units of measure confuse me, so if I may ask a couple questions and make some comments:

1) Are these outcomes based on observed data or theorized?

2) 100% isn't a ratio! (I know, I can't help it - it's a comment not a question).

3) Explain your standard deviation unit of measure relative to the measures of your data. I don't understand your standard deviation of 2. I'm assuming you mean 2 percent standard deviation with casualties (so attacker 8 to 12, defender 18 to 22). Is that correct?

4) I don't understand your initial hypothesis that a 1:1 attack is a 50-50 chance of obtaining a "defender retreats' (or better) result. Is that correct?
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: herwin

I'm just learning the game, but I know something historical about the effect of odds--as of Friday, btw, when I completed the Bayesian analysis. Rather than calculating the odds in the traditional way, define a 1-1 attack as one the attacker has a 50-50 chance of a breakthrough with the defence being forced out of its position. So the combat power ratio corresponding to a 1-1 attack would be about 100% for an encounter battle, 200% for a hasty attack on a hasty defence, 300% for a deliberate attack on a positional defence, and 400% for a set-piece assault on a fortified line. The casualty percentage in a 1-1 attack averages about 15%, with the winner averaging about 10% and the loser averaging about 20%. The standard deviation of the casualty percentage is about a factor of 2. Now you say you want a 95% chance of a breakthrough? You have to increase your combat power by a factor of four. That doubles the casualty percentage on both sides. As a defender, you want to reduce the chance of a breakthrough to 5%? Again, you have to quadruple your combat power. National differences, tactical expertise, morale, and asymmetric warfare act as multipliers on the combat power needed for 1-1. And there ain't no such thing as auto-win. Well, there is, but it requires an 8-1 battle--a 3200% combat power ratio for an attack on a fortified line.

I'm always interested in improving my ability to apply statistics to problems. It's all very new to me (statistics), and some of your units of measure confuse me, so if I may ask a couple questions and make some comments:

1) Are these outcomes based on observed data or theorized?
R L Helmbold's battle termination data.

2) 100% isn't a ratio! (I know, I can't help it - it's a comment not a question).
Sure it is: Attacker Combat Power/Defender Combat Power as a percentage.
3) Explain your standard deviation unit of measure relative to the measures of your data. I don't understand your standard deviation of 2. I'm assuming you mean 2 percent standard deviation with casualties (so attacker 8 to 12, defender 18 to 22). Is that correct?
lognormally distributed, with one SD corresponding to a factor of 2.

4) I don't understand your initial hypothesis that a 1:1 attack is a 50-50 chance of obtaining a "defender retreats' (or better) result. Is that correct?
I'm defining a 1:1 attack as an attack with a 50-50 chance of obtaining a "defender retreats' (or better) result.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The real issue is imo a scaling one. The defender's losses are too high on the low end. This encourages many relatively low odds attacks. Removing the +1 mod won't resolve this problem, it will mitigate it somewhat, but the plain fact of the matter is that the Soviet will merely contrive to launch as many 2:1 odds attacks as possible in order to grind the Wehrmacht to powder. High odds attacks are actually not economical from an attritional standpoint -- the defender's losses don't really increase with odds. Therefore the point is simply to make as many attacks that work as possible. 5 2:1 attacks will cause more losses on the defender than one 10:1 attack.

Artillery losses in particular are extraordinarily high in retreats. You can destroy the German artillery in a few months of sustained attritional combat at which point their infantry becomes more or less helpless. My own view is this needs to be drastically cut back or scaled to size.

The Soviets used extraordinarily high odds attacks to guarantee a penetration. In some cases a division would attack on a 2-km front late in the war. That's 10 or 20-1.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by herwin »

Question from the peanut gallery: Does the game allow a German player to replicate the performance of the 4. Armee under General Heinrici's command during 1942-44?
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Mynok »


The only time I've seen the 1:1 modifier show up in my 43 GC with Oleg (that I recall at least) is when I counterattack him. He always is attacking at vastly superior odds. This is even with much of my infantry having recovered to between 4 and 6 CV.

The killer is as ComradeP and others have said: every Soviet attack kills massive numbers of Germans and often makes the units unready.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by hfarrish »

I've been squawking on about this for a while so am glad it continues to get focus (mainly because, for a defensively minded player, the mid to late, war period as a German should be a fun - very difficult, but fun - challenge). Most of the issues I have seen with the game during this period have been covered, but I'd add another:

Broadly speaking, my perception is that successful Soviet offensives were well planned, large scale operations - in particular the use of artillery. I have always thought that generally the "7000 guns" thing took a tremendous amount of planning and broadly speaking on the offensive was not that useful after the initial push. The game doesn't really simulate this check on Soviet offensive power since as long as the artillery brigades are close enough to the front, they will participate both from an offensive and defensive perspective.

Am I wrong that (a) this happens in the game and (b) that it is ahistorical vis a vis Soviet capabilities?
Aditia
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:06 pm

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Aditia »

In my 43-45 PBEM 1:1 modifier is vital for sovs. As for the rest. 2nd half 1943 onwards should be hard for the Germans. Any offensive would have to be a very well planned back hand blow directly after a sizeable retreat, and then it is still a major gamble. One of my few gripes with the game I am playing (stock 43-45, v1.03) is the amount of retreat attrition for the Germans. I don't know what the rationale is but I would think that that would require seriously good cooperation between ground forces, artillery and airpower
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by JocMeister »

Isn´t one of the problems that the engine doesn´t allow a "fighting withdrawal"? Reading "Steel Inferno" by Micheal Raynolds it seemed like the Wehrmacht used this to great effect in Normandie. Using excellent defensive positions and causing the Allies far greater casualties than they recived and then withdrawing only when positions became impossible to maintain. I guess they did the same thing on the the eastern front?

As it is now you either win the battle or loose. If you loose you withdraw/rout and loose much of the heavy equipment and that I don´t think simulates the german withdrawal through russia very well. Casualties feels somewhat wrong aswell. I admit I am not very well read on the eastern front thou so posible I could be very wrong! [:D]
 

Image
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Tarhunnas, the pace of operations during the winter of 1941 in real life for the Soviets was to launch a counteroffensive more or less on the entire length of the front.

Anyways it seems to me the real problem with the blizzard offensive was the old blizzard rules, not the logistics. The first winter has been considerably tamed. It's working pretty well now.

Nor do I believe that logistics are the heart of the problem in the mid to late war period. It's the combat engine that's the real issue.

It is commonly described (Glanz, Erickson for example) as a mistake by Stalin to extend the offensive to the entire front. Zhukov allegedly argued against it, because of insufficient resources, ammo among other things = supplies.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
Aditia
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:06 pm

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Aditia »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Isn´t one of the problems that the engine doesn´t allow a "fighting withdrawal"? Reading "Steel Inferno" by Micheal Raynolds it seemed like the Wehrmacht used this to great effect in Normandie. Using excellent defensive positions and causing the Allies far greater casualties than they recived and then withdrawing only when positions became impossible to maintain. I guess they did the same thing on the the eastern front?

As it is now you either win the battle or loose. If you loose you withdraw/rout and loose much of the heavy equipment and that I don´t think simulates the german withdrawal through russia very well. Casualties feels somewhat wrong aswell. I admit I am not very well read on the eastern front thou so posible I could be very wrong! [:D]



Fighting withdrawal is excellently possible. Also, Panthers and Tigers are very survivable in 1943
hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by hfarrish »


Isn´t one of the problems that the engine doesn´t allow a "fighting withdrawal"...
As it is now you either win the battle or loose. If you loose you withdraw/rout and loose much of the heavy equipment and that I don´t think simulates the german withdrawal through russia very well. Casualties feels somewhat wrong aswell. I admit I am not very well read on the eastern front thou so posible I could be very wrong! [:D]

I would guess that there are some scaling issues in this in that the fighting withdrawal is relatively tactical whereas the game is operational. Perhaps the concept is similar to TOAWs three levels of defense...not that I want a game where I need to set every unit across the Eastern Front to a defense level!
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Herwin, how is the Bayesian model of engagement termination using the Helmbold data going? [:D] I really should come back to the WitP AE forum [8D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Tarhunnas, the pace of operations during the winter of 1941 in real life for the Soviets was to launch a counteroffensive more or less on the entire length of the front.

Anyways it seems to me the real problem with the blizzard offensive was the old blizzard rules, not the logistics. The first winter has been considerably tamed. It's working pretty well now.

Nor do I believe that logistics are the heart of the problem in the mid to late war period. It's the combat engine that's the real issue.

It is commonly described (Glanz, Erickson for example) as a mistake by Stalin to extend the offensive to the entire front. Zhukov allegedly argued against it, because of insufficient resources, ammo among other things = supplies.

The real shortage was in forces. Not really logistics. Zhukov wanted all the reserve armies dedicated to the Western Theatre, rather than scattered across the front. That was his objection. He believed that only in the western theater were decisive results possible. He may even have been right -- the Sovs came within an ace of bagging large portions of AGC.

It's a mistake to conflate this with some kind of problem with logistics per se. This was a force allocation issue.

WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

I would guess that there are some scaling issues in this in that the fighting withdrawal is relatively tactical whereas the game is operational. Perhaps the concept is similar to TOAWs three levels of defense...not that I want a game where I need to set every unit across the Eastern Front to a defense level!

Yeah, the game's combat model unfortunately doesn't distinguish between merely pushing the enemy back and actually breaking through and overunning the unit in question at the tactical level. Retreat results lack that kind of granularity.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

I would guess that there are some scaling issues in this in that the fighting withdrawal is relatively tactical whereas the game is operational. Perhaps the concept is similar to TOAWs three levels of defense...not that I want a game where I need to set every unit across the Eastern Front to a defense level!

Yeah, the game's combat model unfortunately doesn't distinguish between merely pushing the enemy back and actually breaking through and overunning the unit in question at the tactical level. Retreat results lack that kind of granularity.

Perhaps that could be handled by built in logic? A heavily outnumbered unit could select fighting withdrawal by itself, based on experience, commander die rolls etc. Perhaps influenced by directives about "not a step back" etc from the dictator in chief?
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Tarhunnas, the pace of operations during the winter of 1941 in real life for the Soviets was to launch a counteroffensive more or less on the entire length of the front.

Anyways it seems to me the real problem with the blizzard offensive was the old blizzard rules, not the logistics. The first winter has been considerably tamed. It's working pretty well now.

Nor do I believe that logistics are the heart of the problem in the mid to late war period. It's the combat engine that's the real issue.

It is commonly described (Glanz, Erickson for example) as a mistake by Stalin to extend the offensive to the entire front. Zhukov allegedly argued against it, because of insufficient resources, ammo among other things = supplies.

The real shortage was in forces. Not really logistics. Zhukov wanted all the reserve armies dedicated to the Western Theatre, rather than scattered across the front. That was his objection. He believed that only in the western theater were decisive results possible. He may even have been right -- the Sovs came within an ace of bagging large portions of AGC.

It's a mistake to conflate this with some kind of problem with logistics per se. This was a force allocation issue.

Well, forces too of course, but I always had the impression logistics was part of it too. The soviets had a severe ammo problem at the end of 1941.

As for the mid to late war offensives, In my view logistics did certainly play a part, if it was just forces, the Soviets could have attacked all along the front, just as a human player will do in the game. Attacking forces consume much more supplies than defending ones, especially artillery ammunition.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Isn´t one of the problems that the engine doesn´t allow a "fighting withdrawal"? Reading "Steel Inferno" by Micheal Raynolds it seemed like the Wehrmacht used this to great effect in Normandie. Using excellent defensive positions and causing the Allies far greater casualties than they recived and then withdrawing only when positions became impossible to maintain. I guess they did the same thing on the the eastern front?

As it is now you either win the battle or loose. If you loose you withdraw/rout and loose much of the heavy equipment and that I don´t think simulates the german withdrawal through russia very well. Casualties feels somewhat wrong aswell. I admit I am not very well read on the eastern front thou so posible I could be very wrong! [:D]



Same thing happens in WitP.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Herwin, how is the Bayesian model of engagement termination using the Helmbold data going? [:D] I really should come back to the WitP AE forum [8D]

Got the results, and a French researcher noted that they make sense and explained why they make sense. (JWE offered him a job.) The statistical distribution is Weibull, which is extreme value--it looks like a battle is decided based on whether the maximum penetration breaks the defensive line. Relative fractional casualties determines whether that happens, with most battles lasting until about 15% casualties as an average. Combat ratio influences relative fractional casualties, but there's a lot of variation.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Scook_99
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:33 pm

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Scook_99 »

herwin, some things for your analysis. This game requires a 2:1 ratio and you will get a guaranteed retreat. The second part to that is if the Soviets achieve a 1:1 ratio, they are given another full odds on the ratio, thus 1:1 for the Soviets become 2:1. Plug that in a recalculate.
User avatar
Ketza
Posts: 2227
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Columbia, Maryland

RE: PBEM 1943: 6 Observations on the Mid-game

Post by Ketza »

I am sad to say the more I play the game the more I worry about the long game.

Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”