Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Tom Hunter
Indeed the game moves much faster. Perhaps if supply was done where the supplies used for the first period are in fact stocked up supplies and as they decrease, more supplies come, but not at the same rate thus slowing down the Germans. Kind of like the High HQ needs to build up a supply dump before another onslaught can happen. This I believe would be a lot closer to the supply issues they had.
1st turn, I believe the germans have an unhistorical advantage, in their attacks and movement points. people may say it is the only way to give the Germans a chance, but this argument may in fact indicate that the germans though an exceptionally professional army, with advanced weapons, but still not so much as they could have defeated the Soviets. It may be that the germans did not stand a hope in hell originally, and much of their advance was in fact a result of Soviet Errors, not German superiority!
No sure I know what you mean regarding the missing Soviets?
Indeed the game moves much faster. Perhaps if supply was done where the supplies used for the first period are in fact stocked up supplies and as they decrease, more supplies come, but not at the same rate thus slowing down the Germans. Kind of like the High HQ needs to build up a supply dump before another onslaught can happen. This I believe would be a lot closer to the supply issues they had.
1st turn, I believe the germans have an unhistorical advantage, in their attacks and movement points. people may say it is the only way to give the Germans a chance, but this argument may in fact indicate that the germans though an exceptionally professional army, with advanced weapons, but still not so much as they could have defeated the Soviets. It may be that the germans did not stand a hope in hell originally, and much of their advance was in fact a result of Soviet Errors, not German superiority!
No sure I know what you mean regarding the missing Soviets?
___________________________________________
Born and raised in Toronto, where our Hockey Team is smoking hot,
and our former Mayor was smoking crack!
Born and raised in Toronto, where our Hockey Team is smoking hot,
and our former Mayor was smoking crack!
-
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:44 am
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
well there are several but here is just one :
Mark Solonin The Casks and The Hoops
page 312 on my translation
22 JUNE -2 AUG : eastern front
968 destroyed + 606 damaged
10 may -24 jun : battle of france [:)]
1401 destroyed +672 damaged .
Mark Solonin The Casks and The Hoops
page 312 on my translation
22 JUNE -2 AUG : eastern front
968 destroyed + 606 damaged
10 may -24 jun : battle of france [:)]
1401 destroyed +672 damaged .
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Brandle said:
Have you written this to me? I do not believe I have said anything that would indicate that I think or consider such.
On another note, I guess you consider Germany somehow more guilty than Russia for invading Poland, rounding up and killing innocents and basically starting war? It seems to me they were partners for a long time and caused a lot of pain before Germany turned on Russia.
Have you written this to me? I do not believe I have said anything that would indicate that I think or consider such.
___________________________________________
Born and raised in Toronto, where our Hockey Team is smoking hot,
and our former Mayor was smoking crack!
Born and raised in Toronto, where our Hockey Team is smoking hot,
and our former Mayor was smoking crack!
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
ORIGINAL: lastkozak
Just because he is Russian does not mean he looked through the old secret files of the Soviet Union. Allied sources will use German data often. The good books compare what both sides indicated, the bad books mention one side's data only.
Krivosheev's work is actually quite famous and used quite widely, so before you lambaste my source as potentially bad:
General Krivosheyev became widely known after the 1993 publication of the book titled Гриф секретности снят: Потери Вооруженных Сил СССР в войнах, боевых действиях и военных конфликтах (Transliteration: Grif sekretnosti snyat: poteri vooruzhyonnyh sil SSSR v voynah, boevyh deystviyah i voennyh konfliktah), originally in Russian, and about Soviet military casualties in various conflicts of the twentieth century, particularly in World War II. With Krivosheyev being the general editor of the book, this analysis prepared by historians based on declassified Soviet archival data represents the first comprehensive attempt to scientifically address the losses of the armed forces of the former Soviet Union during World War II.
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Gabriel B.
Your data covers 10-11 days more, but which data set did the author use? German? Soviet?
as for the discrepancy, perhaps Brandle's data does not include the difference between damaged and destroyed airplanes, however even so the difference between them is only 300 or so, and although this seems high, I am not sure the difference would in fact meet the required threshold which would indicate the difference is great enough to be statistically significant. Unfortunately such data is difficult to test for significance, one of my criticism of History authors.
However, brandle's statement of almost half the Luftwaffe being out of service, even if part of it is temporarily would be pretty significant!
Your data covers 10-11 days more, but which data set did the author use? German? Soviet?
as for the discrepancy, perhaps Brandle's data does not include the difference between damaged and destroyed airplanes, however even so the difference between them is only 300 or so, and although this seems high, I am not sure the difference would in fact meet the required threshold which would indicate the difference is great enough to be statistically significant. Unfortunately such data is difficult to test for significance, one of my criticism of History authors.
However, brandle's statement of almost half the Luftwaffe being out of service, even if part of it is temporarily would be pretty significant!
___________________________________________
Born and raised in Toronto, where our Hockey Team is smoking hot,
and our former Mayor was smoking crack!
Born and raised in Toronto, where our Hockey Team is smoking hot,
and our former Mayor was smoking crack!
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
That's what I mentioned about the game doing a poor job handling the percentage of operational aircraft. But this counts for both sides and isn't part of a German bias of which you are accusing the game designers.ORIGINAL: lastkozak
However, brandle's statement of almost half the Luftwaffe being out of service, even if part of it is temporarily would be pretty significant!
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
On a seperate note, droptanks dont impact range of the aircraft carrying them, and quite vexing....bombers are in overload conditions with ranges based on not having any loadout.
a rough example and I wont quote my source just please dont look at the DB-3 wiki page.
"The bomb bay was designed to carry ten 100 kg (220 lb) FAB-100 bombs, but heavier bombs could be accommodated on external bomb racks up to a total of 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) on short-range missions. The defensive armament for the three crewmen consisted of three 7.62 mm (0.3 in) ShKAS machine guns. One in the tip of the nose manned by the bombardier-navigator and the two others protecting the rear hemisphere. The rear gunner manned both the gun in the SU dorsal turret and the gun in a LU ventral hatch.[4]
Flight tests of the second example pre-production aircraft conducted May–October 1937 revealed that it was slightly inferior to the TsKB-30 in performance, but still exceeded its requirements by a considerable margin. It attained a speed of 390 km/h (240 mph) at an altitude of 5,000 m (16,000 ft). It could carry a bomb load of 500 kg (1,100 lb) to a range of 4,000 km (2,500 mi) and a 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb load to a range of 3,100 km (1,900 mi). In comparison, the Heinkel He 111B then in production was 10–20 km/h (6.2–12 mph) slower and could only carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) of bombs to a range of 1,660 km (1,030 mi) and 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) to a distance of 910 km (570 mi). This performance arguably made it the best twin-engined bomber in the world already or entering service in 1937.[3] 45 DB-3s were built that year at Factory No. 39 in Moscow and No. 18 in Voronezh and the aircraft entered service with the VVS.[3]"
Has anyone ever tested a campaign and compared the same bombers using different loadouts?
a rough example and I wont quote my source just please dont look at the DB-3 wiki page.
"The bomb bay was designed to carry ten 100 kg (220 lb) FAB-100 bombs, but heavier bombs could be accommodated on external bomb racks up to a total of 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) on short-range missions. The defensive armament for the three crewmen consisted of three 7.62 mm (0.3 in) ShKAS machine guns. One in the tip of the nose manned by the bombardier-navigator and the two others protecting the rear hemisphere. The rear gunner manned both the gun in the SU dorsal turret and the gun in a LU ventral hatch.[4]
Flight tests of the second example pre-production aircraft conducted May–October 1937 revealed that it was slightly inferior to the TsKB-30 in performance, but still exceeded its requirements by a considerable margin. It attained a speed of 390 km/h (240 mph) at an altitude of 5,000 m (16,000 ft). It could carry a bomb load of 500 kg (1,100 lb) to a range of 4,000 km (2,500 mi) and a 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb load to a range of 3,100 km (1,900 mi). In comparison, the Heinkel He 111B then in production was 10–20 km/h (6.2–12 mph) slower and could only carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) of bombs to a range of 1,660 km (1,030 mi) and 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) to a distance of 910 km (570 mi). This performance arguably made it the best twin-engined bomber in the world already or entering service in 1937.[3] 45 DB-3s were built that year at Factory No. 39 in Moscow and No. 18 in Voronezh and the aircraft entered service with the VVS.[3]"
Has anyone ever tested a campaign and compared the same bombers using different loadouts?
-
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:44 am
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
ORIGINAL: lastkozak
Gabriel B.
Your data covers 10-11 days more, but which data set did the author use? German? Soviet?
as for the discrepancy, perhaps Brandle's data does not include the difference between damaged and destroyed airplanes, however even so the difference between them is only 300 or so, and although this seems high, I am not sure the difference would in fact meet the required threshold which would indicate the difference is great enough to be statistically significant. Unfortunately such data is difficult to test for significance, one of my criticism of History authors.
However, brandle's statement of almost half the Luftwaffe being out of service, even if part of it is temporarily would be pretty significant!
German sources for german losses , it would be a bit odd to use russian sources for german losses , no ?
Anyway before anyone starts criticising my autor, here is another for cross cheking :
W .Murray Strategy for Defeat.
chapter II
THE EASY WAR: GERMANY TRIUMPHANT, SEPTEMBER
1939-SEPTEMBER 1940
chapter III
THE TURN TO RUSSIA .
as for percentage of operational aircraft from chapter III:
june : fighters 75% / bomber 57 %
july : fighters 72%/ bomber 62%
aug : fighters 67 %/ bomber 52 %
sep: fighters 62 %/ bomber 45 %
oct: fighters 62 %/ bomber 38 %
nov : fighters ? %/ bomber 45 %
dec: fighters 52 %/ bomber 32 %
- Tom Hunter
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:57 am
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
@lastkozak
I have not dug into it very deeply, but my impression is that the Soviet replacement rate runs below historical. For example the Soviets appear to have lost 8 million men in 1941, if you combine my losses and my army it adds up to 8 million. After losing 8 million they still had millions in arms. My understanding is the lower replacement rate is needed to make the game work, and I am quite happy with that, but its not historical and this is a thread about historical accuracy.
As I said, right now this is just an impression, I have not done a lot of research into it, and I don't plan to, because I don't really care, but I would like to see better figures than mine if someone has them handy.
I have not dug into it very deeply, but my impression is that the Soviet replacement rate runs below historical. For example the Soviets appear to have lost 8 million men in 1941, if you combine my losses and my army it adds up to 8 million. After losing 8 million they still had millions in arms. My understanding is the lower replacement rate is needed to make the game work, and I am quite happy with that, but its not historical and this is a thread about historical accuracy.
As I said, right now this is just an impression, I have not done a lot of research into it, and I don't plan to, because I don't really care, but I would like to see better figures than mine if someone has them handy.
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
I estimate Soviet manpower to be running at about half of its historical level in game. You cannot afford anything like historical losses with the existing manpower provided.
The Soviets called up 5 million men to the colors in July of 1941 alone -- although admittedly some of this is shown in game as reinforcements not replacements. In game you get somewhere around 3 million replacements in all of 1941.
The Soviets called up 5 million men to the colors in July of 1941 alone -- although admittedly some of this is shown in game as reinforcements not replacements. In game you get somewhere around 3 million replacements in all of 1941.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Indeed, the replacements are too low. In 1941 it balances out with the losses to provide a good OOB in most cases. But when the Red Army goes to the offensive the OOB will outrun historical numbers. 8-10 million men are no rarity, which is much higher than what the Red Army at its height possessed.ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I estimate Soviet manpower to be running at about half of its historical level in game. You cannot afford anything like historical losses with the existing manpower provided.
The Soviets called up 5 million men to the colors in July of 1941 alone -- although admittedly some of this is shown in game as reinforcements not replacements. In game you get somewhere around 3 million replacements in all of 1941.
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
SigUp, the way the Red Army can blow up in some games is something I attribute to the combat system. Attacker casualties being as low as they are and all. Once the Red Army swings to the offensive permanently it just keeps growing and growing because its own losses drop fairly dramatically, well below replacement level. They can easily afford a couple of dozen sizable ground combats each turn, if they are the ones attacking. At the same time, German attacks decreases.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Yes, I know. The combat system itself is problematic, though it isn't something that can be changed for the current version. It is kind of strange to see that whoever attacks suffers fewer casualties than if that same side is on the defence. Similarly to the Soviet losses dropping, once the Germans are getting pushed back they suffer much higher casualties than in 1941. I have no problem with German infantry divisions having TOEs of lower than 50% in 1944, because that's how weak they were back then. It becomes a problem, however, when the Soviet rifle corps are not as understrength as they were, but rather running around with 80%+ TOE.ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
SigUp, the way the Red Army can blow up in some games is something I attribute to the combat system. Attacker casualties being as low as they are and all. Once the Red Army swings to the offensive permanently it just keeps growing and growing because its own losses drop fairly dramatically, well below replacement level. They can easily afford a couple of dozen sizable ground combats each turn, if they are the ones attacking. At the same time, German attacks decreases.
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
If it were up to me, I'd just about double the attacker's loss rate across the board from where it stands now. That's very rough and ready but it would be interesting to see how it plays out.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
I'm all for accuracy.
One of the major difficulties especially with the Russian manpower issue, is that players don't waste away as many troops as the Russians historically did in useless attacks and operations. Personally, I think Russian C&C in 41 and 42 is far better in WITE than it should be. I think this is because players (myself included) tend to spend Admin Pts more on C&C than unit creation. In fact, given the amount of Admin Pts, it's virtually impossible to build and manage a historical Russian army. I think the balance and structure of the Admin Pt system directs Russian players away from building a historically large army, not necessarily in terms of men, tanks, and guns but more in terms of numbers of units. Regular comments in the forums elude to "I never build that unit type" or "I disband all of such and such type". Less use of Admin Pts on building means more on C&C, and thus we get a smaller more efficient (and historically inaccurate) Russian army, and thus fewer losses requiring fewer replacements.
I think a move towards higher Russian combat engine losses AND away from a user created army (having a historical reinforcement schedule and auto rebuild of most units), would make a big difference for accuracy on the Russian side. Much lower Admin Pts for the Russians would also give a more realistic C&C difficulty, IMHO. It feels too easy to minimize unit creation in favour of C&C.
One of the major difficulties especially with the Russian manpower issue, is that players don't waste away as many troops as the Russians historically did in useless attacks and operations. Personally, I think Russian C&C in 41 and 42 is far better in WITE than it should be. I think this is because players (myself included) tend to spend Admin Pts more on C&C than unit creation. In fact, given the amount of Admin Pts, it's virtually impossible to build and manage a historical Russian army. I think the balance and structure of the Admin Pt system directs Russian players away from building a historically large army, not necessarily in terms of men, tanks, and guns but more in terms of numbers of units. Regular comments in the forums elude to "I never build that unit type" or "I disband all of such and such type". Less use of Admin Pts on building means more on C&C, and thus we get a smaller more efficient (and historically inaccurate) Russian army, and thus fewer losses requiring fewer replacements.
I think a move towards higher Russian combat engine losses AND away from a user created army (having a historical reinforcement schedule and auto rebuild of most units), would make a big difference for accuracy on the Russian side. Much lower Admin Pts for the Russians would also give a more realistic C&C difficulty, IMHO. It feels too easy to minimize unit creation in favour of C&C.
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Y'know, when people say that Soviet command and control is better in this game than in real life, I struggle to understand what, exactly Soviet command should look like. From my perspective, Soviet command is pretty awful and ahistorically so. Armies have been shrunk to 18 cap, which is crap and way too small. (Open any late war scenario and marvel at the many overloaded armies!)
Fronts are notoriously overloaded. Soviet leadership is quite unspectacular. The Soviet Union has to build an army and manage it with a ridiculously small AP budget, so small in fact, that one of the best ways to throttle the Sovs is indeed to push it into the well known AP crunch. This budget is hardly any larger than the Axis budget, and tasked to do a great deal more.
Have veteran players learned how to optimize all this for best results? Sure. But there's no free lunches here for the Red Army.
Fronts are notoriously overloaded. Soviet leadership is quite unspectacular. The Soviet Union has to build an army and manage it with a ridiculously small AP budget, so small in fact, that one of the best ways to throttle the Sovs is indeed to push it into the well known AP crunch. This budget is hardly any larger than the Axis budget, and tasked to do a great deal more.
Have veteran players learned how to optimize all this for best results? Sure. But there's no free lunches here for the Red Army.
WitE Alpha Tester
-
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:44 am
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
ORIGINAL: SigUp
Indeed, the replacements are too low. In 1941 it balances out with the losses to provide a good OOB in most cases. But when the Red Army goes to the offensive the OOB will outrun historical numbers. 8-10 million men are no rarity, which is much higher than what the Red Army at its height possessed.ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I estimate Soviet manpower to be running at about half of its historical level in game. You cannot afford anything like historical losses with the existing manpower provided.
The Soviets called up 5 million men to the colors in July of 1941 alone -- although admittedly some of this is shown in game as reinforcements not replacements. In game you get somewhere around 3 million replacements in all of 1941.
They had more than 10 milion but the game does not include disabled or forces in the far east .
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&start=45
- Attachments
-
- bb6a981b6225.jpg (100.77 KiB) Viewed 214 times
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
That's what I meant. It is no secret that Soviet frontline units in 1944-45 were chronically understrength, something that isn't reflected well in the game. Therefore it is a problem for the German player when his infantry divisions due to whatever reasons (losses, swap logic) drop below 50% TOE, when the Red Army frontline corps are still at 80-100%. That's why I also (albeit grudgingly) accept the need for the German player to fort spam from 1943 onwards. Otherwise the divisions are just getting pulverized while not being able to deliver any damage to the red steamroller.ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.
They had more than 10 milion but the game does not include disabled or forces in the far east .
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&start=45
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Part of the historical Soviet manpower problems was the number of formations. They had a lot more divisions/corps than they are able to build in the game. If you count the number of new formations in 1942 that were formed by the Soviets and transferred that into AP costs, the Soviets are roughly 50 APs short - and that is the ENTIRE WitE 1942 AP income for the Soviets. There are no APs in that calculation for any other AP costs from the game. So all of the switching of commanders (Zhukov alone held over 10 commands during the year - roughly 80 or so APs right there) that were done historically are not included in the costs. Let alone all of the units switching from one army to another, etc. 1943 and on show even more drastic short falls in the AP count.
That is why I wonder about the decision to allow the Soviet player to control their own OB. It is nice so that the player can play with how the Soviet forces are formed and find good combinations, but they are the only nation able to do this and they pay for it with the AP crunch strategy able to be used against them. I am not sure that WitE 2 will help in this regard or not.
That is why I wonder about the decision to allow the Soviet player to control their own OB. It is nice so that the player can play with how the Soviet forces are formed and find good combinations, but they are the only nation able to do this and they pay for it with the AP crunch strategy able to be used against them. I am not sure that WitE 2 will help in this regard or not.
- gingerbread
- Posts: 3055
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:25 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Re: Historical Accuracy posts
Frankly, I prefer the cons, crunch and all, since I prefer the pro, namely control. Now if there is to be meddling with the control as in: 'You can't attach 3 Sapper Reg to each Corps' OR 'You must build historical number of MG Bat even if they are crap' then I would change my mind. The freedom to optimize is what counterweights the AP crunch and the other cons.