Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

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
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

Turn 90 OOB
Stavka OOB: 7,755,000
GHC OOB: 3,993,000

Turn 94 OOB
Stavka OOB: 7,821,000 + 61,000
GHC OOB: 3,976,000 -17,000

Germany had 2 divisions withdraw and 5 new ones arrive so the OOB would be down about another 30,000. So German OOB is dropping about 12k per turn.
Stavka---Won 113---Lost 107--- won loss ratio : 51% Battles per turn: 55
Turn 94 Total loses : 2436000 7806000
Turn 90 Total loses : 2236000 7468000
Total loses: 200,000 338,000
Combat ratio: 1.0 to 1.7
Loses per battle are: 910 to 1536


Image
Attachments
T90.jpg
T90.jpg (205.69 KiB) Viewed 292 times
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

So with the current win to lose ratio and average loses per battle Stavka could attack another 10 times per turn and keep a static OOB and cause another 9100 loses to the German OOB per turn. So with a 51% won lose ratio attacking 65 times per turn Russian OOB would drop zero or close to it and German OOB will drop another 36,000 men for a total of -53,000. Then we take off the 30,000 for extra units and we have 80,000+ or an average of -20,000 per week to German OOB.
You could say that some of the total loses are minor allies, which is true. But the German OOB is German not minor allies ect so that only makes the ratio and sinking of OOB worse not better.
Now some Russian players already or have in the past exploited this by attacking 100+ times per turn and losing slightly under 50%, Hoooper, sapper, TDV to name a few.
So the Russian OOB sinks, but who cares so does the German and much faster.
Now do the math.
The Russian OOB is 1.967 times as large as the German OOB or almost 2 to 1, The Combat Ratio is 1.0 to 1.7
So under the current unhistorical and easly exploitable combat ratio The Russian player can simply attack as many times as possible and will win as long as he can stay above 45% ratio.
Also as the German OOB crashes The win ratio will climb which means he can attack more and more crashing the OOB long before the 44 summer.

A.K.A The Snowball Effect

This is only 3 turns .05 and 1 turn .04



Its spring so it will be a while before we can get 5 good turns of data.







Image
Attachments
T94.jpg
T94.jpg (210.6 KiB) Viewed 292 times
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

[
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by chaos45 »

only 1 turn so far under .05 at least for me.

As to your comments about 100 attacks a turn....not really. Im attacking you about as much as is safe and bearable. You can notice almost all winter long the Soviet OOB has stayed pretty stagnant think I started winter around 7.6-7.7M men so its barely grown despite recovered disabled and almost 100k replacements per week from manpower.

Also I try not to attack into situations I get my men slaughtered. In last turn the only one under .05.....was several attacks I did were the Germans did get 3:1+ or better loss ratios they were very poor ratio attacks against higher quality German units. Was a couple attacks I think you even got ratios of like almost 8:1 was bad for my boys lol......Also I cant sacrifice morale/give you morale all the time and come out on top CV wise.

However you also got badly slaughtered in a couple battles....mainly fights where you had exposed unfortified infantry pushed back through lots of zocs.....lots of troops die when that happens.

I look over your lines every turn...the reason the turn before last I spotted 1 lone regiment defending a frontline hex and pushed them out. As I commented via PM quality German units cost me lots of losses if I do an attrition type attacks. Poor quality/weak German units I can attack lose and still be around 2:1 which is acceptable from a soviet perspective.

You have played a ton more than me and you have some valid concerns I think, but also you stayed to long in exposed positions thinking since my army didnt number 8M+ men it wasnt very strong. I built a different type more quality heavy soviet army, I have purposely not built tons of infantry formations to not overburden my supplies and also when the frontline reduces I wont have room for them anyway.

I know you hate me pointing out the history of the War but historically you are still ahead.....by now I should be closing in on Kharkov, and well should still have leningrad not be trying to re-take it. You also hold much more ground in the center than historical. So saying the system is broke over casualties when your fighting hard to keep exposed positions I dont think makes sense. You have purposely left your men in bad spots to take a royal beating to try and delay my advance...those types of tactics cost casualties is just how it is. The advantage is you are holding me further east than historical the bad is, well your losing men faster than you replace them.

I understand what your doing it makes perfect operational sense to try and hold me in front of the don, but keeping your men standing on an open plain unfortified in front of 30+ Soviet Mobile Corps is going to cause alot of your troops to die as I have been doing. Most of your casualties last turn were on the open plains between rostov and stalingrad you keep trying to hold to keep me off the don and to the SE of Voronezh where I really beat up 4 german infantry divisions in the open and subjected to alot of Zocs. Thats where I got really got good loss ratios as I should....hundreds of soviet tanks running over weak german infantry formations in the open...should be bad for the germans it was historically.

Also keep in mind if you want historical exchange rates the game needs to add historical Soviet replacements- which is about 50k+ more manpower per week and probably 25-50k more armaments to give them rifles at least.......

As you say its only 1943 and im already behind historical advance rates so seems your doing well....if your army suddenly collapses we would have an issue but with mud soon....your OOB will start climbing again and you have a chance to start on back up positions.....I dont see a problem yet...not saying it might not come up by the end of 1943 but right now things are going more or less as they should. I held you to about historical high advance points when you factor I held more of the south than historical...thus if the game is balanced right you should be getting weaker and getting pushed back.
User avatar
VigaBrand
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:51 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by VigaBrand »

You don't want to read a book.
You must live, that the soviet command didn't slaughter there men at rate you wishes, because some senseless attacks will never happen.
I want to know, which battles that was.
Can you give a battle with Fort 3 defense and one battle with defender hold and one with retreat?
The rates in these battles will be interesting.


User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by morvael »

What was the ratio on 1.08.04? I had 1:1 ration in killed during my game. My greatest "expenditure" were disabled and this were significantly reduced by introducing repairs in 1.08.00. For 1.08.05 I tried to get to levels similar to 1.07.15, but with more killed and less disabled.

Besides, as you know playing 1.08.05 on a game started on pre-1.08.05 data is not that good for patch assessment. You don't have the withdrawals that would have kept you up to strength, and the Soviets have accumulated large pool of men to burn through, that would not be the case in a game started under 1.08.05. Unfortunately, I can accept balance feedback only from games played entirely under 1.08.05 with 1.08.05 data. Games converted at any point from one patch to another are prone to extra instability (as meta shifts, and algorithms shifts but operate on old data).

The goal is to make losses meaningful again, so that not only the logistics would be the one factor determining speed of advance and ability to attack/defend.

That said it's no problem to increase Soviet disabled without affecting numbers of repaired/lost equipments, as ratio of disabled from damaged elements can be increased (it already is at 40% for Soviets, 35% for Axis).
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by morvael »

Data from my tests show the following kill ratios (for the first 10 turns of AI vs AI games):
1.85:1 in 1941 (1.31:1 in 1.07.15)
2.69:1 in 1942 (1.15:1 in 1.07.15)
1.29:1 in StoB (1.57:1 in 1.07.15)
3.47:1 in 1943 (2.05:1 in 1.07.15)
2.63:1 in 1944 (1.78:1 in 1.07.15)
1.42:1 in VtoB (1.35:1 in 1.07.15)
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by chaos45 »

Also interest point from Peltons screen shot- he lost 13 Panther D- these werent even put into action until Kursk and even then were virtually useless due to mechanical issues.

Game giving the Germans the Panthers a tad early?

Also he apparenly lost some on a previous turn as well.....so Germans getting panthers into combat in March 1943.....seems a tad ahead of schedule....

Also- Viga- any battle where the defender retreats their losses increase alot. Then they increase even more if the attacker breaks the 5:1 threshhold of combat ratios.

From 1 turn under .05....if the defender Holds the attacker will lose it seems between 1.5-8:1 in losses typically which is how it should be. The loss ratio seems to depend alot on the skill of the attack/defender and how supported the attackers are. If the attack gets alot of air support the defender will take more losses and the ratio be closer. If the attacker has alot of artillery support the ratios will be closer.

A low odds attack with little support takes a real bloody nose as I saw this last turn when my attacks went in against decent German CV units with almost no air or artillery support I lost alot of guys compared to the defender.

All very realistic effects.
Denniss
Posts: 8875
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Denniss »

Panthers are modeled with production start. Reliability is abysmal, not uncommon for something thrown into combat far too early. Panther underwent 2 rebuilding programs before Kursk but not all troubles had been solved, there were still fuel leaks appearing causing engien fires. Panher was not useless in Kursk - many lost were to mine damage and lack of recovery vehicles resulted in many of them blown up.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: morvael

What was the ratio on 1.08.04? I had 1:1 ration in killed during my game. My greatest "expenditure" were disabled and this were
significantly reduced by introducing repairs in 1.08.00. For 1.08.05 I tried to get to levels similar to 1.07.15,
but with more killed and less disabled.

Besides, as you know playing 1.08.05 on a game started on pre-1.08.05 data is not that good for patch assessment.
You don't have the withdrawals that would have kept you up to strength, and the Soviets have accumulated large pool
of men to burn through, that would not be the case in a game started under 1.08.05.
Unfortunately, I can accept balance feedback only from games played entirely under 1.08.05 with 1.08.05 data.
Games converted at any point from one patch to another are prone to extra instability
(as meta shifts, and algorithms shifts but operate on old data).

Ok I do understand and as always respect your points, you want data you know is 100% clean. But we both know this has been an on going issue for some time.
I have a dance partners already lined up for .05. I think its important that results from .04 and .05 should be compaired. If combat ratios, pools ect ect are all the same, different +/-
So we know whats happening. AI vs AI tends not to target exploitable areas as players do as we have seen over the years. Which generally turn into snowball effects.


The goal is to make losses meaningful again, so that not only the logistics would be the one factor determining speed of
advance and ability to attack/defend.

vs better players Choas, Dave and Brian logistics has not been and issue as it has never been in the past after fuel exploits were removed. Logistics is only a factor when there is a mismatch in player skills.
IF the combat ratio is 1.75 to 1 in 43 under .05 your idea of losses being meaning full is not going to work because of
1. ratio of Russian OOB to German OOB
2. replacement rates

I know what you tring, but controlling the game based on loses has never happened. .03 Peltonx vs Sdave clearly disproves it for .03. The industry lost,land lost ect ect ( far greater then historical)
has had zero effect on outcome of game as it will end.
Why? Because the lose ratio is way off. The Russian player could go old school and only build Rifle Corps and grind down Germans in 43 then build tanks late 43 and there would be zero German Army left. This is what old timers did to win in 44.
If vs Dave I tried to stand and fight instead of retreating 1 to 2 hexs per turn the German OOB would have crashed in late 43 early 44
dispite my far greater then historical gains.


That said it's no problem to increase Soviet disabled without affecting numbers
of repaired/lost equipments, as ratio of disabled from damaged elements can be increased
(it already is at 40% for Soviets, 35% for Axis).

I am not sure what the % is, but currently games will all end at about the same time not matter how much better
then historical the German player does IF he is doing the hex to Berlin strategy.
If he is not he will lose much sooner as fighting historically as the Germans tried to
do has never worked and ends game faster. Currently in WitE and WITW the German player is helping the Russian player by attacking even win winning the battles, both combat engines give the same results.
Germany after 43 attacking and winning is losing and Russia or WA attacking and losing is winning. Just by the basic math of combat ratio,OOB ratio and replacement ratios.
I know Red likes to say systems are not the same, but the bottom line results are the same.


Ok thks for input morveal and I will start collecting .05 data, but my gut tells me nothing has changed
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Data from my tests show the following kill ratios (for the first 10 turns of AI vs AI games):
1.85:1 in 1941 (1.31:1 in 1.07.15)
2.69:1 in 1942 (1.15:1 in 1.07.15)
1.29:1 in StoB (1.57:1 in 1.07.15)
3.47:1 in 1943 (2.05:1 in 1.07.15)
2.63:1 in 1944 (1.78:1 in 1.07.15)
1.42:1 in VtoB (1.35:1 in 1.07.15)

Just my 2 cents.

can you tweak the code so Russians attack more often so that the AI put more pressure on German OOB?

I am guessing you can lower the odds of an attack so AI attacks more often then standard.

So if the ratio's are off this would put enough pressure on it to "brake" the game.

As players can crash OOB's if they do the math.
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by morvael »

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Ok thks for input morveal and I will start collecting .05 data, but my gut tells me nothing has changed

For now the goal was to get total losses to a level they were on in 1.07.15, because 1.08.00-04 moved them below that level. Once we know what we get to in PvP games, losses can be tweaked easily.
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: morvael
ORIGINAL: Pelton
Ok thks for input morveal and I will start collecting .05 data, but my gut tells me nothing has changed

For now the goal was to get total losses to a level they were on in 1.07.15, because 1.08.00-04 moved them below that level. Once we know what we get to in PvP games, losses can be tweaked easily.

Ok why are the combat results in 43 the same as 43?

They were 3 to 1.


Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

German hold almost even odds now when Germans get a hold and as can be seen a disorganized attack with a -30%.

Image
Attachments
Germanhold43.jpg
Germanhold43.jpg (306.09 KiB) Viewed 292 times
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

German retreat massive 3.75 to 1 ratio when the attack is hardly over 2 to 1 and again a disorganized attack.

So no need to be organized as Russia just blob attack

Image
Attachments
Germanretreat43.jpg
Germanretreat43.jpg (309.11 KiB) Viewed 292 times
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

German hold

Image
Attachments
Germanhold432.jpg
Germanhold432.jpg (291.26 KiB) Viewed 292 times
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: Pelton

German retreat massive 3.75 to 1 ratio when the attack is hardly over 2 to 1 and again a disorganized attack.

..

thats not a 'blob' attack. I presume by that you mean a mix of units from all sorts of formations?

39 of his at start 42 cv came from 2nd Shock, a single tank corps from a different front was included ... perhaps he's trying to get wins for a Gds conversion?

to me that is a well organised attack.

as so often, you run the risk of losing sight of what may be a valid point of view in some rather excessively lurid claims.

One thing you are not mentioning is the loss/dead ratio has changed radically. In 8.03/4 that was around 3-1 for the Germans and 1.8-1 for the Soviets. Under .05 the ratios are still 3-1 for the Germans but 1.2-1 for the Soviets.

That means most losses shown for the Soviets are now KIA, in my current game with vigabrand I have had 300,000 disabled return (out of 2m disabled), this change will pretty much choke off that manpower source for the Soviets. So the impact of losses (ie dead/captured/disabled) is every bit as important as the absolute total.
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: Pelton

German retreat massive 3.75 to 1 ratio when the attack is hardly over 2 to 1 and again a disorganized attack.

..

thats not a 'blob' attack. I presume by that you mean a mix of units from all sorts of formations?

39 of his at start 42 cv came from 2nd Shock, a single tank corps from a different front was included ... perhaps he's trying to get wins for a Gds conversion?

to me that is a well organised attack.

as so often, you run the risk of losing sight of what may be a valid point of view in some rather excessively lurid claims.

One thing you are not mentioning is the loss/dead ratio has changed radically. In 8.03/4 that was around 3-1 for the Germans and 1.8-1 for the Soviets. Under .05 the ratios are still 3-1 for the Germans but 1.2-1 for the Soviets.

That means most losses shown for the Soviets are now KIA, in my current game with vigabrand I have had 300,000 disabled return (out of 2m disabled), this change will pretty much choke off that manpower source for the Soviets. So the impact of losses (ie dead/captured/disabled) is every bit as important as the absolute total.

As we have know for yrs Russian never have an issue with manpower

My OOB dropped 13k and 16k under very little fighting and Stavka grew 100,000+

I say blob attack because -30% off his main attack units.

The patch made blob attacks much more likely to win now so Russian players are back to old school disorganized formations can easly win battles.

There has never been and issue with Russian manpower and there never will be I have thread after thread with growing Russian OOB's even when Germany takes from more then historical

My game vs Chaos under .05 will be no different.
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by chaos45 »

It was an organized attack it included 5 guard cav corps from the same shock army...pelton isnt reading the whole report...not to mention he was massively bombed before the attack- 4 entire fronts air forces...his troops were so disrupted they could probably barely fire.

Pelton- wrong my main attack was the 5 cav corps as seen by the army leader...so you got hit with 5 cav corps with no -%

The tank corps wasnt the main assaulter...I have told you numerous times my cav corps are way stronger than my tank corps.

I have 1 cav corps that at full strength is 15 CV now as its over 70 morale.
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Some data on the combat lose ratio for 43

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: Pelton

...

I say blob attack because -30% off his main attack units.

The patch made blob attacks much more likely to win now so Russian players are back to old school disorganized formations can easly win battles.

but it wasn't 30% 'off his main attack units', it was 30% off a single tank corps he added in, the rest of the attack (like 95% of the actual cv) came from a single army.

the problem is you are running the risk of making such lurid claims that the real point (if there is one) is going to be lost in the noise and errors
Post Reply

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