Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message

HITMAN202 -> Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/19/2012 11:08:58 PM)

What changes in the game after the 1.06.11 up-date make it easier for the Soviets to hold Moscow ???



Michael T -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/19/2012 11:26:35 PM)

I think it was when the devs restricted the amount of fuel that HQ's accumulated from a HQ BU.



carlkay58 -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/20/2012 1:01:27 AM)

That and some Soviet adaptability that also saw most of the AARs seeing less reinforcements going to Leningrad and more being funneled into the Smolensk - Vyazma - Moscow axis.



Wally Wilson -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/20/2012 3:11:52 AM)

I'm playing an AI game as the Soviets, normal difficulty, and there is no way the Germans are going to take Moscow in my game. Its about 50-50 for taking Leningrad, and I'm not even strongly defending the city. This is my first game since playing a couple of games just after release.



janh -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/20/2012 1:29:34 PM)

You might want to try a game with Axis AI benefits bumped up to 110-118%, especially morale benefits. That helps AI markedly, and you'll find yourself struggling to hold off the permanent frontal grinding AI does.

AI on the offensive is weaker than the defensive, though for this game I remain impressed with the AI. It even manages some occasional small pockets. Holding Moscow and LG against it is not a big surprise with fairer difficulty settings, and still manageable at 118% (though if you restrict yourself a bit, it gets a chance...).

Unlike a human playing the Wehrmacht side as you can take from the PBEM AARs. Especially when looking at more-skilled players like Pelton, Michael, or IdahoNYer (though he restricts his game by houserules to more realism), the holding part is far from a given. Nevertheless 1.06.11 has apparently restricted Axis HQ-build-ups and fuel sufficiently to increase the chance to hold at least Moscow. Not sure 50:50 is what it is now, but Soviet players that dump everything into delaying at LG, and then holding Moscow, while Wehrmacht focuses on both in the usual manner, seem to get a shot at seeing Wehrmacht pincers getting stuck in the last two turns just in front of Moscow, particularly if the weather gods do their part. Unfortunately it means forgoing to fight bitterly and hold in the south, but at least it allows some chance.



Wally Wilson -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/21/2012 2:06:25 AM)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'm on turn 20 and have been very fortunate with weather. In fact, I have a blizzard this turn, but wasn't anticipating it so early and am not prepared to exploit it.

I'll bump the German settings on my next game.



bairdlander -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 12:24:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wally Wilson

I'm playing an AI game as the Soviets, normal difficulty, and there is no way the Germans are going to take Moscow in my game. Its about 50-50 for taking Leningrad, and I'm not even strongly defending the city. This is my first game since playing a couple of games just after release.

Im playing the ai as Axis and I have taken Moscow on turn 4.I came here to ask if the ai has been "dumbed down" since latest patch and found this thread.



cpt flam -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 11:25:15 AM)

Hi wally
i must tell you that blizzard before december will have slow axis but will not favor you



rrbill -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 1:41:28 PM)

Congrats bairdlander.

As I play the game as you do, would appreciate knowing how you do Moscow in 4 turns. I'm bear of little brain and haven't imagined the possibility.



carlkay58 -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 3:06:32 PM)

Wow - Moscow on Turn 4! Very good. I am not sure I could even get there without all those pesky speed bumps (Soviet Units) in the way!

The AI has improved greatly since the release of the game. There are still a few glitches. The first thing to look at is the settings you are playing at as they have a MAJOR influence on the AI. If you wish a mildly challenging game, you should have all of the AI settings set to 105 or above while your settings remain at 100. I find that the AI set to 110 or 115 vs my 100 does it about right for me.



Pelton -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 3:24:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HITMAN202

What changes in the game after the 1.06.11 up-date make it easier for the Soviets to hold Moscow ???


I explained this when .11 was released.

1. Tula south SHC checker boards and turns refit off.
2. 20-30 SHC units are railed out of south to Tula north.
3. All new units go to Tula north.
4. SHC only takes 2.75 or less KIA. I did it my first SHC game.
5. By Dec 1st 5+ million SHC army.
6. GHC recieves an ass kicking during the Middle Earth Blizzard ruleset.
7. SHC has 6.7 + million men by June. Close to 8 million if they do not attack during blizzard.
8. GHC cannot conduct offensive operations for more then a few months if at all during summer of 42.
9. Impossible to take Moscow in 42 or Leningrad.
10. Berlin falls in 44.

2by3 has made wite very predictable and boring at this point.

Very few AAR's are showing anything different.

They all track the same way when playing an above average SHC player.

There are no options for GHC because as I stated when game was a few months old. GHC can only take what it is given.

So basicly the game is unhistorical because of the crappy combat engine.

SHC should have 150+ more infantry divisions and GHC CV should be atleast 2x what it is now.

Once you add in the new logistic system from witw GHC will be lucky to get to the landbridge by October. So expect allot less SHC kia when 2.0 comes out.

If 2by3 keeps going down this road expect witw to be a total flop. Sure the ammount of troops ect will be historical, but the combat will be a flop because of the POS combat engine.



morvael -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 3:29:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
9. Impossible to take Moscow in 42 or Leningrad.
10. Berlin falls in 44.


So point 9 is historically correct, only in point 10. there is a year of difference. So the German offensive power in 41-43 shouldn't be boosted, but rather defensive power in 43-45.



Pelton -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 3:37:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
9. Impossible to take Moscow in 42 or Leningrad.
10. Berlin falls in 44.


So point 9 is historically correct, only in point 10. there is a year of difference. So the German offensive power in 41-43 shouldn't be boosted, but rather defensive power in 43-45.


No historically 50% toe german divisions could hold off 3 Russian Corps easly. The russians had to attack with 3 Corp, then another 3 fresh Corp then another 3 fresh Corp before getting the German division to retreat a hex.

The Combat engine simply does not reflex modern warfare. Which is 100% about firepower, range and not how many rifle squads a division has. The current combat engine should be for WW1 and not WW2.

German CV is way way way way to low and SHC CV is way way to high. Mainly because the core damage is done by rifle squads (machine gun squads for SHC) and not artillary,tanks and anti tank units. A Company of 88's canshould and did hold off divisions on the open plains. But in the current combat engine they fire a few times do little if any damage and infantry squads running across 20 miles of open terrain suffer next to nothing in losses. Thats simply silly.

The combat engine sucks because there should be another 150 SHC infantry divisions, but this would have the SHC attacking in 1941 and not 43ish.

SHC should have way more units of lower CV and GHC units should have higher CV.



morvael -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 3:46:21 PM)

It could have been balanced to give the same effect as it is now... so would't change the overall result while forcing the SHC player to deal with even more counters (that is painful already).

I think the WW2 was unwinnable for the Axis once all major players were in (past December '41?), therefore I wouldn't think the game as being in any way historically accurate, if the Germans would win (auto-win) in more than 1-2% of the games. I always thought it's about the final result - was it earlier and later than IRL and at what casualties for both sides. Then, by switching sides and playing a mirror game the best player could be determined.



Pelton -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 3:48:58 PM)

2by3 is improving the logistics system and air war for witw, but is ignoring the core problem with the game.

The combat engine is a disaster and its becoming more and more clear that it is.

If the combat engine does not get a total over haul to make it more about fire power, range and less about rifle squads witw will be a predictable disaster as wite has become predictable and unhistorical.

Its hard to balance a game when the problem is the central controling factor of the game itself.

The reason why wite is never balanced is because they never tried to fix the main problem with the game.

a 50% toe german infantry division should have same cv value as a russian Corp, thats simply historical and you can read account after account of this in about any history book.

The reason why they don't is combat engine is centered around rifle squads and not fire power.






morvael -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 3:59:05 PM)

Thanks my browser for jumping somewhere and eating my post :(

I think it's good to see the two sub-systems improved, who knows what will be then improved for WitE2?

As for combat system, I wrote I'm not a fan of WitE way of "thousands of elements making thousands of random rolls" - I like systems designed from top to bottom, not the other way round, as it is proper for boardgames (and I consider WitE a boardgame).

edit: does this 50% div vs 100%corps having equal CV is for German defense or offense? I'd like to see bigger difference in attack/defend combat values. Attacking requires skill, bravery, experience, coordination, reconaissance etc. while a cornered rat will always fight to the death - it'd doesn't require as much skill, supplies, guidance from officers etc - once the berserker mode is on, even militia will achieve great results (this I would like to see most in urban & surrounded combat, except when there is no ammo left).



Pelton -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 5:38:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Thanks my browser for jumping somewhere and eating my post :(

I think it's good to see the two sub-systems improved, who knows what will be then improved for WitE2?

As for combat system, I wrote I'm not a fan of WitE way of "thousands of elements making thousands of random rolls" - I like systems designed from top to bottom, not the other way round, as it is proper for boardgames (and I consider WitE a boardgame).

edit: does this 50% div vs 100%corps having equal CV is for German defense or offense? I'd like to see bigger difference in attack/defend combat values. Attacking requires skill, bravery, experience, coordination, reconaissance etc. while a cornered rat will always fight to the death - it'd doesn't require as much skill, supplies, guidance from officers etc - once the berserker mode is on, even militia will achieve great results (this I would like to see most in urban & surrounded combat, except when there is no ammo left).


defensive CV should be much higher for GHC units.

They had great fire control, wiping out one gruops of men or tanks at a time in a quick orderly fashion.

Offenive CV's are probaly about right, but defensive is way way off.



morvael -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/22/2012 7:53:39 PM)

One could always argue that this is represented as the Soviet "doctrine" which causes them greater losses, 1:1-3:1 in victorious combat and 3:1-10:1 in lost combat. Many things can hide under this special rule, like lack of experienced officers and NCOs leading to those poorly planned attacks. On the other hand as I was pointing in other thread, artillery isn't reflected in overall CV or doesn't have it's own Artillery Value representative factor, therefore numbers on Soviet counters doesn't change, even a bit, as their artillery doubles. There could be no end of special rules added, since Soviet units should have less degradation of CV when low on supplies, units fighting on their own home territory should have increased strength and reduced chance for retreat, comparing to fighting on foreign land, especially in big cities. That's why I'm for simpler systems that can be controlled by their author. As always the Twilight in the East boardgame comes to mind... Not too simple (over 40 000 possible results) but still clean and elegant is the system there, factoring in things like offensive and defensive strength modified by current combat effectiveness level (fatigue and disruption) as well as power of artillery (used in an equivalent of planned attacks, but only when ammo is on hand, which for overextended supply lines is in short supply), fortifications, weather, leaders, reserves, German edge in combat with results ranging from increased fatigue to casualties that mount very high on retreat and when the unit routs. The system also requires proper rotation and resting of units, which is rare in boardgames. Of course on the boardgame scale it's close to a monster game, but for the computer it would be very simple and could be extended to % results instead of 6-12 discrete ones.



bairdlander -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/23/2012 1:35:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Congrats bairdlander.

As I play the game as you do, would appreciate knowing how you do Moscow in 4 turns. I'm bear of little brain and haven't imagined the possibility.

The thing is I cant see holding it.Is this because of "dumbed down" ai?I never did this well,playing on normal difficulty.

[image]local://upfiles/31566/BC8E16A466E14218A408A1D424E50439.jpg[/image]



Wally Wilson -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/23/2012 2:45:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpt flam

Hi wally
i must tell you that blizzard before december will have slow axis but will not favor you


Thx, cpt flam. The Germans only had one turn of clear between mud and the blizzard and now is snowing and still November - no operation Typhoon. It seems to have slowed them down quite a bit. In fact, they are further away from my reserves that I planned for the winter counterattack :( On turn 22, Nov 13, they have only reached Rzhev, Vyazma, Bryansk on the Moscow drive. If there is a clear turn, I'll move up the reserves. Such is war.

Looks like I will lose LG early in December unless I want to rail reserves up there.



rrbill -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/23/2012 12:53:41 PM)

@bairdlander, see that the Smolensk pocket is left and the Wehrmacht went East. I'll have to try something like it. Must be that the AI puts a sea of molasses around all the Russkies.



Karri -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/23/2012 1:33:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

No historically 50% toe german divisions could hold off 3 Russian Corps easly. The russians had to attack with 3 Corp, then another 3 fresh Corp then another 3 fresh Corp before getting the German division to retreat a hex.



[:D]

You do have experience with the game engine and understand quite well how it works, but history you seem to know nothing about. A half strength German divisions holding of 9 Soviet corps'? What on earth are you basing that on? Sven Hassel?

You know maths, right? Assuming rifle corps hovers somewhere between 10-20 000 men, you can assume that in order to dislodge a German division you need between 90 000 and 180 000 men. German divisional strength was something on the order of 13 000 men...at 50% that is 6500 men. Therefore Soviets would require a superiority of 13-27 to 1 in order to drive back a German unit. Yet, if you look at the battles and campaigns they never held such superiority in numbers, thus concluding that you are wrong.




morvael -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/23/2012 2:33:31 PM)

Bagration, a very successful operation was done with 4-5:1 superiority in men, 10:1 in guns and planes and 20:1 in AFVs.

It looks like 13-27:1 in men is 1) impossible to achieve and 2) unnecessary.



Pelton -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/24/2012 12:02:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

No historically 50% toe german divisions could hold off 3 Russian Corps easly. The russians had to attack with 3 Corp, then another 3 fresh Corp then another 3 fresh Corp before getting the German division to retreat a hex.



[:D]

You do have experience with the game engine and understand quite well how it works, but history you seem to know nothing about. A half strength German divisions holding of 9 Soviet corps'? What on earth are you basing that on? Sven Hassel?

You know maths, right? Assuming rifle corps hovers somewhere between 10-20 000 men, you can assume that in order to dislodge a German division you need between 90 000 and 180 000 men. German divisional strength was something on the order of 13 000 men...at 50% that is 6500 men. Therefore Soviets would require a superiority of 13-27 to 1 in order to drive back a German unit. Yet, if you look at the battles and campaigns they never held such superiority in numbers, thus concluding that you are wrong.




[edit] Narva Offensives, 15–28 February and 1–4 MarchMain articles: Narva Offensive (15–28 February 1944) and Narva Offensive (1–4 March 1944)
The Soviet 30th Guards Rifle Corps and the 124th Rifle Corps launched a new Narva Offensive on 15 February.[7] In ferocious battles, units of the Sponheimer Group exhausted the Soviet army, which halted its offensive. Both sides used the pause for bringing in additional forces. The fresh SS Volunteer Grenadier Regiments 45 and 46 (1st and 2nd Estonian) accompanied by units of the "Nordland" Division destroyed the Soviet bridgeheads north of Narva by 6 March. The newly arrived 59th Army attacked westwards from the Krivasoo Swamp and encircled the strong points of the 214th Infantry Division and Estonian 658th and 659th Eastern Battalions. The resistance of the encircled units gave the German command time to move in all available forces and to stop the 59th Army units' advance.[1][14]

A division and 2 regiments kick 2 Corp butts. Then a hole Army is required to cut off 1 infantry divisions and 2 battalions.


6–24 MarchThe Soviet air force conducted an air raid, leveling the historic town of Narva on 6 March. An air and artillery shock of 100,000 shells and grenades at the "Nordland" and "Nederland" detachments in Ivangorod prepared the way for the 30th Guards Rifle Division's attack on 8 March. Simultaneous pitched battles took place north of the town, where the 14th Rifle Corps supported by the artillery of the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps attempted to re-establish a bridgehead. Regiments of the Estonian SS Division repulsed the attacks, causing great Soviet losses.[1][14]

Again we have 2 regiments easy holding off 2 Corp, heheh there is example after example of German regiments holding of Corp size attacks

This is simply the facts on the eastern front.







carlkay58 -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/24/2012 8:57:50 PM)

But remember a few other things:

1) A German regiment = a Soviet division in strength and organization.

2) The old 3:1 adage really held up well in WWII - so three divisions (one corps) is about what is needed for the 3:1 manpower mark on the attack against a single regiment.

3) Both the Germans and Soviets typically used formations with only 50-60% TOE throughout the war so about equivalent manpower is still present.



Karri -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/26/2012 7:51:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
[edit] Narva Offensives, 15–28 February and 1–4 MarchMain articles: Narva Offensive (15–28 February 1944) and Narva Offensive (1–4 March 1944)
The Soviet 30th Guards Rifle Corps and the 124th Rifle Corps launched a new Narva Offensive on 15 February.[7] In ferocious battles, units of the Sponheimer Group exhausted the Soviet army, which halted its offensive. Both sides used the pause for bringing in additional forces. The fresh SS Volunteer Grenadier Regiments 45 and 46 (1st and 2nd Estonian) accompanied by units of the "Nordland" Division destroyed the Soviet bridgeheads north of Narva by 6 March. The newly arrived 59th Army attacked westwards from the Krivasoo Swamp and encircled the strong points of the 214th Infantry Division and Estonian 658th and 659th Eastern Battalions. The resistance of the encircled units gave the German command time to move in all available forces and to stop the 59th Army units' advance.[1][14]

A division and 2 regiments kick 2 Corp butts. Then a hole Army is required to cut off 1 infantry divisions and 2 battalions.


So where in here does it prove that 9 corps are needed to defeat one half strenght division?

And furthermore the Germans had 3 corps in the area(one of them panzer corps)facing 5 Sopviet corps. The soviet had about 2 to 1 advantage...not 13 to 1. So...again, you are wrong.

Furthemore, wiki has this to say about the elimination of the bridgeheads:
"Steiner threw the Estonian Division into battle on 20 February. Being the first into Narva, the division had the 1st and 2nd Estonian Regiments separate the two bridgeheads at Riigikόla and Sliversti on 21 February. The failure of their follow-up attacks made it clear that direct assaults were impossible because of the batteries across the river. Instead, "rolling" tactics were applied; they had been learned by officers in the Estonian National Defence College before World War II.[3] This meant placing small shock platoons in the Soviet trenches which the artillery found impossible to spot. It was considered a matter of national honour to annihilate the Soviet bridgehead by 24 February - Estonian Independence Day.[20] The bridgehead was reinforced with the 1078th Rifle Regiment increasing the number of defenders to 776 and 14 assault guns. The Leningrad Front command was convinced by well-placed artillery fire forcing back every possible attack.[15] The II.Battalion, 2nd Estonian Regiment, and the German artillery appeared as if committing a direct assault while a platoon of the 6th Company threw themselves into the Soviet trenches. At first, the Soviets resisted but after running out of hand-grenades, they were forced to retreat over the frozen river.[18][3]"


So the Estonians were not kicking 2 corps' butts, they were attacking a bridgehead of 700 men with 2 regiments...therefore, again, the Soviets did not hold an advantage of 13 to 1.

quote:


6–24 MarchThe Soviet air force conducted an air raid, leveling the historic town of Narva on 6 March. An air and artillery shock of 100,000 shells and grenades at the "Nordland" and "Nederland" detachments in Ivangorod prepared the way for the 30th Guards Rifle Division's attack on 8 March. Simultaneous pitched battles took place north of the town, where the 14th Rifle Corps supported by the artillery of the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps attempted to re-establish a bridgehead. Regiments of the Estonian SS Division repulsed the attacks, causing great Soviet losses.[1][14]

Again we have 2 regiments easy holding off 2 Corp, heheh there is example after example of German regiments holding of Corp size attacks

This is simply the facts on the eastern front.


This is simply your selective reading, and misunderstanding of facts. And again, do tell me how 1 regiment holding off a corps equals to 1 half strength division holding off 9 corps?

As for this action they were not attacking a regiment but the Estonian division.


I'd also like you to explain the yelnya offensive, and how the Soviets were able to push the Germans back in 1941 without 9 to 1 advantage as you require:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelnya_Offensive



Pelton -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/26/2012 10:59:22 AM)

13 to 1?



Pelton -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/26/2012 11:08:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

But remember a few other things:

1) A German regiment = a Soviet division in strength and organization.

2) The old 3:1 adage really held up well in WWII - so three divisions (one corps) is about what is needed for the 3:1 manpower mark on the attack against a single regiment.

3) Both the Germans and Soviets typically used formations with only 50-60% TOE throughout the war so about equivalent manpower is still present.




1. A SHC division has higher CV then a GHC regiment and same goes for GHC divisions vs SHC Corps. Guess you have not seen a SHC Corp in 43. A higher CV and lower Morale and exp.

So not historical at all. There is nothing equal about it.

2. The Germans were out numbered in 41-42. The russians had better equipment also. Again ignoring history does not change it.

3. Ignoring the historical fact that the Germans generally attacked with even odds or worse and vs an enemy with better equipment doesn't prove anything other then your ignoring history.

4. The only large formations cut off and forced to surrender were russians during the 41/42 blizzard.

Lets stick to history and not Middle Earth history.

In game CV doent reflex history at all.

If you go by history GHC formations should have 3x the value of SHC formations.

They should not have lower values.

Wite should reflex history not be tring to rewrite it.


Historical losses on Eastern front, only includes KIA,MIA,WIA

——————German——————-Russian————Ratio

1941
3rd—————551,000——————2,795,000———-5 to 1
4th—————280,000——————1,598,000———-5.7to 1
1942
1st—————280,000——————1,686,000———-6 to 1
2nd—————220,000——————1,395,000———-6.3 to 1
3rd—————383,000——————2,371,000———-6 to 1
4th—————177,000——————1,281,000———-7.2 to 1
1943
1st—————498,000——————1,908,000———3.8 to 1
2nd—————110,000——————444,000———-4 to 1
3rd—————533,000——————2,633,000———-5 to 1
4th—————381,000——————1,939,000———-5 to 1
1944
1st—————423,000——————1,859,000———-4.4 to 1
2nd—————352,000——————1,021,000———-3 to 1
3rd—————879,000——————1,771,000———-2 to 1
4th—————297,000——————1,086,000———-3.6 to 1







Karri -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/26/2012 1:45:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

13 to 1?

quote:

You know maths, right? Assuming rifle corps hovers somewhere between 10-20 000 men, you can assume that in order to dislodge a German division you need between 90 000 and 180 000 men. German divisional strength was something on the order of 13 000 men...at 50% that is 6500 men. Therefore Soviets would require a superiority of 13-27 to 1 in order to drive back a German unit. Yet, if you look at the battles and campaigns they never held such superiority in numbers, thus concluding that you are wrong.



morvael -> RE: Not Taking Moscow post 1.06.11 (11/26/2012 2:10:49 PM)

There is an event when the Germans were held for three days having a superiority of 40 to 1. Connected with above evidence it shows some kind of a paper-scissors-stone game, where each army has it's own good and/or bad days. And that is the reality, sometimes - in special circumstances of time & place & supply & orders & training & chance - very small number of troops is required to hold (more often) or break (less often) superior numbers of the enemy troops. It doesn't allow for generalization though, every case is unique and special. Some may even depend on such events like feud between commanders or a hangover from a day's before anniversary. The "average" advantage of German units over Soviet ones has to be somewhere in the 2:1 to 3:1 range and nothing more. In connection with the usual 3:1 deemed required for a successful attack, this would allow the Germans to defend against 6:1 to 9:1 ratios and attack with 1:1 to 1.5:1 ratios in troop numbers. And this seems quite reasonable. Anything more is just depending on a "one in a million" chance (though, if you read Pratchett you know whay he says about such chances :) ).



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.765625E-02