Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Turn 80 - 90 Trends
88 armaments captured.
93,000 manpower in pool +30,000
214,000 armaments in pool -130,000

Attacks——-Wins—-Losses———Ratio
51—————39———12————— 3.25 to 1

Counter Attacks———Wins—-Losses—–-
———49———————45———4——–—-

Losses from turn 80 to 90
————————-Men————Guns———-Tanks——Planes
GHC—————–251,000————4,752———1,019———480
SHC-—————–424,000———–-7,532———3,563-——2,938

OOB difference from turn 80 to 90.

GHC————–—+77,000———+1000-——— +600———–(-50)
SHC-—————+100,000——–+7,500———+3,500——–+3,000

Ratio of dead is 1.7 to 1
Now that I have allot of data as I do with my game vs Hoooper ( one of the 2 games that helped nerf 1v1=2v1)
The Ratio was 2.9 to 1 when I was in forts and 2.6 to 1 when I was retreating during the blizzard.
So 1.05 increased loses to Germans attacking and defending. End of story the math just don't lie.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2847770

I can now say 100% that the ratio was changed during the 1.05 patch for 42 to 43.

BUT having said that, looking at Hooopers game and this game with and open mind. I would have to say the impact of armaments and their production + the removal of the 1v1=2v1 rule is having a big effect unless I am missing something.

Here is Hoooper vs Pelton

Turn 70 - 80
--- Attacks --- Retreats --- Held

SHC ---186--- 160 --- 26
GHC --- 45 --- 40 --- 5

Net Hexes - 78

Losses from turn 70 to 80
------- --- Men --- Guns --- Tanks
GHC --- 330,788 --- 9,960 --- 1,315
SHC --- 964,370 --- 15,638 --- 3,985

OOB difference from turn 70 to 80.

SHC --- + 696,866 --- + 19,957 --- +360 --- +5998
GHC --- -160,288 --- -3,702 ---+120 --- +120

quote:

Yet if I take your arguments about break-even points for pure man losses and growth, I think you also did significant damage to both manpower centers (can't find that data in your AAR so quickly, sorry) and you did some damage to the Red Army in the field. With a <=2:1 ratio in losses (or 1.7:1 if you wish), you can see how impactful the Soviet strategy of strength conservation rather than holding pure ground is for the Soviets in 1941 and 1942. Which is actually quite logic, since you will sooner or later be able to train those men up, get them experience and better weapons if they don't fall. That's what everyone would probably naturally always aim for.

quote:

This reminds much of how the Soviets "dragged" Napoleon into the depth of Russia and into over-extension instead of fighting for every inch, doesn't it? Also back at that time the Russians didn't falter because of loosing city after city, their European "industry" and manpower etc. I suppose it is among the best things a Soviet player can do as long as his units are rather of poor combat value, and his choice is between loosing territory, and territory and his army as well if he fights too much forward? Same probably will hold true for Axis in later war, though they will have less territory to trade when choosing the ground to make a stand...
On the other hand, this argument about loss and consequently net growth rates of both armies means to me that you have to reduce the Soviet Army as long as it is cheaper than 2:1 in Axis losses, i.e. that playing conservative in 1941 isn't the way to go, but rather be very aggressive at much increased own losses and attempt to attack right into snow and then withdraw slowly instead of stopping early and setting up fortified defenses? It is never as cheap to destroy the Soviets as early war... What do you think presently a German player should attempt given your analysis?

quote:

Looking at the above loss numbers for the Soviets, I have one question though: Hoopers losses as Soviets were tremendous, a net 1Mio men! That was with the 2:1 in place? 2:1 favored the Soviet and allowed to push Axis, albeit at a higher cost in losses. Perhaps after all that rule wasn't that bad in the latter regard: Since players have very good intel on the CV of both sides (rather than more pronounced FOW, or intel errors), they can much better pick fights with good success rates, and both sides can play conservative and only execute the low-loss/risk high-gain attacks rather than floundering badly at regular intervals. So was it that Hooper was just so aggressive that he also performed very costly attacks, or was it 2:1 that induced much higher aggressiveness? Should there be more FOW on detected CV, more variance on outcomes? Should there also be some FOW when looking at own unit stats, especially for units that are isolated from HQs/C&C? I would favor the latter, would make this look less gamey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schattensand

How is it possible that your FBD3 and FBD4 make 12, even 14 hexes from turn 1 to turn 2? Since it does not make sense to place them just somewhere in the landscape not having converted the railroad to me it seems to be absolutly impossible to do more than 6 hexes even in the Baltikum, even if the way is totally cleared.
Are you a wizard?
Am I not understanding even the basics of the game?
Please enlighten me, us, how you speed up your repair units to that extend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Watching this one with interest as I've taken over a game with the Germans on the back foot, and ideas would be greatly appreciated!

Looks like you are doing pretty well though Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Have you had any success with reserves Pelton?
I know for a fact I gutted myself counterattacking vs Hooper.