Matrix Games Forums

New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/16/2012 1:21:48 AM   
governato

 

Posts: 552
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
I am asking the community for suggestions on how we should we use the TOAW design options to model the continous attrition of forces at the front that do not result from specific attacks. I find that it is an important part of warfare that does not receivemuch detailed attention in TOAW scenarios.

An example: In my Eastern Front Game with USXPat the frontline North of Moscow has been pretty quiet for more than a year. As a result units of both sides in that area are at full TOE and 150% supply and 100% readiness. Losses around that part of the front during the same period of time? Zero. Not a man, a truck...a chicken. This is
obviously wrong and unhistorical as units in that section were chronically undersupplied and understrength from the low intensity but continous fighting.

The daily, low intensity warfare should pay a heavy toll on equipment and soldiers alike. Trucks break deliverying
supplies, guns and tanks rust in the open and become obsolete, a patrol never comes back from a seemingly routine mission. Men get sick and get transferred.

As a reference, I have looked at 'War in The East' (another excellent Matrix game) and the weekly losses due attrition over the whole Eastern front is included as an abstract term and they are ...huge. About
10.000 soldiers/week for the Axis, 30.000 for the Red Army. Yes some return to the front line but in TOAW language this still translates into hundreds of squads/turn.


It is not only unrealistic to assume that frontlines can become so quiet that losses of any kind go to zero, but it is also a major distorsion of the game. At those rates, attrition would severely affect any long term scenario that is not focused on a specific battle and where period of and accumulation give place to intense
campaigns. Good WWII examples: the Russian and Italian Fronts, the West front in Winter.

Attrition would make recovering from prolonged action periods longer, and the stashing of reserves difficult, especially for the side with less replacements (like the Werhmacht in WWII). On the contrary, the
lack of attrition keeps obsolete material around artificially longer (again a problem in long scenarios). In my 'Eastern Front' scenario this is one of the reasons that the Axis stays (too?) strong in late 1942, even after two major Spring/Summer offensives. (the other reason is USXPat playing an excellent
game, but that is another story...).


My proposed solution: a 1% pestilence effect for both sides for a good fraction of the time (about 20 weeks/year on Eastern Front,= around Fall/Winter), to account for an additional 10-20% losses in men
and equipment when the front would be unrealistically quiet.

But wait, one could just reduce the replacement rates no? To work properly this effect must be coupled with a lower
reinforcement priority assigned to the units that were historically depleted below their normal TOE ( Axis infantry or non Guard Soviet units on the Russian Front for example). This way one makes sure that low priority units do not 'fill up' during quiet periods and actually shed assigned equipment and forces, if at a small rate.


Also, this attrition is different from setting the 'attrition divider' option in the editor to a smaller value to originate more losses, as that variable only applies to active combat.

A better and simpler solution would be to add a small separate attrition term (losses, supply readyness) to all units in an enemy ZOC, say proportional to the cost to leave that ZOC. Does anybody know if this is on the TOAW 3.5 wishlist?

Does anybody have any other (better) ideas? I would love to hear about them.

If you made it through here and for a reference, here is how 'Force Pestilence' works in TOAW.



Force Pestilence (0-50%) - This value sets a percentage of equipment
lost to dis- ease by every unit in the Force on every Turn. Infantry,
Horse Transport, and Cavalry equipment is lost at this rate, while all
other types of equipment are lost at half this rate. Within each
individual location, the losses are multiplied by: - Frozen, Not
Snowy: 1.1 - Frozen, Snowy: 1.25 - Hot, not Mud or Marsh: 1.1 - Hot,
Mud, or Marsh: 1.25 - Unsupplied: 1.25 - Seaborne Land Unit: 1.25
These multipliers are cumulative. The worst cases are Unsupplied
Frozen, Snowy, or Unsupplied Hot Muddy locations, which would make the
multiplier 1.5625. If the overall Force Pestilence value were set at
3%, losses in the worst-case situations would actually be 4.69% for
Infantry, Cavalry, and Horse Transport equipment, and 2.34% for all
other types of equipment. Half of Infantry, Cavalry, and Horse
Transport equipment lost by units in Supplied locations are sent to
the Replacement Pool. All non- Infantry, non-Cavalry, non-Horse
Transport equipment lost by units in Supplied locations is sent to the
Replacement Pool. All other Pestilence losses are permanent. This
characteristic is visible only in the Editor. Pestilence should
rarely be set above 5%, and in most cases should be lower. The default
is 0%. This value may be set from the OOB Editor (Edit > Modify
Current Force menu), or by use of the Force Pestilence (Pestilence 1
or Pestilence 2) Event effects.
Post #: 1
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/16/2012 3:18:34 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2773
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

... the frontline North of Moscow has been pretty quiet for more than a year. As a result units of both sides in that area are at full TOE and 150% supply and 100% readiness.


The Soviets should be attacking all the time, attriting the Axis forces which are in an inferior replacement situation. Both sides sitting idle for a year is what is unhistorical.

Two players would have to play a scenario 'historically' all the way thru in order to make a determination if any adjustments should be made.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 2
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/16/2012 6:37:55 AM   
governato

 

Posts: 552
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

sPzAbt653, you make an excellent point. However, while the Red Army was pretty aggressive over the course of the war, it was not attacking all the time, over the whole front. This is substantiated the historical records. Glantz's "When Titans Clashed" shows a fairly complete list of operations for the Russian campaign front (page 294). It shows that the Russian Front was pretty quiet in large sections of the front in late Winter 42 Specifically, its Southern part was pretty quiet from mid January to the Kar'kov Offensive on May 12th. The only major offensives, again in the real campaign where in the North, in Rhzev (Jan-April) with a million soldiers involved, Liuban (close to Leningrad) with 100.000 men and in Bolkhov (close to Moscow) with 300.000 men. Every Fall and Spring, rain and mud would also force a pause in active operations: 'by late March 1943, mud and rain had again brought mobile operations to a halt (page 148).

I will rephrase my question. TOAW does not directly model small, but continuous warfare that happens below the scale of what would be a 'minimize losses/limited attack'. I think these small attacks should provide a consistent source of attrition with significant losses. This is not specific to the Russian Front, but to give an example of the
numbers involved, other games based on the same campaign (as Matrix's WiTE) models losses coming from attacks at a scale smaller
than a single counter/counter attack at several thousand men/week for both sides. This is substantial.

How could we model this in TOAW 3.4?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 3
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/16/2012 7:31:16 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
This is not a problem with the game. This is a scenario design problem. Even when no one is shooting people are still getting sick. Can't recall the numbers but a fair number of illnesses were common. Pestilence should be a constant level throughout the campaign. But since pestilence isn't properly modeled there's a problem with that too.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 4
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/16/2012 2:28:46 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2773
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

How could we model this in TOAW 3.4?


You hit on all the mechanisms available in TOAW in your original post. If playtesting a scenario reveals unhistoric results then you have to try and determine why. You can use a combination of things to overcome a real issue, I would recommend first lowering replacements, and second to add in some periods of pestilence (although this mostly affects squads).

Note that roughly 75% of 'destroyed' equipment goes back into the replacement pool (if in supply at the time of destruction). For example, on the East Front the Germans were historically only able to replace about 30% of their truck losses. If we play a scenario 'historically' and find that the Axis never experience a shortage of trucks, the replacement rate for trucks should be lowered. Multiple playtests by different players helps greatly in determining what adjustments are necessary.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 5
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/17/2012 7:37:41 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
On a related point, it's long been my feeling that units should have to physically be off the line to receive their full quota of replacements/recover readiness.

They are pulled off the line for this. A division that's manning the front can't be taking apart the howitzers to replace worn thingamabobs and integrating fresh replacements. Letting Colonels decide which of the new lieutenants is worth a damn and allowing sergeants to assess the latest replacements, etc.

Obviously (at least to me) the sharpness of the effect should be editable. Replacements and readiness could even become an actual loss if the unit is in the line, to reflect the phenomenon governato discusses.

It's worth pointing out that this sort of chronic attrition was also a factor in World War One. Units did their spell at the front, then pulled out to recover -- even when no major operations were taking place. Peacefully sitting in the line and actually staying fat and happy is really as much the exception as the rule. When it wasn't the exception, units could not just stay in the line indefinitely -- except in TOAW, of course.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/17/2012 7:41:20 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 6
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/17/2012 7:39:13 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

How could we model this in TOAW 3.4?


You hit on all the mechanisms available in TOAW in your original post. If playtesting a scenario reveals unhistoric results then you have to try and determine why. You can use a combination of things to overcome a real issue, I would recommend first lowering replacements, and second to add in some periods of pestilence (although this mostly affects squads).

Note that roughly 75% of 'destroyed' equipment goes back into the replacement pool (if in supply at the time of destruction). For example, on the East Front the Germans were historically only able to replace about 30% of their truck losses. If we play a scenario 'historically' and find that the Axis never experience a shortage of trucks, the replacement rate for trucks should be lowered. Multiple playtests by different players helps greatly in determining what adjustments are necessary.



As far as I know, it's 50% that goes into the pool. Did that change?

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 7
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/17/2012 7:52:30 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 552
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
This is from the manual...

"Half of Infantry, Cavalry, and Horse Transport equipment lost by units in Supplied locations are sent to
the Replacement Pool. All non- Infantry, non-Cavalry, non-Horse Transport equipment lost by units in Supplied locations is sent to the
Replacement Pool. All other Pestilence losses are permanent."

Colin makes a good point, what would make 'attrition' really work would be a distinction between units in an enemy unit ZOC (so subject to enemy's fire and the strain of being in the combat zone) vs units in the rear and sitting on their railheads in terms of their ability of getting replacements. I am not aware of any mechanism that relates supply levels vs replacement rates/priorities in TOAW.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 8
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/17/2012 9:52:00 PM   
USXpat

 

Posts: 352
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
Have been thinking about this a good bit, too.  It's necessary to define the cause of attrition - which could be weather, disease, accidents, equipment breakdowns, and minor combat activity.  Political-social-economic issues can also apply.  Ultimately, attrition is caused by something - it doesn't "just happen". 

Of these, the largest contributors are likely to be weather and disease, though in most cases they aren't likely to be persistent effects.  Accidents are likely to be nominal... even if in Gulf War I more US soldiers were killed by accidents than combat.  Minor combat activity and Equipment breakdowns are the two big variables. 

Some amount of attrition is likely reflected in readiness levels - as decreased through movement and combat.   It is common to see the TO&E of a unit decrease as it moves, and what it loses is found in the replacement pool.  Readiness levels can drop down to 33% of a unit's current assigned personnel and equipment. 

A full-strength division might have 300 squads authorized to it, but after combat, it could be down to just 200 squads, and after readiness is factored in, have an actual strength of just 66 squads. 

But, I think... or at least my understanding has been, that in the course of a TOAW Turn - that "One Attack at Min/Limit/Max Losses" is not necessarily "One Attack - Everyone get out there" - but the cumulative result of a series of the unit component actions during that portion of the Turn consumed.  There's some abstraction involved with the combat - which is necessary as otherwise we would be running scenarios closer to the tactical level. 

At this point, my overall thoughts are that non-combat related losses owing to factors above and beyond that considered within the typical readiness loss through movement, deserve to be modeled separately "somehow" - and perhaps a 1% global pestilence for normal regular conditions is appropriate, and then something more severe for worse conditions.

I don't think it's appropriate to apply combat losses unless there is some combat though.  It does warrant consideration for applying reduced Supply Radius and reduced levels of supply (which factors into readiness) during severe conditions.  It could warrant modifications of replacements. 

In the past we had "ant attacks" which tended to be a good, if unrealistic way, of draining unit S&R - and it looks like a lot of effort went into getting away from that mechanism.  However, we frequently have German Regiments facing Russian Divisions; or Divisions facing Corps - so despite the "combat value" of a unit a division vs. division attack can't really be construed as an "ant attack". 

And everyone's style/tempo of play is going to vary quite radically - and each scenario can and likely will vary significantly owing more to this than anything else.  In my case, I do my best to rotate units in the orange and red out of the front lines, watch replacement levels to see which units need to be used more or less aggressively, try to use the right units for the job and not attack unless there is a clear reason/objective.  Always exceptions though.  There are some scenarios where to even get a draw you have to keep running on 33/1 almost as if "that's the normal".  Or at least used to be that way...

Still, one thing that would be cool is to have Radius based Pestilence effects.  Alternatively, have new terrain Hazard1 / Hazard2 - with designer specified pestilence %'s applying to units from Force 1 or 2, but not both.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 9
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/17/2012 10:43:59 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 552
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat

At this point, my overall thoughts are that non-combat related losses owing to factors above and beyond that considered within the typical readiness loss through movement, deserve to be modeled separately "somehow" - and perhaps a 1% global pestilence for normal regular conditions is appropriate, and then something more severe for worse conditions.

I don't think it's appropriate to apply combat losses unless there is some combat though. 



I agree. But we need to keep in mind that there is a lot of 'combat' that is below the minimum activity resolved
by a 'Minimize Losses attack' in TOAW, especially for Corps/Army scenarios. In WiTE this low level activity causes 10-30k losses/week for the Axi and the Red Army respectively and it is triggered just by the fact that enemy units are in adjacent hexes. I would like to see more historical data on this, but it is consistent from loss figures I have seen quoted for 'quiet periods' on the Russian Front.


< Message edited by governato -- 2/18/2012 12:45:52 AM >

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 10
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/18/2012 1:20:00 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2773
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

As far as I know, it's 50% that goes into the pool. Did that change?


I don't know if anything has changed. What I know is that I was concerned with Axis trucks and tanks in D21 (too many of both), so I ran a bunch of tests to see what was actually happening. For the tanks I did combat tests, tanks vs. tanks, and monitored what was lost compared to what went to the replacement pool. For trucks I did movement, moving truck units and monitoring what was lost compared to what went to the replacement pool. For both tests, I came up with around 70-80%.

We had also run tests for rifle squads about 3-4 years ago, and I don't remember the numbers, but recall that it was more than 50% returning to the pool.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 11
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/18/2012 12:24:52 PM   
Sekadegas

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

This is from the manual...

"Half of Infantry, Cavalry, and Horse Transport equipment lost by units in Supplied locations are sent to
the Replacement Pool. All non- Infantry, non-Cavalry, non-Horse Transport equipment lost by units in Supplied locations is sent to the
Replacement Pool. All other Pestilence losses are permanent."



The manual quote you used refers specifically to pestilence. I think that's not what's being discussed here.

I never heard about a fixed value of lost equipment returning to replacements pool.


About this matter the manual says:

"Much of the equipment "lost" during combat is not actually destroyed. Instead, it is considered damaged or temporarily unserviceable. This damaged equipment goes to the replacement pool unless the owning unit is out of supply. In the case of air and naval equipment, the fraction of damaged equipment going to the replacement pool is proportional to the owning unit's proficiency."





< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 2/18/2012 12:27:23 PM >

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 12
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/18/2012 3:53:00 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1303
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat

Still, one thing that would be cool is to have Radius based Pestilence effects.  Alternatively, have new terrain Hazard1 / Hazard2 - with designer specified pestilence %'s applying to units from Force 1 or 2, but not both.



Kamerad Diaspora Amerikaner,

use the radioactive icon, fiddle it around and make it look like badlands etc; the effects will be like you wished for. BUT, it will be persistent and won't go away. :)

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 13
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/18/2012 5:29:44 PM   
USXpat

 

Posts: 352
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Kamerad Diaspora Amerikaner,

use the radioactive icon, fiddle it around and make it look like badlands etc; the effects will be like you wished for. BUT, it will be persistent and won't go away. :)

Klink, Oberst


Ah, now that is a good one - would like to be able to do "force specific" effects, but there's plenty of ground hostile to everyone. Thanks - I like that!

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 14
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/18/2012 8:21:53 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

As far as I know, it's 50% that goes into the pool. Did that change?


I don't know if anything has changed. What I know is that I was concerned with Axis trucks and tanks in D21 (too many of both), so I ran a bunch of tests to see what was actually happening. For the tanks I did combat tests, tanks vs. tanks, and monitored what was lost compared to what went to the replacement pool. For trucks I did movement, moving truck units and monitoring what was lost compared to what went to the replacement pool. For both tests, I came up with around 70-80%.

We had also run tests for rifle squads about 3-4 years ago, and I don't remember the numbers, but recall that it was more than 50% returning to the pool.


Ah. There is an attrition loss for movement -- and all this equipment goes back into the pool.

As stated, your tank results contradict this -- but are you sure you're not conflating the permanent losses from combat (50%) with the permanent losses from movement (O%)?

In any case, my pet idea is that units should enjoy enhanced recovery in all respects if they're not actually in contact with the enemy -- and some sort of editable 'cost' of simply ending the turn adjacent to the enemy could meet both my objective and 'governatos' objection set forth here.

Also in any case, it is fairly common for units to suffer losses simply from combat that occurs below the OPART horizon. In World War One, it was hell to be opposite the British -- they made a fetish of trench raids, etc. Similarly, in World War Two, any detailed study of events makes it clear that the Russians often engaged in behavior that was simply mindless, incessant, and almost invariably ineffective attacks -- and indeed, units that they wanted to recover to full readiness for that big push were held away from the front. See in particular Stalin and Zhukov's careful marshalling of forces for the 1941 winter counterattack. The only way that behavior would make sense in TOAW is if the units would necessarily start suffering losses if they were adjacent to Germans.

Of course, this varied. See the 'phoney war' for an extreme. Hence the thought that the effect should be editable. A French or German unit in the line in the winter of 1939-40 wasn't going to suffer much.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 15
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/18/2012 8:26:50 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USXpat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Kamerad Diaspora Amerikaner,

use the radioactive icon, fiddle it around and make it look like badlands etc; the effects will be like you wished for. BUT, it will be persistent and won't go away. :)

Klink, Oberst


Ah, now that is a good one - would like to be able to do "force specific" effects, but there's plenty of ground hostile to everyone. Thanks - I like that!


The problem with making use of the radioactive effect is that it imposes a hell of a movement cost.

I once wanted to use the symbol simply as a marker. I had the idea if I gave both forces 100% chemical/radiological ratings, they could simply move through the hexes without harm.

Perhaps they could have. Perhaps not. I immediately discovered the movement cost made the idea a non-starter.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/18/2012 8:27:11 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to USXpat)
Post #: 16
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/18/2012 8:29:12 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
...

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 17
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/18/2012 8:42:43 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

...In the case of air and naval equipment, the fraction of damaged equipment going to the replacement pool is proportional to the owning unit's proficiency."






That's really mildly irritating. If anything, the reverse tends to happen. What losses a high proficiency force suffers will tend to be more permanent -- if it's fixable, it'll get right back out there. The Yorktown comes back into Pearl and is ready for sea again within 72 hours, etc.

Then too, the mechanism makes realistic combat results almost unobtainable in some cases.

Take the Royal Navy off Crete. After that, according to the summary of the American naval attache, 25% of the Mediterranean fleet was sunk, 25% out for a year or more, 25% out for at least six weeks, and 25% still more-or-less seaworthy.

So let's suppose we rate the RN at 75% proficiency. It sails off to Crete and the whole thing gets sunk. 75% or something of it will come back within a few weeks -- it'll be doing better than it did historically. What are the Germans supposed to do? Double-sink each ship?

Worse, in fact some of it remained battleworthy -- not all of it was sunk or even temporarily disabled. The British were supporting operations along the Syrian coast a week and a half later, employing four cruisers and maybe half a dozen destroyers.

So now in our Crete battle we can only 'sink' 75% or so. If we do that, no more than 20% is going to be 'sunk' for the duration of any TOAW scenario of reasonable length. Yet in fact a good 60% of the force was permanently gone for purposes of a scenario running -- say -- six months.

Actually, it's low proficiency forces that temporarily collapse into gasping ineffectuality after a bit of combat. It is their losses that should be temporary. When the RN loses a cruiser or the Luftwaffe a fighter, it's because it's really gone. Hors de combat. No longer there. Had its bow or its wing or its leg blown off, as the case may be. Its losses are more permanent, not less. It's for forces like the Italians that combat immediately generates masses of temporarily incapacitated equipment -- witness all the tanks and aircraft the British collected on their advance across North Africa in 1940-41.

One should probably have some sort of rating that allows one to generate temporary losses of equipment for any formation that engages in combat. For example, Russian tank armies tended to rapidly evaporate -- simply because all the tanks would break down or run out of fuel or suffer minor damage and not get fixed. Conversely, one of the strengths of the Germans was their ability to recover and rapidly repair any temporarily damaged tanks.

A fictitious German panzer division with 150 tanks and a Russian tank corps with 300 tanks go at it. At the end of the day, the Germans have 30 runners and the Russians have 30 runners. Neither side claims the field, and both forces can drag away any disabled vehicles and repair them to the best of their ability. The next morning the Germans have 90 runners and the Russians still have only 30 runners. It's going to take the Russians several turns to recover most of their losses -- while a good half of the German tanks that aren't up and about by the next turn are really, really destroyed. The summary would be that while something like 80% of the Russian losses went into the 'pool' only about 50% of the German losses did. It's the reverse of what the current proficiency/permanent loss formula would suggest.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/18/2012 9:10:43 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Sekadegas)
Post #: 18
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/21/2012 5:48:25 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2773
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
You could spend some time each turn shelling your opponent in the 'quite areas' in order to attrite his defense. Unless the defenders hex contains artillery, there will be no adverse affect to the shelling unit(s). I know this isn't what you are really looking for, but it's kind of close. Elmer does it quite a bit (so do I).

I believe that all equipment lost to 'artillery only' goes back to the equipment pool, but this should still keep at least part of the front lines from getting to 'full strength' during the quite times.

And when Elmer stacks his units into the red ...Whammo !!

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 19
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/21/2012 6:06:58 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 552
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

That'd help! But I think the attrition 'problem' shows up mostly in large scale scenarios (division level and up) where often the artillery component is incorporated into larger units. I agree with Colin that attrition represents 'combat that occurs below the OPART horizon'. I'd add that this is a common headache in any numerical model of complex systems, not just in games!
(disclaimer, that is what I do for a living..).

Just to be clear I do not see attrition playing a large role in smaller scale scenarios that focus on specific battles where most units where committed into action. Anyhow, I will start working on a new version of 'Eastern Front' soon and see what pestilence achieves. I will settle for 10-20 turns a 1% for both sides, sprinkled around the rainy seasons. I actually like the feature that a lot of the losses go back to the pool. It will be a good way to siphon off squads from units sitting at full TOE into those that have been affected by combat and really need them. It will also help flush out obsolete infantry squads in long scenarios with substantial upgrades.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 20
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/22/2012 2:44:56 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Total KIA = 5.187 million
Total died from illness = .541 million

That's about 10% of irrevocable losses by illness.

Total wounded = 15.205 million
Total sick = 3.047 million

That's about 20% sanitary casualties by illness.

I'd say 1% pestilence for the Soviets on the East Front is a bit low. Sickness did not know quiet zones.

< Message edited by Panama -- 2/22/2012 2:46:20 PM >

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 21
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/22/2012 3:38:06 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7093
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Total KIA = 5.187 million
Total died from illness = .541 million

That's about 10% of irrevocable losses by illness.

Total wounded = 15.205 million
Total sick = 3.047 million

That's about 20% sanitary casualties by illness.

I'd say 1% pestilence for the Soviets on the East Front is a bit low. Sickness did not know quiet zones.


Careful. That's 10% per war vs. 1% per game turn.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 22
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/22/2012 3:45:44 PM   
newtigersqn


Posts: 17
Joined: 1/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Total KIA = 5.187 million
Total died from illness = .541 million

That's about 10% of irrevocable losses by illness.

Total wounded = 15.205 million
Total sick = 3.047 million

That's about 20% sanitary casualties by illness.

I'd say 1% pestilence for the Soviets on the East Front is a bit low. Sickness did not know quiet zones.



541 000 / 47 mths = 11510 per month = 383 per day = about 35-40 squads per day = 120-160 squads in a half week scenario. Of course some of those 541 000 would be engineers, tankers, artillery, etc. Since infantry always suffer the worst of it........say 80-90 squads in a half week turn ?

What does 1% pestilence give for say 50 000 German squads assigned for a half week turn ?



< Message edited by newtigersqn -- 2/22/2012 3:50:31 PM >

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 23
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/22/2012 3:49:10 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 552
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
Right. I reasoned... the Red Army had about 7 million soldiers on the frontlines at any given time. So 1% pestilence is 35,000 *permanent* losses per turn in TOAT terms. To get to 3.5 million losses one needs 100 turns, so 25 pestilence turns/yr over the course of four years war.
The Germans probably suffered proportionally.

Bob, not sure how closely you have been following this thread, but as you are in charge of the 'wish list' how hard would it be to add an editor option in TOAW to include an attrition term for units in contact with the enemy to simulate 'low intensity combat'?

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 24
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/23/2012 12:50:09 PM   
Shazman

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline
In the game a large percentage return to the replacement pool. 10% casualties would give you a lower percentage of permanent losses. So for some unit types actual losses would be 5% for some types and 0% for other types.

I think 10 would be kinda high. But then 0 would be kinda low.

Unless you're driving a T-34. Then 10 might be kinda low.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 25
RE: Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. - 2/23/2012 11:18:53 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Total KIA = 5.187 million
Total died from illness = .541 million

That's about 10% of irrevocable losses by illness.

Total wounded = 15.205 million
Total sick = 3.047 million

That's about 20% sanitary casualties by illness.

I'd say 1% pestilence for the Soviets on the East Front is a bit low. Sickness did not know quiet zones.


Careful. That's 10% per war vs. 1% per game turn.


Correct. At 1% pestilence you produce three or four times more pestilence casualties than there actually were for the Soviets. Even with half coming back in the replacement pool. You would need less than 1% pestilence to reach historical noncombat casualties. Sorry I put it the wrong way initially. My mistake but thanks for catching that.

< Message edited by Panama -- 2/23/2012 11:21:33 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Frontline Attrition in TOAW scenarios. Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.116