Osinovets

[chaos45]

Well for one you have to trust German numbers on losses and the first thesis I brought up is that German numbers are suspect due to the way kept records, I think the circumstances of when German AFV losses spike points to this suspect record keeping. As how do you only lose 200 AFVs a month then suddenly when you have to give up some ground your AFV losses multiply by 5 to 6 times normal. The combat alone does not equal those losses it because the massively damaged/scrap tanks finally had to be written off....another common practice is when you know a vehicle is destroyed but still listed as repairable you just start taking parts off of it to keep whats left of your vehicle fleet operational- its an extremely common practice and was admitted to by German logistics officers as well. Not sure if your a military man yourself but if you are you would know this. Yes another office may need to approve of this but that's easy enough if it keeps another vehicle in action.

Again at the moment I'm not digging into 1941 numbers so have nothing on hand. As to 3/4k losses numbers I would have to dig back into the 500+ page document to find it. Its accurate though as it has been noted in several other publications as well and I remember the actual German records even backing up the huge losses around the time periods I state.

Also your arguing around me by talking 41/42 losses when I specifically talked 1944 losses.

As to the most recent document I read https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/ ... ccess_etds this is part 2 of the document. It has his sources and lists on each chart where he pulled the numbers from...and it looks like the German Army is where he pulled the numbers from. Page 867 and 868 is truck/motor vehicle losses. For tanks/AFV is 854 and 857 for the 2 months and my initial memory was abit off think I used the total losses but still- 2,918 AFVs in July alone, 1,489 in August alone on the eastern front. Is a really well done oldish 1990s doctoral thesis on Bagration IMO.

If look around the time of Stalingrad you can also see a huge increase/spike in German losses when Stalingrad surrendered--why because the Army had to finally write off all the vehicles that were in a repairable state inside the pocket, I bet that same German source he uses in the document has the spike of sudden tank losses in Jan 1943 as well, been a couple years since ive looked at the actual German paperwork but its has the spike on it I do remember.

Also as to players not losing as much, first off the soviets really cant or they lose the Game since they don't get as many digital men to sacrifice....secondly if its accurate the German army will eventually wear down as combat isn't a bloodless event...even when you win ppl usually die. Anyway my source is posted and I tire of debating this with you.

[xhoel]

You didn't refute anything that I said, simply chose to ignore it and are going on with this inane point about how the Germans counted losses which proves nothing as in the end those losses will be added to the total as well. No comments on why Soviet tank losses are so low. No comment on why Axis losses are so high. Nothing. You sure know how to defend what you say!

I didn't argue around you by talking 41/42 losses. I gave you factual evidence that the Soviets are losing way less tanks than they actually did and the Germans are losing more. Two posts earlier you said that: "they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game." and now that you were proven wrong are telling me that you were specifically talking about 1944 losses. Sure.

Thanks for the source of your number.

I won't be arguing with you anymore since there is nothing to argue about.

All the best to you,
Xhoel

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

You didn't refute anything that I said, simply chose to ignore it and are going on with this inane point about how the Germans counted losses which proves nothing as in the end those losses will be added to the total as well. No comments on why Soviet tank losses are so low. No comment on why Axis losses are so high. Nothing. You sure know how to defend what you say!

I didn't argue around you by talking 41/42 losses. I gave you factual evidence that the Soviets are losing way less tanks than they actually did and the Germans are losing more. Two posts earlier you said that: "they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game." and now that you were proven wrong are telling me that you were specifically talking about 1944 losses. Sure.

Thanks for the source of your number.

I won't be arguing with you anymore since there is nothing to argue about.

All the best to you,
Xhoel

This is why I have Chaos45 ignored .. the posts never appear for me.. Chaos45 has simple rants but nothing meaningful to add to the conversation .. Worse .. Chaos45 leaves Rostov with a single line of weak units, and after getting isolated .. rants that the opponent must have cheated .. etc etc etc. Just turn the green dot to red .. [;)]

[morvael]

Xhoel, I'd say balance of AFV losses is fine:
A) Soviets do not attack relentlessly even if they have no chance of success.
B) Soviets do not let big encirclements to happen.
C) Germans have to pay for this.
Hence, in game loss ratio moves towards Soviets.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Xhoel, I'd say balance of AFV losses is fine:
A) Soviets do not attack relentlessly even if they have no chance of success.
B) Soviets do not let big encirclements to happen.
C) Germans have to pay for this.
Hence, in game loss ratio moves towards Soviets.

Morvael I am not complaining about the balance. I am happy with the state the game is now and save for minor tweaks that we have talked about that I hope will fix everything in the new patch, I have 0 complaints about how the game plays.

My answer was directed to chaos45 because I am tired of hearing the same old argument of "Germans take too little tank losses, the Soviets take too many" repeated 1000 times when there is no factual evidence that that is the case. That's all.

[joelmar]

@chaos45

As to the most recent document I read https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/ ... ccess_etds

Interesting document. If you wish to know what the author of the document thought about Adolf Hitler's leadership just read his concluding words, pages 782-783.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Xhoel, I'd say balance of AFV losses is fine:
A) Soviets do not attack relentlessly even if they have no chance of success.
B) Soviets do not let big encirclements to happen.
C) Germans have to pay for this.
Hence, in game loss ratio moves towards Soviets.

This is at the crux of the problem in my opinion. Player 'A' has no clue how the game really works.(For example, one of the posters insists that there is a HQ supply chaining exploit). Does multiple things that is not optimal. gets whacked. Complains game is borked.

This is by far one of the best designed games I have played to date. I have been at this for 4 years now, and I am still trying to grasp the fundamental concepts. One can never tire of trying to master this game. Maybe someday! [;)][:D]

[joelmar]

@Crackaces +1

[morvael]

On the other hand it's a fact the game does not model rear area workshops that indeed in some cases were overrun by speedy Soviet advance. In WitE damaged elements move with units or go to safe global pool. Of course bumping those units multiple times will increase losses, but nothing as dramatic as overtaking a huge workshop.

[56ajax]

Just on AFV losses, the winner controls the battlefield and gets to recover their vehicles whereas the loser does not. So I would expect the Axis losses to be low in 41/42 and much higher in 43 and onwards.

(A post battle study of Axis losses in France found that the majority were breakdowns or lack of fuel. And the Allies controlled the battlefield.)

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: xhoel

You didn't refute anything that I said, simply chose to ignore it and are going on with this inane point about how the Germans counted losses which proves nothing as in the end those losses will be added to the total as well. No comments on why Soviet tank losses are so low. No comment on why Axis losses are so high. Nothing. You sure know how to defend what you say!

I didn't argue around you by talking 41/42 losses. I gave you factual evidence that the Soviets are losing way less tanks than they actually did and the Germans are losing more. Two posts earlier you said that: "they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game." and now that you were proven wrong are telling me that you were specifically talking about 1944 losses. Sure.

Thanks for the source of your number.

I won't be arguing with you anymore since there is nothing to argue about.

All the best to you,
Xhoel

This is why I have Chaos45 ignored .. the posts never appear for me.. Chaos45 has simple rants but nothing meaningful to add to the conversation .. Worse .. Chaos45 leaves Rostov with a single line of weak units, and after getting isolated .. rants that the opponent must have cheated .. etc etc etc. Just turn the green dot to red .. [;)]

A simple, "put him on ignore" would have sufficed. To me Xhoel handled the matter appropriately for ending a conversation he no longer wanted to continue. The added character assassination by Crackaces was not needed and very unprofessional.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
Just on AFV losses, the winner controls the battlefield and gets to recover their vehicles whereas the loser does not. So I would expect the Axis losses to be low in 41/42 and much higher in 43 and onwards.

This is taken into account in the formulas. The question is whether to correct degree. Also, it's very hard to adjust the formulas to achieve predetermined % gain in end numbers, as the probability formula of multiple various random tests with many subvariants is very hard to calculate.

I see a bigger problem - there is only one "damaged" status, whereas as a minimum I would love to have separate heavy (battle) damage from light (mechanical) damage. The second one should be easier to incur, especially when you move your unit a lot, but also quite easy to repair once you wait a bit, allowing for the correct large fluctuation of ready AFVs in mobile operations. Heavy damage would in turn be harder to repair, especially in restricted supply condition, and such vehicles should mostly be lost in a unit forced to retreat. Currently, the single damage status is forced to be a middle ground of the two, and it doesn't represent either of the two correctly.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
Just on AFV losses, the winner controls the battlefield and gets to recover their vehicles whereas the loser does not. So I would expect the Axis losses to be low in 41/42 and much higher in 43 and onwards.

This is taken into account in the formulas. The question is whether to correct degree. Also, it's very hard to adjust the formulas to achieve predetermined % gain in end numbers, as the probability formula of multiple various random tests with many subvariants is very hard to calculate.

I see a bigger problem - there is only one "damaged" status, whereas as a minimum I would love to have separate heavy (battle) damage from light (mechanical) damage. The second one should be easier to incur, especially when you move your unit a lot, but also quite easy to repair once you wait a bit, allowing for the correct large fluctuation of ready AFVs in mobile operations. Heavy damage would in turn be harder to repair, especially in restricted supply condition, and such vehicles should mostly be lost in a unit forced to retreat. Currently, the single damage status is forced to be a middle ground of the two, and it doesn't represent either of the two correctly.

That sounds like a really interesting idea actually. I don't know if it would be possible to add it properly, but I like the idea.

[Colbert]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
A simple, "put him on ignore" would have sufficed. To me Xhoel handled the matter appropriately for ending a conversation he no longer wanted to continue. The added character assassination by Crackaces was not needed and very unprofessional.

The HYPOCRISY stinks here - you are by far the biggest bully on this forum and character assassin number one. It is funny the first time I stood up to you I had a flood of messages about you - with plenty of screenshots. To start with - where is your apology to ledo? and to thedude357 for calling him a cheat repeatedly together chaos45 - and you are not even in that game. How can you have the cheek to blame Crackaces for what you started. The personal attacks on Crackaces, Ewaldvonkleist, Telemecus, Tyronec, beender, Hortlund - the list goes on and on and on. I literally had a mountain of them. I am sure I will get plenty more messaging after this. It is the biggest pot calling the kettle black here.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Double post

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Colbert



ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
A simple, "put him on ignore" would have sufficed. To me Xhoel handled the matter appropriately for ending a conversation he no longer wanted to continue. The added character assassination by Crackaces was not needed and very unprofessional.

The HYPOCRISY stinks here - you are by far the biggest bully on this forum and character assassin number one. It is funny the first time I stood up to you I had a flood of messages about you - with plenty of screenshots. To start with - where is your apology to ledo? and to thedude357 for calling him a cheat repeatedly together chaos45 - and you are not even in that game. How can you have the cheek to blame Crackaces for what you started. The personal attacks on Crackaces, Ewaldvonkleist, Telemecus, Tyronec, beender, Hortlund - the list goes on and on and on. I literally had a mountain of them. I am sure I will get plenty more messaging after this. It is the biggest pot calling the kettle black here.

Oh!! you are using the "Tu Quoque" Fallacy type argument. Your hatred RUNS very deep here Colbert, or whoever you are hiding behind another name if that is the case. You pointing the finger at me has the other fingers on the hand pointing back at you and the people you named. As such what I said about Crackaces stands and is true as anyone can read it. No retraction, no regrets, and by all means 100% meant it.

So I give you, Colbert, along with anyone else that wishes to join, the option of meeting me either in person or to talk on Discord. No more of the back and forth on Matrix forums solving nothing behind fictitious names. I will buy lunch/dinner for anyone that wants to meet in person(I travel often so I am sure I can meet people, even in the UK) So your choice Colbert and whoever else wants to come to an understanding and better forum friends (mates for you British people). Is that too hard for you to do Colbert? Or will you continue the "HATRED" I am sure I already know the answer but I have to try at a minimum





Reference for "Tu Quoque" fallacy is:


The “tu quoque,” Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove one’s point. Focusing on the other person’s hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In this way, the tu quoque typically deflects criticism away from one’s self or another by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable.

Merriam Webster Dictionary definition = a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what the adversary criticizes in others

I added in the content that was left out to not lose any context.

[helpmenow]

The above kissy face remarks from HLVA come from the guy who refused to respond to many PMs from me and peace offerings. Gee whiz, seems this guy is a liar and a fraud. Hmm, and what does a liar do when called, err, err, they lie some more.

The former charlie0311, had to change it, browser was hijacked, lots of stuff has been throw at me.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: helpmenow

The above kissy face remarks from HLVA come from the guy who refused to respond to many PMs from me and peace offerings. Gee whiz, seems this guy is a liar and a fraud. Hmm, and what does a liar do when called, err, err, they lie some more.

The former charlie0311, had to change it, browser was hijacked, lots of stuff has been throw at me.

I have all my emails and PM's saved. You have zero PM's or emails sent to me for peace offerings under this name. So who is the liar? There was ONLY one person who sent me any form of "lets work this out". Everyone else was quite as a church mouse.

But that is ok. You can continue your "HATRED" or I offer you the same offer I offered Colbert(plus anyone else that wants to come out of the woodwork) to either meet in person or on some form of voice chat. There really is no need for any of these accusations behind fictitious names. Are you a real man to come to the table???? We shall see.

[helpmenow]

I have the PMs, will dig them out for anyone.

Make up something else.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: helpmenow

I have the PMs, will dig them out for anyone.

Make up something else.

You really do "HATE" don't you. There are only a couple of people on the forum that has this much "HATE" I can think of towards me. I hope that person isn't logging in his low post count accounts to continue a defamation campaign against me. But that looks like the case. Lets work this out in person and/or Voice chat. I am sure we can get rid of the "hatred" and have a much better forum.