Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 - 11/23/2011 4:13:32 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2851126&mpage=9&key=?

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

SHC Attacks——-Wins—-Losses———Ration
51—————39———12—————

GHC 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

Hoooper attacked 186 times or 18 attacks per turn suffered 964,000 KIA, but increased his OOB by 696,000. Their is a little trick that can be played to get a 500,000 burst (ask Flaviusx), but still and increase of 200,000. I tracked the loses until turn 110 and with loses per turn equalling this 10 turn sample Hoooper's army was slowly growing 200,000 per 10 turns. The German army was shrinking 160,000 every 10 turns

Kamil attacked 51 times, but over 8 turn we had cease fire for 2 to make up for fort decay bug.

So 8 attacks per turn suffered 424,000 and his OOB grew 100,000.
The German OOB also grew 77,000

At the current tempo of attacks it is a stalemate as long as I can stay in level 2 forts or behind rivers once the spring gets here.

I am guessing the impact of Kamil losing 88 armament points coupled with the reduction of output per armament point is why the war atleast at this point in 1943 is a stalemate.
The ratio is 1.7 to 1 so for Kamil to start to get my OOB to go down and not increase he would have had to suffered 131,000 more KIA to get my OOB to zero growth over 10 turns.

So at 1.7 to 1 odds and the current production Kamil would have to lose 31,000 men to get my OOB to brake even at this point during the war.

Now in the area of guns, planes and tanks he is winning slightly IF he increases the tempo of attacks by 2 or 3 per turn and win all 2 or 3.

Now I know some say armament points don't mean much, but I beleive this shows that from 43 to 45 it is a huge factor.

Vs Hoooper I only had 2.7 million men and was losing men, right now vs Kamil I have 3.9 million and I am gaining men every turn.

We were at about turn 30 when we changed over from 1.04 to 1.05 so if anything I would have had more armaments (47mm bug) pts in the bank and men, not sure the effects on Kamils.

What are your thoughts?

Pelton







< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/23/2011 5:14:10 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 - 11/23/2011 4:28:05 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
OOB turn 80




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 2
RE: The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 - 11/23/2011 4:29:32 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
OOB turn 90




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 3
RE: The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 - 11/23/2011 4:35:06 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
How much of your front is in static mode?

_____________________________


(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 4
RE: The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 - 11/23/2011 5:21:52 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

How much of your front is in static mode?



Good question. I had about 50% for 5 turns and only 30% ish now. 100% during summer and fall of 42.

Hes attacking along most of the front and I have had to use up allot of saved AP to build forts because of fort bug and go from static to free mode.

I have been able to stay in level 2 forts most of the fighting.

He wins a hex but I have been counter attacking allot keeping the hex a no mans land as long as possible. He is picking at corners and tring to widen front. the ratio really sucks, but even with 40+ counter attacks my tanks are still growing.

Fort building in Blizzard sucks and I lost my 3rd and 4th rows of forts to the bug. I be in much better shape then I am now but I am holding on nicely so far.

Mud and clear weather are only a few turns away now.

Pelton

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 5
RE: The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 - 11/23/2011 5:33:13 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Another thing is every time I win a battle vs his troops in the no mans land my moral is going up so now most of my panzer forses have good moral.

With new panzer divisions showing up and parts of Kamils front being thin counter attacking atleast during the summer of 43 will be possible.

With the stalemate any units at all I can pocket will be a set back for him.

I now know I can do atleast 46 attacks during a 10 turn time frame and still be gaining tanks.

So I can have a very strong short thrust over several turns and still be able keep even as far as men and equipent goes.

I have some ideas of how and where to attack come summer, but I have to see if Kamil gives me an opening.

With all the units that get withdraw during 44 my only good chance to do some reall damage will be this coming summer.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/23/2011 5:37:38 AM >

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 6
RE: The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 - 11/23/2011 5:38:56 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Also vs Hoooper there was zero chance of any units being in static mode because of 1v1=2v1.

The only real difference is the 88 armament pts lost and lowered production + the removeal of 1v1 = 2v1.

Turtling is totally possible I am guessing if you can destory enough armament pts.

But seeing all Russians are evacing armament pts asap vs a Good russian your only going to bag 35ish and thats only if your going as fast as possible.

I have no idea what the min arm pts are, because I am guessing you can get less then 35, but you need to have a good 41 bagging units followed up with another good 42 summer and possibly a small 43.

So both ways are possible.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/23/2011 5:45:09 AM >

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> The effects of 1.04 vs 1.05 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

0.153