Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Attacker losses are too low when he fails

 
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 >> Attacker losses are too low when he fails Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/9/2016 11:03:26 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4401
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
The losses for the attacker in failed attacks really need to be ramped up. Time after time I see miniscule losses for the attacker after a failed attack. It does not seem to matter whether they win or lose. German losses are always too low in 1941 IMHO.

We have extra losses for the defender when he is forced to retreat. Why can't we have extra losses for the attacker when he fails?

< Message edited by Michael T -- 8/9/2016 11:04:25 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/9/2016 11:22:43 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 3024
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
MT, I don't think you'll ever be happy with this game. You say the game is totally biased against the Axis player, but when there is one aspect that isn't, you're unhappy. That isn't to say that you don't have a valid point- you do. It's been a valid point since this game came out. But after so many years of tweaking, twisting and revising, we're likely going to have to see the meaningful changes in WITE 2.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 2
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/9/2016 11:32:14 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11750
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
It's already in the game. Attacker suffers post battle attrition, and also can suffer from a counterattack, if his experience is lower than defender's.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 3
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/9/2016 11:46:17 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4401
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
WITE 2 is a long long way off. This aspect of the game (low attacker losses when failing to win) really irks me. Regardless of bias, I want it fixed. Morvael tweaked the retreat losses, I think he could tweak the losses for failed attacks. It seems to me the attacker can just keep rolling the dice till he lucks out with a high CV and takes a hex, without any risk of high losses. This works both ways. A failed attack should be costly, repeated failed attacks should be really bad. It isn't.

You are right, I won't ever be happy with this game, or any GG game for that matter. But there is nothing any better on this subject. So I try to help improve it.

_____________________________


(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 4
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/9/2016 11:52:38 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4401
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

It's already in the game. Attacker suffers post battle attrition, and also can suffer from a counterattack, if his experience is lower than defender's.


Well it needs to be ramped up. The losses suffered after a defeat are ridiculous. I saw one result where a Security Regiment attacked a Soviet Brigade (level 2 fort, swamp, behind a river). The Soviet had more guns and the final odds were like 1:10, Soviets lost like 200 men, German losses ZERO. This is trivial but it make the point. I see results of losses less than a couple of hundred for the attacker and 500 or more for the successful defender. The attacker just keeps banging away, loss after loss. Eventually he rolls well and wins the hex.

_____________________________


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 5
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 12:31:06 AM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline
Michael, I am finding that in 42 my losses from attacks have increased dramatically...losses in 41
seemed about the same.


_____________________________

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 6
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 12:34:48 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4401
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Maybe Germans/Finns in 1941 had bullet proof vests

_____________________________


(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 7
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 1:10:17 AM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline
Its all those trees....have you checked tree casualties?

_____________________________

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 8
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 1:20:25 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1854
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Wait until you actually attack big stacks of Germans and win the combats lol.....then look at how low those losses are and laugh when they retreat in winter 1941 and even in 1942.

It really all comes out out in the wash in all honesty as the Soviet losses are lower than historical as well....so it seems to balance out over the long game.....it does look very ridiculous at times tho I agree.

(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 9
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 1:55:40 AM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
My attacking Russian losing losses against Pelton have been periodically posted.

They seem large to me and have increased over time as we entered 43.

Some attack losses over 10K in casualties


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 10
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 2:09:57 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4401
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
It's really 1941 that appears skewed to me. Post 41 may well be ok. I admit my post 41 experience is low. But for 1941 I have played well over 20 games as each side in total. There is no sense of worrying losses as German till the blizzard. From my readings and general East Front gaming experience German losses in the summer and autumn of 41 were actually telling. And attacking as Soviet in this period (prior to blizzard) is a waste of time really, not worth the effort unless to break a pocket or cut supply. I surely hope the combat model is much improved for WITE 2.0

_____________________________


(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 11
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 3:28:06 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1854
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Brian- Ive noticed I think this is due to all the new German special combat rules---Im still undecided if those were good ideas or not.

Higher Soviets losses should matter tho so you dont have infinite manpower from 1943 on IMO...however German losses should also be substantial and they seem to be from the many combats you have shown.

In my game vs Pelton it was very interesting as I virtually had no manpower/armaments reserves at all, all through 41/42 and early 43....then about mid 43 or so the pools just started growing and effectively never stopped increasing---So in that example some higher Soviet losses prolly warranted to actually make manpower/armaments a concern maybe??? again as I said my opinion on the new German special combat tactics is still undecided for the long game effects.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 12
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 8:33:52 AM   
loki100


Posts: 7139
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

It's really 1941 that appears skewed to me. Post 41 may well be ok. I admit my post 41 experience is low. But for 1941 I have played well over 20 games as each side in total. There is no sense of worrying losses as German till the blizzard. From my readings and general East Front gaming experience German losses in the summer and autumn of 41 were actually telling. And attacking as Soviet in this period (prior to blizzard) is a waste of time really, not worth the effort unless to break a pocket or cut supply. I surely hope the combat model is much improved for WITE 2.0


In principle I fully agree with you, problem is the risk of distorting WiTE1. For what its worth, I'd rather the patching effort was going into removing bugs and flawed routines not trying to push the game engine to a level of realism it might not be able to sustain - and which seems to constantly be producing unintended consequences.

For WiTE2 combat kills. Attacking can lead to high losses even when you win and there is a very real gain to recreating the 'pointless' Soviet offensives - say in the later stages of the Smolensk battles.

Best evidence I can offer for how the new combat system works is total Soviet losses by the start of the blizzard. The WiTE2 AI is not much better than WiTE at making pockets and as poor as the WiTE AI at keeping units in pockets - as opposed to routing them out immediately. In my last WiTE vs AI I had around 1m Soviet losses by the blizzard, in WiTE2 it was over 3m. You see more outright shatters (keyed to low experience) so that is a secondary route to completely eliminating a formation and much higher combat losses.

But (and I think this matters), this is being built in from first principles and no doubt as the focus shifts to game balance will be part of the building blocks for that process. I just really fear that further major changes to WiTE will render the game utterly unbalanced (either way).

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Brian- Ive noticed I think this is due to all the new German special combat rules---Im still undecided if those were good ideas or not.

...



This is why I've given up on WiTE as a player. While I like the scenarios (esp the later war ones), the focus is the 1941 campiagn. That easily takes around 18 months and I am fed up with (well intentioned) major changes undermining long games. I know the 'don't use the patch' argument but its rarely clear what the unintended outcomes of a change will be from the change log or early game reports.

_____________________________


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 13
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 8:54:44 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4401
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Considering the length of time till we get W2 I think getting W1 as right as we can is worth the effort. But it's up to morvael. I am still active in the WITE test forum and I know morvael is still working on minor tweaks. I don't advocate for massive changes in one go. Small steps toward what feels right without breaking things is possible I think, and what I am aiming for.

_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 14
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 10:11:21 AM   
Aditia

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 3/27/2011
Status: offline
I agree that it looks stupid when losses are low to non-existent in a defeat. In these cases I just imagine that the field commander on the ground saw the folly of my order and just fired a bunch of artillery and made a show of force.

That being said, in reality the Soviet attacks around Smolensk were not pointless at all, they inflicted heavy losses to the Germans that could not be easily replaced, especially the loss in experienced officers. Whereas the soviet divisions that were destroyed by the attacks, could easily be replaced.

That all being said, I don't advocate making changes to make the game 'feel' better. The core economic model in WITE already makes for a Red Army that can get to Berlin in the late game even if suffering very high losses, and a Wehrmacht that finds it very hard to achieve victory.
I would stay away from any changes that moves that balance more in favor of the Soviet economy of force.

In my honest opinion, I would love to see more realistic combat in 1941, giving the Soviet player the option of sacrificing divisions to force unsustainable attrition on the Axis player, but this should never happen without making sure the late game balance does not get upset. i.e. Be wary of making changes early game without making changes late game.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 15
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 10:36:45 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4401
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Well late war period is certainly in favor of the Soviets if they survive. But I think the summer of 41 is just a little too easy on the Germans these days. I don't think I have ever said that before about WITE. But there it is. Provided they don't screw up their opening I think they are getting a cushy ride through summer 41. After that things go downhill I agree. But in the summer as a Soviet I feel that there is very little I can do to inflict pain. And that is wrong.

_____________________________


(in reply to Aditia)
Post #: 16
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 11:00:24 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11750
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
If the most prevalent Soviet strategy in 1941 is to run away, one can't blame the system for low German losses. I think lack of fierce combat in June, July and most of August vs historical events is resposible for lower losses.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 17
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 11:28:57 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
Even with fierce combat the system would still fall significantly short. The WitE engine just isn't capable to handle that.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 18
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 11:59:42 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11750
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I think everyone here is always forgetting that most historical battle reports involve lightly wounded in casualty reports, while in WitE these men are never listed as losses, because most of those men were back to the front in less than a week. To me, lightly wounded are represented by disrupted elements, which are converted to fatigue after combat, and fatigue in turn reduces combat power of a unit, decreases efficiency of repairs, and increases likelihood of elements becoming damaged when the unit will move again during the same turn. For combat losses to be higher (representing lightly wounded), they should be matched by high returns from disabled. This is not the case, and disabled are nearly the same as killed in WitE. So, you can't really look at a single battle (especially with the method men losses are calculated at the moment), but turn-to-turn losses, counting killed and disabled as your permanent losses. Higher losses would require much higher manpower return rates, so that they would be only temporary. Of course, that would result in a different dynamics to operations. There is also the problem of the model, where you can't have separate status of men from their equipment, the whole element can only be ready, damaged or lost, and only upon unpairing the men from the equipment (when going back to pool or being destroyed) are the men allowed to be processed individually and either killed, captured, disabled or being made ready again. Therefore it's hard to represent individual losses amongst squads or in the crews. An element that becomes damaged and then is made ready again is assumed to have lost no men to injury or illness at all. I am trying to increase losses a bit for the next patch, but as Michael T says (and loki100 can confirm from his own experience) it's better to do it in small steps. The only extensive and comparable data set that I have access and use to find out the impact of my changes are tests made from running AIvsAI games for the first 10 turns in all the campaign scenarios (41, 42, StoB, 43, 44) and Vistula to Berlin for 1945 data. Currently Soviet losses (excluding captured) in 1941 run at some 52k per week, Axis at 19k per week. IMHO this is higher than actual German KIA losses as shown on the Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II ), even if we take into account that some of those 19k are Axis allies.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 19
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 12:34:46 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think everyone here is always forgetting that most historical battle reports involve lightly wounded in casualty reports, while in WitE these men are never listed as losses, because most of those men were back to the front in less than a week.

The German losses given are always "Blutige Verluste". Dead, missing and wounded to the degree that they had to leave the area under the command of the army groups. The lightly wounded that return in less than a week that you mention are not counted. So for example, the 41.000 men losses the German suffered in June 1941 are the number of "Blutige Verluste". Once you include lightly wounded and sick that did not have to leave the command area of the army groups the number jumps to 95.000.

Just to given an overview, through March 1942 the Germans suffered perhaps some 1.1 million "Blutige Verluste". The total amount of losses including lightly wounded and victims of frostbites and sickness lay at 1.65 million. At the end of March 1942 the Ostheer had a deficit of over 800.000 men that was not covered by reinforcements and returnees.


< Message edited by SigUp -- 8/10/2016 12:38:32 PM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 20
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 12:48:04 PM   
Manstein63


Posts: 687
Joined: 6/30/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Well it needs to be ramped up. The losses suffered after a defeat are ridiculous. I saw one result where a Security Regiment attacked a Soviet Brigade (level 2 fort, swamp, behind a river). The Soviet had more guns and the final odds were like 1:10, Soviets lost like 200 men, German losses ZERO. This is trivial but it make the point. I see results of losses less than a couple of hundred for the attacker and 500 or more for the successful defender. The attacker just keeps banging away, loss after loss. Eventually he rolls well and wins the hex.


If that was one of my attack's I got a scouting result as it was a hasty attack which is probably why the losses were so low on my side, but I am sure that you didn't lose 200 men at least that wasn't reflected in my combat report AFAIR.
My major issue with WitE is reserve activation for the attacker when he is doing a deliberate attack as it seems to be so arbitrary as to what will join in the attack also I don't think that the AI should choose which HQ should be the commanding HQ for multiple corp/ army attacks as there doesn't seem to be any logic as to what HQ will be chosen.

Manstein63

_____________________________

'There is not, nor aught there be, nothing so exalted on the face of god's great earth, as that prince of foods. THE MUFFIN!!!'

Frank Zappa (Muffin Man)

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 21
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 1:46:38 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11750
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

The German losses given are always "Blutige Verluste". Dead, missing and wounded to the degree that they had to leave the area under the command of the army groups. The lightly wounded that return in less than a week that you mention are not counted. So for example, the 41.000 men losses the German suffered in June 1941 are the number of "Blutige Verluste". Once you include lightly wounded and sick that did not have to leave the command area of the army groups the number jumps to 95.000.

Just to given an overview, through March 1942 the Germans suffered perhaps some 1.1 million "Blutige Verluste". The total amount of losses including lightly wounded and victims of frostbites and sickness lay at 1.65 million. At the end of March 1942 the Ostheer had a deficit of over 800.000 men that was not covered by reinforcements and returnees.



That's some numbers I can work with. But could you give me the number of "Blutige Verluste" that didn't return from "zone of the interior" as the Americans would call it (died from wounds or were discharged from duty as unfit)? With 0.95% return rate from the disabled, our disabled are as good as lost. For every 1000 men disabled in WitE you get some 400 returns and 20 deaths after a year. According to the HERO study, the rule of thumb was that out of 100 casualties in battle 20 are killed, 15 are wounded seriously (disabled in WitE, leaving the area under the command of the army groups) and 65 are lightly wounded (don't exist in WitE). Of those seriously wounded 11-12 (75%) should return in the period between 6 and 20 days after the action (3 turns in WitE), and the rest will never return. Compare this 75% ratio to 3.8% return rate from disabled in WitE during 3 turns (21 days). This is the vast difference that prevents us from taking all "Blutige Verluste" into the account, when comparing losses with WitE. As I said, losses may be lower, but low rate of returns makes sure they are more permanent.

< Message edited by morvael -- 8/10/2016 1:47:04 PM >

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 22
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 1:53:48 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11750
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

My major issue with WitE is reserve activation for the attacker when he is doing a deliberate attack as it seems to be so arbitrary as to what will join in the attack also I don't think that the AI should choose which HQ should be the commanding HQ for multiple corp/ army attacks as there doesn't seem to be any logic as to what HQ will be chosen.

Manstein63


Anything that can reach the hex of battle. Good initiative leader, unit size, a lot of unused MP, and MP cost to battle hex all play a role. If you don't want some units to participate, turn off reserve status before attack. Of course this is still not perfect, as sometimes you want those units commited. If the expected CV ratio is beyond reasonable range that reserves can affect, reserve units will not join battle. If defender reserves join battle, attacker will try to call reserves too, regardless of initial force ratio.

HQ for an attack is chosen purely from the highest amount of CV commited to battle, to minimize CV penalty. It may not take into account leader quality, only initial CV counts. Aside from the CV penalty, it doesn't matter who is the leader of the attack, as each unit makes its own rolls, using their own leader skills.

(in reply to Manstein63)
Post #: 23
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 2:23:16 PM   
Manstein63


Posts: 687
Joined: 6/30/2010
Status: offline
Thanks for the explanation it seems to make sense, however I would prefer it if there was an option for the attacker to choose what units / su's participate in a deliberate attack manually rather than letting the AI decide, I know its not something that WitE will be able to do but perhaps it could be considered as an option for 2.0

_____________________________

'There is not, nor aught there be, nothing so exalted on the face of god's great earth, as that prince of foods. THE MUFFIN!!!'

Frank Zappa (Muffin Man)

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 24
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 2:23:52 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11750
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

At the end of March 1942 the Ostheer had a deficit of over 800.000 men that was not covered by reinforcements and returnees.



Well, in the game I started the campaign with units close to full TOE, and most of my units were between 50% and 70% TOE at the end of winter, so I guess I also have as large deficit as the one you describe.

From the one save that is available to me now (end of turn 50, May 28th 1942), I could calculate that in 115 not divided 42 Infantry Division units I should have 1 933 495 men (16 813 each), but I only have 1 617 682 men, of which 113 920 are Hiwis. Therefore those units, making just 44% of the Wehrmacht (total strength is listed at 3 675 343 men), are missing 429 733 (1933495-1617682+113920) German men. If other units have similar shortages (my panzers and motorized units are in worse shape than infantry, but HQs and airbases are of course in better shape), it means they should lack some 546 932 (429733*56/44) German men, giving the total shortage of 976 665 (429733+546932). Isn't that lack of men close to what you report?

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 25
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 2:51:59 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Well, in the game I started the campaign with units close to full TOE, and most of my units were between 50% and 70% TOE at the end of winter, so I guess I also have as large deficit as the one you describe.

From the one save that is available to me now (end of turn 50, May 28th 1942), I could calculate that in 115 not divided 42 Infantry Division units I should have 1 933 495 men (16 813 each), but I only have 1 617 682 men, of which 113 920 are Hiwis. Therefore those units, making just 44% of the Wehrmacht (total strength is listed at 3 675 343 men), are missing 429 733 (1933495-1617682+113920) German men. If other units have similar shortages (my panzers and motorized units are in worse shape than infantry, but HQs and airbases are of course in better shape), it means they should lack some 546 932 (429733*56/44) German men, giving the total shortage of 976 665 (429733+546932). Isn't that lack of men close to what you report?

And what was it on the last November turn? WitE from the beginning has used an artificially high blizzard penalty to spike German losses. Hence I'm wary of using post-blizzard numbers, since they don't reflect the combat losses adaquately. At the end of November 1941 the Ostheer had a deficit of 616.250 men.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 26
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 3:05:42 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11750
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I have to get back home to check this. It may be as you say. This will lead to a conclusion that if we increase combat losses, we'll have to tweak blizzard losses down...

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 27
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 3:09:08 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

That's some numbers I can work with. But could you give me the number of "Blutige Verluste" that didn't return from "zone of the interior" as the Americans would call it (died from wounds or were discharged from duty as unfit)? With 0.95% return rate from the disabled, our disabled are as good as lost. For every 1000 men disabled in WitE you get some 400 returns and 20 deaths after a year. According to the HERO study, the rule of thumb was that out of 100 casualties in battle 20 are killed, 15 are wounded seriously (disabled in WitE, leaving the area under the command of the army groups) and 65 are lightly wounded (don't exist in WitE). Of those seriously wounded 11-12 (75%) should return in the period between 6 and 20 days after the action (3 turns in WitE), and the rest will never return. Compare this 75% ratio to 3.8% return rate from disabled in WitE during 3 turns (21 days). This is the vast difference that prevents us from taking all "Blutige Verluste" into the account, when comparing losses with WitE. As I said, losses may be lower, but low rate of returns makes sure they are more permanent.

According to Overmans the rule of thumb was that about half the wounded could return to duty again. If we add up all reported losses of the Ostheer through November 1941:

Dead: 152.602
Missing: 29.920
Wounded: 542.837

Taking roughly 50% off the wounded would give a total permanent loss figure of 453.940 men.

Expanding it a bit, through 31st December 1944 the total losses at the Ostfront numbered:

1.169.502 dead
1.062.464 missing
3.535.455 wounded

Again using a 50% return figure would give a permanent loss number of around 4 million men.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 28
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 3:15:20 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I have to get back home to check this. It may be as you say. This will lead to a conclusion that if we increase combat losses, we'll have to tweak blizzard losses down...

To give some perspective, the number of injured (not counted in the bloody losses department), sick and victims of frostbite reported numbered:

June 41: 54.000
July 41: 17.000
August 41: no figure, but extrapolated number of August+October is 100.000
September 41: 56.800
October 41: see August
November 41: 73.092
December 41: 90.907
January 42: 127.718
Febrary 42: 85.086
March 42: 62.858

Again a reminder, all these men were losses that - while leaving the immediate front area - were not transported out of the commanding area of the army groups for their recovery.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 29
RE: Attacker losses are too low when he fails - 8/10/2016 3:15:24 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11750
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Did he say how long it would take to return those 50%?
Did some of those who did not return to active duty were still used by the military? German war memories are full of such people in the training centres at the rear.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Attacker losses are too low when he fails Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.180