Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch

 
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 2 >> AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/16/2021 3:21:13 PM   
Beethoven1

 

Posts: 492
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline
Shortly before this new patch was released, I just so happen to have been doing some simple but systematic tests of AFV losses, so I may as well share my test results. It seemed to me, as I think it did to a lot of players, that Panzer divisions were a bit too brittle, and I was wanting to understand why and see if potentially anything could be changed to make that less so.

Anyway, to get a rough empirical idea of what AFV losses were like, I set up two basic attacks using the beginning of the Stalingrad to Berlin scenario, one with a German attack and one with a Soviet attack. I repeated the same two attacks for 10 trials each and then looked at the losses that occurred on average over the trials.

Of course, you will get different particular results if you set up the battles differently, e.g. on different types of terrain or different fort levels or different numbers of attackers vs defenders. But the point is to look systematically at at least a few battles to see some average results and get rid of some of the random variation noise, and see what emerges from that.



1.01.09 patch testing


On the 1.01.09 patch, I got the following results. For the Soviet attack:



For the German attack:



In both cases, you can ignore the bottom parts with "double armor." That was an experiment for potential modding where I tried using the editor to double the armor on all AFVs across the board, and compared what losses were like in that case (higher armor increased AFV survivability substantially).

The thing to focus on are the average losses with vanilla armor.

The Soviets won 3 of their 7 attacks, and had average losses of 26 German AFVs to 71 Soviet AFVs across the 10 trials. In the defensive battles that Germany won, they had fairly good loss ratios of a bit more than 4 to 1 in their favor. However, in the defensive battles Germany was losing, they were taking about 1 to 1 loss ratios. And it is worth noting that a disproportionate share of the German losses in those battles were retreat losses, specifically - nearly 60% of the German losses in those 3 battles were retreat losses. And more than a quarter of the total German losses across all 10 of the battles were retreat losses, despite the fact that they won 7 of 10 of the battles and took 0 retreat losses in those battles they won!!!

For the German attacks, the Germans won 5 of 10 attacks (screenshot says 6 of 10, but it is actually 5) and had average losses of 89 German AFVs for 83 Soviet AFVs. Those are pretty even losses overall, clearly not a great trade for Germany. The fact that the losses were even is an indication that it was pretty tough for Germany to counterattack with Panzers under this patch in the StB scenario. What is also notable is that in contrast to when the Soviets were attacking, when the Germans were attacking there was a lot less difference in the AFV loss ratio between German wins and Soviet wins. In the 5 battles where Germany successfully attacked, they lost an average of 99 AFVs for 78 Soviet AFV losses. Whereas in the 5 where the German attack failed, there were an average of 68 German losses and 88 Soviet losses. In both cases the losses were not too far from even. Looks pretty different from the Soviet attacks, where in the Soviet attacks there was a massive difference in the loss ratios depending on who won the battle (much of which was explained by comparatively high German retreat losses).



1.01.15 patch testing


I repeated the exact same tests, with 10 trials each again, with the new beta patch.

The results were VERY different.

Results when Germany attacks:



Results when Soviets attack:



When Germans attacked, previously in the old patch they won 5 of 10 attacks and took on average basically even losses (89 German AFVs for 83 Soviet AFVs). Whereas now on the new patch, Germany won EVERY SINGLE ONE of their 10 attacks. Again, this was the exact same attack using the exact same save, the only difference being the patch versions. Germany lost an average of 52 AFVs across the 10 trials, while Soviets lost an average of 213, about a 4 to 1 ratio in Germany's favor. The Soviet losses were more than double than in the same attack in the previous patch, while German losses were a bit more than half as much as in the previous patch.

When Soviets attacked, in the previous patch they won the battle in 3 of 10 trials. Whereas in the new patch, Soviets lost EVERY SINGLE ONE of their 10 attacks. On average, Germany lost 26 AFVs and Soviets lost 208 AFVs, a ratio of 8 to 1 in favor of Germany. That certainly seems like a favorable trade for Germany, and is definitely way better than they were getting in the previous patch. Moreover, the Soviet losses were pretty high in absolute terms, especially on the last attack, where Soviets lost 300 AFVs, about 90% of their total AFVs in the battle.

So it should be quite clear that things are VERY different in the new patch with AFV combat, at least for this particular winter 1942-43 combat. If things are changed similarly in 1941, the balance of AFV combat should be much more in Germany's favor in 1941. It actually seems like it might actually even be to the point of being an over-correction.



Combat intensity and overall AFV losses/AFV brittleness

Even before this patch, it seemed subjectively like AFV losses might be too high. I am not some David Glantz expert historian or anything, so maybe this is completely historical, but even under the old patch, in my Stalingrad to Berlin scenario game (AAR here), the AFV losses in the first turns were like this:



And here is the AFV stockpile, Soviets down from 13k to 8k:



This meant that my total # of AFV as Soviets dropped by about 40% since the start of the scenario. Is that actually historical, that losses were that high? I dunno, like I said I am not David Glantz, but it does seem like a lot. I was attacking aggressively with my tanks, but I think Soviets more or less also historically attacked with their tanks and got them into combat?

That was with the old patch, so I do have some concern that with the new patch, AFV losses (in particular for the Soviets) may be even higher, to the point where Soviet AFV stockpiles may just completely evaporate in a fairly small number of turns, if they are actually used at all in combat.
Post #: 1
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/16/2021 3:26:30 PM   
Beethoven1

 

Posts: 492
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline
Here are some screenshots showing examples of the attacks I did, to make it more clear of what units I was doing this with etc. The Germans were attacking into Soviet level 2 forts in light forest, while the Soviets were attacking into German level 2 forts in light forest. In both cases, the attacks were done with superior numbers, although not massively so.

In both cases there was no particular reason for using this terrain/forts/etc, this is just what was easiest to quickly set up in the StB scenario.

Soviet attack (with the new patch):



German attack (with the new patch):



The different trials are all repetitions of the same attack. Although you do get random general rolls and a bit of random variation in which support units join, etc, but you have that variation in the actual game.

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 2
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/16/2021 3:42:57 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36882
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Thanks for testing this. This is fairly similar to what I was seeing in internal testing as well, but it will vary given all the other variables that are involved and considered, but units with higher experience and morale in decent terrain and weather will do much better now. Over the long run, the wear and tear still happens and the difference diminishes but it will be interesting to see the results from multiple games with 1.10.15 in 1941 and later years.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 3
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/16/2021 5:47:05 PM   
battlefield91

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 2/17/2015
Status: offline
Yes, especialy the SS Panzer Division´s and the Großdeutschland have a really nasty punch with 1.10.15





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 4
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 4:43:05 AM   
Sauron_II

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline
Was there anything in the patch notes that could account for these differences?

I did not see anything that correlated to a change in the combat algorithm. But maybe I missed it?

(in reply to battlefield91)
Post #: 5
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 4:51:18 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36882
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
• Changes made to ground combat. Increased the range at which the opening direct fire shots are fired, while increasing the amount of fire at these longer ranges. Increased the number of rounds of combat between opening range and 50 yard combat. Opening ranges will be longer for clear and less dense terrain. Net effect of combat changes increases overall losses slightly.
• AFVs could sometimes return fire at a range greater than their weapon’s range. Fixed.
• Units lose lots of ammo and in some cases their ammo on hand goes negative. Fixed.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Sauron_II)
Post #: 6
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 5:35:52 AM   
Sauron_II

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

• Changes made to ground combat. Increased the range at which the opening direct fire shots are fired, while increasing the amount of fire at these longer ranges. Increased the number of rounds of combat between opening range and 50 yard combat. Opening ranges will be longer for clear and less dense terrain. Net effect of combat changes increases overall losses slightly.
• AFVs could sometimes return fire at a range greater than their weapon’s range. Fixed.
• Units lose lots of ammo and in some cases their ammo on hand goes negative. Fixed.



Thank you.

It is hard to envision this is what is responsible for such changes in battle results.

The following should reduce losses, correct?

AFVs could sometimes return fire at a range greater than their weapon’s range. Fixed.

This gives the impression that AFVs were previously returning fire, when they should not have been allowed to.

Was there some other 'undocumented' changes perhaps?

-----

I have played through 1st couple of turns as Germans and cannot tell any difference. Nothing unusual yet with my AFV losses. But it is really early, not winter and Soviets have not mounted any serious attacks yet.

Overall, seems like these changes should only benefit side with longer, direct fire, weapon ranges.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 7
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 6:26:03 AM   
Nix77

 

Posts: 561
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline
Soviet AFVs getting completely annihilated in a single battle seems a bit worrying to me...

Getting 90-100% AFV losses while losing only 20-30% of men sounds like a weird battle result.ř

(in reply to Sauron_II)
Post #: 8
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 7:57:50 AM   
malyhin1517


Posts: 1329
Joined: 9/20/2015
From: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk
Status: offline
In my game against a human, I suffered quite a lot of tank losses! Here are the results for week 4 of battles.








_____________________________

Sorry, i use an online translator :(

(in reply to Nix77)
Post #: 9
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 10:26:37 AM   
cameron88

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 10/14/2020
Status: offline
These tank losses are now historical and similar to WITE1. Previous patches were very poorly modeled, and as a result german tank divisions were practically worthless, especially at counter attacking soviet tank divisions. Now you can expect the game to have more predictable outcomes, which i'm happy about.

(in reply to malyhin1517)
Post #: 10
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 11:00:21 AM   
Zovs


Posts: 6119
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: online
So far I think the new changes are more historic, the German tank units were a bit too brittle and the Soviets a bit too powerful for 1941-42.

Morale and experience are important. Be interesting to see how things play out now.

_____________________________


Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator

(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 11
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 12:57:40 PM   
Searry

 

Posts: 810
Joined: 1/24/2014
Status: offline
German tanks took massive losses when they went against Soviet armor in 1941. I think the previous balance was fine.

_____________________________

WITE2 Beta Tester

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 12
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 1:10:55 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7722
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
in previous versions those were alsmost always killed in combat while in reality they had to leave many tanks behind because of a serious lack of spare parts. Cannibalizing of damaged tanks was common to get other tanks back into combat. With the fast front movements those cannibalized tanks were left behind. Some were picked up to be sent back to germany but many others were left to the elements or oven blown up.

(in reply to Searry)
Post #: 13
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 1:21:08 PM   
Dreamslayer

 

Posts: 406
Joined: 10/31/2015
From: St.Petersburg
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs
Morale and experience are important.

Soviet units at start get random morale/exp. So each new game you can gain absolutely different units. And nobody care.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 14
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 1:21:56 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36882
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
This gives the impression that AFVs were previously returning fire, when they should not have been allowed to.

Was there some other 'undocumented' changes perhaps?

-----

I have played through 1st couple of turns as Germans and cannot tell any difference. Nothing unusual yet with my AFV losses. But it is really early, not winter and Soviets have not mounted any serious attacks yet.

Overall, seems like these changes should only benefit side with longer, direct fire, weapon ranges.


There has also always been a benefit for high experience/morale units, but more shots at longer range (without incorrect return fire) tends to increase that benefit.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Sauron_II)
Post #: 15
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 1:23:58 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36882
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
I think it's quite important to test these changes, but please test them as a whole during actual play. The system has enough variability that the results from one battle alone are not significant.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 16
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 1:31:28 PM   
malyhin1517


Posts: 1329
Joined: 9/20/2015
From: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I think it's quite important to test these changes, but please test them as a whole during actual play. The system has enough variability that the results from one battle alone are not significant.

I have already played 4 turns in the 1941 campaign against a human on the new patch. If necessary, I will continue to publish my tank losses here.

_____________________________

Sorry, i use an online translator :(

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 17
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 1:50:29 PM   
jubjub

 

Posts: 391
Joined: 5/2/2021
Status: offline
The biggest change I've noticed so far is much higher FPE/HPE for German artillery. I think this has the effect of disrupting many more AT weapons before they can shoot your tanks.


< Message edited by jubjub -- 10/17/2021 1:51:12 PM >

(in reply to malyhin1517)
Post #: 18
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 2:14:42 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6641
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

The biggest change I've noticed so far is much higher FPE/HPE for German artillery. I think this has the effect of disrupting many more AT weapons before they can shoot your tanks.



Use the "Weapon stat" filter at the bottom of the "ground combat" screen using a check mark to list the different weapon hits should give even more information :)

(in reply to jubjub)
Post #: 19
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 4:40:56 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 31727
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

• Changes made to ground combat. Increased the range at which the opening direct fire shots are fired, while increasing the amount of fire at these longer ranges. Increased the number of rounds of combat between opening range and 50 yard combat. Opening ranges will be longer for clear and less dense terrain. Net effect of combat changes increases overall losses slightly.
• AFVs could sometimes return fire at a range greater than their weapon’s range. Fixed.
• Units lose lots of ammo and in some cases their ammo on hand goes negative. Fixed.



There were other changes made, one of which was documented for one of the test patches but I see was left off in the final patch notes (my mistake). There are three things to know in addition to the above items:

1) There was effectively a bug added several years ago in development that had cut the opening range down for direct fire ground combat. It's unfortunate that this didn't rise in visibility during development. A few testers say they had remarked about it but I never picked up on it. In early September, as often happens, separate posts by one player in the public forum and one scenario designer in the tester forum happened to come in on the same topic, that long range AFV battles weren't happening. Once Gary looked into it he quickly found his mistake. It took several rounds but eventually he got the opening ranges where he wanted them.
2) Gary wanted to use existing mechanisms as much as possible to make the needed adjustments. He had a system whereby AFVs could pass some experience/morale rolls and rack up multiple shots. He adjusted this system somewhat, and was able to get a better ratio of losses by enhancing this system.
3) The item that I somehow managed to leave out of the patch notes was:
• AFV radio/command control modifier - Adjusted chance of extra AFV shots from existing exp/morale bonus rolls to reflect better German AFV radios/command control over time. The net result is Soviet AFVs should get less of these bonus shots, than in the past, earlier in the war, but will ramp up over time.
What this basically represents is the ability of well coordinated AFV groups to maneuver into better firing positions, and then get off multiple shots before the enemy has time to react. This allowed us to impact things over time by adjusting the modifier over time.

In all of our tests, we have found in general we're happy with the results. However, we acknowledge that for some reason, the losses in late 42 and early 43 in particular are higher than historical. The fact that the weaker side can often lose all or almost all of their tanks probably contributes to this. It's hard to get that just right. The losses that can be racked up in StoB or in 1943 in a campaign game do seem a bit excessive (maybe as much as 25-40% high). As I said, it's really hard to get this system to work in all cases for all time periods. While human players tend to have lower than historical losses in 1941 (as the Soviet player falls back more), the reverse appears to be true in 1943 and later. Players are much more willing to push hard and the battle intensity on the ground (and in the air) can be much higher than historical (or what the AI is usually willing to do). We won't know for sure until more games are played. However, we are very happy with the changes overall, and the changes in 1941 are particularly good. While the Germans did lose tanks in combat, the combat loss ratio was better for the Germans than what we had been seeing. The battle of Brody is the classic. Wiki lists 3500 Soviet tanks to 750 German tanks. Even with that near 5 to 1 advantage, the losses listed are 800 Soviet to 200 German. I think the revised system is much more likely to obtain these results than the old system. It should actually help the German players in 1941, and there's been much written about the perceived imbalance. It's possible after all the changes players will start complaining that the Germans have it too easy. I don't think that will be the case, but again, we won't really know until new games are played. Thanks to those players and testers that continue to provide detailed feedback and allow us to continue to improve the game.




< Message edited by Joel Billings -- 10/17/2021 4:43:32 PM >


_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 20
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/17/2021 5:00:06 PM   
Beethoven1

 

Posts: 492
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

snip



Thanks for the additional very interesting info. I'm glad the game continues to get better and look forward to playing it more and seeing how things end up!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 21
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 10:50:10 AM   
Nix77

 

Posts: 561
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline
At least the preliminary results hint that the AFV losses seem too high in the current patch. I'll try to get some results from an AI vs AI simulation when I have the time to do so.

Judging from the few results seen by myself, and other examples on the forum, battles with low manpower losses but dramatically high AFV losses seem common. How does that add up in the long run? Malyhin's almost 8k AFV lost in 4 weeks seems like a high number to me.

SU total losses during the war were around 83k tanks, 13k SPGs and 37k APC/halftracks, that's a total of 133k during the whole war. 8k during the opening month suggests nearly 100k/year losses, which of course is a high assumption due to the opening pockets creating huge AFV losses too.

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 22
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 1:37:10 PM   
Beethoven1

 

Posts: 492
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77

At least the preliminary results hint that the AFV losses seem too high in the current patch. I'll try to get some results from an AI vs AI simulation when I have the time to do so.

Judging from the few results seen by myself, and other examples on the forum, battles with low manpower losses but dramatically high AFV losses seem common. How does that add up in the long run? Malyhin's almost 8k AFV lost in 4 weeks seems like a high number to me.

SU total losses during the war were around 83k tanks, 13k SPGs and 37k APC/halftracks, that's a total of 133k during the whole war. 8k during the opening month suggests nearly 100k/year losses, which of course is a high assumption due to the opening pockets creating huge AFV losses too.


There's an important point here which you and some other people may be overlooking.

From a technical/mathematical perspective, it is actually NOT correct to look at the total number of AFV losses during the war (or over any reasonably long period of time such as a year or half a year) as a metric of whether the game's variables for AFV losses are calibrated correctly. The reason for this is that for pretty much ANY way that the combat is set up within remotely reasonable bounds, over the course of a long period of time, the sole determinant of aggregate losses are production. Losses will always approach production asymptotically over a sufficiently long period of time, at least until you get to the point where production is totally out-stripping losses because the enemy is totally defeated and has barely anything left (i.e. Soviets in 1945). For fundamentally the same reason, the amount of water that flows out of a lake or evaporates will always over a sufficiently long period of time tend to equal the aggregate amount of water that flowed into the lake from its tributaries (and similarly for all sorts of other physical and other systems).

So instead of looking at total losses over a long period of time, the metrics that should be looked at and compared to historical data are the RATIO of AFV's lost per turn as compared to the total amount of AFVs you have at the start of each turn (i.e. combat intensity), or alternatively the total size/level of the AFV stocks that each side has in their OOB over time, which in effect is measuring the same thing as that ratio (source: I do mathematical modeling).

AFV losses, as well as all other losses in the game of men/planes/guns/etc follow a fairly simple mathematical process, which has a stable equilibrium level of amounts of equipment each side will tend towards having, as long as combat intensity is roughly consistent and production doesn't vary dramatically, as long as combat intensity is not at super-low levels/non-existent (in which case the equilibrium could be infinity). The reason for that is that losses are at least partly a positive function of how much equipment you have in your OOB. If you start a turn with 13000 AFVs, other things equal you are going to lose more AFVs than if you start the turn with 3000 AFVs - that is the equilibrating mechanism through which losses adjust over time to match production.


Specifically, the system can be mathematically expressed in the form of two simple difference equations, where OOB stands for the amount of equipment in total in the OOB, P stands for the amount produced each turn, L stands for the amount of equipment lost each turn, and CI stands for combat intensity (or the proportion of equipment that is on average lost each turn). The value of CI will always be bounded between 0 and 1, since it is physically impossible to either lose negative equipment or to lose more equipment than you have.

Equation 1: OOB(t+1) = OOB(t) + P(t) - L(t)
Equation 2: L(t) = CI * OOB(t)

Substituting: OOB(t+1) = OOB(t) + P(t) - CI * OOB(t)

Re-arranging: OOB(t+1) = OOB(t) * [1 - CI] + P(t)

Drop the t's to solve for the equilibrium of the system: OOB(t+1) = OOB(t) * [1 - CI] + P(t)

Equilibrium solution: OOB = P / CI


This means that the equilibrium size of the amount of AFVs (or any other equipment) that you will have is solely determined by production and combat intensity. Any time that production changes (e.g. going to a new year when the game updates production stats) or that combat intensity changes (e.g. a change in the weather leading to fewer attacks in mud/winter), the equilibrium will shift, but as long as production and combat intensity remain roughly constant, the equilibrium will also remain roughly constant.



So, how do you take this mathematical understanding and apply it to balance losses and combat intensity in the game to ensure it matches history? Take another look at the graph of the total size of the Soviet AFV OOB in my StB game. Notice that my AFV stock started at around 13,000 (which I presume is a roughly historical value based on the game designer's research) and then immediately starts going down. But as it is going down, the rate by which it goes down gradually decreases and it starts to stabilize. It looks to me like probably the equilibrium value of Soviet AFVs, given the production and combat intensity, was maybe something in the range of 7000 or so. So I started the scenario with an AFV stock that was far from equilibrium, and then over time it started approaching equilibrium.



Now compare that to this:



The way that "reagants" go down gradually and then stabilize looks quite similar, and that is not a coincidence, it is a reflection of the game's system approaching a (temporary) equilibrium similar to how the chemical system is doing so.

At the start of the war in 1941, each side had AFV stocks that began far from their equilibrium values. As a result, e.g. the Soviet AFV stock in 1941 quickly dropped by many thousands. Then it started to go back up as production picked up and as the combat intensity declined a bit (a lower proportion of each side's total AFVs was lost per week after the initial huge battles like Brody and Raseinai etc). By the time the StB scenario begins, the war had been going for long enough that it is reasonable to suppose that the AFV stock was at something approximately in the general neighborhood of its current historical equilibrium level.

So, the fact that my AFV stock was going down from 13,000 (roughly the true historical level) down towards 7,000 or so tells us that the historical equilibrium of Soviet AFVs during the winter of 1942-43 was quite a bit higher than the game's equilibrium level of Soviet AFVs. The only possible explanations for that are either that the game has production wrong (we can pretty safely rule that out) or that combat intensity with AFVs in my StB game was quite a bit higher than historical AFV combat intensity. And there are two possible explanations for why combat intensity for Soviet AFVs has been higher in my StB game than historical - either AFV losses were simply too high as compared to what would be historically accurate (in which case they would be even more too high in this new patch), or else I was playing more aggressively than the Soviets did historically and being more aggressive in using my AFVs and getting them into combat. The true explanation is probably some of both, to be honest.

So to accurately calibrate AFV losses, as well as plane losses etc including the much discussed operational losses, what you need to do is to try to figure out exactly how aggressively equipment was being used in combat historically (i.e. were the historical Soviet more or less aggressive than me), reproduce that same level of historical aggressiveness in the game, and then compare the equilibrium OOB levels that the game tends towards to known historical rough equilibrium levels, based on any periods of time when your research gives you approximately accurate statistics on the true historical OOB sizes of various equipment types.

But what you don't do is compare overall historical losses to overall losses in the game. The game will basically always reproduce historical losses, for the simple reason that the game has historical production and that losses are an increasing function of your OOB. So that metric would essentially ALWAYS tell you that the game is correctly calibrated, even when it is not, because that is the wrong variable to look at and it does not have any relation to an equilibrium value, as a technical/mathematical matter!

(in reply to Nix77)
Post #: 23
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 1:58:11 PM   
Beethoven1

 

Posts: 492
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline
Here's a bit more analysis to show what you can tease out from understanding this. Look again at the graph showing my AFVs. On the first turn, my AFV OOB dropped from 12,829 to 12,346. That means that I lost 483 AFVs, plus I lost an amount equal to my production of new AFVs. I am not exactly sure what production per turn is, but I think it was something like 500 AFVs per day or so produced, so let's just assume it was that. If so, then I lost something like 483 + 500 = 983 AFVs on the first turn. Since I had 12,829 to start with, that means that I lost 983 out of my 12,346 AFVs, or about 7.7% of the total. In other words, "combat intensity" for my AFVs was 7.7%, or 0.077 that turn.

If you do that same calculation across all the turns, you get this:



So on average I was losing about 7.5% of my AFVs each turn, with some variation, but overall seems to have been staying fairly consistent, which generally makes sense.

If production of AFVs was about 500 per turn, and combat intensity was about 0.075, we can plug those two numbers in to the equilibrium formula to calculate the equilibrium OOB size of AFVs:

OOB = P / CI

OOB = 500 / 0.075 = 6666.67

So the equilibrium the game was going to was around 6,667, as compared to a true historical approximately equilibrium level of 13,000 or so. Since combat intensity is mathematically linear with the OOB, that means it was about 95% too high, from whatever combination of me being more aggressive than historical and from the combat model simply resulting in too many AFV losses. Depending on how much you think the explanation was me being too aggressive, that tells you how much you need to change average AFV losses in the combat system to reproduce roughly historical results in the game.

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 24
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 2:29:57 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3020
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: online
I've noticed Germans lose a bucket of AT guns in turn, when Infantry Divisions attack Soviet Armour / Mechanized - in the first turns of the game already.

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 25
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 2:31:06 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10361
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77

At least the preliminary results hint that the AFV losses seem too high in the current patch. I'll try to get some results from an AI vs AI simulation when I have the time to do so.

Judging from the few results seen by myself, and other examples on the forum, battles with low manpower losses but dramatically high AFV losses seem common. How does that add up in the long run? Malyhin's almost 8k AFV lost in 4 weeks seems like a high number to me.

SU total losses during the war were around 83k tanks, 13k SPGs and 37k APC/halftracks, that's a total of 133k during the whole war. 8k during the opening month suggests nearly 100k/year losses, which of course is a high assumption due to the opening pockets creating huge AFV losses too.


There's an important point here which you and some other people may be overlooking.

From a technical/mathematical perspective, it is actually NOT correct to look at the total number of AFV losses during the war ... Losses will always approach production asymptotically over a sufficiently long period of time, ...


fully agree, one reason why the air war is so often off kilter in player tests (vs the historical record) is the opposite effect. Players (esp Soviets) tend to horde their assets and since you can outproduce your on map capacity (ie you don't have the air groups to use up what you have), then losses end up relatively low.

with armour, its much harder to do this, you have much less control over assignment to formation, in the main formations are harder to rotate and there is a lot of secondary damage going on. So yes, once any initial rebalancing happens, losses follow production simply as you can deploy and use pretty much all that production.


_____________________________


(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 26
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 2:33:15 PM   
metaphore

 

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline
But it will becomes circular if one try to measure CI (Combat Intensity) by looking at their AFV losses... if in final, it's for readjusting the AFV loss rate, no?

(in reply to Beethoven1)
Post #: 27
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 2:34:44 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6641
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Don't forget that if the other side has not moved yet you could be fighting against a side that is over command limit which could have an adverse effect on the results. Just wanted to throw that out there.

(in reply to metaphore)
Post #: 28
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 3:35:28 PM   
Nix77

 

Posts: 561
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline
Excellent arguments by Beethoven1 above, there are of course multiple variables when inspecting AFV losses as whole.

I guess my point mainly was that in relation to previous loss results, the new results seem quite dramatic. I'm not sure if they really are, I've been on WitE-vacation for quite some time :)

When comparing them, I would be assuming the production rate is comparably constant, and "combat intensity" would be the same for testing purposes. This is difficult to achieve in HvH games, but one reasonably reliable way to test this is to run multiple AI vs AI games and see where the AFV losses settle under each patch.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 29
RE: AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch - 10/18/2021 4:01:43 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10361
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
quick confession, the last (game) year of my vs Soviet AI AAR was played with a variety of beta patches that had these changes in.

So, broad view, it made a huge difference but I think broadly a good one. I put up a load of battle reports in the beta forum so that Joel et al could track what was happening and essentially German tanks did well at range. Which is what was intended - now that didn't just mean more Soviet tanks lost it also meant less Soviet tanks coming into range to damage German tanks.

But if they got into range, I could lose 60-80 tanks in a bad battle, so my feeling is its not protecting German armour as such, just means you get first shot.

What it meant in terms of game play as 1943 went into 1944 was I could still use the Pzrs offensively (just) and was still trying for pockets. As my infantry fell apart, the Pzr/PzrGr formations became more static but could still blunt the Soviets even late game.

Now that was an AI game and the AI chucked away a lot of its armour in early-mid 43, so it may well be that a human Soviet player will concentrate better and overwhelm any Pzr based defense.

But it did feel better - and, to me, more realistic

_____________________________


(in reply to Nix77)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch 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

0.389