1979 the next war -Combat results

The sequel of the legendary wargame with a complete graphics and interface overhaul, major new gameplay and design features such as full naval combat modelling, improved supply handling, numerous increases to scenario parameters to better support large scenarios, and integrated PBEM++.
Post Reply
User avatar
fulcrum28
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:28 pm

1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by fulcrum28 »

I was testing the first turn of the "The Next War 1979" scenario for TOAWIV, and I was surprised how bloody the combat is for armor forces. I was playing the Soviet side against NATO PO, and the first turn (consumed 60% only) already amount for more than 3200 tanks (t-62, T-72) destroyed.

I saw some battles in which almost an entire Soviet Tank division of 250 tanks loses more than 90% of its armor. Nato side also loses similar amount of tanks.

Is that feasible? or the parameters of this specific scenario are too bloody?

Image
Attachments
thenextwar1979.jpg
thenextwar1979.jpg (415.71 KiB) Viewed 67 times
Image
The most comprehensive website on the IJN Imperial Japanese Navy Y:"Let us enjoy the beauty of the moon (sinking aboard Hiryu)
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by Curtis Lemay »

And you haven't even gone nuclear yet! (Which this scenario tends to do).

AD is 4, making everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal to begin with. Lots of AT and air stuff makes this situation bad news for tanks.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
fulcrum28
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:28 pm

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by fulcrum28 »

thank you for your feed-back. My question is whether this kind of bloody combat results for armor are expected in a real conflict at 1979 or it was increased for design reasons?
Image
The most comprehensive website on the IJN Imperial Japanese Navy Y:"Let us enjoy the beauty of the moon (sinking aboard Hiryu)
User avatar
fulcrum28
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:28 pm

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by fulcrum28 »

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?
Image
The most comprehensive website on the IJN Imperial Japanese Navy Y:"Let us enjoy the beauty of the moon (sinking aboard Hiryu)
User avatar
rhinobones
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 10:00 am

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by rhinobones »

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?

The TO&Es of modern armies are loaded with weapons specifically designed to destroy armor. Doesn’t help that armor is also the priority target. So, it doesn’t surprise me that in three and a half days (length of one turn) a significant number of armored vehicles are destroyed. After they’re gone it becomes an infantry war.

Regards
Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)

Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil
cathar1244
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by cathar1244 »

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?

I think he meant 2.5 times more than the standard TOAW scenario setting.

Cheers
cathar1244
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by cathar1244 »

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

thank you for your feed-back. My question is whether this kind of bloody combat results for armor are expected in a real conflict at 1979 or it was increased for design reasons?

High losses of vehicles were expected. Lots of systems capable of firing antitank projectiles. I don't think I've seen any loss projections, though. T. N. Dupuy in his work "Numbers, Predictions, and War" modeled a Fulda Gap clash that may have included the projected losses.

Cheers
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?
Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]

I only even see this because fulcrum pointed to this thread from somewhere else.

Ultimately "design for effect" is my motto and if this produces the right effect for you then have at it. For myself I find the results become extreme when the AD is moved too far from the middle of the dial.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]

I only even see this because fulcrum pointed to this thread from somewhere else.

Ultimately "design for effect" is my motto and if this produces the right effect for you then have at it. For myself I find the results become extreme when the AD is moved too far from the middle of the dial.
I agree with the first statement. But take a look at the first post above: 4.5% losses for squads shown vs. 16.5% losses for tanks shown. Of course, that doesn't account for all factors, but it sure looks like your old claim that armored combat is not affected by the AD is wrong, Ben.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Meyer1
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by Meyer1 »

fulcrum28 wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:33 am

Image
I love those colors of the UI, which mod are you using?
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

Re: RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by golden delicious »

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 7:44 am
I agree with the first statement. But take a look at the first post above: 4.5% losses for squads shown vs. 16.5% losses for tanks shown. Of course, that doesn't account for all factors, but it sure looks like your old claim that armored combat is not affected by the AD is wrong, Ben.
Is it? Did you test the scenario with a different AD value?

I haven't played a lot of modern scenarios but where I have armour seems to basically be toast regardless of the AD.

You may be right- my observation that armour losses seem to remain low even when the AD is low was not based on formal testing.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by Curtis Lemay »

golden delicious wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:30 am
Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 7:44 am
I agree with the first statement. But take a look at the first post above: 4.5% losses for squads shown vs. 16.5% losses for tanks shown. Of course, that doesn't account for all factors, but it sure looks like your old claim that armored combat is not affected by the AD is wrong, Ben.
Is it? Did you test the scenario with a different AD value?

I haven't played a lot of modern scenarios but where I have armour seems to basically be toast regardless of the AD.

You may be right- my observation that armour losses seem to remain low even when the AD is low was not based on formal testing.
No. I still haven't done rigorous tests. It just looks like armor is not getting any special break in the above, and I couldn't resist making that observation.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
fulcrum28
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by fulcrum28 »

Bob, then the generic equation is like:

ADN=10 or ADN=14 as define as "normal" battle

parameter to be set for each scenario (AD)is always relative to this ADN value as follows

AD=ADN/(number of days)

so if ADN=14 and number of days is one week (7 days)

AD to be input in the scenario is AD=2

IS it correct?
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13053
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by Curtis Lemay »

fulcrum28 wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 4:26 pm Bob, then the generic equation is like:

ADN=10 or ADN=14 as define as "normal" battle

parameter to be set for each scenario (AD)is always relative to this ADN value as follows

AD=ADN/(number of days)

so if ADN=14 and number of days is one week (7 days)

AD to be input in the scenario is AD=2

IS it correct?
I've attached a spreadsheet shot showing how it works out, mathematically. Obviously, we can't do fractional ADs yet.

I've also shown what I've used in all of my scenarios. Note that I only followed my own rules 7 out of 21 times.

Okinawa needed to model the Japs being in caves and practically invulnerable to bombardment. Hence the higher than standard divisor.

Naval ADs generally need to be set to 100, regardless.

Pre-20th Century topics tend to have long intervals of sitting on one's hands, with occasional very bloody clashes. Since the CW subjects were battles instead of campaigns, they were given much bloodier ADs. But Killer Angels was a campaign, so it is an exception. Waterloo and Leipzig are sort of campaigns as well.
Attachments
AD Rules.jpg
AD Rules.jpg (162.48 KiB) Viewed 231 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
fulcrum28
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 1979 the next war -Combat results

Post by fulcrum28 »

Thank you Bob, this table is very useful.

Btw, is the equation same as I wrote above?
I also posted a short AAR for the results of turns 1-3. I have a question on the data for the T-55 and T-72 tanks. T-55 seems to have stronger parameters, and I dont know why...
Post Reply

Return to “The Operational Art of War IV”