Translations for our friends around the world.

Click on banner for Theater of Operations website

Save

Author Topic: Scenario Nuances and Data  (Read 655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Scenario Nuances and Data
« on: January 09, 2018, 02:59:04 PM »
There are some subtleties in the scenario write-ups that I want to draw your attention too. The Staff Reports give each player a basic run-down on various key events. The level of detail given depends on the elapsed time from the event, then that is modified based on the circumstances. A good example of what I am talking about occurred in the German Turn 19 Staff Report. You will notice that there is greater detail included in the explanation of what happened in the attack to the far left than any of the other 3 attacks. The reason is twofold: 1. the battle was the first to end thus allowing more elapsed time; 2. the troops on the far left are in much better condition regarding their cohesion. Therefore they are in a better condition to give accurate and timely reports of the situation. Most of the other reporting units are suffering from noticeably worse cohesion. Due to the chaos, they are much less effective regarding communication. That would include both issuing and receiving orders too. Some of the information in the Staff Report is more vague than it would have been otherwise, and there will be a higher chance for misinformation. In other words, the information received may be inaccurate. The game map portrays what the players "see" based on the information they are given, but this could be different than the reality of how it exists. This is going to be more prevalent with poor quality troops, poor leadership, and poor cohesion. Conversely, better troops, cohesion and leadership will lead to more timely and accurate reporting. I need to be careful of getting too carried away with this aspect, but I think it is imperative for what I am trying to simulate. I have the framework of how this works and some starting numbers, but only thorough playtesting will allow good evaluation and adjustment.

Next I want to mention that units will attempt to fulfill their movement orders unless their path is blocked (ex. a large bridge gets destroyed over a non-fordable river) OR they are halted by combat results. Once a unit is halted, they immediately await further orders because the movement path for the unit is removed. So the American battle group that broke through gets to continue its movement. This seems common sense, but I wanted to point out that the assigned movement paths become very important, because once a unit achieves its current movement waypoint/objective, it will then attempt to move to its next waypoint or stop if no waypoints remain. This means that if the battle group had 500m remaining to reach their waypoint they would only attack up to the 500m mark, and then they would stop that attack. Then the unit would start to reach their next waypoint which would likely signal a new attack.

Lastly, I have tabulated the casualty data. I don't think it is a huge spoiler to discuss it here. The Americans lost 303 casualties and 12 Shermans on Day 1, and 447 casualties, 8 Shermans, and 7 Stuarts on Day 2. This totals 750 casualties, 20 Shermans and 7 Stuarts so far.

The Germans suffered 177 casualties on Day 1, while on Day 2 the Germans suffered 307 casualties and 2 Stug IV's. So the German totals are 484 casualties and 2 Stug IV's thus far.

I have not calc'd artillery expenditure yet, but the casualty results above seems about right. The 29th suffered just under 1000 casualties after 2 full days of fighting, and I have no specific data on German losses. Since the US did NOT attack till the early afternoon on the first day, 750 casualties seems very reasonable. The only question I have at the moment are the 27 tanks KO'd, if that is reasonable. Approximately half of the tanks will get returned to service over the next week. So only 13 or 14 tanks are total losses at this point. If anyone has any comparative data I would be interested in hearing/seeing it as I try to get reasonable results for hedgerow fighting.

I recently realized that I wasn't giving the Germans as many support platoons as they should have had. In other words all of the maneuver units were accounted for, I just didn't give credit for some of the additional AT assets that could have been assigned. So that will be remedied in the next round of combats.

As always, feel free to comment or ask questions.  :)

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Re: Scenario Nuances and Data
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2018, 06:55:52 PM »
I have tabulated more of the data, and my original calculations show that the US expended 398 short tons of ammo on Day 2. Of the total expenditure 258 tons (or 65%) are from artillery (all Field Artillery Battalions, plus the 4.2-inch mortars and the Regimental Cannon Co). Considering that 100 tons was consumed by the pre-dawn harrassment and bombardment artillery missions, 158 tons were expended on 12 total engagements (or 13.2 tons per average engagement) over the course of the day. That feels rather light to me, so I am playing with the algorithm to see if I can what I feel are better numbers. After some analysis, I am going to add 116 tons more of artillery expenditure during the ground combat.

The 'revised' total expenditure is 414 short tons of ordnance consumed by the 29th (and attached units) on Day 2. Of that 374 tons (or 90%) was consumed by the Field Artillery (plus 4.2-inch mortars and Regimental Cannon Co). This seems a bit better to me, considering the total Unit of Fire for the artillery involved is 423 tons.

Feel free to chime in with any additional information, comments or questions!