OK, opinions needed!

[KLilly]

Is there a way to tweak the morale of troops in exposed vehicles? If I were in a jeep or truck ordered to cross a clearing to see if an MG34 was in the woods, I'd break pretty quickly. Troops in unarmored vehicles should take big morale hits.

[Aussie Smith]

Ok

I’m going out on a limb here…

Wouldn’t the answer to this whole conundrum be clarified by negotiation prior to the PBEM as in a game vs the AI this is really a mute point.

I mean look – you negotiate what part of the battle you are playing – Meeting of Recon Elements etc to the battle between the main forces. I think it could be fun to play a meeting of Recon forces etc where you limit the selection of units to that which would likely appear in an engagement of these unit types. That way the Jeep MG’s would meet like units etc – the winner of this battle would need the other PBEM’er to provide some data on their main force composition ie. I have at least 3 Sherman 76’ers that you have seen and you have also seen at least a company of armoured infantry – the more successful the recon victory the more data needed to be revealed etc. The points give a method of developing this type of feel (say 500 point battle for the recon elements to 1500-3000pts for the main forces battle).

To me the point situation is a good basis for a game framework and the points feel pretty much balanced as they stand.

My gut feel is that we may be overcomplicating a situation – but hey I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.

Craig

[Monticello]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I think that, and wish that BigTime had time, to run game statistics that test changes outside of the standard BETA test procedure. Use a simple spreadsheet or SPSS, and gathering observational numbers from games played by people from this group. plus qualitative narratives of the action, we could actually find out about the relative weakness of the forces, and place numbers (eventually) on how powerful things are in the game. I volunteer to design and track a study like this, or the gentleman who said he was in physics would be ten times better at it than I (since I am a historian and usually deal with socially constructed research). We would all play a part simply by playing each other in QBs, and recording our results for the study.

Does anyone else think BigTime would be interested in testing the engine in this nontraditional (for wargames) way?

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. I agree that statistical analysis would be better than the "eyeball" approach... assuming a reasonably good design can be created. I can lend a hand in the study, although I haven't been involved in hardcore statistics in eight years and haven't coded in SAS for three.

Gary

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Hey Cav Scout:

I agree that the number do not prove reckless use, but the numbers are kept apart from the "casualties to division train, Army support, and noncombat casualties" but many could well have been due to artillery. There is even a drunk driving column on these reports. Box 49 on the casualty reports is "Combat Battlaion Losses: Vehicles". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was the US just had so many more vehicles than the Germans. To get a accurate picture you would need to compare US vehicle losses to German losses in horses!

Cav

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

My point was the US just had so many more vehicles than the Germans. To get a accurate picture you would need to compare US vehicle losses to German losses in horses!

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn you Cav scout! It has no box for horses....

Er - but there is a box for: Provisional Supplies: Animal Products Salvaged (186). That is obviously in the German record and not the US.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R-Man:

I do not have access to my books at the moment, but in “Defeat in the West,” the author cites incredible German prisoner and casualty counts in excess of 1 mil. men per month on the Western Front alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this may have been true after February, 1945, when the Germans were surrendering in wholesale lots, but I question that number for the immediate 6 months following D-Day. ISTR (though I could be mistaken) that for the entire period 6 June to 25 July they only lost 25,000 dead. While that doesn't account for captured, wounded, or missing, it does cover a 7 week period of the most intense fighting on the Western Front, and obviously is not going to add up to a total of 1,000,000 men a month. That would have meant nearly all the men in the German armed forces by the end of the year, and clearly they were not at that point yet even though suffering heavy losses on the Eastern Front.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

Unit cost should be determined by the physical capabilities of a vehicle only, plus an option for rarity factors. When you start basing cost upon asumptions about the way in which a player intends to use it you are entering a grey area and will cause more problems than you solve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. Let's stay away from this one, please.

Michael

[Slapdragon]

If we were to test some of our assumptions using observational data of complex data sets here is how it would work:

First you get a list of 20 or so "dedicated" gamer types with a certain level of maturity. Maturity because some actions could effect game play. Each of the 20 gamers can look forward to 10 games against a new and random opponent playing a random person in a random setting using a random map and random forces. Coding for battle type, side, and other game type information, plus coding for armor units, plus coding for results would be established. The easiest thing to establish would be:

1) Does side you play effect outcome?

2) Do the most common units effect outcome?

3) Does weather or terrain effect outcome cross tabbed with side.

Our coding scheme and a coding sheet would be important.

We can also cohort this study: ie: everyone plays five games over 5 weeks to answer one set of questions, then gets a "patch" and sees if a signifcant difference is detected.

Of course, this would need to be coordinated by BigTime, but data could be interpreted by the people on this list, and of course, the games could be played by them also.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks for the comments gents! I am closing this one up so we can start again with some new thoughts from us. If I posted them here I am sure they would get "lost" very quickly.

Steve