Advice on playing UK

[Commander666]

The loss static includes losses due to combat and surrender.

That is the one that should include attrition so something adds up total MP lost. But attrition is such an important seperate player issue a chart connecting monthy points is best included extra. And as regards the "graph earlier discussed" just rename it "kill ratio" so the primeval types can gain their satisfaction.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Saying "kill ratio = combat efficiency" is a statement expressing failure to understand how wars are won.

It is called combat efficiency. And it does measure the efficiency of the combat. It does not measure the effeciency of warfare. Surrender is not part of the combat, therefore it is not part of combat efficiency.

If USA with an army of say 1 million achieves a 1:10 kill ration ratio against China's army (let's say 100 million) we can easily see it will be the most inefficient war the USA might ever fight.

The red army of china has only 50% more aktive soldiers than the USA. Even if Militia reserves are counted in 1:10 would mean that USA will win. Anyway, avoiding war is the most efficient strategy of all.

 

[Commander666]

Surrender is not part of the combat, therefore it is not part of combat efficiency.

Try claiming that when you put up your hands to surrender, and the enemy soldier facing you just pulls the trigger on his rifle anyway! You - surrendering - will still be counted in the "kill ratio"!

Of course surrender is part of combat! If we followed your idea to its logical conclusion, death is not part of combat. So how can dying be part of combat? But killing certainly is part of combat.

EDIT: Surrender is only the conclusion of any particular combat. Surrender occurs first, combat ends next. As such it most definitely should be included in any graph of combat efficiency, as should loss of divisions during over run.

Anyway, avoiding war is the most efficient strategy of all.

But THAT is not combat efficiency in anyway you look at it. You need to combine "combat" with a determination of "efficiency" to - obviously - get "comabat efficiency". But is peace an "efficient strategy"?

I honestly don't think so for many nations that have been colonized or subjugated. And wars actually have a way of creating greater efficiency in all technological things that follow. But I agree with you for most cases. And nothing is less efficient than getting into a war and losing.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I agree with Commander666's point on surrendered troops being included in losses. Surrendering is the outcome of combat (or the threat of combat), and thus they are inseparably linked.

 

[Titan79]

I agree with Commander666's point on surrendered troops being included in losses. Surrendering is the outcome of combat (or the threat of combat), and thus they are inseparably linked.

But surrendered troops are already included in the losses charts.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Try claiming that when you put up your hands to surrender, and the enemy soldier facing you just pulls the trigger on his rifle anyway! You - surrendering - will still be counted in the "kill ratio"!

Of course surrender is part of combat! If we followed your idea to its logical conclusion, death is not part of combat. So how can dying be part of combat? But killing certainly is part of combat.

EDIT: Surrender is only the conclusion of any particular combat. Surrender occurs first, combat ends next. As such it most definitely should be included in any graph of combat efficiency, as should loss of divisions during over run.

Surrender is the result of retreat without possibility of retreat. Whether the possibility of retreat is removed before the battle is over or afterwards makes no difference for the result. As always i am refering to AoD.

 

[Commander666]

Surrender is the result of retreat without possibility of retreat. Whether the possibility of retreat is removed before the battle is over or afterwards makes no difference for the result. As always i am refering to AoD.

Then let's speak AoD. THERE IS NO SURRENDER.

We were not discussing the losses chart (which does include units eliminated in combat via over run or elimination). We were discussing a graph called Combat Effectiveness. An assessment of the Losses Chart is quite a different thing than an assessment of the Combat Effectiveness graph. I have criticism with both of them as the losses chart should also include Attrition and Ageing so something shows total MP losses. But that is OT.


Staying on topic, the Combat Effectiveness graph should include units lost during combat, but you claim combat does not include divisions lost by elimination due to no retreat possibility or due to over-rum. IS THAT RIGHT (AoD wise?).


You are quite right that retreat occurs after battle is won but only as regards retreat where there is possibility of retreat. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether human player will decide to chase after retreating units (to over run them); or let them escape to fight again. I believe there is not a single person in this Forum (except perhaps you) that would argue that my decision to decide to over-run or not over-run retreating units is anything other than me being combat effective or ineffective. Your basic mistake is that you have made a split instant at which you claim combat in AoD ends because of something you are basing on the notion of "unit is eliminated when there is no retreat possible." The problem here is that you feel that the elimination of the remaining core of the unit should not be included in Combat Effectiveness because it could not be combat because combat does not exist in AoD after AoD combat ends. While this might basically sound logical, the thinking is actually muddled, exclusive of other facts, and most incorrect.

Firstly you are 50% wrong already because you are not considering the word Effectiveness. Try arguing that my decision to chase after and over-run unit is not effective. You can't. Then why don't you try arguing that my decision to stop combat before enemy is eliminated in surrounded situation (and so preserve the enemy) is not ineffective. In fact, it would be most counterproductive to my aim for combat effective game play.

The problem with your arbitrary decision to create an unrealistic moment of when combat ends is that you have totally forgotten about the human role to control the situation to get grossly ineffective results (by stopping combat before enemy stack is eliminated or to not chase after and over run units). That is where the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) resides in its greatest part – player decision.

Finally - let's examine the complete incorrectness of your statement "Surrender is the result of retreat without possibility of retreat" since no such thing as "surrender" in AoD exists, right?. I have yet to see any sprites throw their hands up. As surrender does not exist, your statement is grossly false. Of course – at this moment you were possibly deviating into real life (where you are still wrong because surrender is firstly a decision to not want to die, and even with retreat a possibility, troops surrender by the thousands instead of wishing to test the notion of retreating.) Any man can always turn and run – a bullet in the back is not guaranteed – maybe one might be lucky. So, trying to retreat is always an option – even when facing SS machine guns in the Malemdy Woods (or how could there have been survivors)? Just to conclude this diversion to real life, surrender is NEVER “the result of retreat without possibility of retreat” as you write, but only a decision in one’s mind that retreat will not result in escaping with one’s life. And that is quite a difference.

But let’s get back to AoD where your use of the word surrender does not exist and so let's amend your statement to fit AoD: That would read: "ELIMINATION is the result of retreat without possibility of retreat."

As retreat resulted from combat, I trust you can see that this statement exposes the nonsense of your notion that elimination of AoD units via surround or over-run is not combat. It resulted from combat. Your narrow definition that combat can only be what happens in the combat pop up I don't like. My chasing after retreating units and over-running them is true combat in EVERY way conceivable – speaking AoD. Please bear in mind that AoD is a worldwide game with division size units and must necessarily extrapolate accordingly for the game engine.

Finally, elimination is clearly part of the combat pop-up, although you claim otherwise. You say it happens after combat has concluded. You could not be more wrong as regards AoD simulation of division size combat. The only thing that happens after combat concludes is that the sprite goes thru their "ghostly stage" to disappear from the map.

In fact unit elimination happens at the instant that combat concludes - not the instant after combat has concluded. The only reason the combat ends is BECAUSE THE UNIT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. If the unit still existed in the micro-moment of time which you are trying to base your whole argument on, the combat - obviously - would still be continuing. So actually, in the micro-second of time the unit must have really been eliminated first or how could combat have ended? AoD is not so unfair to eliminate enemy units that have not been eliminated in combat - which basically is what you are trying to tell us by saying that the elimination occurs after combat ends.

But your point is that combat ends because enemy started retreat. Sounds logical. Except there is no retreat in a surround, is there? Or is there a nano-second of retreat, then the judgement of "no legal retreat", and then the elimination decision? Whatever is the flow of computer program electrons (which basically travel at near the speed of light) the order is irrelevant because it is undeniable that retreat and elimination only RESULTED because of combat.

And it really should not need discussing a nano-second of time for logic to change your mind. Elimination happens ONLY because of the combat that occurred with no retreat possibility or because of player decision to chase after over run. And how I got that elimination is my effectiveness because I first had to arrange a surround, decide to conduct the battle to point of elimination, or position units that could race to make the over-run succeed.

Clearly, the combat effectiveness of the elimination I got with surround is not calculated only by the units that were killed in the surround but actually the effectiveness of many other units possibly not even part of that combat. And the combat results are probably more dependent on other units of mine that may not even have participated in that combat but were effective to create a surround (and maintain that surround inspite of different attacks upon them). The enemy killed in the combat (which is the only MP Loss that you claim should be counted to determine Combat Effectiveness) is - in fact - nothing other than kill ratio (and BTW, it already was counted with end of battle pop up (battle result) - so who needs to graph it with running totals over years of play?) Combat Effectiveness does deserve a Graph, but not kill ratio which is what the current graph shows while incorrectly calling itself Combat Effectiveness.

Your whole argument boils down to that there is a finite prescribed AoD order of things. You claim combat results in the result of retreat which THEN causes elimination because of no retreat possibility. And because you see the retreat seperate from combat, you jump to the decision that elimination can not be part of combat. That is a most skewed way of looking at AoD map scale, splitting hairs as to time, and disregards simulation of combat on division size scale.

I will summarize with stating that the Combat Effectiveness graph is just ridiculously silly to exclude such a huge MP loss as elimination due to combat surround and over runs.

I would like to create a cartoon of Commander666 emptying a Tommy Gun at a Pang Bingxun lying on the ground - obviously dead - but Pang's spirit screams, "You weren't combat effective because I died AFTER you shot the first bullets!". But I will not resort to such unacceptable practices anymore just to win a debate.

It really is most simple in AoD. Simulation of combat can not have ended if unit still exists. Therefore, surrounded units MUST have been eliminated a nano-second before combat ended. And what happens to sprite afterwards is not time relevant to the elimination of unit. It would be more time relevant to say that combat is still occurring until the battle results pop up showing kill ratio appears - as regards AoD game mechanics and scaling to represent division size units on a world size map. But the real point is the huge skew of a graph that that does not represnt the tremendous MP losses resulltimg with elimination DURING combat (or - if you wish - resulting from combat).

Why would units eliminate after combat ends? Because of no legal game retreat? That argument is nothing but an abortion of game simulation, the classical grand strategy of AoD, real life logic, engine practicality, and creating meaningful graphs.

And it is a further mistake to base any argument on the assumption that combat in AoD can only be what appears during a combat pop up. I don't need to tell you that AoD faces huge challenges trying to simulate combat. The notion that there is no combat when enemy is over-run (or enemy retreats to your occupied province and so is eventually eliminated hours or days later) is simply a serious mis-interpretation of what AoD is trying to simulate - combat on division size scale.

EDIT: Many changes done throughout to get critical logic inline with Pang's point-of-view.

The basics points are:
- AoD simulates combat on a division size scale.
- Combat results in retreat, and there being no legal retreat, the simulation of the combat results in unit elimination.
- The precise timing of the 3 events is irrelevant given the scale of the combat simulation.
- Clearly elimination of unit results from the combat that caused illegal retreat.
- As such omitting MP losses due to elimination is a huge skew of combat effectiveness.

 

[Commander666]

But surrendered troops are already included in the losses charts.

Well, since Pang would like to keep this applicable to AoD, there is no such thing as surrender. Therefore, "ELIMINATED troops are already included in losses chart" would more correctly be your point.

So what? The losses chart does not graph combat effectiveness.

However as regards the different topic of "The Compare Losses chart" it is another AoD failure in summation since it seriously skews MP losses. I trust we are discussing the column that reads "Manpower" which - by way of the title "Compare Losses" should interpret to mean "MP losses".

AoD MP losses result from many sources including attrition and ageing. As the chart omits both, the chart is a complete failure. Especially because of the importance of attrition (that being quite controllable by player) and the HUGE amount of MP losses possible thru "hostile front attrition", consulting Compare Losses to get any idea of MP losses is akin to reading the last page of a newspaper to learn today's news.

It is not MP losses as the chart claims. It is partial MP losses. And the misrepresentation is huge.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Surrender is the result of retreat without possibility of retreat.

This is my ad hoc definition of the surrender of a landunit. The order of forcing a unit into retreat and cutting off the possiblity makes no difference to the rule applied. I believe technically it is called encirclement, but the term surrender is more appropriate. It is obvios that surrender due to cutting off the possibility of retreat via overrunning of some sort happens hours after the combat concluded. But since this is the same as surrender in the same hour as the combat ends both kinds of surrender happen after the combat concluded. I suppose that the combat funktion give the results to the landunits involved and all land units continue the sort of movement that results from orders and combat conclusion. This can mean retreat and if this is not possible the unit vanishes. This vanishing of units is what i call surrender. There are different ways that a unit can vanish. It can be eliminated in combat by reducing strenght of a division to zero or below. If that happens to all divisions of a unit the unit vanishes. Anyway, this disccussion and any discussion is nonsence if there is the lack of unitarily definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Sorry to detract, but thanks for the link! I know many people who have performed a 'No true Scotsman', so now I have a term to quantify it.

 

[Commander666]

This is my ad hoc definition of the surrender of a landunit... Anyway, this disccussion and any discussion is nonsence if there is the lack of unitarily definitions.

Good answer. But is the origin of our debate not simply, "Should the MP remaining in units eliminated not be included as a measure of combat effectiveness"?

You said no because you feel it happens after combat concludes.

I said it should be; and went so far as to make the further claim that units which were not involved in the combat at all probably helped determine the combat effectiveness of that particular battle and any combat result.

The problem here is a difference in definition of, "What is combat effectiveness as regards AoD?"

As we already have something called kill ratio that appears with every battle result, and we have something else called MP losses (even if I think the addition of that is not a full accounting) I will go further and say that combat effectiveness must be something different from the smaller notion of kill ratio or the addition of MP loss. I believe combat effectiveness is a measure of the player's game. At least it should be because then the graph would be more meaningful to players.

In AoD combat effectiveness begins in 1936 with the build choices player makes. Combat effectiveness in AoD progresses with the strategy that player uses. Combat effectiveness ends with the battles fought.

Let me give 2 examples:

1) A Barbarossa that achieves Bitter Peace in 1 year must be more combat effective than a 2 year campaign to get same event.

2) If using Germany/SU as example, an amphib of Wehrmacht forces on the Baltic to create a diversion that SU responds to which later results in Germany winning a surround in a totally different place (let's assume Stalingrad) directly contributed to the combat that occurred at Stalingrad if any of the Stalingrad defenders moved towards the Baltic to react to the diversion. The amphib results in a direct combat effectiveness of the attack on Stalingrad.

Combat effectiveness is more a measure of total strategy while computed using such measurable things as kill ratio, units surrendered, time to complete conquest, weapons type used and the difference in size of the armies. Obviously, I am saying combat effectiveness is a very complex thing, and further maintain that AoD can actually give a much better representation of it for the purpose of player to consult that graph and so get more useful info than the limited graph currently shows.

For AoD DEVs to make a proper determination of how should Combat Effectiveness be graphed they need first to look to real life to learn what is combat effectiveness as could be made applicable to the game (just like they looked first at RL to design this mostly great game.)

Here are examples of true combat effectiveness:

1) It is the B-29 versus the B-17 to deliver a larger bomb load. That in AoD is the early years and what player builds. Focusing on CAV, or Lt ARM, or ARM, or a mix will all result in different combat effectiveness.

2) Combat effectiveness is the damage done by bombs dropped because a bunch of B-29s missing target means little.

3) Combat effectiveness is not at all any bomb hitting target if enemy can repair target in a few days. The Allies learned this lesson when they where bombing certain targets that the Germans could get repaired quickly. So, now combat effectiveness is measured as needing a long term or permanent result.

4) Combat effectiveness is not any of the above if you wish to judge combat effectiveness only as to the number of bombers lost per mission - which is another way the Allies did judge combat effectiveness.

In fact combat effectiveness is a measure of all of the above - weighted logically.

The point is, "What logically should AoD graph for combat effectiveness?" What can AoD graph so that player can relate to a more accurate representation of what is the combat effectiveness of their whole game? That is the question I think most players would like an AoD graph to answer.

Most players are already doing it themselves with simply measuring the "time to complete conquest". I post "Hey, got Vichy Event in 7 days." That is a most definite measure of combat effectiveness, but players are looking for something more intricate than what they can add up themselves.

IMO, as regards AoD programming, a much better function would be served if combat effectiveness includes the MP lost due to eliminations (surrenders) that result from combat. Peace!

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

But is the origin of our debate not simply, "Should the MP remaining in units eliminated not be included as a measure of combat effectiveness"?

You said no because you feel it happens after combat concludes.

I said it should be...

I think you mean the question was "Should the MP remaining in units eliminated be included as a measure of combat effectiveness?" unless you are both planning a volte-face. :unsure:

 

[Commander666]

I think you mean the question was "Should the MP remaining in units eliminated be included as a measure of combat effectiveness?" unless you are both planning a volte-face. :unsure:

Yes, indeed I meant it your way - MP should be included. It is a bad sign when my own writings start to mimic the past often needlessly negative and double negative injected phrases of Pang. I'm still working on trying to understand why "No true Scotsman" and have decided Pang probably wrote his piece before I had even completed the comprehensive edit of my Post 300.

I just find it strange that somebody makes a point of claiming that they only refer to AoD (not RL) but then makes a point of not even amending their own use of the word "surrender" instead of using "elimination" when I switched to using elimination to move over to their AoD focused side; and further concludes by writing "any discussion is nonsence if there is the lack of unitarily definitions."

It all sounds too much like MRF/FTR for me to bother with too much further. Better to just read Sir Winston Churchill.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Good answer. But is the origin of our debate not simply, "Should the MP remaining in units eliminated not be included as a measure of combat effectiveness"?

You said no because you feel it happens after combat concludes.

Actually i did not really answer to that question. I only say that the current system makes some sence. More importantly is the matter of simplicity. If surrender is included into combat efficiency, than attrition would have to be included, too. Attrition due to nearby enemy and attriton due to provinces being overrun are relevant. And if simply being at war increases attrition in a desert this is relevant. So somehow you want some highly complex warfare efficiency. Reducing something like this to one number is near impossible. The sort of combat efficiency you which could be modeled by counting the manpower till reaching a given target in a given time. But both will vary a lot.
I essence there is no sence to use some term combat efficiency at all. Combat efficiency is the weighted average of all kill ratios of all battles of your current allies. If you wear down germany in a long strugle and release them as a puppet your combat efficiency will drop a lot because the losses inflicted/losses suffered will include the time before annexing germany.

Yes, indeed I meant it your way - MP should be included. It is a bad sign when my own writings start to mimic the past often needlessly negative and double negative injected phrases of Pang. I'm still working on trying to understand why "No true Scotsman" and have decided Pang probably wrote his piece before I had even completed the comprehensive edit of my Post 300.

I did start reading after you edited it and after the reading i started writing.

I just find it strange that somebody makes a point of claiming that they only refer to AoD (not RL) but then makes a point of not even amending their own use of the word "surrender" instead of using "elimination" when I switched to using elimination to move over to their AoD focused side; and further concludes by writing "any discussion is nonsence if there is the lack of unitarily definitions."

Eliminating could include destroying the enemy. Surrender is something different. Surrender is voluntarily if the term is applicable.

 

[Commander666]

In essence there is no sence to use some term combat efficiency at all.

Very astute.

I did start reading after you edited it and after the reading i started writing.

Good.

Surrender is something different. Surrender is voluntarily if the term is applicable.

Fine, let's use surrender then. I surrender from this discussion (although I actually eliminated it from my mind yesterday).

Matters not to me what the graph shows. It was only a suggestion how it might be better. My true statement about that graph was in a storyline about an apparantly recognition seeking UK commander who is so dumb to believe it really shows his combat efficiency. Sorry you missed the fictional characterization I am trying for. Perhaps wanting to turn Berlin into a museum of his exploits is more obvious.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I imagine you'll be able to get Germany back into the Allies. If you were at war it couldn't have left the alliance, maybe another factor to consider when thinking about a possible war with Japan.
The 4 fighter squadrons stuck in Austria issue should hopefully be resolved in 1.09, but fortunately you managed to get them into the Allies so it's not an issue anymore.

 

[Commander666]

I imagine you'll be able to get Germany back into the Allies. If you were at war it couldn't have left the alliance, maybe another factor to consider when thinking about a possible war with Japan.

That is so right. Annexing Greece was the mistake as Italy and Spain had to be annexed to get those substantial resources. But Greece could have been left to continue a "state of war" so nobody could leave the Allies. But France does have 1 VP province of Greece (Salonika) taken earlier, so they probably would have annexed and it still resulted in peace.

But any plan of "no peace" blocked my other plan to get to peace - for the story and also to kick out the States. Kicking out the Yanks before any new major war started was very important to me. I was quite aware of the risk I was taking, and further that there currently exists more risk of others leaving. If France leaves, the UK might as well crawl back to its island... and take a fresh look at its colonialism. Hopefully that tragedy would never occur!


Getting Germany back is the current goal... and it might work. But if I had the Interventionism to DOW them right now I would. And the new annexation of FRG would make the Versailles Treaty look like the sweetest peace treaty ever drafted because the new policy regarding Germany would be "total assimilation". Berlin becomes a museum!

Well, war with Japan asap would be great. The Allies have taken some drastic measures to make that more possible (next installment) and may get more creative still.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

That is so right. Annexing Greece was the mistake as Italy and Spain had to be annexed to get those substantial resources. But Greece could have been left to continue a "state of war" so nobody could leave the Allies. But France does have 1 VP province of Greece (Salonika) taken earlier, so they probably would have annexed and it still resulted in peace.

AFAIK only the country that controls the capital of the occupied country can annex it.

But any plan of "no peace" blocked my other plan to get to peace - for the story and also to kick out the States. Kicking out the Yanks before any new major war started was very important to me. I was quite aware of the risk I was taking, and further that there currently exists more risk of others leaving. If France leaves, the UK might as well crawl back to its island... and take a fresh look at its colonialism. Hopefully that tragedy would never occur!

Yeah true, and staying at war would have been 'gamey'. Hopefully France does not leave, but watch out for the other 'minor' Allies such as Austria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. I don't know if the AI has actually been told how to handle peace after WWII.

Getting Germany back is the current goal... and it might work. But if I had the Interventionism to DOW them right now I would. And the new annexation of FRG would make the Versailles Treaty look like the sweetest peace treaty ever drafted because the new policy regarding Germany would be "total assimilation". Berlin becomes a museum!

Haha, annexing Germany is another possibility! Especially when its' army would be in complete disarray.

Well, war with Japan asap would be great. The Allies have taken some drastic measures to make that more possible (next installment) and may get more creative still.

I await your update.

When you finish your UK AAR, I propose we could play a UK (or whoever) v Germany (or whoever) multi-player game to test both our skills. I know you said you like a lot of micro-management, but so do I, and I (like to think I am) patient. I'd leave the AAR side in your more-then-capable hands.

 

[Titan79]

When you finish your UK AAR, I propose we could play a UK (or whoever) v Germany (or whoever) multi-player game to test both our skills. I know you said you like a lot of micro-management, but so do I, and I (like to think I am) patient. I'd leave the AAR side in your more-then-capable hands.

Please do this, guys. It would be very interesting to read a multiplayer AAR from you two!

 

[Autolykos]

Absolutely. That AAR is *so* subscribed. Even your mistakes are clever, so I'm sure there's a lot to be learned