What does it means? i readed the manual for doomsday and cant find it, i suspect it will reduce the casualties taken by 10% for each tech i research, correct?
Thx.
Thx.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Didn't we just have a thread on this like 2 days ago? It is the amount of manpower that will "trickleback" to your forces (after they heal from wounds and are sent back to the front for instance).
thx 
i found it.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240590
so just to make sure, if i need to reinforce with 10 manpower i actualy(if i have 90 % trickleback) only ned to use 1?
i found it.http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240590
so just to make sure, if i need to reinforce with 10 manpower i actualy(if i have 90 % trickleback) only ned to use 1?
tommuis said:thx
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240590
so just to make sure, if i need to reinforce with 10 manpower i actualy(if i have 90 % trickleback) only ned to use 1?
No it means that:
During battle, your original MP-Pool would rise by 8.1 (9*90% wounded, not killed Soldiers), after reinforcing your unit it would drop by 9, so net your MP pool would be reduced by 0.9.
If you have a Trickleback Factor of 90%, and take combat losses of 10 Manpower (to units that HAVE a supply line, not to encircled units), then 90% of the losses (9 Manpower) ends up back in your Force Pool.
IMHO the late-war trickleback modifier is way overpowered. Seriously, in 1950 one takes six times less losses than in 1936!
NikkTheTrick said:
It's because 1950 they're already closer to filming "the Matrix", so the soldiers are starting to get some bullet dodging skills or something.
But yea, seems strange that less soldiers die in 1950 when in fact then the weapons are even worse (or some might say "even better") than in 1936.
I agree. Trickelback ought to be a modifier to MP growth to simulate hospitals being able to put troops back in the field after working on them. As it currently stands, it seems a bit magical.
Well, the current system is logical: with better hospitals greater percent of your wounded end up in fighting shape. However, modifier for each individual tech is too high - it does not represent actual increace in efficiencies of hospitals. In 1950 hospitals were better and did allow more injured soldiers to return to duty, but not 6 times better. If we assume that 20% are before they get to the hospital then we end up with hospitals not only putting everyone in good shape but also resurrecting some!
So, I think technology effects on the tickleback modifier should be toned down. Say, 2% instead of 10%. You will still end up with great manpower savings (50% return back versus 40%) - way worth the research time - but not as ridiculous as it is now.
I would disagree with the making tickleback a MP growth modifier - no war --> no injured --> no one to return back to duty. MP growth can be added to the tech effects (to represent better population growth due to lower childhood mortality) but not replace the tickleback modifier.
So, I think technology effects on the tickleback modifier should be toned down. Say, 2% instead of 10%. You will still end up with great manpower savings (50% return back versus 40%) - way worth the research time - but not as ridiculous as it is now.
I would disagree with the making tickleback a MP growth modifier - no war --> no injured --> no one to return back to duty. MP growth can be added to the tech effects (to represent better population growth due to lower childhood mortality) but not replace the tickleback modifier.
I think part of the idea is that by the 50's weapons were more lethal so there were less serious wounds (more died of those type of wounds) and so more soldiers could be healed back into fighting shape. For example in WWII let's say you have 200 killed, 400 critically wounded and 400 with lesser wounds, maybe those 400 would return to battle eventually, now in the 50's there are 300 killed and 100 critically injured so now you have 600 that might return to the front. Not sure if I am explaining this well but it makes sense to me.
Of course, a 1945 div would have a lot more attacks then a 1936 div. Hence, without this change, battles would be several times more lethal.
Trickle back is about more than just KIA and WIA, and the ability to return wounded to the front. It also includes MP that returns from "detsroyed" units (stargglers, POW escapees, etc).
In addition, it doesn't all come back at once. It "trickles back" to your MP pool. Go figure. It should cap out at 60% with the 1950's hosiptal techs. So no, a unit for a nation with the 1950 hosiptal tech will not take 60% less losses, but 60% of any MP lost in combat will be returned to your MP pool eventually.
In addition, it doesn't all come back at once. It "trickles back" to your MP pool. Go figure. It should cap out at 60% with the 1950's hosiptal techs. So no, a unit for a nation with the 1950 hosiptal tech will not take 60% less losses, but 60% of any MP lost in combat will be returned to your MP pool eventually.
I guess you should find out some real facts about these numbers before saying 90 % trickleback is wrong? It sounds high to me too, but I don't believe the weapons were that more lethal in 1950 than in 1936. I think the metal that hits people at high speed is about as deadly whatever the year is.
When technology evolves probabaly more soldiers tend to become casualties quicker, but they don't necessarily get killed more often.
When technology evolves probabaly more soldiers tend to become casualties quicker, but they don't necessarily get killed more often.
I always thought that for 3 injured 1 died in WW2. It is now down to one dead for 7 injured in Iraq but mainly due to better protective gear and not because of better hospitals.
Also, evacuating wounded is probably very easy in Iraq (for the "allies") when compared to the average situation in WW2. Not sure about the protective gear thing, it probably helps against shrapnel and such, but to my knowledge no protective gear stops even rifle caliber bullets reliably. The protective gear I have worn in the Finnish army is called a "shrapnel vest", not a bulletproof vest. Cool thing anyway
nxv said:Also, evacuating wounded is probably very easy in Iraq (for the "allies") when compared to the average situation in WW2. Not sure about the protective gear thing, it probably helps against shrapnel and such, but to my knowledge no protective gear stops even rifle caliber bullets reliably. The protective gear I have worn in the Finnish army is called a "shrapnel vest", not a bulletproof vest. Cool thing anyway
I thought most (over 70%) of all casualties in war was from arty...? Not rifle fire.
The vests today are able to stop an AK-bullet. But they are not shrapnel vests, they weigh around 15kg IIRC, but surely the amis use them.
WW2, but surely not Iraq. Or you count the odd mortar and explosives as arty.Alech said:
Edit: Sorry for Double!
15kg vest? Plus the combat gear and rifle plus other possible stuff (eg. radio) amounts up to maybe 30kg. Trust me, it's too heavy for effective fighting on foot But I guess this is beginning to go OT soon
But I guess this is beginning to go OT soon
I've worn one (Bristol) myself during my servicetime and had someone in my unit who survived an shot by ak74 or 47 in it. Trust me, it is this heavy, but sadly i can found no link. But one sentence from the official german army homepage: Infantery of the future-programm: Blablabla..everythings wonderful, the new euqipment is much lighter blabla....we get this (weight) reduction of 17 kilo mainly through a lighter kevlarvest than the bristol....old weight for complete equipment was 47kg on-person. Sry, truly OT!