Patch?

[Volcano Man]

I have been lurking and I just want to pop my head up for a moment to add something here (since historical loss rates were mentioned):

When we talk about historical losses, what we have to remember is that at this scale you CANNOT take the losses of what happens in a few turns and then say 'this is what would happen over X number of turns in a single day * Y number of days = non-historically high loss rates'. IMO, this mentality should be left at a higher scale (like PzC) because the problem with this at the tactical level is that in armor combat, your situation directly determines the tempo of the battle. At the tactical level you could burn up your formations in minutes, so historical losses cannot be taken into much account unless you are erroneously trying to diminish results in order to spread it across a set amount of time (ie. factoring in the strategic situation). In reality a tank battle's intensity is decided at any given moment and thus, the long term historical loss rates are irrelevant. A poor tactical decision will result in the battle being over in minutes, and high levels of losses should cause the attacker to fall back and regroup rather than parking adjacent and expecting to slug it out for X turns - the tempo, violence and intensity is at the tactical commander's discretion and directly depends on how he utilizes and commits his forces.

For example, in a well orchestrated defense a platoon of modern M1A1 tanks can completely destroy a soviet T-72 tank company in (literally) a matter of 10 minutes, but they couldn't do this for 10 minutes all day. Just because they destroyed 10 soviet tanks in 10 minutes does not mean they will destroy 1,400 tanks in a day.

Of course someone will say that my example is too modern, but the point is that tactical battles can be violent in a short period of time, then friendly losses, fatigue, supply, the presence of enemy, movement, etc all plays into the rest of the time spent. And besides, the quality vs. quantity difference is very similar to some of WW2's late war match ups (3:1 and 4:1 situations).

So, taking this to a WW2 situation, a platoon of Tiger tanks could literally destroy a company of T-34s in 10 to 30 minutes, this would not be unheard of. This might seem like excessively high losses, but what is important is that both sides have to cooperate in this situation. In reality, and this is something that the tactical game player must learn, the intensity of the losses being inflicted upon him should cause his tactics to change. If he is met with intense fire then maybe he should hold off on his "balls out" en masse tank assault for the moment, and instead pull back and continue to use artillery, air support, and infantry support before sending in the tank force. Imagine the tanks as a hammer that decide the situation, and if you pull the trigger too soon then they will be spent quickly. Most tactical level battles involve a lot of preparation and waiting, reconnoitering and infantry attacks, then 15 to 45 minutes of terror where the entire situation is usually decided in moments.

Anyway, what we expect though is that if five turns into a 12 turn scenario the Russians have lost half a battalion of tanks then this is somehow incorrect because it means they would a-historically suffer 200,000 tank losses in a week. In reality though, and this is my point, these tactical battles occur in bursts of intensity -- and if a bonehead tactical commander commits his force to get it annihilated in three turns of a 12 turn scenario then that is his own mistake. Thus, the problem is that if you factor in loss rates at the tactical level then you invariably end up with a situation where both sides MUST sit adjacent to each other and blast away for the full amount of turns to meet the drawn out loss rate, and that is when the tactical level game begins to break down.

Not sure if any of this makes sense, and I am not criticizing here -- I am just saying that "historical loss rates" at the tactical level should be mostly irrelevant and I would be very cautious about taking them into account because it more or less ties the tempo a tactical game to the a long battle and stretches out the casualty rate to fit the amount of time available, sort of putting it on rails and making it indecisive. Of course you don't want extremely excessive losses rates either, just saying that it must be taken with a pound of salt. If anything, maybe the turn limit for most tactical battles should be shorter if losses are so high that the battle is decided in shorter amounts of time - just saying.

Just my two pesos. ;)

edited: typos/clarifications