Combat Results Statistics?

[Jeff Conner]

Good Evening Gentlemen

This post seems to have morphed into what makes a good player. There is no easy answer to that question. I have seem some people who just naturally seem to be better than me. I was never all that good at chess either. Put being able to think ahead, to plan, is pretty important in this series. But for the plodders like me, I believe there is some value in reading the manual and trying to figure out how things work. It continually surprises me that some pretty competent players are unaware of some of the less common parts of the game. I'm not really interested in statistics for statistics sake. But I plead guilty to seeing a phenomenon in the game and then setting up test scenarios to see if my observations are actually correct. And if you want to know how effective a company of 37mm AT guns is against a battalion of T-34s, then set up a scenario and run it over and over again and tabulate the results. For some people, myself included from time to time, that is fun. And it might make you a better player too. Or you can say that is way too tedious for me, and it is pretty tedious, and I will be content from knowing that a company of 37mm AT guns is pretty useless against a battalion of T-34s, at least in terms of causing losses, because that is what I have seen. And I would agree with you, because I have seen it too. And one last point I would make is that I never learned anything I didn't already know from playing against the AI. If you want to get better, play against real people, especially ones that are better than you are.

So I guess I would end up by saying enjoy these games in whatever way brings you enjoyment.

Jeff