PDA

View Full Version : Acceptable losses?



zzxxcc
4th Apr 2005, 16:42
I've just done as good in Hanover as I'm likely to manage: 279 inflicted/21 taken. About a 10:1 ratio. I screen capped it, but I'm not sure if I should be proud or not. Is that "typical", "very good" or "Yes, but you were very lucky."

But in the other (larger) demo battle I don't think I'm likely to ever get a better than a 2:1 casualty ratio... if I'm lucky! A couple of early matches I had my butt kicked back to British Isles!

Now, I believe in modern military theory I've heard that an attacking troop ratio of 2:1 is minimal (with unit type/terrain force mulitpliers factored in) for a reasonable expectation of victory. The better the original ratio the stronger the advantage.

But I'm wondering: What kind of expections should I set for myself in way of casulaty ratios given a near complete (at least two-third) execution of flag objections? Is there a greater likely hood of decsive victory on the offence than on the defence? Is there a particular unit type that is key (cannon on defence/ calvary on the offence)?

HellAngel_666
4th Apr 2005, 19:23
thats REALLY good. only 21 killes! damn. though on the snd map dsert one (cyina sp) you souldn't have that many deaths. 10-4 or so if you REALLY want to be a pro. or 10-3.

p.s. try the AU's in sicks mod. damn impossiable if you ask me.

Pas De Charge
5th Apr 2005, 12:16
Well im no idiot and i tried using actual tactics and got my ass handed to me both times, i only won at hanover because of the crappiness of the austrains but i had like 10 men left or something. The very fact you can get figures like that suggests to me that this game is just not representative of actual combat. Im not even talking realism here, just common sense. And afaik actual preferred ratios of attacker to defender are 6:1 , not 2:1. The only way you can actually win in this game is stuffing all your units togther and vaporising each enemy unit as it comes in range, pitiful.

Youre not napoleon reincarnate, youre just playing a dumded down game :( still though, even bearing that in mind its quite impressive.

(edit: actually i think 6:1 might be urban combat... worth bearing in mind though)

HellAngel_666
5th Apr 2005, 15:06
lol if you got bad tatics in the napoleonic era then you lost battles. so this game is good with that respects

zzxxcc
5th Apr 2005, 16:17
<Possible Hanover Spoilers!!!!>


In Hanover the British have a fairly clear advantage. Their multiple battery of long guns vs a single battery shorter ranged (Austrian?) Howitizers. The small 10 meters difference may as well be a 100. Furthermore, the area near the farm offers no ideal positioning for even limited counter-battery work, forcing them to generally set-up near or behind the building. With a single battery this automatically grants a blindspot in their firing arch.

By reposition a British battery on the overlooking far left flank on the hills above, the enemy is forced to either: a)reposition in the far left trees to the rear- reducing their range and limiting their arc additionally. b) hold position and allow the British to advance to the farm under their own great gun cover fire and with no enemy great gun return from the left. c) Charge directly.

Either of the three will by necessity divide the enemy forces and force them to be vunerable on at least one flank.

Ideally, a calvary/cannon feint alone to the left will draw enemy canon, calvary and infantry to reposition to the cover that left, giving a complete forward opening in the right-center, and the needed time to position the British Great Guns within the farms outer range (Cntrl+v). The first shell nearby will force the enemy's hand, while up to half of their forces are in motion. Divide and conquer. Eitherway, once the British have their guns covering any possible return postioning of the relocated enemy cannon, they will not be able to return intact and British guns will rule the field.

Piecemeal decimation follows.

Pas De Charge
5th Apr 2005, 16:49
less wordy version = set up your killing power so they cant kill it back, then either sit there blowing them gradually to hell or wait for the ai to panic and rush you at which point mass fire sends them to hell slightly faster. However you dress that kind of thing up, it is NOT clever, and does not a good strategy game make.

zzxxcc
5th Apr 2005, 17:03
LOL
Good strategy doesn't have to be clever. Just more clever than the opponent.
And a simplification of proposed actions doesn't reduce the skill in the execution.

Take the center of the board.
Take more pieces or greater value than your opponent.
Force the king into a reduced position of mobility.
Checkmate.

Simple to say, far more difficult to execute.
Checkers or Chess...
A game doesn't have to be exedingly clever if the players of it are.

It just needs to give enough threads of possibilitiy to allow conflicting genius' to sew.

Pas De Charge
5th Apr 2005, 17:17
LOL indeed, how clever a game of chess can you have with a squirrel? Sure if the ai in the game was absolutely stunning, id have a hell of a hard time of it. However, id have a hell of hard time of it against the squirrel if i couldnt play the way i wanted to because of the board. This game is flawed, tragically, deeply flawed. If you want to spend, no ill say waste, your time in learning how to beat it very efficiently, well i wish you the best. I will not however, accept your claim that what is neccesary to win in this game is strategy beyond the most simple, bare bones.

Case in point, if your army is laid out simply, the ai doesnt know what to do, so picks a formation for its army, and rushes you. SIGH.

zzxxcc
5th Apr 2005, 17:30
Falcious comparison.

But I'll accept the bait. Genius? On the squirrels part-none. On the part of his opponent- infinite. Given enought of an handicap, I could beat Tiger Woods. The level of handicap is the mark of skill.

In point of fact, my WORSE match against the AI was when he did just that- rush me! I was in the middle of my oh-so complex manouvers, setting the stage for the brilliant Coup de Gras, and... the devilish AI charged me! Yes, I still won the day but at a far, far higher price.

In Hanover the question is not just to win, but emerge with the best possible outcome. For the Austrians if they can not hope to win the field, it is to make the taking of it as bloody as possible.

As found Pyrrhus at Heraclea and Asculum: "One more such victory and I am lost"

Pas De Charge
5th Apr 2005, 17:42
Do you actually read what you said there? Given enough of a handicap you could beat tiger woods? So... if you made tiger woods crap at golf, you could beat him? ok... touche! and on top of this "revelation" youre saying that your skill in winning is proportional to how crap you make him? So... the harder something is to do, the more skillful you are for doing it? WOW, i had better not play you at chess sir! Whats this got to do with IG being flawed and having no strategy?

Oh, and given the nature of combat in this game the fact that you lost to a rush says it all.

zzxxcc
5th Apr 2005, 17:53
And given the fact you are critiquing tactical ability regarding a game you claim you do not play, says even more.

I take it you do not own the full game SIR, yet you have mastered it?

Or is mearly conversing on why it is not worth mastering, easier than actually doing so?

Either way, I'm singularly unimpressed.

Pas De Charge
5th Apr 2005, 18:12
Ouch, you touched a nerve. You are extremely niave if you expect any change in the fundamental way this game is played between the release of the demo and the game going gold. Thats a fact. Therefore i have every right to judge the game on its fundamental components having played the demo. My judgment is clearly extremely different from yours, so be it, makes no odds to me if you enjoy it or not. What does effect me is if you start a discussion with me, im going to respond, which i did. I havnt been unfair at any point to you ( or at least i tried ) or towards what youve said.

However, as you think my discussion here is pointless seeing as i havnt played the full game, i would like to point out two things; firstly that if i have no right to talk about the game without having played the final thing, then neither do you; secondly, have you forgoten the word of which "demo" is a peice of? let me remind you, demonstration, on what better basis do i have to judge whether i will or will not like this game, then on a demonstration of said game? This isnt bait, its parting words, reply/dont reply, i dont care as i wont be reading this thread any longer. You clearly like the game, more power to you. But i dont like the way in which youve replied to me, it seems condescension gave way to annoyance that i wasnt stupid. That or you just dont like me

Psycho Pigeon
5th Apr 2005, 18:40
Yeh occasionally if a demo is released 5-6 months before the game comes out then you can expect changes :) but since IG is coming out later this month? :eek: .

andytimtim
5th Apr 2005, 19:57
but since IG is coming out later this month? :eek: .

TBH i still have doubts about it being released this month, i mean pyros can't ignore some of the stuff thats been said can they?

I really do hope however that things were left out to make the download smaller :)

eluryan
8th Apr 2005, 00:32
acceptable losses, back then they died by the 100's. It's fun telling your infantry to do a bayonet charge on te farmhouse in hannover.