Stalingrad 42 Breakout Group Zhuravlev

[Plain Ian]

Your spreadsheets are works of art, it's just that I lost the overview for a moment as you posted turn 12 and 13 after the previous log, with only turn losses mentioned.

You indeed need 1001 points for a draw.

I do spreadsheets most days. I could make up better ones than these but you know what its like bringing your work home with you. 

I've watched the replay and instead of doing the map I've decided to illustrate a 'pet hate' of mine. 

1,001 for a Draw. Mmmhh. 

[Plain Ian]

Ok so I forgot to move an HQ unit in Turn 13 and I'm expecting a blizzard of assaults from Mike in his Turn 13. Two of these assault will cut off my HQ and doom it. C'est la vie. lets see what happens...



Here is the first assault. He attacks north with one company. So what hex do you expect the disrupted 3/297th to retreat to? Anyone going for A? Maybe B? Surely not C?

Place your bets ladies and gentlemen.

[Plain Ian]

And the result is............D!!! 

Ah come on someone must have got that? Well probably all the PzC grognards got it. Lets look at the next one.

[Plain Ian]

On to the second assault. No pressure on getting the right answer here folks. 3 German companies up against two disrupted Russian Battalions who are still at about 80% strength. Attack coming in from the south west so maybe B looks to be a safe bet here. Surely not A?

Give that wheel a spin......

[Plain Ian]

And the result is....C!!!!! Anyone pick that one? I think a lot of people got this one. The first assault kind of gave it away that the AI is stupid. 

Yes I know. If I can write a better algorithm than JTS to handle retreats then go ahead and do it. I guess we have all seen stupid retreats like these.

So instead of being possibly one HQ and 45 men down, I am now looking at 700+ men being lost. 

Ok that's me finished. Time to get off the 

I'll post Mikes turn now. I'll just do one big map and a few details. I think I've covered the big detail.

[Plain Ian]

Mikes turn 13.



I've marked up most of the major losses. I've missed out the 1's an 2's. 

I think we are nearing the end for Op Group Zhuravlev. It will take him a few turns to kill off the trapped group near the State Farm. Plus I'm running out of undisrupted units to help stabilise things. 

Mike has managed to create a proper ZOC perimeter in the last few turns. I think I need to try and create a gap.

Mike has finally reacted to 1st Tank Army but is still content to shuffle his ants in front of my armour. 

In the east he is still content to watch. zzzzzzzz

On to my turn. Tomorrow night.

[Ricky B]

And the result is....C!!!!! Anyone pick that one? I think a lot of people got this one. The first assault kind of gave it away that the AI is stupid. 

Yes I know. If I can write a better algorithm than JTS to handle retreats then go ahead and do it. I guess we have all seen stupid retreats like these.

…

So just to clarify, there is no AI for the retreats, it is purely random. And to put it into perspective, outside of how often the worst possible retreat route is randomly selected, it seems realistic to me. These men, assaulted, don't know where safety is, they just know they are being attacked and run - all they know is that unit to their left is standing firm at the time while there are rumors of enemy behind them already. Sometimes that is to the rear, but in these type of situations, it could be into a pocket. Look at what the men of the 106th Inf Div did in the Bulge, and they ended up with 8000 men trapped.

Anyway, you have to chalk it up to random bad luck rather than AI.

[Plain Ian]

And the result is....C!!!!! Anyone pick that one? I think a lot of people got this one. The first assault kind of gave it away that the AI is stupid. 

Yes I know. If I can write a better algorithm than JTS to handle retreats then go ahead and do it. I guess we have all seen stupid retreats like these.

…

So just to clarify, there is no AI for the retreats, it is purely random. And to put it into perspective, outside of how often the worst possible retreat route is randomly selected, it seems realistic to me. These men, assaulted, don't know where safety is, they just know they are being attacked and run - all they know is that unit to their left is standing firm at the time while there are rumors of enemy behind them already. Sometimes that is to the rear, but in these type of situations, it could be into a pocket. Look at what the men of the 106th Inf Div did in the Bulge, and they ended up with 8000 men trapped.

Anyway, you have to chalk it up to random bad luck rather than AI.

Well there is random and there is random. If you are saying that the game looks at the possible retreat routes and assigns the same weight or chance for moving to it then this is indeed random. 



So you are saying that there is an equal chance for each retreat possibility above? 

I thought these games were more sophisticated than that? I've probably played too many boardgames where things like retreat are well regulated and scripted. 

eg if forced to retreat then priority is 

1. towards supply
2. further away from enemy unit than at start
3. non zoc
4. zoc

That sort of thing.

In the game situation above I'd assume that the game engine would check and do this -



Still random but at least fair. It allows for that 106th Bulge retreat situation once out of every 100 rolls. But it also allows me a bit of certainty or predictability that it will retreat to one of my two preferred retreat positions most of the times. 

That's all I'm looking for.

[Ricky B]

Just trying to inform you how the game works, and it has nothing to do with sophistication but I would assume a design decision. Of course, I am not the creator of the game and so would be putting words in his mouth here to even try, but it strikes me as a design decision, very possibly before the PzC series started. I may not even be correct about purely random retreat chances, but in all my years of playing the games it seems completely random.

After this long, I doubt it would be changed, but maybe? However, there would need to be a lot of logic implemented, and even then not everyone would agree on a reasonable mix of what happens when the man in the trench retreats without guidance, as from my lack of real world experience but lots of reading, it sure seems fairly random once it gets below the "orders from above" stage of retreat, which is what your situation is. In your example above, I believe current retreat odds are 25% per available hex. You suggest 1% chance of retreat to the "bad" hex is reasonable. I agree 25% is too high for that hex, but feel maybe 10% is about right, maybe even 15%. And someone else may feel 0%. And another 5%.

No matter what, trying to apply rules to what is an act of survival or panic or whatever - each soldier is different but a herd instinct takes over - is still going to result in undesired outcomes. In the meantime you can adjust your deployments to try and minimize the chances of this happening, so maybe it won't happen 3 times in one turn. That seems off no matter what, but then hard telling how many retreats happened that were more what you expected. People focus on the unexpected and so they seem to happen more often, and then adding in clumping makes it worse.

Anyway, enjoying the write up, hope at least a few Soviets escape but not looking too good right now.

Rick

[Plain Ian]

Just trying to inform you how the game works, and it has nothing to do with sophistication but I would assume a design decision. Of course, I am not the creator of the game and so would be putting words in his mouth here to even try, but it strikes me as a design decision, very possibly before the PzC series started. I may not even be correct about purely random retreat chances, but in all my years of playing the games it seems completely random.

After this long, I doubt it would be changed, but maybe? However, there would need to be a lot of logic implemented, and even then not everyone would agree on a reasonable mix of what happens when the man in the trench retreats without guidance, as from my lack of real world experience but lots of reading, it sure seems fairly random once it gets below the "orders from above" stage of retreat, which is what your situation is. In your example above, I believe current retreat odds are 25% per available hex. You suggest 1% chance of retreat to the "bad" hex is reasonable. I agree 25% is too high for that hex, but feel maybe 10% is about right, maybe even 15%. And someone else may feel 0%. And another 5%.

No matter what, trying to apply rules to what is an act of survival or panic or whatever - each soldier is different but a herd instinct takes over - is still going to result in undesired outcomes. In the meantime you can adjust your deployments to try and minimize the chances of this happening, so maybe it won't happen 3 times in one turn. That seems off no matter what, but then hard telling how many retreats happened that were more what you expected. People focus on the unexpected and so they seem to happen more often, and then adding in clumping makes it worse.

Anyway, enjoying the write up, hope at least a few Soviets escape but not looking too good right now.

Rick

Well I don't want to talk about retreats and bring the S word into the discussion. Statistics. That's going to put everyone to sleep.

I've seen plenty of discussions on boardgame forums about die rolls in software games where 6's continually appear and the statisticians are all over the discussion. Yes you are right, people focus on bad results and then think that this is the norm. Some unexpected retreats do wreck games I think but try telling that to the winner. 
Anyway thanks for the information. Turn finished and only 2.5 beers consumed.