Loss penalty

[Heldenkaiser]

1. Is the loss penalty given in the turn briefing directly linear? IOW, if the enemy loss penalty is 20 and mine is 10, does that mean my opponent has lost twice as many men (or vehicles, guns, you name it)? Or is it weighed in some way, i.e. German losses are more valuable than Russian ones, etc.?

2. If the answer is the former (it's linear), then does it translate directly into a fixed number of casualties? IOW, does a penalty of 1 represent the same number of men regardless of scenario size?

Just trying to make sense of my loss penalty ratios ... 2:1 in Normandy, 67 to 17 at Tannenberg. The manual seems to be rather silent on this issue. :rolleyes:

Thanks for all comments. :)

[Secadegas]

1. Is the loss penalty given in the turn briefing directly linear? IOW, if the enemy loss penalty is 20 and mine is 10, does that mean my opponent has lost twice as many men (or vehicles, guns, you name it)? Or is it weighed in some way, i.e. German losses are more valuable than Russian ones, etc.?

2. If the answer is the former (it's linear), then does it translate directly into a fixed number of casualties? IOW, does a penalty of 1 represent the same number of men regardless of scenario size?

Just trying to make sense of my loss penalty ratios ... 2:1 in Normandy, 67 to 17 at Tannenberg. The manual seems to be rather silent on this issue. :rolleyes:

Thanks for all comments. :)

The loss penalties have to do directly with AP strenght of the equipment lost. So lossing a rifle squad is different from lossing some heavy piece of artillery.

The full amount of loss penalty for both sides has to do with the added value of objectives in the scenario. If are are playing a scenario with 100 VP's (sum of all objectives) each side can be affected up to 50 points of loss penalty as maximum.

There is also an editor setting for loss tolerance that can change results.

But there better specialists in this matter than me...

[Heinz57]

Joao makes good points there, thanks Joao! This establishes another good reason to not have artillery in the front lines if it can be avoided.

Some scenarios may award extra VP's for the destruction of specific units; some also bias the losses for one side over the other; and some minimize the effects of losses in favor of VP locations. Usually the scenario will specify any of these conditions.

[Dicke Bertha]

Aren't the loss penalties dynamic? That is it could be pretty useless to kill enemy troops if they have high replacement rates, whereas even small friendly losses will cause 'permanent' loss penalty to you if either the pools are empty or replacement rates low...

[Secadegas]

thanks Joao

Don't thank me... beeing around this joint is (a big) part of my life for the last 3 years... :shock: :surprise: :nuts:

[Secadegas]

Aren't the loss penalties dynamic?


I think so... they are related with both sides OOB's AP strenght (i think...)


That is it could be pretty useless to kill enemy troops if they have high replacement rates, whereas even small friendly losses will cause 'permanent' loss penalty to you if either the pools are empty or replacement rates low...
War sucks, isn't it?

[Dicke Bertha]

I think so... they are related with both sides OOB's AP strenght (i think...)


War sucks, isn't it?
As always, we're just like the secretary on the phone, assuring the customer that the boss will soon, very soon take the call... :)

[Secadegas]

As always, we're just like the secretary on the phone, assuring the customer that the boss will soon, very soon take the call... :)

Very well pointed... :D

[Telumar]

Not yet the boss, just the coffee boy.

Maybe it's time for a TOAW WIKI ... :shock:

[Dicke Bertha]

There are a few of us that could make up the TOAW Wiki ngs. :ar15: While we wait for the boss, and once the coffee has run cold... :)

[nemo]

Not yet the boss, just the coffee boy.

Maybe it's time for a TOAW WIKI ... :shock:
There's a TOAW Wiki (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) already - it's been up for more than a year now over at RD, but obviously has failed to attract much attention.