Profile of somenbjorn

He thinks at a very tactical level. Before even getting into the math there are "other" game balance design considerations. What is the units intended role within the game?

My favorite game balancers are the ones at CCP games. They always start with the role question first and balance from there.

An example of community engagement BEFORE the patch is published
here is an example, there are many others.

I suspect this lack of coordination between role and balance. Role is a game design aspect and balance, is well a balance thing.

You need a good coordination between game design teams and balance design team.
I do remember reading an article on his blog a while back talking about the problem of game designers and balance designers not being synced. I got the feeling he was talking about his experience at relic.

Interesting post. Explain RKKA tank losses is like trying to explain economic crises...there are at least a dozen or two big reasons, and it's hard to do a valuation of each.

I think:

#1. Command culture and tactics employed- More frequently attacking, very aggressive use of tanks, insensitive to losses, lack of combined arms coordination, and tendency to use tanks to boast attacking infantry in penny packets.
#2. Formation organization and logistics- RKKA armored units were very bare bones and with little service and combat support for most of the war. The 43'-45' mech. corps was closer to western models, but there were few of them.
#3. Accounting- RKKA wrote-off tanks quickly, the Germans on the other hand loathe to write off tanks unless it was a total loss.
#4. Encirclements of 1941 and 1942- lots of tanks captured- probably over 20,000.

These four probably explain most of it.

Agreed.
I was just trying to flesh out someone saying that Soviet tank losses 'only' had 3 explanations.

Though I do not fully agree with a single line in your #1. "very aggressive use of tanks".

While it is true losses where caused by always attacking, I do not agree that it is because of the "aggressiveness" in it self. But rather the lack of proper recon, proper support, coordination, composition of forces and logistical supply during advances by tank forces that caused the losses.

Now Im not as knowledgeable in the 'micro' side of things of the war (what units moved where, tactical ideas, OOBs, how operations where conducted.) as I am of the macro side of things. (Politics, doctrine, industrial buildup, morale in the army as a whole etc. )
But I was under the impression that aggressiveness with tank forces are thought to yield less losses than caution of advance?
The so called 'Blitzkrieg' being the classical example of the idea. Show Spoiler

So I don't disagree with you, I just believe that simply saying aggressiveness is an oversimplification that might give people the impression that aggressive use of armour is a poor choice.
(Well yes it is if you don't have recon, support, composition, logistics etc, )

I do wonder why they didn't use their own domain? I thought they had web developers themselves and/or could put up the form under their own domains?

Why use a third party supplier for it, especially one that does mean they can't have it under their own domain? Anyone know if they did it in the past, like with WFA closed beta/alpha?


(Although I have to say prices up to 5000 users with that group seem dirt cheap)

A good read man. Maybe you could do a "story of my grandfather thread here in the library? fichtenmoped, doomturtle and ami have done it.

I suspect you maybe have something more to share with us if you are willing.

Look at the other guys tthreads if you need inspiration, but your above post is good enough to deserve its own thread

As usual in domestic situation the Mother got custody of all the children. Then she hit the bottle, became alcoholic and mistreated her children until they decided to move out and leave the mother for good.