Confusion penalty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Legun -> Confusion penalty (2/3/2008 9:48:25 PM)

I would like to remember my old wish:

Confusion penalty is subtracked from unit's proficiency for pre-combat proficiency check.

CP = 1 - (sum of (unit_strength/cooperation_level))/total_sum_of_strength_of_acting_units

The unit strength is shown in a formation menu as a sum of AP, AT and DS.

cooperation level = 1 for full cooperation (gold flag), 1.1 for limited cooperation (silver flag) and 1.3 for lack of cooperation (black flag)

That means, that two identical uncooperative regiments acting together get 11% subtracketed from their proficiency for any prof check.
Two regiments with limited cooperation get 4%.
One regiment attached to two uncooperative regiments gets 15% when the regiments get 8%.
One regiment attached to two regiments with limited cooperation gets 6% when the regiments get 3%.

The penalty is subtracked from unit's original prof, as it makes the penalty bigger for units with lower prof and smaller for units with higher prof.

This is to avoid a trick, really rational, now:
[image]http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/szyk.JPG[/image]



ColinWright -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/3/2008 10:29:40 PM)

No comprende.  What is 'trick'?



ColinWright -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/3/2008 11:17:14 PM)

Anyway, my take on this is that it would certainly be good to have -- but as an option. Your average player in your average scenario might find it to be just one more thing to take into consideration that he doesn't want to take into consideration.

In other words, the whole calculation should only come into play if the scenario designer has ticked a choice in the editor that normally isn't ticked.



Legun -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 4:36:12 AM)

In the real world, if you have to uncooperating divisions - f.e. American and British division in Normandy - you give each of them separated sector of frontline. In TOAW world, it's much better to mixed the divisions and locate two uncooperating regiments on each hex of the frontline. Why? This way each of the hexes can get artillery support from artillery of both divisions. There is no penalty for mixed battle-array, there is no real reason to keep formations together. There is a reason to keep formations mixed - possibility of artillery and air support.



ColinWright -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 4:42:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

In the real world, if you have to uncooperating divisions - f.e. American and British division in Normandy - you give each of them separated sector of frontline. In TOAW world, it's much better to mixed the divisions and locate two uncooperating regiments on each hex of the frontline. Why? This way each of the hexes can get artillery support from artillery of both divisions. There is no penalty for mixed battle-array, there is no real reason to keep formations together. There is a reason to keep formations mixed - possibility of artillery and air support.


I remember testing this: uncooperative defenders in a single hex do a lot worse. Even defenders with limited cooperation suffer a penalty that is statistically observable.

I'll disband an uncooperative unit rather than leave it in a critical hex. Conversely, I pounce on enemy stacks that contain units that I know can't cooperate. The results are usually very gratifying.



Legun -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 4:43:54 AM)

This isn't something new. You see gold, silver and black flags in your "plan attack" window, don't you? Anyway, this is a rough penalty. It doesn't work if there is a positive shock or MRPB is low, too.



Legun -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 4:45:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I remember testing this: uncooperative defenders in a single hex do a lot worse. Even defenders with limited cooperation suffer a penalty that is statistically observable.

I pounce on enemy stacks that contain units that I know can't cooperate. The results are usally very gratifying.



Really interesting. Just opposite to my testing. I'll try to test it again.



ColinWright -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 4:49:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

This isn't something new. You see gold, silver and black flags in your "plan attack" window, don't you? Anyway, this is a rough penalty. It doesn't work if there is a positive shock or MRPB is low, too.


Still, it would be an added complication. Barring some major programming complication, I'd rather see it as a feature designers can make use of if they wish rather than as an inescapable complication they have to take into account.

For example. In Seelowe the units of British infantry divisions only enjoy limited cooperation with the units of another division -- and I'm happy with that. If they are also likely to run the risk of some 'confusion penalty' I'd just as soon like to be able to think about whether I want that to happen than be confronted with the fact that in OPART IV or whatever, it's going to happen.



ColinWright -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 4:50:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I remember testing this: uncooperative defenders in a single hex do a lot worse. Even defenders with limited cooperation suffer a penalty that is statistically observable.

I pounce on enemy stacks that contain units that I know can't cooperate. The results are usally very gratifying.



Really interesting. Just opposite to my testing. I'll try to test it again.



Let me know your results. I'd be interested.



Legun -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 5:22:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Let me know your results. I'd be interested.



I've found the old results. There is no difference in losses between two fully cooperating regiments defending on one hex and two totally uncooperating regiments.



ColinWright -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 7:54:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Let me know your results. I'd be interested.



I've found the old results. There is no difference in losses between two fully cooperating regiments defending on one hex and two totally uncooperating regiments.


That's definitely not what I've found. Have you tried increasing the strength of the attack to see if things go to pieces when more checks are made?

I don't have my results -- but I definitely remember them. Even limited cooperation affected the performance of defending units. Will have to conduct another trial, obviously.

...It's possible that I was looking at the likelihood of retreat rather than at losses. Have you looked at that?



Legun -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 8:52:43 AM)

I'll send you save file with planned attack. Just count any effects you want. Retreat or desintegration usually has important influence for losses. The test is prepared this way, that defender's losses are about 20%.



golden delicious -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/4/2008 3:12:26 PM)

My general understanding fits with Colin's belief. Take a First World War scenario. Two hexes contain entrenched French divisions, but one also contains a remnant of a Belgian unit. I find the Belgians actually reduce the effectiveness of the French troops.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Confusion penalty (2/6/2008 7:36:24 PM)

I doubt there is any need for a "confusion" penalty for me, since on the subject of cooperation, I remain thoroughly confused and have been since TOAW came out. The manual just doesn't describe how it actually works and I've never given it rigorous tests.

Now, the manual does seem sort of clear provided all units have the same support scope. But it looks like Norm didn't think forces would use more than one scope for their units, because the manual doesn't describe what happens in those cases where, for example, a unit with free scope combines with a unit with internal scope, etc. In fact, you can get completely different cooperation flags in the Attack Planner - with the exact same units assigned to the attack - based upon which unit you add last. Now, does that cause different combat results? I haven't really checked.

I have heard that Norm answered on the web that the higher scope takes precedence, and that seems to be the case (any free scope unit will get support from internal scope ranged units, for example). I can see issues with that if the free scope unit is minor and most of the attack/defense is made up of internal scope units, for example.

What Jarek suggested kind of sounds like a band-aid kluge on top of a poorly understood mess. We first need to find out how cooperation really works. Then decide just how we think it should work. And then overhaul the whole thing.

So, if we have a Greek unit, a Turk unit, and a US unit stacked together, and the Greeks and Turks are uncooperative while the US has full cooperation with the Greek and limited cooperation with the Turk, what should happen? What if the US unit is 1/10th the size of the Greek and Turk units? Etc.

While we're at it, one issue with cooperation that has always concerned me was that it's too crude. There are only three states. Better would be a 1-100% range. For example, there might be progressively greater cooperation issues between German units in different divisions, corps, armies, and army groups, but probably not to the level of what "limited" cooperation inflicts.

Finally, what Jarek also seems to be seeking is a motive to keep all the units of a given formation in proximity to each other. If so, that really isn't going to be addressed by cooperation and needs some other mechanism devised. Perhaps there should be an increase in chance of formation reorganization if its units get too separated (maybe a radius set by designer). If so, we first need to provide a mechanism to reassign units into different formations (Item 4.2), to allow players to address a scattered situation.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.312012