Combat calculation? (Full Version)

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



Message

BigDuke66 -> Combat calculation? (9/19/2010 7:49:57 AM)

Is there a way to see in detail how the combat was calculated?



1_Lzard -> RE: Combat calculation? (9/19/2010 8:12:44 AM)

Toawlog!

At least it will give you MORE, LOL! [;)]



BigDuke66 -> RE: Combat calculation? (9/19/2010 6:57:57 PM)

Thanks, where can I find it?



ralphtricky -> RE: Combat calculation? (9/19/2010 7:32:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Thanks, where can I find it?

You can turn it on in the Opart 3.ini file. You also may want to turn on UberDude, I think it may add even more details.

It's complex, feel free to post any questions about details, and I'll try to answer them.

Here's an overall summary, I can't guarantee it's accuracy since it's from memory. In practice, I'm glossing over a lot of details.

Combat is simulataneous, both sides attack, then the results are applied. It keeps a 'losslist' that adds up and is applied after all combat results are done.

I think artillery and air are similar to soft targets, but I'm not sure. There is also counter battery fire involved.

Getting the air unit to the attack is a lot more complicated including 'furballs' and a lot of ther things I haven't looked into.

Soft targets are pretty simple, it sums that attacking strengths and the defending strength, then calculates a percentage chance and walks through the defenders seeing if each one is hit. Tracked troop carriers ( I can't think of the name for them) are affected by the stance of the unit (minimize losses, etc.)

Hard targets are more complicated. It sums that attacking strengths and the defending strength, then calculates the percentage chance and walks through the defenders, for each defender it takes 1-8 'shots' depending on the number of units on each side that fires. For each shot it sees if it is a hit by looking at the armor rating and a random angle that the shell hits at.

As I said, the combat is symmetrical, Aside from terrain effects which only apply to the defender, I don't think there's a difference between attacking and defending.

Retreats are handled by the retreating unit being subject to friction (again, I can't think of the word, I need another cup of coffee.)

Overruns are handled by the odds being over 4:1, and the damage is caused by friction.

The basic concepts are pretty simple and make a lot of sense to me. The devil is in the details.

Ralph



BigDuke66 -> RE: Combat calculation? (9/23/2010 8:34:12 AM)

Can it be that the log file isn't created when playing a PBEM game?
At least I can't find it in the TOAW folder or is it placed somewhere else?



1_Lzard -> RE: Combat calculation? (9/23/2010 3:01:45 PM)

You should be able to read the toawlog by going into the main portion of your install and clicking on 'toawlog.txt'........it reads all scenarios but looses the info after a reload. If your into keeping said info for later, you need to copy it (quickly) and paste to a new rtf or something similar.

Another way of dealing with this is to make a shortcut (use send to desktop). Faster than going in for each 'read', eh?

[:D]



Sker -> RE: Combat calculation? (9/23/2010 5:32:41 PM)

To have a toawlog.txt created in your installation folder you have to open the Opart.ini file, find the string toawlog and substitute N with Y.
At the next start of TOAW you should find the txt file. It's not easy to completely figure out what's going on and it may take a lot of time to analyze even a single combat, but if you have the patience you can try[:)]



el cid -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/7/2010 9:17:52 PM)

Looking at the TOAWlog file, and gathering from what Ralph says above:

After it states thet anti-armor begings, it shows:

Defending unit under fire: 38 Tk Brig (attrit: 546)

Smite: SOVIET 1/6th Army, 38 Tk Brig, (anti-armor), attrition%= 7.

The 546 is actually the attacker total anti-armor strength, but what is the attrition=7%, is it this the chance that each individual tank will get shot at? How is it calculated?

Then it shows a number of units that get shot at two times. Example:
AXIS weapons firing on SOVIET T-34/76 (late).
75mm AT Gun current terrain/lighting/weather dependent accuracy: 33%.
T-34/76 (late) target cross section bias: 97%.
75mm AT Gun current effective accuracy vs. T-34/76 (late): 32%.
No hit on SOVIET T-34/76 (late) by AXIS 75mm AT Gun. (shot missed)
75mm AT Gun current terrain/lighting/weather dependent accuracy: 33%.
T-34/76 (late) target cross section bias: 97%.
75mm AT Gun current effective accuracy vs. T-34/76 (late): 32%.
No hit on SOVIET T-34/76 (late) by AXIS 75mm AT Gun. (shot missed)

I imagine that particular T-34/76 has missed the 6% chance it had to get shot at. But why is it shot at by the 75mm AT and not by a 50mm AT gun? What determines what weapon of the attcaker inventory takes a shot at the T-34/76?

Thanks if you have the time to answer this.



el cid -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/9/2010 5:25:26 AM)

I ran some tests with a simple scenario where 5 MatildasII attacked 10 Panzer IV.

When I changed from having both units in the open without entrenchment, to having the defending unit Fortified, the results were logical. All the values of the defending units increased substantially, and this was refelcted in the outcome.

However, when I placed the defending unit, still fortified, on a urban terrain the results were not as expected. The defending unit was wiped out. The reason, the accuracy of the Matildas increased from 10% (in open vision) to 50% (restricted vision), However the accuracy of the Panzer remained at 10%, as if the Matildas were still in the open.

I though combat took place on the defender terrain.



ralphtricky -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/9/2010 5:14:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid

I ran some tests with a simple scenario where 5 MatildasII attacked 10 Panzer IV.

When I changed from having both units in the open without entrenchment, to having the defending unit Fortified, the results were logical. All the values of the defending units increased substantially, and this was refelcted in the outcome.

However, when I placed the defending unit, still fortified, on a urban terrain the results were not as expected. The defending unit was wiped out. The reason, the accuracy of the Matildas increased from 10% (in open vision) to 50% (restricted vision), However the accuracy of the Panzer remained at 10%, as if the Matildas were still in the open.

I though combat took place on the defender terrain.

Can you please post or email a copy of those scenarios?

Thanks,
Ralph



el cid -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/9/2010 6:19:14 PM)

Here is the scenario. This is with version 3.2.29



el cid -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/9/2010 6:20:27 PM)

and here the Toawlog



ralphtricky -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/9/2010 7:18:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid
I imagine that particular T-34/76 has missed the 6% chance it had to get shot at. But why is it shot at by the 75mm AT and not by a 50mm AT gun? What determines what weapon of the attcaker inventory takes a shot at the T-34/76?

It's the one that has the best chance to hit. If there are several with a chance over 100%, then it's a random one.

Ralph



damezzi -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/9/2010 8:33:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid

I ran some tests with a simple scenario where 5 MatildasII attacked 10 Panzer IV.

When I changed from having both units in the open without entrenchment, to having the defending unit Fortified, the results were logical. All the values of the defending units increased substantially, and this was refelcted in the outcome.

However, when I placed the defending unit, still fortified, on a urban terrain the results were not as expected. The defending unit was wiped out. The reason, the accuracy of the Matildas increased from 10% (in open vision) to 50% (restricted vision), However the accuracy of the Panzer remained at 10%, as if the Matildas were still in the open.

I though combat took place on the defender terrain.

Can you please post or email a copy of those scenarios?

Thanks,
Ralph




That's really something worth looking into, in my opinion. Having a revised combat calculation system would already be a great legacy of this patch. It's nice to be able to thrust the system when you move a lot of units and don't have access to all calculation formulas.

Toaw was always based on a certain mystery about its combat system. To keep it this way, players must feel it is thrustworthy.



ralphtricky -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/9/2010 9:09:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi
That's really something worth looking into, in my opinion. Having a revised combat calculation system would already be a great legacy of this patch. It's nice to be able to thrust the system when you move a lot of units and don't have access to all calculation formulas.

Toaw was always based on a certain mystery about its combat system. To keep it this way, players must feel it is thrustworthy.

There have already been quite a few changes to the combat system.

I'm taking it very seriously. While I generally don't trust these single unit scenarios, I do want to make sure I understand what's happening here and why it's happening. I've leaped to conclusions before and found I was completely wrong, so I need to be careful to understand whether this is a case that's understandbale and we decide to ignore, or if it's a serious issue we need to fix and how that will affect other scenarios.

I need to balance how serious it is, the risks in fixing it, and whether we should delay the patch to fix and test it, or plan on fixing it in 3.5, assuming it is a bug and that it will be fixed. I've started a thread on the development forum to discuss it separate from this discussion.

Ralph




ralphtricky -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/10/2010 4:51:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid
I thought combat took place on the defender terrain.

I'm still looking into it.

Not exactly, I believe that the attacker will defend based on the terrain the unit is attacking from. I think that most terrain effect are calculated based on the terrain the unit is currently in.

When running this scenario, you need to be careful to check the clouds, precipitation can have an effect on the results.

Ralph



el cid -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/10/2010 6:38:44 PM)

Thanks Ralph.

It is quite a luxury to actually be able to talk to the programer and get things clarified about how the game engine works.




ralphtricky -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/10/2010 7:36:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid
Thanks Ralph.

It is quite a luxury to actually be able to talk to the programer and get things clarified about how the game engine works.

No problem. People have to have faith that it's working as expected, so I don't mind explaining most things. It helps me undertand it better too.;)

There are a lot of very complicated factors to take into account.

Ralph



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/10/2010 7:48:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid

I ran some tests with a simple scenario where 5 MatildasII attacked 10 Panzer IV.

When I changed from having both units in the open without entrenchment, to having the defending unit Fortified, the results were logical. All the values of the defending units increased substantially, and this was refelcted in the outcome.

However, when I placed the defending unit, still fortified, on a urban terrain the results were not as expected. The defending unit was wiped out. The reason, the accuracy of the Matildas increased from 10% (in open vision) to 50% (restricted vision), However the accuracy of the Panzer remained at 10%, as if the Matildas were still in the open.

I though combat took place on the defender terrain.


Suppose you changed both attacker and defender to M1A2s. Then the accuracy of the attackers would be 85%, while the accuracy of the defenders would be 100%. And it would not be in the interest of the defender to wait till the attackers got to the urban terrain, since the defender would also gain some terrain defence benefit as well as a reduction in defender accuracy.

It's clear that if the defender lacks enhanced targeting then the defender should hold his fire till the attackers get into urban terrain. Optics 4 level is the opposite, though. But, other levels of targeting (optics 1-3) may take some figuring.



damezzi -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/10/2010 10:13:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Not exactly, I believe that the attacker will defend based on the terrain the unit is attacking from. I think that most terrain effect are calculated based on the terrain the unit is currently in.



I'm not sure I understood that, but would it mean that an attacker assaulting an open hex from an urban one would be considered to be in urban terrain for combat calculation purposes? If so, I don't think it makes sense.

Anyway, I think that if the matildas get 50% for restricted vision, it means they are already in urban terrain. So are the panzers, therefore they should be treated equally. Even if the matildas were in the open, I think the panzers should get the better precision percentage and not the matildas. As far as I understand it, restricted vision advantage portrays the better chance of hitting when you are able to wait for the target to come closer for not being seen too early, so that it would refer to the attacking equipment not being seen and not the defender. Panzers would be able to wait for the matildas to come closer, but the matildas would have to fire from long range or approach, risking an ambush, until finally entering the urban perimeter, where restricted vision would be applied to both.

I'm assuming restricted vision bonus was really the cause for the outcome of El Cid combat example.



Panama -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 12:13:56 AM)

Shouldn't all the combat take place in the defenders hex? With scale from 2.5 to 50 kilometers per hex it's kind of difficult to imagine combat always taking place along hex boundries. [&:]

But then when a unit attacks from a river hex it's penalized for that so I guess the attacker is actually considered to be attacked by the defender in the hex it's in. [&:]




ralphtricky -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 1:22:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi
I'm assuming restricted vision bonus was really the cause for the outcome of El Cid combat example.

Yes, although I don't think the fact that the Matildas were defending in the open made any difference. If they were attacking from another urban hex, the results would likely have been about the same.

I need to say up front that this won't be changed for 3.4, I believe it's been this way since at least COW, and would not be surprised to hear that it goes all the way back to TOAW 1 and even before that.

I'm having problems separating what makes sense at an operational level from what makes sense at a tactical level. At a tactical level, it absolutely makes sense for the attacker's terrain to be considered, if I were infantry, I would much rather assault a forest hex from an adjoining forest hex, and not from open terrain, although that's a kneejerk reaction, I can't promise that anyone with actual experience would agree.

At an operational level, I would think that the same issues would hold, although it's a lot fuzzier in that case. For something like a fortified line hex, or the fortification level of the hex, I have problems understanding why the attacker should get the same benefits as the defender, even at the operational level.

Here's where I wish I had a minor in history, luckily there is no shortage of opinions around here, hopefully someone has some actual facts.

Ralph



Panama -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 3:13:29 AM)

If a unit is attacking a location they can't possibly receive the same benefits as a defending unit in the same terrain. It's attacking, not sitting still. The defending unit receives terrain benefits. The attacking unit should not. Don't start chasing your tail. [;)]



damezzi -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 4:28:24 AM)

That's the point! The attacking unit is getting a benefit on the example we're discussing (at least, if the cause is really that which was stated). Here, in any case (attacker in the same terrain or in the open), defenders should get the precision bonus, since they are deployed in an urban terrain, waiting the attacking matildas. Why would the matildas, breaking in open terrain towards an urban terrain get any precision bonus in relation to the panzers? Nobody here advocated that the attacking units should receive defending bonus for being in urban terrain, just that the defenders should have the restricted vision bonus, if the attackers are considered to be in the open or in urban terrain, not the oposite.

Restricted vision being taken into account in combat calculation is a completely tactical consideration, it doesn't matter if the game has an operational scope. Those are tactical variables that will affect operational ones. Like considering the penetration coeficient. No matter what the scale of the game is, but making tanks being hit by a weapon with better coeficient less prone to be destroyed would be a distortion.



Obsolete -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 6:27:31 AM)

Well I liked this thread. Always been annoying at how much detail is hidden from the user, so I modified my shortcut to turn logging on from now on. I agree it`s a lot of detail to go through, but I learn a lot more from looking that this than ever reading the manual which leaves a lot to be desired.





el cid -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 7:37:30 AM)

Not really understanding how the calculations work I am just going to go out on limb, trying to understand how it works from my testing.

Initially the game calculates:
Defender AT value
Attacker AT value
...
Defender Survavility
Attacker Survavility


  • The defender values are affected by the entrenchment value and the defender terrain (the attacker values seems as if they are not)
  • Defender and attacker values are affected by proficiency, readiness and supply.


With these numbers it looks like the game calculates the chances of each individual unit taking a shot.

From the numbers Iīve seen, in Urban the defender has a lot more probability of actually shooting at the attacker (about double), and a little less of getting shot at.

If you get shot at you take two shots (at least in 3.2, this has been changed in 3.4)

But once you are shot at, is better to be in open terrain (for tanks without targetting enhancement). Here is taking into account the terrain each unit is at. The defender uses the defending hex, and the attacker uses the attacker hex.

The conclusion to this is never attack with a tank from a city/forest (you do not get the defensive benefit from Urban, and you are likely to get hit if you get shot at).

And when defending in a city with tanks, you are less likely to get shot at, but if you do get shot at you are more likely to get hit. Better fortify on an open terrain.

I couldnīt state if this way of working is logical or not. I think that would be a tought discussion.






Curtis Lemay -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 3:00:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If a unit is attacking a location they can't possibly receive the same benefits as a defending unit in the same terrain. It's attacking, not sitting still. The defending unit receives terrain benefits. The attacking unit should not. Don't start chasing your tail. [;)]


They won't, since the defender also receives his entrenchment benefit. But it can't be that the attackers don't receive any benefit. There's a big difference whether the attack approaches through a forest instead of across open ground.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 3:13:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

That's the point! The attacking unit is getting a benefit on the example we're discussing (at least, if the cause is really that which was stated). Here, in any case (attacker in the same terrain or in the open), defenders should get the precision bonus, since they are deployed in an urban terrain, waiting the attacking matildas. Why would the matildas, breaking in open terrain towards an urban terrain get any precision bonus in relation to the panzers? Nobody here advocated that the attacking units should receive defending bonus for being in urban terrain, just that the defenders should have the restricted vision bonus, if the attackers are considered to be in the open or in urban terrain, not the oposite.


In effect, the panzers shot at the matildas while they were in the open. The matildas had to hold their fire till they were in the urban terrain. Clearly, in this specific case, that was a poor choice by the defenders. But, as I've pointed out, had the defenders been equipped with Optics 4, it would have been the correct choice. And it gets more complicated when non-armored equipment is added (a more normal situation). That type of equipment would be more vulnerable out in the open. There's even the issue of proficiency. You can imagine a poor unit being unable to hold their fire, while a crack one would. So, it's a complicated factor to have preset in the code.

quote:

Restricted vision being taken into account in combat calculation is a completely tactical consideration, it doesn't matter if the game has an operational scope. Those are tactical variables that will affect operational ones. Like considering the penetration coeficient. No matter what the scale of the game is, but making tanks being hit by a weapon with better coeficient less prone to be destroyed would be a distortion.


Correct.



Panama -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/11/2010 3:57:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If a unit is attacking a location they can't possibly receive the same benefits as a defending unit in the same terrain. It's attacking, not sitting still. The defending unit receives terrain benefits. The attacking unit should not. Don't start chasing your tail. [;)]


They won't, since the defender also receives his entrenchment benefit. But it can't be that the attackers don't receive any benefit. There's a big difference whether the attack approaches through a forest instead of across open ground.


Is an attacker hiding behind a tree waiting for a defender to approach or are they moving around trees advancing on the defender?

This is not a tactical game and if you attempt to make it a tactical game and an operational game the tail chasing will commence. Such things as, when does the attacker penetrate the defenders terrain? The defender certainly isn't sitting exactly along the hex line. When the attacker penetrates the defenders terrain why doesn't that terrain affect combat and for how much of the attack? The list could go on and on.

IMO it should be kept simple. The defender receives terrain benefits. The attacker does not. Keep it operational and not tactical.

Forgot to mention. In your example above it isn't that the attackers are hiding behind the trees but that they are advancing through the trees. The defenders engage them at close range rather than long range. The defenders are more accurate at short range while the attacker has to locate and target hidden or dug in defenders. An attacking unit is less accurate because they spend time moving. Now if you want to start chasing your tail again we can get into overwatch which is again tactical.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/12/2010 3:28:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Is an attacker hiding behind a tree waiting for a defender to approach or are they moving around trees advancing on the defender?


They're moving, but that's no different than if the defender was in Mobile deployment. In effect, it creates what's called a "Meeting Engagement" - both sides bump into each other. Or it could even create an ambush (after an early turn ending). Clearly, it's far better to be advancing through trees than over open ground - where you can be engaged from all directions long before you get to the enemy. Think of Pickett's Charge. And that also impacts the efficacy of supporting air/artillery.

quote:

This is not a tactical game and if you attempt to make it a tactical game and an operational game the tail chasing will commence.


I would say it's operational up to the point that combat is executed - within the combat, though, tactical factors have to be considered.

quote:

Such things as, when does the attacker penetrate the defenders terrain? The defender certainly isn't sitting exactly along the hex line. When the attacker penetrates the defenders terrain why doesn't that terrain affect combat and for how much of the attack? The list could go on and on.


I think that should be considered. If there is a terrain difference the defender can be sitting along the terrain boundary - which would not be the hex line. It could be the outskirts of a city, for example.

Ideally (meaning without considering proficiency) the defender should get the benefit of the most advantageous choice. The defender would always be considered in the terrain in his hex, but the attacker would be engaged in the terrain most favorable to the defender. So, if the defender was in urban terrain and the attacker was in open terrain, the defender would engage him while he was still in the open. If it were the other way around, the defender would wait till the attacker entered the defender's terrain.

quote:

IMO it should be kept simple. The defender receives terrain benefits. The attacker does not. Keep it operational and not tactical.


That may be the way it is. We need more tests. And there are cases where the attacker should not get any terrain benefit - fortified line terrain, any terrain that he can only enter via a road, etc. But, the more accurate we can make it the better it will be.

quote:

Forgot to mention. In your example above it isn't that the attackers are hiding behind the trees but that they are advancing through the trees. The defenders engage them at close range rather than long range. The defenders are more accurate at short range while the attacker has to locate and target hidden or dug in defenders. An attacking unit is less accurate because they spend time moving. Now if you want to start chasing your tail again we can get into overwatch which is again tactical.


All of that is addressed by the fact that the defender gets to shoot first, and he gets the benefits of deployment state (under 3.4) in addition to terrain.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375