RE: 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


Obsolete -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/12/2010 4:48:05 PM)

I have often wondered, what is the real-life reason as to why HQs can always get free disengagements from EZoCs.






damezzi -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/12/2010 7:54:50 PM)

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.


Yet there wasn't still a good explanation as to why should the attacker have better precision in the example El Cid provided. As you said, defenders would have the choice to engage in the open, before the enemy entered the city or wait until they entered the urban perimeter, what's a nice advantage already. If engaging in the open, both would fire from a long distance and attackers should fire at low precision percentage, as should the defenders; if waiting in the urban hex until attackers come in, both would engage at short distances and with high precision. There is still the case where the defender would be at the skirts of the city waiting and an ambush would be possible (a single fire situation), but I think this kind of event is already included in the defensive advantage of the terrain.

Another way of seing it is by the simpler case of rain. Rain is another factor that causes restricted vision for precision calculation. Let's consider rain in the open. Attackers are coming from a clear wheater open hex and defenders are in a rainy open hex. Using the logic exposed earlier, of considering attackers on his original hex for precision calculation, they would get better precision. Even if we consider the circumstance when the attacker is still outside of the shower curtain and the defender inside it, both would see the enemy exactly at the same time, taking the shot from the same distance.

To keep it extremely simple, the fact is that the outcome of the combat in the example El Cid provided is absurd. The Panzers getting wiped for being in urban terrain, where they have the choice to choose the form of engagement, wether in the open or in the city. The matildas receiving a precision bonus? Why? If they get the precision bonus, they are firing from short distances, in which case they are already in the urban terrain. So, the panzers are firing from short distances, too, in which case they should get the bonus. Sure that with Optics 4 it would have been a poor choice, since the better precision advantage would be denied (for this kind of equipment, the logic is inverted).

You said that in this specific case the panzers shot while in the open, while the matildas had to wait until entering the urban perimeter. Are you saying that all panzers shot from a long distance, then came into the city and just waited there while being shot at by the matildas?

Toaw should aways consider the average, not creating very specific situations, mainly those that come from completely stupid decisions. In the average, the situation would have been extremely favorable to the panzers, in overall terms and in terms of precision, too. For me it's clear: if the panzers choose to engage in the open, both shoot in the clear, if they choose to wait, both shoot in the city. The advantage for ambush and cover is already computed in the defensive terrain bonus.




Obsolete -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/13/2010 9:04:16 AM)

Damezzi, you also inspired me to also take a closer examination. I agree that the way the mechanics work don`t make any sense.  Actually, there is sense to it, but it`s reverse-sense for some reason. I guess the lesson here is be weary of trying to hull-down in this game (wince).

The other lesson is... always charge into cities with your tanks to get the maximum bonus, despite being contradictory to any historical sense of armoured warfare :P






damezzi -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/14/2010 12:31:09 AM)

Overall it's a sound system. Some flaws are found here or there, sometimes. It's natural, since with such a complex system, it's difficult to put to test all possible combinations and since the number of varibles is large, sometimes we attribute to one variable results that are due to another. The great difficulty is to isolate them.

One of the best things about Toaw is that it has already come a long way and is still evolving. Such discussions aren't a way of blaming the engine, but of trying to bring it one step further. Divergences in opinion will arise, of course.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/14/2010 1:25:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

I have often wondered, what is the real-life reason as to why HQs can always get free disengagements from EZoCs.


Because they (and artillery) are in the rear. They can flee before the spearheads get to them. Remember, IGO-UGO is an abstraction. In the real world both sides move at the same time.

Unfortunately, it wasn't thought out too well. So we have HQs and artillery being used to "rescue" frontline elements. A fix has already been proposed: Item 7.6 in the Wishlist.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/14/2010 1:37:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

You said that in this specific case the panzers shot while in the open, while the matildas had to wait until entering the urban perimeter. Are you saying that all panzers shot from a long distance, then came into the city and just waited there while being shot at by the matildas?

Toaw should aways consider the average, not creating very specific situations, mainly those that come from completely stupid decisions. In the average, the situation would have been extremely favorable to the panzers, in overall terms and in terms of precision, too. For me it's clear: if the panzers choose to engage in the open, both shoot in the clear, if they choose to wait, both shoot in the city. The advantage for ambush and cover is already computed in the defensive terrain bonus.


I was just pointing out how complicated it was. There is no universal correct answer that works for all cases. In this case, the way TOAW handles it now worked out poorly for the defender. But, as I said, if the defender had had optics 4, it would have been better for the defender to fire while the attackers were in the open. Yet it would still have been in the matilida's interest to wait till they got into the urban terrain. And, the presence of soft targets in the attackers could affect the decision as well. Then there's proficiency. So, it's going to be hard to code right.




Oberst_Klink -> RE: Combat calculation? (10/15/2010 6:22:35 PM)


It is a bit "unrealistic", however... there are precedents for A) the artillery covering the disengagement/retreat of the frontline troops (A Bty, 52nd Art of TF Smith in Korea did that at the battle of Osan, July 1950 - http://americanmilitaryhistorymsw.devhub.com/blog/562107-battle-of-osan-5-july-1950/),
B) plenty of examples in history, where the leader or the HQ moved forward to rally or to organise the orderly disengagement of the grunts, after all, HQs in the game also act as traffic control (even without MPs, I think...) C) it doesn't work all the time (done some "tests"), because it also depends on moral, experience, supply, interdiction level, etc., D) I am sure Ralph will come up with a fix or option to modify the active disengagement rules for those units. I hope I was able to shed some light on Oddballs valid question. Just my 2p...

[image]local://upfiles/28259/B43EF9091DE14DC9BF1C74A6D7F92F91.jpg[/image]




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.609375