|
Curtis Lemay -> Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses (3/7/2012 9:44:02 PM)
|
I’ve finally had some time to do some testing on RFCs by Ignore Losses defenders. To summarize, what I’ve found is that there is a problem that warrants addressing. But, it’s not a problem that was introduced into 3.4. Rather, it’s a problem that has been with TOAW from the beginning. The changes in 3.4 just exposed it.
My tests prior to the 3.4 release had been done with defenders at Limit Losses. The units would retreat if losses exceeded a certain amount. These tests were conducted with defenders set to Ignore losses. Such units are oblivious to losses and only retreat if they fail a morale check.
My tests show that the 3.4 adjustments are working just as designed. Fortified units (as well as units in Fortified terrain) are about 6.3 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain – all else being equal. Entrenched units (as well as units in Dense Urban or Badlands) are about 2.9 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain. Units in Bocage, Mountain, Dunes, or Urban are 2 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain. Defending Units (as well as units in Hills, Forest, or Wadi are 1.35 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain. I still don’t think those figures are inappropriate. They could be adjusted a little, but I don’t think they are out of line.
The problem is that the only other factor that determines whether the unit retreats or not is the morale of the defender and attacker. (Remember that morale is a combination of the unit proficiency, readiness, and supply.) The higher the morale of the defender, the harder it is to dislodge. Attacker morale affects this in that if the attackers all drop out, the defender doesn’t have to make a RFC check. So, the lower the attacker morale, the harder it is for them to cause the defender to RFC. This makes it particularly hard for a low proficiency force to make progress against a high proficiency force.
The problem is that the combat odds make no difference. It must have been that way from the beginning of TOAW. We did make the odds affect RBC chances in 3.4, but not RFCs. This needs to be addressed. I’ll get to that later.
Before I show the test results, let me describe the test scenario. There are 13 terrains being tested and three deployments, for a total of 16 tests. The MRPB is 1, so no combat can last more than one round. Each test has 10 trials – for a total of 160 combats. Each combat consists of one attacking unit vs. one defending unit. The attacker is always 9000 infantry squads. The defender is initially 3000 infantry squads (x3 odds). Both sides are initially 70 proficiency and 100 readiness and supply. The scenario is then run 10 times for a total of 100 trials for each test. After the combats complete, I total how many defenders RFCd in each test.
In the next test, the defender has only 900 squads (x10 odds). In the next test, the defender has only 300 squads (x30 odds). In the next test, the defender has 3000 squads again, but has 1% supply and 33% readiness. In the final test, the defender has 3000 squads with full supply and readiness, but the attacker has 100 proficiency.
|
|
|
|
