RE: NATO & Power Rating (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa



Message

Philippeatbay -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 9:20:23 PM)

If you include soft factors, the power of most if not all of your units changes every turn.

If you were to rename units to include the power rating, you'd be renaming between one and two hundred units each turn because the names would constantly be out-of-date.

I would have thought that the frustration of trying to keep on people's good side by making the right decisions was Sisyphean enough.



Moltke71 -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 9:26:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

If you include soft factors, the power of most if not all of your units changes every turn.

If you were to rename units to include the power rating, you'd be renaming between one and two hundred units each turn because the names would constantly be out-of-date.

I would have thought that the frustration of trying to keep on people's good side by making the right decisions was Sisyphean enough.


+1



VANorm -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/25/2016 5:16:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Can anyone else confirm that a unit with more experience will show a greater power rating than a unit with less experience, all other things being equal? I thought Vic made it quite clear that power rating was determined solely by the amount of equipment and troops regardless of experience.


The Power Number is an equipment count, adjusted somewhat for equipment effectiveness. Many, if not all soft factors are reflected in the Thermometer, with Supply Status the dot above it.



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/25/2016 8:10:14 AM)

Even for those who would not care to rename their divisions to aid in keeping track of their actual power, not allowing renaming makes it impossible for the Soviets to designate any of their divisions as Guards divisions.

"The title of the Soviet Guards was first introduced on September 18, 1941 in accordance with the decision of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Stavka Verkhovnogo Glavnokomanduyuschego) and by the order №308 of the People's Commissar of Defense for the distinguished services during the Yelnya Offensive. The 100th, 127th, 153rd and 161st Rifle Divisions were renamed into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Guards Divisions, respectively. The Soviet 316th Rifle Division was renamed to the 8th Guards Rifle Division on November 18, 1941, following the actions of the Panfilovtsy and was given the Panfilovskaya title in honor of its late commander Ivan Panfilov. By December 31, 1941 the 107th, 120th, 64th, 316th, 78th, and 52nd Rifle Divisions had become the 5th through 10th Guards Rifle Divisions.[2]"
wikipedia



RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/25/2016 3:45:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

If you include soft factors, the power of most if not all of your units changes every turn.



EXACTLY! It's changing anyway, we are just making a guesstimate as to what the impact of the soft factors are. Why not just show the approximate impacts?
Time of Fury (that poor flawed game that came soooo close in many areas) got that one thing right. The displayed unit power updated dynamically based on ALL the factors that impacted it's "true" combat power (leader influence, supply, etc.)
I understand if that is a bridge to far for this game, or the designers simply don't want to do it that way. I guess I was just surprised that "all" the factors WEREN'T reflected.

I haven't found any report that indicates the impact of all the "soft factors" on combat. Obviously more is better, but the impact seems to be hidden. Why? Unfortunately, in my experience (and naming no names), games that hide so many factors under the hood often means no one can tell whether they are actually working properly or not. So when I attack a "weak" Soviet Cav Div with 6 Inf Divs and it only takes about 25% casualties and retreats in good order I am naturally skeptical.



KenchiSulla -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/25/2016 6:23:02 PM)

Perhaps the cav. div had a casualty treshold of 25% set? And why wouldn't it retreat in good order?



Philippeatbay -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/25/2016 6:49:15 PM)

In real life(tm) cavalry divisions are supposed to retreat when attacked by significantly superior numbers. They're usually meant to act as a flexible screen, not cannon-fodder that dies in the trenches.







RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/25/2016 6:56:07 PM)

Because I attacked in essentially overwhelming force. And in "real life" many Soviet units didn't just retreat in good order under those conditions during the early days, whole divisions disappeared/ran/vaporized/surrendered/went "poof" as a fighting force. Admittedly I can't attack too many places at that level, but generally it just seems like all I can do is just push the counters around. So I'll take several turns to reduce/eliminate them, but under specific conditions of overwhelming force (and not cities/fortresses/etc), and with all the first turn bonuses, I would expect at least a FEW results to be more decisive.



wadortch -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/25/2016 7:09:20 PM)

Hello
I admit to still being somewhat confused by the combat model and after a lot of gameplay am not as comfortable as Flav is as to its predictability.

Don't want to belabor this but do have a couple of questions that I'd appreciate Vic to answer since there seems to be some confusion between even he and Cameron on this related to the stacking value vs combat power numbers shown in the screenshot (attached)

So:

I have two German units, power rating 68 each, attacking 1 Soviet unit, power rating 63. The stacking point value of the German units is 73 each, that of the Soviet 67 (see the combat display, stacking points 146 vs 67. The display indicates the attack gets a concentric bonus of +5%. First question: +5% related to what?

The screen shot also indicates the German unit is receiving various benefits (HQ power 100%, HQ combat mod, 65%, HQ morale mod, 30%). Second question, same as the first, what are these %'s applied to? For example, would the numbers in the stacking point ratio change at all if the HQ morale mod was 100%?

Related question--does the units posture affect stacking value, power value or both--does the HQ combat mod reflect the blitzkrieg posture combat bonus on offense for example?

Last question. Stacking penalties. How are these applied to offensive and defensive units? The manual says there are penalties and higher casualties associated with "towers of doom" but how that actually works is not clear, especially so for huge stacks of defending units. Some insight into how this actually works would be very helpful information as well. For example, if a defending has a 700 stacking value, how does an attacker begin to assess what kind of power he needs to bring to bear on the hex to win the fight?

I can appreciate the views of all here, some love the uncertainty and complexity of the engine, others want the precision and predictability of the old Avalon Hill games. I agree, that lack of pinpoint precision and number crunching is part of the charm of DC, but some more detailed explanation of how all the moving parts of the combat model (and I have not even raised questions here as to how morale, experience and readiness affect combat) relate to the stacking and power values displayed on the screenshot, even if just in "ballpark" terms is warranted.

[image]local://upfiles/37896/6E30BA0ED7614E4597FFC9E91AE1A7A9.jpg[/image]



RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/26/2016 7:36:59 PM)

+1. I'd really like to know too.



wadortch -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 12:52:09 AM)

Hi Vic and Cameron.

Please wade in here and save us all a lot of time tinkering with running a lot of turns to see how the combat engine is working.

I went through the manual again today carefully and do not see where it addresses how the various combat bonuses are applied and to what "value" (combat power, stacking value, attacking or defending score or hit points).

I see the combat power number shown on the unit counter reflects some soft factors but it is still not clear how the bonuses affect that.

To be clear (I hope) and returning to the screenshot I posted above the questions are:

1) Does the 68 combat power rating for the German attacking units reflect any of the bonuses? I appears not to. As noted, I could experiment over several turns teasing this out but it sure would save me and a lot of other newcomers to the game if you could just tell us this.

2) The manual describes the combat sequence which involves attacker and defender scores and hit points. Is this where the bonuses (or penalties) factor in? And if so, how do we have a clue how they affect the outcome of the fight?

3) Repeat my question from before about stacking points and how overstacking actually affects combat power, scores or hit points.





2)



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 7:10:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bismarck

No

I have bought the Kool-Aid (purchased the game) and found the Kool-Aid to taste better than expected because you indeed CAN rename your divisions, but the label on the counters is limited to 5 characters.



lancer -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 8:50:32 AM)

Hi Wardortch,

1. No it doesn't reflect any bonuses and is a straight reflection of hard combat power. Soft factors aren't included in any way (I had that wrong myself).

2. Best way to figure out how combat works is to press the combat details button at the end of a combat and poke around. There's a section in the manual of the different sections and what they are telling you. You can see all bonuses and how they interact. The combat engine is fairly involved but it's been tried and tested over a number of games and has had all the rough edges ironed out so it's pretty solid.

3. The power points of a unit (press '1') are pretty close to the units stacking points. The manual gives a good run down on how many points you can stack depending on how many hexes sides you're attacking from. Overstacking gives you a combat penalty (press the Combat Details button to see this in action) and you'll take higher casualties.

If you work on 200 power points, or less, of units for a one or two hex side attack you can't go wrong. The closer to 200 you get the more you'll have the optimum combination of force to space.

Easiest way to think of stacking is to imagine yourself behind a machine gun (MG-42). You're being swarmed by Russians. Under normal conditions you'll take out a handful before they likely grenade you to little bits. If they double up and charge you then you'll really mow them down. Won't stop you getting blown to bits.

From the Russian point of view throwing twice as many troops at you guarantees that they'll carry the day.

Cheers,
Cameron



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 8:56:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


So:

I have two German units, power rating 68 each, attacking 1 Soviet unit, power rating 63. The stacking point value of the German units is 73 each, that of the Soviet 67 (see the combat display, stacking points 146 vs 67. The display indicates the attack gets a concentric bonus of +5%. First question: +5% related to what?



I'm pretty sure the 5 percent bonus is related to what you would have if your attack took place from only one hexside. Attacking from more than one hexside gives you a concentric bonus, but I'm not sure exactly how it's calculated.



willgamer -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 3:11:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard


quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


So:

I have two German units, power rating 68 each, attacking 1 Soviet unit, power rating 63. The stacking point value of the German units is 73 each, that of the Soviet 67 (see the combat display, stacking points 146 vs 67. The display indicates the attack gets a concentric bonus of +5%. First question: +5% related to what?



I'm pretty sure the 5 percent bonus is related to what you would have if your attack took place from only one hexside. Attacking from more than one hexside gives you a concentric bonus, but I'm not sure exactly how it's calculated.


In the manual- p. 124, Concentric Attack Bonus table. [sm=terms.gif]





Vic -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 3:17:23 PM)

Hi all,

For anybody really wanting to see how modifiers (and concentric attack bonusses for example) are applied in game please start a fresh game with FOW off.

And then start some combat and click the details pop-up in the combat report window to get full disclosure and info on ALL calculations used. Nothing is hidden under the hood.

Be warned: you might spent a long time there. There is more calculations than you'd probably imagine.

Best wishes,
Vic



RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 5:09:53 PM)

Hmmm. I tried this and unfortunately it raised more questions (first turn). [:'(] All attacks on open terrain.
- I may have missed it in the manual, but why do all my Infantry attacks start out with "attack startup -75%" (Armor seems to be -38%)?
- I'm on "normal" AI, but it shows the defender getting a +15% AI bonus? Tooltip says normal is zero bonus.
- Defender is getting full entrenchment bonus? Manual says it is reduced first turn.
- Defender isn't suffering any penalties at all (such as the "def penalty" shown on subunit counters)according to the details.
So where are all the Soviet penalties on turn 1? According to the details all the defensive modifiers are positive, and the ATTACKER is suffering significant penalties...

I'm not criticizing, just confused.

edit: Re first comment, seems like it's -75% for rd 1, -50% for rd 2, then disappears for subsequent rds. So guess it's WAD, but also seems to virtually guarantee combat goes more than 2 rds...



Vic -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 7:15:50 PM)

Hi Random,

Did you upgrade to the latest v1.02g? One of your questions might relate to a bug that was fixed already quite some time ago.

Now....

quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack
Hmmm. I tried this and unfortunately it raised more questions (first turn). [:'(] All attacks on open terrain.
- I may have missed it in the manual, but why do all my Infantry attacks start out with "attack startup -75%" (Armor seems to be -38%)?
edit: Re first comment, seems like it's -75% for rd 1, -50% for rd 2, then disappears for subsequent rds. So guess it's WAD, but also seems to virtually guarantee combat goes more than 2 rds...

It is the attack startup rule which is in effect only on first 2 combat rounds. It simulates the fact that the attacker has to expose itself more in initial phases of the attack. Its a game-wide generic defensive advantage.

quote:


- I'm on "normal" AI, but it shows the defender getting a +15% AI bonus? Tooltip says normal is zero bonus.

The German AI gets this indeed. It is a different kind of AI bonus than the one mentioned in the tooltips. This one functions NOT to make the AI stronger, but to get it to be at the same level. Thing is the German AI will never reach the kind of bonusses (exceeding >150% offensive) on their PG and this rule compensates for that. Admittedly it is quite hidden. Welcome to the pleasures of being able to look inside the 'black box'.

quote:


- Defender is getting full entrenchment bonus? Manual says it is reduced first turn.

Not sure what you mean here. But only the Soviets should get any reduction in entrenchment POINTS. (which remaining points would still be fully applied)

quote:


- Defender isn't suffering any penalties at all (such as the "def penalty" shown on subunit counters)according to the details.
So where are all the Soviet penalties on turn 1? According to the details all the defensive modifiers are positive, and the ATTACKER is suffering significant penalties...

It depends where you attack the Soviets. Not all Soviet units suffer these. For example on the Finland front the Soviets are ready.
Furthermore in forests or towns they'll have higher percentages (even can be positive).

Hope this helps a bit.

best wishes,
Vic






RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 7:46:41 PM)

Vic,
Thanks for your response, and "roger" on #1. For all the rest, this was for German vs AI Soviet, in the open. Not sure if my screen shot will show up. I used a round 3 example, and as you can see the Russians still have large bonus, and no subtractions. Including full entrenchment and the AI bonus. So that's what I'm getting at when I ask "where all all the Russian first turn penalties!". etc. I am using the "1.02g" version

[image]local://upfiles/32336/D76CAB77124F4E3F9511124697C359E0.jpg[/image]



Vic -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 8:38:50 PM)

Hi Random,

You seem to be on to something there. The Soviet AI is indeed receiving a bonus I was not aware of and that was intended for the German AI (which does receive it as intended). The bonus only applies in your turn and in the AI turn the AI will fight without it. I'll give it some thought how to correct this without disturbing the balance. Thanks for pointing this out. Happy this got spotted.

As for the bonuses. They are only applied on defending units 'shooting at some-one else' and not on them 'taking a hit'. So that is working as intended. Take a look at a soviet individual attacking a german individual.

Best wishes,
Vic



RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/27/2016 10:33:19 PM)

Thanks Vic! And I'm truly not trying to be pedantic, but this was a turn 1 attack. The German gets his "after modification" score of 16.01. But the AI-Russian gets 100%(!) entrenchment bonus, and doesn't get any penalty for being on the defense. So his "after modification" score is a whopping 230. If the initial turn(s) Russian penalties aren't applied for defenders "taking a hit", how else could they be applied? You obviously don't get an entrenchment bonus on the attack anyway.

Per 5.2.13: "The Soviets incur two penalties at the start of the campaign - a Blitzkrieg Shock penalty and an Entrenchment (poor defensive preparations) penalty." These are shown as -50%/-50 for the first turn in the table. Neither of these seem to be applied per the screenshot?? Nothing "negative" at all. It does also say "The AI has a different set of combat penalties(different mechanics) but the overall effect is the same."-- but I see no effect at all. All my turn 1 initial attacks seem to result in the Russians getting these massive 100% entrenchment bonuses when the they should be getting PENALTIES.

Another example is Turn 1, hex 21,51 (Plains). Two Russian Cav Divs (3rd & 14th), with 78 entrench points. So I'd think the max bonus would be 78% (with no first turn penalties even being considered). But if you attack them with nearby German Divs, then look at the detail tab, they get a 100% entrenchment bonus!

If I'm just missing something forgive me for being denser than a rock. [:)]



Vic -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/28/2016 9:28:42 AM)

You are missing something and you are probably less dense than a rock also. Dont worry.

The maximum entrenchment of a forest hex is 150... the Russians get -50 so they end up with 100 entrenchment points. Which results in 100% defensive bonus instead of 150% defensive bonus. (edit: In fact I just had contact with Cameron and the entrenchment rule only kicks in if you are playing the Soviet side as human, if the Soviet side is AI the Soviets get a higher blitzkrieg penalty instead of an entrenchment reduction)

When you are referring to seeing a unit with 78 entrench points, you have to realise that is the average entrenchment of that unit and different subparts of the units might have higher or lower entrenchment. Click on the subparts to see the entrenchment rate of a subpart (like cavalry or t-26).

On the blitzkrieg and posture penalties/bonusses (the ones indicated as blue or red on the subparts in map-mode)... They affect attack rolls in combat (as you can see in your screenshot with +50% special) not defend rolls.
The use of defend roll might confusing here.
A combat is resolved as a series of attacks&defend rolls for all units. That mean that defending units can have individuals that are attacking (and they would receive a negative special modifier for the soviets). To check this in the detail window go to a Soviet unit and check one of the attacks done by a soviet individual.

Best wishes,
Vic




Vic -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/28/2016 11:54:12 AM)

edited post above with final answer on entrenchment question.



warspite1 -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/28/2016 12:40:21 PM)

So Vic (for those of us who really are dense) in simple terms, how do you summarise the exchange between you and RandomAttack in terms of what is wrong with combat in version 1.02g? Is there more than one issue here? Also is this new to 1.02g or has this been the case since day 1?

Many thanks.



Vic -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/28/2016 1:36:12 PM)

Hi warspite1,

There is nothing wrong with the combat calculations.
But the Soviet AI was getting some unintended relatively minor bonus. So from 1.03b the Soviet AI will be a bit easier to beat on regular difficulty. (however the Germans will no longer have the same benefit of putting their forces at higher retreat losses settings)

Best wishes,
Vic



warspite1 -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/28/2016 1:38:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Hi warspite1,

There is nothing wrong with the combat calculations.
But the Soviet AI was getting some unintended relatively minor bonus. So from 1.03b the Soviet AI will be a bit easier to beat on regular difficulty. (however the Germans will no longer have the same benefit of putting their forces at higher retreat losses settings)

Best wishes,
Vic
warspite1

Okay great - thanks for the quick response [:)].




RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/28/2016 3:09:07 PM)

Ahhh,"light dawns on Marble Head". Thanks! And a mere 15% will not stop the onslaught of my Panzers. Well, for the first few turns anyway. After that I'll probably get crushed in any event... [:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.718018