RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV



Message

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/14/2021 2:39:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Seems very artificial.
Take for example two opposites:
1. Soviet conscripts in summer of '41 which were poorly equipped, with almost zero training but they operated as human waves (backs against NKVD units).


Very low Proficiency but moderate Commitment.

quote:

2. LSSAH or Viking which were elite units and they dedication and morale allowed them on various occasions to overcome lack of supply and being outnumbered or encircled.


High Proficiency and high Commitment.

quote:

Also where is the very important factor of commander's influence?


Commanders are coming too.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/14/2021 2:45:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

After giving it moree thought here is my opinion on the matter.
Things to consider:
1. Elite units (LSSAH, Paras): this are units which were cream de la creme of given army. Normally best trained, best equipped and specially treated. Such units were tough cookies and their morale was rarely affected by lack of supplies, losses or being encirlced. Their combat efficiency was exceptional


Very high Proficiency and very high Commitment.

quote:

2. Fanatic units (e.g. 12.SS.pzDiv or Kamikaze): their morale was also rarely affected by the supply, losses or combat situation. But they combat efficiency was a mixed bag. More on the fanatically following orders side.


Very high Commitment.

quote:

3. Rugged defense: this happened even in case of green units, conscripts or decimated regulars. Somehow, somewhere it just clicked and they would stay their ground against the odds.


Terrain effects.

quote:

4. Conscripts i.e. Volkssturm: poor morale, poorly trained and equipped but acted of fear of consequences of not following orders. This were very inefficient although en masse could be dangerous like Banzai attacks.


Very low Proficiency and moderate Commitment.

quote:

5. Pride: very important factor. There were nations with long and rooted military lineage where it was seen as honour to serve. Some units were seen as giving special pride to its troopers. Take for example the Irish Guards or Alpini.


High Commitment.

quote:

6. Morale is definitely not a simple outcome of calculating parts. As mentioned above it actually derives from many things.


As it does in TOAW.

quote:

7. Leadership: it was many times the differentiator. Even a tactically dumb commander like Sepp Dietrich but with great personal skills or agenda would inspire troops. And efficiency of carrying out orders from higher brass depends on quality of the COs. That's why ze Germans were so efficient and Soviets were not.


Commanders are coming.

quote:

8. Military mentality: there was much difference to the treatment of troops, officers, losses etc. amongst nations. While US was focused on limiting personnel losses the Soviets or Japanese didn't care. While Nazis were fixating on creating elitist army the Brits were somewhat in the middle.


This is other higher factors like Force Proficiency and Formation Proficiency.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/14/2021 2:47:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. Two votes for 1:1; Two votes for 3:1 (including mine); And one vote for 1:0 (infinity).

Probably the best average for that is 3:1, and that's what I'll go with.

So...the old combat formula was: (2P + S + R)/4.

The new one will be: (3P + C + 2S + 2R)/8.

And it will get even more complex when supply is split up into components.



Sorry I got late to this to cast my vote ;).

It would be useful if the multiplying factors for this formula could be set by the future scenario designers.

(P1*P + P2*C + P3*S + P4*R)/8.

The suggested values for P[1,2,3,4] look reasonable, but I do not think they can be correct for every scale and scenario, also I am a bit wary of adding complexity to an already complex game.


Players are going to be confused enough - especially when supply is split up - without making the factors all variable. That will have to wait till the new formulas have sunk into everyone's minds.



gliz2 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/16/2021 7:29:39 AM)

Thanks Curtis for replay.

As to the rugged defence maybe I'm using a wrong term but it has nothing to do with terrain. Simply an unit performing exceptionally against their proficiency (and "commitment"). It could happen also on a flatland.

Also when reading about Force and Foemarion Proficiency I am not sure if we are talking the same thing.
The Soviet tactics and use of resources were not lesser to the Germans. They were different.
Same for Americans.
An elitist army is not better performing per se on a grand scale. Actually it is "performing" worse as the losses are very hard on such a force. Whereas a mediocre force can easily replace most of their losses.
An example: while in '43 Germans had decimated the Soviet armour with their limited numbers of Tigers the STAVKA soon learned how to deal with the threat: bypass them and force them to travel. In effect already in late summer '43 the Tigers lost their strategical meaning. And their efficiency as units plummeted and never recovered.
Superb piece as their were their combat proficiency was rather underwhelming in '44-'45 on Eastern Front.

I recently replayed some Tiller's Panzer Campaigns. It is so transparent and easy to understand logic (e.g "disrupted" or "broken" status).

I have trouble understanding what is the purpose of the commitment. Is this just some (another) hidden calculus that won't be visible to the player?

I am not trying to dismiss the idea but I am simply having difficulty to place this based in the boardgame logic.

PS. Banzai attacks were defo not "moderate commitment". I would also not put the Soviet human waves of '41 as just moderate commitment.
This were examples of commitment against logic.




76mm -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/16/2021 11:10:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2
Thanks Curtis for replay.
I am not trying to dismiss the idea but I am simply having difficulty to place this based in the boardgame logic.

I can't speak for Curtis, but my understanding is as follows:

"Commitment" represents troops' base motivation level--their "willingness to die", so to speak.

"Morale" represents their aggregate motivation with consideration of their Commitment, but also other factors, such as supply, readiness, etc. In other words, troops that may initially have had really high Commitment might find themselves a bit less motivated after they've been out of supply or in non-stop combat for some prolonged period.

Curtis can jump in if he has some other view.

Sure, it makes things more complicated, but as long as the formula are clear I think it is a good idea. Also, since it looks like morale will be the composite result of various states, it would be really nice if morale levels would be visible in-game somehow.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/16/2021 2:04:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2
Thanks Curtis for replay.
I am not trying to dismiss the idea but I am simply having difficulty to place this based in the boardgame logic.

I can't speak for Curtis, but my understanding is as follows:

"Commitment" represents troops' base motivation level--their "willingness to die", so to speak.

"Morale" represents their aggregate motivation with consideration of their Commitment, but also other factors, such as supply, readiness, etc. In other words, troops that may initially have had really high Commitment might find themselves a bit less motivated after they've been out of supply or in non-stop combat for some prolonged period.

Curtis can jump in if he has some other view.

Sure, it makes things more complicated, but as long as the formula are clear I think it is a good idea. Also, since it looks like morale will be the composite result of various states, it would be really nice if morale levels would be visible in-game somehow.

That's about it. I would add "for the cause" to "willingness to die".



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/16/2021 2:11:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I have trouble understanding what is the purpose of the commitment. Is this just some (another) hidden calculus that won't be visible to the player?


Proficiency (as it currently stands) goes up with experience. In long campaigns eventually even the Italians are 100 prof. This is obviously wrong. So, lets split it into two parameters: One that still rises with experience (i. e. like skill), and one that doesn't (i. e. something akin to dedication to the war). Now the Italians can get more and more skillful, but their willingness to stand and die will stay at the same low level and they will never match the truly committed forces.



gliz2 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/17/2021 5:01:36 PM)

Ha! Didn't know that!
Now it's much clearer.

Just one more thing: and how are then new equipment and reinforcements treated?
Cause this can get pretty messy pretty darn quick (commitment vs proficiency).



governato -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/17/2021 5:41:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I have trouble understanding what is the purpose of the commitment. Is this just some (another) hidden calculus that won't be visible to the player?


Proficiency (as it currently stands) goes up with experience. In long campaigns eventually even the Italians are 100 prof. This is obviously wrong. So, lets split it into two parameters: One that still rises with experience (i. e. like skill), and one that doesn't (i. e. something akin to dedication to the war). Now the Italians can get more and more skillful, but their willingness to stand and die will stay at the same low level and they will never match the truly committed forces.




With the goal of being constructive I am still non convinced for the need to add one additional parameter to a unit strength calculation. Commitment mostly adds redundant complexity.
Sure, one can rationalize adding Commitment any way you want but if one looks at the math

1) IF Proficiency and Commitment are set in the same ballpark then the effect is mostly
to slow down the upward proficiency drift by 25%. That is not much.

2) If Proficiency and Commitment are set at very different values the effect is to
decrease the weight of Proficiency by 25% in the unit strength calculation, again a small effect.


The scenario allows designers to rescale parameters such as engineering/entrenchment, shock values, you name it. A good designer will tweak them accordingly. Better designers may even let them alone.
Just allow the designers to add weights to Proficiency, Supply and Readiness, simpler and most most will stick to defaults anyway.


And, forgetting about Italian stereotypes enforced by ass-whopped German generals and old SPI boardgames (the pasta rule lives!), surely the Axis satellites commitment to the cause went down over 4 years. So why keep Commitment fixed? That would be as wrong as allowing proficiency to drift upward.

And what if a unit reconstitutes? will commitment stay the same or be reset to a national average as proficiency does?

Yes I have doubts :).




Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/17/2021 7:07:47 PM)

Looking at this from a war in the Pacific angle, the Japanese at Guadalcanal had horrible supply. They had to run an Allied gauntlet to get anything to the island. Even at that it seems their moral was relatively high. It seems to me that high moral does not tell you to charge across a stream into machine gun fire. That takes commitment. You have to be committed to your cause. It was the same across the entire Pacific. Maybe it wasn't moral as much as commitment that made the Japanese such difficult foes even when not fighting badly outnumbered on their own soil. For the Soviet soldier it was get shot by the Germans or get shot by the NKVD. A different sort of commitment.

Commitment does have a place in TOAW and some device to mitigate proficiency increase should be desirable. It's hard to imagine a Rumanian unit being as elite as say an SS armored division. But it needs to be up to the scenario designer to enact it and to what degree. In a campaign lasting years it also needs to be variable.

I wonder if it might be convenient to use commitment to place a negative value against proficiency. Not so committed you take some off proficiency when combat is calculated as well as slowing down overall proficiency gain.



cathar1244 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 8:11:21 AM)

quote:

forgetting about Italian stereotypes enforced by ass-whopped German generals and old SPI boardgames (the pasta rule lives!)


My favorite were the vodka-holized "berserker" squads for the Soviets in Squad Leader. [:D]

I wonder if the SL designers knew about the use of amphetamines by German forces.

Cheers



gliz2 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 4:25:35 PM)

Very good point on the change over time. I think it captures my problem with the idea.
Commitment was not only unit related but also event driven. Hard to capture that in a long campaign.
I think I see a valid point for short scenarios but to me the longer the scenario the more hectic it will become to handle commitment. Or it will become an absurdity like the Curtis' example with proficiency.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 4:37:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

1) IF Proficiency and Commitment are set in the same ballpark then the effect is mostly
to slow down the upward proficiency drift by 25%. That is not much.

2) If Proficiency and Commitment are set at very different values the effect is to
decrease the weight of Proficiency by 25% in the unit strength calculation, again a small effect.


That's just the effect on Combat Strength. Retreating, breaking off combat, routing, reorganizing, recovering from rout/reorganization are 100% Commitment.



Zovs -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 4:42:16 PM)

It's still a very weird word to me commitment, that is something a man and women (generally speaking) do.

Retreat, breaking off combat, routing and all that are not really about commitment, its about training and discipline really.

If you ever played any tactical war games you'd know this. ASL is a prime example of how training and discipline effect a units cohesion. When that breakdown then they rout an retreat, not because they are "committed to some cause".



Zovs -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 4:44:19 PM)

Now in ASL terms all nationalities may go Berserk. Its all part of Heat of Battle, same with Hero creation.

A units morale and elan are reflected by its training and military doctrine and discipline.



governato -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 5:30:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

1) IF Proficiency and Commitment are set in the same ballpark then the effect is mostly
to slow down the upward proficiency drift by 25%. That is not much.

2) If Proficiency and Commitment are set at very different values the effect is to
decrease the weight of Proficiency by 25% in the unit strength calculation, again a small effect.


That's just the effect on Combat Strength. Retreating, breaking off combat, routing, reorganizing, recovering from rout/reorganization are 100% Commitment.


Thanks for the clarification. Yes all these attributes have ramifications in game play!

So this is my last comment on this thread and again from a place of fondness for the game ...and even for the developers, I really appreciate your efforts :)

I think that 1) adding complexity to the scenarios introducing 2) a not clearly defined concept such as 'Commitment' 3) arbitrarily (why 3P+C+2R+2S ? ) and statically implemented it's not ideal and quite possibly a bit redundant.

Embrace that each variable is an aggregate of the effect of many that are almost impossible to separate in a linear way. And why not reconsider the fact that a unit with 1% supply only loses 25% of its strength? (True for barbarians perhaps..bad for many other situations).

Just make the 3 variables formula (and their effects in other part of the game) editable/variable where possible, let designers assign the specific meaning they prefer to the variables depending on the situation -> Enjoy people taking TOAW to unplanned places. I think that 'd be more in the spirit of TOAW.
I'd say that designers have taken advantage of that flexibility, with only the occasional SNAFU...




Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 5:31:22 PM)

There is forced retreat, typically because moral has broken, and there is voluntary retreat because a position has become untenable. TOAW does not separate the two. Routing is for one reason only, moral and discipline has broken and the unit is no longer functioning as a cohesive force. None of these are affected entirely by commitment. But commitment definitely plays it's part.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 8:56:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

... a not clearly defined concept such as 'Commitment'


It is clearly defined: Willingness to die for the cause.

quote:

...why 3P+C+2R+2S ?


It's just algebra. The old formula was (2P + R + S)/4. Split P up into 3/4 P + 1/4 C and you get the above formula.

quote:

And why not reconsider the fact that a unit with 1% supply only loses 25% of its strength?


You're misunderstanding what the Unit Supply level represents. See 9.1.7.6 in the manual.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 9:00:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

There is forced retreat, typically because moral has broken, and there is voluntary retreat because a position has become untenable. TOAW does not separate the two.


Loss tolerance takes this into consideration: Lower the loss tolerance, the less likely the unit is to rout/reorganize upon retreating - better enabling it to retreat in good order.



governato -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 9:18:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
It's just algebra. The old formula was (2P + R + S)/4. Split P up into 3/4 P + 1/4 C and you get the above formula.
quote:




I am pretty sure that a lot of people in this forum appreciate algebra, which is why people are interested in how the engine works.

Why did we pick 3/4 P + 1/4 C and not say 1/2 P + 1/2 C or any combination of the variables that normalizes the formula correctly.

What is the rationale behind that specific choice for the combat strength formula?


there must be a reason to pick that specific combination of variables vs the infinite others.
Was it in Dupuy's book? Or any other study on military warfare?
That is my main worry of having it fixed in the engine. If it is the developers hunch that 'it kinda works most of the time' I am OK with that, but why not allow other combinations that might suit different epochs
or future modeling of warfare? Or just the designer whim?


And why Supply only accounts for 25% of strength and not say 10% or 80% for ALL scenarios is not obvious to me and I would like to learn more about it (and yes 9.1.7 is recommended reading).

And I broke my promise not to write more :(




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 9:35:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

Why did we pick 3/4 P + 1/4 C and not say 1/2 P + 1/2 C or any combination of the variables that normalizes the formula correctly.


See post #25 of this thread.

quote:

And why Supply only accounts for 25% of strength and not say 10% or 80% for ALL scenarios is not obvious to me and I would like to learn more about it (and yes 9.1.7 is recommended reading).


It's only 25% if Proficiency is 100% and Readiness is 100%. Note that Readiness can not be higher than the supply level (with a minimum value of 33%). So, expend half your supply and half your readiness is gone too. That means that supply is a bigger factor on combat strength than that formula implies.

Nevertheless, very proficient units are less impacted by supply level than crappy units. As explained in the manual, that's because elite units have much better "fire discipline" than poorer units.

Just to give an example: Supose the unit has 50% Proficiency and is at 100% supply and readiness. Its strength is 75% of raw equipment strength. Now expend all its supply: It now has the same 50% Proficiency, 1% supply and 33% readiness. Its strengh is .33% of raw equipment strength. 0.33/0.75 means that the unit has only 45% of the strength it started with.



governato -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/18/2021 10:13:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #25 of this thread.



Yup. So my understanding is that the community of designers thought that it was 'pretty good'.

In Dupuy's "Numbers, Predictions and War" 'Combat Power Potential' or P of a unit is defined as

P= Force Strength x Leadership x Mobility x Experience x Morale x Logistics x ..environmental factors

where each variable other than Force Strength goes from 0 (horrible) to 1. (optimal)

Note that the variables relate somewhat directly to TOAW's choices

Mobility = Readiness?
Logistics = Supply
Morale = Commitment

But the formula is multiplicative rather than a sum.

Should I then assume that the original one (2P+R+S)/4 came from Koger but with no obvious reference to a previous study behind it? I am not implying that it is a poor choice, but that seems a pretty crucial formula that people have worked on for decades so I may as well ask and learn something :).



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/19/2021 12:34:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

In Dupuy's "Numbers, Predictions and War" 'Combat Power Potential' or P of a unit is defined as

P= Force Strength x Leadership x Mobility x Experience x Morale x Logistics x ..environmental factors

where each variable other than Force Strength goes from 0 (horrible) to 1. (optimal)

Note that the variables relate somewhat directly to TOAW's choices

Mobility = Readiness?
Logistics = Supply
Morale = Commitment

But the formula is multiplicative rather than a sum.


If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.

quote:

Should I then assume that the original one (2P+R+S)/4 came from Koger but with no obvious reference to a previous study behind it? I am not implying that it is a poor choice, but that seems a pretty crucial formula that people have worked on for decades so I may as well ask and learn something :).


Only Norm knows. But, its worked very well so far. I'm just adding a factor that doesn't change with experience/training.



governato -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/19/2021 1:36:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.



OK, we are stuck with fixed commitment :) I hope it's backward compatible!

Just remember formulas always have boundaries of applicability, that is how the modeling of physical systems work...in TOAW readiness is not allowed to go to 0. And if you set P,S and R all to 0 then your strength goes to zero as well! So probably Dupuy's model just sets limits to each variable so that the minimum possible result is ... I dunno 10%? Whatever works for West Point studies.






Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/20/2021 11:13:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.



OK, we are stuck with fixed commitment :) I hope it's backward compatible!



Fixed commitment would be very unfortunate. If Robert E. Lee died I'm quite sure it would have done something to the commitment of the South's troops. If George Washington died, the same. True of many leaders in many wars. When Mussolini was dethroned the Italian commitment hit rock bottom. If Hitler had been assassinated the German commitment would have dropped considerably if not evaporated completely. If anything it should be flexible and tied to events so it can be changed over time.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/21/2021 1:49:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.



OK, we are stuck with fixed commitment :) I hope it's backward compatible!



Fixed commitment would be very unfortunate. If Robert E. Lee died I'm quite sure it would have done something to the commitment of the South's troops. If George Washington died, the same. True of many leaders in many wars. When Mussolini was dethroned the Italian commitment hit rock bottom. If Hitler had been assassinated the German commitment would have dropped considerably if not evaporated completely. If anything it should be flexible and tied to events so it can be changed over time.


Eventually. But I'm not going to dribble out individual events. Much more efficient to do them all in one big lot.



Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/21/2021 2:17:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.



OK, we are stuck with fixed commitment :) I hope it's backward compatible!



Fixed commitment would be very unfortunate. If Robert E. Lee died I'm quite sure it would have done something to the commitment of the South's troops. If George Washington died, the same. True of many leaders in many wars. When Mussolini was dethroned the Italian commitment hit rock bottom. If Hitler had been assassinated the German commitment would have dropped considerably if not evaporated completely. If anything it should be flexible and tied to events so it can be changed over time.


Eventually. But I'm not going to dribble out individual events. Much more efficient to do them all in one big lot.


True that.



rhinobones -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/21/2021 5:32:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL:
Suppose Unit Proficiency were split up into two parameters: Unit Skill (still named Proficiency but a measure of how well trained the unit was) and Unit Commitment (how ready to die for the cause the unit was).


Commitment sounds like it functions a lot like loss tolerance which is obviously something we already have. Commitment = Minimum, Limited, Maximum. Also, in the description of its planned usage, I don’t see a compelling reason for making the editorial process more complex.

A quick count of the editor variables which directly impact a unit’s combat efficiency: Force Editor, Formation Report, Replacements, Current Force, Current Formation and Current Unit – 50 editable values.

A quick count of the editor variables which indirectly impact a unit’s combat efficiency: Advanced Rules, Deployment and Objective Track – 33 editable values.

This doesn’t even account for the impact from adding Commanders.

Been my observation that when an announcement such as this is made, Commanders for example, the decision has already been made and implementation is inevitable. This is not a subject where debate will make a difference in the decision. But please, try to find a term that at least has a military connotation. Maybe National Elan, Patriotism, Sense of Duty . . . anything but Commitment. Every time I hear commitment, I can’t help but think of the pig in the Bacon & Eggs analogy.

Regards



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/21/2021 5:54:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Commitment sounds like it functions a lot like loss tolerance which is obviously something we already have. Commitment = Minimum, Limited, Maximum. Also, in the description of its planned usage, I don’t see a compelling reason for making the editorial process more complex.


Commitment is an intrinsic parameter of the unit - like Proficiency. Loss Tolerances are the orders the player is giving his units. How well they comply with them is based upon their...Commitment.

quote:

A quick count of the editor variables which directly impact a unit’s combat efficiency: Force Editor, Formation Report, Replacements, Current Force, Current Formation and Current Unit – 50 editable values.

A quick count of the editor variables which indirectly impact a unit’s combat efficiency: Advanced Rules, Deployment and Objective Track – 33 editable values.

This doesn’t even account for the impact from adding Commanders.


If you don't have a use for Commitment, just set it the same as Proficiency. The unit will work like before (except for the impact of combat experience on its value).

quote:

Been my observation that when an announcement such as this is made, Commanders for example, the decision has already been made and implementation is inevitable. This is not a subject where debate will make a difference in the decision. But please, try to find a term that at least has a military connotation. Maybe National Elan, Patriotism, Sense of Duty . . . anything but Commitment. Every time I hear commitment, I can’t help but think of the pig in the Bacon & Eggs analogy.


If someone comes up with a better name for "willingness to die for the cause" than Commitment, I'll use it. Hasn't happened yet.



Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/21/2021 8:44:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
I can’t help but think of the pig in the Bacon & Eggs analogy.


Sounds like something Mike Leach would say. [;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375