RE: combat system tests

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: combat system tests

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: combat system tests

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: combat system tests - 4/20/2009 4:55:37 PM

secadegas

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

OTOH the attackers tended to be from yellow or red stacked hexes and I don't know if overstacking would also influence the results.

I don't want to be rude (I really don't) but it seems there are a lot of people still not knowing some important facts about this game engine. The game has a learning curve which must be respected.

As I put it before: most experienced players can feel when the attacking unit runs the risk of disentegration and just don't make the attack or just consider the risk.

From the manual (please don't forget the attacking unit also becomes a target for the defender unit):

"Target Density (Advanced Rules)

Normal combat loss calculations assume target densities below a certain value based on the physical scale of the scenario. In many cases you can exceed this target density by piling units into a location. This may be the only way to effectively concentrate for an attack in some scenarios, but there is a cost. If you present the other force with a concentration of equipment so dense that he can't help but hit something with every shot you may take excessive losses. Locations with excessive target densities are indicated on the map by a small colored light in the west corner of the location. These indicator lights range from yellow-green to red.

As a rule of thumb, you should avoid piling units into a location if you start seeing yellow, orange or red target density lights on the map.

No indicator. Target density is at or below the limit for the scenario.
A Yellow-green indicator is a caution. Target density limits have been exceeded, and combat losses are multiplied by 1.0 to 1.4.
A Yellow indicator is a warning. Excessive target densities will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.4 to 1.7.
An orange indicator is a strong warning. Excessive target densities will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.7 to 2.0.
A red indicator is a very strong warning. Excessive target densities will result in a combat losses being multiplied by at least 2.0. "

< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 4/20/2009 5:01:52 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 31

RE: combat system tests - 4/20/2009 10:27:39 PM

desert

Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline

Yeah, just look at my Invasion Amerika PBM�- a fresh, untried regiment simply vanished in an attack that involved 6 units of similar size and strength against inferior opponents (the evaporation could probably be explained by low shock values and the presence of numerous tanks though).

Edit: And there aren't any density multipliers in this scenario, so they don't count.

I see it a lot in Boonierat's Vietnam scenarios too. Sometimes I lose 3-5 hundred men (at least 1 unit evaporates) in an attack unsupported by artillery or planes while the Vietcong lose a couple of squads.

< Message edited by desert -- 4/20/2009 10:30:10 PM >

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 32

RE: combat system tests - 4/21/2009 7:01:46 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

OTOH the attackers tended to be from yellow or red stacked hexes and I don't know if overstacking would also influence the results.

I don't want to be rude (I really don't) but it seems there are a lot of people still not knowing some important facts about this game engine. The game has a learning curve which must be respected.

As I put it before: most experienced players can feel when the attacking unit runs the risk of disentegration and just don't make the attack or just consider the risk.

From the manual (please don't forget the attacking unit also becomes a target for the defender unit):

"Target Density (Advanced Rules)

Normal combat loss calculations assume target densities below a certain value based on the physical scale of the scenario. In many cases you can exceed this target density by piling units into a location. This may be the only way to effectively concentrate for an attack in some scenarios, but there is a cost. If you present the other force with a concentration of equipment so dense that he can't help but hit something with every shot you may take excessive losses. Locations with excessive target densities are indicated on the map by a small colored light in the west corner of the location. These indicator lights range from yellow-green to red.

As a rule of thumb, you should avoid piling units into a location if you start seeing yellow, orange or red target density lights on the map.

No indicator. Target density is at or below the limit for the scenario.
A Yellow-green indicator is a caution. Target density limits have been exceeded, and combat losses are multiplied by 1.0 to 1.4.
A Yellow indicator is a warning. Excessive target densities will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.4 to 1.7.
An orange indicator is a strong warning. Excessive target densities will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.7 to 2.0.
A red indicator is a very strong warning. Excessive target densities will result in a combat losses being multiplied by at least 2.0. "

Well maybe my reading comprehension is also iffy, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere that stacking also increases the probability of evaporation. IMO even double combat losses aren't sufficient to justify green units evaporating.

Also it's not me making these attacks, but Elmer. Then again, he probably just needs some experience. I'll remember to tell him the next time he does it.

(in reply to secadegas)

Post #: 33

RE: combat system tests - 4/21/2009 7:15:08 PM

secadegas

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Also it's not me making these attacks, but Elmer. Then again, he probably just needs some experience. I'll remember to tell him the next time he does it.

Don't bother telling him... Elmer needs much more than experience.

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 34

RE: combat system tests - 4/21/2009 7:42:29 PM

secadegas

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

IMO even double combat losses aren't sufficient to justify green units evaporating.

On the manual from previous versions of TOAW there was chapter called "Designer Notes".

There we could find Norm Koger's understanding of unit's evaporation:

(quote)
Evaporation happens whenever a unit loses cohesion. While history is replete with tales of units that fought to the last man, these are unusual cases. There are many more examples of units that simply dissolved, even if only temporarily, under enemy fire. Units, even good units, can only take so much.

In most cases evaporation is different from what most wargamers are used to calling "elimination". Unless the evaporating unit is isolated, all surviving troops and equipment are still available for distribution to other units. Isolated units (those not able to trace a line of communication back to a friendly supply point), on the other hand, are truly eliminated when they evaporate. Their troops and equipment are permanently lost - assumed surrendered to enemy forces.

Time allowing, many evaporated units will eventually be reconstituted from available replacements.
(unquote)

IMO double combat losses are more than sufficient to justify green units to lose cohesion... and evaporate.

I suppose this is what happens in RL.

< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 4/21/2009 7:43:30 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 35

RE: combat system tests - 4/22/2009 3:44:32 AM

ralphtricky

Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
Evaporation happens whenever a unit loses cohesion. While history is replete with tales of units that fought to the last man, these are unusual cases. There are many more examples of units that simply dissolved, even if only temporarily, under enemy fire. Units, even good units, can only take so much.

In most cases evaporation is different from what most wargamers are used to calling "elimination". Unless the evaporating unit is isolated, all surviving troops and equipment are still available for distribution to other units. Isolated units (those not able to trace a line of communication back to a friendly supply point), on the other hand, are truly eliminated when they evaporate. Their troops and equipment are permanently lost - assumed surrendered to enemy forces.

Time allowing, many evaporated units will eventually be reconstituted from available replacements.

IMO double combat losses are more than sufficient to justify green units to lose cohesion... and evaporate.
I suppose this is what happens in RL.

Evaporation is one of the reasons I love TOAW.

If this happened the same way with attackers and defenders, I'd say that it is working as designed. In this case, I can see the code. If someone is defending, suffers mild losses and fail their quality checks, they are going to divide into three pieces and retreat. If the attacker fails his quality checks he was going to evaporate, now he's going to reorganize.

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to secadegas)

Post #: 36

RE: combat system tests - 4/22/2009 9:17:44 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO
Evaporation happens whenever a unit loses cohesion. While history is replete with tales of units that fought to the last man, these are unusual cases. There are many more examples of units that simply dissolved, even if only temporarily, under enemy fire. Units, even good units, can only take so much.

In most cases evaporation is different from what most wargamers are used to calling "elimination". Unless the evaporating unit is isolated, all surviving troops and equipment are still available for distribution to other units. Isolated units (those not able to trace a line of communication back to a friendly supply point), on the other hand, are truly eliminated when they evaporate. Their troops and equipment are permanently lost - assumed surrendered to enemy forces.

Time allowing, many evaporated units will eventually be reconstituted from available replacements.

IMO double combat losses are more than sufficient to justify green units to lose cohesion... and evaporate.
I suppose this is what happens in RL.

Evaporation is one of the reasons I love TOAW.

If this happened the same way with attackers and defenders, I'd say that it is working as designed. In this case, I can see the code. If someone is defending, suffers mild losses and fail their quality checks, they are going to divide into three pieces and retreat. If the attacker fails his quality checks he was going to evaporate, now he's going to reorganize.

I agree with Sekadegas that we do not want to shield the attackers from deserved evaporations. But if Ralph has found a bug that causes undeserved evaporations, we do want to fix that. And my tests indicate that he has.

To do the test, I just sort of reversed my "Test Terrain" scenario. Instead of the big American units attacking the 1/3 sized German units in their various terrains, I set up the attacks by the Germans against the Americans. So all attacks were at 1:3 odds, with all defenders in clear terrain. This should give lots of chances for Attacker evaporations. There were 100 attacks altogether.

The first set of tests were with the AD still at 40. At that AD setting, the attackers weren't suffering enough losses to justify any evaporations. But several still did under 3.2 - none under 3.4. Similar with the AD lowered to 10. But when the AD was lowered to 6, the evaporations went up in both cases - indicating that they were now mostly deserved. Finally, at AD = 4, most attackers evaporated regardless of version. I think this shows that there was a bug where attacking units were suffering undeserved evaporations, and it has been fixed in 3.4. Attackers clearly will still evaporate when they deserve to, but only when they deserve to.