RE: Changes. Your Thoughts.

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: Changes. Your Thoughts.

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: Changes. Your Thoughts.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 4:18:03 AM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

Unfortunately i can't be clear than i was. Obvious language barrier doesn't allow. Perhaps others can do it much better. However i believe i was clear enough to whom trully understands the game system. And i know you do.

In the cases i mentioned before combat resolution results aren't at all realistic and, in my oppinion, there aren't no figures that can demonstrate otherwise.

Sigh. I repeat: I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. Getting angry doesn't help.

It has to be investigated properly if anyone expects to see a code change devoted to it.

Look at it this way: If a plane crashes, the TSA doesn't instantly jump to the conclusion that the plane was defective. It considers all possible causes - including pilot error. And at least one of those pilots will be very experienced.

I'm very experienced with this game. Yet I still find new things I didn't know about it. And I still find myself doing things I shouldn't or forgetting to do things I should. It's that kind of game.

Now, I will continue the investigation - entirely on my own if I have to. But I'd still like to understand the case you cited. At first you talked about an AR value that would have been 4:1 odds, yet later described a situation that should have shown 36:1 odds. I'm just trying to resolve that. Needless to say, the odds (among a host of other things) make a difference in the chances of success. If you thought you had 36:1 odds but really had 4:1, that could account for a lot of the problem.

(in reply to secadegas)

Post #: 31

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 4:58:25 AM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Bob,

Joao ain't angry, perhaps a wee frustrated. I started playing PBEM vs. Rob 'Der Schwede' who mentioned the ignore losses 'issue' a few months ago in one of the threads *have to have a look which one it was*... He played Rob Kunz's RTM and I wanted to prove him wrong... that is, that in a H2H I can smash his Bolsheviks like a house of cards. Well, turned out it... didn't work out. OK I thought, perhaps becasue of the unit size(s) etc. So, we started another 'test', Last Stand in Africa, yet anotther smashing creation. Seemed to work better than the trench style experience in the East. Alas, I had a few examples where an unsupplied Italian armoured car batallion, 15 tankettes, a few carro armorto held out for 5-6 (!!!) game turns surrounded, bombarded etc by 2 of Monty's Divisions and corps artillery, plus the WDAF!

I have the PBEM turns somewhere and will also provide the toaw_log and the sitrep. I am more than happy to provide the core data and playest, provide examples. And yes, as you said, there's always something new even the hardcore TOAW players discover every day.

Now we are 'test playing' RK's Ardennes '44 scenario. The same... even the digged in and weary, untried Coys and Btl's of the 99th US Inf hold out like some elite Japanese Banzai units in Iwo Jima... when they're on 'ignore losses'.

The ant-attack bug had to be fixed, no doubt about that, but the current 'behaviour' *issue?!* has to be adressed or debunked.

I am currently running mods of the scenarios in question: using e.g. you suggestions about the combat attrition divider... but so far the depleted troops with ignore losses seem to be imune against 400AR+ attacks as well...

Klink, Oberst

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 2/1/2012 4:59:05 AM >

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 32

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 9:09:10 AM

Olorin

Posts: 1019
Joined: 4/22/2008
From: Greece
Status: offline

This problem was there even before 3.4, I don't think it has anything to do with the ant bug fix. There were long discussions about it, including Ralph and Bob. It seems it hasn't been resolved yet.

I refer to you to these threads:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?80824-Discussion-about-unrealistic-combat-in-TOAW-III
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?84031-combat-system-tests
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2078034
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2078034&mpage=1&key=�

< Message edited by Olorin -- 2/1/2012 9:18:16 AM >

_____________________________

"Drang nach Osten"
--A TOAWIII AAR--

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 33

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 9:16:22 AM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

This problem was there even before 3.4, I don't think it has anything to do with the ant bug fix. There were long discussions about it, including Ralph and Bob. It seems it hasn't been resolved yet.

Kalimera apo Kypros Kamerad Olorin!

Well, then we have to address, prove and fix it now. What's the point in changing, improving so many things on the wish-list if playing PBEM will lose its flavour? I need to run some tests with older versions; I am sure at 3.2 or perhaps even 3.4.173 it ain't that bad, uh?

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Olorin)

Post #: 34

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 9:31:02 AM

Olorin

Posts: 1019
Joined: 4/22/2008
From: Greece
Status: offline

Kalimera sthn omorfi Kypro Oberst!

The discussion in the threads I posted led to some useful changes; I thought that 7.23-7.25 would be enough to solve the "tanks won't die" issue, but apparently it still exists in 3.4.
I am not sure it's still there, as I haven't been playing TOAW under 3.4 much. But I am certain I experienced the "tanks won't die" syndrome in my DnO game against Fungwu in 2008, under 3.2.

_____________________________

"Drang nach Osten"
--A TOAWIII AAR--

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 35

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 5:47:17 PM

secadegas

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

Kalimera sthn omorfi Kypro Oberst!

The discussion in the threads I posted led to some useful changes; I thought that 7.23-7.25 would be enough to solve the "tanks won't die" issue, but apparently it still exists in 3.4.
I am not sure it's still there, as I haven't been playing TOAW under 3.4 much. But I am certain I experienced the "tanks won't die" syndrome in my DnO game against Fungwu in 2008, under 3.2.

I promised myself to post no more about this matter but just in sake of good order i must say that "tanks won't die" syndrome is not connected with the matter we are talking about.

This was adressed before (long time ago). Units made only of armoured equipment (apparent) unvulnerability is mainly due to 2 factors:
1) Attacking units without necessary tank killing equipment (despite attacking unit size its equipment AP capacity isn't enough or suitable to inflict loses on the defender's armoured equipment)
2) Well known tank resilience to attacker's arty fire support

This isn't a system's bug. It's just good, realistic combat simulation

< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 2/1/2012 5:58:26 PM >

(in reply to Olorin)

Post #: 36

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 6:27:05 PM

ogar

Posts: 297
Joined: 9/6/2009
Status: offline

I think Oberst's offer of TOAW logs will be very helpful.

Well, this may be pouring gasoline on the embers...
My wondering is "How does the actual scenario design impact this effect ?"

I tried LSiA after Klink raved about it, and I was very disappointed -- it's a nice _old_ scenario; must have been great under 3.0. I had similar non-AC unit instances of die-hards stopping either the Allies or the Germans stone cold. But this was designed with the old 99 MRPB and used all the old defaults for Attrition, Entrenchment, etc. I have to think that these combined with 3.4 are part of the problem here.

I think the RTMs have been tweaked a bit, and so I think they might be a better test basis.

Right now, I'm testing a newer version of Op Neva -- and Snefens' latest adjustments make a whole helluva lotta difference. What was a very very static - slam, slam, slam (with 3 artillery divisions plus most of a Rifle Corps) to perhaps gain just one 2.5km hex -- has now become a more realistic approximation of that campaign. It's still slogging it out (winter offensive by the Soviets, so what can you expect ?) but it's "lighter on its feet" and the stand-out inf. company holding off 4 regiments becomes the exception not the rule. All this due to the designer's adjusting the scenario defaults based on play-tests under 3.4.

I wonder how much of this problem is related to a scenario just using the old defaults ? Again, the logs will help tremendously, especially from scenarios that are known to have been reviewed by the designer for 3.4.

Well, there's the extra hydrocarbons. Anyone got a match ?

(in reply to secadegas)

Post #: 37

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 7:44:01 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

LSiA is still smashing mate :P

And yes, in some cases the scenarios *75% of them* have to be revised; especially the Attrition Divider.

Still, most of the ' updated' ones, even those for PBEM only, favour the defender big time. I am awaiting some feedback from Robert 'Der Schwede'; because we slugged it out - RTM, LSiA, Ardennes '44 ... in most cases it is like me, Joao, etc. mentioned - 'ignore losses' spoils the PBEM.

I am not saying it's a 'bug', and YES, there are lots of examples and one SHOULD have the option to switch his units to this stance, but with some penalties. E.g. If I attack with I-L settings, I get a turn burn, aye? So, if a poxy defender, no supply, no readiness whatsoever does I-L too often, the boys should evaporate or change into reorg, no?

This is really pivotal that we address the implications here -> 3.5

I also recommend that a sticky thread should be set up about the different settings, e.g. MRPB, CAD etc. By doing so it is easier to adjust an old scenario to the 3.4 combat mechanisms etc.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to ogar)

Post #: 38

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 8:27:31 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

Ignore Losses should be able to be applied to any unit. However, not any unit should be able to maintain that level of loss tolerance. An elite unit, exhausted with no hope of reinforcement will stand and die to the last man. A conscript unit exhausted with no hope of reinforcement will run and ignore losses becomes a dream.

I realize each of these will have different attributes and perhaps the conscripts will be kicked out of a position easier while in an ignore losses deployment. But they should have a better chance of not even being able to achieve an ignore losses state even though they are deployed that way. In other words, when the bullets begin to fly they immediately fall to limit losses. No ignore loss benefit.

There needs to be a proficiency check to see if they are able to maintain an ignore loss deployment when the fertilizer hits the fan. The printed manual says ignore losses should be used sparingly. The way the game is played would suggest otherwise.

_____________________________

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 39

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 9:22:54 PM

jmlima

Posts: 782
Joined: 3/1/2007
Status: offline

Guys, Bob is right. The only way to get these kind of things resolved is if you can send save-games / replays / whatever that allow the programmer to have a look at the issue and then go through the code to pin-point where things may be going wrong.

It's helpful to say, 'yeah, I've seen a company resisting an attack of 6 divisions.' as that signals an odd behaviour may be afoot. But it really needs something the programmer can get a look at at and see happening to help these issues to be solved.

My experience with this is that the 'i noticed that...' without files never gets properly solved or looked at, if there are supporting files, it's quickly solved.

Not saying that will happen here as there seems to be a series of extra 'firewalls' to get things sorted or looked at, but the best method is to get support files and replicable errors. No excuses then.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 40

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/1/2012 10:13:34 PM

secadegas

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Guys, Bob is right.

Traidor...

e ent�o a solidariedade nacional??

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 41

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/2/2012 4:33:23 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Guys, Bob is right.

Traidor... e ent�o a solidariedade nacional??

What's needed to see and debunk it is; a list of important scenario tweaks e.g. MRPB, AD, etc. I KNOW there are somewhere in various threads and the Scenario Editor manual refers to them,. but it would be helpful to have an example, e.g. like Bob once explained the AD with scenarios and time scales he used.

It is true that this phenomena seems to be related to old and non-3.4 adjusted scenarios, but I am sure it happens quite often at the latest creations when the AD and MRPB values haven't been adjusted. Hence the request for a sticky thread with those values, what they do, examples etc in order to adjust popular scenarios for a challenging PBEM slugfest and not WW1 trench warfare...

Feedback?

Klink, Oberst

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 2/2/2012 4:55:30 PM >

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to secadegas)

Post #: 42

Ignore Losses in large scale scenarios. Testing Easter... - 2/3/2012 7:20:46 PM

governato

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

I side with those that not see an obvious 'Ignore Losses Crisis' unless strong evidence is presented. I have been testing Eastern Front 41-45 with Mark (USxPat) and we are one year into the campaign. I have been using 'Ignore Losses' *extensively* while defending as the Soviet and it seems to provide realistic results over a long timeline (we are at turn 60 now) The attached image shows the frontlines in June 42 and we are pretty close to historical. The Axis was able to smash through Fortified soviet lines easily in Spring/Summer 42, once sufficient concentration of forces was achieved. On the contrary, the Soviet March-April 42 counteroffensives, conducted by infantry poorly supported by artillery against well rested, highly trained fortified German units where met with a hail of bullets and loss ratios of 5-10:1. I am actually very impressed and a bit surprised by how well TOAW handles these very different situations.

In a few cases Russian units were able to make a two weeks stand when surrounded (Rostov, Kiev) but they were in Dense Urban hexes and well, you know how these things can go on the Russian front.... Stubborn resistance can be even boosted by placing low efficiency (5-20%) supply hexes in urban hexes. These way one can simulate the Siege of Leningrad or Sevastopol quite well.

In large scale/weekly turn scenarios unrealistic results can be avoided by :

- setting the 'Max Rounds per Battle' to a reasonable figure (3?)
- lowering the entrechment rates significantly (50%), so that units take several turn to achieve Fortified status, which (at least for large scenarios) seems more historical.
- make sure that the number of artillery tubes is correct. Artillery is useful to dig out the defenders.
- Make sure proficiency rates ratios between the attacking and the defending forces are realistic (I am having 75-80 for the Axisvs 45-55 for the Red Army in 'Eastern Front').

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by governato -- 2/3/2012 7:22:11 PM >

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 43

RE: Ignore Losses in large scale scenarios. Testing Ea... - 2/3/2012 8:30:39 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

I have made some adjustments to 'old' scenarios and they had the desired results; I checked all the settings I could imagine, AD, MRPB and yes, the old, pre-3.4 always used AD=10 and MRPB=99, which of course caused some 'interesting'results.

Here's Bob's AD settings table, which is what I needed.

As to guidelines, assuming the values are linear, then here would be the values for the setting, along with some values I've actually used for it:

Whole-week: 2 (Examples: Germany 1945 & Soviet Union 1941)
Half-week: 4 (Examples: CFNA, France 1944, The Next War 1979)
Full-day: 14 (Examples: Killer Angels 1863, Cambrai 1917, Kaiserschlacht 1918; Exception: Okinawa 1945)
Half-day: 28
6-hour: 56 (Example: Waterloo 1815, actually set to 40)

Okinawa is the exception to the rule due to the need to model the Jap cave defenses. It uses an AD of 50. And, at 40, Waterloo must have needed to be bloodier than normal WWII.

I am currently 'adjusting' the values according to Bob's AD value table (with examples), the MRPB values, depending on the scenarios I adjusted to 3 or 4. The scenarios I really love to play are mostly with a 1 day/turn half-week/turn. So if anybody has got some MRPB examples for various scenarios etc. please post them.

There are so many things 'under the hood' which would be quite useful to have listed somewhere in order to understand HOW and WHY the system works.

Klink, Oberst

Update - The following cleared things up and I run a test vs. Elmer. AD (4) and MRPB (3) seem to have the desired results (LSiA scenario). Though units seem to be more likely to evaporate, so another tweak might be needed?

Helpful I found those posts, but will ask Erik if he has a list for AD/MRPB in relation to the scale/turn scale with examples.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2231066 (Bob's MRPB article)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2027365&mpage=1&key=� (Thread started by Largo)

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 2/3/2012 9:41:10 PM >

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to governato)

Post #: 44

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/3/2012 10:01:21 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

The only way to get these kind of things resolved is if you can send save-games / replays / whatever that allow the programmer to have a look at the issue and then go through the code to pin-point where things may be going wrong.

It's helpful to say, 'yeah, I've seen a company resisting an attack of 6 divisions.' as that signals an odd behaviour may be afoot. But it really needs something the programmer can get a look at at and see happening to help these issues to be solved.

My experience with this is that the 'i noticed that...' without files never gets properly solved or looked at, if there are supporting files, it's quickly solved.

This is correct. While I did want to resolve what I saw as a "discrepancy" in Sekadegas's testimony, the fact is, testimonial evidence just isn't enough. We must have hard data. It's not even unheard of for players to make rigorous tests themselves.

(in reply to jmlima)

Post #: 45

RE: Ignore Losses in large scale scenarios. Testing Ea... - 2/3/2012 10:05:28 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

I side with those that not see an obvious 'Ignore Losses Crisis' unless strong evidence is presented. I have been testing Eastern Front 41-45 with Mark (USxPat) and we are one year into the campaign. I have been using 'Ignore Losses' *extensively* while defending as the Soviet and it seems to provide realistic results over a long timeline (we are at turn 60 now) The attached image shows the frontlines in June 42 and we are pretty close to historical. The Axis was able to smash through Fortified soviet lines easily in Spring/Summer 42, once sufficient concentration of forces was achieved. On the contrary, the Soviet March-April 42 counteroffensives, conducted by infantry poorly supported by artillery against well rested, highly trained fortified German units where met with a hail of bullets and loss ratios of 5-10:1. I am actually very impressed and a bit surprised by how well TOAW handles these very different situations.

In a few cases Russian units were able to make a two weeks stand when surrounded (Rostov, Kiev) but they were in Dense Urban hexes and well, you know how these things can go on the Russian front.... Stubborn resistance can be even boosted by placing low efficiency (5-20%) supply hexes in urban hexes. These way one can simulate the Siege of Leningrad or Sevastopol quite well.

Thanks. The "Operation Neva" results seem to counter the claims as well.

But, I will make a full investigation in due course. Stay tuned.

(in reply to governato)

Post #: 46

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/4/2012 2:55:53 AM

secadegas

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

(...) what I saw as a "discrepancy" in Sekadegas's testimony, the fact is, testimonial evidence just isn't enough. We must have hard data.

If somebody tells me my house is on fire i'll not wait, asking the guy for further proofs. I'd run and check for myself...

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 47

RE: Changes. Your Thoughts. - 2/4/2012 4:14:43 AM

Shazman

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

(...) what I saw as a "discrepancy" in Sekadegas's testimony, the fact is, testimonial evidence just isn't enough. We must have hard data.

If somebody tells me my house is on fire i'll not wait, asking the guy for further proofs. I'd run and check for myself...