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: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

 
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: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/17/2012 2:01:46 AM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

EDIT: just finished reading the thread

quote:

I expect that the combination of no terrain effects and no combat odds effects tended to cancel each other enough so that no one could easily spot them during general play.


This. My experience of TOAW in the past is that combat results feel right overall, but the detail of complaints about ragged remnants holding on when in fortified status rings true, and there's no denying Bob's test results.

Sounds like a clear cut case.


Thanks, Ben.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 61
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/17/2012 4:51:59 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

The model was changed *to my knowledge* becasue of the Ant-Attack bug...


No. That was a different issue. The reason was due to a player making tests and discovering that terrain didn't affect RFC chances. See this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2078034

Thanks for pointing it out Bob. I should have rephrased the answer before posting ;)

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 62
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/17/2012 8:46:11 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Thanks, Ben.


I thought you'd like it. Now, make sea supply roads work again.


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 63
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/18/2012 2:13:16 AM   
Veers


Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline 		You're the man Bob.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 64
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/18/2012 3:14:23 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I thought you'd like it. Now, make sea supply roads work again.


Everything works the same under Old Supply Rules.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 65
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/20/2012 12:05:15 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I thought you'd like it. Now, make sea supply roads work again.


Everything works the same under Old Supply Rules.


Marvellous.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 66
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/23/2013 5:37:54 AM   
sealclubber

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 4/2/2013
Status: offline 		Is there any expectation as to when this will be fixed, if ever?

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 67
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/23/2013 6:30:08 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

There has been no definitive published comment on progress of development.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to sealclubber)
Post #: 68
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 4/24/2013 1:51:58 AM   
sealclubber

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 4/2/2013
Status: offline 		Okay. I guess I'll be the first to say it - if Matrix games fixes this bug I'll buy TOAW 3.

-- Hollow incentive. Turns out I bought TOAW 3 in 2008 and totally forgot about it and never installed it!




< Message edited by sealclubber -- 5/14/2013 9:03:56 AM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 69
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 7/17/2013 10:35:04 AM   
Menschenfresser

 

Posts: 252
Joined: 3/26/2004
From: United States
Status: offline 		I've read through this and other threads about the RFC-Combat Odds issue presented and I was hoping to get some practical advice.

If I understand this, as presented by Bob, we're only talking about factoring in the ratio of equipment? So, when changed, if all goes as planned, combat, where the equipment ratio is near 3:1 in favor of the attacker, should still work roughly as it does now.

Something I don't remember comments about were Bob's suggestions for future standards (3:1 normal, 1.5:1 half, 6:1 double, or something to that effect). Wouldn't this further increase defender bonus for a lot of combat where attack-defender are closer to equal? Or am I misinterpreting the proposed fix?

Until such a glorious day, are there suggestions on mitigating the problem? Should one consider using a lower loss setting when smaller sized units (say regimental/division in a corps-based scenario) are left to defend a hex by themselves?

_____________________________

Make wargames, not war.

(in reply to sealclubber)
Post #: 70
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 7/17/2013 3:36:11 PM   
Curtis Lemay


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

ORIGINAL: Menschenfresser

I've read through this and other threads about the RFC-Combat Odds issue presented and I was hoping to get some practical advice.

If I understand this, as presented by Bob, we're only talking about factoring in the ratio of equipment? So, when changed, if all goes as planned, combat, where the equipment ratio is near 3:1 in favor of the attacker, should still work roughly as it does now.

Something I don't remember comments about were Bob's suggestions for future standards (3:1 normal, 1.5:1 half, 6:1 double, or something to that effect). Wouldn't this further increase defender bonus for a lot of combat where attack-defender are closer to equal? Or am I misinterpreting the proposed fix?


I was thinking of "normal" meaning a straight (unmodified) morale check for RFC. So, if you had effective 3:1 assault ratio (ground only, no support) odds after the combat round you would have the defender's unmodified morale percent chance of forcing an RFC, etc (as in 3.2 and earlier). This, of course, would be modulated by terrain/deployment effects (so all infantry vs. infantry in a fortified hex would require 24:1 odds to be "normal"), etc. If you had an effective 6:1 odds, his morale would be halved, etc. If you only had 1.5:1 odds, his morale would be doubled, etc.

That would be the default. Designers would have a game parameter to scale the effect one way or the other (so WWI scenarios could be made much harder to gain ground, etc.)

quote:

Until such a glorious day, are there suggestions on mitigating the problem? Should one consider using a lower loss setting when smaller sized units (say regimental/division in a corps-based scenario) are left to defend a hex by themselves?


House rules to that effect, or similar, have been suggested.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 7/17/2013 3:41:11 PM >

(in reply to Menschenfresser)
Post #: 71
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 7/17/2013 5:10:49 PM   
secadegas

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I was thinking of "normal" meaning a straight (unmodified) morale check for RFC. So, if you had effective 3:1 assault ratio (ground only, no support) odds after the combat round you would have the defender's unmodified morale percent chance of forcing an RFC, etc (as in 3.2 and earlier). This, of course, would be modulated by terrain/deployment effects (so all infantry vs. infantry in a fortified hex would require 24:1 odds to be "normal"), etc. If you had an effective 6:1 odds, his morale would be halved, etc. If you only had 1.5:1 odds, his morale would be doubled, etc.

That would be the default. Designers would have a game parameter to scale the effect one way or the other (so WWI scenarios could be made much harder to gain ground, etc.)



If this can be put into effect - and although i hear many things lately, i'm here long enough to trust you only - i'd say this would be "the beginning of a beautiful friendship"...



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 72
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 7/17/2013 11:16:59 PM   
Menschenfresser

 

Posts: 252
Joined: 3/26/2004
From: United States
Status: offline 		Thanks for the input.

Here's to the future...

_____________________________

Make wargames, not war.

(in reply to secadegas)
Post #: 73
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 6:35:16 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		I have completed by test on RFC probabilities comparing the standard TOAW version with the new patch, created by user kmitahj.

This new version has an increased probability of RFC, as most players felt that the 3.4 upgrade was too biased in favor of the defender. It also includes the previous 'AA patch'. Before I show the test results, here is how I have set the test scenario. This is very similar to Bob's test described in this thread. Bob was very kind to send me and Oberst Klink a copy. I added to it some artillery for both sides, as I felt that it was closer to a real situation for most scenarios.

As in the original test, 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 20 trials – for a total of 320 combats. Each combat consists of one attacking unit vs. one defending unit. The attacker is always 9000 infantry squads and 768 122mm
Howitzers. The defender is initially 3000 infantry squads and 256 122mm Howtizers. (x3 odds). Initially the attacker as 100 proficiency and the defender 70. The Attrition divider is 10. Both sides have 100 readiness and supply. The scenario is then run 20 times for a total of 200 trials for each test and a total of 16x10x20 combats. After the combats complete, I total how many defenders RFCd in each test. Simple enough. The goal is to make sure that the new patch behaves as expected.

The first set of tests used the standard TOAW 3.4 version, this is our reference and the results are shown in the image below. Results are consistent with expectations, with the caveat that there is still a bit of statistical noise.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by governato -- 10/25/2013 6:37:59 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 74
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 6:37:10 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		The patch followed the simple approach of modifying (tuning down) values of existing T/D factors used inside RFC check procedure. The corresponding Deployment and Terrain factors are lowered by the same, small value. Here are the chances for RFC choosen for this particular patch implementation (in brackets are numbers used in original 3.4 and 3.2 versions):

Fortified deployment: 65 (84,50)
"Fortified line" terrain: 65 (84, -)
Entrenched deployment: 50 (65, 33)
dense urban, badlands terrains: 50 (65, -)
mountainous terrain: 50 (50, -)
Dunes, Urban, Bocage terrains: 33 (50, -)
Defensive deployment: 20 (26, 20)
Forrest, Jungle, Hills, Wadi terrains: 20 (26, -)

The tests reveal that RFCs outcomes increased by about 20% overall with the introduction of the patch, however the increase is more significant for the more difficult terrain (with a DF of x4 or X8, as Fortfied Line, Dense Urban or Fortfified deployment). In this case the number of RFCs events increased by more than 50%.


We agree with Bob that changes should be incremental, so this is probably good enough, even if this patch does not directly solve the problem of making the chance of RFC depend on the combat ratio, which would be optimal. kmitahj commented that a more complex change was beyond what was possible (remember he is editing the executable!).


We hope to make the patch available in the next few days, but in the meantime comments are welcome.



Btw, for those not up to date kmitahj also recently released the AA patch, which is described
and obtainable here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3376085





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by governato -- 10/25/2013 6:49:06 PM >

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 75
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 6:42:10 PM   
Sensei.Tokugawa


Posts: 341
Joined: 4/6/2010
From: Wieluñ, Poland
Status: offline 		Great input into the community well-being, thanks a lot governato. I am assuming that there's no patch attached yet? I have been using the AAA fix and need to admit it is working albeit with some randomization of the results I would say.

_____________________________

"-What if one doesn't make it?
-Then we know he was no good for SpetsNaz. ..."
V. Suvorov, "Spetsnaz;the Story behind the Soviet SAS"

...No escape from Passchendaele .../ God Dethroned, "Passiondale"


(in reply to governato)
Post #: 76
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 6:47:52 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

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

ORIGINAL: burroughs

Great input into the community well-being, thanks a lot governato. I am assuming that there's no patch attached yet? I have been using the AAA fix and need to admit it is working albeit with some randomization of the results I would say.

There is, but I wait for the 'official' statement of our Kamerad in Seattle :) It also worked like ace during my various test of my latest beta-version of Kharkov '43.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Sensei.Tokugawa)
Post #: 77
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 6:51:26 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Oberst! I only ran the tests, 'kmitahj' is the one who made the patch so he should be the one to officially release it.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 78
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 6:56:12 PM   
Sensei.Tokugawa


Posts: 341
Joined: 4/6/2010
From: Wieluñ, Poland
Status: offline 		Herr Oberst, If You need a commie tester for Kharkov '43, I am up for that, I have been obsessed with the spring offensive for some reason for quite some time already.

< Message edited by burroughs -- 10/25/2013 6:59:08 PM >

_____________________________

"-What if one doesn't make it?
-Then we know he was no good for SpetsNaz. ..."
V. Suvorov, "Spetsnaz;the Story behind the Soviet SAS"

...No escape from Passchendaele .../ God Dethroned, "Passiondale"


(in reply to governato)
Post #: 79
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 7:24:27 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Ja, ja, I know. Kapitan Kloss is the creator, Fabio :) You've done some extraordinary work and the tests so far are positive, nay?

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

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

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 80
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 7:28:28 PM   
governato

 

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

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Ja, ja, I know. Kapitan Kloss is the creator, Fabio :) You've done some extraordinary work and the tests so far are positive, nay?

Klink, Oberst


I try.

But yes, the tests look good!

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 81
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 7:39:14 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

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

ORIGINAL: burroughs

Herr Oberst, If You need a commie tester for Kharkov '43, I am up for that, I have been obsessed with the spring offensive for some reason for quite some time already.

Still using Telumar's amazing TO&E updates for the German Pz.Div. I'd say we both fight it out, at least the first 8-13 turns with the 'patch' and when I've implemented the TO&E tweaks on Sunday, tak?

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Sensei.Tokugawa)
Post #: 82
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/25/2013 11:13:09 PM   
Sensei.Tokugawa


Posts: 341
Joined: 4/6/2010
From: Wieluñ, Poland
Status: offline 		Yeah, I guess so if I can dig what You mean. Duty first anyway.A little bit drunk and stoned as each good Pole would do, but think this Sunday is a good moment to start off so I decided to skip the mass.

< Message edited by burroughs -- 10/25/2013 11:18:34 PM >

_____________________________

"-What if one doesn't make it?
-Then we know he was no good for SpetsNaz. ..."
V. Suvorov, "Spetsnaz;the Story behind the Soviet SAS"

...No escape from Passchendaele .../ God Dethroned, "Passiondale"


(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 83
RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses - 10/28/2013 3:26:01 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

We hope to make the patch available in the next few days, but in the meantime comments are welcome.
Btw, for those not up to date kmitahj also recently released the AA patch


I assume the new patch will include both the AA and ignore losses fixes? Sounds good.

(in reply to Sensei.Tokugawa)
Post #: 84
AA+RFC unofficial patch - 11/12/2013 9:09:09 PM   
governato

 

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

Click HERE do download it.

Hopefully it will be superseded soon! Note that you can switch from a current game to this new version, but not viceversa.



< Message edited by governato -- 11/12/2013 10:09:24 PM >

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 85
RE: AA+RFC unofficial patch - 11/16/2013 5:47:17 PM   
josant

 

Posts: 538
Joined: 3/14/2007
From: Spain
Status: offline 		Ok, thanks, downloading the file.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 86
RE: AA+RFC unofficial patch - 1/13/2015 3:30:29 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		I know what RBC stands for. But what does RFC stand for?

_____________________________


(in reply to josant)
Post #: 87
RE: AA+RFC unofficial patch - 1/13/2015 12:30:56 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline 		Retreat From Combat

Best wishes,
Steve

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 88
RE: AA+RFC unofficial patch - 1/13/2015 8:06:03 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Thanks

_____________________________


(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 89
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.219