Question for the developers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Question for the developers

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Question for the developers

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question for the developers - 2/24/2018 5:24:34 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

Is there any algorithm for an affinity for one device to shoot at a particular opposing device? In watching combat reports at a high message level it seems that an 88mm will go after a cav squad with the same randomness of firing at a tank. Are my observations correct? If so, it would explain why anti-tank is not anti-tank but just another device with a certain range, blast, penetration, ROF ... but not specifically anti-tank

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

Post #: 1

RE: Question for the developers - 2/24/2018 5:36:57 PM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

So if an AT unit goes into action against an enemy with only 5% of their elements/ToE being tanks, they only have a 5% chance of actually going for tanks at any one time? Or does the algorithm match up your anti tank guns to tank opponents in combat resolution. In real life commanders would direct these units to where they were more than randomly likely to oppose tanks.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2

RE: Question for the developers - 2/24/2018 7:50:35 PM

Dinglir

Posts: 620
Joined: 3/10/2016
Status: offline

I have been wondering the same.

I makes wuite a lot of difference when deciding to build AT support units as the Soviets for instance.

_____________________________

To be is to do -- Socrates
To do is to be -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Do be do be do -- Frank Sinatra

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 3

RE: Question for the developers - 2/25/2018 8:02:58 AM

No idea

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

Morvael did some tests, for the 88s especifically, a few patches ago. And it seems that the 88s kill extremely few tanks (when irl they took out quite a few). It might be because they fire at random elemnets instead of focusing on the ones they are better prepared to deal with.

(in reply to Dinglir)

Post #: 4

RE: Question for the developers - 2/25/2018 1:53:20 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Morvael did some tests, for the 88s especifically, a few patches ago. And it seems that the 88s kill extremely few tanks (when irl they took out quite a few). It might be because they fire at random elemnets instead of focusing on the ones they are better prepared to deal with.

That is my observation on message level 7. What I am seeing is a distribution according to the density of devices and squads. So if the enemy if full of infantry you want artillery.. even though the few tanks that come might be better dealt with an anti tank gun. It is an emphasis on what opposing device you are most probably going to face rather than match up with the device most likely to affect outcomes.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to No idea)

Post #: 5

RE: Question for the developers - 2/25/2018 3:09:26 PM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

Given what has been said here I think there are profound consequences for how you assign SUs as Axis.

In another earlier thread there was a post about how anti aircraft units get higher losses when involved in ground combat.

From above it is clear there is not an ABSOLUTE advantage in putting 88mm guns into places where they are likely to face tanks or other vehicles. Yes they have a COMPARATIVE advantage, if you are short of units then use the 88mm where there are likely to be more tanks. But if you have enough artillery SUs to use them instead you are better off using other SUs such as artillery even where there are lots of tanks.

Given that 88mm guns are made from the same pool of arms as other equipment like artillery - you want to stop arms points going on making 88mm guns and instead divert it to other uses such as making rifle squads and artillery which have an absolute advantage. The best way to stop arms points being spent on 88mm guns is not to lose them.

The consequnces of this should be
i) First assign 88mm guns to units where it will be used in its AA role exclusively, for instance air HQs and maybe higher HQs which have no directly assigned on map combat units. Not to, say, a corps where it could be assigned as an SU in a ground battle resolution. (There is no question in the effectiveness of the 88mm in its AA role)
ii) Only assign 88mm guns to units in ground combat IF they are in areas with larger densities of armour AND you have so many in the pool you are confident arms points will not be used to replace any you use for that role AND you are short of other units you could use instead.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 2/25/2018 3:13:28 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 6

RE: Question for the developers - 2/25/2018 5:37:41 PM

tomeck48

Posts: 203
Joined: 8/5/2016
Status: offline

My understanding of German doctrine in Africa and in the West is that the 88 was a prime tank killing weapon. It seems like that would have influenced doctrine the Eastern front as well. Likewise, the Soviets showed at Kursk that at least on the defensive you let the enemy run into the AT guns first, then send in your own tanks. In the game I've seen as the Soviets that even AT brigades don't have much effect against German armor.

Perhaps it's an issue for WITE 2, but it seems that the AT weapons should be somewhat more effective against enemy tanks. I'm not saying they should fire exclusively at tank elements but pick up the targeting a bit.

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 7

RE: Question for the developers - 2/25/2018 7:32:03 PM

No idea

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tomeck48

My understanding of German doctrine in Africa and in the West is that the 88 was a prime tank killing weapon. It seems like that would have influenced doctrine the Eastern front as well. Likewise, the Soviets showed at Kursk that at least on the defensive you let the enemy run into the AT guns first, then send in your own tanks. In the game I've seen as the Soviets that even AT brigades don't have much effect against German armor.

Perhaps it's an issue for WITE 2, but it seems that the AT weapons should be somewhat more effective against enemy tanks. I'm not saying they should fire exclusively at tank elements but pick up the targeting a bit.

Yes, the germans used the 88s in an anti kank role quite early. Especifically for the east they used it a lot in 41, as they had nothing that could penetrate the T 34s unless at a very short range, and they had nothing that couls take a KV 1 out except if it was a lucky shot or a short range rear shot. The problem was the 88s had a very high profile, so they were easy pickings, but they were a very real danger for the medium and heavy soviet tanks.

Anyway, I understand that anti tank weapons cant always face the enemy they are made to face, but, on the other hand, there was one reason why the only units fully motorized in the german army in 41 (apart from panzer and motorized infantry units) were the anti tank companies. They were suppoused to "run" where they were needed (where there were tanks).

Ps. I have to add that the 88s were in anti air units, not anti tank ones, so they perhpas not all of them were motorized

< Message edited by No idea -- 2/25/2018 9:07:01 PM >

(in reply to tomeck48)

Post #: 8

RE: Question for the developers - 2/25/2018 8:34:51 PM

tyronec

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

Good example of using 88s in the front line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt7o1v9msA0

(in reply to No idea)

Post #: 9

RE: Question for the developers - 2/25/2018 10:30:10 PM

uw06670

Posts: 221
Joined: 3/12/2015
Status: offline

Some AT guns don't even have HE shells, so they obviously should only be shooting at hard targets.

_____________________________

- Mark

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 10

RE: Question for the developers - 2/25/2018 10:34:39 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Good example of using 88s in the front line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt7o1v9msA0

The battle of Brody is impossible in this game. It would take some tweaking of first turn nerfs, first turn reserve activation, and how the combat system works. Over 100 German AFV�s killed in the motorized division before confusion caused Soviet bedlam.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 11

RE: Question for the developers - 2/26/2018 7:31:07 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
What I am seeing is a distribution according to the density of devices and squads. So if the enemy if full of infantry you want artillery.. even though the few tanks that come might be better dealt with an anti tank gun. It is an emphasis on what opposing device you are most probably going to face rather than match up with the device most likely to affect outcomes.

Yes, it's something like that.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 12

RE: Question for the developers - 2/26/2018 11:12:57 AM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
What I am seeing is a distribution according to the density of devices and squads. So if the enemy if full of infantry you want artillery.. even though the few tanks that come might be better dealt with an anti tank gun. It is an emphasis on what opposing device you are most probably going to face rather than match up with the device most likely to affect outcomes.

Yes, it's something like that.

Ok thanks for the rapid response! Now it�s for us to figure out the intended and unintended consequences of this algorithm<smile>

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 13

RE: Question for the developers - 2/28/2018 12:55:17 PM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

Just been rethinking the consequences of this recently. The expected value of something is equal to its probability times the value if you get it.

Even if the probability is low, if the value of getting it is high it can still be worth it.

Having seen a few battle reports recently where large numbers of tanks were lost when 88mm SUs did get committed, perhaps the exceptional results make up for the lack of frequency?

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 14

RE: Question for the developers - 2/28/2018 4:39:47 PM

No idea

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Just been rethinking the consequences of this recently. The expected value of something is equal to its probability times the value if you get it.

Even if the probability is low, if the value of getting it is high it can still be worth it.

Having seen a few battle reports recently where large numbers of tanks were lost when 88mm SUs did get committed, perhaps the exceptional results make up for the lack of frequency?

That would mean that we should load with heavy flak units a panzer unit we know it is going to be attacked by large masses of soviet tanks, right? (I assume that heavy flak is not suited for attacking, but I dont really know if the combat engine takes that into account)

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 15