JAMiAM
Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
Alright, I've misunderstood you then. This would work. Going back to my original point, it is still counterintuitive that a lower proficiency unit would be more useful in game terms than a higher proficiency unit.
Indeed, it may seem counterintuitive, but only if your intuition is based on a faulty understanding of the purpose of the parameter in question, and its use within the game engine. A unit's proficiency basically serves two purposes in the game. The determination of a unit's "Strength" and its "Quality". These both serve two different purposes in the game, and are each highly influenced by a unit's "proficiency". Pardon me, if you already know some of this stuff, but for the benefit of the viewers at home...
Unit Strength is the amount of a unit's equipment that will actually participate in a given combat, and is given by the function Strength = equipment strength x (2 x proficiency+readiness+supply)/4. Given two units, each with the same equipment, readiness and supply, the higher proficiency unit will indeed fight more effectively, subject to the myriad probability checks (dice rolls) during the course of any combat, because it will have more chances to attack and inflict loss on the opposing unit. However...
Unit Quality is the determining factor in whether a unit fails a morale check during several steps within the course of a combat. In other words, whether it breaks off the atack, or runs. This is given by the function Quality = (2*proficiency+readiness)/3. Without going into mind-numbing detail, during each tactical round, there are several points during the series of attacker fires and defender fires, that a quality check is made to determine whether a unit has suffered enough casualties to either break off the attack, or to retreat from the combat (defender). This quality check is based on both the unit's "Quality" as well as its loss tolerance setting. Given two units, equal in equipment, readiness, supply, and with the same loss tolerance settings, the higher proficiency unit is not only more likely to cause higher damage, as shown before, but is also more likely to remain in the combat, and ignore the casualties imposed on it.
The problem that some players have in attacking with high proficiency units is due primarily to their failure in one or more of the following:
1. To have a distinct purpose for each and every attack.
2. Match the tools (units) at hand to this set of possibly divergent purposes, in the most efficient means available.
3. Set the tools to work, with the understanding of the full range of their behavior within the game engine, to accomplish those purposes.
4. Accept that **** happens, and you sometimes can't roll the dice to save your soul.
I know this seems basic, but I see many players attacking merely to be attacking, and not with any degree of planning or tactical finesse whatsoever. Every attack should be planned to accomplish a specific tactical result, within the larger framework of your operational maneuver. I also see the wrong tools employed for the wrong situations. There is an abysmal lack of understanding of how the game engine operates, even from people who have played, or designed for, this game for years. Finally, when points 1,2,3 are ignored, there are too many who throw up their hands in disgust and blame the engine for their own lack of competence, or in the case of point 4, luck.
Now, to deal with the following statement...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
I would hold it up as an engine flaw because the optimization technique you mention has little to do with reality. I would like to see as much symmetry as possible between TOAW and the real world. A player should be able to make decisions based on real world criteria. Whenever your thinking strays from that and into what makes sense in terms of the game engine, you've probably hit on an area which could be improved.
...I'd like to create a little example. Let me state up front that I consider TOAW's supply model to be very basic, and not very "realistic", or even intuitive. It works best on the assumption that a "normal" state of affairs with units is 1% supply, and that anything higher should be considered various stages of "oversupply".
Let's say that you are attacking some line, scenario scaled to divisions, with the occasional corps level artillery support, and/or air power available. Your opponent has had some time to fortify his line, and has no discernable weakspots. However, the line is not straight, and so you decide to work the corners, since this will allow you to maximaze the number of flanking attacks that you can make. Many of your divisions are elite units with high proficiency 90-100%, while your opponent has units averaging 70-80%. Simply rushing headlong at the defenders will likely set you up for failure due the very problem that you dread, the high proficiency attackers staying in battles too long against stubborn (assume ignore losses, loss tolerance settings), heavily entrenched, well supplied defenders. So, utilize the "symmetry...between TOAW and the real world" and work the defenders, as you would in the real world.
Split some of your units. Now, your proficiencies on the sub units range from 72-80%. This is "realistic" due to the units no longer having the full integration of the parent unit's TO&E, so it will not fight as well (Combat Strength). Also, since it is a sub group, unsupported by the possibility of the parent shifting reserves to cover losses, etc., it will "realistically" break off combat more readily if subjected to casualties. Now you have some tools to begin the attacks against the enemy lines. Whenever possible, using support assets, probe the enemy lines, early in the turn. Utilize minimize losses for your probing units loss tolerances. In this way, as long as your units are facing adequate defenders, then they should break off without too much loss of time. Sometimes the scenario movement scales are do not allow for many rounds period, so these preliminary attacks may be truncated as necessary to enhance the probability of later, more full-scale efforts. During your probing attacks, you will likely lose more equipment that the defender, unless they are overstacked. Your sub units, as well as his entire defending stacks will lose readiness, and supply. You may have drawn defensive reserves to the front lines, and you have gathered intelligence on the enemy dispositions, using asymmetrical use of force, a standard "real-world" set of events, considering the IGO-UGO format game assumption that you are exercising some sort of local (or temporal, if you wish) initiative, through the force of command decision.
Next, you will want to follow up on the successes, and mark the failures, of your previous probing. On weakened spots, where the defenders have suffered proportionally higher losses, and have lost some of their entrenchment bonuses, you may want to recombine some of these sub units, to take advantage of your units higher proficiencies. Also, whenever possible, use overwhelming force on these already weakened defenders. This way, they will cause more damage to the defenders, increasing the probability that the combat lasts fewer tactical rounds and be more likely to advance in after combat, setting up further weaknesses to be exploited later in the turn. This corresponds to the real world operational doctrines of concentration of force, and reinforcing success.
Further discussion, regarding making sure that your weapons systems are appropriately matched per the objective, opponent, and situation might be in order, but I think that from the above, the TOAW engine does indeed show a considerable "symmetry" to real world operational doctrine and end results, when utilized properly by the player, in a scenario properly designed, by a designer who knows how to play the game effectively.
|
Printable Version
RE: The most frustrating feature of TOAW engine - 
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