Doubt about Combat, AR and Net Odds

[voroshilov17]

Hello everyone!

Checking this (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 1544712899) summary of TOAW IV I came across a doubt.

In the bottom left part of the chart (image attached) it is said that having an AR ratio of 3:1 has effect on enemy's quality and therefore, can cause the enemy to make a RFC.

But, as long as I know, the AR is a number (i.e 80, 120, 300, 1190...etc) not a ratio.
1- My first doubt is, that ratio of 3:1 in AR that the chart is telling is refering to the AR itself or to the Net Odds ratio??

2- As long as I know, the AR value indicates the benefits that the attac will have in the combat itself. That is, being a bombardment, a weakly attack, a full attack....etc. Each one of those having their benefits.

3- So, what is the effect on combat of Net Odds? Or more accurately: what does the Net Odds value tell the player to take into account in relation to the combat that is about to take place?

Thanks in advance!

[cathar1244]

Not sure if this will answer part of your question.

A key bit in that explanation is the "exposed to fire". Higher odds in terms of antipersonnel totals versus defense strength totals means more of the equipment will be "exposed to fire".

The game's engine uses the ratio of the AP and defense strength values to generate something called "specific attrition", meaning what percentage of the force is exposed to fire. Better odds for one side means more of the other side's equipment is exposed to fire. This "specific attrition" value is subject to be increased or decreased depending on how the attrition divider is set for the scenario.

Once exposed to fire, the game resolves the outcome equipment item by equipment item. Note that infantry squads are considered "equipment" for combat resolution. Equipment designated as "agile" has some chance to avoid being hit, but being exposed to fire often results in the targeted equipment getting damaged or destroyed.

Antitank combat works in a similar manner but the combat outcomes depend on armor penetration ratings and the armor thickness of the targeted vehicle.

[voroshilov17]

Thanks for the reply cathar!!

I already knew that information but thanks anyways. My doubt is more about "Net Odds" information. What does that value tell us exactly? What do we have to take into account with that value??
And also, that information about AR ratio 3:! is refering to the AR itself?

[Curtis Lemay]

Thanks for the reply cathar!!

I already knew that information but thanks anyways. My doubt is more about "Net Odds" information. What does that value tell us exactly? What do we have to take into account with that value??
And also, that information about AR ratio 3:! is refering to the AR itself?

What that display is calling "Assault Ratio" may be something other than what the game calls "AR", which does stand for "Assault Ratio", but may mean it in a different sense. AR specifically addresses an old issue with the game wherein players would attack with a small, throwaway unit while applying massive artillery support. Without the AR feature, that throwaway unit gave the artillery a huge boost with minimum risk to ground assaulters. With AR, it doesn't - ending that gamey tactic. That display is about something else - overruns. In fact, that display may even have been created before the game got the AR feature. For sure, you can't even get to the Attack Planner to know what the AR value is until the overrun attempt has failed - making it useless for overrun prediction (which was the whole point on the display).

The "Net Odds" part of the Attack Planner is, in my opinion, the best estimate of attack success prediction available. It sorts out AP from AT (both attack and defense strengths) so that strength ratios have real meaning. Without it (such as in the strengths shown below the "Net Odds" in the Attack Planner) you may be comparing attacker AP strengths to defender armor DF strengths - and think you have a high attacker ratio when your attack will actually be futile.