combat system tests

[ralphtricky]

damezzi,
I forgot, thanks for the detailed tests.

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Digging the defenders in is pretty much going to overwhelm any terrain effects, it's also going to make retreating a lot less likely. I forget what the multiplier is, but it's a bunch.

Yeah, this is next very, very questionable feature of TOAW mechanics. An unit fortified in open steppe has the same defensive strength as the same unit fortified in alpine terrain [X(][>:]. This hasn't any evidence in millitary history. Fortified positions in mountains were always recognized as much more difficult to assault. IMHO effects of digging and terrain should be additive.

[Legun]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Fortification has always seemed like it was too fast to me too, but that's just from a personal/aesthetic viewpoint. Fixing that does seem to be likely to break a lot of scenarios. They may be broken now because I fixed them in the new patch anyway(they weren't working as expected except in clear terrain). I'll have to see what's in the wishlist for fortifications.

If you really want to look at the problem, I'm very glad. I'll see at the wishlist, too. Today I remember that digging in AFVs is too easy, for sure. It's very questionable in the many cases, too - for example in the case of halftracks [8|].

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I'd also like to see why some attacks seem to either have no effect or disentegration. I know that disentegration in TOAW just means that all the unit has lost all it's cohesion. That one smells funny, although it might be correct. I've learned not to trust my 'common sense'.

Yes, it was funny.

I can see how it happened.

When checking to see if a unit can disengage, a flag is set called UNIT_DIVIDE_CHECK.
When calculating the combat results, a check is made in some cases to see if UNIT_DIVIDE_CHECK and unit_can_divide. If it can, is divides, otherwise it disbands.

Makes sense, right?

Yes, except for the minor problem that the attacker never sets the UNIT_DIVIDE_CHECK flag, so they disband automatically instead of breaking off.

I've modified the code, and it looks better now, no mysterious 100% losses out of nowhere.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I'd also like to see why some attacks seem to either have no effect or disentegration. I know that disentegration in TOAW just means that all the unit has lost all it's cohesion. That one smells funny, although it might be correct. I've learned not to trust my 'common sense'.

Yes, it was funny.

I can see how it happened.

When checking to see if a unit can disengage, a flag is set called UNIT_DIVIDE_CHECK.
When calculating the combat results, a check is made in some cases to see if UNIT_DIVIDE_CHECK and unit_can_divide. If it can, is divides, otherwise it disbands.

Makes sense, right?

Yes, except for the minor problem that the attacker never sets the UNIT_DIVIDE_CHECK flag, so they disband automatically instead of breaking off.

I've modified the code, and it looks better now, no mysterious 100% losses out of nowhere.

Be very careful with untried changes.


Correct me if I'm wrong but the obvious result of this modification is those divided attacking units planning an attack during next round, cancell it (to change their status from retreated to mobile), then regroup and continue attacking without penalties.
The attacking unit it's on its own turn and not on the opponent's turn (as the defender unit is) so the treatment of both situations can't be similar.


Most experienced players can feel when the attacking unit runs the risk of disentegration and just don't make the attack or just consider the risk.

Why shouldn't an unit get completely desorganised and ceases to exist in a coherent form when attacking?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas
Be very careful with untried changes.


Correct me if I'm wrong but the obvious result of this modification is those divided attacking units planning an attack during next round, cancell it (to change their status from retreated to mobile), then regroup and continue attacking without penalties.
The attacking unit it's on its own turn and not on the opponent's turn (as the defender unit is) so the treatment of both situations can't be similar.


Most experienced players can feel when the attacking unit runs the risk of disentegration and just don't make the attack or just consider the risk.

Why shouldn't an unit get completely desorganised and ceases to exist in a coherent form when attacking?

Yes, I've stepped into it more than once with side effects from changes.[:(]

This change still has to survive the beta testing period and those guys are brutal. [:'(]In addition, the unit doesn't go to retreated, it goes to into reorganizing, which is fairly drastic. It won't be attacking again that turn, so the overall affect shouldn't impact balance too much.

I was running the 'terrain race' scenario from earlier in this thread, and it didn't make sense to me that losses were generally about even, between 10% and 25%, but occasionally, an attacking unit would just go 'poof.' I don't think that in a given battle, given equal losses, it's reasonable that the defender would split into three parts and retreat, while the attacker would disband. Reorganizing makes a lot more sense to me.

Ralph

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

In addition, the unit doesn't go to retreated, it goes to into reorganizing, which is fairly drastic.

But an attacking unit going into reorganizing already happens often... and much often than disentegration.

Of course if you attack with a weak and tired red unit against a well suppoted target you can bet on disentegration. But that's what should be expected. Or not?

Toaw combat system can have minor problems but this just isn't the case...

[damezzi]

Sekadegas, I also think that an attacker should have the chance to evaporate on the conditions you present, but I must support Ralph on this. I've seen attackers evaporate out of nowhere when green, with 100% readiness, against unsupported units, in favorable terrain and with 100% vs 0% damage, what is really drastic. I've run the test dozens of times and it wasn't so rare. I've run the test until unit evaporation in all cases and most of the time you would expect a chance to evaporation to take place, but sometimes it was really a surprise, really out of nothing.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I've seen attackers evaporate out of nowhere when green, with 100% readiness, against unsupported units, in favorable terrain and with 100% vs 0% damage, what is really drastic.

This is your experience, definitively not mine.

[MechFO]

Have to agree with damezzi and Ralph on this. When attacking Green condition fortified defenders I have seen evaporations from Green condition attacking units several times. Even with very lopsided odds in favour of the attacker. OTOH the attackers tended to be from yellow or red stacked hexes and I don't know if overstacking would also influence the results.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: MechFO

OTOH the attackers tended to be from yellow or red stacked hexes and I don't know if overstacking would also influence the results.

I don't want to be rude (I really don't) but it seems there are a lot of people still not knowing some important facts about this game engine. The game has a learning curve which must be respected.

As I put it before: most experienced players can feel when the attacking unit runs the risk of disentegration and just don't make the attack or just consider the risk.


From the manual (please don't forget the attacking unit also becomes a target for the defender unit):

"Target Density (Advanced Rules)

Normal combat loss calculations assume target densities below a certain value based on the physical scale of the scenario. In many cases you can exceed this target density by piling units into a location. This may be the only way to effectively concentrate for an attack in some scenarios, but there is a cost. If you present the other force with a concentration of equipment so dense that he can't help but hit something with every shot you may take excessive losses. Locations with excessive target densities are indicated on the map by a small colored light in the west corner of the location. These indicator lights range from yellow-green to red.

As a rule of thumb, you should avoid piling units into a location if you start seeing yellow, orange or red target density lights on the map.

No indicator. Target density is at or below the limit for the scenario.
A Yellow-green indicator is a caution. Target density limits have been exceeded, and combat losses are multiplied by 1.0 to 1.4.
A Yellow indicator is a warning. Excessive target densities will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.4 to 1.7.
An orange indicator is a strong warning. Excessive target densities will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.7 to 2.0.
A red indicator is a very strong warning. Excessive target densities will result in a combat losses being multiplied by at least 2.0. "

[desert]

Yeah, just look at my Invasion Amerika PBM - a fresh, untried regiment simply vanished in an attack that involved 6 units of similar size and strength against inferior opponents (the evaporation could probably be explained by low shock values and the presence of numerous tanks though).

Edit: And there aren't any density multipliers in this scenario, so they don't count.

I see it a lot in Boonierat's Vietnam scenarios too. Sometimes I lose 3-5 hundred men (at least 1 unit evaporates) in an attack unsupported by artillery or planes while the Vietcong lose a couple of squads.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: MechFO

OTOH the attackers tended to be from yellow or red stacked hexes and I don't know if overstacking would also influence the results.

I don't want to be rude (I really don't) but it seems there are a lot of people still not knowing some important facts about this game engine. The game has a learning curve which must be respected.

As I put it before: most experienced players can feel when the attacking unit runs the risk of disentegration and just don't make the attack or just consider the risk.


From the manual (please don't forget the attacking unit also becomes a target for the defender unit):

"Target Density (Advanced Rules)

Normal combat loss calculations assume target densities below a certain value based on the physical scale of the scenario. In many cases you can exceed this target density by piling units into a location. This may be the only way to effectively concentrate for an attack in some scenarios, but there is a cost. If you present the other force with a concentration of equipment so dense that he can't help but hit something with every shot you may take excessive losses. Locations with excessive target densities are indicated on the map by a small colored light in the west corner of the location. These indicator lights range from yellow-green to red.

As a rule of thumb, you should avoid piling units into a location if you start seeing yellow, orange or red target density lights on the map.

No indicator. Target density is at or below the limit for the scenario.
A Yellow-green indicator is a caution. Target density limits have been exceeded, and combat losses are multiplied by 1.0 to 1.4.
A Yellow indicator is a warning. Excessive target densities will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.4 to 1.7.
An orange indicator is a strong warning. Excessive target densities will result in combat losses being multiplied by 1.7 to 2.0.
A red indicator is a very strong warning. Excessive target densities will result in a combat losses being multiplied by at least 2.0. "

Well maybe my reading comprehension is also iffy, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere that stacking also increases the probability of evaporation. IMO even double combat losses aren't sufficient to justify green units evaporating.

Also it's not me making these attacks, but Elmer. Then again, he probably just needs some experience. I'll remember to tell him the next time he does it.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Also it's not me making these attacks, but Elmer. Then again, he probably just needs some experience. I'll remember to tell him the next time he does it.

Don't bother telling him... Elmer needs much more than experience.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: MechFO

IMO even double combat losses aren't sufficient to justify green units evaporating.

On the manual from previous versions of TOAW there was chapter called "Designer Notes".

There we could find Norm Koger's understanding of unit's evaporation:

(quote)
Evaporation happens whenever a unit loses cohesion. While history is replete with tales of units that fought to the last man, these are unusual cases. There are many more examples of units that simply dissolved, even if only temporarily, under enemy fire. Units, even good units, can only take so much.

In most cases evaporation is different from what most wargamers are used to calling "elimination". Unless the evaporating unit is isolated, all surviving troops and equipment are still available for distribution to other units. Isolated units (those not able to trace a line of communication back to a friendly supply point), on the other hand, are truly eliminated when they evaporate. Their troops and equipment are permanently lost - assumed surrendered to enemy forces.

Time allowing, many evaporated units will eventually be reconstituted from available replacements.
(unquote)

IMO double combat losses are more than sufficient to justify green units to lose cohesion... and evaporate.

I suppose this is what happens in RL.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: MechFO
Evaporation happens whenever a unit loses cohesion. While history is replete with tales of units that fought to the last man, these are unusual cases. There are many more examples of units that simply dissolved, even if only temporarily, under enemy fire. Units, even good units, can only take so much.

In most cases evaporation is different from what most wargamers are used to calling "elimination". Unless the evaporating unit is isolated, all surviving troops and equipment are still available for distribution to other units. Isolated units (those not able to trace a line of communication back to a friendly supply point), on the other hand, are truly eliminated when they evaporate. Their troops and equipment are permanently lost - assumed surrendered to enemy forces.

Time allowing, many evaporated units will eventually be reconstituted from available replacements.

IMO double combat losses are more than sufficient to justify green units to lose cohesion... and evaporate.
I suppose this is what happens in RL.

Evaporation is one of the reasons I love TOAW.

If this happened the same way with attackers and defenders, I'd say that it is working as designed. In this case, I can see the code. If someone is defending, suffers mild losses and fail their quality checks, they are going to divide into three pieces and retreat. If the attacker fails his quality checks he was going to evaporate, now he's going to reorganize.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: MechFO
Evaporation happens whenever a unit loses cohesion. While history is replete with tales of units that fought to the last man, these are unusual cases. There are many more examples of units that simply dissolved, even if only temporarily, under enemy fire. Units, even good units, can only take so much.

In most cases evaporation is different from what most wargamers are used to calling "elimination". Unless the evaporating unit is isolated, all surviving troops and equipment are still available for distribution to other units. Isolated units (those not able to trace a line of communication back to a friendly supply point), on the other hand, are truly eliminated when they evaporate. Their troops and equipment are permanently lost - assumed surrendered to enemy forces.

Time allowing, many evaporated units will eventually be reconstituted from available replacements.

IMO double combat losses are more than sufficient to justify green units to lose cohesion... and evaporate.
I suppose this is what happens in RL.

Evaporation is one of the reasons I love TOAW.

If this happened the same way with attackers and defenders, I'd say that it is working as designed. In this case, I can see the code. If someone is defending, suffers mild losses and fail their quality checks, they are going to divide into three pieces and retreat. If the attacker fails his quality checks he was going to evaporate, now he's going to reorganize.

I agree with Sekadegas that we do not want to shield the attackers from deserved evaporations. But if Ralph has found a bug that causes undeserved evaporations, we do want to fix that. And my tests indicate that he has.

To do the test, I just sort of reversed my "Test Terrain" scenario. Instead of the big American units attacking the 1/3 sized German units in their various terrains, I set up the attacks by the Germans against the Americans. So all attacks were at 1:3 odds, with all defenders in clear terrain. This should give lots of chances for Attacker evaporations. There were 100 attacks altogether.

The first set of tests were with the AD still at 40. At that AD setting, the attackers weren't suffering enough losses to justify any evaporations. But several still did under 3.2 - none under 3.4. Similar with the AD lowered to 10. But when the AD was lowered to 6, the evaporations went up in both cases - indicating that they were now mostly deserved. Finally, at AD = 4, most attackers evaporated regardless of version. I think this shows that there was a bug where attacking units were suffering undeserved evaporations, and it has been fixed in 3.4. Attackers clearly will still evaporate when they deserve to, but only when they deserve to.