3.4 beta is more favorable to defenders

[Emx77]

Have anybody noticed that version 3.4 is more favorable to defender? I have performed a couple of test to see whether this is subjective observation or not.

Test description:

I ordered two infantry battalions with mortar Coy to attack one fortified infantry battalion, and saved this setup. You may see this at following screenshot:



Then I executed attack, recorded results and repeated this process 20 times both with version 3.2 and with version 3.4.


The results are shown in next table:



From the table above we can see that attacker losses are on average 14% higher and defender losses are on average 40% less in v3.4. The second difference is rather big one.

Although mean Attacker Loss is somewhat higher in v3.4, Independent samples t-test calculated in SPSS 17.0 statistic package doesn't showed this difference to be statisticly different between two versions. At same time, Independent samples t-test showed that there is statisticly significant difference between v3.2 and v3.4 in respect to Defender Loss. This result objectively supports my hypothesis that v3.4 is more favorable to defenders compared to v3.2.

Also, here are results which shows how many times defender is retreated, unfortified or divided into subunits after attack:



From tables above we can see that in v3.4 defender is less prone to retreat, to be unfortified and to be divided after attack, which further supports hypothesis about v3.4 being more favorable to defenders.

Question is how this will affect existing scenarios balance?

[ralphtricky]

The rules about how entrenchment stacks with other terrain has changed. That may be part of it.

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

The rules about how entrenchment stacks with other terrain has changed. That may be part of it.

It is possible, and I have feeling that combat results are now more realistic. For sure it will be much more difficult for attacker to dislodge defender and penetrate fortificated lines. Attacker without significant advantage in strenght and support will simply melt away very fast.

What I'm afraid of is that this will significantly affect balance of scenarios created with older versions of TOAW.

[Curtis Lemay]

These are just the results I would have expected with the changes. But, as I noted in the What's New thread, this will be somewhat compenstated for by the changes that will make very weak defenses easier to overcome.

[Panama]

I suppose this might be a little off subject but, why is it terrain effects for defense don't stack? If I'm in hills I get a defensive boost. If the hills have a forest I should be even harder to dislodge. If the hills and forests are riddled with swamps, good luck getting me out.

[Anthony_MatrixForum]

I am not so sure, Try the Korea 50-51 scenario in the classic TOAW folder. I played this before(pre 3.4) and managed to stop the North about 5 hexes from Pusan, then roll them back, vaguly along historical lines.

Now, with 3.4beta, I have been pushed back to the coast, lost Pusan and will probably lose.

Could be better Elmer
Could be my poor play [;)] most likely
It might also be that the combat model has changed and the scenario need rebalancing

However - it certainly feels a lot tougher as the defender

It would be good if some others could try it and see how they go

Cheers
Anthony

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: Anthony

I am not so sure, Try the Korea 50-51 scenario in the classic TOAW folder. I played this before(pre 3.4) and managed to stop the North about 5 hexes from Pusan, then roll them back, vaguly along historical lines.

Now, with 3.4beta, I have been pushed back to the coast, lost Pusan and will probably lose.

Could be better Elmer
Could be my poor play [;)] most likely

Ralph reworked Elmer's code

[Bulldog1]

Stop playing TOAW for about a year. Jumped back in when I saw new updated graphics mod and changes. Great Job with all! Started up old favorite Korea 50-51.I had edge of my seat moment when the NKA had two turns in a row and pushed back my 25th and 24th div. back into Pusan and was able to get a full attack on Pusan. Units were melting away and retreating but luckily I had dug-in a engineer unit that was now fortified and this was the only unit that was left when turn finally ended. And then the 1st Marine div. landed as reinforcements the next turn to save the day.[&o] How's that for a storyline? Great Work!

[Oberst_Klink]

[font="Tahoma"][/font]Same here, Korea 1950-1951 is one of my favorites. An yes, I think Elmer really got smarter... Playing this scenario with TOAW I and TOAW 3.0.17 I was able to stop him in his tracks along the two rivers on a continuous front just south of Seoul. Now he made me actually use the historical Pusan perimeter as a defense line, otherwise it's good bye in 4-6 turns.