Two engine questions

[bevilacqua]

1. I always wondered if it is worth using minimise losses setting when defending. The logic of it, as far as I understand, is to spare equipment, supply etc. But since a unit that retreats must go through a disengagement check and with minimise losses the chance of retreating is greater, is it a good idea to use defending units with that setting.
I thought it could be used to simulate a unit that retreats orderly while presenting some resistance to enemy units attacks, but very frequently the disengagement check seems to send units into a reorganization state.

2. Is there any cumulative increase on the chances of repairing a bridge after multiple attempts? It is frustrating to have 4 or more engineering units with 13 or 14 percent chance of repairing a bridge for more than 4 turns in sequence without moving and not having the bridge repaired. Does the chance increase with number of tries?

[jomni]

This must be related to your 2nd question.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2601342

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: bevilacqua
1. I always wondered if it is worth using minimise losses setting when defending. The logic of it, as far as I understand, is to spare equipment, supply etc. But since a unit that retreats must go through a disengagement check and with minimise losses the chance of retreating is greater, is it a good idea to use defending units with that setting.
I thought it could be used to simulate a unit that retreats orderly while presenting some resistance to enemy units attacks, but very frequently the disengagement check seems to send units into a reorganization state.

2. Is there any cumulative increase on the chances of repairing a bridge after multiple attempts? It is frustrating to have 4 or more engineering units with 13 or 14 percent chance of repairing a bridge for more than 4 turns in sequence without moving and not having the bridge repaired. Does the chance increase with number of tries?

I want to look into the losses setting more for 3.5. Right now, I think that ignore may make the formation more likely to go into re-organization, but I'm not positive what the other effects are, or whether they still are true with the new turn order.

I think what you're describing is what I would like to have happen, minimize means that they're more likely to retreat in good order, ignore means that they're more likely to end up broken.

Ralph

[bevilacqua]

Thanks ralphtrick.

Regarding my second question, now I have 5 units in a damaged bridge hex. Four of them for 4 turns and five the last turn. All have 13-15% chance of repairing the bridge, but after five turns they weren't able. That's frustrating.

I like the way engineering units chances are lessened after moving, it's realistic, but I think that repair chances in the same hex should get progressively bigger after various tries, mainly in larger time frame scenarios.