Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

[sPzAbt653]

You can use the sal to sce feature to 'test' if an adjustment has the desired effect, but not to continue playing an 'in progress' game. The Event Engine does not know how to reset a game from turn 1 to a different start point, therefore things can get whacky.

[Shazman]

I hate to say it but the current version of TOAW is slowly devolving into an unplayable mess. AA that doesn't work right and now ground combat that doesn't work right. I certainly hope the next patch has been fast tracked.

[Oberst_Klink]

Shazman,

there are some 'issues' and certainly challenges; nothing that can't be fixed. Regarding the AAA, I had some revealing experiences *see tm.asp?m=3053630&mpage=1&#3056540*

Interdiction as well as the integrated AA defences seem to work; my Soviet gunners were able to down more than a few Lw planes while on the move...

I agree though... the combat model regarding the RFC should be adjusted and I am sure Bob will use his weight to canvass it. That's why the community IS important - us.

Klink, Oberst

[Shazman]

This:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

We were really hoping to get 3.5 out before this got noticed. Yes, sadly, this bug was introduced in about the middle of 3.4 development and never spotted till it was too late. I had a good chance to spot it when I checked out the AAA scale factor feature in the editor, but, of course, used AAA icons on the test units - and they worked. We didn't spot it till testing Naval AAA in 3.5 and found no ships ever did any AAA (and Telumar's work around won't work for that).

It is fixed in 3.5, though.

By the way, I'm posting this from the NE corner of Kenya.

And this:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The problem is that the combat odds make no difference. It must have been that way from the beginning of TOAW. We did make the odds affect RBC chances in 3.4, but not RFCs. This needs to be addressed. I’ll get to that later.

These are not trifles nor small issues. However, I too know that these will be fixed. In fact, Bob has already mentioned in the quote above that the AAA issue is resolved. And the lack of combat odds being used will be resolved as well. But as 3.4 stands right now you are hard pressed to get an accurate resolution to any scenario EXCEPT for the fact that both contestants are equally hog-tied. [:D]

[Oberst_Klink]

Shaz,

there are always 'workarounds' and a good example how even a pre-3.4 scenario(s) can be adjusted is Rob's RTM series... Have a look and play-test RTM - Crossings with the updated AD and MRPB. I am currently working *thanks to Joao Lima's permission' on a complete overhaul of Kharkov '43; alas I shall name the post-beta Kharkov '43 - Operation Star & Gallop; not to confuse it with his and the other version. For testing purposes I recommend to use my Tutorial '41 as template. You can use, 'abuse', change, modify. etc. to your liking. Just mention the Gefechtsstand, ja?

Klink, Oberst

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Shazman

This:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

We were really hoping to get 3.5 out before this got noticed. Yes, sadly, this bug was introduced in about the middle of 3.4 development and never spotted till it was too late. I had a good chance to spot it when I checked out the AAA scale factor feature in the editor, but, of course, used AAA icons on the test units - and they worked. We didn't spot it till testing Naval AAA in 3.5 and found no ships ever did any AAA (and Telumar's work around won't work for that).

It is fixed in 3.5, though.

By the way, I'm posting this from the NE corner of Kenya.

And this:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The problem is that the combat odds make no difference. It must have been that way from the beginning of TOAW. We did make the odds affect RBC chances in 3.4, but not RFCs. This needs to be addressed. I’ll get to that later.

These are not trifles nor small issues. However, I too know that these will be fixed. In fact, Bob has already mentioned in the quote above that the AAA issue is resolved. And the lack of combat odds being used will be resolved as well. But as 3.4 stands right now you are hard pressed to get an accurate resolution to any scenario EXCEPT for the fact that both contestants are equally hog-tied. [:D]

There's no question that the AAA bug was a major screw up. But, that's the risk that comes with doing updates. Note that the beta was out there for quite a while without anyone spotting this.

And RFCs are not right yet either. But they were hardly right prior to 3.4. Prior to 3.4 neither combat odds nor terrain made any difference in RFC chances. 3.4 fixed the terrain part of that. So, we cured its cold, but that revealed that it has the flu as well. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have cured its cold.

By the way, I'm posting this from Jakarta.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

That's why the community IS important - us.

I'd like to support "Oberst" here. Even if i have strong reserves about current version combat resolution, actual TOAW gaming platform is much better than what we had before in earlier versions.

And all the steps forward were only due to very dedicated people from the community.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... So, the lower the attacker morale, the harder it is for them to cause the defender to RFC. This makes it particularly hard for a low proficiency force to make progress against a high proficiency force. ...

I may be missing something here but, is the above noted as being a problem?...

(I'm completely baffled if so, because the above makes absolute sense in terms of what history as been showing us. If that's the way the game is working, then it's working fine.)

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... So, the lower the attacker morale, the harder it is for them to cause the defender to RFC. This makes it particularly hard for a low proficiency force to make progress against a high proficiency force. ...

I may be missing something here but, is the above noted as being a problem?...

(I'm completely baffled if so, because the above makes absolute sense in terms of what history as been showing us. If that's the way the game is working, then it's working fine.)

Joao,

The problem is, as I stated in one of my threads, the 'ignore losses' issue that prevents just doing what Bob found out. You use a crap unit, no supply, no readiness and they hold out nearly infinitely against any attacker. Hence Bob did a comprehensive test that highlighted the RFC problem and confirmed what I and the Swedish Major *he really is one* found out battling various PBEM's only to realize that even a mobile campaign bogs down to a WW1 stalemate.

Klink, Oberst

P.S. off-topic: Still tweaking Kharkov '43 *which I shall rename to Kharkov'43 - Operation Star & Gallop in order not to confuse it with the others...* 'n thanks for giving me the permission.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... So, the lower the attacker morale, the harder it is for them to cause the defender to RFC. This makes it particularly hard for a low proficiency force to make progress against a high proficiency force. ...

I may be missing something here but, is the above noted as being a problem?...

(I'm completely baffled if so, because the above makes absolute sense in terms of what history as been showing us. If that's the way the game is working, then it's working fine.)

It is a problem if combat odds don't matter. That means that a really huge low prof force can't make much progress against a really small high prof force. And that's not historical. Remember the saying: "Quantity has a quality all on its own".

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... So, the lower the attacker morale, the harder it is for them to cause the defender to RFC. This makes it particularly hard for a low proficiency force to make progress against a high proficiency force. ...

I may be missing something here but, is the above noted as being a problem?...

(I'm completely baffled if so, because the above makes absolute sense in terms of what history as been showing us. If that's the way the game is working, then it's working fine.)

It is a problem if combat odds don't matter. That means that a really huge low prof force can't make much progress against a really small high prof force. And that's not historical. Remember the saying: "Quantity has a quality all on its own".

I am confident you can convince R-T to implement the findings in 3.5... ^5

Klink, Oberst

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... So, the lower the attacker morale, the harder it is for them to cause the defender to RFC. This makes it particularly hard for a low proficiency force to make progress against a high proficiency force. ...

I may be missing something here but, is the above noted as being a problem?...

(I'm completely baffled if so, because the above makes absolute sense in terms of what history as been showing us. If that's the way the game is working, then it's working fine.)

It is a problem if combat odds don't matter. That means that a really huge low prof force can't make much progress against a really small high prof force. And that's not historical. Remember the saying: "Quantity has a quality all on its own".

No objections there, I was just not following what the reasoning was.

[sPzAbt653]

It sounds like a test scenario for the Battle of Rorke's Drift might come in handy.

[shunwick]

Guys,

I can't help feeling that it is the ignore losses order itself that is the problem. It is much too easy for players to set their units to ignore losses and in TOAW, as Bob confirms, ignore losses literally means ignore losses. I believe that this is unreasonable.

Now, it is not difficult for a commander to tell his troops to fight to the death. But getting the troops to obey that order is something else. It happens in real wars, yes, but only rarely.

In short, I agree that there is a problem but I am not so sure about the solution.

On the whole, I think that I would prefer keeping ignore losses to remain as they are now but I would make them dependent upon on a % chance that can be set for both sides in the editor. If the chance fails then they would defend at limit losses with maybe a small bonus and with the bonus being defined in the editor as well. If the bonus is negative it would even punish players for giving ignore losses settings.

Players, therefore, will still be able to give their troops ignore losses settings but they would not be able to rely 100% on compliance. Note also, this would allow designers freedom to model some campaigns a little better.

I certainly feel that we need some more thoughts on this.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Guys,

I can't help feeling that it is the ignore losses order itself that is the problem. It is much too easy for players to set their units to ignore losses and in TOAW, as Bob confirms, ignore losses literally means ignore losses. I believe that this is unreasonable.

Now, it is not difficult for a commander to tell his troops to fight to the death. But getting the troops to obey that order is something else. It happens in real wars, yes, but only rarely.

In short, I agree that there is a problem but I am not so sure about the solution.

On the whole, I think that I would prefer keeping ignore losses to remain as they are now but I would make them dependent upon on a % chance that can be set for both sides in the editor. If the chance fails then they would defend at limit losses with maybe a small bonus and with the bonus being defined in the editor as well.

Players, therefore, will still be able to give their troops ignore losses settings but they would not be able to rely 100% on compliance. Note also, this would allow designers freedom to model some campaigns a little better.

I certainly feel that we need some more thoughts on this.

Best wishes,
Steve

I second that entirely; since the last patch was issued, I have started numerous scenarios set in varied theaters and periods only to realize that indeed way to often it starts at some point to resemble the bloody trench warfare abominably and since I played the WWI scenarios including the strategic scale I know what I say.Something has to be done about that as if I only can remember well TOAW III, according to the manual, is suppossed to be all about manoeuver warfare.

[sPzAbt653]

I can't help feeling that it is the ignore losses order itself that is the problem.

Does anybody know the actual effect of 'Ignore Losses' on a combat result or on the defending unit with these Loss Settings? (I mean, how the actual calculation is affected). I would think it would be something like normal Limit Losses but if a Retreat result is the outcome, then the unit would incur more losses with a lesser chance to retreat.

Rorkes Drift worked out perfectly, a couple thousand Zulus can't budge the British.

[Shazman]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Guys,

I can't help feeling that it is the ignore losses order itself that is the problem. It is much too easy for players to set their units to ignore losses and in TOAW, as Bob confirms, ignore losses literally means ignore losses. I believe that this is unreasonable.

Now, it is not difficult for a commander to tell his troops to fight to the death. But getting the troops to obey that order is something else. It happens in real wars, yes, but only rarely.

In short, I agree that there is a problem but I am not so sure about the solution.

You're not alone. Others have mentioned this and have been largely ignored.

ORIGINAL: shunwick

On the whole, I think that I would prefer keeping ignore losses to remain as they are now but I would make them dependent upon on a % chance that can be set for both sides in the editor. If the chance fails then they would defend at limit losses with maybe a small bonus and with the bonus being defined in the editor as well. If the bonus is negative it would even punish players for giving ignore losses settings.

Players, therefore, will still be able to give their troops ignore losses settings but they would not be able to rely 100% on compliance. Note also, this would allow designers freedom to model some campaigns a little better.

I certainly feel that we need some more thoughts on this.

Best wishes,
Steve

The problem with any global setting is that the effect would be global. That is to say, formations within a nation's military were either much better or much worse than others. Some would fight to the death. Some would run at the first shot. It would have to be a fomation specific setting IMO. For that matter most settings should be formation specific including some that are currently not.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Guys,

I can't help feeling that it is the ignore losses order itself that is the problem. It is much too easy for players to set their units to ignore losses and in TOAW, as Bob confirms, ignore losses literally means ignore losses. I believe that this is unreasonable.

Now, it is not difficult for a commander to tell his troops to fight to the death. But getting the troops to obey that order is something else. It happens in real wars, yes, but only rarely.

But that's just how it works in TOAW: You can order your troops to fight to the death, but they must pass a morale check to do so. So, low prof units will not stand for long, even if ordered to.

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Guys,

I can't help feeling that it is the ignore losses order itself that is the problem. It is much too easy for players to set their units to ignore losses and in TOAW, as Bob confirms, ignore losses literally means ignore losses. I believe that this is unreasonable.

Now, it is not difficult for a commander to tell his troops to fight to the death. But getting the troops to obey that order is something else. It happens in real wars, yes, but only rarely.

But that's just how it works in TOAW: You can order your troops to fight to the death, but they must pass a morale check to do so. So, low prof units will not stand for long, even if ordered to.

Indeed as it seems. So now we are in a vicious circle; everything works fine, but many a player has a profound feeling that there is something badly wrong with the effects we get.Is it possible that that many people are all wrong in the same respect?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Rorkes Drift worked out perfectly, a couple thousand Zulus can't budge the British.

But how does Isandlwana work out?