Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: burroughs

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?

I haven't said that "everything works fine". On the contrary, I identified a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

[shunwick]

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.

Bob,

Right, I think I am finally getting there. So the problem is specifically with high proficiency troops plus ignore losses since they will tend to pass their morale checks quite easily and ignore losses has no other way of causing them to retreat. What about high proficiency troops plus ignore losses on the attack though? I seem to recall a fairly recent thread of problems there as well.

Am I right in thinking then that you mean applying a calculation for the odds on the ignore losses setting only?

Best wishes,
Steve

[sPzAbt653]

But how does Isandlwana work out?

I didn't see that film.

But, I can look into and see if there is enough info online to put that part together. I think at Isandlwana, the ZUlus may have higher proficiency and the British lower. I know one thing, that one of the cavalry units from Isandlwana showed up at Rorkes Drift, and promptly fled at the first sight of the approaching Zulus. [:-] I bet they felt like big jackasses when it was all over.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Bob,

Right, I think I am finally getting there. So the problem is specifically with high proficiency troops plus ignore losses since they will tend to pass their morale checks quite easily and ignore losses has no other way of causing them to retreat.

Am I right in thinking then that you mean applying a calculation for the odds on the ignore losses setting only?

Best wishes,
Steve

I'm not sure how it works with lower tolerance settings. Obviously, there is another complicating factor added to the decision - loss %. But I suspect that morale impacts that determination as well.

My first thought was to divide the defender morale by the odds (scaled in some fashion). But we'll have to see how that works. I'm still not clear on the how part, just the what part - apply the odds to the RFC test somehow.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Bob,

Right, I think I am finally getting there. So the problem is specifically with high proficiency troops plus ignore losses since they will tend to pass their morale checks quite easily and ignore losses has no other way of causing them to retreat.

Am I right in thinking then that you mean applying a calculation for the odds on the ignore losses setting only?

Best wishes,
Steve

I'm not sure how it works with lower tolerance settings. Obviously, there is another complicating factor added to the decision - loss %. But I suspect that morale impacts that determination as well.

My first thought was to divide the defender morale by the odds (scaled in some fashion). But we'll have to see how that works. I'm still not clear on the how part, just the what part - apply the odds to the RFC test somehow.

Bob,

This is why I am unsure about the solution. We agree on the problem.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Oberst_Klink]

Steve #2,

I am sure we are getting there. Once an issue is acknowledged and identified it's easier to tackle it, no?

That's why input, feedback and testing done by each of us is so important.

Klink, Oberst

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

My tests show that the 3.4 adjustments are working just as designed. Fortified units (as well as units in Fortified terrain) are about 6.3 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain – all else being equal. (...) They could be adjusted a little, but I don’t think they are out of line.

I can't agree more with you. The adjustments are working as designed. The problem is they were clearly overrated.

3.4 RFC adjustments (especially with fortified units / fortified terrain) are the main source of the problem evebody is feeling and not losses settings or unit proficiencies.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The problem is that the only other factor that determines whether the unit retreats or not is the morale of the defender and attacker. (Remember that morale is a combination of the unit proficiency, readiness, and supply.) The higher the morale of the defender, the harder it is to dislodge. Attacker morale affects this in that if the attackers all drop out, the defender doesn’t have to make a RFC check. 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.

This isn't a problem. This is exactly how it should be. But what we have today is opposite to your description. We always had elite units resisting longer and harder and nobody claimed about it.
Nowadays we have to stand crappy fortified proficiency units resisting against incredible odds.
Or do you think is a nice simulation when i'm defending a town for more that 4 turns with 2 small fortified, red units 1-2 with 5 and 11% proficiency (!!) against 6+ units (5-6) with normal proficiencies between 50 to 65%? If my small units were on defending status (instead of fortified) they would not have a chance no matter if they were on ignore losses or not.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
It must have been that way from the beginning of TOAW.

That's funny to hear...

TOAW always had a "obscure" combat system resolution but it was one of it's "best weapons" allowing the game to be around for so long. The combat resolution always produced sound results.

Sorry but its difficult to accept we can blame a system that always worked very well.
It's cristal clear that the new version adjustments are the problem. And not a huge one. What has to be done is downgrade RFC's adjustments (especially with fortified units / fortified terrain) and things will get back on tracks.

As you remember there were in the past some "improvements" that weren't sucessfull - AAA lethality overrated during years, not to speak about Norm's own 1.6 version in which MG's were killing tanks as if armour wasn't invented yet... - this is just one of that cases and its no use in exagerating the problems or complicating their resolution.



We have a good product here. 3.4 is much better and solid than any version before. And i can't forget a big part of this is due to your personal effort. So don't take my posts as attacks to you or the designing team. They just a contribution from someboby playing this game daily for the last 10 years.

[Oberst_Klink]

Joao,

the problem was addressed, it was verified and it is going to be fixed. I am quite confident that that's the course of action.

So let's all pull together on one string, nein? Friedrich der Große once said, and ye'ole fellow was right - Those who try to defend everything will defend nothing at the end.

Klink, Oberst
1st spring-time day in Cyprus, hurrah!

[Panama]

I don't think Norm ever wanted to make odds matter. Larger forces are already accounted for in the way combat is resolved are they not? Evidently the 3.4 modifications broke it in some way. In what way more modifications will break it may soon be discovered.

Perhaps instead of using a small number of people for testing you should release a public beta to the community to be tested and the community can report back anything they feel is not working properly. It's because of a strange desire for secrecy that some things have survived to release that should have been squashed. Yes, you'll get some crazy stuff going on. But you will also get a well tested product in the end.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

So the problem is specifically with high proficiency troops plus ignore losses since they will tend to pass their morale checks quite easily and ignore losses has no other way of causing them to retreat.

What is happening in daily playing doesn't match with only high proficiency units resisting longer. Of course, we hope them to do so.

Let's put things "simple":

1) Fortified units - whatever their strength, health or proficiency are resisting during ages without "logically" retreating. They are evaporating more than reatreating. This happens dramatically often and it's what people has been refering as WWI style warfare.
The same doesn't happen if the units are mobile or on defending status. Whatever their proficiency or losses setings. Here the combat resolution becames logical as it was on the past. And we know the adjustments done in these 2 situations were ligher.
This proves (and Bob confirms the adjustments are working) that RFC (retreat from combat) adjustments were overrated especially on fortified status / fortified terrain and on a lesser scale with entrechement status.


2) Low (very low) proficiency units (if in fortified status or fortified terrain) are resisting like veteran units. This didn't happen before and it's only verifiable under 3.4
So the problem isn't directly related with high profiency units morale checks as is being suggested. If it was, these low proficiency units wouldn't resist the morale checking and would retreat. They don't, even when they suffer appalling losses. I believe the cause is still the same as above.



Of course ignore losses units will resist longer in any case and that's why i never met any experienced player that doesn't always use it in defence.

Never brought problems problems in the past, it doesn' make sense why it should bring now.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

the problem was addressed, it was verified and it is going to be fixed. I am quite confident that that's the course of action.

I know it was addressed. It was verified (and i feel i had some role in it...) but the causes found to the problem (ignore losses, morale checks, unit proficiency) just contradict the gaming reality.
It is very clear where the problem is and it's of reasonably easy resolution. When possible, of course. I'm not asking for speed.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

So let's all pull together on one string, nein? Friedrich der Große once said, and ye'ole fellow was right - Those who try to defend everything will defend nothing at the end.

Very true. It serves everybody...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

I can't agree more with you. The adjustments are working as designed. The problem is they were clearly overrated.

3.4 RFC adjustments (especially with fortified units / fortified terrain) are the main source of the problem evebody is feeling and not losses settings or unit proficiencies.

I appreciate your passion. However, we can't fix anything unless we get the facts right. That's why our tests have to be rigorous.

Let me describe my tests a bit more. The test scenario has 10 identical attacks for 16 different terrains and deployments (160 attacks total). I ran 10 trials with each scenario setup, and 5 different versions of the scenario. That's a total of 160 x 50 = 8,000 individual combats - 500 combats of each terrain/deployment type. Each attack was narrowly constrained to limit the number of factors involved to a minimum. That's why I can feel pretty confident in the conclusions I reached.

Playtest data are valuable as well, but can never be as rigorous. Too many complex factors are involved in every attack. And players don't diligently record each result. In fact, they tend to get emotionally involved in the results - skewing their observations further.

Without rigor, we soon find our selves "proving" cold fusion. Then the next thing you know, you're burning witches at the stake.

This isn't a problem. This is exactly how it should be. But what we have today is opposite to your description. We always had elite units resisting longer and harder and nobody claimed about it.
Nowadays we have to stand crappy fortified proficiency units resisting against incredible odds.
Or do you think is a nice simulation when i'm defending a town for more that 4 turns with 2 small fortified, red units 1-2 with 5 and 11% proficiency (!!) against 6+ units (5-6) with normal proficiencies between 50 to 65%? If my small units were on defending status (instead of fortified) they would not have a chance no matter if they were on ignore losses or not.

If you'll look at my tests, I increased the attacker proficiency from 70 to 100 and the number of retreats increased about 30%. Higher prof attackers do proportionately better.

Also, I decreased defender morale from 100% supply & readiness to 1%/33% readiness and retreats increased about two fold. Defender morale definitely affects RFC chances.

That's funny to hear...

TOAW always had a "obscure" combat system resolution but it was one of it's "best weapons" allowing the game to be around for so long. The combat resolution always produced sound results.

I expect that one of the reasons it has always seemed so "obscure" is because it never considered combat odds in the RFC decision. But I can't say for sure, since I didn't do any legacy tests, because that doesn't get the problem fixed. Regardless of when it happened, my tests show for certain that combat odds don't affect RFC chances. I did tests at 3:1 odds, 10:1 odds, and 30:1 odds. All produced about the same number of RFCs.

And, for sure, the combat resolution system was not producing sound results. The whole correction was triggered by a player providing test data (rigorous, by the way) that clearly showed that terrain did not affect RFC chances. So it was as easy to kick a unit out of a Maginot line hex as clear terrain. Rather, I expect that the combination of no terrain effects and no combat odds effects tended to cancel each other enough so that no one could easily spot them during general play.

And, my tests show that Fortified terrain/deployment is about 6.3 times as hard to dislodge as clear terrain - all else being equal. I still don't think that's out of line. We just need to get it so that combat odds matter - then you can gang up on that fort enough to clear it faster.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Perhaps instead of using a small number of people for testing you should release a public beta to the community to be tested and the community can report back anything they feel is not working properly. It's because of a strange desire for secrecy that some things have survived to release that should have been squashed. Yes, you'll get some crazy stuff going on. But you will also get a well tested product in the end.

The beta was released months in advance of the final version. No one spotted either the AAA or RFC issues. We have increased the number of testers this time around, though.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

I can't agree more with you. The adjustments are working as designed. The problem is they were clearly overrated.

3.4 RFC adjustments (especially with fortified units / fortified terrain) are the main source of the problem evebody is feeling and not losses settings or unit proficiencies.

I appreciate your passion. However, we can't fix anything unless we get the facts right. That's why our tests have to be rigorous.

Let me describe my tests a bit more. The test scenario has 10 identical attacks for 16 different terrains and deployments (160 attacks total). I ran 10 trials with each scenario setup, and 5 different versions of the scenario. That's a total of 160 x 50 = 8,000 individual combats - 500 combats of each terrain/deployment type. Each attack was narrowly constrained to limit the number of factors involved to a minimum. That's why I can feel pretty confident in the conclusions I reached.

Playtest data are valuable as well, but can never be as rigorous. Too many complex factors are involved in every attack. And players don't diligently record each result. In fact, they tend to get emotionally involved in the results - skewing their observations further.

Without rigor, we soon find our selves "proving" cold fusion. Then the next thing you know, you're burning witches at the stake.

This isn't a problem. This is exactly how it should be. But what we have today is opposite to your description. We always had elite units resisting longer and harder and nobody claimed about it.
Nowadays we have to stand crappy fortified proficiency units resisting against incredible odds.
Or do you think is a nice simulation when i'm defending a town for more that 4 turns with 2 small fortified, red units 1-2 with 5 and 11% proficiency (!!) against 6+ units (5-6) with normal proficiencies between 50 to 65%? If my small units were on defending status (instead of fortified) they would not have a chance no matter if they were on ignore losses or not.

If you'll look at my tests, I increased the attacker proficiency from 70 to 100 and the number of retreats increased about 30%. Higher prof attackers do proportionately better.

Also, I decreased defender morale from 100% supply & readiness to 1%/33% readiness and retreats increased about two fold. Defender morale definitely affects RFC chances.

That's funny to hear...

TOAW always had a "obscure" combat system resolution but it was one of it's "best weapons" allowing the game to be around for so long. The combat resolution always produced sound results.

I expect that one of the reasons it has always seemed so "obscure" is because it never considered combat odds in the RFC decision. But I can't say for sure, since I didn't do any legacy tests, because that doesn't get the problem fixed. Regardless of when it happened, my tests show for certain that combat odds don't affect RFC chances. I did tests at 3:1 odds, 10:1 odds, and 30:1 odds. All produced about the same number of RFCs.

And, for sure, the combat resolution system was not producing sound results. The whole correction was triggered by a player providing test data (rigorous, by the way) that clearly showed that terrain did not affect RFC chances. So it was as easy to kick a unit out of a Maginot line hex as clear terrain. Rather, I expect that the combination of no terrain effects and no combat odds effects tended to cancel each other enough so that no one could easily spot them during general play.

And, my tests show that Fortified terrain/deployment is about 6.3 times as hard to dislodge as clear terrain - all else being equal. I still don't think that's out of line. We just need to get it so that combat odds matter - then you can gang up on that fort enough to clear it faster.

Thanks for your reply.

I think i'm not wrong remembering you that the Norm's original combat system was based on individual equipment killing individual equipment. Odds did matter, not directly, but in the way of having 100 tanks shooting (and being shoot by) 10 tanks increases the probability of the 10 tanks suffering more losses.

You and the team are TOAW's community best (and only) chance to have a better game so i trully hope you're right.

[Jeff Norton]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Bob,

Right, I think I am finally getting there. So the problem is specifically with high proficiency troops plus ignore losses since they will tend to pass their morale checks quite easily and ignore losses has no other way of causing them to retreat.

Am I right in thinking then that you mean applying a calculation for the odds on the ignore losses setting only?

Best wishes,
Steve

I'm not sure how it works with lower tolerance settings. Obviously, there is another complicating factor added to the decision - loss %. But I suspect that morale impacts that determination as well.

My first thought was to divide the defender morale by the odds (scaled in some fashion). But we'll have to see how that works. I'm still not clear on the how part, just the what part - apply the odds to the RFC test somehow.

Bob,

This is why I am unsure about the solution. We agree on the problem.

Best wishes,
Steve

Its why it would be nice for Ralph to have some input here, to add some technical content.

[altipueri]

For what it is worth I just played the Anonymous Heroics tutorial scenario following the notes pretty much exactly (which include putting almost every grey defending unit on ignore losses at the beginning). But when I ran the game the defenders (me, grey) suffered hardly any losses compared to the notes ("several of our units have a red band across them") and of the "five hexes that Red has gained" - I think it only got one in my game.

Does this indicate that ignore losses is now stronger than when the scenario and walkthrough were written?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

For what it is worth I just played the Anonymous Heroics tutorial scenario following the notes pretty much exactly (which include putting almost every grey defending unit on ignore losses at the beginning). But when I ran the game the defenders (me, grey) suffered hardly any losses compared to the notes ("several of our units have a red band across them") and of the "five hexes that Red has gained" - I think it only got one in my game.

Does this indicate that ignore losses is now stronger than when the scenario and walkthrough were written?

The model was changed *to my knowledge* becasue of the Ant-Attack bug; alas the defender is now a 'tad' too strong and not easily kicked out when entrenched/fortified WITH ignore losses settings. In some case it helps to adjust the AD and MRPB settings. Try the Attrition Divider = 14 instead of 8 for Anonymous Heroics and see how/if it effects it.

Klink, Oberst

[golden delicious]

EDIT: just finished reading the thread

I expect that the combination of no terrain effects and no combat odds effects tended to cancel each other enough so that no one could easily spot them during general play.

This. My experience of TOAW in the past is that combat results feel right overall, but the detail of complaints about ragged remnants holding on when in fortified status rings true, and there's no denying Bob's test results.

Sounds like a clear cut case.

[Shazman]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

The model was changed *to my knowledge* becasue of the Ant-Attack bug... (snipped)

Klink, Oberst

There was never an ant attack 'bug'. Instead ant attacks were a method people used to game the system in ways that were obviously unrealistic. It could have easily been avoided by the people who played the game but instead some chose to game the system in a way that worked to their advantage simply because game mechanics allowed it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

The model was changed *to my knowledge* becasue of the Ant-Attack bug...

No. That was a different issue. The reason was due to a player making tests and discovering that terrain didn't affect RFC chances. See this thread:

tm.asp?m=2078034