Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation

[governato]

After a bit of behind the scenes discussion with some players and scenario developers active on the forum, I decided to write to Ralph about a couple of suggestions for the next version of TOAW that I think would be helpful and simple to implement. Here is the copy of the PM.


One of the major limitations of the current TOAW engine is the lack of realistic operational pauses between offensive operations. Often units can keep attacking even when their supply is %1. I find that this is very unrealistic, especially in modern and WWII scenarios, where 'running out of supplies' was often the reason to stop an offensive
(think the Allies Army in Summer 1944, both in France and on the East Front). Still I see units in the deep red being pushed ahead, when in reality they should have been stopped by their operational commanders. While most agree that this is 'bad play', there is no obvious reason to not do it, and it actually favors the player who does it. This
unrealistic behaviour is especially evident in long scenarios that extend over several months, as several that have been published recently (Thrid Reich 42-45, East Front 41-45) and some great classics (Europe Aflame).


The main reason for players to push their units well below what is realistic is the unit combat strength formula in the TOAW engine and the limited penalties attached to minimal supply and low readiness:


19.1 Unit Combat strength Calculation (CSC)

Strength = equipment strength x (2 x proficiency + readiness + supply) / 4

which places a large emphasis on a unit 'proficiency' rather than on the availability of fuel and ammos.

Proposal 1: add three variables that allow the designer to change the Combat Strength Calculation:

Strength = equipment strength x (C1 x proficiency + C2 x readiness + C3 x supply) / (C1+C2+C3)

The default values 'd be C1=2,C2=1 and C3=1.

Proposal 2: Limit the ability of a unit to attack if its supply is below a certain threshold,with a value to be set in the scenario parameters (this is similar to the 'overstretched' supply option. Again the default would be '0', with good values in the say 2-10 range.


I want to stress that there is nothing fixed or special in the Combat Strength Calculation! Still it plays a major role in the TOAW engine. So why not allow the designers to change it?

Even if one is absolutely happy with the current CSC, modularity is one of the strengths of TOAW and it seems to me that allowing the designers to play with it (or decided that the default values are OK) would lead to better, more engaging scenarios.

[SMK-at-work]

IMO the supply issue for mechanised movement could also be addressed by movement restrictions - and this would cut straight to the issue of moving with "no supply".

Mechanised units without POL (Petrol, Oil, Lubricants) stop dead - they cease moving - period.

So why not do to them what would actually happen?

Obviously with some supply they could move - but below some threshold - say 10% - they should become stationary, and all mechanised elements have their combat factors reduced. I wouldn't reduce them to 0 at 10%, assuming some residual supplies are retained that are insufficient for "real" movement - but for every 1% below 10% I'd reduce their combat by 10% - so at 1% supply mechanised elements are fighting at 10% of their strengths.

Or something like that

[Lobster]

I think your suggestion is sound. Units moving and fighting forever with infinite supplies of fuel and ammo is unreasonable. It would probably put a damper on the gamey and science fiction like practice of recon units running around forever behind enemy lines without any supply.

[sealclubber]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

IMO the supply issue for mechanised movement could also be addressed by movement restrictions - and this would cut straight to the issue of moving with "no supply".

Mechanised units without POL (Petrol, Oil, Lubricants) stop dead - they cease moving - period.

The problem I see with this is the implication for defensive operations. An attacker able to pull off many tactical phases in a turn can easily pound defending units to 33/1 regardless of their starting readiness/health. They'll be additionally hampered by also being immobile (for all intents and purposes). Imagine trying to defend a line and being unable to move most of your units. This would fundamentally change TOAW gameplay.

[BigDuke66]

Hope something can be added but to be honest I really just want to get a new patch at all so anything can gear up again, it seems to me that a lot people stopped playing for example on "THE BLITZ" there are just 43 active players but 473 inactive(means no game registered in the last 365 days).
So as the new patch already adds a lot stuff and raises a lot barriers I hope that it gets done before nobody plays it anymore, because all the idea won't help us than anymore.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: sealclubber

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

IMO the supply issue for mechanised movement could also be addressed by movement restrictions - and this would cut straight to the issue of moving with "no supply".

Mechanised units without POL (Petrol, Oil, Lubricants) stop dead - they cease moving - period.

The problem I see with this is the implication for defensive operations. An attacker able to pull off many tactical phases in a turn can easily pound defending units to 33/1 regardless of their starting readiness/health. They'll be additionally hampered by also being immobile (for all intents and purposes). Imagine trying to defend a line and being unable to move most of your units. This would fundamentally change TOAW gameplay.

Yep it'd suck......as it should if you have no supplies IMO.

But why wouldn't that be "realistic"?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: sealclubber
The problem I see with this is the implication for defensive operations. An attacker able to pull off many tactical phases in a turn can easily pound defending units to 33/1 regardless of their starting readiness/health. They'll be additionally hampered by also being immobile (for all intents and purposes). Imagine trying to defend a line and being unable to move most of your units. This would fundamentally change TOAW gameplay.

I don't understand your meaning. If you are attacked you'll use supplies, maybe everything you have, which is totally logical. Then, with the way Ralph has changed things, at the beginning of the defender's turn he would receive supply. This isn't the old TOAW. At the beginning of each players turn there is a book keeping phase. Of course you have to agree to the new rules with your opponent. Don't see why you wouldn't.

Change History:
v3.4.0.200 10/31/2010
I. PLAYER-TURN EQUALIZATION (AKA “NEW TURN ORDER RULES”) (Optional):

There is now a choice to use equalized player-turns. The old pre-turn calculation method used to do all the
calculations for supply, recovery, and other items at the start of the first player turn. This was a bit unfair (usually to the second player). The new turn order splits that processing into three parts. Air-Combat, Events, and Weather effects still happen at the beginning of the game turn. But everything else now happens at the beginning of each respective player-turn instead. Clouds even move between player-turns – just without weather effects.

Note that equalization will mean that enemy units cut off from communications in the friendly player-turn will be
unsupplied in the immediately following enemy player-turn regardless of side (previously an unfair advantage for
side-two). Also, note that movement recovery is done twice for each side (start of each player-turn). This will clear the “Retreated” condition for both sides during their own player-turn (previously an unfair advantage for side-one). It may even make use of reserve deployments more palatable to players.

Furthermore, neither side is assumed to have 100% visibility into their own territories during the enemy movement
phase (previously an unfair advantage for side-two). Rather, detection of enemy moves into friendly territory will
now depend upon the friendly Theater Recon Level or friendly units. Therefore, enemy units will now be better able
to slip around either player without notice.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sealclubber

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

IMO the supply issue for mechanised movement could also be addressed by movement restrictions - and this would cut straight to the issue of moving with "no supply".

Mechanised units without POL (Petrol, Oil, Lubricants) stop dead - they cease moving - period.

The problem I see with this is the implication for defensive operations. An attacker able to pull off many tactical phases in a turn can easily pound defending units to 33/1 regardless of their starting readiness/health. They'll be additionally hampered by also being immobile (for all intents and purposes). Imagine trying to defend a line and being unable to move most of your units. This would fundamentally change TOAW gameplay.

Well reasoned! That would be absurd, of course.

The problem is two-fold: First, the Unit Supply value is not split into components (petrol and ammo). So, in your example, the defenders blow off all their ammo yet are ridiculously rendered immobile by it. And secondly, the whole proposal is based upon a misunderstanding of what the Unit Supply value represents.

The Unit Supply value is not a linear measure of the unit's supply stockpile, but a more abstract measure of its supply condition. It's actually more like a measure of the rate at which they expend supply - at 100% they blow it wastefully while at 1% they make every bullet (and drop of gas) count. Real world units don't blow off their entire supply stockpile in ten rounds, oblivious to how much they have remaining. That's not how real world units work and it's not how TOAW units work.

It's easy to see that this is true by how supply affects units: Their combat strengths drop as their supply level drops. That means that the units are expending less and less supply each combat round as their supply level drops. Yet the TOAW charge per round is 10 regardless of the unit's supply level. That means that that value of 10 represents a smaller and smaller amount of real supply as supply drops. But they still have a significant residual combat strength left when they reach 1% supply level - which means they still have a significant residual supply stockpile left at that point as well.

Note that if the Unit Supply value was a linear measure of the unit's supply stockpile, then their strength would remain constant until they reached 0% supply, at which point it would drop to zero. Not only is this not how TOAW units work, it is not how real world units would act either. There's much more sophistication built into TOAW's supply model than people realize.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I think your suggestion is sound. Units moving and fighting forever with infinite supplies of fuel and ammo is unreasonable. It would probably put a damper on the gamey and science fiction like practice of recon units running around forever behind enemy lines without any supply.

Unsupplied units lose equipment at a frightful rate. That represents equipment running out of fuel & ammo and being abandoned (among other things). No science fiction whatsoever.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


The Unit Supply value is not a linear measure of the unit's supply stockpile, but a more abstract measure of its supply condition. It's actually more like a measure of the rate at which they expend supply - at 100% they blow it wastefully while at 1% they make every bullet (and drop of gas) count. Real world units don't blow off their entire supply stockpile in ten rounds, oblivious to how much they have remaining. That's not how real world units work and it's not how TOAW units work.

It's easy to see that this is true by how supply affects units: Their combat strengths drop as their supply level drops. That means that the units are expending less and less supply each combat round as their supply level drops. Yet the TOAW charge per round is 10 regardless of the unit's supply level. That means that that value of 10 represents a smaller and smaller amount of real supply as supply drops. But they still have a significant residual combat strength left when they reach 1% supply level - which means they still have a significant residual supply stockpile left at that point as well.

I agree with 'Curtis', but to a point. The original main proposal (see below) aims at *increasing* the importance of supply vs Proficiency and Readiness, if the designer wishes so. It is simple, backward compatible and preserves a lot of the original TOAW intent, while other changes would be more disruptive.

Proposal 1: add three variables that allow the designer to change the Combat Strength Calculation:

Strength = equipment strength x (C1 x proficiency + C2 x readiness + C3 x supply) / (C1+C2+C3)

The default values 'd be C1=2,C2=1 and C3=1.


This flexibility also allows a designer to distinguish between WWII scenarios (where Supply eventually trumped tactical Proficiency, much to the Fuehrer frustration) to Civil War or even earlier scenarios were armies could partially live off the land and Proficiency was king (think Army of Northern Virginia, a good case of 1% supply...).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

I agree with 'Curtis', but to a point. The original main proposal (see below) aims at *increasing* the importance of supply vs Proficiency and Readiness, if the designer wishes so. It is simple, backward compatible and preserves a lot of the original TOAW intent, while other changes would be more disruptive.

Proposal 1: add three variables that allow the designer to change the Combat Strength Calculation:

Strength = equipment strength x (C1 x proficiency + C2 x readiness + C3 x supply) / (C1+C2+C3)

The default values 'd be C1=2,C2=1 and C3=1.


This flexibility also allows a designer to distinguish between WWII scenarios (where Supply eventually trumped tactical Proficiency, much to the Fuehrer frustration) to Civil War or even earlier scenarios were armies could partially live off the land and Proficiency was king (think Army of Northern Virginia, a good case of 1% supply...).

I wasn't addressing that.

However, at this point, we have to be very judicious about what few new features we can add to the update. And the project beyond that is expected to have a much more sophisticated supply system that will be far less abstracted - hopefully avoiding the misunderstanding above.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: governato

I agree with 'Curtis', but to a point. The original main proposal (see below) aims at *increasing* the importance of supply vs Proficiency and Readiness, if the designer wishes so. It is simple, backward compatible and preserves a lot of the original TOAW intent, while other changes would be more disruptive.

Proposal 1: add three variables that allow the designer to change the Combat Strength Calculation:

Strength = equipment strength x (C1 x proficiency + C2 x readiness + C3 x supply) / (C1+C2+C3)

The default values 'd be C1=2,C2=1 and C3=1.


This flexibility also allows a designer to distinguish between WWII scenarios (where Supply eventually trumped tactical Proficiency, much to the Fuehrer frustration) to Civil War or even earlier scenarios were armies could partially live off the land and Proficiency was king (think Army of Northern Virginia, a good case of 1% supply...).

I wasn't addressing that.

However, at this point, we have to be very judicious about what few new features we can add to the update. And the project beyond that is expected to have a much more sophisticated supply system that will be far less abstracted - hopefully avoiding the misunderstanding above.

Curtis, no worries! I blame the forum format

I am curious to hear Ralph's opinion as well, and looking forward to whatever improvements are there for TOAW 3.5 and beyond. But I hope that design flexibility will remain a high priority!

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


The problem is two-fold: First, the Unit Supply value is not split into components (petrol and ammo). So, in your example, the defenders blow off all their ammo yet are ridiculously rendered immobile by it. And secondly, the whole proposal is based upon a misunderstanding of what the Unit Supply value represents.

The Unit Supply value is not a linear measure of the unit's supply stockpile, but a more abstract measure of its supply condition. It's actually more like a measure of the rate at which they expend supply - at 100% they blow it wastefully while at 1% they make every bullet (and drop of gas) count. Real world units don't blow off their entire supply stockpile in ten rounds, oblivious to how much they have remaining. That's not how real world units work and it's not how TOAW units work.

That makes some sense - perhaps part of "the answer" then is to better explain this - wargamers tend to think of supply as a stockpile - not a rate of usage.

However that does nothing about the ants running around behind lines destroying rail hexes and bridges........

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

That makes some sense - perhaps part of "the answer" then is to better explain this - wargamers tend to think of supply as a stockpile - not a rate of usage.

I keep trying, but it's an arcane concept. It doesn't seem to stick.

However that does nothing about the ants running around behind lines destroying rail hexes and bridges........

Are you talking about what I answered in post #9, or about guerrillas? Guerrillas have special supply benefits (as do Airborne).

[USXpat]

I favor more emphasis on supply, too. I'm content even happy with the way things are now, and happier with each improvement.

An interim house rule commonly adopted is to not attack with units that are low on supply. An exception might be made for units cut-off being able to attack once to restore supply. Note, too, that a unit can show with a "red health" indicator, and still have plenty of supply, but low on equipment - especially if it's allocated equipment not yet in the replacement pool.

One consolation is that units with better supply do perform better than units with very low supply - able to move further, etc. Also, units at 33% readiness will not increase readiness until supply also increases above 33%. Rotating units into and out of the front line wherever possible is good practice.

Just because the game system allows something does not mean it is prudent to do it.

[sealclubber]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Yep it'd suck......as it should if you have no supplies IMO.

But why wouldn't that be "realistic"?

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I don't understand your meaning. If you are attacked you'll use supplies, maybe everything you have, which is totally logical. Then, with the way Ralph has changed things, at the beginning of the defender's turn he would receive supply. This isn't the old TOAW. At the beginning of each players turn there is a book keeping phase. Of course you have to agree to the new rules with your opponent. Don't see why you wouldn't.

My observation is purely based on the practicality of preventing movement in a 33/1 or 33/5 situation the TOAW game engine. There are necessarily many abstractions in TOAW. From my point of view, any change for the sake of realism should focus on the ends, not the means. In other words, I'd like to see more realistic outcomes (however that's achieved), not realism on every detail for the sake of realism.

Example:
I have never read about a military unit in history that wanted to retreat from the frontlines, but could not do so because they did not have any food or fuel. Ever. They might have to abandon their weapons and equipment, but when men want to flee, they turn opposite the sound of guns and start moving their legs.

I have however read of countless instances in military history where a military unit wanted to launch an attack but could not do so due to a lack of supplies.

Launching an attack is the prerogative of the unit. Fleeing from the frontlines is not - it's caused by some external force or factor. So I'd be in favour of preventing a unit from launching attacks if it is below a very low threshold of supply abstraction, but not in favour of preventing it from moving away from the sound of guns.

I think either of Fabio's suggestions in the original post would work. The combat calculation suggestion is interesting because, beyond just addressing the problem, it gives scenario designers additional tools to work with... but from a technical implementation standpoint, preventing a unit from launching an attack if its supply is lower than "n" is much easier.

[SMK-at-work]

I agree units should not be stopped from running away - but if they do so with low supply then much or even all of their motorised/mechanised equipment, and anything that relies upon it for transport, should probably be lost - as you say it all gets abandoned.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

That makes some sense - perhaps part of "the answer" then is to better explain this - wargamers tend to think of supply as a stockpile - not a rate of usage.

I keep trying, but it's an arcane concept. It doesn't seem to stick.

However that does nothing about the ants running around behind lines destroying rail hexes and bridges........

Are you talking about what I answered in post #9, or about guerrillas? Guerrillas have special supply benefits (as do Airborne).

AS per #9 - "regular" units rather than guerrillas. And in larger scale games these can represent quite large groupings. Certainly they can be overwhelmed fairly easily.....but they are still a bit dodgy IMO.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

AS per #9 - "regular" units rather than guerrillas. And in larger scale games these can represent quite large groupings. Certainly they can be overwhelmed fairly easily.....but they are still a bit dodgy IMO.

How so? Suppose you have 100 tanks. Each has its gas tank half full. You abandon 50 of them and siphon their gas into the 50 you're keeping. Now you have 50 tanks with full gas tanks. That's more or less what TOAW is effecting for unsupplied units. Abandoning equipment lets what's left keep going - as they wither away.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

AS per #9 - "regular" units rather than guerrillas. And in larger scale games these can represent quite large groupings. Certainly they can be overwhelmed fairly easily.....but they are still a bit dodgy IMO.

How so? Suppose you have 100 tanks. Each has its gas tank half full. You abandon 50 of them and siphon their gas into the 50 you're keeping. Now you have 50 tanks with full gas tanks. That's more or less what TOAW is effecting for unsupplied units. Abandoning equipment lets what's left keep going - as they wither away.

Really? Have you tested this? If 100 tanks are out of supply and they reach the end of their single fill range will there have been enough tanks drop by the wayside to keep them moving as far as their movement allowance will allow turn after turn until all of the tanks have expired due to being out of supply? Their range is not infinite.

Additionally, line of communications stretches the imagination. If I have a unit behind enemy lines it's always in supply if there is a line of communications of any length. And as long as it has a line of communications and is considered in supply of some sort then any equipment lost during transit somehow very quickly makes it's way back to the replacement pool, even if it's hundreds of kilometers. Won't that unit, with a line of communications of any length, also be eligible to receive replacements, no matter how far they have to go? There needs to be some realistic limits set. That's all anyone is saying. Ralph has improved the supply side of the game immensely. But it still has a way to go to eliminate the stretches of imagination necessary.