Default Military Unit Values

[Tazak]

We've all seen the soviet last tank strolling past entire battalions worth of burning tanks into the waiting arms of NATO tank sights, not what my perception of a soviet attack would be like. I personally believe that while the soviet high command may not pay much attention to their common solider health and well being, company/battalion even regimental commanders would not throw their men or equipment away so freely.

However there is a way to reduce this last tank effect, and looking to discuss peoples experience with changing some of the default unit values that can be found on the front tab of the user data sheets for each nation. Going to focus on 2 following ones as they has such a big effect on how the AI reacts (both the tactical AI and the enemy AI)

Local Initiative
Risk Profile

below I'll outline the various options that can be set:
Local Initiative setting
0 = None
1 = Slight
2 = Moderate
3 = Generous

Risk Profile
0 = Do or die
1 = Bold
2 = Prudent
3 = Cautious

The common setting for the soviet data is 1/1, while NATO varies between nations but tend to be slightly higher with an avg of 2/2. From what I have been able to gather the various settings provide the AI with the amount of losses or combat power ratio to decide wither to attack or defend in conjunction with victory point locations and estimated values of enemy forces, rather simplistic and I'm sure there's a lot more to it but I like KISS.

With the 'last tank' effect I see 1/1 as too restrictive and counter to human nature, to me an attack from line of march would be more a case of the first elements come under fire (losing some 'runners') who then move into cover, locate the enemy forces and then either bypass or bring all their 'friends' to the fight. So I experimented with different settings 1/2, 2/2 etc and found that 3/3 seems to work better in that the attacking soviet units took some losses before 'scooting' out of the LOF or into cover, they then wait until their friends get nearby and resume the attack on-mass.

Picture an edge of a town with (NATO)1 tank platoon and 2 infantry platoon with hold orders covering the approaching road and a 1500 point VP, down this road trundles a soviet tank battalion, the NATO units open fire destroying the first tank company and inflicting losses on the 2nd. The 2nd tank company scoots backwards out of LOS while the 3rd company moves into cover and starts engaging at range the NATO positions. After a few minutes the NATO units have taken a few losses and the 2 reduced soviet tank companies resume their attack.

So what happened in game engine terms - force B (soviets) took losses reducing its combat rating below the risk profile settings for capturing a 1500point location while facing an estimated XX points worth of NATO forces, the AI then appeared to take defensive measures until it reduce force A (NATO) combat power to a point where the AI felt it had enough of a combat power ratio to continue the attack.

2 questions:
1. whats your experience with changing these settings
2. if 3/3 is more realistic for soviets tactics, where does that leave NATO as presumably we'd need a 4/4 or a 5/5 option to better reflect the fewer causalities or increased firepower needed for the AI to carry out defend/attack actions?

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

We've all seen the soviet last tank strolling past entire battalions worth of burning tanks into the waiting arms of NATO tank sights, not what my perception of a soviet attack would be like. I personally believe that while the soviet high command may not pay much attention to their common solider health and well being, company/battalion even regimental commanders would not throw their men or equipment away so freely.

Historically the Soviets have done this. To back that up their doctrine demands this. While this seems counter-intuitive to those trained in the NATO armies there is sound reasoning behind this.

1) The orders are given and you carry them out. This was a direct result of the lack of radios in the Soviet military in the 1940's. Small unit commanders are still expected to follow their orders.

2) The Soviet Art of War never reinforces failure. If you are in a losing battle you won't get reinforcements. If you are winning and forcing a breakthrough you will. In addition, if you are in a losing battle you are expected to keep the pressure on in your area as along as you can to hold enemy forces in the area and if possible draw reinforcements to your fight.

However there is a way to reduce this last tank effect, and looking to discuss peoples experience with changing some of the default unit values that can be found on the front tab of the user data sheets for each nation. Going to focus on 2 following ones as they has such a big effect on how the AI reacts (both the tactical AI and the enemy AI)

Local Initiative
Risk Profile

below I'll outline the various options that can be set:
Local Initiative setting
0 = None
1 = Slight
2 = Moderate
3 = Generous

Risk Profile
0 = Do or die
1 = Bold
2 = Prudent
3 = Cautious

The common setting for the soviet data is 1/1, while NATO varies between nations but tend to be slightly higher with an avg of 2/2. From what I have been able to gather the various settings provide the AI with the amount of losses or combat power ratio to decide wither to attack or defend in conjunction with victory point locations and estimated values of enemy forces, rather simplistic and I'm sure there's a lot more to it but I like KISS.

With the 'last tank' effect I see 1/1 as too restrictive and counter to human nature, to me an attack from line of march would be more a case of the first elements come under fire (losing some 'runners') who then move into cover, locate the enemy forces and then either bypass or bring all their 'friends' to the fight. So I experimented with different settings 1/2, 2/2 etc and found that 3/3 seems to work better in that the attacking soviet units took some losses before 'scooting' out of the LOF or into cover, they then wait until their friends get nearby and resume the attack on-mass.

Picture an edge of a town with (NATO)1 tank platoon and 2 infantry platoon with hold orders covering the approaching road and a 1500 point VP, down this road trundles a soviet tank battalion, the NATO units open fire destroying the first tank company and inflicting losses on the 2nd. The 2nd tank company scoots backwards out of LOS while the 3rd company moves into cover and starts engaging at range the NATO positions. After a few minutes the NATO units have taken a few losses and the 2 reduced soviet tank companies resume their attack.

So what happened in game engine terms - force B (soviets) took losses reducing its combat rating below the risk profile settings for capturing a 1500point location while facing an estimated XX points worth of NATO forces, the AI then appeared to take defensive measures until it reduce force A (NATO) combat power to a point where the AI felt it had enough of a combat power ratio to continue the attack.

This is all being put in the commanders hands in 2.1. When we get the unit stance and threat level to be assigned to units this will be in your hands. Then you can play the Soviets like a NATO force all you like. Unless I get my say and they are nationalized.

2 questions:
1. whats your experience with changing these settings
2. if 3/3 is more realistic for soviets tactics, where does that leave NATO as presumably we'd need a 4/4 or a 5/5 option to better reflect the fewer causalities or increased firepower needed for the AI to carry out defend/attack actions?

Small unit Soviet commanders have very little say in what they do, or how they do it. UNLESS they are recon forces. If they are told to take a hill at 1300. They advance to take the hill. If not today then tomorrow or the day after.

NATO nations have more leeway than that but all NATO armies are not created equally. When you compare the US doctrine to the Soviets you have both ends of the scale. The British and West Germans fall in between them. Of course, each situation is different depending on the commander and the resources he employs, but all things being equal - which they never are, You would have the Soviets with the most regimented doctrine, followed by the British, then the West Germans and finally the Americans.

Hope that helps.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Tazak]

I'll agree that up to battalion level initiative was stifled but even a soviet regimental commander would not lose his entire regiment in a matter of hours, at some point in time he would stop the attack and report failure up the chain of command, at the moment the AI regimental commander can't report failure because every single man is dead or dying including the regimental command post - all on the same small stretch of road

Look at soviet activities in Afghanistan, on contact they took loses they pulled back/took cover and flanked/brought down arty before carrying on with the attack - a 1/1 setting doesn't do that, a 3/3 does seem to simulate that better in my view

This is more about getting the AI to act...well not like a mindless AI, at the moment a AI regimental commander will lose every single last tank and support unit by driving them down a road to capture a town?, what does it use for overwatch, what does it hold back to avoid being counter attacked with, nothing because it uses its reserves and the kitchen sink in a single 500m line of attack, looking at soviet doctrine if frontal attacks aren't working flanking attacks are permitted, yet the AI only carries out mindless frontal attack, it has nothing left for later today, or tomorrow or the day after

I would prefer having nationalised settings, it allows differences between each national army but I'd like to see what your basing your view on regimented doctrine around

[Tazak]

a picture paints a 1000 words so the saying goes...

this is taken from US Army FM100-2-1, page 5-26 and depicts a reinforced tank battalion in the attack

[Tazak]

and this is a 1/1 setting reinforced tank battalion in attack currently




With a change in values to 3/3 the AI does appear to resemble the first image in its attacks which is more in line with soviet tactics at this scale

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

Maybe the answer is to have tiered settings at the various levels for company, then battalion, then regiment etc. to reflect the greater levels of allowable freedom of action within the command hierarchy. These values could be based on a national level (or not).
Just a thought......

Rob.[:)]

[CapnDarwin]

Definitely worth a discussion next week at Origins when Rob and I sit down and go over a bunch of stuff on Southern Storm face to face. I may give the 3/3 a test in the Origins scenario I'm working up right now.

Cool topic. Thanks for testing things and posting Tazak!

[Tazak]

You may want to discuss roads as well, I'm also experimenting with removing road tags from maps, the results are 'interesting' but will post something after I do more tests

But in the mean time I've noticed that with 3/3 the AI appears to halt a units advance once it suffers between 40%-60% losses, those units then carry out range engagements while follow on forces catch up and pass through.

[JohnOsb]

Tazak, not trying to change the subject here, but haven't had a chance to try it again, but do you noticed who moves first or more then they should, for example, yesterday I was running a test on my scenario and noticed that HQs units were moving first along with arty units while the main force, i.e. tanks and APCs were moving last. The HQs units were engaging enemy forces first while the tanks were still far behind. I also noticed that the recon company was just sitting there for awhile before they moved out and they were not out in front doing their thing, which is suppose to recon out in front of the main force. Was wondering if you are anyone else may have send that. If not may have been just a fluke, will rerun the scenario again tonight and see if it happens again.

[Tazak]

Haven't noticed HQs charging ahead for a while but out of old habits I place formations in the order of march but i'll setup a test later to see. What HQ's are charging ahead, I used to see HQs with wheeled vehicles who by default have a higher speed than tanks/tracked AFVs so they 'could' move ahead.

The experimenting I've been doing has been limited to fighting regiments so all HQ's are similar to the main units other than arty but arty HQs do hang back.

Recon does move ahead but only just, if I put a 1-2km gap between recon and forward units, the forward units can catchup with the recce but I can't pin down whats happening but suspect it may be that recon use deliberate move while other units use assault which is faster anyway

Depending how much lead you want you can try reducing ammo & readiness to below 25% each, this forces the AI to resupply those units before moving and can add about an hour gap between units depending on how quickly it can recover enough readiness

[JohnOsb]

ORIGINAL: Tazak
Depending how much lead you want you can try reducing ammo & readiness to below 25% each, this forces the AI to resupply those units before moving and can add about an hour gap between units depending on how quickly it can recover enough readiness

good idea, will try it out.

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: JohnOsb

ORIGINAL: Tazak
Depending how much lead you want you can try reducing ammo & readiness to below 25% each, this forces the AI to resupply those units before moving and can add about an hour gap between units depending on how quickly it can recover enough readiness

good idea, will try it out.

Even cooler trick - stagger their morale -/+5 points on a battalion level so each battalion recovers readiness differently either side of a command cycle i.e. 1st Bn 60min then orders at next command cycle, command cycle, 2nd Bn 80min then orders at next command cycle, command cycle, 3rd Bn 100min etc. etc.(note numbers here are random but easy enough to work out and stagger), this way they start moving at different times depending on the command cycle length

It also means first 'wave' have high morale, while the 2nd and later waves have slightly lower morale as they're just seen what's happened to the earlier waves [:D]