percentage to hit?

[fuselex]

I think it could be good for ToTH. A new player comes along reads the instruction booklet , figures out after a bit
that buildings are better protection than open fields .So he moves into cover in an attempt to shoot at the other
side . For 4 turns he fires his 4-6-7 squad with their LMG into a stone building at long range in the hope of
killing somebody . He has no idea of the odds of actually scoring a hit let alone killing someone .
A post I put up not long ago, concerning the PF received replies ( and thank you all ) giving me odds at certain distances
for actually doing damage to an AFV . I wasn't frustrated but I was certainly thinking the PF`s were pretty useless.
Since then I am enjoying tank hunting with a PF still knowing I have to work the odds in my favour
But back to the 4-6-7 squad firing at long range , if a little percentage bar came up informing him it was under 5%
chance to hit , would he take the shot or look for other options he didn't think he had?

[UP844]

Is this a veiled hint to perform some field tests on infantry fire effectiveness? I was thinking about that [:)]. Do not expect anything too detailed: there are too many variables to take into account (e.g. the morale level of the target, the presence of leaders in both the firing and the target hex, TEM, etc.)

As a rule of thumb, I assume that, in order to have a significant chance to inflict damage to the opponent, it is neceaasry to have 1 squad firepower equivalent (fire factor "E") every level of TEM (i.e. 1 squad for no TEM, 2 for "Low", 3 for "Medium", 4 for "High"). This does not mean that if I have a lone squad that can only fire to a stone building I will hold its fire: a lucky shot might always occur [:D].

This very rough estimate is then modified as follows:
add 1 squad equivalent for every leadership modifier in the target hex
add 1 squad equivalent if the squads in the target hex have morale ***
subtract 1 squad equivalent for every leadership modifier applied to the fire
subtract 1 squad equivalent if the squads in the target hex have morale *

If the target hex final TEM (terrain TEM + firing leadership + moving modifier, if present) is equal to or less than zero, it is advisable to make several low-factor attacks; if the final TEM is +1 or more, it is better to make large attacks.

By the way, I would like to know if TotH uses the IFT or the IIFT [:D],as well as the firepower values of the various MGs.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: fuselex

I think it could be good for ToTH. A new player comes along reads the instruction booklet , figures out after a bit
that buildings are better protection than open fields .So he moves into cover in an attempt to shoot at the other
side . For 4 turns he fires his 4-6-7 squad with their LMG into a stone building at long range in the hope of
killing somebody . He has no idea of the odds of actually scoring a hit let alone killing someone .
A post I put up not long ago, concerning the PF received replies ( and thank you all ) giving me odds at certain distances
for actually doing damage to an AFV . I wasn't frustrated but I was certainly thinking the PF`s were pretty useless.
Since then I am enjoying tank hunting with a PF still knowing I have to work the odds in my favour
But back to the 4-6-7 squad firing at long range , if a little percentage bar came up informing him it was under 5%
chance to hit , would he take the shot or look for other options he didn't think he had?

It's on my TO DO list for UPDATE2 (for EASY and NORMAL difficulty only)

[UP844]

A very rough test: 33 German 1st Line squads (firepower E) firing at 33 Russian 1st Line squads (morale **) first in open ground, then in woods.

In open ground = 24 No effect, 5 Pin, 4 Broken (1 of which also suffered Casualty Reduction and Failed Experience Check)

In woods = 28 No effect, 2 Pin, 3 Broken

Take this data with a big grain of salt: 33 trials are too few to minimise statistical deviations.

[rico21]

[PDiFolco]

Well technically the game has no 4-6-7, that's ASL [:'(]
But I suspect you could use the ASL fire table to determine game probabilities [8|]

[UP844]

I also strongly suspect this...

I strongly agree with Peter's statement "think about tactics, not numbers"; on the other hand, I think a player should at least have a rough knowledge of the capabilities of the units and weapons he is using, otherwise we will end up as the novice player mentioned by Fuselex in the opening post, who fires four turns in a row to a target in a stone building without effect [:)].

This does not mean I would like something like the articles you may find in the old issues of "The General" with a couple dozen tables filled with probability percentages about "Afrika Korps"

@Rico: if you find yourself in a fair fight, there is something wrong in your tactics [:D]

[fuselex]

Thanks UP844
A ball park figure is exactly what I`m after , I love the randomness of the game , any certainty of a shot would
detract from the game , your example there in open ground may translate to a certain percentage that I will leave
for others to work out , but the following wood example I can see that the odds have gone up to actually cause a result.
The percentage to hit is really aimed at people who have just picked up the game , aimed a squad at an enemy in
the woods and see`s a % chance to hit, then mouse over another enemy in the open and see a higher % chance to hit.
I feel it would be a real benefit to new players .
But in the end , the only thing I wish to see is this game get a cult following [&o]



[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[UP844]

I am certain that the assessment will be more accurate with a larger number of sample firings; I am not exactly thrilled at the idea of performing 100+ tests every time, so I am thinking about some way of automating the process.

By way of example, I am thinking about a setting where:
1) every squad can only see a single opposite squad
2) the human player starts first and skips Fire and Movement segments
3) the AI should fire all of its squads in the Defensive Fire: since every squad will only have a single target, we should be able to collect a huge amount of data about fire effectiveness in a short time.

But in the end , the only thing I wish to see is this game get a cult following

I've been waiting for TotH for 30 years... since it was released I can have my daily ASL fix [:D]

[fuselex]

I know where you are coming from UP844 , think there are a lot of people who have waited for this.
A big advantage I see is Peter has the same passion , not for a replica game , but a game that has a familiar feel
to us all , but allows it to develop.
I believe this can, with forums, discussion ,opinions , actually take a mighty step forward .

[fuselex]

But take no notice of me ,cause I`m thinking if Rico`s dog with the MG is up for election . I`d vote for him

[UP844]

Update with data for Low, Medium and High TEM

Open Ground (None) = 24 No effect, 5 Pin, 4 Broken (1 of which also suffered Casualty Reduction and Failed Experience Check)
Woods (Low) = 28 No effect, 2 Pin, 3 Broken
Wooden bldg. (Medium) = 3 Pin, 2 Broken
Stone bldg. (High)= 2 Pin, 1 Broken

or

No TEM = 73% NE, 15% Pin, 12% Broken
Low TEM = 85% NE, 6% Pin, 9% Broken
Med TEM = 85% NE, 9% Pin, 6% Broken
High TEM = 91% NE, 6% Pin, 3% Broken

Now I'm going to see if I can automate the process...

[PDiFolco]

The figures may be here :
www.vftt.co.uk/Games/.../The%20General% ... No%206.pdf

I happen to still have the General issue... [:D]

[UP844]

I have the PDF [:D], and when SL was released I also wrote a program to estimate the probability of effective fire results on a Commodore 64 [:D]. I think that a newbie reading that article will panic and run away faster than a 17pdr APDS [:)].

I made the auto-test scenario and it works fine (~20 seconds are required to complete a scenario and record the results). There are 17 squads per side on the map and I ran each of them 6 times, so as to have 102 fire samples per TEM (408 overall).

No TEM = 65% NE, 13% Pin, 22% Broken
Low TEM = 77% NE, 10% Pin, 13% Broken
Med TEM = 81% NE, 7% Pin, 12% Broken
High TEM = 95% NE, 2% Pin, 3% Broken

Experience Check Failure + Casualty Reduction occurred 6 times out of 51 "Broken" results (take into account, however, that these units have the default "Veteran" setting)
Battle Hardening occurred 1 time. Since "No Effect" also includes those cases when the target unit suffers a MC or TC but passes it, it is impossible to estimate the frequency of this case. It could and will happen, but do not expose your squads to fire hoping to improve them [:D].
Cowering occurred many times: I have not counted them because it would have required taking notes as the AI was firing. Of course, if a leader is present, he will prevent the occurrence of Cowering and fire would be more effective.

[PDiFolco]

I've compared your results with what can be calculated using the ASL tables, now under excel it took me 5 minutes [:D]

4FP no TEM nor other FP mod, vs a unit with 7 Morale, no leader gives
3% kill (K/2)
21% broken (combination of various results of MC checks at 0/-1/-2 checks * % to fail them)
12% pin (7% with the PTC chance, but there is 5% more pins due to MC "just passed")
65% No effect

...that is pretty EXACTLY what you've got using experimental fights !

We can then confirm that the game uses exactly the ASL tables and probabilities, which means we can easily calculate these !
[8D]