Proficiency vs. Commitment

[cathar1244]

forgetting about Italian stereotypes enforced by ass-whopped German generals and old SPI boardgames (the pasta rule lives!)

My favorite were the vodka-holized "berserker" squads for the Soviets in Squad Leader. [:D]

I wonder if the SL designers knew about the use of amphetamines by German forces.

Cheers

[gliz2]

Very good point on the change over time. I think it captures my problem with the idea.
Commitment was not only unit related but also event driven. Hard to capture that in a long campaign.
I think I see a valid point for short scenarios but to me the longer the scenario the more hectic it will become to handle commitment. Or it will become an absurdity like the Curtis' example with proficiency.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

1) IF Proficiency and Commitment are set in the same ballpark then the effect is mostly
to slow down the upward proficiency drift by 25%. That is not much.

2) If Proficiency and Commitment are set at very different values the effect is to
decrease the weight of Proficiency by 25% in the unit strength calculation, again a small effect.

That's just the effect on Combat Strength. Retreating, breaking off combat, routing, reorganizing, recovering from rout/reorganization are 100% Commitment.

[Zovs]

It's still a very weird word to me commitment, that is something a man and women (generally speaking) do.

Retreat, breaking off combat, routing and all that are not really about commitment, its about training and discipline really.

If you ever played any tactical war games you'd know this. ASL is a prime example of how training and discipline effect a units cohesion. When that breakdown then they rout an retreat, not because they are "committed to some cause".

[Zovs]

Now in ASL terms all nationalities may go Berserk. Its all part of Heat of Battle, same with Hero creation.

A units morale and elan are reflected by its training and military doctrine and discipline.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: governato

1) IF Proficiency and Commitment are set in the same ballpark then the effect is mostly
to slow down the upward proficiency drift by 25%. That is not much.

2) If Proficiency and Commitment are set at very different values the effect is to
decrease the weight of Proficiency by 25% in the unit strength calculation, again a small effect.

That's just the effect on Combat Strength. Retreating, breaking off combat, routing, reorganizing, recovering from rout/reorganization are 100% Commitment.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes all these attributes have ramifications in game play!

So this is my last comment on this thread and again from a place of fondness for the game ...and even for the developers, I really appreciate your efforts

I think that 1) adding complexity to the scenarios introducing 2) a not clearly defined concept such as 'Commitment' 3) arbitrarily (why 3P+C+2R+2S ? ) and statically implemented it's not ideal and quite possibly a bit redundant.

Embrace that each variable is an aggregate of the effect of many that are almost impossible to separate in a linear way. And why not reconsider the fact that a unit with 1% supply only loses 25% of its strength? (True for barbarians perhaps..bad for many other situations).

Just make the 3 variables formula (and their effects in other part of the game) editable/variable where possible, let designers assign the specific meaning they prefer to the variables depending on the situation -> Enjoy people taking TOAW to unplanned places. I think that 'd be more in the spirit of TOAW.
I'd say that designers have taken advantage of that flexibility, with only the occasional SNAFU...

[Lobster]

There is forced retreat, typically because moral has broken, and there is voluntary retreat because a position has become untenable. TOAW does not separate the two. Routing is for one reason only, moral and discipline has broken and the unit is no longer functioning as a cohesive force. None of these are affected entirely by commitment. But commitment definitely plays it's part.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

... a not clearly defined concept such as 'Commitment'

It is clearly defined: Willingness to die for the cause.

...why 3P+C+2R+2S ?

It's just algebra. The old formula was (2P + R + S)/4. Split P up into 3/4 P + 1/4 C and you get the above formula.

And why not reconsider the fact that a unit with 1% supply only loses 25% of its strength?

You're misunderstanding what the Unit Supply level represents. See 9.1.7.6 in the manual.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

There is forced retreat, typically because moral has broken, and there is voluntary retreat because a position has become untenable. TOAW does not separate the two.

Loss tolerance takes this into consideration: Lower the loss tolerance, the less likely the unit is to rout/reorganize upon retreating - better enabling it to retreat in good order.

[governato]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
It's just algebra. The old formula was (2P + R + S)/4. Split P up into 3/4 P + 1/4 C and you get the above formula.
[quote]


I am pretty sure that a lot of people in this forum appreciate algebra, which is why people are interested in how the engine works.

Why did we pick 3/4 P + 1/4 C and not say 1/2 P + 1/2 C or any combination of the variables that normalizes the formula correctly.

What is the rationale behind that specific choice for the combat strength formula?


there must be a reason to pick that specific combination of variables vs the infinite others.
Was it in Dupuy's book? Or any other study on military warfare?
That is my main worry of having it fixed in the engine. If it is the developers hunch that 'it kinda works most of the time' I am OK with that, but why not allow other combinations that might suit different epochs
or future modeling of warfare? Or just the designer whim?


And why Supply only accounts for 25% of strength and not say 10% or 80% for ALL scenarios is not obvious to me and I would like to learn more about it (and yes 9.1.7 is recommended reading).

And I broke my promise not to write more

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

Why did we pick 3/4 P + 1/4 C and not say 1/2 P + 1/2 C or any combination of the variables that normalizes the formula correctly.

See post #25 of this thread.

And why Supply only accounts for 25% of strength and not say 10% or 80% for ALL scenarios is not obvious to me and I would like to learn more about it (and yes 9.1.7 is recommended reading).

It's only 25% if Proficiency is 100% and Readiness is 100%. Note that Readiness can not be higher than the supply level (with a minimum value of 33%). So, expend half your supply and half your readiness is gone too. That means that supply is a bigger factor on combat strength than that formula implies.

Nevertheless, very proficient units are less impacted by supply level than crappy units. As explained in the manual, that's because elite units have much better "fire discipline" than poorer units.

Just to give an example: Supose the unit has 50% Proficiency and is at 100% supply and readiness. Its strength is 75% of raw equipment strength. Now expend all its supply: It now has the same 50% Proficiency, 1% supply and 33% readiness. Its strengh is .33% of raw equipment strength. 0.33/0.75 means that the unit has only 45% of the strength it started with.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #25 of this thread.

Yup. So my understanding is that the community of designers thought that it was 'pretty good'.

In Dupuy's "Numbers, Predictions and War" 'Combat Power Potential' or P of a unit is defined as

P= Force Strength x Leadership x Mobility x Experience x Morale x Logistics x ..environmental factors

where each variable other than Force Strength goes from 0 (horrible) to 1. (optimal)

Note that the variables relate somewhat directly to TOAW's choices

Mobility = Readiness?
Logistics = Supply
Morale = Commitment

But the formula is multiplicative rather than a sum.

Should I then assume that the original one (2P+R+S)/4 came from Koger but with no obvious reference to a previous study behind it? I am not implying that it is a poor choice, but that seems a pretty crucial formula that people have worked on for decades so I may as well ask and learn something .

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

In Dupuy's "Numbers, Predictions and War" 'Combat Power Potential' or P of a unit is defined as

P= Force Strength x Leadership x Mobility x Experience x Morale x Logistics x ..environmental factors

where each variable other than Force Strength goes from 0 (horrible) to 1. (optimal)

Note that the variables relate somewhat directly to TOAW's choices

Mobility = Readiness?
Logistics = Supply
Morale = Commitment

But the formula is multiplicative rather than a sum.

If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.

Should I then assume that the original one (2P+R+S)/4 came from Koger but with no obvious reference to a previous study behind it? I am not implying that it is a poor choice, but that seems a pretty crucial formula that people have worked on for decades so I may as well ask and learn something .

Only Norm knows. But, its worked very well so far. I'm just adding a factor that doesn't change with experience/training.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.

OK, we are stuck with fixed commitment I hope it's backward compatible!

Just remember formulas always have boundaries of applicability, that is how the modeling of physical systems work...in TOAW readiness is not allowed to go to 0. And if you set P,S and R all to 0 then your strength goes to zero as well! So probably Dupuy's model just sets limits to each variable so that the minimum possible result is ... I dunno 10%? Whatever works for West Point studies.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.

OK, we are stuck with fixed commitment I hope it's backward compatible!

Fixed commitment would be very unfortunate. If Robert E. Lee died I'm quite sure it would have done something to the commitment of the South's troops. If George Washington died, the same. True of many leaders in many wars. When Mussolini was dethroned the Italian commitment hit rock bottom. If Hitler had been assassinated the German commitment would have dropped considerably if not evaporated completely. If anything it should be flexible and tied to events so it can be changed over time.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



If the formula is multiplicative, then if any one of the parameters is zero, the whole thing is zero! An immobile unit, a green unit, and a unit without ammo all have zero combat strength!

That is not worth discussing further. I am not going to adopt anything like that. Ever.

OK, we are stuck with fixed commitment I hope it's backward compatible!

Fixed commitment would be very unfortunate. If Robert E. Lee died I'm quite sure it would have done something to the commitment of the South's troops. If George Washington died, the same. True of many leaders in many wars. When Mussolini was dethroned the Italian commitment hit rock bottom. If Hitler had been assassinated the German commitment would have dropped considerably if not evaporated completely. If anything it should be flexible and tied to events so it can be changed over time.

Eventually. But I'm not going to dribble out individual events. Much more efficient to do them all in one big lot.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: governato




OK, we are stuck with fixed commitment I hope it's backward compatible!

Fixed commitment would be very unfortunate. If Robert E. Lee died I'm quite sure it would have done something to the commitment of the South's troops. If George Washington died, the same. True of many leaders in many wars. When Mussolini was dethroned the Italian commitment hit rock bottom. If Hitler had been assassinated the German commitment would have dropped considerably if not evaporated completely. If anything it should be flexible and tied to events so it can be changed over time.

Eventually. But I'm not going to dribble out individual events. Much more efficient to do them all in one big lot.

True that.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL:
Suppose Unit Proficiency were split up into two parameters: Unit Skill (still named Proficiency but a measure of how well trained the unit was) and Unit Commitment (how ready to die for the cause the unit was).

Commitment sounds like it functions a lot like loss tolerance which is obviously something we already have. Commitment = Minimum, Limited, Maximum. Also, in the description of its planned usage, I don’t see a compelling reason for making the editorial process more complex.

A quick count of the editor variables which directly impact a unit’s combat efficiency: Force Editor, Formation Report, Replacements, Current Force, Current Formation and Current Unit – 50 editable values.

A quick count of the editor variables which indirectly impact a unit’s combat efficiency: Advanced Rules, Deployment and Objective Track – 33 editable values.

This doesn’t even account for the impact from adding Commanders.

Been my observation that when an announcement such as this is made, Commanders for example, the decision has already been made and implementation is inevitable. This is not a subject where debate will make a difference in the decision. But please, try to find a term that at least has a military connotation. Maybe National Elan, Patriotism, Sense of Duty . . . anything but Commitment. Every time I hear commitment, I can’t help but think of the pig in the Bacon & Eggs analogy.

Regards

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Commitment sounds like it functions a lot like loss tolerance which is obviously something we already have. Commitment = Minimum, Limited, Maximum. Also, in the description of its planned usage, I don’t see a compelling reason for making the editorial process more complex.

Commitment is an intrinsic parameter of the unit - like Proficiency. Loss Tolerances are the orders the player is giving his units. How well they comply with them is based upon their...Commitment.

A quick count of the editor variables which directly impact a unit’s combat efficiency: Force Editor, Formation Report, Replacements, Current Force, Current Formation and Current Unit – 50 editable values.

A quick count of the editor variables which indirectly impact a unit’s combat efficiency: Advanced Rules, Deployment and Objective Track – 33 editable values.

This doesn’t even account for the impact from adding Commanders.

If you don't have a use for Commitment, just set it the same as Proficiency. The unit will work like before (except for the impact of combat experience on its value).

Been my observation that when an announcement such as this is made, Commanders for example, the decision has already been made and implementation is inevitable. This is not a subject where debate will make a difference in the decision. But please, try to find a term that at least has a military connotation. Maybe National Elan, Patriotism, Sense of Duty . . . anything but Commitment. Every time I hear commitment, I can’t help but think of the pig in the Bacon & Eggs analogy.

If someone comes up with a better name for "willingness to die for the cause" than Commitment, I'll use it. Hasn't happened yet.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
I can’t help but think of the pig in the Bacon & Eggs analogy.

Sounds like something Mike Leach would say. [;)]