Ground Combat and Supply - TESTED!!!

[treespider]

And apparently if you have enough supply nearby you can be even lower than one point below required -

In this test Japanese supply was 1450 - Required 1528 with 20,000 in kaifeng...Ground combat at 49,31

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 25489 troops, 256 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 482

Defending force 13210 troops, 72 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 335

Japanese max assault: 506 - adjusted assault: 151

Allied max defense: 351 - adjusted defense: 49

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
217 casualties reported
Guns lost 6

Allied ground losses:
140 casualties reported
Guns lost 6


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

[mogami]

Hi, I don't see where the last two show supply is moving prior to combat. All they show is that a well led Japanese division at 50 percent is better then a Chinese unit at 14 percent.  Leaders can shift combat odds.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't see where the last two show supply is moving prior to combat. All they show is that a well led Japanese division at 50 percent is better then a Chinese unit at 14 percent.  Leaders can shift combat odds.

Compare these results to where there is no supply availlable to be moved it was around test three or four...

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't see where the last two show supply is moving prior to combat. All they show is that a well led Japanese division at 50 percent is better then a Chinese unit at 14 percent.  Leaders can shift combat odds.

Remember these tests are being run in a relative vacuum...no other air or ground units or supply exists anywhere on the map...

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't see where the last two show supply is moving prior to combat. All they show is that a well led Japanese division at 50 percent is better then a Chinese unit at 14 percent.  Leaders can shift combat odds.

If you like i'll run the same test and remove the 20,000 supply at Kaifeng ,,,,

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't see where the last two show supply is moving prior to combat. All they show is that a well led Japanese division at 50 percent is better then a Chinese unit at 14 percent.  Leaders can shift combat odds.

Here is the same combat only difference is removing the 20,000 supply and the division at Kaifeng -


Ground combat at 49,31

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 25489 troops, 256 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 482

Defending force 13210 troops, 72 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 335

Japanese max assault: 506 - adjusted assault: 97

Allied max defense: 351 - adjusted defense: 60

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
176 casualties reported
Guns lost 6
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
51 casualties reported
Guns lost 2


I'd say its more than just good leadership...its the availability of extra supply at Kaifeng that made the difference.

[Redd]

  I know that you are testing Japanese supply, but i noticed something odd. In most of the tests the chinese were set exactly the same, and the initial AV is exactly the same (335), but the adjusted AV goes all over the place. So does this mean that there is a seperate random roll after all normal modifiers (morale, etc.) ? Then the AV's are compared to get the odds, and then another random roll to get the final results? If so this will make testing difficult at best.
 
 
 

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Redd

  I know that you are testing Japanese supply, but i noticed something odd. In most of the tests the chinese were set exactly the same, and the initial AV is exactly the same (335), but the adjusted AV goes all over the place. So does this mean that there is a seperate random roll after all normal modifiers (morale, etc.) ? Then the AV's are compared to get the odds, and then another random roll to get the final results? If so this will make testing difficult at best.

Like I said in an earlier post i am starting to think it is too random. I tried to make the Chinese as constant as possible they have no supply except for maybe one or two of the tests and I note where that took place. Perhaps there Assault value is being influenced by the Japanese Supply and leadership during Japans fire phase perhaps they are inflicting more casualties and so the Chinese Assault value drops...Any help analyzing is appreciated...I am just running combats and providing my interpretation...


Note in the last combat the Japanese were undersupplied yet the Chinese Assault value is higher then usual ...I attribute that to a weaker japanese fire phase.

[Redd]

OK so I went back and read the manual, and now I'm totaly confused. It doesn't say that the av is modified by morale, disruption, supply, etc., it says that the FIRE from units is adjusted by these factors. But I don't think that that is the whole truth. The math shown by others seems to indicate to me that the av is multiplied by the modifiers (wasn't it Sneer or Pauk or somebody (sorry) who did the math on or about page 1 and came pretty close?), and then is modified by the fire phase. Then the odds calculations are made and you either win or lose based on the odds vs. the forts. This would account for the fluctuations (man I hope I spelled THAT one right) in the chinese av. Whadda you guys think?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Redd

OK so I went back and read the manual, and now I'm totaly confused. It doesn't say that the av is modified by morale, disruption, supply, etc., it says that the FIRE from units is adjusted by these factors. But I don't think that that is the whole truth. The math shown by others seems to indicate to me that the av is multiplied by the modifiers (wasn't it Sneer or Pauk or somebody (sorry) who did the math on or about page 1 and came pretty close?), and then is modified by the fire phase. Then the odds calculations are made and you either win or lose based on the odds vs. the forts. This would account for the fluctuations (man I hope I spelled THAT one right) in the chinese av. Whadda you guys think?

If you looked at their math it was wrong....

[Alhazred]

Like I said in an earlier post i am starting to think it is too random. I tried to make the Chinese as constant as possible they have no supply except for maybe one or two of the tests and I note where that took place. Perhaps there Assault value is being influenced by the Japanese Supply and leadership during Japans fire phase perhaps they are inflicting more casualties and so the Chinese Assault value drops...Any help analyzing is appreciated...I am just running combats and providing my interpretation...

Here is a suggestion:

If you want to check how much influence random die rolls have on the results, set up a situation with constant set of parameters and run combat with this set of parameters multiple times (5 or even 10). Record all results. Any spreadsheet application (excel) can be used to report the average and the variation (functions to be used in excel for example would be AVERAGE AND STDEV). Then change one parameter and run that test multiple times.

Comparing the results of the two sets should indicate which has a greater effect: the random die roll or the changed parameter.

Good job testing by the way, thanks for your efforts.

[Redd]

Yes it was wrong, but it seemed to be in the ballpark. I think that somebody went out of their way to make shure that no one would ever be able to reverse engineer the math in order to make the game formulaic. I don't post much but I read alot and according to certain forum lore GG was (and presumably still is) adverse to game systems being figured out and then exploited. I get the feeling that a few random rolls were added to all of the combat routines (land, sea, and air) in order to simulate good day/bad day situations. Unfortunately, in real life, upon reflection after the fact you can usually figure out which days were good and which were bad. With WitP you don't get proper notifacation when you have a bad day. I think that this contributes to many of the different posts where sombody does something that should work according to their experiences and things don't pan out.

[pauk]

greetings...

i agree with you Redd, that's why i started "ground combat again" thread with senetence "this is not another rant, i just want to figure how GC works"...

Many thanks for Treespider who made these tests which confirms a significant influence of:

a) supply (ok, we already know that)

b) corps HQ (we suspected that HQs can be the edge but...)

c) dice roll (i believe that Nikademus was first who publicly mentioned dice roll in ground combat)

c) is most important IMO - it proves that you can't be always successful if you are good mathematician. Someone may not like dice roll but i think this is a spice and certainly gives more reality to the game[:)]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: pauk

greetings...

i agree with you Redd, that's why i started "ground combat again" thread with senetence "this is not another rant, i just want to figure how GC works"...

Many thanks for Treespider who made these tests which confirms a significant influence of:

a) supply (ok, we already know that)

b) corps HQ (we suspected that HQs can be the edge but...)

c) dice roll (i believe that Nikademus was first who publicly mentioned dice roll in ground combat)

c) is most important IMO - it proves that you can't be always successful if you are good mathematician. Someone may not like dice roll but i think this is a spice and certainly gives more reality to the game[:)]

I plan on taking Alahazred (sp?) advice and running batches of ten tests to see what the effects are if I change one of the variables and the effects of randomness.....when I am finished i will provide an Excel sheet for perusal...

I never felt that you could "game" the system, my only concern with all of this was when players were supposedly doing everything correctly, they were supposedly seeing modified Assault values that were no different than if they hadn't taken any time or effort to prepare...

What would be appreciated are some suggested test scenarios - so far it has been one-unit v One unit in a cultivated hex with no forts - Please name as many different variables as possible,ie

Supply Level- and location of additional supplies
Fatigue Level-
Disruption ( although I'm not sure i can set this pre-game I'll have to check the editor)
Forts -
Leadership - various combinations apply

[ctangus]

Here's two more results from a PBEM that would tend to show that dice rolls have a large impact. The supply situation was slightly better in the second attack. In the first I had 1 or two units below basic supply but attacked anyway because I wanted to get an idea of the odds. (Probably stupid, I know [;)]).

In both cases disruption, fatigue, etc. were about the same. No leaders changed. Slightly better prepared in the second combat (most units were at 100% for both battles, but two late additions were at about 50% and rising.)

1st attack:

Ground combat at Mandalay

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 102535 troops, 723 guns, 1453 vehicles, Assault Value = 2179

Defending force 107518 troops, 876 guns, 280 vehicles, Assault Value = 1572

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 8

Allied max assault: 1756 - adjusted assault: 1385 21% reduction

Japanese max defense: 1442 - adjusted defense: 2378

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 8)


Japanese ground losses:
633 casualties reported
Guns lost 23
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
2751 casualties reported
Guns lost 72
Vehicles lost 10

2nd attack:

Ground combat at Mandalay

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 100753 troops, 678 guns, 1459 vehicles, Assault Value = 2067

Defending force 116506 troops, 925 guns, 272 vehicles, Assault Value = 1692

Allied max assault: 2035 - adjusted assault: 1176 42% reduction

Japanese max defense: 1722 - adjusted defense: 3114

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 8)


Japanese ground losses:
2791 casualties reported
Guns lost 28
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
3074 casualties reported
Guns lost 70
Vehicles lost 10

[treespider]

In both cases disruption, fatigue, etc. were about the same.

About the same and THE same are two different things....we do not currently know the impact of what Disruption 10 vs. Disruption 15 means... if anything....My single run test of fatigue seemed to indicate that fatigue was not a variable in ground Combat...but needs to be tested further.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: treespider

In both cases disruption, fatigue, etc. were about the same.

About the same and THE same are two different things....we do not currently know the impact of what Disruption 10 vs. Disruption 15 means... if anything....My single run test of fatigue seemed to indicate that fatigue was not a variable in ground Combat...but needs to be tested further.

Completely agreed & BTW I appreciate the testing you're doing. I just wanted to provide a live game example that would tend to support your results so far.

[Sneer]

in next few days i'm attacking chungking again - all is same  but i'm after my bombardment campaign
troops are bit fatigued but their supply req is twice normal - 2.5k on average

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: pauk
c) dice roll (i believe that Nikademus was first who publicly mentioned dice roll in ground combat)

c) is most important IMO - it proves that you can't be always successful if you are good mathematician. Someone may not like dice roll but i think this is a spice and certainly gives more reality to the game[:)]

I could not agree more.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: pauk
c) dice roll (i believe that Nikademus was first who publicly mentioned dice roll in ground combat)

c) is most important IMO - it proves that you can't be always successful if you are good mathematician. Someone may not like dice roll but i think this is a spice and certainly gives more reality to the game[:)]

I could not agree more.

I also agree that randomness should play a factor ....however I do not think the design should be so random as to render proper planning, preparartion and execution as invalid. As in everything...you may still have a bad day (bad die roll) but because of proper planning and preparation you still succeed at your task, even though it may not have gone as smoothly as if you had had a good day(a good die roll).

As I have stated elsewhere I am not so much concerned about the final outcome of the individual battles, just what players should do to maximize their potential Assault Values, and allow their forces to operate as efficiently as they can.

If players follow these guidelines and they see no difference in their Assault Values from a player who does not, then there may be an error in the game design. However my initial testing does show that there are several factors that are more important than others that influence the final assault value- ie the presence of an HQ.