Changes. Your Thoughts.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

The issue is, IMHO, the combination of defender terrain together with defender deployment which was added to the last version.

If there is a problem, it most likely is with 3.4 section IV item 10: Terrain & deployment effects on RFC chances. There, the chance that Fortified Deployment doesn't cancel an RFC was decreased from (I think) 50% to only 16%. That's pretty significant.

You know the inside system much better than i do. Over the years while reading your posts i tend consider your judgements as sound so no reason to disagree on this.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Could it have been over corrected, though? Sure. But we will need clear evidence of that - rigor.

[/quote]
I can't offer you rigor. Only TOAW PBEM expertise - on daily basis for more that 8 years.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'll redesign it to have them set to Ignore Losses and retest.

[/quote]
That would be just great. It's all i'm asking.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

However, I want to point out that attacker-favoring features complemented these defender-favoring features. Especially, RBC mechanics were revised to make RBCs easier to obtain. In particular, note 3.4 section IV item 5: Units that suffer 50% losses in a combat can be retested for RBC after that combat.

[/quote]
Even if it's clear RBC's should be easier to get under 3.4, in reality that's not the case. It's not an important issue but certain scenarios lose a lot of dynamic.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Players need to revise their post-combat procedures accordingly: After a combat that leaves the defenders holding the ground, always use the largest unit available to initiate a subsequent combat against that hex - it will have the best chance of RBCing the remaining defenders, should they become subject to renewed RBC chances.

[/quote]
That goes without saying... it's just ABC to any experienced player.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

The question is WHEN will 3.5 pop up, uh? ...

My question is a lot simpler... so, who is testing these new changes?

[Oberst_Klink]

Not me and out of my reach I am afraid...

Talking about changes, I am glad you popped up! I am in the progress of updating, tweaking your Kharkov '43 scenario; NOW - I need your permission Joao to publish it here at some satge. Naturally I will mention your work etc.

Klink, Oberst

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

I meant attackers are + 400/600 stronger than defenders - or that is what shows as assault ratio on the attack planner.
I underline that these cases are often.

Ok, so it is the value from the Attack Planner. Then that's only odds of about 4:1 to 6:1, against a defender that is receiving a x8 defensive benefit. Hardly what I'd call "impossible odds".

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

Even if it's clear RBC's should be easier to get under 3.4, in reality that's not the case. It's not an important issue but certain scenarios lose a lot of dynamic.

Can you clarify that? RBC's aren't easier to get?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Players need to revise their post-combat procedures accordingly: After a combat that leaves the defenders holding the ground, always use the largest unit available to initiate a subsequent combat against that hex - it will have the best chance of RBCing the remaining defenders, should they become subject to renewed RBC chances.

That goes without saying... it's just ABC to any experienced player.

Good to hear. But not everyone reading this will be so experienced.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Not me and out of my reach I am afraid...

Talking about changes, I am glad you popped up! I am in the progress of updating, tweaking your Kharkov '43 scenario; NOW - I need your permission Joao to publish it here at some satge. Naturally I will mention your work etc.

Klink, Oberst

Go for it!

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

I meant attackers are + 400/600 stronger than defenders - or that is what shows as assault ratio on the attack planner.
I underline that these cases are often.

Ok, so it is the value from the Attack Planner. Then that's only odds of about 4:1 to 6:1, against a defender that is receiving a x8 defensive benefit. Hardly what I'd call "impossible odds".

Military history is full of accounts of small courageous units resisting against far larger opponents. However these situation aren't commum, they're rare and that's why they are so conspicous in history.

A small tired unsuported unit resisting beyond all expectations is OK and interesting in terms of combat system simulation's potential.

This situation happened - seldomly - before and there is no reason not to happen also under the new version.
But when a tired fortified infantry regiment resists 5 or 6 strongly supported fresh divisions on regular basis and all through the game, becoming the rule, then something is wrong; playability is lost and simulation is not longer possible.

When you find 4:1 to 6:1 reasonable odds, you're only refering to assault ratio which don't consider factors like unit's readiness/supply and arty support (most important assets on combat resolution as you know).

As you already guessed there is a problem with the new RFC adjustments and there is no use in hiding behind figures. A lot of players feel it and aren't enjoying the game as it is.

Your support has been very important to TOAW's community and the game improved a lot thanks to the efforts of the team you (unofficially) lead.

All i ask you is to accept the feedback from long time players, test it yourselves and, if possible, fix it quickly.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

But when a tired fortified infantry regiment resists 5 or 6 strongly supported fresh divisions on regular basis and all through the game, becoming the rule, then something is wrong; playability is lost and simulation is not longer possible.

When you find 4:1 to 6:1 reasonable odds, you're only refering to assault ratio which don't consider factors like unit's readiness/supply and arty support (most important assets on combat resolution as you know).

Please don't get upset by my questions - I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. Nobody has submitted any concrete evidence so far. So I'm having to piece it together from what you've said up to this point. And, I'm sorry, but it hasn't all been clear. It still isn't:

If, say, a half-strength regiment defends against six full strength infantry divisions I would expect the combat odds to be around 36:1. Not 4:1 or 6:1. The unit's readiness and supply levels are included in the AR as well as the Attack Planner's predictions. Attacker artillery support is not included in the AR - but it is in the Attack Planner's predictions. Defender artillery support is never included in either.

So, if the AR is only 400, then I find it hard to believe that there were six full-strength divisions attacking only a weakened regiment. If the AR is taken at face value, the attack is actually at low odds when the defender's x8 defense factor is taken into account. It would actually be a 1:2 attack. Attacker artillery support will help kill defenders, but I'm not sure if it plays any part in RFCs. Regardless, the defender could have a lot of support too. And there are attacker choices that can affect success (e.g. loss tolerances).

As you already guessed there is a problem with the new RFC adjustments

Actually, I haven't reached that conclusion yet. That's what I'm trying to determine.

...and there is no use in hiding behind figures.

?? What else would we use to evaluate it?

A lot of players feel it and aren't enjoying the game as it is.

Clearly, it's going to require some getting used to if it was trivially easy to kick units out of excellent terrain and deployments before - and now it isn't. The question is: Is it realistic or not. That requires those figures.

All i ask you is to accept the feedback from long time players, test it yourselves and, if possible, fix it quickly.

I have run PO vs. PO trials using it. They seemed to work fine to me. However, I will test it further by hotseat. I'm right in the middle of a game right now - but, unfortunately, it's "Leipzig 1813" - no digging-in in that one. [:)] So it will take time.

And only Ralph can fix anything.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

But when a tired fortified infantry regiment resists 5 or 6 strongly supported fresh divisions on regular basis and all through the game, becoming the rule, then something is wrong; playability is lost and simulation is not longer possible.

When you find 4:1 to 6:1 reasonable odds, you're only refering to assault ratio which don't consider factors like unit's readiness/supply and arty support (most important assets on combat resolution as you know).

Please don't get upset by my questions - I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. Nobody has submitted any concrete evidence so far. So I'm having to piece it together from what you've said up to this point. And, I'm sorry, but it hasn't all been clear. It still isn't:

If, say, a half-strength regiment defends against six full strength infantry divisions I would expect the combat odds to be around 36:1. Not 4:1 or 6:1. The unit's readiness and supply levels are included in the AR as well as the Attack Planner's predictions. Attacker artillery support is not included in the AR - but it is in the Attack Planner's predictions. Defender artillery support is never included in either.

So, if the AR is only 400, then I find it hard to believe that there were six full-strength divisions attacking only a weakened regiment. If the AR is taken at face value, the attack is actually at low odds when the defender's x8 defense factor is taken into account. It would actually be a 1:2 attack. Attacker artillery support will help kill defenders, but I'm not sure if it plays any part in RFCs. Regardless, the defender could have a lot of support too. And there are attacker choices that can affect success (e.g. loss tolerances).

As you already guessed there is a problem with the new RFC adjustments

Actually, I haven't reached that conclusion yet. That's what I'm trying to determine.

...and there is no use in hiding behind figures.

?? What else would we use to evaluate it?

A lot of players feel it and aren't enjoying the game as it is.

Clearly, it's going to require some getting used to if it was trivially easy to kick units out of excellent terrain and deployments before - and now it isn't. The question is: Is it realistic or not. That requires those figures.

All i ask you is to accept the feedback from long time players, test it yourselves and, if possible, fix it quickly.

I have run PO vs. PO trials using it. They seemed to work fine to me. However, I will test it further by hotseat. I'm right in the middle of a game right now - but, unfortunately, it's "Leipzig 1813" - no digging-in in that one. [:)] So it will take time.

And only Ralph can fix anything.

My earlier posts were my sincere contribution to this project.

Unfortunately i can't be clear than i was. Obvious language barrier doesn't allow. Perhaps others can do it much better. However i believe i was clear enough to whom trully understands the game system. And i know you do.

In the cases i mentioned before combat resolution results aren't at all realistic and, in my oppinion, there aren't no figures that can demonstrate otherwise.

[robryl]

As I already stated in an earlier post (Defence strenght in 3.4 patch) I fully agree that someting "funny" has happend to the attack/ defence ratio in the game. Having since that played several scenarios agains Oberst Klink and all had to be aborted because the attacker just cant beat defending units on Ignore losses. We do have several cases that could be submitted if someone want to have a look, whats wrong "under the hood". Among others where several allied divisions cant beat a isolated It armd car coy (with 1% supply) for several turns.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

Unfortunately i can't be clear than i was. Obvious language barrier doesn't allow. Perhaps others can do it much better. However i believe i was clear enough to whom trully understands the game system. And i know you do.

In the cases i mentioned before combat resolution results aren't at all realistic and, in my oppinion, there aren't no figures that can demonstrate otherwise.

Sigh. I repeat: I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. Getting angry doesn't help.

It has to be investigated properly if anyone expects to see a code change devoted to it.

Look at it this way: If a plane crashes, the TSA doesn't instantly jump to the conclusion that the plane was defective. It considers all possible causes - including pilot error. And at least one of those pilots will be very experienced.

I'm very experienced with this game. Yet I still find new things I didn't know about it. And I still find myself doing things I shouldn't or forgetting to do things I should. It's that kind of game.

Now, I will continue the investigation - entirely on my own if I have to. But I'd still like to understand the case you cited. At first you talked about an AR value that would have been 4:1 odds, yet later described a situation that should have shown 36:1 odds. I'm just trying to resolve that. Needless to say, the odds (among a host of other things) make a difference in the chances of success. If you thought you had 36:1 odds but really had 4:1, that could account for a lot of the problem.

[Oberst_Klink]

Bob,

Joao ain't angry, perhaps a wee frustrated. I started playing PBEM vs. Rob 'Der Schwede' who mentioned the ignore losses 'issue' a few months ago in one of the threads *have to have a look which one it was*... He played Rob Kunz's RTM and I wanted to prove him wrong... that is, that in a H2H I can smash his Bolsheviks like a house of cards. Well, turned out it... didn't work out. OK I thought, perhaps becasue of the unit size(s) etc. So, we started another 'test', Last Stand in Africa, yet anotther smashing creation. Seemed to work better than the trench style experience in the East. Alas, I had a few examples where an unsupplied Italian armoured car batallion, 15 tankettes, a few carro armorto held out for 5-6 (!!!) game turns surrounded, bombarded etc by 2 of Monty's Divisions and corps artillery, plus the WDAF!

I have the PBEM turns somewhere and will also provide the toaw_log and the sitrep. I am more than happy to provide the core data and playest, provide examples. And yes, as you said, there's always something new even the hardcore TOAW players discover every day.

Now we are 'test playing' RK's Ardennes '44 scenario. The same... even the digged in and weary, untried Coys and Btl's of the 99th US Inf hold out like some elite Japanese Banzai units in Iwo Jima... when they're on 'ignore losses'.

The ant-attack bug had to be fixed, no doubt about that, but the current 'behaviour' *issue?!* has to be adressed or debunked.

I am currently running mods of the scenarios in question: using e.g. you suggestions about the combat attrition divider... but so far the depleted troops with ignore losses seem to be imune against 400AR+ attacks as well...


Klink, Oberst

[Olorin]

This problem was there even before 3.4, I don't think it has anything to do with the ant bug fix. There were long discussions about it, including Ralph and Bob. It seems it hasn't been resolved yet.

I refer to you to these threads:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread. ... n-TOAW-III
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread. ... stem-tests
tm.asp?m=2078034
tm.asp?m=2078034&mpage=1&key=&#2084579

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

This problem was there even before 3.4, I don't think it has anything to do with the ant bug fix. There were long discussions about it, including Ralph and Bob. It seems it hasn't been resolved yet.

Kalimera apo Kypros Kamerad Olorin!

Well, then we have to address, prove and fix it now. What's the point in changing, improving so many things on the wish-list if playing PBEM will lose its flavour? I need to run some tests with older versions; I am sure at 3.2 or perhaps even 3.4.173 it ain't that bad, uh?

Klink, Oberst

[Olorin]

Kalimera sthn omorfi Kypro Oberst!

The discussion in the threads I posted led to some useful changes; I thought that 7.23-7.25 would be enough to solve the "tanks won't die" issue, but apparently it still exists in 3.4.
I am not sure it's still there, as I haven't been playing TOAW under 3.4 much. But I am certain I experienced the "tanks won't die" syndrome in my DnO game against Fungwu in 2008, under 3.2.

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

Kalimera sthn omorfi Kypro Oberst!

The discussion in the threads I posted led to some useful changes; I thought that 7.23-7.25 would be enough to solve the "tanks won't die" issue, but apparently it still exists in 3.4.
I am not sure it's still there, as I haven't been playing TOAW under 3.4 much. But I am certain I experienced the "tanks won't die" syndrome in my DnO game against Fungwu in 2008, under 3.2.

I promised myself to post no more about this matter but just in sake of good order i must say that "tanks won't die" syndrome is not connected with the matter we are talking about.

This was adressed before (long time ago). Units made only of armoured equipment (apparent) unvulnerability is mainly due to 2 factors:
1) Attacking units without necessary tank killing equipment (despite attacking unit size its equipment AP capacity isn't enough or suitable to inflict loses on the defender's armoured equipment)
2) Well known tank resilience to attacker's arty fire support

This isn't a system's bug. It's just good, realistic combat simulation

[ogar]

I think Oberst's offer of TOAW logs will be very helpful.

Well, this may be pouring gasoline on the embers...
My wondering is "How does the actual scenario design impact this effect ?"

I tried LSiA after Klink raved about it, and I was very disappointed -- it's a nice _old_ scenario; must have been great under 3.0. I had similar non-AC unit instances of die-hards stopping either the Allies or the Germans stone cold. But this was designed with the old 99 MRPB and used all the old defaults for Attrition, Entrenchment, etc. I have to think that these combined with 3.4 are part of the problem here.

I think the RTMs have been tweaked a bit, and so I think they might be a better test basis.

Right now, I'm testing a newer version of Op Neva -- and Snefens' latest adjustments make a whole helluva lotta difference. What was a very very static - slam, slam, slam (with 3 artillery divisions plus most of a Rifle Corps) to perhaps gain just one 2.5km hex -- has now become a more realistic approximation of that campaign. It's still slogging it out (winter offensive by the Soviets, so what can you expect ?) but it's "lighter on its feet" and the stand-out inf. company holding off 4 regiments becomes the exception not the rule. All this due to the designer's adjusting the scenario defaults based on play-tests under 3.4.

I wonder how much of this problem is related to a scenario just using the old defaults ? Again, the logs will help tremendously, especially from scenarios that are known to have been reviewed by the designer for 3.4.

Well, there's the extra hydrocarbons. Anyone got a match ?

[Oberst_Klink]

LSiA is still smashing mate

And yes, in some cases the scenarios *75% of them* have to be revised; especially the Attrition Divider.

Still, most of the ' updated' ones, even those for PBEM only, favour the defender big time. I am awaiting some feedback from Robert 'Der Schwede'; because we slugged it out - RTM, LSiA, Ardennes '44 ... in most cases it is like me, Joao, etc. mentioned - 'ignore losses' spoils the PBEM.

I am not saying it's a 'bug', and YES, there are lots of examples and one SHOULD have the option to switch his units to this stance, but with some penalties. E.g. If I attack with I-L settings, I get a turn burn, aye? So, if a poxy defender, no supply, no readiness whatsoever does I-L too often, the boys should evaporate or change into reorg, no?

This is really pivotal that we address the implications here -> 3.5

I also recommend that a sticky thread should be set up about the different settings, e.g. MRPB, CAD etc. By doing so it is easier to adjust an old scenario to the 3.4 combat mechanisms etc.

Klink, Oberst

[Panama]

Ignore Losses should be able to be applied to any unit. However, not any unit should be able to maintain that level of loss tolerance. An elite unit, exhausted with no hope of reinforcement will stand and die to the last man. A conscript unit exhausted with no hope of reinforcement will run and ignore losses becomes a dream.

I realize each of these will have different attributes and perhaps the conscripts will be kicked out of a position easier while in an ignore losses deployment. But they should have a better chance of not even being able to achieve an ignore losses state even though they are deployed that way. In other words, when the bullets begin to fly they immediately fall to limit losses. No ignore loss benefit.

There needs to be a proficiency check to see if they are able to maintain an ignore loss deployment when the fertilizer hits the fan. The printed manual says ignore losses should be used sparingly. The way the game is played would suggest otherwise.

[jmlima]

Guys, Bob is right. The only way to get these kind of things resolved is if you can send save-games / replays / whatever that allow the programmer to have a look at the issue and then go through the code to pin-point where things may be going wrong.

It's helpful to say, 'yeah, I've seen a company resisting an attack of 6 divisions.' as that signals an odd behaviour may be afoot. But it really needs something the programmer can get a look at at and see happening to help these issues to be solved.

My experience with this is that the 'i noticed that...' without files never gets properly solved or looked at, if there are supporting files, it's quickly solved.

Not saying that will happen here as there seems to be a series of extra 'firewalls' to get things sorted or looked at, but the best method is to get support files and replicable errors. No excuses then.