How powerful are the Household Cavalry Armoured Cars?

[skarp]

I'm not sure how to set that up or even if it can be set up. I'm not sure what it would prove. I've just played it with the A sqd HC reinforced by B, C and D squadrons and no surprise allied victory and I've just replaced them with 2 Bn Irish guards which could only manage a draw.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: skarp

I'm not sure how to set that up or even if it can be set up. I'm not sure what it would prove. . . .

Trading equipment wholesale between opposing forces would tend to eliminate embedded doctrine as a differential affecting unit kills.

Haven't done enough with the Estabs to determine whether British equipment is available for use in German formations.

[skarp]

Well if you set up one Jim I'll play it. I don't know anything about editing establishments. We need some explanation of how less than 3 dozen armoured cars can destroy 6 panthers, or allow them to fight off 600 plus enemy troops. My bet is on the axis either can't see 'em, can't hit 'em or can't destroy 'em.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: skarp

Well if you set up one Jim I'll play it. I don't know anything about editing establishments. We need some explanation of how less than 3 dozen armoured cars can destroy 6 panthers, or allow them to fight off 600 plus enemy troops. My bet is on the axis either can't see 'em, can't hit 'em or can't destroy 'em.

Just answering the question about what could be accomplished by trading equipment among contending forces.

Eliminating competing doctrines as a source of the observed results constrains the resolution of the presumed "problem" to other circumstances causing the observed results.

On the face, if you're talking about 3-dozen highly mobile and small target aspect armored cars with various forms of anti-tank capability against six Panthers, there's a lot more potential for the British to fire anti-Panther bullets than there is for Panthers to destroy all their opponents before suffering defeat by taking hits from those bullets.

Since you're a history aficionado, I'll mention that I just finished Ryan's "A Bridge Too Far" (promoted as THE HISTORY of "World War II's least understood battle" when published in 1974).

It contains anecdotes about PIATs taking out Panthers and Tigers (assigned to 9th and 10th SS Armor Divisions at less than optimum TO&E strengths), and Tigers being taken out by fire from British anti tank guns manned in desperation by ad hoc airborne crews. It obliquely speaks to "esprit" being a determining factor in winning battles -- the British Airborne troops with a higher determination to meet their objectives than troops assigned to wear the elite SS uniforms (essentially raw recruits, tired rear area administrators) inserted into the "elite" formations.

Doesn't mean that the British Airborne had superior strength, just that the raw numbers don't always add up to certain results.

The Pantners losses should to be evaluated against how well they're led, their doctrine-defined tactics, and the allocation of strength.

In the late North Africa period, Rommel's "Panzer Divisions" often started operations at tank strengths in the 10-30 range in North Africa. What those divisions lacked in combat materiel they gained in "Panzer" maneuver tactics.

Trading equipment among forces would eliminate "tactics" as the reason for a formation's superiority over an opponent.

[skarp]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Trading equipment among forces would eliminate "tactics" as the reason for a formation's superiority over an opponent.

I'm agreed that would do it as a test to eliminate tactics. I'm simply not convinced that their equipment really puts them in line for anything so ambitious as a armoured car coy seeing off a panther coy in the open in good visibility. Where's the historical example of that? Your examples are of close quarter combat in urban and wooded areas, frequently using the excellent 6pdr.
This lot have 2 75mm guns as on Cromwell tanks which were not as good in the AT role as 6odrs, about a dozen obsolete 2 pdrs (found wanting in North Africa), a few 37mm AT guns and a handful of piats. Tactics are no good if you can't penetrate the enemy armour. It could be down to the poorer quality of the German troops but I don't recall them losing against the paras or XXX corps in the end.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: skarp

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Trading equipment among forces would eliminate "tactics" as the reason for a formation's superiority over an opponent.

I'm agreed that would do it as a test to eliminate tactics. I'm simply not convinced that their equipment really puts them in line for anything so ambitious as a armoured car coy seeing off a panther coy in the open in good visibility. Where's the historical example of that? Your examples are of close quarter combat in urban and wooded areas, frequently using the excellent 6pdr.
This lot have 2 75mm guns as on Cromwell tanks which were not as good in the AT role as 6odrs, about a dozen obsolete 2 pdrs (found wanting in North Africa), a few 37mm AT guns and a handful of piats. Tactics are no good if you can't penetrate the enemy armour. It could be down to the poorer quality of the German troops but I don't recall them losing against the paras or XXX corps in the end.

If one doesn't isolate to the primary cause for a perceived problem in an orderly manner, it's difficult to either define, or later come up with a solution to the problem.

[Arjuna]

I take your point Jim but in this case there are no significant doctrinal difference at play. The problem is in the anti-armour fire. If I understand correctly from the above the armoured cars are not getting knocked out anywhere as much as a similar number of Shermans. I need to step through the code and ascertain why.

skarp,

Can you please email me a couple of your test scenarios so I can step through them. Email them to support[at]panthergames[dot]com. Thanks.

[skarp]

Cheers Dave. I've sent you some files.

[Arjuna]

Got'em thanks.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

I take your point Jim but in this case there are no significant doctrinal difference at play. The problem is in the anti-armour fire. If I understand correctly from the above the armoured cars are not getting knocked out anywhere as much as a similar number of Shermans. I need to step through the code and ascertain why.

I was simply explaining why Paul Van Doren's suggestion to change out the equipment might be valid. If you get similar results with different equipment involved, there's a problem deeper in the software than what side the player chose to play when he / she discovered the anomaly.

Absent an ability to examine the code, isolating the potential causes of an anomaly by varying the orderly variation of parameters affecting game play under a player's control could help target the problem before it's handed off to you for review.

It's called fault isolation.

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
I was simply explaining why Paul Van Doren's suggestion to change out the equipment might be valid. If you get similar results with different equipment involved, there's a problem deeper in the software than what side the player chose to play when he / she discovered the anomaly.

Absent an ability to examine the code, isolating the potential causes of an anomaly by varying the orderly variation of parameters affecting game play under a player's control could help target the problem before it's handed off to you for review.

It's called fault isolation.

Exactly. I am suspicious of a hard coded bias. Say for instance US anti-tank fires are always against the rear of German armor. Or say the probability that US AT fires against a German tank are perfectly perpendicular to the exposed side of the vehicle is set at a controversial level. The factors such as training and experience should all be equal so we can isolate the fault.

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Haven't done enough with the Estabs to determine whether British equipment is available for use in German formations.

Yes you can add any sides equipment to any unit in the estab manager. 150th Panzer Bde has shermans and M3 halftracks in some of the units.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: vandorenp

. . .

Exactly. I am suspicious of a hard coded bias. Say for instance US anti-tank fires are always against the rear of German armor. Or say the probability that US AT fires against a German tank are perfectly perpendicular to the exposed side of the vehicle is set at a controversial level. The factors such as training and experience should all be equal so we can isolate the fault.

That's how one performs "fault isolation!"

In my automotive parts sales days, I made a lot of money from people who insisted they needed a (non refundable cost) "new battery" for their car, when the real problem was a faulty starter connection or a corroded negative connection (in the US) to their engine block.

When I'd honestly point out that either of the other two were a potential cause of the problem, they'd insist it was the battery because they didn't want to take the time to isolate to that cause.

Same applies to binary logic, when one understands it.

[skarp]

As a coder Dave will have plenty of experience at fault isolation believe me. I've so far failed to use the establish editor to do what I want. I managed to duplicate and transfer an allied HC unit to the Waffen SS. But I got stymied when trying to compile an establishment to use in game. Missing vehicles by the looks of it.

Anyway from the examples we were quoting of success against the german big cats were pretty much in agreement about hitting from rear and side on and indeed in a couple of games I've watched more closely so far the panther casualties seem to be inflicted in the retreat. I'm now trying to mod the scenario to try and get both sides to sit and trade off shots.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: skarp

As a coder Dave will have plenty of experience at fault isolation believe me. I've so far failed to use the establish editor to do what I want. I managed to duplicate and transfer an allied HC unit to the Waffen SS. But I got stymied when trying to compile an establishment to use in game. Missing vehicles by the looks of it.

Anyway from the examples we were quoting of success against the german big cats were pretty much in agreement about hitting from rear and side on and indeed in a couple of games I've watched more closely so far the panther casualties seem to be inflicted in the retreat. I'm now trying to mod the scenario to try and get both sides to sit and trade off shots.

Dave is one person.

He can work more efficiently with improved problem descriptions.

Besides observations, data that helps resolve the problem ideally includes a game save (or saves) shortly before a repeatable problem occurs, and one after the problem has occurred.

You're on the right track to help him with the activities you describe above.

[skarp]

Well I've upped the training etc of the panthers to match and that has evened things out somewhat. The armoured cars are taking more casualties but can still win. Close up they are especially deadly perhaps as might be expected but they're also less expectedly good at holding off the panthers at a distance.

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: skarp
I managed to duplicate and transfer an allied HC unit to the Waffen SS. But I got stymied when trying to compile an establishment to use in game.

Oh I hadn't tried to move a duplicated Allied estab to Axis side. (Would have expected it to work) I opened an existing Axis estab and just started adding Allied equipment. So what i would have tried to do is build an axis unit with exact same TOE as an Allied unit.

[skarp]

Well you can just drag the duplicated unit into the waffen SS or whatever and just give it a new commander and optionally change the colours of the icon. My problem comes when compiling and no establishment is created to use.

[skarp]

I've being playing with a few standard scenarios (1 identical objective per side, positioned close together so they overlap, and one side defending the other attacking from a safe distance) with the training experience etc all set at the Armoured cars' level. So far in 11 games with me taking turns to be each side.

Axis have won 4 to the Allies 7
I won 5 of the 7 allied victories
I won 4 out of 6 games I've played as Axis
Therefore AI axis has not beaten me yet as Allies and only twice as Axis

I make that 9 wins to me over the AIs 2. I have not done anything special. Set simple defend and attack orders at the start and as necessary when orders have expired and units need to take the objective. I think I may have interfered more later when playing Axis and down to a handful of tanks to try and keep their distance and trade shots. I not sure if this has done me much good.

A few odd results - here the allies win but lose not a single vehicle

[skarp]

Here's a victory against the allies that I think I eked out by keeping my distance. Note how close it is with both sides down to 3 vehicles. Looking closer in the establishments I so only 2 allied vehicles listed - a bren armed Daimler and one with a 2pdr. Even if the invisible third vehicle was another 2 pounder their reported anti-armour value is still 43! My poor panthers were down to 29.