Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'm still stumped as to what game (board or PC) Ben is thinking of that has aide-de-camp rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_ ... odino_1812

From 1987.

Never heard of it. Can such games be devised? Sure. Have most Napoleonic games foregone such factors? Yep.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Never heard of it. Can such games be devised? Sure. Have most Napoleonic games foregone such factors? Yep.

I'm sure they have- because they're not interested in being accurate simulations.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Never heard of it. Can such games be devised? Sure. Have most Napoleonic games foregone such factors? Yep.

I'm sure they have- because they're not interested in being accurate simulations.

Couriers are fast. Orders on a battlefield can be distributed fast enough to not really need simulation. Now, at the operational or strategic level...

I remember the few times board game makers tried to simulate fog of war with a screen. Don't cough or the fog of war dissipates. [:D]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

An adjustment to the Theater Recon value should be able to take care of the problem.

No it won't. Theatre recon causes hexes to randomise to "observed" or "spotted" irrespective of whether any friendly units are nearby.

A simple test shows that adjusting Theater Recon has the desired effect of revealing enemy troops across the front with declining observation at depth. Think this demonstrates that for any Theater Recon value the closer a unit is to the observer the more likely it is that it will be uncovered. Theater Recon does not appear to be a probability that operates equally across the battlefield.

If Theater Recon is not used, try loading units with a recon squad and test.

Do a test moving units too. [;)]

Too much board gaming will kill (your common sense).

In reality most of the recon was done by probing and POWs interrogations.

My favourite story is of a IIWW general ordering his motor scout to get to the village to scold "own troops for shooting friendlies".
When they saw the scout being shot dead the general commented: "Well, seems they were actually shooting correctly".

Another good one is of US scouts getting through an enemy town and back reporting no enemy as the German CO ordered his troops to hide and let them through.
Trick paid out and many good men and some tanks were lost.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


A simple test shows that adjusting Theater Recon has the desired effect of revealing enemy troops across the front with declining observation at depth. Think this demonstrates that for any Theater Recon value the closer a unit is to the observer the more likely it is that it will be uncovered. Theater Recon does not appear to be a probability that operates equally across the battlefield.

Your "simple test" has an extremely small sample size.

I tested a map with twelve units at 2 hexes, 18 units at 3 hexes and 24 units at 4 hexes distant. I set recon to 5% and observed the results for ten turns.

Total units visible:
Two hexes: 14 out of 120 = 11.7%
Three hexes: 30 out of 180 = 16.7%
Four hexes: 43 out of 240 = 17.9%

So a larger sample actually gives us an inverse relationship between the proximity to a friendly unit and the chance of spotting. I expect if we increased the sample size, though, that these differences would largely disappear and we'd find a more or less consistent chance of spotting any given hex on the map.

That make sense. The more units there are the higher probability you will observe something.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Your "simple test" has an extremely small sample size.

Well, duh . . . that’s why it was called ‘simple”.

A couple of critical things you didn’t mention 1) scale and 2) whether the observed units clustered near the observer or were randomly dispersed. A picture of the test set up, and results, would be nice.

Regards

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Your "simple test" has an extremely small sample size.

Well, duh . . . that’s why it was called ‘simple”.

A couple of critical things you didn’t mention 1) scale and 2) whether the observed units clustered near the observer or were randomly dispersed. A picture of the test set up, and results, would be nice.

Regards

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

A couple of critical things you didn’t mention 1) scale and 2) whether the observed units clustered near the observer or were randomly dispersed. A picture of the test set up, and results, would be nice.

Regards

The scale is irrelevant. The units were arranged in concentric rings around a single observer. Observed units tended to cluster.

I'd need to post eleven screenshots to show everything, what matters is the data. Feel free to repeat the test yourself, it took me about five minutes.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

That make sense. The more units there are the higher probability you will observe something.

That's not what the results are showing at all. The probability of observing any single unit went up with distance.

Like I said, that is likely a data artefact. I have a fairly high degree of confidence that theatre recon gives the force an equal % chance to observe each hex on the map.

If your force is doing its recon by interrogating POWs, then you'll want theatre recon at zero. The player would then be advised to take notes as to what units are spotted on the frontline, their condition etc.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Never heard of it. Can such games be devised? Sure. Have most Napoleonic games foregone such factors? Yep.

I'm sure they have- because they're not interested in being accurate simulations.

Actually, most Napoleonic miniature sets of rules still have rules for aide-de-camp. Most boardgames either have them, or abstract them into other mechanisms thus keeping the principle present (Zucker's games for ex). Even in PC games this is recognized as an issue. HPS latest patches for Napoleonic game introduce a very rough mechanism to prevent units from doing certain types of operations outside a theoretical orders range.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

That's not what the results are showing at all. The probability of observing any single unit went up with distance.

All things being equal it's easier to observe something that's far away then something closer? That makes zero sense. Are you saying that is how the game works?

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The scale is irrelevant.

The question wasn’t about relevancy, it was about scale.

The units were arranged in concentric rings around a single observer.

For one who is so adamant about historical accuracy, seems odd that you would construct such an unrealistic test.

Observed units tended to cluster.

They cluster near the observer; this makes my point. Take a look at some of the Eastern Front AARs. Can the Germans see Russian units equally from the front all the way to the Urals, no. They can see units close to their front, decreasing the further east they look. Observation is not based on recon value alone but adjusted for a distance component. Recon operates much like supply. Also note that distance decreases the observer’s intelligence regarding unit size, strength, supply and entrenchment.

I'd need to post eleven screenshots to show everything

One representative screenshot would be sufficient.


In my test observed probability decreased with distance. Scale 2.5 km/hex, Theater Recon 10. For fun in the future, I might add a recon squad to the observer or place the observer on high ground just to see if a difference exists.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

For one who is so adamant about historical accuracy, seems odd that you would construct such an unrealistic test.

I'm concerned with how the game works- and that's a scientific question which requires a scientific test.

They cluster near the observer; this makes my point.

No- they clustered at a distance. But this is anecdotal, I might have just been seeing a pattern in randomness.

One representative screenshot would be sufficient.

Attached. Note that the visibility of units adjacent to a friendly unit is irrelevant as this is guaranteed regardless of theatre recon. I've colour-coded the rings so you can easily see without counting the distance of each unit.

ORIGINAL: Lobster


All things being equal it's easier to observe something that's far away then something closer? That makes zero sense. Are you saying that is how the game works?

I'm saying that's my data. I think if you ran the test 100 times instead of 10 times this variation would disappear and you'd get uniform results at any distance. That's why it's called "theatre recon".

This is instructive (from the manual):
Theater Reconnaissance is more likely to observe locations with Roads, Anchorage locations, Airbas­es, or large concentrations of Motorized equipment. Airfields with Air units will almost certainly be observed. Theater Reconnaissance is less likely to observe locations with Hills, Badlands, Mountains, Dense Urban, Light Woods, Jungle, or Forest terrain, as well as locations with hazy or (especially) overcast visibility conditions. Theater Reconnaissance is also less effective during night Turns

Says nothing about distance- except that adjacent units are observed using a different mechanism.

Rhinobones I really appreciate bringing the scientific method to this issue.
Test scenarios are the way to go and yeah it always starts with a small sample.

I will send you a PM and maybe we can trade scenarios for tests I'd be happy to help on this topic. ( ad I have one on tank vs infantry AT tests I am working on).

Having a common base makes for constructive discussions

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
This is instructive (from the manual):
Theater Reconnaissance is more likely to observe locations with Roads, Anchorage locations, Airbas­es, or large concentrations of Motorized equipment. Airfields with Air units will almost certainly be observed. Theater Reconnaissance is less likely to observe locations with Hills, Badlands, Mountains, Dense Urban, Light Woods, Jungle, or Forest terrain, as well as locations with hazy or (especially) overcast visibility conditions. Theater Reconnaissance is also less effective during night Turns

Says nothing about distance- except that adjacent units are observed using a different mechanism.

You’re saying the manual not stating definitively that “distance” impacts observation, is proof of your position. Really?

In your example the numbers are what they are, however, in the outer ring only 4 of 24 units are spotted and the space between spotted units increases proportionally. Certainly, appears that the ability to identify targets thins out as you go from the observer.

Regards