Matrix Games Forums

Stamb wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:21 pm ..
what do i see
1. if HQ does not move then chances to get SU into battle are the highest
2. if HQ moves (Boldin 5 initiative -1 for HQ move = 4 initiative) commits less arty
3. if HQ does not move but has leader with 4 initiative, thus same as in 2 then there are at least 1 more SU in comparison to a case when HQ moves but with Boldin (5-1= 4 initiative)

my verdict - as i wrote initially
undocumented mechanics or bugs

are the differences statistically different to what you would expect with -1 on the init roll? Since you know probability theory,then I presume you know how to do that comparison?

loki100 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:53 pm

Stamb wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:21 pm ..
what do i see
1. if HQ does not move then chances to get SU into battle are the highest
2. if HQ moves (Boldin 5 initiative -1 for HQ move = 4 initiative) commits less arty
3. if HQ does not move but has leader with 4 initiative, thus same as in 2 then there are at least 1 more SU in comparison to a case when HQ moves but with Boldin (5-1= 4 initiative)

my verdict - as i wrote initially
undocumented mechanics or bugs

are the differences statistically different to what you would expect with -1 on the init roll? Since you know probability theory,then I presume you know how to do that comparison?

it is irrelevant
i can see that in 9 cases out of 10 there was less SU in a battle despite same initiative

Stamb wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 5:01 pm

loki100 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:53 pm ...
are the differences statistically different to what you would expect with -1 on the init roll? Since you know probability theory,then I presume you know how to do that comparison?

it is irrelevant
i can see that in 9 cases out of 10 there was less SU in a battle despite same initiative

uhuh, and - do both HQs have the same TOE (esp support squads) - can be very variable for the Soviets, is their intersection with the rest of the command chain identical (both personnel and distances) or are we back to comparing hippos and apples?

both these variables can affect the average % to pass a check regardless of the notional leader value

off the top of my head, odds have a bearing, a clear win or a clear defeat may have an impact on SU allocation (certainly does on reserve commitment - I may be mixing up the 2).

But in general this is why these tests have to ensure that every other variable is set to one side or any validity is in doubt

loki100 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 6:28 pm uhuh, and - do both HQs have the same TOE (esp support squads) - can be very variable for the Soviets, is their intersection with the rest of the command chain identical (both personnel and distances) or are we back to comparing hippos and apples?
...

if only you would spend your time looking on a screenshots that i provided on a previous page, instead of making toxic comments, then you would realize that it is exactly the same HQ
19th army
in all tests
and all other variables are also the same

but for some reason when players make reports with game issues you take it like somebody personally offended you
it does not help for game development, and i have even more bad news for you - there will be more bugs reports, because writing software without bugs is impossible

or maybe you have some problems specifically with me for whatever reason?
in that case i propose you to PM me in discord (same nickname as here) and we can try to solve that problems

Thanks for the detailed test with saves. It does appear like you are on to something. Sounds like it's a lot more than a -1 penalty based on your test results. I'll ask Gary if he can find it fast in the code and see if there's an easy answer. If not, it will go on as a bug to be looked at with the save.

I'm moving this to the tech support area. I asked Gary about this and unfortunately this part of the code is going to take a debugger session to find out if there is an intentional wider impact than the -1 documented, or if the impact is unintentionally bigger due to the multiple checks that get made. I'll get this on the bug list, although it may turn out to be WAD. Until we get to that, I think it's fair to assume that moving an HQ will cost you a lot in terms of SU commitments. For hasty attacks it has always prevented any SU commitment, but we're just not sure at this point if the larger impact on deliberate attacks than a simple -1 would imply is WAD but undocumented. Thanks again for the test, as it's only with these kinds of repeated tests that we can know if it's worth the time to try to figure something out. Roger (loki100) can only document what we tell him, and he had to do his share of tests to try to figure things out where we left him in the dark (which was quite often as Gary writes a lot more code than he documents).

You are welcome.
Thanks for looking into it.
It always a pleasure to have chat with you.

We were able to find the task item where the -1 to init was added and use that to find the part of the code that commits support units to battle and added mods for the HQ moving. Gary found that for the attacker side, there is a substantial bonus to their chance of support unit commitment if their HQ has not moved during the turn. He didn't study it enough to say exactly how it kicked in, but it was a +3 mod. So we need to document this. So if you want large support unit commitments on the attacker side, don't move your HQ. Thanks for discovering this and showing the impact. I will let Roger know for the living manual.

it means that there will be no changes in a game?
just manual needs to be updated?

Stamb wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 8:22 pm it means that there will be no changes in a game?
just manual needs to be updated?

yes, seems its WAD but undocumented. its still WAD and will be documented in the next Living Manual. As Joel says, good catch and apologies for doubting your claims

Roger