Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Guys, Bob is right.

Traidor... [:D] e então a solidariedade nacional??

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Guys, Bob is right.

Traidor... [:D] e então a solidariedade nacional??

What's needed to see and debunk it is; a list of important scenario tweaks e.g. MRPB, AD, etc. I KNOW there are somewhere in various threads and the Scenario Editor manual refers to them,. but it would be helpful to have an example, e.g. like Bob once explained the AD with scenarios and time scales he used.

It is true that this phenomena seems to be related to old and non-3.4 adjusted scenarios, but I am sure it happens quite often at the latest creations when the AD and MRPB values haven't been adjusted. Hence the request for a sticky thread with those values, what they do, examples etc in order to adjust popular scenarios for a challenging PBEM slugfest and not WW1 trench warfare...

Feedback?

Klink, Oberst

I side with those that not see an obvious 'Ignore Losses Crisis' unless strong evidence is presented. I have been testing Eastern Front 41-45 with Mark (USxPat) and we are one year into the campaign. I have been using 'Ignore Losses' *extensively* while defending as the Soviet and it seems to provide realistic results over a long timeline (we are at turn 60 now) The attached image shows the frontlines in June 42 and we are pretty close to historical. The Axis was able to smash through Fortified soviet lines easily in Spring/Summer 42, once sufficient concentration of forces was achieved. On the contrary, the Soviet March-April 42 counteroffensives, conducted by infantry poorly supported by artillery against well rested, highly trained fortified German units where met with a hail of bullets and loss ratios of 5-10:1. I am actually very impressed and a bit surprised by how well TOAW handles these very different situations.

In a few cases Russian units were able to make a two weeks stand when surrounded (Rostov, Kiev) but they were in Dense Urban hexes and well, you know how these things can go on the Russian front.... Stubborn resistance can be even boosted by placing low efficiency (5-20%) supply hexes in urban hexes. These way one can simulate the Siege of Leningrad or Sevastopol quite well.


In large scale/weekly turn scenarios unrealistic results can be avoided by :

- setting the 'Max Rounds per Battle' to a reasonable figure (3?)
- lowering the entrechment rates significantly (50%), so that units take several turn to achieve Fortified status, which (at least for large scenarios) seems more historical.
- make sure that the number of artillery tubes is correct. Artillery is useful to dig out the defenders.
- Make sure proficiency rates ratios between the attacking and the defending forces are realistic (I am having 75-80 for the Axisvs 45-55 for the Red Army in 'Eastern Front').

I have made some adjustments to 'old' scenarios and they had the desired results; I checked all the settings I could imagine, AD, MRPB and yes, the old, pre-3.4 always used AD=10 and MRPB=99, which of course caused some 'interesting'results.

Here's Bob's AD settings table, which is what I needed.

As to guidelines, assuming the values are linear, then here would be the values for the setting, along with some values I've actually used for it:

Whole-week: 2 (Examples: Germany 1945 & Soviet Union 1941)
Half-week: 4 (Examples: CFNA, France 1944, The Next War 1979)
Full-day: 14 (Examples: Killer Angels 1863, Cambrai 1917, Kaiserschlacht 1918; Exception: Okinawa 1945)
Half-day: 28
6-hour: 56 (Example: Waterloo 1815, actually set to 40)

Okinawa is the exception to the rule due to the need to model the Jap cave defenses. It uses an AD of 50. And, at 40, Waterloo must have needed to be bloodier than normal WWII.

I am currently 'adjusting' the values according to Bob's AD value table (with examples), the MRPB values, depending on the scenarios I adjusted to 3 or 4. The scenarios I really love to play are mostly with a 1 day/turn half-week/turn. So if anybody has got some MRPB examples for various scenarios etc. please post them.

There are so many things 'under the hood' which would be quite useful to have listed somewhere in order to understand HOW and WHY the system works.

Klink, Oberst

Update - The following cleared things up and I run a test vs. Elmer. AD (4) and MRPB (3) seem to have the desired results (LSiA scenario). Though units seem to be more likely to evaporate, so another tweak might be needed?

Helpful I found those posts, but will ask Erik if he has a list for AD/MRPB in relation to the scale/turn scale with examples.

tm.asp?m=2231066 (Bob's MRPB article)
tm.asp?m=2027365&mpage=1&key=� (Thread started by Largo)

ORIGINAL: jmlima

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.

This is correct. While I did want to resolve what I saw as a "discrepancy" in Sekadegas's testimony, the fact is, testimonial evidence just isn't enough. We must have hard data. It's not even unheard of for players to make rigorous tests themselves.

ORIGINAL: governato

I side with those that not see an obvious 'Ignore Losses Crisis' unless strong evidence is presented. I have been testing Eastern Front 41-45 with Mark (USxPat) and we are one year into the campaign. I have been using 'Ignore Losses' *extensively* while defending as the Soviet and it seems to provide realistic results over a long timeline (we are at turn 60 now) The attached image shows the frontlines in June 42 and we are pretty close to historical. The Axis was able to smash through Fortified soviet lines easily in Spring/Summer 42, once sufficient concentration of forces was achieved. On the contrary, the Soviet March-April 42 counteroffensives, conducted by infantry poorly supported by artillery against well rested, highly trained fortified German units where met with a hail of bullets and loss ratios of 5-10:1. I am actually very impressed and a bit surprised by how well TOAW handles these very different situations.

In a few cases Russian units were able to make a two weeks stand when surrounded (Rostov, Kiev) but they were in Dense Urban hexes and well, you know how these things can go on the Russian front.... Stubborn resistance can be even boosted by placing low efficiency (5-20%) supply hexes in urban hexes. These way one can simulate the Siege of Leningrad or Sevastopol quite well.

Thanks. The "Operation Neva" results seem to counter the claims as well.

But, I will make a full investigation in due course. Stay tuned.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


(...) what I saw as a "discrepancy" in Sekadegas's testimony, the fact is, testimonial evidence just isn't enough. We must have hard data.

If somebody tells me my house is on fire i'll not wait, asking the guy for further proofs. I'd run and check for myself...

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


(...) what I saw as a "discrepancy" in Sekadegas's testimony, the fact is, testimonial evidence just isn't enough. We must have hard data.

If somebody tells me my house is on fire i'll not wait, asking the guy for further proofs. I'd run and check for myself...

All things are not that simple. [8|]