Matrix Games Forums

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2026 9:58 pm Now, illustrating the other issue, here is an Army Group Formation Report before the fix and then after. Note the additional manpower after the fix:

In the percent of authorized manpower I recommend you get rid of the two positions past the decimal point. As an example, 99.16%. The base number this percentage is derived from is 0.9916 where the “1” represents 1/1000th of a unit and “6” represents 6/10,000th of a unit. Meaningless. Since your manpower number is already a fabricated number there is no need to boil down the available percentage to the 10,000th place.

You should follow Norm’s example for whole number percentages shown for proficiency and supply. Norm new his basic math and dropped the insignificant digits.

Regards

And for one brief moment the insignificant was significant.

rhinobones wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2026 4:18 am

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2026 9:58 pm Now, illustrating the other issue, here is an Army Group Formation Report before the fix and then after. Note the additional manpower after the fix:

Capture.JPG


In the percent of authorized manpower I recommend you get rid of the two positions past the decimal point. As an example, 99.16%. The base number this percentage is derived from is 0.9916 where the “1” represents 1/1000th of a unit and “6” represents 6/10,000th of a unit. Meaningless. Since your manpower number is already a fabricated number there is no need to boil down the available percentage to the 10,000th place.

You should follow Norm’s example for whole number percentages shown for proficiency and supply. Norm new his basic math and dropped the insignificant digits.

Regards

Proficiency and Supply are integers that range from 1 to 150 max. Three digits max. There was nothing for ole Norm to drop. Whereas the Authorized Fraction has underlying numbers that can literally be in the millions. I posted a Formation Report for the Top German formation that had 1.8 million men. And an OOB report for the Axis that had 2.2 million men. If I had switched over to the Soviets the numbers would be in the 5-6 million range. I just don't see that five significant digits are too much info when it has real significance. Losses can be huge and a unit or formation that is down to a tiny fraction of its original strength will benefit from the additional precision.

Here's an argument against presenting such precision;

Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2026 7:51 pm

golden delicious wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2026 7:01 pm

Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2026 12:07 am Was that board game keeping track of individual vehicles, guns and squads?

...Instead you need to get a feel for what your force is capable of and go with your gut. That's what a real commander does.

+1

From https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... cf02736c74

I'm not sure seeing a force is at 68.73% versus 68% or 69% changes a mental calculation in this game, whether its for 5 million men or 250 men, but no decimal places is visually "cleaner". My quick calculation would look at a number approaching 60% versus a number approaching 70% to be a determiner, but seeing 68.73% versus 69% is not going to make me change an action other than first having to round up 68.73% to 69% in my head.

Cpl GAC wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2026 10:46 am Here's an argument against presenting such precision;

Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2026 7:51 pm

golden delicious wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2026 7:01 pm

...Instead you need to get a feel for what your force is capable of and go with your gut. That's what a real commander does.

+1

From https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... cf02736c74

First of all, you've chopped off most of what Ben posted above, including the part I was mostly agreeing with: TOAW obsoleted Combat Results Tables and their columns.

I'm not sure seeing a force is at 68.73% versus 68% or 69% changes a mental calculation in this game, whether its for 5 million men or 250 men, but no decimal places is visually "cleaner". My quick calculation would look at a number approaching 60% versus a number approaching 70% to be a determiner, but seeing 68.73% versus 69% is not going to make me change an action other than first having to round up 68.73% to 69% in my head.

As I explained to Rhinobones, it's a dynamic range issue. When the unit gets whittled down to a tiny fraction the extra precision pays off. Big difference between a unit at 1.49% and 0.01%. Yet without the extra precision both would be at 1%. That's an extreme example but it applies the smaller the unit gets.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2026 4:14 pm Big difference between a unit at 1.49% and 0.01% . . . extreme example

Think the extreme example is a bit absurd. You're calculating the 1/10,000th position for units that have long since evaporated. The extra digits are not relevant and are inconsistent with TOAW displays established by Norm.

Regards

I'll not short Ben. Here's the whole context less your +1 and with my highlights:

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2026 5:24 am

golden delicious wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2026 7:01 pm

Curtis Lemay wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2026 12:07 am Was that board game keeping track of individual vehicles, guns and squads?

What this really does for the game is take away the calculations that a player makes a board game. You're no longer looking at your pieces and working out how to get into that magic 4:1 attack odds column; this is a totally artificial process. Instead you need to get a feel for what your force is capable of and go with your gut. That's what a real commander does.

Yeah - this is the real magic. Somehow the game introduced so many numbers that trying to use them became impossible. There is so much science of war that the only way to handle it is to treat it like the art of war. There is no way for a human to number crunch their way forward. I don't even look at the odds when setting up attacks. It is not a worthwhile piece of information.

My point is that for all the game's data accuracy players are still processing it at a more simplified level. Unit Health is color coded in five ranges, and that works just fine to assess almost every situation. % of Authorized Strength is information that parallels the Health information - its intuitive that green means go and more is better.

Since it was my suggestion ... I support getting rid of the two digits behind the comma in Manpower Estimate percentage display.

These are all valid arguments imho:

-I'm not sure seeing a force is at 68.73% versus 68% or 69% changes a mental calculation in this game, whether its for 5 million men or 250 men, but no decimal places is visually "cleaner". My quick calculation would look at a number approaching 60% versus a number approaching 70% to be a determiner, but seeing 68.73% versus 69% is not going to make me change an action other than first having to round up 68.73% to 69% in my head.

The extra digits are not relevant and are inconsistent with TOAW displays

My point is that for all the game's data accuracy players are still processing it at a more simplified level. Unit Health is color coded in five ranges, and that works just fine to assess almost every situation. % of Authorized Strength is information that parallels the Health information - its intuitive that green means go and more is better.

Let me add: Intuitive is the word here. Playing TOAW always has required some intuition and always has felt intuitive to a certain degree. As was Norm's intention I might think.

Yeah - this is the real magic. Somehow the game introduced so many numbers that trying to use them became impossible. There is so much science of war that the only way to handle it is to treat it like the art of war. There is no way for a human to number crunch their way forward. I don't even look at the odds when setting up attacks. It is not a worthwhile piece of information

+1


Let's look beyond the TOAW horizon for a moment:


In WitE2 players can actually set the maximum TO&E percentage of a unit or even a whole formation including subordinates all the way down the OOB. So here, this number, which is basically (though not entirely) the same as manpower percentage in TOAW, can be set by players and in the editor of the game. No digits behind the comma used here (in a game that otherwise feasts on micromanagement):


Or a historical example:

This is from a strength report of German 26. Panzer Division January 1944. The chart indicates non-armored vehicles of the division. For indicating percentages they used no digits with the bigger numbers, and only one digit interestingly with the smaller(!) numbers, which is still way more intuitive/accessible than two digits.


To be fair, in their organizational chart they consistently used one digit behind the comma to indicate manpower percentage. Which is still more intuitive than two digits - and no this is not an argument for using 1 digit behind the comma lol:


3. Panzer-Grenadier Division vehicles:

To visualize it, maybe this will help in understanding what the problem I (we) have with the two digits is.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2026 10:01 pm Now here is the top German Formation Report before and after the fix:

Capture1.jpg (98.56 KiB) Viewed 985 times

Actually when I suggested it, I had this in mind which would be perfectly sufficient:


I think adding the line (% of Auth.) is not necessary. Keep it simple thus easier to access, don't overload the GUI. There is already so much going on with the hierarchy module GUI. It is kind of self explanatory and for those that wonder what that percentage means there is the manual respectively the What's New doc.

You can even keep the word Estimate as originally without GUI/information overload as it actually IS an estimation given the numbers that are used are based, but generic and would deviate in bigger or smaller parts from historical or real life counterparts.

I like "% of Authorization". It stamps a sense of history and reality to the situation. But, the term gets a bit sloppy or meaningless as one goes back in time or with guerilla forces.

Plus, all these years of research I did on Isengard Orc TOEs will then be for naught. Books will be thrown if the Screamin' 53rd shows up at less than full Authorization. Forget just one Nazgul and there will be three threads... I know how this place is.

Cpl GAC wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2026 9:26 am Plus, all these years of research I did on Isengard Orc TOEs will then be for naught. Books will be thrown if the Screamin' 53rd shows up at less than full Authorization. Forget just one Nazgul and there will be three threads... I know how this place is.

Cpl GAC wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2026 6:41 pm
My point is that for all the game's data accuracy players are still processing it at a more simplified level. Unit Health is color coded in five ranges, and that works just fine to assess almost every situation.

But the raw numbers are still available in full for when you want the details about supply, readiness, and equipment levels.

% of Authorized Strength is information that parallels the Health information - its intuitive that green means go and more is better.

It's % of Authorized Manpower, not Strength. This remains a mostly "chrome" issue and probably not advisable to be used in place of combat strength. It tells you something about the unit/formation/force's situation, but it's mostly for immersion/enjoyment.

Telumar wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2026 6:34 am

Yeah - this is the real magic. Somehow the game introduced so many numbers that trying to use them became impossible. There is so much science of war that the only way to handle it is to treat it like the art of war. There is no way for a human to number crunch their way forward. I don't even look at the odds when setting up attacks. It is not a worthwhile piece of information

+1

I would definitely look at the odds. The counter numbers may give a clue about the odds but soft vs. hard parameters inside those numbers can torpedo your plans if you send massed light infantry against Tiger II's supported by hordes of artillery.

In general, in the real world, commanders want as much info about their own forces and those of the enemy as possible. TOAW tries to reflect that.

Let's look beyond the TOAW horizon for a moment:


In WitE2 players can actually set the maximum TO&E percentage of a unit or even a whole formation including subordinates all the way down the OOB. So here, this number, which is basically (though not entirely) the same as manpower percentage in TOAW, can be set by players and in the editor of the game. No digits behind the comma used here (in a game that otherwise feasts on micromanagement):


witetoeperc.jpg

I don't see any manpower figures in WitE2. TOAW is about to leave them in the dust!

Or a historical example:

This is from a strength report of German 26. Panzer Division January 1944. The chart indicates non-armored vehicles of the division. For indicating percentages they used no digits with the bigger numbers, and only one digit interestingly with the smaller(!) numbers, which is still way more intuitive/accessible than two digits.


26. Pz.jpg


To be fair, in their organizational chart they consistently used one digit behind the comma to indicate manpower percentage. Which is still more intuitive than two digits - and no this is not an argument for using 1 digit behind the comma lol:


26 pz org.jpg


3. Panzer-Grenadier Division vehicles:


3 pzg.jpg

Those charts were hand-drawn and hand-calculated. If they had had computers they would have had far more detail.

Telumar wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2026 7:27 am
I think adding the line (% of Auth.) is not necessary. Keep it simple thus easier to access, don't overload the GUI.

It occurs to me that a better place for that info would be on the info panel => when hoovering over the manpower text. That would simplify the text.

But, I continue to see the decimal places as beneficial for dynamic range reasons. When the unit is whittled down to a single digit left of the decimal point the digits right of it become useful. And I don't see them as burdensome at all.

Curtis Lemay wrote:

Yeah - this is the real magic. Somehow the game introduced so many numbers that trying to use them became impossible. There is so much science of war that the only way to handle it is to treat it like the art of war. There is no way for a human to number crunch their way forward. I don't even look at the odds when setting up attacks. It is not a worthwhile piece of information

I would definitely look at the odds. The counter numbers may give a clue about the odds but soft vs. hard parameters inside those numbers can torpedo your plans if you send massed light infantry against Tiger II's supported by hordes of artillery.

In general, in the real world, commanders want as much info about their own forces and those of the enemy as possible. TOAW tries to reflect that.

What I - and I think the original poster meant - mostly applies to us veteran players. While I appreciate the new combat planner I rarely use it. Of course no player would attack a heavy tank battalion with a military police unit, but we do have enough "feel" for the TOAW to know what works and what not without crunching numbers and looking at odds in the combat planer.

Curtis Lemay wrote:I don't see any manpower figures in WitE2. TOAW is about to leave them in the dust!

Don't worry - TOAW already left them in the dust . The game has - imho - a crappy time/turn/movement system. Imagine TOAW without combat rounds and without battlefield time stamps.

Curtis Lemay wrote:It occurs to me that a better place for that info would be on the info panel => when hoovering over the manpower text. That would simplify the text.

That's a good idea! The info panel might also be the realm that could harbour the two digits behind the comma

Curtis Lemay wrote:But, I continue to see the decimal places as beneficial for dynamic range reasons. When the unit is whittled down to a single digit left of the decimal point the digits right of it become useful. And I don't see them as burdensome at all.

Where is the benefit of knowing that it does not have 5% authorized manpower, but 5.38%? Hell yes with that 0,38% more I still can throw them into the meatgrinder. Come on...

Telumar wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2026 7:51 am
Of course no player would attack a heavy tank battalion with a military police unit, ...

I've seen plenty of players do so - and then bellyache about TOAW not being fair, etc. I've even done it:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 3#p1604383

Curtis Lemay wrote:I don't see any manpower figures in WitE2. TOAW is about to leave them in the dust!

Screenshot 2026-07-26 092414.png


Don't worry - TOAW already left them in the dust . The game has - imho - a crappy time/turn/movement system. Imagine TOAW without combat rounds and without battlefield time stamps.

OK, I missed that. I also missed a couple of other things (see attached).

Where is the benefit of knowing that it does not have 5% authorized manpower, but 5.38%? Hell yes with that 0,38% more I still can throw them into the meatgrinder. Come on...

5.49 / 4.50 = 1.22 => 22% difference.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2026 4:08 pm
5.49 / 4.50 = 1.22 => 22% difference.

Sure. From the perspective Of Maximum Authorized Manpower, the range between 4,5% and 5,49% is 0,99% of total. Much less dramatic number.

Do what you want and keep the two digits. But keep in mind this is a game, not a high precision machine control system you are working on. While I welcome all kind of detailed in-game info and nerdy statistics here it is not warranted.

However I do not get what you wanted to tell me by highlighting 76,2mm elements and Combat Values in the Wite screenshots
EDIT: That they use two digits behind the comma for CV (first is Attack and second behind the slash is Defence) ? Yes, but this value is used in combat calculations and Estimated Manpower % is not used in any calculation at all. And having the precise calibre in equipment names is as much related to the issue we have here like apples are to nuts. Never heard you bothering about the standard TOAW eqp db having a 76mm Howitzer as a Soviet equipment and not a 76.2mm Howitzer...

Telumar wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2026 7:51 am

Curtis Lemay wrote:It occurs to me that a better place for that info would be on the info panel => when hoovering over the manpower text. That would simplify the text.

That's a good idea! The info panel might also be the realm that could harbour the two digits behind the comma

Unfortunately, it turns out that the info panel is only used by graphical objects like buttons, checkboxes, etc. Straight text doesn't use it. TOAW still has things to teach me.

Tool tios then?

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2026 8:16 pm

Telumar wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2026 7:51 am

Curtis Lemay wrote:It occurs to me that a better place for that info would be on the info panel => when hoovering over the manpower text. That would simplify the text.

That's a good idea! The info panel might also be the realm that could harbour the two digits behind the comma

Unfortunately, it turns out that the info panel is only used by graphical objects like buttons, checkboxes, etc. Straight text doesn't use it. TOAW still has things to teach me.

Fortunately you have the power to change that