Matrix Games Forums

I've looked through the manual and cannot find a section that specifcally discusses how the attack values (number next to the crossed swords symbol in the unit panel) relate to defense values in estimating the odds of an engagement being won/lost. Also, I'd like to have a more clear sense for what the "flank attack penalty" equals.

I'm playing Vietnam 1965-68. NVA have flung themselves across the border at the Ban Don SF camp which is about 100 kliks northwest of Lac Giao (Ban Me Thuot), the capital of Dar Lac Province.

In Ban Don I have the following ARVN units:
Prof Read Supp
Inf Def: 6 62 96 96
Arm Def: 1 62 90 90
MI Def: 2 63 92 92

The camp is pre-prepped with entrenchment 100%

The NVA have surrounded the tile except for the southeast tile.

Here are the NVA units, all from the 5th NVA Div, almost surrounding:
South: Inf Atk: 5+5
SW: Arm Atk: 4+7 (river hex)
NW: Inf Atk: 5+6 (river hex)
Arm Atk: 3+3 (river hex)
North: Inf Atk: 5+5 (river hex)
NE Arm Rec Atk: 1+1 (river hex)

So, I have a chance to reinforce the SF camp this round, but I'm not sure if I need to, i.e., I don't know how to calculate my odds ratio of winning, and the manual does not seem to address the numbers in this way, but rather goes into great detail about how each squad shoots so many times, and the effect of different weapon types on different opponents, etc.

I realize that, because the game engine works in this highly detailed way (not to mention flanking effects, density effects, proficiency, etc.), a summary odds ratio might be misleading, but I'd nonetheless like to be able to come up with an at least seat of the pants number, and know that it is at least accurate short of the caveats of flanking, density, and quality checks.

Prof Read Supp Quality Check
Inf Def: 6 62 96 96 79
Arm Def: 1 62 90 90 76
MI Def: 2 63 92 92 77.5

Total defensive strength 9 * 6 (for entrenchment) = 54
Average Quality Rating = 77.5

I've got a green target density light under my stack on the left, so I'm assuming I'm about right as far as number of defenders being good to cover all the frontage, thus, I might actually make matters worse if I were to airlift in some big American unit, no?

I'm not sure if the "plus" values get added in or what?
If so it would be

South: Inf Atk: 5+5 = 10
SW: Arm Atk: 4+7 (river hex) 11 * .7 = 7.7
NW: Inf Atk: 5+6 (river hex) 11 * .7 = 7.7
Arm Atk: 3+3 (river hex) 6 * .7 = 4.2
North: Inf Atk: 5+5 (river hex) 1 * .7 = 0.7
NE Arm Rec Atk: 1+1 (river hex) 2 * .7 = 1.4

Sum attack value: 31.7

Also, all of these units are from the 5th NVA division, so whatever factor flanking amounts to would apply.

So prima facie, I've got

Total defensive strength = 54 with Qual = 77.5, and green target density
versus

Total attack strength 31.7 (if the plus values shown next to the attackers attack strengths do not figure in directly as I have shown them, then it would be even less advantageous to the attacker)

That is 1 : 0.59 odds

BUT, I do not know what the "flanking effect" is (because all the units are from the 5th NVA Div), and none of my searches in the manual reveal a specific reference to what this amounts to.

Does the flanking penalty multiply the raw attack vs defense numbers comparison? Or will it force my defenders to undergo a quality check at the beginning of the round, despite the fact that 54 vs 31.7 does not reflect a "large difference between the combined attack strengths of your current unit when the attack is ordered and the combined defense strengths of the enemy units in the defending location"??

To further clarify this, I set my whole turn, and saved it. Then before hitting complete attacks (which again burned up the whole turn despite the fact that I made SURE that all attackers were on minimize loses, and that no one who had moved attacked, and that all plan attack windows had only 10% use up amounts listed) I switched it to hot seat "neither opponent computer player." This allowed me to check out the NVA side of things.

Their supply levels were pretty low, but proficiency obviously higher than ARVN. I planned the attack, and the best projected outcome I could get was "moderate losses" and "poor chance of success" using all units on Limit attack, and some nearby arty to support. Despite this "poor chance," when I attacked, all the ARVN fled the Ban Don camp to the southeast.

So is this likely because of low proficiency producing unfavorable qualty checks for the ARVN in the face of the flanking attack which is not accounted for in the "poor" projected outcome?

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

To further clarify this, I set my whole turn, and saved it. Then before hitting complete attacks (which again burned up the whole turn despite the fact that I made SURE that all attackers were on minimize loses, and that no one who had moved attacked, and that all plan attack windows had only 10% use up amounts listed)

It's so good to see that this happens not only to me ... [8|]

A number of common misconceptions to clear up here;

The attack and defence values on the counter are an estimate, nothing more. They are never used by the game. They are just for your benefit.
Ignore the odds/loss estimate given by the combat planning dialogue. This feature doesn't really work.
The number of gold or grey boxes in the combat planning dialogue is the amount of time used prior to the attack- so if you see just one that means you're setting up with units which haven't moved. You can still get turn-burning attacks so long as at least one attacker and defender remain in action.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The attack and defence values on the counter are an estimate, nothing more. They are never used by the game. They are just for your benefit.

Well, if these are not useful for estimating how a combat will play out, what IS!? [&:]

Ignore the odds/loss estimate given by the combat planning dialogue. This feature doesn't really work.

I had noticed that they are GENERALLY on the mark. But if you say "ignore" them, then what information is a planner supposed to use in planning his attacks? Is this a bug, or something that needs to be fixed or what, because the manual certainly indicates that one should use the planner to fine tune one's attacks?

This seems to be like saying: "Always use your speedometer to keep within the speed limit, but BTW, the speedometer doesn't really work, so you should ignore the speedometer" !?! [&:]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Well, if these are not useful for estimating how a combat will play out, what IS!? [&:]

Use the force. The numbers can be a guide of course but it's best to think in terms of "exhausted infantry" or "fresh mechanised troops" rather than a 17-31 or whatever.

You'll get the hang of it. You've played wargames before, right? You should already have an idea of what will work. If it would work in the real world it'll work in a good scenario.

I had noticed that they are GENERALLY on the mark.

There are various considerations which the prediction ignores altogether. You're really best off not relying on this.

Is this a bug, or something that needs to be fixed or what, because the manual certainly indicates that one should use the planner to fine tune one's attacks?

This would be part of the fine tradition of TOAW manuals.

It's a good game- honest. You just have to forget the idea that you are going to be spoon-fed combat odds. Rommel wasn't.

Ahhh . . . I think I really could see something with the blast shield down . . .