a new suppression fire modifier

[WanderingHead]

I've made a mod-ability change that allows one to take the usual evasion modifiers (out-of-supply, winter, first winter, frozen, fired-at, etc) and generate a die roll modifier for suppression fire.

The way it would work is

Code: Select all

suppression_modifier = a*(base_evasion - modified_evasion)

where "a" is a configurable value. a=0 is the current state of affairs.

I think that it is a huge improvement to bring this in to the STOCK GAME, in addition to any mods. Right now, because of the mechanics of suppression, these evasion modifiers have almost NO EFFECT on suppression fire. If an artillery is out of supply, and fires against an evasion-8 infantry unit, the evasion is bumped to 9 ... for suppression fire this harldy makes a difference at all.

The upside of this is that all of these critical adjustments just don't matter as much as they should, nor I think as much as they were intended to.

I suggest that a=2 (given the doubling for suppression, this is like making it 4).

One interesting side effect is that it finally gives something I have long wanted, a complimentary relationship between fighters and flak. Since fighters fire first, attacking air units will have their evasion reduced when the flak fires. It hardly matters now, but with this change it will actually make the flak a little more effective when they get to work with fighters!

I will certainly incorporate this in the Global Glory mod, but I would like to also pull it into the stock scenarios. But I can't do that unless I get support from YOU!

Please chime in with support!

[christian brown]

Chiming in!

[GKar]

Sounds good to me! 

[Forwarn45]

I think I support this change - but it took me a little while to figure it out. Perhaps you can give us an example or two of how it works now versus how the proposed change would affect it?

[WanderingHead]

BTW, in my mind the value for "a" could be either 2 (after doubling, it is like 4) or 3 (->6). I am not sure which is best, but I think a=2 is the minimum it should be.

Example 1
Imagine that a targeted infantry has base evasion of 8, but is out of supply. Its evasion becomes 7. Then it is fired upon by an artillery with LA 8.

Forget all the other modifiers that may apply, the current suppression result is

Code: Select all

suppression_as_is = (8d6) / (1d7)

I.e., sum 8 dice of 6 sides (the artillery attack value), divide by one "die" with 7 sides (the infantry "evasion roll"). There is a 1-in-7 chance of the dreaded divide-by-1, which is not much different from the 1-in-8 you'd get if the infantry were supplied.

With my proposed change, it would become

Code: Select all

suppression_my_proposal 
 = (8d6 + 2 (modifier for evasion adjustment) + 2 (double up for suppression)) / (1d7) 
 = (8d6 + 4) / (1d7)

Example 2
An attacking fighter has evasion of 7.

Air-to-air is as normal, and that fighter is fired upon by a defending fighter.

In land-to-air, the attacking fighter now has an adjusted evasion of 6 (-1 for "fired upon"). Let the flak have AA=6 (I can't remember what it is supposed to be ...), then the suppression from the flak would be

Code: Select all

suppression_my_proposal 
 = (6d6 + 2 (modifier for evasion adjustment) + 2 (double up for suppression)) / (1d6) 
 = (6d6 + 4) / (1d6)

The fighter complimented the flak, because it reduced the evasion which gave the flak an attack bonus. Of course, most of the time flak will attack bombers while the fighters will attack other fighters, but still it provides a nice little complementary behavior.

[Forwarn45]

So if I am understanding this correctly - artillery would suffer an additional penalty when evasion is favorably increased. For example, in winter or in forts - evasion is increased by 1. That would trigger a penalty of 2 in either case (or 4 if it is was winter against a fort). And a penalty modifier would also apply when evasion is affected because the firer has been damaged or destroyed?

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45
So if I am understanding this correctly - artillery would suffer an additional penalty when evasion is favorably increased. For example, in winter or in forts - evasion is increased by 1. That would trigger a penalty of 2 in either case (or 4 if it is was winter against a fort). And a penalty modifier would also apply when evasion is affected because the firer has been damaged or destroyed?

Yes. Anything that adds to target evasion would cause a subtraction to the firers suppression roll, and vice versa. It just leverages all of the existing evasion adjustments and lets them have a direct and meaningful effect on suppression rolls.

The current implementation of evasion adjustments that just modifies the die of the divisor for a suppression shot does not have a big effect, and I think that it leaves the impact of things like out-of-supply far too small for suppression fire.

This came up in our current game, where I suddenly realized that all of those out of supply artillery I had surrounded were not going to suffer any meaningful firing penalty for being out of supply.

[kondor]

In principle I support this idea... Flak was very...hm... let say weak for it´s role... But I don´t have the time to carefully read what is proposed to be changed...

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: kondor
In principle I support this idea... Flak was very...hm... let say weak for it´s role... But I don´t have the time to carefully read what is proposed to be changed...

It's pretty simple really. Take whatever evasion adjustments there were for the unit being fired upon, multiply that evasion adjustment by some factor (I propose either 2 or 3, which become 4 or 6 after suppression doubling), then subtract it from the die roll for suppression fire. That way evasion modifiers have more effect for suppression fire.

[BoerWar]

Chiming in. I'm for anything that reduces the effectiveness of Art. I think it is too effective, as apparently do others based on the build pattern I'm seeing in tourney and PBEM games where fighters and artillery are about the only thing built.

[Forwarn45]

After thinking about it (and understanding the dynamic), I really like the proposed change.

[WanderingHead]

OK, some good support so far.

The remaining question is what is the value? I said a=2 at first just to be conservative, but actually I think it should be a=3.

That is, the die modifier for suppression would be -3*(sum of evasion modifiers)*2. The extra *2 is for the inherent doubling of all modifiers for suppression rolls. So ultimately, for example the out-of-supply case would be a modifier of 6 (=2*3). I just think that anything less is not really a bad enough penalty for out of supply.

[christian brown]

I have always felt that really serious factors like the Combined Arms bonus, rough terrain and even fortress status did not mean as much as they should, the aggregate difference in fighting an out of supply German unit during the first Russian Winter turn versus a totally unmodified contest is not all that striking, the effects on things like Artillery and Flak are even less pronounced. I do not think that "*3" is too much, particularly when we consider that autohits will still be present.

So, in short, you have my vote for 3.