Matrix Games Forums

This is a test I really wish someone points me where I was wrong, because I can't figure. If I'm not wrong there is a bug invalidating one of the most interesting concepts on Toaw, in my opinion, at least, since this is a subjective matter. Anyway, I think cooperation limits is what prevents people from just mixing units arbitrarily. I have read some people saying they don't pay much attention to cooperation levels and perhaps (only perhaps) the answer for this is the results shown on this test.

I have always tried to keep my cooperative units together when playing, but much for faith in the manual, since noticing the effect of each of the multiple variables that affect combat in the middle of a game is difficult. This test may change my behaviour (very sadly, in fact). I was doing these tests to measure the influence of each variable, in order to complement my multipliers reference chart, but came across the fact that cooperation may be useless, and what is worse, may have an inverted effect (I mean cooperation in combat; not the movement and supply effect).

Perhaps I have used a not very appropriate setup, since the units I used have very simple composition, but I don't think the effect should be based on strict conditions.
The first three lines show attacker with better odds than on the other cases. This is the only situation in which cooperative units seem to get slightly better results. In fact I wouldn't even say better, but different.
The next two sets of attack show no advantage for cooperative units.
Ok, i could live with no combat advantage for cooperative units, since they still got the supply and movement advantages, but in the last three lines I show the results for defending with different levels of cooperation. I though: if we don't have advantage to cooperative attacks, maybe for defense. Well, the numbers show a HUGE advantage for uncooperative defense. In fact, I didn't even need the results to notice it while running the combats. I have run them 26 times; not as much as my previous test, but due to the relative redundant character of those comparisons and the consistent results, I don't think more is needed.

Ok, in this case I really would like someone showing me I'm wrong; I would really like to see cooperation working well, since this is an important tool to make players try to keep their formation units together.

AFAIK formation cooperation level never affected combats results in the "pure" sense.

- Poor cooperation means complex combats thus bigger chance burning combats rounds.
- Poor cooperation means a lower chance of uncooperative artillery units supporting your units when in reserve and tatical reserve status.
- Poor cooperation means less supply bonus by nearby HQ's units.
- Poor cooperation means lower chance of uncooperative tactical or reserve units responding to enemy attacks.

So (unless something changed on the lastest versions and that would be a surprise...), I'm sorry but your test doesn't make much sense.

- Poor cooperation means complex combats thus bigger chance burning combats rounds.

That's why I made the effort of counting the rounds used in combat and they don't show much evidence of it.

If they don't affect combat results, how would you explain the great advantage the defensive units are getting (last three lines). And you can see they are gradual, based on the level of cooperation. Even if I committed an error, it would be a hell of a coincidence.
I'm sorry, but your arguments don't make much sense.
I may be wrong, but I would like someone to tell how I may have setup those test in the wrong way or what those numbers mean; not pure denial.

ORIGINAL: damezzi

- Poor cooperation means complex combats thus bigger chance burning combats rounds.

That's why I made the effort of counting the rounds used in combat and they don't show much evidence of it.

If they don't affect combat results, how would you explain the great advantage the defensive units are getting (last three lines).

Sorry Damezzi but you don't understand what I'm refering about combat rounds. There are only 10 in a turn.

You're still working around combat results and that's exactly oposite to what said in my post: "formation cooperation level never affected combats results in the "pure" sense"

Look at the left column: this is the sum of all the combat rounds used in all the combats I run. I know what combat rounds are Sekadegas.

And still, the last three columns show a clear influence in the results (success of keeping the position or being dislodged). It may somehow be linked to the number of rounds used in individual combats, but as you can see, in the end, the number of rounds used in all combats are approximately the same even if the success of uncooperative units to keep the position is clearly greater. And after all, cooperative units should have a greater chance of holding the position, independently of what variable is causing it.

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Look at the left column: this is the sum of all the combat rounds used in all the combats I run. I know what combat rounds are Sekadegas.

And still, the last three columns show a clear influence in the results (success of keeping the position or being dislodged). It may somehow be linked to the number of rounds used in individual combats, but as you can see, in the end, the number of rounds used in all combats are approximately the same even if the success of uncooperative units to keep the position is clearly greater. And after all, cooperative units should have a greater chance of holding the position, independently of what variable is causing it.

I don't have nothing to add...

COOP ARENA

Below you see the `Coop Arena`, a scenario I have created for testing the influence of cooperation on combat, to ratify or deny the results I found on the previous tests.
I have placed Two groups of units front to front with objectives on the opposing side.
To the left you can see a group of uncooperative units and to the right a group of cooperative units. The settings for all formations and units are as shown on the image.
I have set Elmer to run those test on the advance mode with ‘ignore losses’ order emphasis.

I have run the scenario 52 times; half with cooperative units as player 1 and half with uncooperative units as player 1, to nullify asymmetries. Each run ends on turn 18 and twice I have discarded extreme results (one for each side), when all defensive units evaporated and advance was unhindered distorting the results.

The table shows the sum for all losses penalties for both sides (since neither side could get to the objective in time, the penalties represent losses only); the sum for all hexes each side was able to advance; the sum for surviving units difference (if player 1 has 4 surviving units at the end of the scenario and player to has 2, then this number is +2 for player 1), useful only as an indication of the tendency to make opponent units evaporate; and a victory number (each time a player finished the scenario with lower losses AND on the opponent side I considered it a victory). This last value is a little arbitrary, but shows victory tendency based on individual runs.

There is no artillery or HQ, since I wanted to see the effects of cooperation on combat, not in supply boost from HQs or support chances. Non-cooperative group shows a HUGE advantage. More than 4 times the number of opponent evaporation; more than 4 times the advance in number of hexes; slightly less loss penalties and 3 times more frequent victories.

Well, again I say that maybe this can change with a different setup, but the fact is that this shouldn’t happen with any setup. Equality would be acceptable, but advantage for uncooperative units is a complete distortion.

I have set the scenario as shown on the image and after the surprising results I double checked it and couldn’t find an error. Checked supply points, objective, terrain possession, unit attributes etc. Anyway, maybe I forgot some variable, but my previous tests have shown an advantage for uncooperative units on the defense, so…

I can send the scenario, if someone want to check for an error. I really think this deserved a look by the design team. There are things in Toaw which I would like to see implemented, like more gradual fortification, more detailed local reserve order, but the game does very well without those improvements and every player has its own list of wishes, but cooperation is a major factor and an inversion in its logic can distort a lot of scenarios. I have always tried to keep my formations together, but now I may begin mixing some uncooperative units in stacks to boost defense… very unrealistic.

Or maybe I’m just wrong and that’s why I would like someone to take a look at this scenario.

Is this bug still present? I was on the borderline of buying TOAW3 but this bug was the deciding decision for me not to buy, got WITP Admiral's Edition instead. If this game is no longer being supported to the point that major bugs such as this will not be corrected I will not want to buy this game.

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Is this bug still present? I was on the borderline of buying TOAW3 but this bug was the deciding decision for me not to buy, got WITP Admiral's Edition instead. If this game is no longer being supported to the point that major bugs such as this will not be corrected I will not want to buy this game.

I'm working on a patch. I suspect that this bug has been around for a long time without anyone noticing, so even though it definitely needs to be fixed, I don't think that it has a major impact on play. Once I find out where the bug is, I'll have a better idea of how long it may have been in TOAW.

Ralph

Has this bug been fixed yet?

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Has this bug been fixed yet?

Fixed in 3.4.