Combat calculation?

[BigDuke66]

Is there a way to see in detail how the combat was calculated?

[1_Lzard]

Toawlog!

At least it will give you MORE, LOL! [;)]

[BigDuke66]

Thanks, where can I find it?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Thanks, where can I find it?

You can turn it on in the Opart 3.ini file. You also may want to turn on UberDude, I think it may add even more details.

It's complex, feel free to post any questions about details, and I'll try to answer them.

Here's an overall summary, I can't guarantee it's accuracy since it's from memory. In practice, I'm glossing over a lot of details.

Combat is simulataneous, both sides attack, then the results are applied. It keeps a 'losslist' that adds up and is applied after all combat results are done.

I think artillery and air are similar to soft targets, but I'm not sure. There is also counter battery fire involved.

Getting the air unit to the attack is a lot more complicated including 'furballs' and a lot of ther things I haven't looked into.

Soft targets are pretty simple, it sums that attacking strengths and the defending strength, then calculates a percentage chance and walks through the defenders seeing if each one is hit. Tracked troop carriers ( I can't think of the name for them) are affected by the stance of the unit (minimize losses, etc.)

Hard targets are more complicated. It sums that attacking strengths and the defending strength, then calculates the percentage chance and walks through the defenders, for each defender it takes 1-8 'shots' depending on the number of units on each side that fires. For each shot it sees if it is a hit by looking at the armor rating and a random angle that the shell hits at.

As I said, the combat is symmetrical, Aside from terrain effects which only apply to the defender, I don't think there's a difference between attacking and defending.

Retreats are handled by the retreating unit being subject to friction (again, I can't think of the word, I need another cup of coffee.)

Overruns are handled by the odds being over 4:1, and the damage is caused by friction.

The basic concepts are pretty simple and make a lot of sense to me. The devil is in the details.

Ralph

[BigDuke66]

Can it be that the log file isn't created when playing a PBEM game?
At least I can't find it in the TOAW folder or is it placed somewhere else?

[1_Lzard]

You should be able to read the toawlog by going into the main portion of your install and clicking on 'toawlog.txt'........it reads all scenarios but looses the info after a reload. If your into keeping said info for later, you need to copy it (quickly) and paste to a new rtf or something similar.

Another way of dealing with this is to make a shortcut (use send to desktop). Faster than going in for each 'read', eh?

[:D]

[Sker]

To have a toawlog.txt created in your installation folder you have to open the Opart.ini file, find the string toawlog and substitute N with Y.
At the next start of TOAW you should find the txt file. It's not easy to completely figure out what's going on and it may take a lot of time to analyze even a single combat, but if you have the patience you can try[:)]

[el cid]

Looking at the TOAWlog file, and gathering from what Ralph says above:

After it states thet anti-armor begings, it shows:

Defending unit under fire: 38 Tk Brig (attrit: 546)

Smite: SOVIET 1/6th Army, 38 Tk Brig, (anti-armor), attrition%= 7.

The 546 is actually the attacker total anti-armor strength, but what is the attrition=7%, is it this the chance that each individual tank will get shot at? How is it calculated?

Then it shows a number of units that get shot at two times. Example:
AXIS weapons firing on SOVIET T-34/76 (late).
75mm AT Gun current terrain/lighting/weather dependent accuracy: 33%.
T-34/76 (late) target cross section bias: 97%.
75mm AT Gun current effective accuracy vs. T-34/76 (late): 32%.
No hit on SOVIET T-34/76 (late) by AXIS 75mm AT Gun. (shot missed)
75mm AT Gun current terrain/lighting/weather dependent accuracy: 33%.
T-34/76 (late) target cross section bias: 97%.
75mm AT Gun current effective accuracy vs. T-34/76 (late): 32%.
No hit on SOVIET T-34/76 (late) by AXIS 75mm AT Gun. (shot missed)

I imagine that particular T-34/76 has missed the 6% chance it had to get shot at. But why is it shot at by the 75mm AT and not by a 50mm AT gun? What determines what weapon of the attcaker inventory takes a shot at the T-34/76?

Thanks if you have the time to answer this.

[el cid]

I ran some tests with a simple scenario where 5 MatildasII attacked 10 Panzer IV.

When I changed from having both units in the open without entrenchment, to having the defending unit Fortified, the results were logical. All the values of the defending units increased substantially, and this was refelcted in the outcome.

However, when I placed the defending unit, still fortified, on a urban terrain the results were not as expected. The defending unit was wiped out. The reason, the accuracy of the Matildas increased from 10% (in open vision) to 50% (restricted vision), However the accuracy of the Panzer remained at 10%, as if the Matildas were still in the open.

I though combat took place on the defender terrain.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: el cid

I ran some tests with a simple scenario where 5 MatildasII attacked 10 Panzer IV.

When I changed from having both units in the open without entrenchment, to having the defending unit Fortified, the results were logical. All the values of the defending units increased substantially, and this was refelcted in the outcome.

However, when I placed the defending unit, still fortified, on a urban terrain the results were not as expected. The defending unit was wiped out. The reason, the accuracy of the Matildas increased from 10% (in open vision) to 50% (restricted vision), However the accuracy of the Panzer remained at 10%, as if the Matildas were still in the open.

I though combat took place on the defender terrain.

Can you please post or email a copy of those scenarios?

Thanks,
Ralph

[el cid]

Here is the scenario. This is with version 3.2.29

[el cid]

and here the Toawlog

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: el cid
I imagine that particular T-34/76 has missed the 6% chance it had to get shot at. But why is it shot at by the 75mm AT and not by a 50mm AT gun? What determines what weapon of the attcaker inventory takes a shot at the T-34/76?

It's the one that has the best chance to hit. If there are several with a chance over 100%, then it's a random one.

Ralph

[damezzi]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: el cid

I ran some tests with a simple scenario where 5 MatildasII attacked 10 Panzer IV.

When I changed from having both units in the open without entrenchment, to having the defending unit Fortified, the results were logical. All the values of the defending units increased substantially, and this was refelcted in the outcome.

However, when I placed the defending unit, still fortified, on a urban terrain the results were not as expected. The defending unit was wiped out. The reason, the accuracy of the Matildas increased from 10% (in open vision) to 50% (restricted vision), However the accuracy of the Panzer remained at 10%, as if the Matildas were still in the open.

I though combat took place on the defender terrain.

Can you please post or email a copy of those scenarios?

Thanks,
Ralph

That's really something worth looking into, in my opinion. Having a revised combat calculation system would already be a great legacy of this patch. It's nice to be able to thrust the system when you move a lot of units and don't have access to all calculation formulas.

Toaw was always based on a certain mystery about its combat system. To keep it this way, players must feel it is thrustworthy.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: damezzi
That's really something worth looking into, in my opinion. Having a revised combat calculation system would already be a great legacy of this patch. It's nice to be able to thrust the system when you move a lot of units and don't have access to all calculation formulas.

Toaw was always based on a certain mystery about its combat system. To keep it this way, players must feel it is thrustworthy.

There have already been quite a few changes to the combat system.

I'm taking it very seriously. While I generally don't trust these single unit scenarios, I do want to make sure I understand what's happening here and why it's happening. I've leaped to conclusions before and found I was completely wrong, so I need to be careful to understand whether this is a case that's understandbale and we decide to ignore, or if it's a serious issue we need to fix and how that will affect other scenarios.

I need to balance how serious it is, the risks in fixing it, and whether we should delay the patch to fix and test it, or plan on fixing it in 3.5, assuming it is a bug and that it will be fixed. I've started a thread on the development forum to discuss it separate from this discussion.

Ralph

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: el cid
I thought combat took place on the defender terrain.

I'm still looking into it.

Not exactly, I believe that the attacker will defend based on the terrain the unit is attacking from. I think that most terrain effect are calculated based on the terrain the unit is currently in.

When running this scenario, you need to be careful to check the clouds, precipitation can have an effect on the results.

Ralph

[el cid]

Thanks Ralph.

It is quite a luxury to actually be able to talk to the programer and get things clarified about how the game engine works.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: el cid
Thanks Ralph.

It is quite a luxury to actually be able to talk to the programer and get things clarified about how the game engine works.

No problem. People have to have faith that it's working as expected, so I don't mind explaining most things. It helps me undertand it better too.

There are a lot of very complicated factors to take into account.

Ralph

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: el cid

I ran some tests with a simple scenario where 5 MatildasII attacked 10 Panzer IV.

When I changed from having both units in the open without entrenchment, to having the defending unit Fortified, the results were logical. All the values of the defending units increased substantially, and this was refelcted in the outcome.

However, when I placed the defending unit, still fortified, on a urban terrain the results were not as expected. The defending unit was wiped out. The reason, the accuracy of the Matildas increased from 10% (in open vision) to 50% (restricted vision), However the accuracy of the Panzer remained at 10%, as if the Matildas were still in the open.

I though combat took place on the defender terrain.

Suppose you changed both attacker and defender to M1A2s. Then the accuracy of the attackers would be 85%, while the accuracy of the defenders would be 100%. And it would not be in the interest of the defender to wait till the attackers got to the urban terrain, since the defender would also gain some terrain defence benefit as well as a reduction in defender accuracy.

It's clear that if the defender lacks enhanced targeting then the defender should hold his fire till the attackers get into urban terrain. Optics 4 level is the opposite, though. But, other levels of targeting (optics 1-3) may take some figuring.

[damezzi]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Not exactly, I believe that the attacker will defend based on the terrain the unit is attacking from. I think that most terrain effect are calculated based on the terrain the unit is currently in.

I'm not sure I understood that, but would it mean that an attacker assaulting an open hex from an urban one would be considered to be in urban terrain for combat calculation purposes? If so, I don't think it makes sense.

Anyway, I think that if the matildas get 50% for restricted vision, it means they are already in urban terrain. So are the panzers, therefore they should be treated equally. Even if the matildas were in the open, I think the panzers should get the better precision percentage and not the matildas. As far as I understand it, restricted vision advantage portrays the better chance of hitting when you are able to wait for the target to come closer for not being seen too early, so that it would refer to the attacking equipment not being seen and not the defender. Panzers would be able to wait for the matildas to come closer, but the matildas would have to fire from long range or approach, risking an ambush, until finally entering the urban perimeter, where restricted vision would be applied to both.

I'm assuming restricted vision bonus was really the cause for the outcome of El Cid combat example.