Matrix Games Forums

Engineering capability is expressed as a percentage in the unit report. As far as repairing bridges is concerned:
1) Is this the % chance it will repair the bridge per turn?
2) Are engineering abilities cumulative? For instance, if I really,REALLY want the bridge repaired will stacking more than one Eng. unit speed the process?

I have had an Eng. unit trying to repair a bridge for several turns, which is realistic as bridges aren't something that you can slap together quickly. Just wondering if there was a way to speed the process.

Sprocket62

Hehe, I wasn't sure my IL-40 destroyed the bridges near Pusan or is it anotehr one matey?

Some posts shedding some light on the subject...

tm.asp?m=2619943&mpage=1&key=engineers�
tm.asp?m=2465230&mpage=1&key=engineers�

Seriously... depends how many RR Eng and regular Eng are in your unit as well as... they normally start working like ants with movement points left. Also check some HQs in some scenarios got Eng capability, they can be used to repair bridges, too. Which scenario are you playing and still 3.2.9?

Only units with an Engineering Capability can build bridges, however. The attempt will consume the unit’s entire Movement Allowance for a Turn. The chance of success is equal to the unit’s Engineering Capability.

But yes, it would be interesting to know the formula or a probability, factors etc. Supply, weather, the lot... what determines the unit's capability? the Eng squads, proficiency, etc.?

Klink

That does open up a whole can of worms. Proficiency, supply, Cooperation levels? The manual mentions cooperation in terms of combat, but what about Engineers? My guess is that hammers and nails are the same no matter what formation your with. The question relates to 3.2. I just started checking out 3.4, all of the new options etc.. I guess the questions applies to that as well.

I think supply too. Red makes them less likely to succeed if I recall correctly.

Sprocket,

My understanding is that in 3.2 the engineering pct. shown in the unit report is the numeric value that has to be greater than the 'random' number (0 to 99) to have the bridge/RR/etc succeed.

My experience with 3.2 is that a) depends on the scenario; b) eng. capabilities including RR or major ferry or minor ferry; c) supply & readiness level; d) MPs remaining e)terrain/environment/enemy presence -- in that order. I have _never_ had success with multiple stacks of engineers and only occassionally with trying a 2nd unit in that same hex in the same turn. Having the formation HQ present in the hex did not seem to help. It really came down to the pseudo roll of dice for a unit with as much of its starting percentage as possible.
I did not find cooperation to matter to engineering -- in fact, I wound up using British Corps HQs (with RR capabilities) to rebuild RR hexes all through the so-called US sector in the Bitter Victory scenario. Why the British and Canadian XXX Hqs were better than any of a dozen US eng. battalions, I dunno, but it worked like a charm.

Now -- 3.4 -- and again, just my limited experiences.
It is a little different with 3.4. I would move MPs remaining higher in priority in my list; and as with everything else in 3.4, supply matters more. I suspect cooperation will matter more as well, although the Polish engineers and Canadian engineers in Rimini do not freely cooperate and those units rebuilt bridges with a high degree of success no matter what colors the units around wore (except Wehrmacht grey). But scenarios matter -- in Rimini almost every unit has some eng. ability so that helps the actual eng units.

HTH

I guess I have to try and get as many of the variables as much in my favor as I can. So far my experience of trying to repair a bridge with 2 Eng. units in the hex doesn't seem to speed the process either. I thought 2 chances per turn might work. I think I'll stick to 1 unit in the future.
Thanks all,
 
Sprocket62

I usually stick with one unit...I need as many as I have in the Russian front scenarios! Now if splitting an engineering had the same effect for all 3, I think I would have a reasonable gripe [:)]...but I haven't put it to the test, ans the design team and large number of more experienced players [&o] that I have not complained about it.

No offence ment to Panama...he's way more experienced than me [&o]...I ment Curtis, Ralph, and other TAOW folk heroes [&o].

Prussian Tom,

Just for kicks, be advised that Curtis LeMay is really Bob Cross, eh? Not that the name change makes much difference, LOL!

The things you lear from the guys who have the experience. I just sent Bob a "Thank you note for the Russian Front scenarios. I guess I have to add N. Afrike to that list.[X(]

One last note on multiple engineer units trying to repair a bridge. I just started using 3.4, I'm playing the Korean War tutorial as the U.N. forces. I have destroyed a bridge with air strikes at 16,34. The A.I. has a stack of what looks like ALL of his engineers on the bridge which I am now happly bombing to smithereens! And the bridge is still down to boot.

Hi All. Sorry to resurrect an old thread but I'm having a very strange problem while hotseating the American Civil War 1861-1865 scenario. I mentioned it to Silvanski via PM but since I sent the message I did a little testing and now am more confused than ever. Here is the situation:

As the North, I have two engineer units, one with 36% engineering and the other with 25%. Between these two units I have tried to repair broken bridges at least 16 times with no successes. Not only that but no bridges have repaired themselves either. Every blown bridge remains blown since the start of the scenario (23 turns in).

So I made a copy of the scenario and made two engineering units with the same engineering ability (%30) but one had a proficiency of 1% and the other of 100%. I then blew two bridges and attempted repairs. Both succeeded on their first try!

It seems pretty clear to me that I must have messed up a setting or something when starting the scenario. I've triple checked that my equipment file is in the proper sub folder and that the equipment looks OK in the scenario.

Any ideas?

ORIGINAL: jakobscalpel

Hi All. Sorry to resurrect an old thread but I'm having a very strange problem while hotseating the American Civil War 1861-1865 scenario. I mentioned it to Silvanski via PM but since I sent the message I did a little testing and now am more confused than ever. Here is the situation:

As the North, I have two engineer units, one with 36% engineering and the other with 25%. Between these two units I have tried to repair broken bridges at least 16 times with no successes. Not only that but no bridges have repaired themselves either. Every blown bridge remains blown since the start of the scenario (23 turns in).

So I made a copy of the scenario and made two engineering units with the same engineering ability (%30) but one had a proficiency of 1% and the other of 100%. I then blew two bridges and attempted repairs. Both succeeded on their first try!

It seems pretty clear to me that I must have messed up a setting or something when starting the scenario. I've triple checked that my equipment file is in the proper sub folder and that the equipment looks OK in the scenario.

Any ideas?

I think you're out-thinking yourself here. The listed repair chance should already reflect proficiency, etc -- so if you made two units that both had a 30% chance of fixing a bridge, each should have a 30% chance of fixing the bridge, whatever their proficiency.

For what it's worth, I've always assumed that adding more engineer units would help. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Each engineer unit takes its percentage 'shot' -- and that percentage already reflects proficiency, readiness, etc.

Thanks for the reply! You are likely correct that the proficiency is irrelevant and that any effect it has should already be reflected in the stated percentage. I did some additional tests with my current scenario and was able to fix two bridges in 12 subsequent attempts at 36% engineering. If you add in the ~16 earlier attempts that is 2/28, or 7% likelihood. My guess is that there are additional complicating factors for bridge repair... perhaps ownership of surrounding hexes or something similar knocks down the odds. Of course, it is also possible that I simply had a really really bad run of luck.

[EDIT] It just occurred to me... perhaps turn length in days also causes a reduction in odds? Makes some intuitive sense that shorter duration turns might scale down bridge building success.

ORIGINAL: jakobscalpel

Thanks for the reply! You are likely correct that the proficiency is irrelevant and that any effect it has should already be reflected in the stated percentage. I did some additional tests with my current scenario and was able to fix two bridges in 12 subsequent attempts at 36% engineering. If you add in the ~16 earlier attempts that is 2/28, or 7% likelihood. My guess is that there are additional complicating factors for bridge repair... perhaps ownership of surrounding hexes or something similar knocks down the odds. Of course, it is also possible that I simply had a really really bad run of luck.

[EDIT] It just occurred to me... perhaps turn length in days also causes a reduction in odds? Makes some intuitive sense that shorter duration turns might scale down bridge building success.

Mebbe. One could adjust the turn length right quick and see if all the listed percentages change. If they do, evidently it's factored into the value you see. If not, then what you describe should happen.

...in an ideal world, of course.

When I first started this topic I thought that there must be more that affected bridge repair like terrain, turn length, etc... It seems to me now that it really is a matter of statistics. Keep in mind that a unit with a 30% chance of repairing a bridge also has a 70% chance of failing each time it tries. Also, the statistics work when applied over a large numbers of attempts. 10 or 20 tests might not get a perfect 30/70 result. Keeping the chance of failure in mind, it no longer seems strange that several attempts in a row should fail.

I would like to suggest that engineering capability should be cumulative just like attack strength is. It makes sense to me that all of the engineer squads would be working together rather than making individual and separate attempts.

I'd like to compare it to a large construction project. There are usually a number of different contractors involved (units), labor unions, etc.. Yet they all work collectively, at the same time, on the same ,project.

P.S. Perhaps cumulative engineer capability might help with the parallel river/road issue being discussed in the Comprehensive Wish List.

ORIGINAL: Sprocket62

When I first started this topic I thought that there must be more that affected bridge repair like terrain, turn length, etc... It seems to me now that it really is a matter of statistics. Keep in mind that a unit with a 30% chance of repairing a bridge also has a 70% chance of failing each time it tries. Also, the statistics work when applied over a large numbers of attempts. 10 or 20 tests might not get a perfect 30/70 result. Keeping the chance of failure in mind, it no longer seems strange that several attempts in a row should fail.

I would like to suggest that engineering capability should be cumulative just like attack strength is. It makes sense to me that all of the engineer squads would be working together rather than making individual and separate attempts.

I'd like to compare it to a large construction project. There are usually a number of different contractors involved (units), labor unions, etc.. Yet they all work collectively, at the same time, on the same ,project.

P.S. Perhaps cumulative engineer capability might help with the parallel river/road issue being discussed in the Comprehensive Wish List.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if the total comes to more than 100%, bridge repair that turn should be guaranteed.

Maybe...maybe not. At the level TOAW operates at, there could be all kinds of unknowns that turn up. One of the bridge piers needs to be replaced...and it's in deep water. No one's got that kind of equipment.

Needs to be shipped from Reno...repair's not going to get completed this turn. Doesn't matter how many engineers are there.

Just a thought. As Moltke said, 'no plan survives contact with the enemy.' War is all about the unpredictable and imponderable (early turn ending, for example) and the more this is simulated, the better.

What I'm saying is that maybe you shouldn't be sure of fixing that bridge on time. Just in principle. After all, if the designer wanted you to be sure of it, he could have given you an engineer unit with 100% bridge repair ability.

Good point. However bridge repair doesn't have to really mean repair. It could mean replace. I'm including a link to info on some substantial pontoon bridges. I'm sure that you are familiar with pontoon bridges, but some of these are really large. The one in the Greco-Roman section is my favorite. Portable harbors are possible as well.

To be honest, I've come to accept the bridge repair as it is. As long as everyone knows that percent means per 100. A unit with a 50% chance of repairing a bridge can still fail several times in a row. However unlikely, the attempt could fail 10 times in a row. Mathematically there is no reason the successful attempts have to be distributed evenly. 50% doesn't mean every other try.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontoon_bridge

Be aware that engineering levels now vary with the unit's fraction of movement allowance left. So, if you move an engineer it will arrive with less engineering than it started with. Or, if you wait till the end of the turn to use it, most of its engineering level will have expired.

Always do your bridge repair attempts at the start of the turn if possible.

Thats right, I forgot about movement effects. I guess each round of combat reduces it as well, which is why I should make the attempt at the beginning of the turn. Honestly, I never checked on that.

Thanks for the info.