Failed proficiency check

[gliz2]

As I play limited selection of scenarios I tried to observe any patterns on the failed proficiency check.
So far have failed to see any logic behind. Completely random event it seems that only provides for irritation.
On the FITE2 I had failed proficiency checks for Germans in first two weeks but never for Russians.
Anyway I have decided to ignore them by loading the save (I save now before executing any combats).

Can this mechnism be disabled by a player?

[LLv34_Snefens]

Not by player, but designers can set the "force proficiency" for both sides to 100 so they can't fail the check.
However, this also affects the proficiency of reconstituting units. A unit with 70% proficiency will thus reconstitue with 85%. (average of unit and force proficiency)

[gliz2]

Thx Snefens,
Seems I will have to continue with save&load.

[Lobster]

How many rounds of combat did you complete before each failed proficiency check?

This is one of the more annoying parts of this game. In the manual it says a failed check is a matter of 'bad luck'. I don't want luck telling me if my turn ends. If I have a force with high proficiency the entire force should not suddenly stop operations because of front wide 'bad luck'. If I have a force with poor proficiency and I'm stupid enough to attack round after round then it should be my stupidity that punishes me, not 'bad luck'.

The possibility of failed checks should be a matter of player choice. On for the possibility, off for no 'bad luck'.

[sPzAbt653]

You might have a scenario where the designer wants you to get nine rounds every turn, or maybe no more than one, or anything in between. These are design decisions.

[Lobster]

Your turn should not be ended because of bad luck. Mismanagement sure, but never bad luck. This is no better than turn burn. Why on earth should the entire East Front grind to a halt because of 'bad luck'? That is the same thing as turn burn. Randomness should not be a factor in how long a turn goes on. What logic defines my inability to conduct combat operations if I still have the capability to do so? Luck and randomness should have no say in it.

8.5.2. Force / Deployment Editor
Settings that Affect Both Players

(1-99) Max Rounds Per Battle

Another effect to keep in mind when setting
this value is that the chance for ending the Turn by
a “Proficiency Check” is not affected. Thus, while
players may realize more sets of Attacks throughout
their Turn, with low MRPB values, they will
conversely be more likely to have the Turn ended
(eventually) by a failed Proficiency Check, since
one is made at the end of each series of Attacks.
See Turn Over (14.1) for details.

14.2. Turn Over

§§ Your Force fails a Proficiency Check. This is
the primary use of the Force Proficiency value,
though it should be noted that the Force
Proficiency value is not the exact probability
that the Turn will continue after each series
of Attacks. To fail the check, a random check
against the Force Proficiency value must fail,
AND a random check against the number
of rounds remaining must also fail. So the
chance of failing the check increases as more
and more of the turn is expended.

If your turn ends after your combats have been
executed, there will be a message dialog telling
whether it ended because of a Force Proficiency
Check failure or because there is too little of
your turn left. So, if you get an early turn ending
you should be able to determine whether it was
due to bad luck or mismanagement.

[larryfulkerson]

Is the random failed check considered Fog Of War? How does the average player
avoid the proficiency check failure?

[sPzAbt653]

You can't always avoid it, sometimes it is bad luck, as stated in the rules.

That said, I recently reset the Force Proficiency settings for my home version of D21 to:
Germany 100% [was 70%]
Soviet 95% [was 60%]
I felt that for a scenario this size that there is too large an amount of time and effort spent on planning a turn to have a 30% chance it would end after one round. So yes, it aggravates me also at times, but like I said it is a designer choice.

[larryfulkerson]

That said, I recently reset the Force Proficiency settings for my home version of D21 to:
Germany 100%
Soviet 95%
I felt that for a scenario this size that there is too large an amount of time and effort spent on planning a turn to have a 30% chance it would end after one round. So yes, it aggravates me also at times, but like I said it is a designer choice.

Thank you for that. I'll try it.

[Curtis Lemay]

I'll just repeat a post I made years ago about eliminating the Proficiency Check failures:

But I would also disagree that early turn ending is unrealistic. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" as they say. Early turn ending provides the risk/reward aspect of trying to implement a ambitiously complex plan. Really crummy forces shouldn't be good at it and really good forces should be. What the above would do is guarantee that every force, no matter how crummy, can carry out operations with surgical precision.

Remember that the enemy basically can't respond while the phasing player does his thing. These failures provide a check on such romps.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I felt that for a scenario this size that there is too large an amount of time and effort spent on planning a turn to have a 30% chance it would end after one round.

The chance of failure is (1-Proficiency) x (1-rounds remaining). So, after one round, the chance is 0.3 x 0.1 = 3%, not 30%.

[gliz2]

Bob I would agree with Lobster. I see zero logic behind this mechanism.
You have randomness in many other mechanics like result of combats. The FPC seems like a whole fighting being stopped because Adolf broke/lost his favourite crayons.
And taking your explanation of complex planning why failure in a complex plan of capturung Murmansk should have effect of ability of forces in Ukraine?

PS. I suffered from FPC mostly after first battles execution (so after burning 2-5 rounds). And mostly with the Germans. So far I had only twice the FPC with Soviets in 1941 which seems quite strange on its own.

In the end it seems the FPC are related to just luck. Load & save and 4-5 times executed the same rounds with no FPC.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob I would agree with Lobster. I see zero logic behind this mechanism.

I just gave the logic behind it. Crummy forces shouldn't be able to carry out surgical strikes.

The FPC seems like a whole fighting being stopped because Adolf broke/lost his favourite crayons.

No. Because your offensive ran into a spoiling offensive by the enemy - or something similar. For whatever reason, the enemy had the jump on you.

PS. I suffered from FPC mostly after first battles execution (so after burning 2-5 rounds). And mostly with the Germans. So far I had only twice the FPC with Soviets in 1941 which seems quite strange on its own.

You would need hundreds of samples before you could make any statistical analysis. A few anecdotes tells you nothing.

[gliz2]

Bob I agree with the idea (I cannot see Soviets executing complex plans in 1941, however the reaction of the enemy is taken into account in the next turn where the enemy can move in the same time frame as the "attacker") but not with the execution. Either you have IGUG system, a hybrid or real-time. The FPC fails in neither of them. It seems only to be applicable to execution of combat not to movements.

Or does FPC apply also to movement?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

And taking your explanation of complex planning why failure in a complex plan of capturung Murmansk should have effect of ability of forces in Ukraine?

In a perfect world, the failures would be separated. But, statistically, there's no real difference between separate failures and simultaneous ones. So, in the example from Steve, after one round, there is a 3% chance of an FPC for any given action. Whether they all occur simultaneously or occur independently makes no difference.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob I agree with the idea (I cannot see Soviets executing complex plans in 1941, however the reaction of the enemy is taken into account in the next turn where the enemy can move in the same time frame as the "attacker") but not with the execution.

No. Without the FPC even crummy forces can carve the enemy up before he can react.

Either you have IGUG system, a hybrid or real-time. The FPC fails in neither of them. It seems only to be applicable to execution of combat not to movements.

That's why TOAW is not pure IGUG. It has features that compensate for its lack of simultaneousness. Reserve Movement, and etc. do so, and so does this feature.

Or does FPC apply also to movement?

If you get a short turn because of an FPC, any remaining unit MPs are lost. And that's realistic: Your plan fell on its ass. Now you have to stop and replan your response.

[sPzAbt653]

14.2. Turn Over
So, if you get an early turn ending
you should be able to determine whether it was
due to bad luck or mismanagement.

So a Player may be complaining about bad luck but might not even realize that they are mismanaging their turn/combats. It's not possible to give a brief outline on Turn Management, but to me one important aspect is that it could very well differ from scenario to scenario, based on all the various settings. If the turn ends before you thought it should, you have to think about what you did and keep that in mind as you play a scenario, and try not to compare different scenarios because they are most likely two different animals but with similar footprints. You may discover that if you want to have an effective offensive that you can't attack from Sevastopol to Leningrad every round, or that maybe trying to break the Alamein Line with Italian troops is not the best idea.

[Lobster]

Mismanagement is not Failed Proficiency check. It's more like not watching how many rounds a combat is going to take.

[sPzAbt653]

Oh right, I got off track [:(] I get confused trying to help people that want things historical yet don't want plans to fail [:)]

[Lobster]

Plenty of opportunity for plans to fail. Your opponent ensures that. [;)]