Matrix Games Forums

What does this setting actually do? + 50% assault value at 200% losses????? anyone actually know?

Hi Wobbly,

Well, I was hoping that someone would have answered you already as I've wondered about this myself. My experience tells me that "Shock Attack" is a sort of all-out assault which can result in a better chance for success, but also in a better chance for heavy casualties. Anyone know for sure?

Hello...

Well, it is kind of hard to explain. The combat calculations are many pages long. Assault value, for instance, is a calculated value shown to the user, as a relative indicator of strength, much like AAA value. It isn't actually used in the code, for combat calculations.

Land, sea and air combat are all written on a tactical level, even though the game is a strategic/operational level game. When you choose to attack, each squad, tank and gun fire and are fired at several times in a series of phases. The unit will need to pass a number of morale checks and leader skill checks for each of these phases and firings. If you choose to assault, the unit will press the attack. It is not like a board game, where a die roll is made to determine the winner. The computer is really playing a little game of Steel Panthers with itself.


I didn't write the land combat code, Gary did. I did write the interface, which includes the code that shows the text describing the battle and have been trying for a long time to figure out a good way to display the battle in the interface, with our graphics engine and resolution time limitations. There is far more going on, than meets the eye.

In the cases of sea and air combat, the same applies. Ships are turning and twisting, laying smoke, evading and making torpedo runs, individual aircraft are searching for enemy planes and dog fighting and everyone is making a lot of experience and skill checks. In these cases, the types and facings of guns are also very important. I did do some work on the naval and air combat calculations, for the patches, and added a bit of narrative for the player.

So, I guess the answer to your question is that an assault order causes the unit to fire more rounds from the mortars and machine guns, more individual infantry squads to charge and fire their weapons more, requires lower action/reaction rolls, all of which may produce greater casualties to enemy units and most likely cause greater casualties and disruption in friendly units.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by wobbly
What does this setting actually do? + 50% assault value at 200% losses????? anyone actually know?

Mike,

I assume that the most important variable in the mix for shock attacks is the level of fortification of the defenders. I personally have never really found a use for it due to the total lack of understanding the actual variables at play vs the extreme penalties for *guessing* wrong which translates to a failed invasion that would have been successful had the normal attack been used...

I simply look at the troops involved, plan for 3x assault value and go and take the place. By planning for 3x, I ensure that the morale/fatigue modifiers still work out to at least a 2:1 result in cases where the battle runs for 3+ days due to large numbers.

It would be great if some more info about how/what these calculations were as long term, transporting extra regiments around for a years worth of game time is an added negative drain on both ships and supplies that if understood properly would allow better resource planning.

I assume from what you have posted that the "shock" attack results in a shifting upwards of the final combat odds or does it just result in a higher number of units disabled/destroyed during the actual battle which in turn causes the odds change?

Since this type of information WAS available to the planners, it seems that we too should have it available.

I disagree with Mr Frag. Players know much more of ground combat now than people knew at the time. In jungle war, a regiment can spent a day to advance 500m while only opposed by some snipers and bunkers and be unable to know if he faces a division or a company.

A schock attack is exactly what it means: a Banzai charge where troops try not to manoeuver/take cover. Far more bloody than a normal attack but the point of the front you hit is likely to collapse sooner and before reinforcements or support arrive. If you're not strong enough to reach the enemy lines, you're likely to be slaugthered just in front of them.

As far as I know, choosing a schock attack will increase your chance of success while increasing your losses. It was impossible to predict how much more chances you will have to suceed in real life, so I don't want to know in UV.
And yes I know the rule, so I bring 3 or 4 times more troops than defenders. I will not do calculations to have just two times more troops.

Players know much more of ground combat now than people knew at the time

I'd debate that with you at great lengths, while technology may have changed over the last 4000 years to shift the odds around, ground combat itself really hasn't changed at all.

One simply picks up item "x" and hits the other guy with it until he dies. At the same time, the other guy is trying to hit you with his item "x". The only thing that has really changed is the efficency of the item "x".

Knowing and understanding how to properly use item "x" is what war gaming is all about. Without item "x", there really is no difference between a modern game modelling futuristic particle weapons and a group of longbow wielding guys.

Remove the technology and we're back to grunting as the fists land. Thats why we are called "grunts"

Hiding the details of item "x" removes the fun of war games. We are all detail freaks at heart, thats why we play wargames in the first place.

It makes little sense to me to know the exact AA ammo on a specific DD coupled with the crew's skill to use the gun mount coupled with the commanders ability to direct the crew yet not know the absolute basic piece of information about ground combat.

I'll respect your right to disagree with me, but I'd still like to have some basic understanding of what is pretty much a black hole in what is otherwise an extremely detailed game.

As long as no one can explain the value of the 3 different attack options and the three different defend options, we are obviously missing something. This is the one aspect of the game which I am completely clueless about. I just know what works by the brute force method of learning. To play a wargame should not require you to spend months in the editor to learn how to interpret the lack of documentation

When someone can ask what I consider to be a basic level question as Wobbly and stump the entire forum completely where only one of the programmers can reply on a game that has been out over a year by some very talented people, you really have to wonder.

I would reverse the question back to you:

Can you explain to me whether it is worthwhile sending a tired regiment with 25% of it's units disabled that happens to have a good leader and excellent experience back for R&R and replacing them with a fresh unit that has 0% disabled yet has a silly commander and far less skill?

I can't answer that question at all, yet from a command standpoint, it is pretty fundimental.

Shock attacks work well but need to be used judiciously. Basically, I look for odds around six to one. You can usually count of sucess then-or at least if you fail the costs to you will not be that great.

You also have to factor in experience levels and fatigue or disruption as well. If I got fresh marines going against a beat up garrison unit, I will shock them at 1 to 1 odds and be surprised if they did not go down.

As the defender, I might try a shock attack against an enemy force that is only partially landed. If sucessful, you have pretty much ruined the invasion. If you fail, you are generally not too much worse off.

Most important, never shock attack with second line troops. Only the good troops should be used for this unless you have really great odds.

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I'd debate that with you at great lengths, while technology may have changed over the last 4000 years to shift the odds around, ground combat itself really hasn't changed at all.

One simply picks up item "x" and hits the other guy with it until he dies. At the same time, the other guy is trying to hit you with his item "x". The only thing that has really changed is the efficency of the item "x".

Knowing and understanding how to properly use item "x" is what war gaming is all about. Without item "x", there really is no difference between a modern game modelling futuristic particle weapons and a group of longbow wielding guys.

Remove the technology and we're back to grunting as the fists land. Thats why we are called "grunts"

[snip]

I have trouble accepting your statement about ground combat not changing over the last 4,000 years.

Technology, tactics, techniques, and doctrine are intertwined, and the efficiences in combat have progressed as a combination of these things. It is not a simple application of technology.

And as such, modeling it should not be either.

I have trouble accepting your statement about ground combat not changing over the last 4,000 years.

Hahaha, the day you accept one of my statements without trouble, I'm going to run out and raise the flag!

Care to explain to me the difference between a guy with a rock vs a guy with a sling throwing the rock (harder) vs a guy with a muzzle propelling that bullet (sharp rock) vs a guy with a cannon propelling that shell (big rock)?

I look at it and see that two things have changed: Range and Power. To compensate for Range and Power, we have built defenses to negate the power and techniques to counter the range. Every weapon ever invented by mankind has a counter weapon and when you negate all the improvements with all the counters, you are still right back to the stone

The arms race has been going on since the first caveman picked up a rock and hit his fellow caveman over the head with it. We have gotten better at it, but the fundimentals haven't changed much.

Well, usually in board games there are combat resolution tables, and you roll your dice and compare the results against those tables. In computer games there are much more possibilities to do individual battle calculations, instead of using the abstract combat resolution tables. But, there should be some kind of info about the possible outcomes, before you "roll the dice" i.e. before you select "shock" or "normal" attack.

Just a quick 2c.

Can you explain to me whether it is worthwhile sending a tired regiment with 25% of it's units disabled that happens to have a good leader and excellent experience back for R&R and replacing them with a fresh unit that has 0% disabled yet has a silly commander and far less skill?

Are you able to answer this question in real life ? In most cases not. Some officers will say the tired regiment will do better while other will say the contrary.

And you know that your second unit has a silly commander, something that in most cases would only be known once the unit was engaged

What I like in computer wargames is that players don't know all the rules and all that can happen, contrary to board games. Random events arrive in war. Ammunitions dumps and ships explose by accident, a tropical rain floods an aera and cancels an attack, a lonely shell hits a PC during a command conference and another offensive is badly disorganized and so on...

Our role as commanders is to bring at the right place at the right moment as much troops in the best shape possible.

I agree it would be fine to know more about ground combat, that I found far too much fast.

In four thousand years of ground war, something changed heavily: logistics. Now for every man fighting you have many more bringing supplies and support to him. And you try to destroy the enemy supplies and support rather than the enemy grunts if it's possible.

We are all more or less happy that this game uses commanders discretion with the sea/air battles. It works well and produces some nice and unexpected results.
I must say that I would welcome the addition of the same principle to the land battles. We as commanders would tell the regimental/divisional commanders that we want this base taken and then they would choose the type of attack to use, based on their rating and aggresivness. Also on defence we would say "hold at all costs" or "withdraw" and then they would imploy tactics as they see fit.
This idea to work would require that land force commanders could be assigned manually by players.

In four thousand years of ground war, something changed heavily: logistics

The method of supplying the rocks eh? Still don't see the difference

Attacking a caravan of camels bringing supplies to a seiged city is no different the using a sub to sink a transport. Only the scale has changed, the goal is still the same.

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Hahaha, the day you accept one of my statements without trouble, I'm going to run out and raise the flag!

Care to explain to me the difference between a guy with a rock vs a guy with a sling throwing the rock (harder) vs a guy with a muzzle propelling that bullet (sharp rock) vs a guy with a cannon propelling that shell (big rock)?

I look at it and see that two things have changed: Range and Power. To compensate for Range and Power, we have built defenses to negate the power and techniques to counter the range. Every weapon ever invented by mankind has a counter weapon and when you negate all the improvements with all the counters, you are still right back to the stone

The arms race has been going on since the first caveman picked up a rock and hit his fellow caveman over the head with it. We have gotten better at it, but the fundimentals haven't changed much.

Ground combat as an organizational activity has changed tremendously over the last 4,000 years.

Only an idiot would assume that ground combat is simply about individual weapon systems.

An example is comparing the Gauls and the Romans in the time of Caesar.

The Gauls were big warriors, with roughly the same weapons as the Romans. One on one, the Gauls were superioir to their Roman counterparts.

So why were a small number of Romans able to defeat a significantly larger number of Gauls?

Leadership, superior tactics, discipline, and innovations in military engineering and logistics.

Combat operations have transformed from individual activities where weapons effectiveness and numbers determined the outcome to highly organized group activities where factors other than weapon systems have a major impact on the outcome(recon, intelligence, leadership, organization, training, tactics, logistics).

The successes of Napoleon against larger, better equipped, and better supplied armies are an even better example.

Tactical combat has indeed changed and is most certainly a more complex environment than you suggest Mr Frag.

Well this took on a life of its own. Frag encompassed the underlying problem I have and Crsutton outlined a few possibilities: when to use it.
It just appeared to me you aimed for 2 1/2 to 1 in odds (for miscalculations) and then deliberate attack. If I knew that "shock attack" boosted my assault value, and I was below the 2 to 1 margin - then I would shock - but this just doesn't seem the case; therefore I just don't use it.

I suppose Im going to find out all about how you attack over the next few months......depressed sigh.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood


But Mike, the question was, "What is the difference between deliberate assault and shock attack?" Inquiring minds want to know...

Hello...

An shock attack causes units to fire more rounds from the mortars and machine guns, more individual infantry squads to charge and fire their weapons more, requires lower action/reaction rolls, all of which may produce greater casualties to enemy units and most likely cause greater casualties and disruption in friendly units, than a deliberate assault would.

Bye...

Michael Wood
_________________________________________________

Originally posted by pasternakski

Originally posted by Mike Wood


But Mike, the question was, "What is the difference between deliberate assault and shock attack?" Inquiring minds want to know...