Combat calculation?

[Panama]

Shouldn't all the combat take place in the defenders hex? With scale from 2.5 to 50 kilometers per hex it's kind of difficult to imagine combat always taking place along hex boundries. [&:]

But then when a unit attacks from a river hex it's penalized for that so I guess the attacker is actually considered to be attacked by the defender in the hex it's in. [&:]

[ralphtricky]

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

Yes, although I don't think the fact that the Matildas were defending in the open made any difference. If they were attacking from another urban hex, the results would likely have been about the same.

I need to say up front that this won't be changed for 3.4, I believe it's been this way since at least COW, and would not be surprised to hear that it goes all the way back to TOAW 1 and even before that.

I'm having problems separating what makes sense at an operational level from what makes sense at a tactical level. At a tactical level, it absolutely makes sense for the attacker's terrain to be considered, if I were infantry, I would much rather assault a forest hex from an adjoining forest hex, and not from open terrain, although that's a kneejerk reaction, I can't promise that anyone with actual experience would agree.

At an operational level, I would think that the same issues would hold, although it's a lot fuzzier in that case. For something like a fortified line hex, or the fortification level of the hex, I have problems understanding why the attacker should get the same benefits as the defender, even at the operational level.

Here's where I wish I had a minor in history, luckily there is no shortage of opinions around here, hopefully someone has some actual facts.

Ralph

[Panama]

If a unit is attacking a location they can't possibly receive the same benefits as a defending unit in the same terrain. It's attacking, not sitting still. The defending unit receives terrain benefits. The attacking unit should not. Don't start chasing your tail. [;)]

[damezzi]

That's the point! The attacking unit is getting a benefit on the example we're discussing (at least, if the cause is really that which was stated). Here, in any case (attacker in the same terrain or in the open), defenders should get the precision bonus, since they are deployed in an urban terrain, waiting the attacking matildas. Why would the matildas, breaking in open terrain towards an urban terrain get any precision bonus in relation to the panzers? Nobody here advocated that the attacking units should receive defending bonus for being in urban terrain, just that the defenders should have the restricted vision bonus, if the attackers are considered to be in the open or in urban terrain, not the oposite.

Restricted vision being taken into account in combat calculation is a completely tactical consideration, it doesn't matter if the game has an operational scope. Those are tactical variables that will affect operational ones. Like considering the penetration coeficient. No matter what the scale of the game is, but making tanks being hit by a weapon with better coeficient less prone to be destroyed would be a distortion.

[Obsolete]

Well I liked this thread. Always been annoying at how much detail is hidden from the user, so I modified my shortcut to turn logging on from now on. I agree it`s a lot of detail to go through, but I learn a lot more from looking that this than ever reading the manual which leaves a lot to be desired.

[el cid]

Not really understanding how the calculations work I am just going to go out on limb, trying to understand how it works from my testing.

Initially the game calculates:
Defender AT value
Attacker AT value
...
Defender Survavility
Attacker Survavility

• The defender values are affected by the entrenchment value and the defender terrain (the attacker values seems as if they are not)
• Defender and attacker values are affected by proficiency, readiness and supply.

With these numbers it looks like the game calculates the chances of each individual unit taking a shot.

From the numbers I´ve seen, in Urban the defender has a lot more probability of actually shooting at the attacker (about double), and a little less of getting shot at.

If you get shot at you take two shots (at least in 3.2, this has been changed in 3.4)

But once you are shot at, is better to be in open terrain (for tanks without targetting enhancement). Here is taking into account the terrain each unit is at. The defender uses the defending hex, and the attacker uses the attacker hex.

The conclusion to this is never attack with a tank from a city/forest (you do not get the defensive benefit from Urban, and you are likely to get hit if you get shot at).

And when defending in a city with tanks, you are less likely to get shot at, but if you do get shot at you are more likely to get hit. Better fortify on an open terrain.

I couldn´t state if this way of working is logical or not. I think that would be a tought discussion.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

If a unit is attacking a location they can't possibly receive the same benefits as a defending unit in the same terrain. It's attacking, not sitting still. The defending unit receives terrain benefits. The attacking unit should not. Don't start chasing your tail. [;)]

They won't, since the defender also receives his entrenchment benefit. But it can't be that the attackers don't receive any benefit. There's a big difference whether the attack approaches through a forest instead of across open ground.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

That's the point! The attacking unit is getting a benefit on the example we're discussing (at least, if the cause is really that which was stated). Here, in any case (attacker in the same terrain or in the open), defenders should get the precision bonus, since they are deployed in an urban terrain, waiting the attacking matildas. Why would the matildas, breaking in open terrain towards an urban terrain get any precision bonus in relation to the panzers? Nobody here advocated that the attacking units should receive defending bonus for being in urban terrain, just that the defenders should have the restricted vision bonus, if the attackers are considered to be in the open or in urban terrain, not the oposite.

In effect, the panzers shot at the matildas while they were in the open. The matildas had to hold their fire till they were in the urban terrain. Clearly, in this specific case, that was a poor choice by the defenders. But, as I've pointed out, had the defenders been equipped with Optics 4, it would have been the correct choice. And it gets more complicated when non-armored equipment is added (a more normal situation). That type of equipment would be more vulnerable out in the open. There's even the issue of proficiency. You can imagine a poor unit being unable to hold their fire, while a crack one would. So, it's a complicated factor to have preset in the code.

Restricted vision being taken into account in combat calculation is a completely tactical consideration, it doesn't matter if the game has an operational scope. Those are tactical variables that will affect operational ones. Like considering the penetration coeficient. No matter what the scale of the game is, but making tanks being hit by a weapon with better coeficient less prone to be destroyed would be a distortion.

Correct.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

If a unit is attacking a location they can't possibly receive the same benefits as a defending unit in the same terrain. It's attacking, not sitting still. The defending unit receives terrain benefits. The attacking unit should not. Don't start chasing your tail. [;)]

They won't, since the defender also receives his entrenchment benefit. But it can't be that the attackers don't receive any benefit. There's a big difference whether the attack approaches through a forest instead of across open ground.

Is an attacker hiding behind a tree waiting for a defender to approach or are they moving around trees advancing on the defender?

This is not a tactical game and if you attempt to make it a tactical game and an operational game the tail chasing will commence. Such things as, when does the attacker penetrate the defenders terrain? The defender certainly isn't sitting exactly along the hex line. When the attacker penetrates the defenders terrain why doesn't that terrain affect combat and for how much of the attack? The list could go on and on.

IMO it should be kept simple. The defender receives terrain benefits. The attacker does not. Keep it operational and not tactical.

Forgot to mention. In your example above it isn't that the attackers are hiding behind the trees but that they are advancing through the trees. The defenders engage them at close range rather than long range. The defenders are more accurate at short range while the attacker has to locate and target hidden or dug in defenders. An attacking unit is less accurate because they spend time moving. Now if you want to start chasing your tail again we can get into overwatch which is again tactical.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Is an attacker hiding behind a tree waiting for a defender to approach or are they moving around trees advancing on the defender?

They're moving, but that's no different than if the defender was in Mobile deployment. In effect, it creates what's called a "Meeting Engagement" - both sides bump into each other. Or it could even create an ambush (after an early turn ending). Clearly, it's far better to be advancing through trees than over open ground - where you can be engaged from all directions long before you get to the enemy. Think of Pickett's Charge. And that also impacts the efficacy of supporting air/artillery.

This is not a tactical game and if you attempt to make it a tactical game and an operational game the tail chasing will commence.

I would say it's operational up to the point that combat is executed - within the combat, though, tactical factors have to be considered.

Such things as, when does the attacker penetrate the defenders terrain? The defender certainly isn't sitting exactly along the hex line. When the attacker penetrates the defenders terrain why doesn't that terrain affect combat and for how much of the attack? The list could go on and on.

I think that should be considered. If there is a terrain difference the defender can be sitting along the terrain boundary - which would not be the hex line. It could be the outskirts of a city, for example.

Ideally (meaning without considering proficiency) the defender should get the benefit of the most advantageous choice. The defender would always be considered in the terrain in his hex, but the attacker would be engaged in the terrain most favorable to the defender. So, if the defender was in urban terrain and the attacker was in open terrain, the defender would engage him while he was still in the open. If it were the other way around, the defender would wait till the attacker entered the defender's terrain.

IMO it should be kept simple. The defender receives terrain benefits. The attacker does not. Keep it operational and not tactical.

That may be the way it is. We need more tests. And there are cases where the attacker should not get any terrain benefit - fortified line terrain, any terrain that he can only enter via a road, etc. But, the more accurate we can make it the better it will be.

Forgot to mention. In your example above it isn't that the attackers are hiding behind the trees but that they are advancing through the trees. The defenders engage them at close range rather than long range. The defenders are more accurate at short range while the attacker has to locate and target hidden or dug in defenders. An attacking unit is less accurate because they spend time moving. Now if you want to start chasing your tail again we can get into overwatch which is again tactical.

All of that is addressed by the fact that the defender gets to shoot first, and he gets the benefits of deployment state (under 3.4) in addition to terrain.

[Obsolete]

I have often wondered, what is the real-life reason as to why HQs can always get free disengagements from EZoCs.

[damezzi]

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.

Yet there wasn't still a good explanation as to why should the attacker have better precision in the example El Cid provided. As you said, defenders would have the choice to engage in the open, before the enemy entered the city or wait until they entered the urban perimeter, what's a nice advantage already. If engaging in the open, both would fire from a long distance and attackers should fire at low precision percentage, as should the defenders; if waiting in the urban hex until attackers come in, both would engage at short distances and with high precision. There is still the case where the defender would be at the skirts of the city waiting and an ambush would be possible (a single fire situation), but I think this kind of event is already included in the defensive advantage of the terrain.

Another way of seing it is by the simpler case of rain. Rain is another factor that causes restricted vision for precision calculation. Let's consider rain in the open. Attackers are coming from a clear wheater open hex and defenders are in a rainy open hex. Using the logic exposed earlier, of considering attackers on his original hex for precision calculation, they would get better precision. Even if we consider the circumstance when the attacker is still outside of the shower curtain and the defender inside it, both would see the enemy exactly at the same time, taking the shot from the same distance.

To keep it extremely simple, the fact is that the outcome of the combat in the example El Cid provided is absurd. The Panzers getting wiped for being in urban terrain, where they have the choice to choose the form of engagement, wether in the open or in the city. The matildas receiving a precision bonus? Why? If they get the precision bonus, they are firing from short distances, in which case they are already in the urban terrain. So, the panzers are firing from short distances, too, in which case they should get the bonus. Sure that with Optics 4 it would have been a poor choice, since the better precision advantage would be denied (for this kind of equipment, the logic is inverted).

You said that in this specific case the panzers shot while in the open, while the matildas had to wait until entering the urban perimeter. Are you saying that all panzers shot from a long distance, then came into the city and just waited there while being shot at by the matildas?

Toaw should aways consider the average, not creating very specific situations, mainly those that come from completely stupid decisions. In the average, the situation would have been extremely favorable to the panzers, in overall terms and in terms of precision, too. For me it's clear: if the panzers choose to engage in the open, both shoot in the clear, if they choose to wait, both shoot in the city. The advantage for ambush and cover is already computed in the defensive terrain bonus.

[Obsolete]

Damezzi, you also inspired me to also take a closer examination. I agree that the way the mechanics work don`t make any sense.  Actually, there is sense to it, but it`s reverse-sense for some reason. I guess the lesson here is be weary of trying to hull-down in this game (wince).

The other lesson is... always charge into cities with your tanks to get the maximum bonus, despite being contradictory to any historical sense of armoured warfare

[damezzi]

Overall it's a sound system. Some flaws are found here or there, sometimes. It's natural, since with such a complex system, it's difficult to put to test all possible combinations and since the number of varibles is large, sometimes we attribute to one variable results that are due to another. The great difficulty is to isolate them.

One of the best things about Toaw is that it has already come a long way and is still evolving. Such discussions aren't a way of blaming the engine, but of trying to bring it one step further. Divergences in opinion will arise, of course.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

I have often wondered, what is the real-life reason as to why HQs can always get free disengagements from EZoCs.

Because they (and artillery) are in the rear. They can flee before the spearheads get to them. Remember, IGO-UGO is an abstraction. In the real world both sides move at the same time.

Unfortunately, it wasn't thought out too well. So we have HQs and artillery being used to "rescue" frontline elements. A fix has already been proposed: Item 7.6 in the Wishlist.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

You said that in this specific case the panzers shot while in the open, while the matildas had to wait until entering the urban perimeter. Are you saying that all panzers shot from a long distance, then came into the city and just waited there while being shot at by the matildas?

Toaw should aways consider the average, not creating very specific situations, mainly those that come from completely stupid decisions. In the average, the situation would have been extremely favorable to the panzers, in overall terms and in terms of precision, too. For me it's clear: if the panzers choose to engage in the open, both shoot in the clear, if they choose to wait, both shoot in the city. The advantage for ambush and cover is already computed in the defensive terrain bonus.

I was just pointing out how complicated it was. There is no universal correct answer that works for all cases. In this case, the way TOAW handles it now worked out poorly for the defender. But, as I said, if the defender had had optics 4, it would have been better for the defender to fire while the attackers were in the open. Yet it would still have been in the matilida's interest to wait till they got into the urban terrain. And, the presence of soft targets in the attackers could affect the decision as well. Then there's proficiency. So, it's going to be hard to code right.

[Oberst_Klink]

[font="Tahoma"][/font]
It is a bit "unrealistic", however... there are precedents for A) the artillery covering the disengagement/retreat of the frontline troops (A Bty, 52nd Art of TF Smith in Korea did that at the battle of Osan, July 1950 - http://americanmilitaryhistorymsw.devhu ... july-1950/),
B) plenty of examples in history, where the leader or the HQ moved forward to rally or to organise the orderly disengagement of the grunts, after all, HQs in the game also act as traffic control (even without MPs, I think...) C) it doesn't work all the time (done some "tests"), because it also depends on moral, experience, supply, interdiction level, etc., D) I am sure Ralph will come up with a fix or option to modify the active disengagement rules for those units. I hope I was able to shed some light on Oddballs valid question. Just my 2p...