Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

SPWaW is a tactical squad-level World War II game on single platoon or up to an entire battalion through Europe and the Pacific (1939 to 1945).

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by vahauser »

Happy New Year.

I'm very interested in your experiences regarding your core forces in your campaigns.

Question #1
What are your observations of how your cores evolve during your campaigns?

Question #2
How do you interpret your cores' evolution in the overall context of your campaigns from the beginning to the end?
Riun T
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:22 pm

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by Riun T »

If u take a look at what my losses of vetran and elite units were in the Cassino fight I just finished in the FLASHFYRE effort,, u could see that "what my plans were and what I have left to augment that plan" leaves much to be speculated!!?? I got beat bad!!!
User avatar
FNG
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Devizes, UK

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by FNG »

ORIGINAL: vahauser

[...]

Question #1
What are your observations of how your cores evolve during your campaigns?

I think that units accrue experience too quickly at higher experience levels. There was a thread ages ago that discussed this matter, and I stated then that I would love to see the chance of an exp. gain decrease as experience increases - you are less likely to learn something new when you are a veteran, and experience should not be a uniform progression.

I also think that repair/rebuild points are on the generous side.
Question #2
How do you interpret your cores' evolution in the overall context of your campaigns from the beginning to the end?

I really enjoy watching my units progress, and usually rename infantry platoon HQs with the officer's name, so I know who is where. If I am playing German, I will number all my AFVs according to German doctrine to individualise them... so if I see 212 go up in flames, I know that 1st platoon is less one tank.

For me, this adds to the immersion factor of the game and encourages me to think of my troops in the right way - it makes me do everything I can to minimise casualties; I hate to see an 'old hand' get killed. The one exception is when I play Soviet... Za Rodinu comrades! There can be no thought for the individual and sacrifices must be made to defend Comrade Stalin's vision of the Workers' Paradise..... [;)]
FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.
User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by vahauser »

FNG,
 
You mentioned high experience levels.  What do you consider to be a high experience level?
 
Also, a related question.  How many battles does it usually take you for your core to achieve a high experience level?
 
 
User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by vahauser »

Riun T,
 
You mentioned you have veteran and elite units in your core. 
What do you consider to be a veteran unit?  What do you consider to be an elite unit?
Riun T
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:22 pm

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by Riun T »

vetran= fought at least 10 battles and has an experience of 80-100 for vet, one of my RamII's crews was at 111 so he's probably elite.
User avatar
FlashfyreSP
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
Location: Combat Information Center
Contact:

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by FlashfyreSP »

I agree with FNG about the "rapid increase" in experience issue; it becomes very apparent when a campaign exceeds 15 or so battles. At this point, core forces that have survived this long are nearly "supermen", and usually overwhelm the opposition. This is partly due to the campaign process not being able to 'modify' the EXP/MOR values of the opposing side to keep a similar ratio as in the earlier period. The game will continue to use the set ratings for the AI's forces, either what the campaign designer used when he built the campaign, or what the Preference setting is for the Random Campaign system.

Campaigns I have worked on have shown that by the 20th battle, the player's core is so powerful, there are only 2 ways to make the rest of the campaign challenging: 1) add more and more units to "swamp" the player with an overly-rich target environment, or 2) 'ramp up' the EXP/MOR of the AI side to equal or exceed the player's expected levels. Neither is a perfect solution; the first doesn't always work, sometimes limiting the types of battles that can be included, and the second is a hit-or-miss proposition, usually requiring a lot of playtesting and record-keeping to see what the levels are at each stage of the campaign.

Some of the problems (like the excessive rebuild points) are just bad programming; in the random generator system they can't be addressed. In designed campaigns, though, some of them can be modified or adjusted so they don't unbalance the play.
ImageImage
User avatar
FNG
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Devizes, UK

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by FNG »

ORIGINAL: vahauser
You mentioned high experience levels.  What do you consider to be a high experience level?

80+ is when I perceive the real differences start to kick in - number of shots, rally chance, etc. The progression between 50 - 75 seems to me to 'feel' about right as you watch your shiny new force grow up, get tarnished and get some dents. But it never slows, and before too much longer, a majority of units (especially armour) will be 100+.
Also, a related question.  How many battles does it usually take you for your core to achieve a high experience level?

Different for each nation. I tend to play enhanced, and I guess Germans are getting veteran across the board after 10 battles or so, particularly armour as mentioned above. The British take longer (armour is more vulnerable so tends to be less decisive in the early war)... maybe 15-18. The Soviets plod along with high casualties until 20+.

I very rarely play US, USMC or Japan so don't have any data for those. With the British, I frequently use Commonwealth or Dominion OOBs with British armour, but have included them in my 'British' numbers.
FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.
User avatar
Goblin
Posts: 5418
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:57 pm
Location: Erie,Pa. USA
Contact:

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by Goblin »

The problem could be solved, or at least greatly alleviated, if new crews replacing completely destroyed crews started out at the base levels for their country/year. Having a new crew hop in a tank at Superman levels already makes no sense. There is no 'He's a rookie' feel to it. Upgrading slows the process some, but doesn't do much to stop it.
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by KG Erwin »

To follow the evolution of my core force, I use Campaign Watcher.

For my Marines, I notice an average increase of 3 experience points per battle. My August 42 force had an avg exp of 63, and now in October it is 69.

When 1943 rolls around, I expect an across-the-board decrease, as the force switches from the "D" series TOEs to the "E" series.

In January 1944 this happens again, with the adaptation of the "F" series TOEs for my rifle units.

This yearly reorganization makes my upgrade planning fairly straightforward. The only difference is the availability of new tanks for my three tank platoons.

I hope to entirely replace my M2A4s with M4A1 Shermans in mid-1943 (as the 1st MarDiv's Co A actually did), and incorporate one flame tank per platoon in mid-1944.

In 1945, I can finally replace the 75mm halftracks with 105s.

Even at that, I'd expect the 1/5 to reach "superhuman" status in the fall of 1944, just before the time of Peleliu and leading into 1945.

This isn't as crazy as it seems, because in real life, many of the guys who had been Raiders or Marine Parachutists in 1942 later served as line infantry on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They provided the "hard core" for the 5th and 6th Marine Divisions.

The difference for me, of course, is that it is assumed (in the long campaign) that these veterans never leave the "Old Breed" 1st Division except by death or debilitating wounds.

Image
User avatar
FlashfyreSP
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
Location: Combat Information Center
Contact:

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by FlashfyreSP »

Trouble is, KG, what if you never changed those "D" squads for "E" ones? Suppose you kept the same squad throughout the entire campaign? WOuldn't they be "supermen" by the time they hit 1943?
ImageImage
User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by vahauser »

Erwin,

Not sure I follow you here. Can you give an example of what you would expect your core experience to be in September 1944?

I’m not understanding clearly when you said that something wasn’t as crazy as it seems. What exactly isn’t as crazy as it seems?
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by KG Erwin »

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Erwin,

Not sure I follow you here. Can you give an example of what you would expect your core experience to be in September 1944?

I’m not understanding clearly when you said that something wasn’t as crazy as it seems. What exactly isn’t as crazy as it seems?

Victor, I haven't gone that far, but I would expect my force to have average exp levels in the 80s. Maybe not supermen, but a core of experienced veterans.

Every upgrade causes an experience loss. This will happen to my rifle units twice.

What's not crazy is that men who fought in 1942 could still be fighting in 1945.
Image
User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by vahauser »

Erwin,
 
I'm guessing that a significant number of marines "re-upped" once their current tour of duty was expired.  Certainly the professional NCOs and officers could see more than one tour of duty.  In the German and Japanese and Soviet Armies my guess is that men stayed in combat for a long time, perhaps even until death or wounds took them out of the line.  So I don't think it is crazy for men in your core to see multiple tours of duty.
 
I usually don't fight in the Pacific Theater.  In the European Theater, long campaigns generate about one battle per month.  My guess is that one battle per month is normal in Pacific Campaigns too.  Starting a USMC campaign in December 1941 and fighting until September 1944 yields around 30 battles.  If a core improves by around 2 experience points per battle, then in 30 battles the core will have improved by around 60 experience points.  My experience has been that upgrading a unit cost around 6 experience points on average.  If the core accepts 3 upgrades between December 1941 and September 1944, then that is a reduction of 18 experience points.  A 60 point gain minus an 18 point reduction yields around a 40 point net experience gain for the core between December 1941 and September 1944.  USMC units have a base experience of 55 in 1941 (if you are playing Enhanced FV.1 with "historical ratings" ON).  A 40 point net experience gain by September 1944 will yield a core average of around 95 experience (assuming 3 upgrades during the campaign).  Does that meet with what you have seen in your USMC campaigns?
User avatar
FNG
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Devizes, UK

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by FNG »

On a slight tangent, various studies of combat effectiveness have implied that after a certain period of improvement, effectiveness actually declines. This was usually observed when units had 'been in the line' continuously. Veteran survivors became more focused on staying survivors, while rookies filled the gaps.

In SP:WaW, it would be great if there was some dilution of experience when units are replaced or even if a unit has lost (picks number out of the air) 25% of its effective strength.
FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.
User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by vahauser »

FNG,
 
I made some rough-draft calculations, posted above as a reply to Erwin, which estimated that a core starting with an average experience of 55 would have an average experience of around 95 after 30 battles (2.5 "campaign years").  Are these calculations close to what you have experienced in your campaigns?
User avatar
FNG
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Devizes, UK

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by FNG »

ORIGINAL: vahauser

FNG,

I made some rough-draft calculations, posted above as a reply to Erwin, which estimated that a core starting with an average experience of 55 would have an average experience of around 95 after 30 battles (2.5 "campaign years").  Are these calculations close to what you have experienced in your campaigns?

As an average that sounds about right. In the game, the experience curve almost becomes exponential because, as you kill more 'stuff', you gain more experience, get a greater number of more accurate shots, kill even more 'stuff', AI responds by sending yet more 'stuff' as its response to your increasing force value, ad infinitum.

I have noticed a trend (especially in German tanks crews) where they seem to be increasing their 'per battle' experience gains as their overall experience gets higher... once they hit ~90, they seem to accelerate to 110 - 120 far more rapidly than the rise from ~60 to ~90. I have no hard data to support this, but if I start a German long campaign any time soon, I'll keep an eye on it.

--Edit-- I also agree totally with Goblin's point about replacements.
FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.
User avatar
robot
Posts: 1438
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Covington Ky USA

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by robot »

I do not use historical ratings on. So all my units start out with a rating of 45 or so. Does this mean that I may never reach elite as there is not enough time too. Does the AI ever reach elite.
Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.
User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by vahauser »

FNG,
 
After 30 battles (2.5 campaign years), could you describe what your core would look like if you could play a campaign that incorporated all the ideas and suggestions that you have regarding long campaigns?
 
 
robot,
 
I don't understand what you are trying to say.  In a campaign that last 4+ years (up to 50 battles or more), then I think that even a core that starts out with very low experience can finish with very high experience, on average. 
 
Also, the only practical way to increase the computer's combat effectiveness during a campaign is to manually set things like "AI Advantage ON", "AI Level", the computer's percentages, "Hard Battle (x2)", etc.  The computer does not gain experience during a campaign because the computer has no core units,  it just plays battle to battle with whatever parameters it has at the moment the battle is fought.
Riun T
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:22 pm

RE: Survey Regarding Campaign Core Forces

Post by Riun T »

Well the experience base that my core was averageing for the 19th battle{cassino},was mid-60's to high 90's,,,and the german average was mid 50's to high 80's and in my opinion they outdrove,out shot.and totally butchered my supposedly smarter units,,, I think my spotting and inferior equipment did more to get my guys killed than any lack of playing skill or experience differances,,, also why hasn't anything been compared with how the AI doesn't need to follow rarity either,,, in two of the battles against the germans so far they have been able to buy large amounts of FJ's to use as foot soldiers,,, or load on their tanks,,, what signals the computer to under equip itself for one battle, and then excessively equip one arm of its force for another,, I had 18 sections available for air support once and the AI didn't send any air over to counter mine??? Its stated in the manual that the AI buys its forces in comparison to yours for points and size but what makes it pick such extreme quantities of certain rather over/under potentialed units???? 
Post Reply

Return to “Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns”