Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Share your best tactics, strategies and gameplay tips with other gamers here.

Moderator: Vic

springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

I was looking over the discussion in the Your "Templates" forum and saw that the ratio of mortars within units seemed to vary a bit. In addition, Victor's much-appreciated comments on the use of mortars caught my interest too.

I was curious: What are the strength and weaknesses of mortars (MTR)? How do infantry (INF) numbers impact I decided to run a few of my simple simulations to get a handle on this. In this test, I just looked at the effect of the INF/MTR ratio.

What I didn't do is examine in much detail how INF quality and experience can modify how support weapons, such as mortars impact a battle. I had already taken a look at this issue in a previous empirical test. (Though they were done in AT, I think they probably still hold for ATG.)
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

To test the impact of Mortars, I create three levels of units for the attack:

1. The 40INF-5MTR unit (40/5 unit).
2. The 40INF-2MTR unit (40/2 unit).
3. The 30INF-4MTR unit (30/4 unit).

I picked these levels for the following reasons
1. The 40/5 unit represents the template that tweber uses in the 6th Army campaign. It's a solid unit. With the addition of 5MG, it achieves a 50 stack size, which is a good size when having two units attack one from adjacent hexes (i.e., two 40/5 units attacking side by side don't create an overstack.). This unit has an 8:1 INF-MTR ratio

2. The 40/2 unit represents a similar unit but examining the effect of reducing the MTR punch. This unit has a 10:1 INF-MTR ratio.

3. The 30/4 unit represented a unit that costs the same as the 40/2, but sacrificing INF for more MTR. This unit had a 7.5:1 INF-MTR ratio.

Here's one way I thought about the comparisons:
The 40/5 vs. 40/2 comparison shows the impact of extra mortar fire power
The 40/2 vs. 30/4 comparison more directly reflects the relative merits of production commitment
The 40/5 vs. 30/4 comparison shows the impact of unit size on the ratios.


springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

In addition to varying the INF-MTR ratio and unit size, I also played with the following parameters:

1. MTRs at 40XP vs. MTRs at 80XP. My idea was pretty straightforward here. I figured the effect of MTR XP would be proportional to the ratio of MTRs. The more MTRs, the more XP effects. INF XP was kept constant at 40XP throughout the tests. (As mentioned, the impact of INF XP had been done previously.).

2. Both INF I and INF II was tested. The reason for this is that the previous tests had shown that INF upgrades can have a big effect on support weapons like MTRs (those these effects are greatest at high levels of INF XP)

3. Defender retreat % was tested for both 50% and 100%. (Attacker was kept to 50%). The reason for this will be discussed with the findings.

To simplify the analysis, only the percentage (%) of victorious attacks out of 200 (sometimes 400) were measured (i.e., number of attacks that successfully dislodged the defender).
Though I'll discuss losses at the end of this test, the effect of losses was relatively constant across situations. % of victories seemed the easiest tool for measuring the effectiveness of an attack.


By the way, the defender was always the same: 40INF-5MG-5MTR at 40XP.
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

Here is the standard situation for the tests, showing both 3-1 and 2-1 attacks.
(This example shows 40/5 attackers)

[The units that are stacked with the attackers were not used in these tests...]

Image
Attachments
LabDiagram.jpg
LabDiagram.jpg (76.41 KiB) Viewed 203 times
Ande
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Göteborg/Sweden

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by Ande »

Considering the amount of interesting data trials such as this can generate and the difficulty to display that data, I'm toying with the idea of creating something of a AT simulation toolbox for Matlab. It would be neat to run all sorts of optimizing on unit composition and to be able to display all data in convenient graphs.
User avatar
henri51
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by henri51 »

This is very interesting. My intuition tells me that the optimum is near 50/4, but of course I could be dead wrong.What could be historical values? 40/2?

To make things more complex, another consideration is cost, i.e. let us say that adding another mortar ALWAYS increases the effectiveness, but does the ratio of cost/effectiveness go up or down? When is it optimum?

Henri
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

Hi Henri,

Great questions.  One of the reasons I compared 40/2 and 30/4 was because the production costs were equivalent.  But this only answers a small part of the question.  It's hard to figure out cost/effectiveness because a highly experienced mortar unit can keep paying back high dividends, even when paired with a green unit, as long as it is well-stocked with troops who will hold the front line.   I'll post my results and try not to comment for a bit.  (Maybe others will have insights...)
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

Here are the results: (3-1 at 50% retreat; and 2-1 at 100% retreat are probably less meaningful as the results often wind up at the ceiling (around 100%) or the floor (around 0%), respectively.

The percentages are the % of victories in 200 or 400 simulations (rounded to the nearest whole number)
(Corrected error on 5/24/2011)





Image
Attachments
mortar tests.jpg
mortar tests.jpg (73.13 KiB) Viewed 203 times
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

AT with MATLAB... That's a wild idea, Ande.
Frido1207
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:44 am
Location: Lower Saxony, Germany

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by Frido1207 »

Another great test, springer. Thx for sharing. Would it be possible to run another test with a 20/6 composed unit, although i guess it would only confirm the tendency of the results running the 40/2 & 30/4 composed units.

Aside: If you continue with your several tests Vic will soon also need a scientiwiki page. [;)]

User avatar
Barthheart
Posts: 3079
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Nepean, Ontario

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by Barthheart »

Great work springer.... here's something that might help you work things out faster!
There is a function built into AT:G (well and AT as well) that helps you see the results of different combat situations really fast.
It's called "Combat Sim". You can turn it on by going to the System Option screen (small computer looking button near lower left).
This will cause your first attack in any scenario to be run 200 times! and then put out the results and average win/loss info.

To use it to it's best, edit yourself a small 10 x 10 map and put the units you want to test on the map. Then run the scenario and set the Combat Sim check box.

Hope this helps your study. [8D]


Image
Attachments
combatsim.jpg
combatsim.jpg (193.69 KiB) Viewed 207 times
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

Thanks Bartheart,  That's the tool I use!  (It was probably either you or tweber who taught it to me the first time.).  But it's good to post the diagram so that others can play with it too.

It's a great tool.

 (And thanks for the comment too, th1207 .  I do find analysing the game as fun as playing it [:)].)
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »


For 3-1 attacks, losses varied a bit for each unit type.
I found that for the 40/5 combination with INF I attacking at 3-1 odds, attacker losses averaged about 32 INF out of 120 INF attacking (26% loss). 
However, for the 40/2, loses climbed to about 40 INF out of 120 INF attacking (33%).  My guess is that the increased losses partly reflect decreased likelihood of victory.
However, the 30/4 combination wracked up about 37 INF out of 90 INF attacking (41% loss). 

For 2-1 attacks, the losses for all combinations was between 34-37  INF ( I suspect because they are mainly defeats). 

The higher losses for 30/4 units is interesting.  Three 30/4 units attacking a 40/5 UNIT is really attacking at 2.25:1 odds in terms of INF (not 3:1 as with 40/5 or 40/2). But even these relatively poor odds have a good chance of taking the ground, especially if the mortars have experience.  However, the relative price will be higher than a proper 3:1 attack.  A unit that participates in such an attack will not have much left in terms of battle effectiveness afterwards.


User avatar
Jeffrey H.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca.

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by Jeffrey H. »

SO, what would be an optimum grunt to mortar ratio ?, It's fairly obvious that 8 to 1 is much more effective than 20 to 1. Even when the production cost is factored in, the "basis point" increase in effectiveness appears to more than offset the production cost. The question I have is, what about say 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 grunt to mortar ratio ?
History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

th1207,

Simulations with 3-1 attacks with  20/6 units were tested out.  This is an attack at 1.5 to 1 odds.  
When Mortar XP was 40, the attack had an 80% chance of succeeding with the defender at 50% retreat and a 46% chance of succeeding with the defender at 100% retreat.
When Morter XP was 80, the attack had a 96% chance of succeeding with the defender at 50% retreat and a 68% chance of succeeding with the defender at 100% retreat.

Unfortunately, casualties tended be high in all simulations (around 30 out of a total of 60 INF, or 50% casualties).  Defeats tended to result in the loss of upwards of 5 MTRs.

It seems that if they are used properly,  experienced mortars can be important ground-taking units.
Languageses>en GoogleDicCE[/align][/align] área[/align][/align]
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

Jeffrey H.

Here's my guess (though I suspect the real ATG grognards have even better ones)

I think the answer lies somewhere in balancing absolute unit size with the INF to Mortar ratio. A 8 to 1 ratio with about 1/2 of stacking points in INF balances the ground-taking power of the mortar with tolerable casualty percentages for the infantry that leave the units battle effective for another round.

If the size of the unit is too small, a "successful attack" can fall victim to a counter-attack that wipes out the mortars to.

Of course, if the unit is too big, overcrowding will raise casualties too.

That's my thoughts, anyway...

User avatar
Twotribes
Posts: 6466
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Jacksonville NC
Contact:

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by Twotribes »

I never use just mortars. My units are always with MGs and if I have the tech bazookas. As my tech increases I add inf guns and AT and flak.

So before bazooka I have a 50 stack, after it climbs to include 5 bazooka, 2 inf guns, 1 AT gun and 1 Flak.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

Very true TwoTribes, few players use pure units.  The use of INF and MTR only is primarily a simplifying assumption.  On the offensive, inclusion of other INF types, such as bazookas and machineguns, shouldn't impact the results.  Of course, the more auxilaries, you add to a unit the higher the stack.  But the stack limit of 50 is not an ideal, I would think the ideal is a 2:1 from adjacent hexes tries to avoid go over 100 (i.e. a 70 stack in one hex and a 30 in the other) to keep the casualties manageable.  (Of course, in a real situation all these norms can be cast to the wayside.  And sometimes, an overstack may be what is needed to take a hex...)
Ande
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Göteborg/Sweden

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by Ande »

It might be interesting to see exactly when overstacking becomes inefficient. I can imagine that little bit of overstacking doesn't hurt if it means that you deal more damage and as a consequence recieves less. I think "breaking through" is determined by if a particular unit was targeted in the last few combat turns and a unit that has broken through is much more effective than a unit that hasn't. So if you bring enough units, you're bound to have some breaking through, nevermind the hords of units you'll loose.
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: Empirical tests of combat effects: The mortar

Post by springer »

Ande,

Since I have it set up, and have the time (for just a bit longer), I thought I could do a quick analysis of the over stack effects for one situation, just upping the INF. The defender is at 50% loss retreat. (The number for 40/5 unit's victory is slightly different than the early chart because it is a different set of simulations.)

All numbers refer to the attacker, not the defender, since the defender's losses will remain relatively constant (approximately 50%).

I think it is important to note that the loss results are not quite accurate as they mix both victories and defeats. Defeats are probably much more expensive.



Image
Attachments
Overstack results.jpg
Overstack results.jpg (50.67 KiB) Viewed 207 times
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”