Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Matrix Games Forums

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!

Ageod takes you back to the Civil War

Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!

Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update

Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AAR

Conflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!

Pandora Beta Playthrough Videos

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!

Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!

Matrix Games / Slitherine / AGEOD are recruiting AGAIN!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 1:07:18 AM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

Finally got around to buying the game. It's great, but there are a couple things bugging me so far.

Ping pong units in CotA were annoying. It was so hard to close in or do any damage to the enemy with direct fire because retreats were too common and retreating/routing enemies would often slip through seemingly impenetrable lines. In BFTB, the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

See this infantry company surrendering to a few mortar halftracks 700m away, past the other side of a village+woods:

All too often I see a unit surrendering when they have:

One enemy unit in sight several hundred meters away that may not be causing any casualties, firing, or even capable of doing damage. I've seen a full tank company surrender to a unit with no AT because of one airstrike.
A bunch of friendlies close by that are doing fine.
Plenty of ammo and supplies.
Plenty of room to retreat to. Not surrounded at all.

I'm no expert, but didn't surrenders generally occur when a unit was either surrounded or being overrun? Sometimes I see it during the latter...but usually it's after the unit has routed, yet still has some random enemy in sight somewhere. The main problem seems to be that units can no longer rout again (or rarely do?) once they are in "rout recovery", which is bad since they often choose to recover in stupid spots. Even if they choose a good spot, you'd think they could just run again when there's plenty of routes to rout through.

Come to think of it, CotA had this too. It just didn't come up much thanks to frequent retreats. I saw an entire regimental supply base surrender to a single Matilda tank they ran into. One has to wonder how that's even possible...

Another improvement over CotA I noticed is that infantry actually run out of ammo now. But once again, it's overadjusted.

Units in BFTB will go very quickly from full or near full ammo to completely out when engaging up close. I understand that close-in fighting can and should expend ammo pretty quickly, but units should act more frugal the more their stocks diminish. There needs to be a point where they stop firing for suppression and only fire with good chance of kill. The shift to being completely depleted of every bullet is too sudden. Maybe make it so that they automatically switch to low ROF/aggro as their ammo runs low, or something.

Post #: 1

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 1:50:54 AM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

Also, the deal with fatigue? According to the manual:

quote:

Whenever units are stationary and either resting, defending or waiting, their fatigue will reduce. Resting troops recover fastest.

Well, I checked my division HQ which has done nothing for two days other than sit in one spot with a defend order and...it's gone up to 89% fatigue?!

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 2

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 6:36:56 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Our bad but the manual is wrong. It doesn't reflect the change we made for BFTB. To clarify below is the code segment relating to fatigue adjustment.

if( recentlyEngaged )
{
// so accrue at above the standard rate - extra stress
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(1.5);
}
else if( taskType == kRestTask &&
deploymentStatus >= kDeployed )
{
if( isNight )
{
// then recover at the full rate
theAdjustment = - ( kStandardFatigueRecoveryRate * pf(1.0) );
}
else
{
// then it takes a little longer to recover
theAdjustment = - ( kStandardFatigueRecoveryRate * pf(0.75) );
}
}
else if( taskType == kConstructBridgeTask &&
isConstructing )
{
// so accrue at the standard rate
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(1.0);
}
else if( taskType == kAssaultTask )
{
// so accrue at above the standard rate - extra stress
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(1.25);
}
else
{
metre unitRadius = theSubject->GetUnitRadius();
ScenSide* theSide = theSubject->GetSide();
MapLoc subjectLoc = theSubject->GetLocation();
metre rangeToNearestEnemy = theSide->DetermineClosestEnemyRange( subjectLoc, 3000 + unitRadius );
// Note that DetermineClosestEnemyRange() will return the range passed in if no enemy found

// if you're moving about ( taking cover etc )
if( deploymentStatus < kDeployed )
{
// so accrue at the standard rate
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(1.0);
}
else // deployed or better
{
if( isNight )
{
// if no enemy nearby,
if( rangeToNearestEnemy >= 1500 + unitRadius )
{
// then recover but at a faster rate
theAdjustment = - ( kStandardFatigueRecoveryRate * pf(0.5) );
}
else // enemy is nearby
{
// then recover but at a slow rate
theAdjustment = - ( kStandardFatigueRecoveryRate * pf(0.25) );
}
}
else // daytime
{
// if no enemy nearby,
if( rangeToNearestEnemy >= 3000 + unitRadius )
{
// so accrue at a lesser rate
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(0.25);
}
else // enemy is nearby
{
// so accrue at the normal defend rate = half the std rate
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(0.5);
}
}
}
}

The key point to note is that you accrue fatigue while defending during the day or whenever you are recently engaged. You only recover while defending at night if deployed and not engaged and the amount of recovery is half that if resting and only a quarter if enemy nearby.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 3

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 6:41:09 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

BTW for the second patch we will be reducing the modifier applied to accrual if recently engaged from 150% to 125%. Sililarly we'll reduce the accrual rate for assaulting forces from 1.25 to 1.15 ( though these will be at 1.25 if engaged ). That should help reduce some of the more noticable exhaustion. We'll test this and may tweak some other aspects if required.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 3/30/2011 6:42:26 AM >

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 4

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 7:04:04 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

I just checked the surrender code and confirmed that the enemy nearby radius is set to 500m ( from forward edge oif friendly perimeter to forward edge of nemy perimeter ). It only applies to the unit's list of visible enemy. However, the visible enemy list may not have been updated yet for the routing unit's current location - ie it may still reflect the situation from where it started to rout. Do you have a saved game just prior to this surrender? If so please email it to me at support[at]panthergames[dot]com. I'll then be able to confirm that hypothesis and respond accordingly. Thanks.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 5

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 4:41:07 PM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

That div HQ was dug in the same spot, never engaged, and set to normal rest setting. They recovered most fatigue overnight with a rest order though.

About the long-range surrender, I agree that's probably what happened there. I don't have a save of that instance, but will send any similar occurrences.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 6

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 6:59:34 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

500m from the front edge - of a 250 strong unit in mob formation is 700m from perimeter to routing unit centre... which is a huge distance...

After a few hours fighting, I'm regularly seeing 3/4 of enemy front line forces surrendered - really if they had routed well to the rear and then were collected into an improvised reserve formation that would be more in keeping with how a shattered and broken force acts than mass surrenders of non surrounded troops.

Problems:
Initial rout distance/direction is often poorly chosen. Frequently the distance is barely outside the nominal 500m, and the routing rout heads towards or alongside the attacking unit, rather than 'away' - if necessary the rout route should be a dog-leg to get away first, then retreat to the rally point - If the local position is untenable then each unit could be made to abandon it and head 'towards the rear' - moving to and along roads/villages/junctions until they rally - like the columns of broken troops heading back to St Vith ahead of the German advances - collecting and rallying a shattered Bn force should take a considerable time, and the AI should allow for this, rather than just throwing the unit back into action without repairing the morale damage - his surviving units seem to 'flash' between routed, ok and routed condition in a single combat pulse when they see new enemy forces - if they are that weak, then they have no business still in the front line.

If enemy infantry is still moving (often the case when supported by artillery and enemy infantry is rendered ineffective) the 500m is rapidly closed, but subsequent routs are still only to the similar distances so they seldom recover to any significant result before being overrun again.

500m is far outside the effective ranges of most units... I'm not sure how well it would play out, but if units in rout/rout recovery status displaced when pressed at effective weapon range (but could be suppressed/pinned by fires) and surrendered at 100m I think casualty figures would look better in the AAR... and more importantly I think that forcing the surrender of significant portions of his force would be harder - right now they surrender as I exploit from the initial break-in (or first defensive clash) without any significant fighting - the AI's only effective counter is artillery to break-up/rout my advancing troops..
However it might even be worth considering the formal surrender of subunits (of Regt/Bn sizes when isolated, low on supplies and in a poor morale state)

Can we have surrendered accounted for separately from combat casualties:
Allied - KIA/WIA 250 MIA 3750 is very different from Allied KIA 4000 even if the effect on the scenario is the same - it allows comparison of weapons effectiveness separately from ending tactical position...

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 7

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 7:26:29 PM

TMO

Posts: 237
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

Lieste

quote:

After a few hours fighting, I'm regularly seeing 3/4 of enemy front line forces surrendered - really if they had routed well to the rear and then were collected into an improvised reserve formation that would be more in keeping with how a shattered and broken force acts than mass surrenders of non surrounded troops.

It seems to me that unit surrender probably currently comprises surrender in the true term and/or that a unit has ceased to be combat effective for the remainder of the scenario. Maybe a distinction between the two should be made in the reported intel - just a thought.

Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 3/30/2011 7:31:33 PM >

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 8

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 7:56:02 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

Unit surrender is currently when the last man leaving the unit is due to surrender - he collects his white hankie, switches off the lights that is the end..
Alternative 'losses' include destroyed - where the last man standing is KIA/WIA before he can surrender, or disbanded - where the residual strength of an ineffective unit is absorbed into a nearby/similar unit.

Simply eliminating the stub-units (except by destruction or formal disbandment/incorporation) leads to the situation where the attacker solves almost all his problems - any 'new' units met are fresh and deserve a full attack.

If 75% of the front line companies are still scattered throughout the rear-areas in villages, not capable of real functioning, calling artillery etc in section and platoon strength remnants - and these may surrender or re-position when approached, you complicate the attacker's choices - formally attacking each village will be overkill, but attempting to just drive through a potentially effective position may be dangerous.

To work, the owning player would have to lose control of the remnants too though - a transfer (either temporary or permanent) to a third (static?) force that you only have partial intelligence of/from (much delayed or incomplete) and minimal/no direct control of might work to represent the 'loss' of these units as combat effectives. Orders need only be hold-in-situ, and "retreat to here" with minimal tolerance for losses and minimal aggression - units near supplies, or capable HQ units for long enough could 'rally' back into the main force, either as units, or as 'replacements' for existing units by disbandment.

Just some ideas - but a lot of scenarios end up with 'the empty map' except for very deadly artillery and the HQ and Base units supplying them - in a way that seems improbable.

(in reply to TMO)

Post #: 9

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 8:42:10 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

So the 'destroyed' unit has different states in effect...

ie.

Actual State:
Original Strength 200
KIA/WIA 65
Surrenders 15
Incorporated into nearby combat unit 20
Scattered/Combat Ineffective 100

American 'Knowledge':
KIA/WIA/MIA 180
Incorporated into nearby combat units 20
Unit 'destroyed'/'disbanded'/'surrendered'

German 'Knowledge':
KIA/MIA/POW 80 (assuming perfect intelligence on KIA/WIA caused earlier in actions)
Remaining strength 120 (but of doubtful effectiveness from prisoner interrogation/abandoned equipment collected)
Unit 'ineffective'

The opposition player's and the 'true' picture are closer here, but may overstate the residual effectivness (which forces some caution on this side if it believes the current strength estimate, or encourages over-optimism where subsequent poor showings by these remnants may be mistaken for a general 'rot' of the opposing subsequent defence lines).
The controlling player's impression, and that modelled in game currently shows the 'effective' forces, but misses the friction caused on an attacker by many 'fragments' of unknown composition and quality encountered en-route.

IMO both of these are important (and allow a 'correct' rendering of actual casualties, plus a 'correct' rendering of effective strengths, which are different).

Obviously, it could be that intelligence assessments are wrong too, and miss many casualties, or prisoner interrogation could report a unit destroyed based on the impression gained from one sub-unit.

I must also say that I am a fan of FOW for the friendly side too - with delayed reporting of position/contacts/strengths. (I do find the difficulty in locating enemy artillery for CB work a bit trying at times though... there should be flash/sound location equipment and RDF equipment at various levels tasked with doing just that...)

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 10

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/30/2011 11:01:10 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Point of clarification. A unit will display the surrender light whenever a portion of its personnel surrender. A unit can surrender one or two personnel at a time and still leave many personnel in the unit. A unit can surrender some personnel many times throughout the scenario. So it's not a case of the remaining personnel all surrendering at once.

I will reduce the nearby enemy threat range from 500m to 300m and see what a difference that makes.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 11

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/31/2011 5:37:26 AM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

The individuals surrender when the surrender light is on - dribbles at a time.

The unit surrenders when the last man to leave has a white flag - but not if 99% of the unit surrenders, then the AI disbands the survivor, or if the last few men are hit by effective fire.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 12

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/31/2011 10:01:14 PM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

Okay, I've just played through "Assault on Sauer" as Axis.

Here are a bunch of weird things that happened. I can send saves for any of these on request:

Not sure if this counts as over 500m, but it's still silly. From 7:42-9:20 the whole unit slowly surrenders while just sitting right there in the middle of the open because of "rout recovery".

This allied mortar platoon, due to artillery fire, surrendered when the nearist Axis unit was 900m away and out of sight.

This allied unit surrendered to an Axis unit...which was also routed! I don't think that should be possible. Other Axis units shown here were out of sight.

This Hetzer company was assaulting with no losses. Then a couple got destroyed in an airstrike, so they routed and one surrendered. Maybe you could say the crew abandoned it, but that still seems sketchy.

That company of 9 Shermans ran into this dug-in German infantry company in the middle of the woods...at night. The infantry fired off all 10 of their faust and schreck ammo with no luck. They got fired on, routed to the location seen here, and started surrendering despite not taking one casualty. All 105 men surrendered while in "rout recovery" there.

This is not only an example of routing/surrender issues, but also how useless infantry is. Tanks should not be able to barge through a defended forest at night without losses.

That same tank company makes another unit surrender which could've simply run into the woods a little. At this point I'm wondering how those 9 tanks can manage a trail of ~200 German prisoners behind them.

6 Hetzers have spent all their AP ammo (~60 total) on the Shermans from 250m and still no kills. The routed infantry company seen here started surrendering again 2 minutes after this screenshot, despite being 200m deep in the woods while the Shermans were engaged.

How are those Shermans hidden? How did they dig in while engaged with Hetzers? How can tanks dig in in such a short time anyway?

The Shermans then proceeded to move onto the helpless Hetzers and rout them. I sent an infantry battalion to close assault from behind but once again, infantry AT proves useless.

The Hetzer company kept getting resupplied, but for some reason never received AP ammo until day 6.

This company was routed from artillery fire while attacking that village earlier. Two hours later they start surrendering because they decided to recover right there and that little AT platoon just came into view.

Panzerschrecks = useless
Okay apparently those guys were resting when the screenshot was taken, but they were firing and assaulting too.

This Sherman company just rushed through that SE forest trail right on top of an infantry batallion with impunity.

Note how all fausts and schrecks have been used to no avail.

Finally, I got to beat some Shermans! The only reason I could, though, is because they were routed by an airstrike. All I had to do was move up any unit to them and make them surrender while in recovery.

Picture says it all. Infantry AT is useless.

Once the Hetzers were finally resupplied with AP, I sent them against a company of 15 Stuarts. Again, all ammo is spent without any kills.

Why did they decide to refuel just before exiting, and why did that take hours?

Total units destroyed on both sides were:
35 surrendered
17 disbanded
1 destroyed by fire

Even assuming that all the disbandings were more from casualties than surrender (which they weren't), that's way too much surrendering.

Lieste said most of what I wanted to say. Reducing max range to 300m is a good start, but the main issue is that units don't rout far enough and often get stuck in recovery. Maybe some restrictions are in order too, so you can't have hundreds of men surrender to a tiny unit...

I remember reading somewhere (yeah yeah weightless phrase, deal with it) that surrenders by individual soldiers were very risky and uncommon. Weren't the vast majority of POWs taken from organized surrenders of large units, like 6th army at Stalingrad?

BTW, I noted a few other things:

German machine guns don't seem to have any armor penetration. Historically they were notorious for swiss-cheesing American halftracks out to ~300m.
Panzerschrecks have AP and HE ammo. I thought there was only the same HEAT rocket for both roles?
Airstrikes have become fairly effective since CotA. Nice.
Intel works much better too. No more going straight from 'vague' to 'excellent'.

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 13

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/31/2011 11:38:59 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 656
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

Hi ZBrisk,

Those are some very interesting observations you've made. I'll be keeping a much closer eye on routing and resupply etc. In general I too have noticed that U.S. armour seems way overpowered in comparison to that of the Germans. I just finished replaying Dinant -Do or Die -- this time as the Axis -- and the armour and anti-armour values for 10 to 14 Shermans were as much as half again those of 9 to 12 Panthers. Why is this?? Values were obtained at the end of the game where intel is excellent for all opforce units. I also had a co. of Shemans a take out most of a Panzerjager battalion singlehandedly when all units were in the open and on their way somewhere alse but I didn't think that a Sherman's 75mm tank gun would be that lethal vs a mix of Jagdpanzers and Jagdpanthers in a more or less head on collision type of engagement.
Perhaps the Shermans values are too high?? I don't know what the answer is............ they just seem too uber to me.

Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 14

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 3/31/2011 11:50:40 PM

gabeeg

Posts: 231
Joined: 11/18/2009
Status: offline

ZBrisk,

Those are some excellent and clear explanations. Thanks for posting them up for us users and fans of BftB. Hopefully this will assist the Panther team in making improvements to this great game.

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 15

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 12:01:46 AM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

The Shermans are a mix of Jumbo, 76(w), 75 and 105mm. This means an effective parity with Panthers, and some trouble still for Tiger II units (as Jumbo are (cough) optimistic).

They are all equipped with 50 cal AAMG, which is what accounts for the high AArm values... for tank v tank fighting this is irrelevant, except at very close ranges where he can suppress the axis faster.

Equally the British 'Shermans' are a mix of Firefly VC and Sherman 75mm, and Cromwells are a mix of Challenger and Cromwell IV vehicles.

Numbers play a big role too - Shermans tend to hang about in Regt strength - around 50 assorted vehicles, while Germans are lucky to get more than a few companies in the same place.. say 30 vehicles at most... this opens up flanking opportunities and the short life of the German vehicles.

With Light armour, the high recon value makes short range ambushes problematic - even in woods or BUA I was having to survive retreat/rout checks before having PzFaust in range. Tanks, proper, are much more likely to succumb if unescorted.

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 16

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 1:41:41 AM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

Some very odd decisions by the AI - a force containing two platoons of infantry, a 'specialist AT platoon' with 'modern' RPG7 class weapons and HQ was 'bumped' by a company of Shermans - a brief exchange of fire, one WIA/KIA in the AT platoon, and two dead Shermans - both forces rout out of sight.

No further losses to either side from immediate routing, and the AT is seen to enter retreat recovery, morale slightly down on starting value but still 'high' on both sides.

A minute or two later the AT platoon is reported as destroyed (disbanded), but no other units had taken losses needing these 'replacements' and the AT firepower and range of this was about double that of the line Companies.

The next sortie by the Armour saw it rout about 200 m away from the infantry on contact (no firing) and all the remaining vehicles were lost just sitting in plain sight.

The original aim, to expend 'only' the PzFaust and PzSchreck AP from the modified Grenadiers, or to see if the previously unresponsive RPG7 resupply would function both foiled...

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 17

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 1:59:13 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

ZBrisk,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post your observations.

I have chacked the code again. A few preliminary comments.

Re your first example. A whole company of the British 4 Para Bde surrendered to German AT guns that were 700m away from it. It was in the middle of a open field and realised that it would be slaughtered by the long range guns. Looks very similar to the situation in your first example, only the boot is on the other foot.

Re second Example. Again that mortar unit would be within the range after allowing fwd edges. However, it would only surrender if the enemy was visible. Note that the enemy unit is on a hill and would be able top see over much of the woods. Perhaps you could use the LOS tool and draw it directly onto the mortar unit. If this still does not indicate a valid LOS, then send me a saved game.

Re third Example. Enemy retreating and routing units are ignored. Your second example occurs because of the non routing German unit to the east. Remember that the current 500m range is from fwd edge to fwd edge, so could be on average 800m centre to centre.

Re fourth example. Yes there are many, nay heaps of accounts of tank crew abandoning their AFVs just before, during and after an airstrike. Remember this relative to the aircraft they are virtually stationery and few AFVs top armour could withstand 20 or 30mm cannon fire. So it's no surprise that panic sets in and the guys flee.

Re panzerfaust effectiveness and/or Sherman invincibility. I'll look into this. Can you please email me your saves for these examples, in particular the one with the inf units surrounding the enemy armoured unit. Thanks.

Re resupply talking hours. Well yes it does. In fact from the example the despatch was very quick, some 16 minutes after the request. The issue is obviously with the supply run itself. I would need save taken before the request to check out why. It may be that it has deemed it too hostile and is returning to base or has been destroyed en route.

Once again thanks for the feedback.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 18

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 2:27:39 AM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

re the PzFaust/PzSchreck thing - it is possible that they had previously expended them and had not replaced them during resupply.

It might only be that they were assumed to be there prior to the attack? I'm seeing no resupply to Grenadier Companies which have the PzSchreck on Estab.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 19

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 7:17:38 AM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

Examples 1 & 4: Agreed. But...
Lemme restate that my problem with surrendering isn't so much about distance. It's that units are just too vulnerable to surrendering in rout recovery. One of the examples in my last post shows how I exploited this to make a Sherman company surrender long after they got airstriked (airstruck?). Same thing happened here.

Some tank crews bailing out in the immediate aftermath of an aistrike makes sense, but the whole company surrendering to just any enemy unit that wanders by an hour later doesn't. Same goes for any type of unit. Sure, routed units should surrender if they're pinned down and hopeless like that 4th Para example you mentioned, but I see units stuck in rout recovery surrendering even when they're not being fired on. This seems to be the main thing inflating surrender rates in BFTB.

Example 2: LoS doesn't seem to reach it at time of surrender. Will send.
Example 3: Not sure about LoS here. I take it that the unit footprints count? Then yes.

Re resupply:
Do you mean the Hetzers not recieving AP shells or the refueling? If the former, they did get resupplied quickly, just not with AP for some reason.

If the latter, I haven't seen 'refueling' in these games before, so I didn't realize it meant "fuel on the way". I was just annoyed that those Hetzers decided to stop there a few hours before the battle ended. Is it gamey to exit an ineffective unit? Maybe, but the scenario objectives work that way.

Also, I was wrong about the Hetzers. Turns out they started with 15 instead of 60 AP shells before fighting those Shermans. Still, you'd think they could kill at least one...

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 20

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 7:32:11 AM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

Now about the ammo thing I mentioned...

This is a pretty clear-cut example. On "nobody comes back" I ordered a German inf batallion to assault an American rifle platoon in the woods, with two of the companies attacking from both flanks (something the batallion AI should think of doing, btw). This is the result:

Those three companies have spent literally all of their ammo on that one platoon. Even a sturm company right on top of them doesn't make them budge. My units haven't received a single casualty, and intel shows the other side still has ~44 men.

In reality, I'd expect something like:

Contact made at ~100m. Most German casualties happen here.
Just a portion of the German batallion's firepower is enough to quickly pin down the American platoon.
Engagement lasts just a few minutes before Americans surrender. Half casualties, half prisoner.
Anywhere from a few to a few dozen casualties for the Germans, depending on how well they handled contact.
The Germans spent maybe 10% of their ammo.

This is a situation where surrendering would've really made sense!

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 21

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 8:03:26 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Do you have a saved game re the resupply of the Hetzers taken before the actual resupply event?

Re Routing and Recovering. Prior to BFTB we used to rout units a long way, and we also routed them again if while recovering enemy threats appeared close by. Trouble with this is that you could end up with a unit bouncing around continuously and never recovering. I've taken another l;ook at the code and noticed one obvious bit that applied a surrender threshold based on the unit's current morale, stubbornness and supply level. Alas this only applies to routing units. Recovering units therefore get an automatic 100% threshold. I've addressed this now. Recovering units use the same code and have the threshold halved, thus making them twice as unlikely to surrender as routing units. BTW the code does test to see that the time last engaged was within 10 mintes for routers and 2 minutes for recovering units. Hopefully this will improve matters. We'll test this with the next build.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 4/1/2011 8:04:11 AM >

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 22

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 8:29:43 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Re ammo expenditure. Your're presumption about ammo expenditure is too low IMO. Most companies carried around 100 rds per rifle, from between 500 to 1000 rds per MG. In a typical assault, lasting fifteen minutes most units would burn through half if not more of their on line ammo. EG a MG42 will burn through 30 rds per minute in an assault. 60 rds once the unit's perimeters overlap ( ie they are near hand to hand ). Let's say an average of 40 rds. Let's assume the MGs carried 800 rds each. Therefore 800 / 40 = 20 minutes worth of fire. Not much really. Sure not every one will be firing at that rate but still the unit will burn through around 50% of their estab allowance. Now bear in mind that for the Germans they often didn't start with a full estabs worth. So I'm not surprised to see them exhaust thier supplies so quickly.

What I am concerned about though, is probably the low casualties inflicted on the defenders in this case. IIRC the US troops start entrenched along the front line. This is probably having too significant an effect when combined with the forest, poor visibility etc. Was this taken from close to the start of the scenario. If not, then can you send me asaved game prior to the assault line getting close to the defender. thanks.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 23

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/1/2011 8:32:45 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Re why didn't that US inf pl surrender. It probably boils down to the lack of casualties inflicted on it. Which is why I want to look into this. I know from our test scenarios that when units are in the open, deployed, or dug in the casualties inflicted from small arms appears right. So it's probably a case of the terrain and fortification modiiers.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 24

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/2/2011 10:08:50 PM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

Re hetzers resupply:
I have a save shortly after resupply is on the way. Will that work or does it need to be at the time of request?

Re routing:
Yes, units in CotA ping-ponged too much, but I don't think the ability to rout multiple times should've been removed entirely. Maybe a better solution is to allow it depending on the unit's suppression, nearby threats, and available nearby cover. For example, this company may surrender since they're out in the open and being fired on by a bunch of 75s. But this coy should've just run into the woods a little.

Re ammo expenditure:
Agreed 100% on expenditure rates. Note that I expected the engagement to last a few minutes. That's why I said 10%. Instead, it went on for over an hour and that screenshot shows the result. Maybe my presumption on engagement time is wrong, but an assault in the woods with 1:6 personnel and 1:16 APerFP coming from three sides shouldn't drag on for an hour. Maybe 15 minutes at most.

The whole point here is that after so many bullets, that platoon (which was only 'deployed') should've been annihilated. Even I haven't taken a single casualty, and I'm the one assaulting! Same thing with the panzerfaust/schreck thing earlier, and the Hetzers. After all those shells and rockets were fired, IMO at least 10% should've hit. Something about direct fire seems really off.

Good news is, indirect fire works nicely. I played through the assault a few times. One time the Americans actually routed and surrendered...after a mortar strike.

I will make a point on ammo expenditure though. IMO, lower rates of fire shouldn't only lower the expenditure rate, it should make shots more efficient as well. Does it work this way already? The manual says that low-ammo units will ration, but that only suggests high-level decisions of engagement. If visibility in that forest was so bad, then surely no soldier would fire every last bullet without even seeing the enemy...

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 25

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/2/2011 11:32:04 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

It seems even small amounts of fatigue severely impact the casualty rates (persons per round fired).

I fully agree that effectiveness should plummet when tired, but I'd tend to the suggestion that casualty rate (persons per hour) should be strongly reduced (as currently), but the effect on rates of fire should be the majority, so the (persons per round) is less strongly influenced.

More of a rationing of effort. As when the unit is rationing ammunition due to shortages.
Also perhaps appropriate for specialist AT weapons in restricted terrain (or any other weapon where area fires are not generally used - the weapon will usually be fired when a target is more-or-less clearly in view, so opportunity and limited chances are the limitation rather than abstract accuracy reductions /ammunition quantities).

It could be that the AT gunner never sees a clear shot while unsuppressed enough to fire, and fails to stop a tank's movement - or if he is in a quieter corner, and here cover and concealment help, he might get a textbook flanking shot at perfect range, and only need a single rocket to have effect.

< Message edited by Lieste -- 4/2/2011 11:59:24 PM >

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 26

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/3/2011 1:13:11 AM

gabeeg

Posts: 231
Joined: 11/18/2009
Status: offline

I have had two odd things happen in regards to panzers in my current game. One, I had a Panther Company retreat in the face of a company of stuarts....see the screen shot. Now they might have gotten spooked because they knew more American units were behind it...I don't know but with in minutes of the stuarts being identified as stuarts and shots being fired the Panthers in town retreated...seems odd. The other issue was with another company of Panthers that entered an enemy held town backed up with two companies of Pz Gren. The came up against two units of american infantry (not sure of the E/S...so maybe they had AT weapons other than bazookas) and a mortar group....it surrendered. One of the infantry companies was on its left flank but the mortar and other infantry company were in front. Seems that 10 panthers supported by two pz gren. companies would have fought a bit. Again, I do not have all the details or a save game but on the surface it seems odd.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kind Regards,

Harry

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 27

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/4/2011 12:33:14 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16504
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Harry,

Thanks for the feedback. Without a saved game taken before the event it's nigh impossible to determine for sure why these occured.

For all,

Please try and get into the habit of saving regularly. That way we'll be able to follow up on these reports. Many thanks.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to gabeeg)

Post #: 28

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/4/2011 1:01:47 AM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

I just looked at the file sizes for a saved game - they are moderate, but not huge... less than 1mb each for a modest scenario.

What would greatly aid this is an option to save not just a single autosave file every twenty minutes (Real time), but also to opt to save a file (SCN_NAME-D1-0000, SCN_NAME-D1-0030 etc. - ideally time user specified, and selectable on/off during play.) This would give us an easy way of 'having' a save on hand, and also making better AAR presentations easy - often I want to make a save *After* something interesting has just happened (good and bad). Nothing really 'new' here, just automating something to make life a bit easier.
Ideally this could be made into a user* or automatically assigned folder eg SCN_NAME-Launch_date for each new game within the save folder... and while folders occur to me, I'd also love to be able to set subfolders to organise the original BFTB offical files and my local modifications and projects for Scenarios and Estabs - it can get quite hard to find specific versions of files, or 'branches' of work with the flat-only folder. I did try sub-folders for scenarios and they didn't get picked up.
With related files in a single folder I can easily manage each scenario-run individually (delete the whole folder, cull some 'dull' saves, archive the lot to disc) - a really big list of similarly named but unrelated files in one folder is a PITA...

It might be useful to also optionally save a larger file, with the messages and related 'kill tags' for the map display at the 'session-end' save when leaving an in-progress scenario so it can be fully resumed... and to allow an AAR-flagged save to be reloaded even if all on-map forces were eliminated.

*The user specified folder would allow different paths to be explored from a single saved game - the new branch would require a different naming convention if it wasn't to overwrite the original game.

< Message edited by Lieste -- 4/4/2011 1:11:00 AM >

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 29

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss? - 4/4/2011 9:57:59 AM

gabeeg

Posts: 231
Joined: 11/18/2009
Status: offline

I second that request for autosave option that saves in sequential files...that is a very nice idea.

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 30