Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 12:55:43 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Bastogne
Col.Frost at Arnhem bridge
Seelow Heights



...but these things tend to involve some unusual factor -- whereas TOAW needs to model the typical. We don't want an engine that delivers correct results for 5% of the outcomes -- and results that are totally off for 95%.

As I recall...

At Bastogne, the Germans never figured they would take the town immediately. They were primarly concerned to seal it off -- which they did.

Frost at Arnhem bridge had a rather small area to defend. Two houses, if I recall correctly

Seelowe Heights was the most impressive example of the late-war German tactic of preparing an entire alternative set of positions and then redeploying into them at the last minute, allowing the Russian sledgehammer to hit vacant ground.


Let's account 'unusual factors' for Arnhem bridge and even Seelow. But Bastogne seems more like a 'typical' example. After all the Germans were not content with just isolating it. They actually attacked.


I'm sure they gave it an experimental poke.

I'm not that familiar with the course of operations around Bastogne, but in general, much of German tactics in World War Two could be summarized as giving things a poke, and if they don't give, go around, or at least try poking elsewhere.

Quite likely the 82nd Airborne could have held Bastogne no matter what the Germans threw at it. But did the Germans seriously try to prove the contrary? That's another matter.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/21/2011 1:00:43 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 61
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 1:00:04 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2001
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
If any change is called for, it might be to both make 'fortified' -- as opposed to 'defending,' or 'entrenched' -- status harder to attain, and to make it still easier for units moving into the same hex to take over that status. Some French division moving into the line at Verdun didn't take more than a few hours to be substantially as fortified as its predecessor.


Wouldn't fortified 'terrain' be appropriate? For Verdun i mean. However, your proposal has its merits.


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 62
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 1:04:38 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
If any change is called for, it might be to both make 'fortified' -- as opposed to 'defending,' or 'entrenched' -- status harder to attain, and to make it still easier for units moving into the same hex to take over that status. Some French division moving into the line at Verdun didn't take more than a few hours to be substantially as fortified as its predecessor.


Wouldn't fortified 'terrain' be appropriate? For Verdun i mean. However, your proposal has its merits.



Oh I agree Verdun should be 'fortified.' However (a) it might be rendered harder to attain to that status, while still relatively easy to attain to 'entrenched,' and (b) once attained, a relieving unit should be able to move into the hex and inherit the status within the same turn.

Else situations like Verdun and Stalingrad become virtually impossible to simulate. Units were literally consumed in these places, and their replacements moved in and immediately almost became 'fortified' in their stead. It wasn't like it took a couple of turns.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 63
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 1:09:57 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2001
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: sapper32

...The co'operation level is ok same colour flags in the attack planner...


I have the impression those flags can be hinky, depending on what order you click on the units.

I don't place too much faith in them to begin with, so I haven't studied what they do carefully, but it does seem as if you can select -- say -- an artillery unit that can cooperate with everyone and the program will then answer the question 'can this unit cooperate with everyone?'

The answer of course is 'yes,' and all the flags go green. However, click on another unit and you may get a different array of flags. Yes, a will cooperate with b and c. But what about b cooperating with c?



You're not alone.

i would think that the flags, no matter what they indicate, well.. they just indicate and don't have an influence on the actual combat calculations..

But after all, there remains a certain uncertainity ... Bob to the rescue..

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 64
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 1:10:54 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
As to Bastogne, on the one hand, it was the 101st, not the 82nd Airborne. On the other hand, the Wikipedia account makes it clear that the Germans did not give priority to taking the place. Once they had established it was strongly held, they went around, leaving it to one Volksgrenadier division to do what it could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Bastogne

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 65
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 1:18:40 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2001
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
If any change is called for, it might be to both make 'fortified' -- as opposed to 'defending,' or 'entrenched' -- status harder to attain, and to make it still easier for units moving into the same hex to take over that status. Some French division moving into the line at Verdun didn't take more than a few hours to be substantially as fortified as its predecessor.


Wouldn't fortified 'terrain' be appropriate? For Verdun i mean. However, your proposal has its merits.



Oh I agree Verdun should be 'fortified.' However (a) it might be rendered harder to attain to that status, while still relatively easy to attain to 'entrenched,' and (b) once attained, a relieving unit should be able to move into the hex and inherit the status within the same turn.

Else situations like Verdun and Stalingrad become virtually impossible to simulate. Units were literally consumed in these places, and their replacements moved in and immediately almost became 'fortified' in their stead. It wasn't like it took a couple of turns.



There is already some effect built into the engine as the chances for attaining a 'higher/better' entrenchment status increase with the entrenchment level in the hex. And if a unit has already attained fortified status in one hex the entrenchment level in that hex should be relatively high. Note that dense urban 'terrain' has a default entrenchment level of 30%. But who am i telling this..

However i think you're right and the effect should be more emphasized. Which OTH would mean even further strengthening the defense in TOAW ...

Note that there is also the 'issue' of campaign scenarios vs mere battle scenarios. In a scenario merely dealing with, say Verdun, it would be aproppriate to make the hexes in question fortified terrain. Not so with a scenario dealing with the entire western front of WWI - who can predict what will happen..?
Pity we can't construct fortifications in TOAW. Things to think about for IV..

< Message edited by Telumar -- 8/21/2011 1:43:47 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 66
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 1:25:00 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2001
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As to Bastogne, on the one hand, it was the 101st, not the 82nd Airborne. On the other hand, the Wikipedia account makes it clear that the Germans did not give priority to taking the place. Once they had established it was strongly held, they went around, leaving it to one Volksgrenadier division to do what it could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Bastogne


Okay, have read it, you're right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As to Bastogne, on the one hand, it was the 101st, not the 82nd Airborne.


Argh, and i was just about to lecture you ..

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 67
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 3:00:44 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Fortified simply means an area has been improved with defensive works. Entrenchment is a type of fortification and defensive works acheived by digging. Digging in is the act of entrenching.

Semantics aside, a fortified status should need engineering units. Not the engineers associated with a unit. A real engineer unit. It takes specialized equipment and supplies to build field works that would be classified as fortifications as opposed to simply entrenchments.

Any division has the ability to erect field works. But not any division has the ability to fortify an area. Mines, wires, communications, extensive clearing of lines of fire, extensive trenches, com centers, spotting posts, artillery direction centers. The list is long. It can't be done in one or two weeks without a large investment in manpower and resources.

Perhaps the fortified status should be removed completely or at the very least take a large number of engineering squads and transport.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 68
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 3:39:04 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6887
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm not dubious that there are dire effects. I exploited them.


That's why we have to rely on rigorous testing. Without rigor we end up "proving" cold fusion. Then the next thing you know we're burning witches at the stake. (This caution could be applied to most of this thread, by the way).

My tests were rigorous: Identical combats with the only difference being the cooperation levels. Just to be sure, I repeated them today. The results are shown in the attached table. There were six combats - three with the three cooperation levels for the attackers, and three with the three cooperation levels for the defenders. Five trials of each were summed to get the results.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 69
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 3:45:07 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6887
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As noted, in context I really find it impossible to take that assertion seriously. I suspect you merely prefer not to ask.


Then you will have no trouble selling that to the Matrix Officialdom. Email away.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 70
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 3:48:38 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6887
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: sapper32

...The co'operation level is ok same colour flags in the attack planner...


I have the impression those flags can be hinky, depending on what order you click on the units.

I don't place too much faith in them to begin with, so I haven't studied what they do carefully, but it does seem as if you can select -- say -- an artillery unit that can cooperate with everyone and the program will then answer the question 'can this unit cooperate with everyone?'

The answer of course is 'yes,' and all the flags go green. However, click on another unit and you may get a different array of flags. Yes, a will cooperate with b and c. But what about b cooperating with c?



You're not alone.

i would think that the flags, no matter what they indicate, well.. they just indicate and don't have an influence on the actual combat calculations..

But after all, there remains a certain uncertainity ... Bob to the rescue..


Norm told me that cooperation was "best case". I've always assumed he was right.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 71
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 5:24:26 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As noted, in context I really find it impossible to take that assertion seriously. I suspect you merely prefer not to ask.


Then you will have no trouble selling that to the Matrix Officialdom. Email away.


I would be in the ridiculous position of asking them to give you permission something to do something you haven't asked to do. Should I e-mail my neighbor's employer asking them if they can give him next Saturday off?

I won't speculate on your reasons for refusing to list what changes you are contemplating for the next patch. However, I'll repeat: in context, 'there's an NDA' is a pretty weak reed to lean on. In fact, it's more of an excuse -- and a thin one at that.

I'm confident that should you wish to list the proposed changes, you could ask, get permission, and list the proposed changes. If anything, given Matrix' obvious policy of maintaining interest in their products with a discussion board, etc on the one hand, and the equally obvious improbability of anyone exploiting the dubious commercial value of such a disclosure on the other, I have a hard time seeing why they would refuse. Their prerogative, of course, but it would make little sense.

I'm sure they do have an NDA. They don't want testers selling off the whole product line somehow. Whether they actually have any objection to open discussion of proposed changes is a different matter entirely. Besides, you claim to have openly listed the proposed changes in 3.4 and of course there was the beta. How could that be done without violating the NDA? Is the NDA only there when it suits you?

You claim you listed the proposed changes for 3.4. Okay, you did. So why can't you list the proposed changes for 3.41 or whatever this next one is to be?


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/21/2011 5:45:52 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 72
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 5:40:11 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm not dubious that there are dire effects. I exploited them.


That's why we have to rely on rigorous testing. Without rigor we end up "proving" cold fusion. Then the next thing you know we're burning witches at the stake. (This caution could be applied to most of this thread, by the way).

My tests were rigorous: Identical combats with the only difference being the cooperation levels. Just to be sure, I repeated them today. The results are shown in the attached table. There were six combats - three with the three cooperation levels for the attackers, and three with the three cooperation levels for the defenders. Five trials of each were summed to get the results.





Hu...um. I'm glad you did that, and it's good you did, but at the same time, I saw what I saw. My (often limited cooperation themselves) attackers could gut any stack that contained non-cooperative units. It would even happen if my attack only went off at 'attacks weakly.' This in a scenario where the main weapon is light rifles, artillery is quite weak, and usually the defender is quite immovable.

I suppose I should run my own set of tests. It's hardly reasonable to ask you to look into an effect that your own test has just demonstrated isn't there.

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 73
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 10:14:32 AM   
Carolus Rex

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 8/15/2011
Status: offline
Dont know if Götterdammung is is a special case, but here the defenders are realy hard to throw back. As for the suggestions to weaken up the defender with arty, on the 30 turns i played, I have only managed to get the defender unfortified once! If someone who does more scenetific testes wants an save file where testing could bee done i could send it. Here whole Russian Armies, supported by the whole Front arty, Flank attacks Reg sized defenders. the only result beeing hard losses for the Attacker.
I fully agre that in a game like TOAW, you must bee able to plan your actions. And the the result should be fairly as expected if you know your self and the enemy ("know your tools") , unless the opponent doesent act as you had expected.
As fore the Bastonge example, the germans had not expected it to be defended by a elit airborne division, who when surrounded and outnumbered answered a call for surrender with the famous word, "Nuts"

Then of course as in Götterdammung, this isent enough. After 30 turn I start to know myself and the enemy. And the knowledge says that it doesent matter what i throw in, I cant move the defender.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 74
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 11:22:06 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2001
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

Dont know if Götterdammung is is a special case, but here the defenders are realy hard to throw back. As for the suggestions to weaken up the defender with arty, on the 30 turns i played, I have only managed to get the defender unfortified once! If someone who does more scenetific testes wants an save file where testing could bee done i could send it. Here whole Russian Armies, supported by the whole Front arty, Flank attacks Reg sized defenders. the only result beeing hard losses for the Attacker.
I fully agre that in a game like TOAW, you must bee able to plan your actions. And the the result should be fairly as expected if you know your self and the enemy ("know your tools") , unless the opponent doesent act as you had expected.
As fore the Bastonge example, the germans had not expected it to be defended by a elit airborne division, who when surrounded and outnumbered answered a call for surrender with the famous word, "Nuts"

Then of course as in Götterdammung, this isent enough. After 30 turn I start to know myself and the enemy. And the knowledge says that it doesent matter what i throw in, I cant move the defender.


Send a sal to cariundel at yahoo de. Prefereably the beginning of a turn.

_____________________________


(in reply to Carolus Rex)
Post #: 75
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 11:54:01 AM   
Carolus Rex

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 8/15/2011
Status: offline
Mail sent

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 76
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 2:47:47 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2001
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

Dont know if Götterdammung is is a special case, but here the defenders are realy hard to throw back. As for the suggestions to weaken up the defender with arty, on the 30 turns i played, I have only managed to get the defender unfortified once! If someone who does more scenetific testes wants an save file where testing could bee done i could send it. Here whole Russian Armies, supported by the whole Front arty, Flank attacks Reg sized defenders. the only result beeing hard losses for the Attacker.
I fully agre that in a game like TOAW, you must bee able to plan your actions. And the the result should be fairly as expected if you know your self and the enemy ("know your tools") , unless the opponent doesent act as you had expected.
As fore the Bastonge example, the germans had not expected it to be defended by a elit airborne division, who when surrounded and outnumbered answered a call for surrender with the famous word, "Nuts"

Then of course as in Götterdammung, this isent enough. After 30 turn I start to know myself and the enemy. And the knowledge says that it doesent matter what i throw in, I cant move the defender.


Thanks for the save file. Indeed defenders are hard to dislodge, but they're for the most part in well fortified and prepared positions and have a slightly higher unit proficiency. The thing is, just as in history, you'll have to get through at just one point. Don't expect to roll over the front on its length. Once you're through there are no more fortified and prepared positions for a while. At least for some hexes if we look at East Prussia..

You know that more than half of a Soviet artillery division's tubes have a range of 1? The 120mm Mortars, the 76mm and 152mm guns. Only the 122mm, 152mm ER and 203mm Guns have a range of two. The same with the artillery in the HQs. You will have to move it adjacent to the enemy unit to be attacked to get the entire artillery strength added to the combat. Either put it in T then it will add 50% of its strength to all adjacent battles (provided good cooperation) or order it to attack (it will bombard, not assault).

So, i ordered some assaults. It seems to be a weird thing that i am told by the attack planer to have a low chance for success and will probably suffer heavy losses with an assault ratio of 800+. As i understand it the attack ratio calculation doesn't take into account support units and attacker's passive defender equipment. Nor combat density or deployment...though the What's New .pdf states "there is a great deal of complexity behind the scenes that has been omitted from this description".
Whatever the combat planer tells us... we have to take into account a)the strong enemy positions (F), and b)combat density penalties. If you look at those hexes that contain only one of your Rifle Corps you won't see a density indicator. But if you move only one additional unit, say one support unit like an AT Bde, into that same hex it pops up. Yellow. Even red in some cases (hex 121/16 i.e. - One Gds Rifle Corps plus one small ferry unit). The bad thing is, the combat density indicator not showing up in a 'single unit hex' doesn't mean there is no combat density penalty. The good thing is, the more your troops get depleted the less you suffer from this penalty...
It seems not to be an engine problem, rather it looks like an issue of 'not optimal' scenario design.

I did some attacks and it seems to me the results have been in the realm of the reasonable and the to be expected. Some succeeded, some however went terribly wrong. After all we're the Soviets, so a certain degree of slaughter is to be expected. Here the link to download the .sal: Götterdämmerung 31_1.sal (file is too big to attach it directly to the post) with several attacks ordered. Just open, take a tour along the East Prussian and Polish front and hit resolve all attacks. I took care to minimize combat density penalty, get maximum cooperation and ensured as much artillery support as possible.


_____________________________


(in reply to Carolus Rex)
Post #: 77
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 3:38:04 PM   
Carolus Rex

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 8/15/2011
Status: offline
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I have been thinking about the question regarding different range of art pieces in the same unit for some time. Dont realy know why I havent tested it, but I now realizes that it has costed the life of several tousands of russians...
When watching the battles resolved as you had planned, for the first time there was losses at the axis side. I now realizes that the importance of art has changed considerably since latest update (which is good since art was and is the big "killer")
Most attacks without artsupport (range 1 hex) however still had 0 % losses for axis side even if attacker outnumbered the defender big time, a bit wierd since the allied units on this level (mostly corps) has considerably amounts of arty incorporated in the unit.
It almost feels like cheating having been helped by one of the experts, but now my opponent will start to feel the real effeckt of my arty.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 78
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 5:26:27 PM   
polarenper


Posts: 350
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Currently in Kiev
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Fortified simply means an area has been improved with defensive works. Entrenchment is a type of fortification and defensive works acheived by digging. Digging in is the act of entrenching.

Semantics aside, a fortified status should need engineering units. Not the engineers associated with a unit. A real engineer unit. It takes specialized equipment and supplies to build field works that would be classified as fortifications as opposed to simply entrenchments.

Any division has the ability to erect field works. But not any division has the ability to fortify an area. Mines, wires, communications, extensive clearing of lines of fire, extensive trenches, com centers, spotting posts, artillery direction centers. The list is long. It can't be done in one or two weeks without a large investment in manpower and resources.

Perhaps the fortified status should be removed completely or at the very least take a large number of engineering squads and transport.

+1

However, perhaps semantics are the problem here. I always assumed the "f" status was something less than full blown engineered fortifications. More like "field fortifications", i.e. trench lines artillery and mg kill zones log bunkers etc.
If that is true, then fair enough, but i would still love to have the time it takes to construct one of these be dependent on how many engineer squads are present.



_____________________________

السلام عليكم

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 79
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 6:06:12 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Fortified simply means an area has been improved with defensive works. Entrenchment is a type of fortification and defensive works acheived by digging. Digging in is the act of entrenching.

Semantics aside, a fortified status should need engineering units. Not the engineers associated with a unit. A real engineer unit. It takes specialized equipment and supplies to build field works that would be classified as fortifications as opposed to simply entrenchments.

Any division has the ability to erect field works. But not any division has the ability to fortify an area. Mines, wires, communications, extensive clearing of lines of fire, extensive trenches, com centers, spotting posts, artillery direction centers. The list is long. It can't be done in one or two weeks without a large investment in manpower and resources.

Perhaps the fortified status should be removed completely or at the very least take a large number of engineering squads and transport.

+1

However, perhaps semantics are the problem here. I always assumed the "f" status was something less than full blown engineered fortifications. More like "field fortifications", i.e. trench lines artillery and mg kill zones log bunkers etc.
If that is true, then fair enough, but i would still love to have the time it takes to construct one of these be dependent on how many engineer squads are present.




Considering the variety of historical conditions TOAW tries to cover and the level of detail it can afford, I don't particularly want specialized fortification building units. In any case, note that engineers will accelerate digging in.

However, I think it's worth thinking about making 'fortified' status both take longer to achieve and be more inheritable than is currently the case -- without correspondingly extending the time for achieving 'defending' and 'entrenched' status.

I visualize 'defending' status as the unit having got itself out of march order. A line or perimeter has been set up, foxholes dug, communications established, artillery support worked out -- as much a matter of the unit being 'set' as of anything actually being dug up. While any relieving unit can save some time by just conforming to the dispositions already worked out, much of the 'work' in terms of settling in will have to be repeated anew.

'Entrenched' obviously implies some more extensive digging. Perhaps some buried phone lines. Actual trenches. Cover cleared away.

'Fortified' is the whole nine yards. The Western Front by 1915. Bunkers for all and communication trenches. Forward lines, a main line of resistance, etc. Such arrangements obviously take more than a week or two to establish -- and equally obviously, can be handed off in their entirety to another unit that can move in in the morning and be just as 'fortified' by that evening.




_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to polarenper)
Post #: 80
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 6:47:06 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2001
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I have been thinking about the question regarding different range of art pieces in the same unit for some time. Dont realy know why I havent tested it, but I now realizes that it has costed the life of several tousands of russians...
When watching the battles resolved as you had planned, for the first time there was losses at the axis side. I now realizes that the importance of art has changed considerably since latest update (which is good since art was and is the big "killer")
Most attacks without artsupport (range 1 hex) however still had 0 % losses for axis side even if attacker outnumbered the defender big time, a bit wierd since the allied units on this level (mostly corps) has considerably amounts of arty incorporated in the unit.
It almost feels like cheating having been helped by one of the experts, but now my opponent will start to feel the real effeckt of my arty.


No problem. It's not cheating.. consider it a a workshop.

I think it has become clear that the issue being dicussed with defence in TOAW & fortiied status, at least in your case results from a mixture of scenario design quirks (to put it mildly) and a beginner climbing the learning curve.

That of course doesn't mean that there is no room for the engine to be improved.

_____________________________


(in reply to Carolus Rex)
Post #: 81
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 7:22:05 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
I ran some tests.  The purpose was to verify Curtis' results, but they also shed light on the 'defense strength' issue.

I created simplified regiments of 100 rifle squads, 10 Medium MG's, and 10 81 mm mortars.  Put all the settings I could think of to middling values. 10 km per hex, half-week turns.

Initially, the attacker got eight regiments and attacked one fortified defending regiment with one subdivided unit in mobile deployment.  First the test was run with cooperating defenders, then with uncooperative defenders.  Then the scenarios were modified so that there were only four attacking regiments.

As far as my original purpose goes, I got Curtis' results, to make a long story short.  A noticeable but by no means excessive penalty for uncooperative defenders.

However, I also saw no evidence that the defender was being excessively favored in 3.4 (yes, I checked to make sure I was actually running 3.4).

These attacks were mounted without any artillery support, with units from the same formation, at 'limit losses' against defenders on the same setting.  With eight attacking regiments and cooperating defenders, the defender retreated three out of five times after one round.  Most of the turn was left, and while I didn't track it, often the defender was in no shape to continue to hold the hex thereafter.

More impressively, with only four attacking regiments, the (fortified) defender retreated on two of five trials -- after one round, with no guarantee that he could have held on for the rest of the turn.

4-1 odds without artillery sometimes suffices to promptly take a fortified position?  I don't see any excessive bias in favor of the defender -- to say the least.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/21/2011 7:23:02 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 82
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 7:36:05 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
As an addendum, just for fun I ran the four-regiment variant with no mobile unit in the defending hex -- just pure, fortified defender.

The defender retreated on three of five trials. 


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 83
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 7:42:39 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
As a thought, in the original case cited, what is the proficiency of the defender?

Generally, strange things will start happening as one starts approaching 90% proficiency -- and an untried unit that starts at 80% proficiency can easily bounce up to 90% proficiency. If that battalion has somehow got to 95% proficiency or something, it wouldn't surprise me if it holds on until every active defender in it has been literally killed.

This may be the problem -- if there's a problem at all.  If so, it's a design flaw rather than anything to do with 3.4.

One always wants to model one's elite units.  However, I'd advise just making everyone else worse -- don't start with untried units above about 70% or veterans above about 80%.  For those who note that I violate this rule myself, I can only offer my father's advice.  Do as I say, not as I do.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 8/21/2011 7:47:54 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 84
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 8:15:34 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6887
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I would be in the ridiculous position of asking them to give you permission something to do something you haven't asked to do. Should I e-mail my neighbor's employer asking them if they can give him next Saturday off?


No. You're asking me to be in the ridiculus position of middleman between you and the Matrix officials. They're the ones that would be posting anything. In fact, I can't even post the What's New if I wanted to. The file is too big for my authorization level.

quote:

You claim you listed the proposed changes for 3.4. Okay, you did. So why can't you list the proposed changes for 3.41 or whatever this next one is to be?


No. You read me wrong. Matrix posted the What's New and the betas, not me.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 85
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 8:17:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6887
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As far as my original purpose goes, I got Curtis' results, to make a long story short.  A noticeable but by no means excessive penalty for uncooperative defenders.


Thank you, Colin.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 86
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 8:29:35 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6887
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It seems to be a weird thing that i am told by the attack planer to have a low chance for success and will probably suffer heavy losses with an assault ratio of 800+. As i understand it the attack ratio calculation doesn't take into account support units and attacker's passive defender equipment. Nor combat density or deployment...though the What's New .pdf states "there is a great deal of complexity behind the scenes that has been omitted from this description".


The Attack Planner's projection is formed independently from the Assault Ratio calculation. The Assault Ratio value is only used to determine the attack type and says little about the attack's success chances. That's what the Planner's projection (based upon some sort of odds calculation) is for (and take that with a grain of salt, too).

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 87
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 9:15:52 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It seems to be a weird thing that i am told by the attack planer to have a low chance for success and will probably suffer heavy losses with an assault ratio of 800+. As i understand it the attack ratio calculation doesn't take into account support units and attacker's passive defender equipment. Nor combat density or deployment...though the What's New .pdf states "there is a great deal of complexity behind the scenes that has been omitted from this description".


The Attack Planner's projection is formed independently from the Assault Ratio calculation. The Assault Ratio value is only used to determine the attack type and says little about the attack's success chances. That's what the Planner's projection (based upon some sort of odds calculation) is for (and take that with a grain of salt, too).


About the only influence the attack planners' projection has on me is that if it projects the attack isn't going to work, I check what I'm doing. I take it for what it's worth -- which isn't much.

And that's fine. When I want sure, predictable outcomes, I'll go back to playing chess.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 88
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/21/2011 9:17:45 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I would be in the ridiculous position of asking them to give you permission something to do something you haven't asked to do. Should I e-mail my neighbor's employer asking them if they can give him next Saturday off?


No. You're asking me to be in the ridiculus position of middleman between you and the Matrix officials. They're the ones that would be posting anything. In fact, I can't even post the What's New if I wanted to. The file is too big for my authorization level.

quote:

You claim you listed the proposed changes for 3.4. Okay, you did. So why can't you list the proposed changes for 3.41 or whatever this next one is to be?


No. You read me wrong. Matrix posted the What's New and the betas, not me.


Have it your way. I just think it would be more efficient, not less, if we argued about what was going in the patch beforehand rather than afterwards.


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 89
RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch - 8/23/2011 3:27:56 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 6887
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It seems to be a weird thing that i am told by the attack planer to have a low chance for success and will probably suffer heavy losses with an assault ratio of 800+. As i understand it the attack ratio calculation doesn't take into account support units and attacker's passive defender equipment. Nor combat density or deployment...though the What's New .pdf states "there is a great deal of complexity behind the scenes that has been omitted from this description".


The Attack Planner's projection is formed independently from the Assault Ratio calculation. The Assault Ratio value is only used to determine the attack type and says little about the attack's success chances. That's what the Planner's projection (based upon some sort of odds calculation) is for (and take that with a grain of salt, too).


I want to touch on this once more, having thought about it some.

An Assault Ratio of 800 means the attackers are more or less 8 times as strong as the defenders. But the defenders have a defense benefit of 11.31. That produces combat odds of 8/11.31 = 0.707. With odds less than one, I would expect the Attack Planner to project heavy losses and little chance of success.

To get exellent chances of success, one would need actual odds of about 10:1. That's going to require the attackers to be on the order of 113 times as strong as the defenders. Even under earlier versions, the same situation would have required them to be 80 times as strong. This whole issue may be that players are underestimating the force necessary to ensure the taking of Fortified Line postions.

And there's another factor not mentioned yet. Under earlier versions terrain had no impact on the chance of forcing the defender to retreat. It was as easy to dislodge a unit from a Fortified Line hex as it was from a Clear hex. And that fact probably accounted for most captures of Fortified Line hexes in the past. That's been changed in 3.4. Units are much less likely to retreat from such hexes now. So you actually have to battle them out of their pillboxes the hard way.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> RE: Defence strenght in 3.4 patch Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.126