Matrix Games

quote:



The best use of AG Anton, IMO, is rail repair. Move it to the general area you want to repair rail, and it will deploy it's construction units in that general area. Not always where you want them, but it can help. In 1941, I think that means keeping AG Anton pretty far forward in most cases, so it can fill-in spur lines and other connectors to stitch the rail network together before Blizzard. In 1942, I have it back of the front, filling-in all the rails to create redundancy, and make partisans irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: coolts

quote:



The best use of AG Anton, IMO, is rail repair. Move it to the general area you want to repair rail, and it will deploy it's construction units in that general area. Not always where you want them, but it can help. In 1941, I think that means keeping AG Anton pretty far forward in most cases, so it can fill-in spur lines and other connectors to stitch the rail network together before Blizzard. In 1942, I have it back of the front, filling-in all the rails to create redundancy, and make partisans irrelevant.

Damnit, i wish i had read this before i disbanded AG Anton to prop up the Rumanian manpower pool defecit. "20,000 typists", as someone said ;) I didnt think of all the rail repair drones

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The real question has to do with Overloading; I don't think I understand the penalties for overloading. smokindave brought up a very good question, that I asked a couple months ago, and I don't think anyone answered. Only the Devs can, really.

Is an overloaded HQ with a good commander going to perform better than a non-overloaded one with a crap commander?

quote:

ORIGINAL: coolts

Not in front of gaming PC. If the support units were in the top level HQ which i disbanded, where do they go? There is no "national reserve" for SU's AFAIK

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: coolts

Not in front of gaming PC. If the support units were in the top level HQ which i disbanded, where do they go? There is no "national reserve" for SU's AFAIK

AG Antonescu is subordinated to the Rumanian High Command HQ, in Bucharest. Look there, and any SUs that were assigned to AG Antonescu should have gone there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The real question has to do with Overloading; I don't think I understand the penalties for overloading. smokindave brought up a very good question, that I asked a couple months ago, and I don't think anyone answered. Only the Devs can, really.

Is an overloaded HQ with a good commander going to perform better than a non-overloaded one with a crap commander?

There have been a number of threads on overloading; unfortunately I can't locate any of them

While I am not sure I have the correct process, I can describe the process that I think I understand which might be the correct process . Maybe
It is quite straight-forward to compare the effects of two different leaders with two different loads; however it is time-consuming to calculate

1. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, NOT overloaded, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/10
2. This probability is divided by two for each link in the command chain above the first (e.g. Army in command of a Corps)
3. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, overloaded by N points, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/(10+N)

Note first that this formula states that there is always a non-zero probability that a leader will make his die roll no matter how overloaded the HQ

So, the difference (D) in sucess probability for two leaders at the same level but with one better by X1 but over loaded by N is

D= (X+X1)/(10+N) - X/10 (divided by the appropriate power of 2 due to the number of command links to the actual combat unit (see #2 above)

or in a form which makes the relationships a little easer to see

D = (X1 –N*X/10)/(10+N)

So just to take a couple of quick examples:

1. if the bad leader has a rating of 4 (X) and a good leader a rating of 8 (X1=4), the good leader will give better results UNTIL he is overloaded by 10

2. If the same two leaders are used but use an overload of 20, then the bad leader will give better results by an increase in probability-of-success by 4/30 or 0.133 or 13.3 percentage points divided by the right power of 2 for command links (for an AG example the POS difference would be 3.4 percentage points; an overload of 40 would only increase this difference to 6.0 percentage points)


(Disclaimer: any algebraic mistakes are solely the fault of the poster who has not done anything like this in some decades )

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The real question has to do with Overloading; I don't think I understand the penalties for overloading. smokindave brought up a very good question, that I asked a couple months ago, and I don't think anyone answered. Only the Devs can, really.

Is an overloaded HQ with a good commander going to perform better than a non-overloaded one with a crap commander?

There have been a number of threads on overloading; unfortunately I can't locate any of them

While I am not sure I have the correct process, I can describe the process that I think I understand which might be the correct process . Maybe
It is quite straight-forward to compare the effects of two different leaders with two different loads; however it is time-consuming to calculate

1. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, NOT overloaded, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/10
2. This probability is divided by two for each link in the command chain above the first (e.g. Army in command of a Corps)
3. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, overloaded by N points, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/(10+N)

Note first that this formula states that there is always a non-zero probability that a leader will make his die roll no matter how overloaded the HQ

So, the difference (D) in sucess probability for two leaders at the same level but with one better by X1 but over loaded by N is

D= (X+X1)/(10+N) - X/10 (divided by the appropriate power of 2 due to the number of command links to the actual combat unit (see #2 above)

or in a form which makes the relationships a little easer to see

D = (X1 –N*X/10)/(10+N)

So just to take a couple of quick examples:

1. if the bad leader has a rating of 4 (X) and a good leader a rating of 8 (X1=4), the good leader will give better results UNTIL he is overloaded by 10

2. If the same two leaders are used but use an overload of 20, then the bad leader will give better results by an increase in probability-of-success by 4/30 or 0.133 or 13.3 percentage points divided by the right power of 2 for command links (for an AG example the POS difference would be 3.4 percentage points; an overload of 40 would only increase this difference to 6.0 percentage points)


(Disclaimer: any algebraic mistakes are solely the fault of the poster who has not done anything like this in some decades )

Finally someone trying to answer this question. Can anyone confirm Pompack is on the right track?

If the critical number is overload by 10, then that must mean (If I understand correctly):

-Since AGS will generally overload by more than 10, you are better off assigning to AG Anton (at least until A-B split)
-Since Corps will generally NOT overload by that, however, you are probably better off overloading a German Corps by 2 or so, rather than assign units to Romanian Corps

Not sure on that last one, can someone move this forward?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stone10

I would attach 3rd & 4th Rom Army to AG Ant. as soon as possible in 1941. Then I would move Romanian units under 11th army to 3rd & 4th Rom Army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stone10

I would attach 3rd & 4th Rom Army to AG Ant. as soon as possible in 1941. Then I would move Romanian units under 11th army to 3rd & 4th Rom Army.