Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III is the next game in the award-winning Operational Art of War game series. TOAW3 is updated and enhanced version of the TOAW: Century of Warfare game series. TOAW3 is a turn based game covering operational warfare from 1850-2015. Game scale is from 2.5km to 50km and half day to full week turns. TOAW3 scenarios have been designed by over 70 designers and included over 130 scenarios. TOAW3 comes complete with a full game editor.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13834
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Curtis Lemay »

I’ve finally had some time to do some testing on RFCs by Ignore Losses defenders. To summarize, what I’ve found is that there is a problem that warrants addressing. But, it’s not a problem that was introduced into 3.4. Rather, it’s a problem that has been with TOAW from the beginning. The changes in 3.4 just exposed it.

My tests prior to the 3.4 release had been done with defenders at Limit Losses. The units would retreat if losses exceeded a certain amount. These tests were conducted with defenders set to Ignore losses. Such units are oblivious to losses and only retreat if they fail a morale check.

My tests show that the 3.4 adjustments are working just as designed. Fortified units (as well as units in Fortified terrain) are about 6.3 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain – all else being equal. Entrenched units (as well as units in Dense Urban or Badlands) are about 2.9 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain. Units in Bocage, Mountain, Dunes, or Urban are 2 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain. Defending Units (as well as units in Hills, Forest, or Wadi are 1.35 times as hard to dislodge as mobile units in clear terrain. I still don’t think those figures are inappropriate. They could be adjusted a little, but I don’t think they are out of line.

The problem is that the only other factor that determines whether the unit retreats or not is the morale of the defender and attacker. (Remember that morale is a combination of the unit proficiency, readiness, and supply.) The higher the morale of the defender, the harder it is to dislodge. Attacker morale affects this in that if the attackers all drop out, the defender doesn’t have to make a RFC check. So, the lower the attacker morale, the harder it is for them to cause the defender to RFC. This makes it particularly hard for a low proficiency force to make progress against a high proficiency force.

The problem is that the combat odds make no difference. It must have been that way from the beginning of TOAW. We did make the odds affect RBC chances in 3.4, but not RFCs. This needs to be addressed. I’ll get to that later.

Before I show the test results, let me describe the test scenario. There are 13 terrains being tested and three deployments, for a total of 16 tests. The MRPB is 1, so no combat can last more than one round. Each test has 10 trials – for a total of 160 combats. Each combat consists of one attacking unit vs. one defending unit. The attacker is always 9000 infantry squads. The defender is initially 3000 infantry squads (x3 odds). Both sides are initially 70 proficiency and 100 readiness and supply. The scenario is then run 10 times for a total of 100 trials for each test. After the combats complete, I total how many defenders RFCd in each test.

In the next test, the defender has only 900 squads (x10 odds). In the next test, the defender has only 300 squads (x30 odds). In the next test, the defender has 3000 squads again, but has 1% supply and 33% readiness. In the final test, the defender has 3000 squads with full supply and readiness, but the attacker has 100 proficiency.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13834
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Curtis Lemay »

The attached table shows the results of the first test. To recap, the combat odds are 3:1, and the units all have 70 prof and 100 supply/readiness. The results show that the reductions in RFCs are about as designed (allowing some statistical variation). The somewhat lower results in this first test were probably due to the increased losses the 3000 defending squads could inflict – causing more attackers to go into reorganization before even making their morale check, thereby increasing the number of defenders that didn’t have to make that check.

Image
Attachments
TestTerrainx3.gif
TestTerrainx3.gif (35.15 KiB) Viewed 778 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13834
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Curtis Lemay »

The attached table shows the results of the second test. To recap, this changes the odds to 10:1. The results are not much different from the first test. This means that there was negligible benefit of the greater odds.

Image
Attachments
TestTerrainx10.gif
TestTerrainx10.gif (34.95 KiB) Viewed 776 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13834
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Curtis Lemay »

The attached table shows the results of the third test. To recap, this changes the odds to 30:1. Again, there is very little benefit of the greater odds. Basically, the chance of RFC in clear terrain is about = (AP) x (1-DP) = 0.7 x 0.3 = 0.21. In other words, 100 trials will average about 21 RFCs in clear terrain – and that’s about what the results show (19+26+16=61; 61/3 = 20.33).

Image
Attachments
TestTerrainx30.gif
TestTerrainx30.gif (35.69 KiB) Viewed 776 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13834
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Curtis Lemay »

The attached table shows the results of the fourth test. In this test, the first test was changed so that the defenders have 1% supply and 33% readiness. This knocks the odds up a bit – but we’ve already shown that odds don’t really make any difference. The results show that RFC chances about doubled. So supply and readiness do affect RFC chances.

Image
Attachments
TestTerrainx3red.gif
TestTerrainx3red.gif (36.04 KiB) Viewed 776 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13834
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Curtis Lemay »

The attached table shows the results of the fifth test. In this test, the first test was changed so that the attackers all have 100 proficiencies. This also knocks the odds up to about 4:1, but that is still irrelevant. But note that the results show that the RFC chances are up about 30% - the amount of the increase in attacker prof. That seems to show that the attackers have to pass their check before the defenders are required to pass theirs.

Image
Attachments
TestTerrainx4.gif
TestTerrainx4.gif (36 KiB) Viewed 776 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13834
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Curtis Lemay »

The final table is a sum of all the other test results. This gives a total of 500 trials of each combat. That reduces the statistical variation enough that it can be clearly seen that the reduction levels closely track the desired target levels (pay particular attention to the “Reduction” vs. “Target” numbers). This correlation is why I’m sure the 3.4 adjustments are working as designed. Note that the “Factor” is just the inversion of the “Target”.

Image
Attachments
TestTerraintotal.gif
TestTerraintotal.gif (38.36 KiB) Viewed 779 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13834
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Note that these results suggest tactics to use to maximize RFC chances, as things now stand:

1. Make sure that at least one attacker passes its check. That is best done by increasing attacker loss tolerance, increasing the number of individual units assigned to the assault, and/or using high morale units.
2. Try to burn the defender’s supply and readiness.
3. Try to make sure that all 10 combat rounds are executed against the defense. Each one gives a chance to RFC, even if they are all in the same combat phase.
4. Don’t forget RBCs. Odds matter in those, so don’t overlook a chance to do so. Keep as powerful an overrunning unit available as possible. Remember to use it first after the combat completes.

But odds should matter in RFCs. The chances to RFC should be modulated by the combat odds. That’s going to take a code change. I’d suggest that 3:1 odds be “neutral” and would produce the results shown above. But if the odds were 6:1, then the chances should double from above. If they were 1.5:1 then they should halve, etc. Then if a Fortified defender was attacked at 19:1 odds, it should retreat as often as a defender in clear terrain attacked at 3:1 odds. Once this is done, RFCs will be working much better than before 3.4: Terrain will matter and so will odds.

I want to add that there may be other factors involved – it’s just too complicated and too hard to test to know for sure. Based on my experience, I’m pretty sure that units made of passive equipment are easy to RFC, for example. And it seems that a stack of defenders can often be easily cleared of all but the last unit. But I’m sure that the tests show that combat odds don’t seem to make any difference, and that needs to be addressed.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Oberst_Klink »

So... there was/is an issue with the 'ignore losses' thingie after all. However, minor adjustments to the MRPB and AD can 'ease the pain' of it; as you suggested. Thanks though for the thorough report. I am sure a few of the TOAW community thought ye'ole Oberst and the 'Alter Schwede' aka Rob were paranoid when we brought the issue up.

Thanks again Bob!

Klink, Oberst
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
r6kunz
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 7:30 pm
Location: near Philadelphia

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by r6kunz »

Gen Lamay
Quite a bit of research here. Nice work. And a very practical conclusion to all of this. Of course, the real result will be in the next update.
Thanks again for all of you hard work!
rak
Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.
User avatar
Sensei.Tokugawa
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:06 pm
Location: Wieluñ, Poland

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Sensei.Tokugawa »

The way I am making it out is that it would contribute to my understanding of why it was so hard for my troops to make progress in my Falotti's WWI scenario and is for me currently to HG Sud any deeper into the Ukrainian soil back in bad ol' '41 in "The Waters of the Dnieper' 41" in particular; I felt most of the time that there is something badly wrong about the relation between the planned and final results of my combat operations there, shifting heavily the balance even more into the defending force's favour.
"-What if one doesn't make it?
-Then we know he was no good for SpetsNaz. ..."
V. Suvorov, "Spetsnaz;the Story behind the Soviet SAS"

...No escape from Passchendaele .../ God Dethroned, "Passiondale"

Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Oberst_Klink »

ORIGINAL: burroughs

The way I am making it out is that it would contribute to my understanding of why it was so hard for my troops to make progress in my Falotti's WWI scenario and is for me currently to HG Sud any deeper into the Ukrainian soil back in bad ol' '41 in "The Waters of the Dnieper' 41" in particular; I felt most of the time that there is something badly wrong about the relation between the planned and final results of my combat operations there, shifting heavily the balance even more into the defending force's favour.
Witam Kamerad Polski,

tweaking/checking the AD and MRPB settings, especially at pre-3.4 scenarios might 'ease' the issue a bit. I did it with LSiA, adjusted values make the defender, if he/she really uses 'ignore losses' all the time, pay. They units literally will fight until death and suffer. 2-3 combat rounds per turn with minimum losses will wear the defenders eventually out and they evaporate... So, it has a penalty, especially if 100% of the equipment gets lost and doesn't show up as replacement.

Klink, Oberst
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
shunwick
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:20 pm

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by shunwick »

...
I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...
governato
Posts: 1311
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:35 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by governato »

Really useful stuff!
User avatar
Sensei.Tokugawa
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:06 pm
Location: Wieluñ, Poland

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Sensei.Tokugawa »

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


[Witam Kamerad Polski,

tweaking/checking the AD and MRPB settings, especially at pre-3.4 scenarios might 'ease' the issue a bit. I did it with LSiA, adjusted values make the defender, if he/she really uses 'ignore losses' all the time, pay. They units literally will fight until death and suffer. 2-3 combat rounds per turn with minimum losses will wear the defenders eventually out and they evaporate... So, it has a penalty, especially if 100% of the equipment gets lost and doesn't show up as replacement.

Klink, Oberst

Guten Tag Herr Oberst

Could it be done while the PBEM game has already been in progres for quite some time? I am desperate as the schedule has already been badly wrecked, it's the second week of July '41, I haven't even taken Lvov yet nor any other important hub, can't get the panzers groups any more traction, it's still pretty much the border battle despite crossing the river on the Romanian border and a jab at Odessa where the Soviets are massing for a counterstrike anyway after a hasty withdrawal. There has to be something wrong with the scenario working under the 3.4 patch and the new advanced rules applied.Hilfe!
"-What if one doesn't make it?
-Then we know he was no good for SpetsNaz. ..."
V. Suvorov, "Spetsnaz;the Story behind the Soviet SAS"

...No escape from Passchendaele .../ God Dethroned, "Passiondale"

Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Oberst_Klink »

ORIGINAL: burroughs

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


[Witam Kamerad Polski,

tweaking/checking the AD and MRPB settings, especially at pre-3.4 scenarios might 'ease' the issue a bit. I did it with LSiA, adjusted values make the defender, if he/she really uses 'ignore losses' all the time, pay. They units literally will fight until death and suffer. 2-3 combat rounds per turn with minimum losses will wear the defenders eventually out and they evaporate... So, it has a penalty, especially if 100% of the equipment gets lost and doesn't show up as replacement.

Klink, Oberst

Guten Tag Herr Oberst

Could it be done while the PBEM game has already been in progres for quite some time? I am desperate as the schedule has already been badly wrecked, it's the second week of July '41, I haven't even taken Lvov yet nor any other important hub, can't get the panzers groups any more traction, it's still pretty much the border battle despite crossing the river on the Romanian border and a jab at Odessa where the Soviets are massing for a counterstrike anyway after a hasty withdrawal. There has to be something wrong with the scenario working under the 3.4 patch and the new advanced rules applied.Hilfe!
You can use the 'do not send after turn'.SAL file in the editor and adjust the settings as mentioned. I would ask your opponent first or alternatively I can do it as 3rd party. No guarantee that it might work. Send me the .SAL file anyway I will have a look.

Klink, Oberst
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
secadegas
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 8:47 am

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by secadegas »

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

You can use the 'do not send after turn'.SAL file in the editor and adjust the settings as mentioned. Klink, Oberst

[:-]

Thank god anti-cheating system doesn't allow. Imagine otherwise....




User avatar
Sensei.Tokugawa
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:06 pm
Location: Wieluñ, Poland

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Sensei.Tokugawa »

Nobody meant cheating " ... because my peachy war plan has just went badly wrong ... "It's all for the sake of improving what we already have. Myself I am a Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club member and a hard core realism freak: I don't cheat, peak into the other side deployment or dispositions before the game gets launched, I don't even play mirrored games of the same scenarios nor swap sides right after a scenario got concluded for the sake of "illegitimate intel" on the enemy shop which used to be mine. I talked to my opponent about that and he agreed. We have still faulty scenarios with no regards to their designers who did their best; 2nd Indo re-creations in which Viet Cong has 10 % theater reconnaissance level ( nuts!) or with a map scale which compounded with the unit size allows for creation of an impenetrable complete front line all the way from the DMZ to the Mekong Delta and beyond. Does that make sense? What's bad in trying to get a grip on that? I have been defeated on numerous occassions and turned historical disasters into sound victories, too.Had no problem with that unless the gameplay kept realistic and there was no cheating on either side.

I was to ask Herr Oberst to do that for me in order not to see too much in the editor.Thanks for the heads-up anyway.
"-What if one doesn't make it?
-Then we know he was no good for SpetsNaz. ..."
V. Suvorov, "Spetsnaz;the Story behind the Soviet SAS"

...No escape from Passchendaele .../ God Dethroned, "Passiondale"

secadegas
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 8:47 am

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by secadegas »

ORIGINAL: burroughs

Nobody meant cheating " ...

I wasn't suggesting that either.

Now just imagine... playing PBEM, save sal. file as sce. file, open on the editor and then... anything goes [:@]

It was done in the past, more often that you might think. Fortunately that's over now.



Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses

Post by Oberst_Klink »

You have to restart the modified .sal as .sce anyway; It's just like a new scenario file where both forces pick up where they were; though sometimes the .sal gets corrupted when opened in the editor. I shall conduct some tests and report back on the matter later on.

Klink, Oberst
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
Post Reply

Return to “Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III”