Under the Hood

Post new mods and scenarios here
cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

An interesting aspect of simulations is that they can be prodded to provide information about their function. TOAW is no different.

I am interested in casualty rates as determined by losses in TOAW. So, I've set a "lab" scenario with a small map, fair weather, identical opposing armies, proficiency and supplies topped off at 100%, etc., to see what the casualties look like at the end of the game. I let the PC play itself. Scenario is 10 turns, all terrain is open, each army has five regiments of 200 light infantry squads.

I ran the scenario 10 times. In five scenarios, one side was designated first; in the other five, the other side was first to move. In Elmer vs Elmer, at least, that seems to make a big difference: the first side moving won eight times out of ten. Equally interesting is that four times out of five, the first side moving had losses of about 50% by the end of the scenario, while the second side moving took losses more like 70 to 75%. There were two outliers in which the first side moving took heavier losses. I'm not sure what that means [if anything], but it seems counter-intuitive. By moving first, the first side arrived near the second force with some readiness and supply degradation, yet they almost always broke out a can of whoopin' on the second force.

I'll post some more comments as I alter the scenario. I may try next round with the regiments equipped with assault squads vice light infantry squads. Be interesting to see if casualties go up or the game ends earlier.

Cheers
User avatar
larryfulkerson
Posts: 40906
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ,usa,sol, milkyway
Contact:

RE: Under the Hood

Post by larryfulkerson »

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

An interesting aspect of simulations is that they can be prodded to provide information about their function. TOAW is no different.

I am interested in casualty rates as determined by losses in TOAW. So, I've set a "lab" scenario with a small map, fair weather, identical opposing armies, proficiency and supplies topped off at 100%, etc., to see what the casualties look like at the end of the game. I let the PC play itself. Scenario is 10 turns, all terrain is open, each army has five regiments of 200 light infantry squads.

I ran the scenario 10 times. In five scenarios, one side was designated first; in the other five, the other side was first to move. In Elmer vs Elmer, at least, that seems to make a big difference: the first side moving won eight times out of ten. Equally interesting is that four times out of five, the first side moving had losses of about 50% by the end of the scenario, while the second side moving took losses more like 70 to 75%. There were two outliers in which the first side moving took heavier losses. I'm not sure what that means [if anything], but it seems counter-intuitive. By moving first, the first side arrived near the second force with some readiness and supply degradation, yet they almost always broke out a can of whoopin' on the second force.

I'll post some more comments as I alter the scenario. I may try next round with the regiments equipped with assault squads vice light infantry squads. Be interesting to see if casualties go up or the game ends earlier.

Cheers
Thank you for doing these tests. It's illustrative, informative, and interesting. I would like to encourage you.
How much does one of those female sex robots cost? I'm asking for a friend.
cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

Larry, thanks for the encouragement. I'll post what I find. Honestly, I know very little about TOAW internal function. As you're well aware, there are a bunch of variables that could be altered even with this simple scenario regarding supply, proficiency, etc. I also want to vary the timescale. It is set to full week turns now, maybe I'll drop it to full days. I would not expect that to matter, but it will be mildly interesting to see if it changes anything. I think the key to useful results will be keeping the scenarios as simple as possible to reduce the number of interactions from variables. That is why I've got the units, formations, and forces at 100% setting.

Cheers
cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

Okay, color me wrong. Setting the time scale to full days vice full weeks changed the scenario outcomes. A reminder that in TOAW, certain hex size vs time-represented-by-a-turn relationships are better than others.

The change to time scale resulted in less unit mobility in a turn. This meant that both forces met in the middle of the map. Combat was both less bloody and less decisive. "Less bloody" means this time, the losses of both sides were roughly equal with only a couple of outliers in which the loss of squads had a discrepancy of about 150. "Less decisive" means fewer entire units were destroyed at the end of the scenario. Full day turns resulted in four instances of this over ten repetitions of the scenario; full week turns, by comparison, produced 25 instances of such over ten repetitions, or more than six times as many.

In both full week and full day turns, unit movement is too fast. The units are steadily covering between 40 and 50 kilometers a day; bear in mind these units are foot infantry only. Of course, force-marching a unit in the real world can match this performance, but to see it every turn indicates that a scenario designer will want to compare the advance of units in the game to historical advance rates for a given campaign. Dampening of unit movement may be indicated, as in this case.

Cheers
User avatar
r6kunz
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 7:30 pm
Location: near Philadelphia

RE: Under the Hood

Post by r6kunz »

Greetings cathar1244,
Thank you very much for your input in the forum. You are looking at things with an unbiased eye and you seem to pick up on a lot of details.

A couple of my observations; I used TOAW III to design Korea 2013 and ported it over to TOAW IV (scenarios are not reverse compatible, and IV was only a beta.) The same scenario, but gave remarkably different results- draw vs overwhelming victory for Kim Jung-um. Of course one would say "different supply" but I am still surprised.

I too have looked at turn length. In Red Thunder II, I thought the half-day turns in Red Thunder I were a bit drawn out and found that full-day turns in II gave expected results.

Re: Unit movement. It has seemed like the rate of march was a bit optimistic. (you sound like you have had military experience). But I found TOAW quickly degrades this. For example, In Road to Moscow: I. Crossing the Border, In my hands, German Panzer Group II could not even reach the Dnepr River whereas Guderian historical established several bridgeheads. I tinkered with increasing Movement Bias to allow the Germans vs po Sovies, to have a chance to achieve the historic results.

Another case in point is the Allied counteroffensive in the Ardennes Offensive 1944. Historically Germans to almost reach the Mosel in eight days. Using the same parameters in the scenario, the Allies can push the Germans back to the other side of the West Wall. Historically, however, the Allies, even with overwhelming supply, reinforcements, and air power, cannot close the pocket much past Bastogne (at Hoffalize) by game's end. Fortuantely, TOAW IV comes to the rescue with variable Movement Bias as an Event...

Looking forward to your comments and research.

Cheers,
RAK


Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.
User avatar
mussey
Posts: 682
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Cleve-Land

RE: Under the Hood

Post by mussey »

Variable movement bias.

I need to investigate this. If I change for example, from 3.5 days to 1 day/turn, will the entry dates of reinforcements convert accordingly? Will the date conversions take place Events?

This is a great topic. Game scale/ unit density/ days per turn/ MP’s. Change just one and the ensuing results can break a game.
Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"

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

RE: Under the Hood

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Don't forget Attrition Divider. That's the main adjustment between turn intervals.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

Thanks much for the thoughtful comments. Bob and RAK, your comments re: movement bias and attrition divider are well taken, and give designers options to correct some things. Long ago, I made a scenario called "Rhine 44" and was frustrated the British forces in the game could not match the historical advance to Brussels and Antwerp in September 1944. Certainly do-able now.

Mussey, IIRC, if you change the days-per-turn setting, events will not automatically adjust -- beware, as I have seen such changes, in complicated event set-ups, trigger nasty chain reactions. Be sure you have a clean copy of the events structure before changing anything.

On unit movement, I would be interested in what you fellows think about transport vehicles. I've seen the idea in these forums they are best treated as a relative measure of transport assets available versus the actual number of trucks, halftracks, or whatever. My sense is that "measure of transport assets" approach is better in terms of game effects (if only because not all trucks are the same), but it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of experienced scenario designers.

Cheers
User avatar
rhinobones
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by rhinobones »

Wonder if maybe the side which moves first (and attacks first?) has an initial advantage of selecting the units to be attacked, numbers of attackers vs defenders and the number of hex sides to attack from. Factors which are crucial in calculating losses.

After gaining an initial lead on total losses the side attacking first would then be expected to compound the advantage over the following nine turns.

The fact that several trials had the side moving second as winning would seem to show that the success probabilities built into the game engine due in fact work.

Regards, RhinoBones
Colin Wright:
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
User avatar
larryfulkerson
Posts: 40906
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ,usa,sol, milkyway
Contact:

RE: Under the Hood

Post by larryfulkerson »

The fact that several trials had the side moving second as winning would seem to show that the success probabilities built into the game engine due in fact work.
I concur. Also, I would suspect that the size of the scenario might effect the results. FITE2 has so many units that loosing a few extra on turn one might not make all that much of an impact given the length of the game and the number of units available. I may have to do some tests to make sure. I'll run FITE2 100 times and tabulate the losses for each side and compare them to the toy scenario you guys are using for your test. I'll be back in about 10 years.
How much does one of those female sex robots cost? I'm asking for a friend.
cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

The latest variation of the scenario was full day turns with assault squads. Each force had 1000 assault squads divided among five regiments. Following are averaged force casualty rates for the various runs.

Situation: Full week turns using light rifle squads. Force 1 = 68%, Force 2 = 54%. 25 instances of unit destruction (as of end of scenario).

Situation: Full day turns using light rifle squads. Force 1 = 50%, Force 2 = 45%. Four instances of unit destruction.

Situation: Full day turns using assault squads. Force 1 = 60%, Force 2 = 56%. 24 instances of unit (regiment) destruction.

I'm not sure why the assault squad variant caused so many more unit destruction events, but only raised the overall casualty rate by 20% or so. This leads to a basic question ... defense strength. The defense strength of all of these squads is "10". I am not certain why but suspect that represents the number of men in a squad, and wonder if that is a valid measure of the unit's strength in the defense.

I am open to being shown why the number of men in a squad should be its defense factor. After all, infantry combat, whether attacking or defending, involves firepower. So why is the defense strength not equal to the antipersonnel firepower of the squad? I suppose it revolves about the TOAW combat model, and perhaps, the defense strength is not so important in the resolution of how many squads are lost in a given infantry battle.

The casualty rates seem stiff, but the units in the game are "perfect" with attributes at 100%.

I will bring up movement rate again, because I misspoke earlier. In the full day scenarios, these foot infantry regiments are moving 80 kilometers a day. Wow! In the full week scenarios, I think the movement rate was something 55 kilometers a day (averaged). Not only is the full day scenario movement very rapid, but it is considerably faster than the same units when the turns represent full weeks (which is okay as I would not expect a unit to keep up full bore forced marches for seven days in a row.)

As always, comments are welcome.

Cheers
User avatar
mussey
Posts: 682
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Cleve-Land

RE: Under the Hood

Post by mussey »

IIRC, if you change the days-per-turn setting, events will not automatically adjust -- beware, as I have seen such changes, in complicated event set-ups, trigger nasty chain reactions. Be sure you have a clean copy of the events structure before changing anything.

Thanks for heads-up.
Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"

cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

Ran five iterations of a technology discrepancy infantry fight. One force had musket squads, the other had light rifle squads. The light rifle squad force inflicted the worst casualties every time, so the model performed as expected. Averaged losses were 64% for the musket force and 30% for the light rifle force. The musket force lost at least one regiment (of five) by the end of every iteration; the light rifle force lost no regiments.

Cheers
cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

Set up a different situation this time. Both sides were given five infantry divisions, equipped almost identically to a U.S. 1943-type infantry division. Each division was also reinforced by a battalion of medium tanks. One turn was half a day. Ten iterations were run and rifle squad casualties noted.

The object of the testing was to look at how many more casualties would result if the number of machine guns in each division was doubled. So, this was done, and the scenario was again run over ten iterations.

With the number of machine guns standard, the loss rate of rifle squads on average 61.5%. When the machine gun quantity was doubled, the average loss rate of rifle squads went to 70%. Summarized in a different way, a 100% increase in machine guns caused a rise in rifle squad loss rate of 15%.

Appropriately, while the machine guns contribute to infantry losses, they are not dominant (IIRC, in World War II, artillery and mortars were the most important drivers of battlefield casualties).

Cheers
cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

I've been looking at volume (equipment characteristic) as, as far as I can tell, the use of this setting is only partially defined. We are told it is the cubic meter volume of a piece of equipment, and that it plays a role in determining the chance of a hit upon an armored target. Yet, there is also the figure "999" used as volume for equipment as a different as rifle squads, helicopters, ships, artillery pieces, and fixed wing aircraft. My SWAG is that "999" is a flag of some kind for software, but for what, I have no idea.

Looking further at the relationship of volume and armor rating among equipment items led to the discovery of some odd bits -- such as the "Barak" SP-SAM. It has a volume rating but no armor rating, and it is not flagged as armored equipment. The use of an actual volume figure for unarmored equipment made me wonder if that could induce odd combat results, so I set up the lab scenario with one side equipped only with Barak vehicles and the other side with Sherman tanks. Even given the discrepancy in technological era, I expected the Shermans to clean up ...

... because among other settings, the Barak has zero for anti-personnel and zero anti-tank ratings. Per the database, it has only anti-aircraft ratings at both low and high altitudes. So what happened? The answer is, it varied.

The first lab run had the Baraks outnumber the Shermans 10 to 1. But with no AP or AT capability, I still expected the Barak force to be beaten on by the tanks. Didn't happen ... the tanks took up to 50% losses!

Later lab runs set the number of Baraks and tanks equal. This worked out better for the tanks, but the lab runs make me wonder what is going on in the software's model for combat resolution.

Way back in TOAW I, IIRC, there was an issue with cumulative weight of fire being used to resolve combat. This issue led to a more nuanced system in which equipment engages other equipment in combat that is not artillery bombardment.

Yet, the tanks vs Barak engagements produced very odd results considering that the Baraks have neither anti-personnel nor antitank ratings. The question is, precisely what characteristic of the Baraks is destroying the Shermans of the tank force? Is this some side effect of the anti-air ratings? Or is there some kind of "swarming" effect when one side strongly outnumbers the other in a unit vs unit engagement?

This makes me want to run further labs along these lines. For example, what happens when the "truck army" confronts a smaller (by 10X) of rifle squads or tanks?

Cheers
User avatar
larryfulkerson
Posts: 40906
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ,usa,sol, milkyway
Contact:

RE: Under the Hood

Post by larryfulkerson »

...the Barak has zero for anti-personnel and zero anti-tank ratings. Per the database, it has only anti-aircraft ratings at both low and high altitudes.
Are the AA guns 88mm GP's, mounted on a truck? I ask because sometimes the Germans would lower the barrel and engage tanks and other AFV's with it, to good effect. I doubt that's what's happening though. I'd like to know how they have any offensive power at all. Please keep up posted on this effect.
How much does one of those female sex robots cost? I'm asking for a friend.
cathar1244
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Under the Hood

Post by cathar1244 »

Are the AA guns 88mm GP's, mounted on a truck?

Larry, just to keep my own sanity I checked the equipment definition for the 88mm DP gun that represents the German wartime FlaK piece. It has both AP and AT values with the AT projectile defined as kinetic. Good so far. The Barak system is an AA missile and the definition shows it with an AA rating only. So, that is good, too.

Messing about with the lab scenario again, I think the tank losses are coming not from direct combat losses, but in instances where the unit has been forced to retreat so much that it can't retreat any farther and evaporates. I understand that happens in TOAW, but again the question is, how is a zero-attack-strength SPSAM-equipped unit causing tanks to retreat?

I am not familiar with the TOAWlog.txt file, but it may be the way combat power is calculated is causing some of this -- check out how defense strength figures into the overall strength figure:
Overrun :
Overrun :Overrun check begins.
Overrun :Defender anti armor strength: 311
Overrun :Attacker anti armor strength: 0
Overrun :Defender anti personnel strength: 176
Overrun :Attacker anti personnel strength: 0
Overrun :Defender defense strength: 73
Overrun :Attacker defense strength: 1766
Overrun :Defender armor defense strength: 73
Overrun :Attacker armor defense strength: 0
Overrun :Defender armor ratio: 10
Overrun :Attacker armor ratio: 0
Overrun :Defender size: 2
Overrun :Attacker size: 1
Overrun :Defender MP: 9
Overrun :Attacker MP: 9
Overrun :Defender strength(Total): 996 = d73 + at0 + ap176
Overrun :Attacker strength(Total): 1412 = d1766 + at0 + ap0
Combat :Removing available equipment from combat inventory.
Combat :Greys 1st Formation, 5 equipment added to combat inventory.

It seems that the larger number of Barak vehicles (each with defense strength = 12) generates enough overall strength for an overrun to occur in many combat instances, at least when the AI is playing itself.

So I'll do what I mentioned earlier with the "truck army" and see what results. I'm not sure what to think of these results. Yeah, I guess at 10 to 1 odds, the Baraks could "overrun" the tanks ... theoretically. I think in reality it would be simply be a target-rich environment for experienced tankers, since the Baraks don't have any weapons useful against targets on the ground. Hmm.

Cheers
User avatar
larryfulkerson
Posts: 40906
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ,usa,sol, milkyway
Contact:

RE: Under the Hood

Post by larryfulkerson »

Overrun :
Overrun :Overrun check begins.
Overrun :Defender anti armor strength: 311
Overrun :Attacker anti armor strength: 0
Overrun :Defender anti personnel strength: 176
Overrun :Attacker anti personnel strength: 0
Overrun :Defender defense strength: 73
Overrun :Attacker defense strength: 1766
Overrun :Defender armor defense strength: 73
Overrun :Attacker armor defense strength: 0
Overrun :Defender armor ratio: 10
Overrun :Attacker armor ratio: 0
Overrun :Defender size: 2
Overrun :Attacker size: 1
Overrun :Defender MP: 9
Overrun :Attacker MP: 9
Overrun :Defender strength(Total): 996 = d73 + at0 + ap176
Overrun :Attacker strength(Total): 1412 = d1766 + at0 + ap0
Combat :Removing available equipment from combat inventory.
Combat :Greys 1st Formation, 5 equipment added to combat inventory.
That looks like what you said to me. I concur. So the fix seems to be to establish a more realistic defense value for the unit. Right now it's Kryptonite.
How much does one of those female sex robots cost? I'm asking for a friend.
User avatar
mussey
Posts: 682
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Cleve-Land

RE: Under the Hood

Post by mussey »

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Set up a different situation this time. Both sides were given five infantry divisions, equipped almost identically to a U.S. 1943-type infantry division. Each division was also reinforced by a battalion of medium tanks. One turn was half a day. Ten iterations were run and rifle squad casualties noted.

The object of the testing was to look at how many more casualties would result if the number of machine guns in each division was doubled. So, this was done, and the scenario was again run over ten iterations.

With the number of machine guns standard, the loss rate of rifle squads on average 61.5%. When the machine gun quantity was doubled, the average loss rate of rifle squads went to 70%. Summarized in a different way, a 100% increase in machine guns caused a rise in rifle squad loss rate of 15%.

Appropriately, while the machine guns contribute to infantry losses, they are not dominant (IIRC, in World War II, artillery and mortars were the most important drivers of battlefield casualties).

Cheers

Good work. After seeing your work I don't feel as bad removing them from my Orbats. Using your provided TO&E's from previous posts, I removed the MMG's & HMG's since they were mostly already embedded in their Infantry squads and vehicles. The freed-up slots were used for other equipment.
Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"

Cabido
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:44 pm

RE: Under the Hood

Post by Cabido »

ORIGINAL: cathar1244
Are the AA guns 88mm GP's, mounted on a truck?

Larry, just to keep my own sanity I checked the equipment definition for the 88mm DP gun that represents the German wartime FlaK piece. It has both AP and AT values with the AT projectile defined as kinetic. Good so far. The Barak system is an AA missile and the definition shows it with an AA rating only. So, that is good, too.

Messing about with the lab scenario again, I think the tank losses are coming not from direct combat losses, but in instances where the unit has been forced to retreat so much that it can't retreat any farther and evaporates. I understand that happens in TOAW, but again the question is, how is a zero-attack-strength SPSAM-equipped unit causing tanks to retreat?

I am not familiar with the TOAWlog.txt file, but it may be the way combat power is calculated is causing some of this -- check out how defense strength figures into the overall strength figure:
Overrun :
Overrun :Overrun check begins.
Overrun :Defender anti armor strength: 311
Overrun :Attacker anti armor strength: 0
Overrun :Defender anti personnel strength: 176
Overrun :Attacker anti personnel strength: 0
Overrun :Defender defense strength: 73
Overrun :Attacker defense strength: 1766
Overrun :Defender armor defense strength: 73
Overrun :Attacker armor defense strength: 0
Overrun :Defender armor ratio: 10
Overrun :Attacker armor ratio: 0
Overrun :Defender size: 2
Overrun :Attacker size: 1
Overrun :Defender MP: 9
Overrun :Attacker MP: 9
Overrun :Defender strength(Total): 996 = d73 + at0 + ap176
Overrun :Attacker strength(Total): 1412 = d1766 + at0 + ap0
Combat :Removing available equipment from combat inventory.
Combat :Greys 1st Formation, 5 equipment added to combat inventory.

It seems that the larger number of Barak vehicles (each with defense strength = 12) generates enough overall strength for an overrun to occur in many combat instances, at least when the AI is playing itself.

So I'll do what I mentioned earlier with the "truck army" and see what results. I'm not sure what to think of these results. Yeah, I guess at 10 to 1 odds, the Baraks could "overrun" the tanks ... theoretically. I think in reality it would be simply be a target-rich environment for experienced tankers, since the Baraks don't have any weapons useful against targets on the ground. Hmm.

Cheers

As far as I know, the Barak system shouldn't inflicting any loss to the tank unit due to direct fire. At least, if all the info I have collected so far from the forum for the explanation of combat I have included in my charts file.

It seems it comes from the unit retreating due to being flanked, as for the rule that follows:

"The first time you order a unit to Attack any particular
enemy location in any given Turn, there is a chance
that the defenders will retreat before combat. If there
is a large difference between the combined Attack
Strengths of your current unit when the Attack is
ordered and the combined Defense Strengths of the
enemy units in the defending location, the computer
will check to see if the defending units immediately
retreat rather than face your assault.

When checking for retreats before combat, a
Flanking Check is made, which is based on the
quantity of “active defender” equipment in the
defending and attacking units relative the Scenario
Map scale. If the defender has less than the amount
of equipment necessary to fully cover his frontage
in the Scenario Scale, the Attacker has more
equipment, and the Attacker passes a Unit Quality
Check, the chance for a retreat before combat is
increased by a random fraction between one and:

Attacker Equipment Density / Defender Equipment Density

This makes is much more likely that “small” units
will retreat before combat with “large” units because
the large unit has succeeded in turning the flank of
the smaller unit."


But it seems that "combined attack strength" must be using the AA strength or adding, in contradiction to the manual, the defense strength to the total (your log info brings a total which sums ap, at and defense strengths; how it is used, I don't know) or the attacker strength would be 0. It would be nice to have it explained.

One may argue that this is reasonable, due to the fact that in combat the forces won't have perfect information on the other side, so that sheer volume difference can cause the retreat before combat, once the unit begins to be flanked. I don't know. More simulations are necessary to see if it works well with what would be less threatening pieces of equipment, like trucks.

Image
Attachments
CHARTS1.3.jpg
CHARTS1.3.jpg (1.86 MiB) Viewed 593 times
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”