From: Houston, TX
ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
It's got to be changed to where combat odds do affect RFC chances. That's not a simple fix.
First- that's a useful set of tests. I appreciate it. I had picked up from somewhere that there'd been a straight doubling of the fortified bonus. God knows where that came from.
Well, there is some increase from terrain (squareroot of the sum of the squares). So, a fortified unit in good terrain is somewhat better off than in 3.2. But not doubled. I'm thinking that, if possible, fortified line terrain should not so sum with anything. Maybe that can be part of the fix.
When you say combat odds, you're effectively talking about AR ratio, right?
It would be post-combat odds, though.
If we're talking about a failed quality check (i.e. the unit retreating even though it's told not to) it's going to be because the unit has either taken a lot of losses or on a micro (sub-hex) level its position has been compromised and can't be restored.
Neither of these things necessarily correlate to the sheer weight of force applied to the defenders. If it did, human wave attacks would be a great idea. In fact I'd say they correlate most closely to losses- but of course losses are going to be pretty minimal because the unit has a 10x defence bonus or whatever.
Actually, human wave attacks are a great idea if the wave survives intact to reach the enemy (Japs vs. Chinese). If it's slaughtered or breaks off, though, it isn't such a good idea (Japs vs. US). That's why the test needs to be post-combat.
I'd say that the problem is that by linking the RFC chance to fortified status, you've double counted the benefit, as the unit is already taking fewer losses and therefore less likely to even have to face a quality check.
In Ignore Losses deployment, losses aren't considered. Only morale. Therein lies the problem. Prior to 3.4, terrain had no effect, and deployment much less effect on RFCs. It was as easy (or hard) to kick a unit out of clear terrain as fortified line.
Moreover, if I read the "What's New" document correctly, the maximum chance of a fortified unit retreating on any one combat round is 16%, regardless of the nature of the attack or the condition of the defender.
Yep. That's the problem. Because we hadn't discovered that combat odds didn't affect RFC chances. That needs to be added. Although, note that 9 straight 16% chances total to about 80% chance of success per turn - if you do it right.
I gather from the wording that there was already such a limitation, but it doesn't state what the old figures were.
I don't remember what the old level was - I think it was 50%. It was increased to match the fortified terrain value.
It seems to me that the thing to do is to ditch item IV.10 in the "What's New" document. That should put things to rights.
I can see some changes to the numbers, but the principle function should be retained. We certainly don't want to back out the terrain part, and I don't think the deployment numbers should be too different from similar terrain numbers. What we really need is to scale RFC chances by combat odds.
Regardless, it isn't a simple fix no matter what we do. It's going to require a lot of trial and error and lots of tests of each trial to check that it's working right.
In contrast, the AAA issue would be a simple fix. That's just a simple bug that, once fixed, we would know almost immediately that it was working right.