Ant unit attacks

[Bob Cross]

I’ve long contended that the best way to handle this problem was to leave it up to Norm. But Norm isn’t going to get that involved. So I’ve now changed my mind and decided it is up to us to come up with a solution.

To recap, the problem is as follows:

First, artillery bombarding alone is significantly less effective than bombarding in support of a ground attacker. The factor has been estimated to be about 4 to 1. And defenders attacked by ground units lose 10% supply per attack round whereas defenders bombarded alone lose no supply.

The problem is that players exploit those facts via ant units. The smallest and least valuable units, usually with nothing but passive equipment, are subdivided and employed alone in attacks repeatedly. The attackers thereby receive the above benefits while risking hardly anything. The impact is that powerful, healthy stacks of defenders can be decimated and redlined at little cost if exposed to attacking units. The fact that this is well known by most players and excessively exploited by them gives the game system a big realism hit.

My proposed solution:

I propose inserting a recon check before each round of combat. If the attacking units pass that check, they get all the benefits above, just as they do now. But if they fail it, they don’t. The details are as follows:

1. Prior to each round of combat, the recon levels of all the ground attackers still remaining in the assault are totaled and a random check is made against that total, just as if the defending hex was being checked during movement for whether it should become spotted. (Note that this check is completely independent of whether the hex is in fact spotted and it will not affect whether the hex remains or becomes spotted for player information purposes. It only affects whether the benefits are received in this round of combat. It is also independent of whether the check was passed or failed in previous combat rounds)

2. If the check is passed combat proceeds just as it does now. Ground defenders drop 10% supply. Defender supporting artillery drops 5% supply. All attacker supporting artillery supports at the x4 factor (modified as per whether it is direct or indirect, as now).

3. If the check is failed, however, all attacker supporting artillery supports at the regular x1 factor, just as if they were bombarding alone (again, modified, as it is now, by whether direct or indirect, or perhaps not even included if indirect). Furthermore, ground defenders and supporting artillery drop only 1% supply.

4. In either case all ground attackers and attacker supporting artillery drop supply at the same levels they do now (10% if direct, 5% if indirect). And all combat strengths are unaffected.

5. The combat report probably should reveal whether the check passed or failed on each round.

This should render the value of ant units almost nil. In fact, even attacking with pure armor units will be a bad idea, since armor has little recon. Either precious armored recon elements or vulnerable infantry units will have to be committed (and significant amounts of it) to get the benefits. Also, ten rounds of 1% supply drops will still leave defenders with 90% left and full or near full recovery can be expected in the next supply phase.

Furthermore, this is a realistic requirement. The artillery benefits are based upon ground observation of fire results. Therefore, recon is a reasonable requirement for receiving it.

[General Staff]

1. Prior to each round of combat, the recon levels of all the ground attackers still remaining in the assault are totaled and a random check is made against that total, just as if the defending hex was being checked during movement for whether it should become spotted. (Note that this check is completely independent of whether the hex is in fact spotted and it will not affect whether the hex remains or becomes spotted for player information purposes. It only affects whether the benefits are received in this round of combat. It is also independent of whether the check was passed or failed in previous combat rounds).I think this is a really useful discussion- I had huge problems with this problem when I first started playing TOAW. A quick Q: you speak of totaling recon levels but they start off as percentages- how does this work in a practical example?

If we're checking against an average (simple or weighted % value), then whether I try for the 'ant attack' will depend on the statistical likelihood of my single (broken down?) Cavalry unit at 99% recon passing the test on its own. A little math might be very useful in illustrating your proposed solution here.

[JAMiAM]

I still think that the best thing to do is to apply a proportionality factor to the supply usage, based on the relative strengths of the attacker and defender.

Recon is still factored in, since the first round AP fire is modified by the recon %. Units are already only assessed the supply loss for each round that they participate in, though attacking units which break off after bombardment, but before they fire, get a free pass. The attackers free pass would need to be fixed, but other than that, a per round proportionality calculation could be made, and the antagonists would be assessed supply loss, in some modified proportion, based on the AP, and AT, strengths involved.

I think this would be much simpler to implement than a recon based adjustment, and more realistic.

[General Staff]

I still think that the best thing to do is to apply a proportionality factor to the supply usage, based on the relative strengths of the attacker and defender.Agreed.

P.S. This 10 character minimum can be annoying. My other option was "Agreeeeed.".

[JAMiAM]

Agreed.

P.S. This 10 character minimum can be annoying. My other option was "Agreeeeed.".
Again, the smiley codes count toward the ten character minimum. Thus...see next post.

[JAMiAM]

OK :thumup:

[Bob Cross]

I still think that the best thing to do is to apply a proportionality factor to the supply usage, based on the relative strengths of the attacker and defender.

Recon is still factored in, since the first round AP fire is modified by the recon %. Units are already only assessed the supply loss for each round that they participate in, though attacking units which break off after bombardment, but before they fire, get a free pass. The attackers free pass would need to be fixed, but other than that, a per round proportionality calculation could be made, and the antagonists would be assessed supply loss, in some modified proportion, based on the AP, and AT, strengths involved.

I think this would be much simpler to implement than a recon based adjustment, and more realistic.

First of all, that ignores the artillery bonus. Even if there is no supply effect to exploit, ant units will still be used, under that method, to get the artillery bonus.

And, second, it's not realistic at all. That supposes that both sides are going to expend the same amount of ammo, regardless of their relative sizes. In other words, the 100 attackers send 100 bullets at the defenders and the 1000 defenders, being the fair-minded gentlemen that they are, only return 100 bullets. If there is a real battle in progress, both sides will fire at maximum rates. How else do combat units manifest their combat strength?

If a real battle is underway (the recon test is passed) my method will operate just as the system does now with both sides expending ammo at the full rate. If it is just a feign (the recon test fails), the defenders get off light.

[Bob Cross]

I think this is a really useful discussion- I had huge problems with this problem when I first started playing TOAW. A quick Q: you speak of totaling recon levels but they start off as percentages- how does this work in a practical example?

If we're checking against an average (simple or weighted % value), then whether I try for the 'ant attack' will depend on the statistical likelihood of my single (broken down?) Cavalry unit at 99% recon passing the test on its own. A little math might be very useful in illustrating your proposed solution here.

Recon levels could either be totaled and one test made, or attacking units could test one by one.

So if two units, each with 50% recon, attacked, the chances of passing the recon test would either be 100% (if totaled) or two 50% chances (if separate tests are made).

[Mantis]

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. Perhaps a table of ratios of supply expended, applied based on comparative strengths? As an extreme example, Bob, if a stack of 9 corps are attacked by a regiment, the corps won't all expend 10% of their supply...

[General Staff]

And, second, it's not realistic at all. That supposes that both sides are going to expend the same amount of ammo, regardless of their relative sizes. In other words, the 100 attackers send 100 bullets at the defenders and the 1000 defenders, being the fair-minded gentlemen that they are, only return 100 bullets. If there is a real battle in progress, both sides will fire at maximum rates. How else do combat units manifest their combat strength?Maybe. But one could argue that 100 attackers firing 100 bullets against 1000 men have the same chance of hitting someone (or the same # of people) as 1000 men firing 1000 bullets against 100 men.

[JMS]

But wouldn't it be easier to multiply the artillery effectiveness by the recon rating of the "spotting" unit?

[General Staff]

But wouldn't it be easier to multiply the artillery effectiveness by the recon rating of the "spotting" unit?Sounds like possibly a nice nuance. Instead of the 4x factor mentioned earlier as direct arty effectiveness in support of ground attack, the maximum would be 2x if a 99% (i.e. really 100%) (recce) unit was used for ground attack/spotting.

[JMS]

Sounds like possibly a nice nuance. Instead of the 4x factor mentioned earlier as direct arty effectiveness in support of ground attack, the maximum would be 2x if a 99% (i.e. really 100%) (recce) unit was used for ground attack/spotting.

Moreover, Arty would be less effective as losses in the "ant" unit mount, and units with no recon capability (the famous AA unit) would be ineffective for this attacks.

[Bob Cross]

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. Perhaps a table of ratios of supply expended, applied based on comparative strengths? As an extreme example, Bob, if a stack of 9 corps are attacked by a regiment, the corps won't all expend 10% of their supply...

They might only expend 1% of their supply. See my first post for what happens when the recon test fails.

[Bob Cross]

Maybe. But one could argue that 100 attackers firing 100 bullets against 1000 men have the same chance of hitting someone (or the same # of people) as 1000 men firing 1000 bullets against 100 men.

But the question is, could one argue that 1000 men would only politely return 100 bullets?

[Bob Cross]

But wouldn't it be easier to multiply the artillery effectiveness by the recon rating of the "spotting" unit?

That would work just as well. But the random check against recon would, if averaged over many rounds of combat, produce the same effect.

The important factor is that the recon level of the attackers play a part in the awarding of the artillery and supply effects. It's not really important how it's implemented. Those who implement it will want to experiment a bit. A scale factor could be part of the equation. (For example, the recon level could be multiplied by x2, so if the total recon was 50%, the check would be guaranteed to pass, etc.).

[piero1971]

the correlate to that would be also to definitely increase the effect of artillery against infantry, and especially against undug units.

artillery is way to weak in the game

[JAMiAM]

the correlate to that would be also to definitely increase the effect of artillery against infantry, and especially against undug units.

artillery is way to weak in the game
Or, way too effective, depending on unit densities and attrition dividers. There are few constants in TOAW. Almost everything relies on the scenario design.

[shadow]

But the question is, could one argue that 1000 men would only politely return 100 bullets?


It could also be argued that not all 1000 men would be in combat against the 100 attackers. A large unit in combat would, as a whole, use less supply against a much smaller force than an equal sized force because not all elements would necessarily be engaged.

[Dicke Bertha]

But wouldn't it be easier to multiply the artillery effectiveness by the recon rating of the "spotting" unit?

This would be great, and better than Bob's (good) suggestion IMO, but better still would be to have separate artillery observer squads. It would add a huge tactical dimension within the operational scope. Having 'artilley spotting' based on normal recon would feel wrong, as the panzerspäh companies would be used for artillery assaults - not very historical/realistic, they're recon, not artillery observers. Further, a separate spotter unit, inherent on every level and also assigned to special III, X, XX, XXX level units, for direct use in particular attacks... don't know what of all possibilities would be easiest to implement...

OK, I've said this elsewhere, so I won't go on, just a reminder...

[General Staff]

Moreover, Arty would be less effective as losses in the "ant" unit mount, and units with no recon capability (the famous AA unit) would be ineffective for this attacks.Exactly and absolutely...

[General Staff]

But the question is, could one argue that 1000 men would only politely return 100 bullets?I guess it's a math/statistics issue.

Take the extreme example and assume every single bullet fired finds a mark.

The 1000 bullets fired by the (larger) defending force will all embed themselves in one of the 100 attackers- result 100 dead. The 100 bullets fired by the (smaller) attacking force will all embed themselves in one of the 1000 defenders- but with only 100 bullets the result can only be 100 dead- an identical result.

I guess what I'm really getting at is that realism can only ever be simulated in wargames- and that- horror of horrors- can only unfortunately be achieved using arithmetic, mathematics, algebra, trigonometry and statistics/odds, all of which have to be incorporated into programming algorithms.

[General Staff]

Or, way too effective, depending on unit densities and attrition dividers. There are few constants in TOAW. Almost everything relies on the scenario design.Yes. Try a ground attack with direct arty support on one of the entering German stacks in Mons 14 for example... You'll rarely see such catastrophic results (for the Germans) ex-nuke...

[Legun]

I still think that the best thing to do is to apply a proportionality factor to the supply usage, based on the relative strengths of the attacker and defender.

I had an other idea - defender uses the supply in a number equal to % of his losses - 0% - no supply usage, no ant unit supply drain attacks.

About artillery and ant units:
There should be two types of non-artillery unit - main battle unit (MBU) and auxilliary support unit (ASU). You need at least one MBU to make an attack, except bombardment. The designer decides if an unit is MBU or ASU.

[El Cid]

In many situations the artillery is placed on top of hills. This does not only improves the range at which it can fire, but allows the arty unit to fire directly (no need of forward observer). How is this modeled into the game?

Operational level games do not normally include line-of-sight into the combat resolution, but perhaps in the case of Arty it should.

The benefit of actually seeing the defending unit (whether directly or by a forward observer) would be independent of whether you commit a land unit into combat. I do not see the reasoning for having to engage in land battle to actually see this benefit.

And with that respect, I don't understand, either, the logic of draining supply when an arty attack is performed.

The way I understand is that effectiviness of arty attacks should be dependent on how well does the arty sees the unit, which is dependent on:
- Recon cabability of arty unit or forward observer
- Terrain of the defender, and how this affects the visibility
- weather visibility.
- experience of arty unit or forward observer

[JAMiAM]

And with that respect, I don't understand, either, the logic of draining supply when an arty attack is performed.
If non-adjacent artillery alone attacks, then the defender expends no supply. The supply is expended by the defenders when attacked by any adjacent ground unit. Every unit in the defending hex expends 10% supply for each tactical round that they engage in such combat.

Not that I'm saying it's "logical", but just clarifying what I see as a potential misunderstanding from what you wrote.

[El Cid]

The supply is expended by the defenders when attacked by any adjacent ground unit. Every unit in the defending hex expends 10% supply for each tactical round that they engage in such combat.

Thanks.

So you can actually perform supply draining attacks without the need to involve arty? That is, I can attack a huge stack of enemy unit, with limited attack with my weakest unit at minimal losses, several times, and reduce the supply level of the entire stack to minimum?

Do experienced players believe the way supply is treated to be one of the weak points in TOAW?

[General Staff]

Thanks.

So you can actually perform supply draining attacks without the need to involve arty? That is, I can attack a huge stack of enemy unit, with limited attack with my weakest unit at minimal losses, several times, and reduce the supply level of the entire stack to minimum?

Do experienced players believe the way supply is treated to be one of the weak points in TOAW?Yes and (in my opinion) Yes.

[Bob Cross]

It could also be argued that not all 1000 men would be in combat against the 100 attackers. A large unit in combat would, as a whole, use less supply against a much smaller force than an equal sized force because not all elements would necessarily be engaged.

If the larger unit is expected to manifest its larger combat strength it must use all it has. Because if both sides are going to expend the same absolute amount of ammo, regardless of relative sizes, then they will, in effect, be manifesting the same combat strengths. All combats will be resolved at 1:1 odds. That's absurd.

I'm suggesting that we first determine (by recon test) if the combat is a serious battle or just a feign. If the former, assume all elements are employed. If the latter, then only a fraction of the defenders will be employed, as you suggest above.

[Bob Cross]

I guess it's a math/statistics issue.

Take the extreme example and assume every single bullet fired finds a mark.

The 1000 bullets fired by the (larger) defending force will all embed themselves in one of the 100 attackers- result 100 dead. The 100 bullets fired by the (smaller) attacking force will all embed themselves in one of the 1000 defenders- but with only 100 bullets the result can only be 100 dead- an identical result.

I guess what I'm really getting at is that realism can only ever be simulated in wargames- and that- horror of horrors- can only unfortunately be achieved using arithmetic, mathematics, algebra, trigonometry and statistics/odds, all of which have to be incorporated into programming algorithms.

You're dodging the question. This isn't about how effective either side is. Would a larger defending force tailor its return fire such that it returns only the same absolute amount of ammo as the attackers sent over?

[JAMiAM]

Bob, perhaps I didn't explain it too well, but the proportionality does not need to be exact, yielding the absolutely identical supply expenditure that you're railing against. It could be a sliding scale. I haven't worked out an algorithm yet, since frankly, until we know what further support the engine will receive above and beyond Norm's contirbution, it is just dreaming, and therefore moot.

However, it can well be said that a large defending stack does not need to expend supplies in the same proportion as a minor probing force. A probing battalion against 5 divisions would need to expend/utilize a greater proportion of its supplies/assets to effect a significant response from those 5 divisions, or even parts of them.

[Karri]

I'd like the arty to be made effective whetever or not there is a 'spotter' unit. Right now the only way to 'play' the massive artillery bombardements of WWI and WWII is to do it with a spotter unit...otherwise the defender won't lose sh...anything

One thing to consider combat wise is, whetever the whole stack should engage a small attacking unit. Would it not be more 'realistic' that a small attacking unit is only engaged by the smallest/most equal size unit in the stack?

[JAMiAM]

Would it not be more 'realistic' that a small attacking unit is only engaged by the smallest/most equal size unit in the stack?Not necessarily. Realistically, it depends on the time period, and the tactical/operational doctrine of the antagonists. Game engine behavior though, is a completely different story.

For example, WWI scenario, 10 Km per hex, three divisions, A,B, and C, defending in a hex. A battalion launches a probing attack in the vicinity of division B. There is no way that divisions A and C are going to get out of their trenches and gang up on the attacking battalion. Their divisional artillery would probably not even respond to the attack on B. This is the realistic situation.

The game engine however, responds by a greatly reduced response by all of the units involved, firing only a relatively small portion of the assets of each of the 3 divisions, yet assessing them a straight 10% supply loss, per round that the attack continues. Since the game engine already reduces the amount of equipment that actively fires at opposing units, to match the size of the unit, it should also reduce the amount of supplies expended.

[Legun]

Again - this is the simplest solution, really close to opart logic. Nothing special to do, just to change one value in one alorythm - losses% instead of number_of_rounds*10%

I had an other idea - defender uses the supply in a number equal to % of his losses - 0% - no supply usage, no ant unit supply drain attacks.

About artillery and ant units:
There should be two types of non-artillery unit - main battle unit (MBU) and auxilliary support unit (ASU). You need at least one MBU to make an attack, except bombardment. The designer decides if an unit is MBU or ASU.

Probably there could be a third type - secondary battle unit (SBU). The SBU can attack, but you can't attach artillery fire if there is no MBU.

[Bob Cross]

I had an other idea - defender uses the supply in a number equal to % of his losses - 0% - no supply usage, no ant unit supply drain attacks.

So you can completely annihilate an ineffective attacker who is unable to inflict any losses whatsoever on you, and you don't expend any ammo. It's totally divorced from reality. Supporting artillery units would never incur losses, so would never expend ammo either.

Take the Gulf War as an example. Coalition forces expended vast amounts of ammo but suffered negligible casualties. Iraqi forces expended negligible amounts of ammo but suffered vast casualties. Ammo expenditure is poorly related to casualty rates.

About artillery and ant units:
There should be two types of non-artillery unit - main battle unit (MBU) and auxilliary support unit (ASU). You need at least one MBU to make an attack, except bombardment. The designer decides if an unit is MBU or ASU.

This is a completely unnecessary complication that wouldn't work as well as my suggestion. All existing scenarios would have to be revised to designate each and every unit in them whether they were battle or support units. And once so designated they would retain that status for the duration, regardless of being decimated or being redlined. A battle unit reduced to one squad would make a great ant unit. One battle unit would guarantee the benefits, while an infinite number of support units would still be denied them. And what happens when a battle unit is sub-divided? Does it remain a battle unit or become a support unit?

In contrast, all units already have a recon value, and it is dynamically adjusted in real-time as losses are taken and supplies/readiness expended. Multiple units combining in an attack receive benefits according to their total recon. It's far simpler and far more realistic.

[Bob Cross]

Bob, perhaps I didn't explain it too well, but the proportionality does not need to be exact, yielding the absolutely identical supply expenditure that you're railing against. It could be a sliding scale. I haven't worked out an algorithm yet, since frankly, until we know what further support the engine will receive above and beyond Norm's contirbution, it is just dreaming, and therefore moot.

If you fix on any constant scale it remains unrealistic: Instead of both sides always expending the exact same absolute amount of ammo and resolving all combat at 1:1, they are always expending ammo and resolving combat at a 2:1 rate, etc.

You would have to have a suite of rates in some sort of table or equivalent. This is rapidly becoming the most complicated solution of all. And, once set, that table is a permanent feature of TOAW - are you sure the programmers will get it right for all situations? In contrast, unit recon levels are controllable by the designer.

And you still haven't addressed the artillery bonus issue. My solution kills both those birds with the same stone.

However, it can well be said that a large defending stack does not need to expend supplies in the same proportion as a minor probing force. A probing battalion against 5 divisions would need to expend/utilize a greater proportion of its supplies/assets to effect a significant response from those 5 divisions, or even parts of them.

I think this is exactly what my suggestion would effect.

[Bob Cross]

You would have to have a suite of rates in some sort of table or equivalent.

Let’s talk about that table in more detail. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to get a bit mathematical. I wish I could provide visual charts, but, since I can’t, I’ll have to get you to visualize some curves from my descriptions only.

First, consider the values at the extreme ends of the table. Suppose the attackers are a negligible fraction of the size of the defenders. At that point the defenders should expend the minimum amount of ammo – 1%. Now suppose the attackers are as large or even larger than the defenders. At that point the defenders should expend the maximum amount of ammo – 10%. At those two points, the table’s values match my method.

What happens in-between, though? If the curve is a straight line, then we’re back to both sides expending the same absolute amount of ammo and resolving combat at 1:1 odds. I think the curve should reflect more of a transition from feign to real battle. That’s best modeled with an “S” shaped curve. To visualize what I mean, think of an “S”, tip it forward so that the inflection point is vertical and then discard the parts before the lowest point and after the highest point. (I’m afraid that’s the best I can do without a chart). Now the curve tends toward the low end at low odds, then transitions quickly to the high end at high odds. Provide enough points in the table and that curve can be reasonably modeled.

Now consider how my method works. There are only two levels – 1% and 10%. It seems coarser, but remember that the transition occurs at a random point dependent upon recon level. It will almost never take place at 1%, will most often take place around 50%, and will almost always have taken place by 99%. In fact, the occurrence of the transition point will follow a normal distribution. Those of you unfamiliar with that term can visualize it as follows: place a sheet of paper on a flat surface and view it on edge. Now push the ends together slightly. The bulge produced will resemble a normal distribution. Now all you have to do is combine the normal distribution curve with the two levels and you get a curve that looks just like the “S” curve described above. In other words, over enough combat-round samples, my method will average out the same results as the above table.

All I have to do now is convince James that recon level is the correct determinate factor rather than combat strength and he will have reached the same point I started at. To see that, think of an equipment type that has lots of combat strength, no recon, and has no business being included in an assault. That’s right! AAA guns! What types of equipment have recon ability? Scout vehicles and squads – the very types of equipment that belong in the front lines and in assaults. Of course, tanks belong in assaults too, and they don’t usually have recon values. But I think most of us would agree that tanks attacking alone should be debilitated. Recon is the right vector to use.

[Panzerpelle]

Let’s talk about that table in more detail. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to get a bit mathematical. I wish I could provide visual charts, but, since I can’t, I’ll have to get you to visualize some curves from my descriptions only.

First, consider the values at the extreme ends of the table. Suppose the attackers are a negligible fraction of the size of the defenders. At that point the defenders should expend the minimum amount of ammo – 1%. Now suppose the attackers are as large or even larger than the defenders. At that point the defenders should expend the maximum amount of ammo – 10%. At those two points, the table’s values match my method.

What happens in-between, though? If the curve is a straight line, then we’re back to both sides expending the same absolute amount of ammo and resolving combat at 1:1 odds. I think the curve should reflect more of a transition from feign to real battle. That’s best modeled with an “S” shaped curve. To visualize what I mean, think of an “S”, tip it forward so that the inflection point is vertical and then discard the parts before the lowest point and after the highest point. (I’m afraid that’s the best I can do without a chart). Now the curve tends toward the low end at low odds, then transitions quickly to the high end at high odds. Provide enough points in the table and that curve can be reasonably modeled.

Now consider how my method works. There are only two levels – 1% and 10%. It seems coarser, but remember that the transition occurs at a random point dependent upon recon level. It will almost never take place at 1%, will most often take place around 50%, and will almost always have taken place by 99%. In fact, the occurrence of the transition point will follow a normal distribution. Those of you unfamiliar with that term can visualize it as follows: place a sheet of paper on a flat surface and view it on edge. Now push the ends together slightly. The bulge produced will resemble a normal distribution. Now all you have to do is combine the normal distribution curve with the two levels and you get a curve that looks just like the “S” curve described above. In other words, over enough combat-round samples, my method will average out the same results as the above table.

All I have to do now is convince James that recon level is the correct determinate factor rather than combat strength and he will have reached the same point I started at. To see that, think of an equipment type that has lots of combat strength, no recon, and has no business being included in an assault. That’s right! AAA guns! What types of equipment have recon ability? Scout vehicles and squads – the very types of equipment that belong in the front lines and in assaults. Of course, tanks belong in assaults too, and they don’t usually have recon values. But I think most of us would agree that tanks attacking alone should be debilitated. Recon is the right vector to use.
I recon you are a professor in mathematics...this was one of the better lectures I have read about the S-curve and normal distrubution...

[Bob Cross]

I recon you are a professor in mathematics...this was one of the better lectures I have read about the S-curve and normal distrubution...

No. Just a lowly engineer. My math professors would probably have rapped my knuckles for that effort.

[Bob Cross]

No. Just a lowly engineer. My math professors would probably have rapped my knuckles for that effort.

Let me change that to "definitely would have rapped my knuckles for that". Having given it a lot more thought, I now have to admit that that post about curves was way off-base as follows:

1. The "S" curve would not be the correct curve to shoot for. It would mean that the absolute ammo usage of the defender would fall below the absolute ammo usage of the attacker in those cases where the attacker was much smaller than the defender. In those cases, the relative ammo usage should be smaller, but never the absolute usage. Whatever the correct target curve would be, it would have to remain above the straight line between 1% and 10%.

2. The random occurence of the transition from 1% to 10% due to attacker recon does not follow a normal distribution. It actually is a constant distribution, and, when combined with the two levels, actually forms a straight line between 1% and 10%. In fact, the average defender supply percentage can be determined from attacker recon levels as follows:

Average defender supply percentage = 0.09 X (Attacker recon percentage) + 1%.

And that's the line from 1% to 10%.

Frankly, I don't think that's a good curve to use. The defender should still be using the max rate even if the attacker is somewhat smaller than him. A better curve might be obtained if the test was based upon attacker recon X2 instead (as I had listed as a possibility in an earlier post).

3. But here's the real problem. From there I can't really say anything about absolute ammo usage ratios, because my method doesn't make any test of the defender's recon level. Should the defender get to drop ammo rates due to small attacker recon levels if the defender is actually not much larger or even smaller than the attacker? Obviously not. The defender's size still should not matter for the artillery bonus since that is all dependent upon attacker observation. But I need to revise my suggestion to add some test of defender recon levels for the supply bonus.

I'm still working on it. Stay tuned.

[Bob Cross]

Sorry to take so long to get back to this, but adding a test for defender recon increased the complexity by an order of magnitude. My analysis is contained in the attached spreadsheet, but readers don’t need it unless they want to delve into the math. The discussion below will be illustrated in the attached jpgs, created from the charts in that spreadsheet.

[Bob Cross]

To recap, if the defender supply drop depends only on the attacker recon test, it will average as follows (AR = Attacker Recon):

Defender Supply Drop = 1% + .09AR.

This is a line running from 1% at AR = 0%, to 10% at AR = 100%. This is shown by the blue line in the attached chart. (Remember that this is the average supply value over many combat samples. The actual supply level will randomly vary between either 1% or 10%).

If the defender is assumed to be at 100% recon size, this line also is proportional to the absolute ammo expenditure of the defender. Meanwhile, the attacker always expends 10% supply, but since his size is proportional to his recon level, the attacker absolute ammo expenditure is shown by the yellow line in the chart. The ratio of the attacker absolute ammo expenditure to the defender absolute ammo expenditure is then shown by the purple curve on the chart (scaled by a factor of 10, for display purposes).

In my opinion, this curve gives the defender too much of a bonus. The defender should only get a break in ammo expenditure if he is significantly larger than the attacker. If their sizes are comparable, the defender should be firing at the maximum rate (10%). To model this, the attacker recon needs to be scaled a bit.

[Bob Cross]

Now suppose that the attacker recon total is multiplied by x2 before the check is made. Then the average defender supply will be as follows:

If the attacker recon is > 50% then Defender Supply Drop = 10%.

If the attacker recon is < 50% then Defender Supply Drop = 1% + .18*AR.

This is again illustrated by the blue curve in the attached chart. Again, if the defender recon is 100%, this curve is also proportional to the defender absolute ammo expenditure. Attacker absolute ammo expenditure remains the same from the last chart. Their ratio is again shown by the purple curve on the chart (again scaled by 10 for display purposes).

This appears much better, in my opinion, since the defender now doesn’t start to get benefits until attacker recon drops below 50%. But there is still a problem. What if the defender doesn’t have 100% recon? What if he is smaller than the attacker? He shouldn’t get such benefits then.

[Bob Cross]

The attached chart shows the ratio if the defender’s recon is 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% (top to bottom). Note that the defender starts to receive the full supply benefits as soon as the attacker recon drops below 50%, regardless of the defender recon level. Even if the defender recon level is 20%, the full benefits begin when the attacker recon drops below 50%. This is obviously wrong. There needs to be a test of the defender’s recon level to get the supply benefits.

[Bob Cross]

For simplicity, let’s first look at unscaled tests. If the defender supply benefit depends upon an unscaled check of attacker recon failing and an unscaled check of defender recon passing, the average supply drop will be as follows (DR = Defender Recon, AR = Attacker Recon):

Defender Supply Drop = 10% - .09*DR + .0009*DR*AR.

This is illustrated in the first attached chart by the suite of lines for defender recon levels of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% (top to bottom).

The second attached chart shows the ratio for the same suite of defender recon levels (omitting the 0% one, as that is infinite).

But, again, this gives the defender the bonus too soon, before he out-sizes the attacker by any significant amount. Next, consider the scaled version.

[Bob Cross]

This is the most complicated case. Both attacker recon and defender recon are multiplied by x2 before their respective tests. The formulas for average defender supply drop will now be as follows:

If attacker recon > 50%, Defender Supply Drop = 10%.

If attacker recon < 50% and defender recon > 50%, then Defender Supply Drop = 1% + .18*AR.

Finally, if attacker recon < 50% and defender recon < 50%, then

Defender Supply Drop = 10% - .18*DR + .0036*AR*DR.

This is illustrated in the first attached chart for a suite of defender recon levels of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100%. Note that the 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% curves are identical and overlap on the chart.

The second attached chart shows the ratio for the same suite of defender recon levels (omitting the 0% one, as that is infinite).

This scale factor gives acceptable results, in my opinion. Benefits don’t start until the attacker recon is below 50%, and if the defender recon is below 50% those benefits are progressively less and less beneficial.

But there is nothing magical about a scale factor of x2. But I expect something in that area will be near optimum. Perhaps playtests will be necessary to fine-tune the level.

Based upon these results, I will now revise my original suggestion in the following post.

[Bob Cross]

My revised solution (changes in bold):

I propose inserting a recon check before each round of combat. If the attacking units pass that check, they get all the benefits above, just as they do now. But if they fail it, they don’t, pending a defender recon check. The details are as follows:

1) Prior to each round of combat, the recon levels of all the ground attackers still remaining in the assault are totaled and scaled (for example, by x2) and a random check is made against that total, just as if the defending hex was being checked during movement for whether it should become spotted. (Note that this check is completely independent of whether the hex is in fact spotted and it will not affect whether the hex remains or becomes spotted for player information purposes. It only affects whether the benefits are received in this round of combat. It is also independent of whether the check was passed or failed in previous combat rounds).

2) If the check is passed combat proceeds just as it does now. Ground defenders drop 10% supply. Defender supporting artillery drops 5% supply. All attacker supporting artillery supports at the x4 factor (modified as per whether it is direct or indirect, as now).

3) If the check is failed, however,
a) All attacker supporting artillery supports at the regular x1 factor, just as if they were bombarding alone (again, modified, as it is now, by whether direct or indirect).

b) Then, the recon levels of all the ground defenders still remaining in the defending hex are totaled and scaled (for example, by x2) and a random check is made against that total, just as the attacker recon check was made before.
i) If the check is passed ground defenders and supporting artillery drop only 1% supply.

ii) But if that check fails, then defenders expend supply as in 2 above, just as if the attacker recon test passed.
4) In either case all ground attackers and attacker supporting artillery drop supply at the same levels they do now (10% if direct, 5% if indirect). And all combat strengths are unaffected.

5) The combat report probably should reveal whether those checks passed or failed on each round.

Note that the artillery support factor is independent of any defender recon test and only depends upon the result of the attacker recon test. It is only the 1% defender supply drop that depends upon both the attacker recon test failing and the defender recon test passing. This will mean that the 1% drop benefit is only received when the attacker is a small force and the defender is a large force – just the case we are trying to cure.

Based upon my analysis, I recommend a scale factor of around x2, but that factor may be best determined through playtesting.

[Dicke Bertha]

Bob, nice work. This engineer however has to admit not always following you. I understand you have chosen a logical question set-up and you are trying the various poosibilities. Is there any way this could be presented in a logical flow-chart (sorry to request more work form the single one providing it)? (STATEMENT_IF_THEN_YES/NO_ACTION or something).
I will make another attempt tomorrow, maybe I will see it more clearly then. Never did an IQ test... ;)

Another question: whether someone else will present a better approach or not, how would you estimate the viability og incorporating this in Matrix v1, v2 etc? Could it be easily programmed and subject to testing?

[Bob Cross]

To further clarify my suggestion, I’ve converted it to C++ below:

attackerRecon = GetTotalRecon(AttackerUnitList) * 2;
if (Random(100) <= attackerRecon)
{CombatReport->InsertText(“Attacker recon check passed”);
artilleryFactor = 4;
defenderSupplyLoss = 10;}
else
{CombatReport->InsertText(“Attacker recon check failed”);
artilleryFactor = 1;
defenderRecon = GetTotalRecon(DefenderUnitList) * 2;
if (Random(100) <= defenderRecon)
{CombatReport->InsertText(“Defender recon check passed”);
defenderSupplyLoss = 1;}
else
{CombatReport->InsertText(“Defender recon check failed”);
defenderSupplyLoss = 10;}}

Functions GetTotalRecon(), Random(), and Objects AttackerUnitList, DefenderUnitList, and CombatReport, with its method InsertText(), would be defined elsewhere in the program.

[Kovi]

and what about a massive (or even overwhelming) attacking force with low (or no) recon vs. a minor defending force with good recon?

[macgregr]

I'm quite content having a game where you figure your odds, factor in your support, and move on to the next attack -compiling an operational strategy. Those that have broken the attack down to it's mechanical factors, exploiting undocumented loopholes have driven me away from ladder play. I don't want a game that gets too tactical unless these tactics are thoroughly explained and realistic. So far they've been neither. All I've heard is a bunch of 'game lawyering' by people who've used these tactics to cheat, and now want vindication.

[Dicke Bertha]

Thanks for the program logic: nice. I don't have time right now to add much comment, but as Kovi says, I believe the weight of the units should be considered, perhaps for the attacker a quotient between total weight and total recon, and this should be factored (divided) to the defender weight, and possibly special support weaponry or capacities (like recon) etc. I believe that attacker and defender cannot be checked separately, they (the artillery efficiency and supply consumtion) must be connected. More later.

[Mark Stevens]

I'm quite content having a game where you figure your odds, factor in your support, and move on to the next attack -compiling an operational strategy. Those that have broken the attack down to it's mechanical factors, exploiting undocumented loopholes have driven me away from ladder play. I don't want a game that gets too tactical unless these tactics are thoroughly explained and realistic. So far they've been neither. All I've heard is a bunch of 'game lawyering' by people who've used these tactics to cheat, and now want vindication.

If you mean the famous 'soak-off' attacks I couldn't agree more, although 'cheat' is perhaps putting it a little strongly. Instead of a whole thread devoted to working out the finer details of how to continue these type of tactics if the game is developed further, we should be discussing how to prevent them working at all.

How d'you like them apples?

[Mark Stevens]

In fact, having said that the Emperor has no clothes, I may as well press on a little and add that there's a pimple on his bum: presumably the idea of this forum is to discuss how Matrix might improve TOAW to relaunch it into the wider wargaming community - as one of the starting posts pointed out, despite its age and defects this is still the best operational level game simulation there is?

Let's hope that it can reach a new generation of players, perhaps after some tweaks and a bit of repackaging.

I reckon that any newcomer to the game who finds it interesting - and it is - might find their way to a site like this. The first time they play an expert in these tactics and get creamed by someone who's learned to micro-manage the engine they'll have two choices: (i) laboriously study how it's done, satisfy themselves that despite all appearances these tactics are justified and try to apply them in future games, or (ii) stick the CD back in the pile under 'Panzer General' and let it gather dust.

If the latter happens the game will remain the province of a small number of grognards, much as it is now, and I fear that's the road down which this thread is taking it.

But a Happy Thanksgiving to all of our American friends anyway. (Insert basting turkey smiley)

Now, back to your calculators and slide rules and I won't disturb this thread any more.

[ralphtrickey]

Thanks for the program logic: nice. I don't have time right now to add much comment, but as Kovi says, I believe the weight of the units should be considered, perhaps for the attacker a quotient between total weight and total recon, and this should be factored (divided) to the defender weight, and possibly special support weaponry or capacities (like recon) etc. I believe that attacker and defender cannot be checked separately, they (the artillery efficiency and supply consumtion) must be connected. More later.

You might have to add in the scenario size as well. It seems that at small scales, those tactics should be more effective than at large scales.

It seems like we're just adding a more complicated abstraction instead of a simple one, with no guarantee that it's more accurate. How about approaching this from another angle? Make it much more likely for the attacker to be routed in lopsided battles, dependenton attacker recon level. If they knew that they would get one round of attack and them be routed, would that deter people from using this strategy, or is it just too powerful? If non-direct artillery attacks didn't affect supply levels, would that help make this effective?

This has the advantage that it shouldn't affect any existing scenarios too much if it would work.

[CyberGeneral]

I had actually wanted to steer clear of the 'Ant Attack' problem solving as so many others have come up with so many ways to 'fix' the problem....Not so much wanting to add yet another solution to this problem, I have instead included my 2 cents worth anyway.....the problem is simpler than most have stated.....

The 'problem' is in the scenario designs & not the (Norm Koger) game design.....

If scenario designers simply place artillery within the infantry units instead of creating separate (and in most cases) endless Artillery mounds, the 'problem' is solved.....If for some reason Artillery NEEDS to be prevalent as separate units for support, than one small & rather weak Artillery per Division, Corps or Army should be enough.......I for one am always dismayed at a few of the scenarios that will, in an attempt to be historically accurate, give me so many Artillery units, that I don't have any place to use or even need them.......that is, outside of perhaps a few 'Ant Attacks'......

[Dicke Bertha]

Well, actually the problem lies in Norm's design, and scenario designers can add to the unrealistic effects of this flaw.

The ant attack problem is interesting as it diplays logical errors in the supply system and in the combat system - two of the most central parts of the game engine.

Why should we not try to find a solution, at least on paper - should there be any future further development at Matrix on the engine, a solution or outline that eliminates concerns about these matters, while simulateneously making the game more realistic? How can that be said to be "a whole thread devoted to working out the finer details of how to continue these type of tactics", or something occupying cheaters seeking vindication?

In fact, it shoud be in the interest of people hating ant attacks tactics to be positive and help solving the underlying (engine) problem, with good ideas, suggesstions, or just taking part constructively, slide-rules or no slide-rules. In the end, nothing works to anyone's pleasure without sound underlying mathematics.

[Chuck]

If scenario designers simply place artillery within the infantry units instead of creating separate (and in most cases) endless Artillery mounds, the 'problem' is solved.

I disagree with this solution. This would treat divisional and corps artillery as if it were nothing more than regimental infantry mortars. The impact of artillery is a good deal greater than that. Obviously if a scenario is scaled at the divisional or corps level, than all the artillery can be included within the infantry unit.

I also disagree with recon being the determinant of tactical artillery strength. Infantry units may not have high recon settings but in many cases they can find the enemy easily enough. Especially in the case of static lines, I don't see why there should be any great advantage in attacking with recce regiments over infantry regiments. It should also be noted that artillery units themselves often had extensive observation assets and air recon could be done as well.

Is tactical artillery really too strong? I haven't seen this to be the case in too many scenarios. However, something should be done about 'supply draining' attacks. Perhaps the best solution that has been mentioned by someone is to make supply usage proportional to the relative strengths of the attacker and defender. This would make attacking with 'ants' less attractive.

[Bob Cross]

and what about a massive (or even overwhelming) attacking force with low (or no) recon vs. a minor defending force with good recon?

Try and envision what a “massive (or even overwhelming) attacking force with low (or no) recon” would consist of. It would have no significant amounts of scout vehicles or squads. It would be made up in either of two ways. Either it would consist of elements that have no business being included in an assault (such as AAA, AT, Artillery, HQs, etc.) and would be expected to perform in an extremely ineffective and clumsy fashion in that role. Or it would consist of pure armor without infantry support. While armor is appropriate for assaults, if sent in blind, without infantry, they will be easy marks for the defenders, as the British discovered against Rommel in North Africa. In neither case would supporting artillery be well directed.

Now try and envision what a “minor defending force with good recon” would be like. It would almost certainly be a recon unit. It will be nimble and very situationally aware. Perfect to perform well better than average against the clumsy, blind attackers.

I think what I’m proposing would model this circumstance quite well. Regardless, it has little to do with the main problem the fix is addressing – a tiny, zero recon, attacking unit against a giant stack of defenders.

[Bob Cross]

I'm quite content having a game where you figure your odds, factor in your support, and move on to the next attack -compiling an operational strategy. Those that have broken the attack down to it's mechanical factors, exploiting undocumented loopholes have driven me away from ladder play. I don't want a game that gets too tactical unless these tactics are thoroughly explained and realistic. So far they've been neither. All I've heard is a bunch of 'game lawyering' by people who've used these tactics to cheat, and now want vindication.

Wargaming in general and TOAW in particular are all about realism. Norm went to a lot of effort to make TOAW as realistic as he could. If Matrix has the wisdom of Norm, it will continue to make each decision in favor of more realism rather than less. That means the game will not be dumbed-down just so players don’t have to consider any factor other than the displayed combat strengths on the units. They will have to continue to manage all the realistic factors the game models, much as real commanders do in real life.

Nevertheless, note that this entire thread is about FIXING a problem you’ve complained about – the gamey use of ant units to decimate and redline a powerful stack of healthy defenders.

[Bob Cross]

If you mean the famous 'soak-off' attacks I couldn't agree more, although 'cheat' is perhaps putting it a little strongly. Instead of a whole thread devoted to working out the finer details of how to continue these type of tactics if the game is developed further, we should be discussing how to prevent them working at all.

How d'you like them apples?

Perhaps you should actually read the thread. You might discover that it is precisely about "how to prevent them working at all", and not at all about "working out the finer details of how to continue these type of tactics".

[Bob Cross]

Now, back to your calculators and slide rules and I won't disturb this thread any more.

The fact that spreadsheets and charts were necessary to evaluate the proposed fix and illustrate its impact on the game does not mean that any such factors will be necessary when players employ the fixed game. On the contrary, the game should function just as it does now, with all the machinations of the fix operating entirely invisibly to the players. Players will set up attacks just as they do now, with the exception that the gamey ant-unit attack will no longer be of any real value.

[Bob Cross]

I had actually wanted to steer clear of the 'Ant Attack' problem solving as so many others have come up with so many ways to 'fix' the problem....Not so much wanting to add yet another solution to this problem, I have instead included my 2 cents worth anyway.....the problem is simpler than most have stated.....

The 'problem' is in the scenario designs & not the (Norm Koger) game design.....

If scenario designers simply place artillery within the infantry units instead of creating separate (and in most cases) endless Artillery mounds, the 'problem' is solved.....If for some reason Artillery NEEDS to be prevalent as separate units for support, than one small & rather weak Artillery per Division, Corps or Army should be enough.......I for one am always dismayed at a few of the scenarios that will, in an attempt to be historically accurate, give me so many Artillery units, that I don't have any place to use or even need them.......that is, outside of perhaps a few 'Ant Attacks'......

That is what is called a “kluge”, and it is a sure sign that the game system is broken and needs to be fixed. Real forces have real artillery concentrations and the game system needs to model them realistically.

[Bob Cross]

I also disagree with recon being the determinant of tactical artillery strength. Infantry units may not have high recon settings but in many cases they can find the enemy easily enough. Especially in the case of static lines, I don't see why there should be any great advantage in attacking with recce regiments over infantry regiments. It should also be noted that artillery units themselves often had extensive observation assets and air recon could be done as well.

Actually, infantry units tend to have good recon levels. And, while pure recon units tend to have more, they tend to be not remotely as plentiful as infantry units are. The entire intent of my fix is to require the commitment of infantry in order to get the benefits.

Is tactical artillery really too strong? I haven't seen this to be the case in too many scenarios.

That’s neither here nor there. I’m not changing the effectiveness of artillery. But note that artillery has two different levels of effectiveness in the game. One level is for when they bombard alone, and another, significantly greater, one for when they support a ground assault. What is being fixed is the determining factor for which effectiveness is used. To recap, the current way the game works awards the greater effectiveness level if any unit, even a throwaway ant unit, is used in an assault in conjunction with a bombardment. This is obviously wrong, results in the gamey ant unit tactics, and needs to be fixed.

[Kovi]

Now try and envision what a “minor defending force with good recon” would be like. It would almost certainly be a recon unit. It will be nimble and very situationally aware. Perfect to perform well better than average against the clumsy, blind attackers.

Actually the defending unit won't "perform" (fight) better, just "avoid" the attacker's heavy artillery support fire and use up only 1% supply. And I must agree, in this example it can even be rationalized: the defending unit avoid contact and possibly retreats without actually fighting back.

Regardless, it has little to do with the main problem the fix is addressing – a tiny, zero recon, attacking unit against a giant stack of defenders.

I brought it up because I thought that would be an unwanted, incorrect side-effect of your fix. We discussed the extreme of my example (minor defender vs. no recon attacker) where the side-effect seems reasonable.
But I'm still not sure, if it would work well for all cases. What about say, a moderate defending force with good recon, fighting and pushing back(!) a massive attacking force with low recon. Are the defenders still not suffering from serious support artillery fire and use up only 1% supply?

[macgregr]

That means the game will not be dumbed-down just so players don’t have to consider any factor other than the displayed combat strengths on the units. They will have to continue to manage all the realistic factors the game models, much as real commanders do in real life.

I agree. The more realism the better. It should be thoroughly explained in the manual though.

[CyberGeneral]

That is what is called a “kluge”, and it is a sure sign that the game system is broken and needs to be fixed. Real forces have real artillery concentrations and the game system needs to model them realistically.

This is THE BEST system out there for what I consider computer based historic military campaign simulations on the internet...To say it is 'broken' is flat wrong...Norm Koger deserves better than that...The time he put into the making of TOAW should be applauded...My guess, the next 'fix' (whoever developes a 'new' TOAW) will have weaknesses in their game system that will be exploited as well....After all, it is not war...It is a game.....

[Chuck]

Actually, infantry units tend to have good recon levels. And, while pure recon units tend to have more, they tend to be not remotely as plentiful as infantry units are. The entire intent of my fix is to require the commitment of infantry in order to get the benefits.

It depends on the scenario and scale. I know of several scenarios just off the top of my head where infantry has low recon:

Ben Turner's Poland
Two Weeks in Normandy
Naples '43
Seelowe

I'm sure there are a number of others. One thing to consider - use active defender status instead of recon as the determinant. Would get rid of the AA/AT problem but wouldn't give any special advantage to cavalry/recon over infantry.

[Bob Cross]

What about say, a moderate defending force with good recon, fighting and pushing back(!) a massive attacking force with low recon. Are the defenders still not suffering from serious support artillery fire and use up only 1% supply?

I still don't see any problem with this. First of all, you're conjuring up a really strange assault force. It has massive size but little recon. I would have a tough time even constructing such a force. It would have to be composed of elements that would have no business being thrown into an assault. It would seem to be perfectly reasonable that they perform in a very incompetent fashion. And how can you justify awarding them the artillery bonus when they have little recon? How could the artillery be well directed? Perhaps it's a little harder to rationalize the 1% supply use by the defenders (although I think I could - they should be extra lethal against these clods), but is that really a big deal? The important thing is to stop the supply sucking attacks.

[Bob Cross]

I agree. The more realism the better. It should be thoroughly explained in the manual though.

I think it's unreasonable to expect all intricities of any game to be explained in detail in its manual, much less one as complex as TOAW. First of all, there is a cost factor. But beyond that, the game is so complex it's impossible for Norm to fully grasp every consequence of every feature. Those factors have to be uncovered via experience with the game system. And boards like this one are then used to disiminate that knowlege.

Many factors of the game are still mysterious to all of us. That's a good thing. That, in and of itself, is a realism factor. The rules of real wars aren't clearly spelled out and fully understood either. Rather, they usually must be sorted out over the course of the war.

[Bob Cross]

This is THE BEST system out there for what I consider computer based historic military campaign simulations on the internet...To say it is 'broken' is flat wrong...Norm Koger deserves better than that...The time he put into the making of TOAW should be applauded...My guess, the next 'fix' (whoever developes a 'new' TOAW) will have weaknesses in their game system that will be exploited as well....After all, it is not war...It is a game.....

Good grief. OK, call it a "weakness" instead of calling it "broken". But however you describe it, the ant unit problem is a real problem that needs to be fixed.

[Bob Cross]

It depends on the scenario and scale. I know of several scenarios just off the top of my head where infantry has low recon:

Ben Turner's Poland
Two Weeks in Normandy
Naples '43
Seelowe

I'm sure there are a number of others.

Nope. The relationship between the recon level of squads and equipment with a recon capability is fixed in the game system. It is not scenario dependent. X amount of infantry will always equal the recon of Y amount of recon vehicles. X is significantly bigger than Y, but that's reasonable. Recon is the proper vector for the artillery bonus. And it is also a fair measure of the threat to the defenders posed by the attackers - and thus the average expected ammo expenditure of those defenders.

One thing to consider - use active defender status instead of recon as the determinant. Would get rid of the AA/AT problem but wouldn't give any special advantage to cavalry/recon over infantry.

1. That information (a count of active equipment) is not already available like recon level.
2. It's not modified by proficiency, supply, or readiness like recon level.
3. It's not the proper vector for the artillery bonus. Active elements can be blind (AFVs).

[Chuck]

Nope. The relationship between the recon level of squads and equipment with a recon capability is fixed in the game system. It is not scenario dependent. X amount of infantry will always equal the recon of Y amount of recon vehicles. X is significantly bigger than Y, but that's reasonable. Recon is the proper vector for the artillery bonus. And it is also a fair measure of the threat to the defenders posed by the attackers - and thus the average expected ammo expenditure of those defenders.

Some regiments/battalions get extra recon equipment, like jeeps and motorcycle squads. Nor is the recon level a fair measure of the threat posed by the attackers. Under the model you propose, a recon battalion is more of a threat than an infantry regiment. Players will begin using these recon units to lead the artillery barrage and then use infantry to exploit the breakthroughs.

Take "Two Weeks in Normandy". American battalions have around 7%-10% recon. Their recon squad around 80% recon. To get the divisional artillery bonus, you either attack with several battalions or one recon squad. The recon squad only has 5 Stuarts, 5 Greyhounds, 2 M8 HMC, and 9 Jeeps.

1. That information (a count of active equipment) is not already available like recon level.

True, but I don't know why this couldn't be displayed somewhere. The system already counts active/passive equipment for purposes of RBC.

2. It's not modified by proficiency, supply, or readiness like recon level.

Good point. Perhaps there can be a modification added for this purpose.

3. It's not the proper vector for the artillery bonus. Active elements can be blind (AFVs).

On the other hand, you're saying one greyhound car is more valuable than several infantry squads for getting the enemy out of their entrenchments for artillery purposes. This shouldn't be the case.

[Bob Cross]

I ran some tests last night and I was surprised by the results. My feel for the ratio between X and Y, based upon my playing experience, had been about 5 or 6. My tests showed it was actually 18. And tanks do have a (very small) recon ability. The full results are as follows:

1 recon vehicle/motorcycle squad is equivalent for recon purposes to
2 cavalry squads/recon teams,
18 active defender infantry squads, or
36 active defender vehicles (Tanks, SPAT, SPAAG, APCs).

Passive defender equipment (passive defender squads/teams, guns and mortars, SP artillery, towed AA, passive defender transport vehicles) provides no recon capability.

Furthermore, I tested how many of each equipment type would be needed to reach 50% recon, if proficiency, supply, and readiness were assumed to be 100%. The results are shown in the following table:

Hex Scale----------Squads---------Cavalry--------Recon Vehicles
50km/hex--------------2500--------------278-----------------139
25km/hex--------------1250--------------139------------------70
20km/hex--------------1000--------------111------------------56
15km/hex---------------750---------------83------------------42
10km/hex---------------500---------------56------------------28
5km/hex----------------250---------------28------------------14
2.5km/hex--------------125---------------14-------------------7

Note that the level is linearly proportional to hex scale. Obviously, 100% proficiency, supplied, and ready units are rare. Drop those and the numbers will go much higher. That means it takes a prohibitively large number of squads, absent any recon elements, to meet the proposed test.

My feeling for the ratio was probably skewed by my tendency to include jeeps and motorcycle squads in my units at a greater pace than some others. One solution is to make the scale factor designer settable, like the attrition divider setting. But that may be asking a lot.

And even raising the scale factor won't completely fix the problem for those scenarios, because it will boost recon/cavalry units too much. Recon units are rare, but with that much leverage a few of them can do a lot of ant-unit mischief. I would have much preferred the ratio to be about 6 rather than the actual 18. But at least, precious as they are, recon units aren't throwaway units, like the current ant-units can be.

Except for those ratios, note that recon is sort of a count of active defender equipment. So Chuck's idea of using active defender counts could be a difficult, but more ideal solution. But it would come with a huge amount of overhead. We would not want to calculate and re-calculate the totals for each combat round, so each unit would have to have a new parameter stored and displayed for it (like recon level). Call it "active size" perhaps. It would have to be scaled for unit health and hex scale just as recon is. We could also give some variation in value as recon does, but just not as large. Perhaps like this:

1 recon vehicle/motorcycle squad is equivalent to
2 cavalry squads/recon teams,
4 active defender infantry squads, or
8 active defender vehicles.

Then, the 500-squad requirement at 10km/hex would be reduced to 111 squads, and a couple of regiments would usually guarantee the benefit.

It just depends upon how much effort Matrix is prepared to give to this issue. Basing it on recon alone will still give a lot of relief. But an ideal solution will take much more effort.

[Bob Cross]

After thinking about it for one more day, it has occurred to me that there is a much simpler solution. The test could still be based upon recon, but the recon level of active defender infantry squads could be increased to a more reasonable level. If it were increased by a factor of 3, then the ratio would be 6 instead of 18, as I suggested above. I'm ambivalent about changing the recon factor for active defender vehicles. A factor of 36 may be fine for them, or they could be increased somewhat too.

The table above would then be revised as follows:

Hex Scale----------Squads---------Cavalry--------Recon Vehicles
50km/hex---------------833--------------278-----------------139
25km/hex---------------417--------------139------------------70
20km/hex---------------333--------------111------------------56
15km/hex---------------250---------------83------------------42
10km/hex---------------167---------------56------------------28
5km/hex-----------------83---------------28------------------14
2.5km/hex---------------42---------------14-------------------7

This is far more acceptable and would definitely improve the ant-unit problem fix, but unfortunately its effect would go beyond that. It would also raise the actual unit recon level attributable to infantry squads by a factor of 3. That's a cause for concern, but perhaps we should question whether it's correct for a jeep to have 18 times the recon of a squad. It seems to me that Norm may have short-changed infantry in the recon department. If so, such a change would be a benefit rather than a problem.

[Dicke Bertha]

*RANT MODE*

If we are making a wrench and screwdriver attack on the code - Dicke to Matrix: - then add a new type of squad: artiilery observation squad. Preferably passive defending type with good def values and lousy active values, or whatever to make sure the squad doesn't lead the bayonet attack.

If the code won't be changed here; we need somehow to establish an artillery and supply factor also based on overall unit weights!

*REPEAT RANT OVER AS DICKE SUFFERS A HEART ATTACK IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN OF PLAN MARTIN - FELDGENDARMERIE BADLY NEEDED, PAY VERY GOOD* :o

[a white rabbit]

..isn't the "ant attack " really a design problem ?..either sub-divide units at the end of making the scn, or load the formations to the guts with stuff so there's no space...

[Bob Cross]

If we are making a wrench and screwdriver attack on the code - Dicke to Matrix: - then add a new type of squad: artiilery observation squad. Preferably passive defending type with good def values and lousy active values, or whatever to make sure the squad doesn't lead the bayonet attack.

And what will it be good for? You can't award the artillery bonus just because of it. That would be worse than the ant unit attacks. The award has to be based on mass-of-assault as well as recon. If the defenders aren't under assault they can spread out and hunker down in the bottom of their bunkers. But if under serious assault, they have to man the ramparts. That is as important a factor in the artillery bonus as the recon-directed factor.

And, again, all existing scenarios would have to be edited to add such squads. Are they really necessary? I've got field artillery observation units in my France 1944 scenario. I used recon teams.

[Bob Cross]

..isn't the "ant attack " really a design problem ?..either sub-divide units at the end of making the scn, or load the formations to the guts with stuff so there's no space...

No, it's a real problem that needs to be fixed. Again, what you're describing is a "kluge". And it's a kluge that wouldn't work. Even if every unit in the scenario is the same and can't be sub-divided (what a God-awful scenario that would be!), you can still create ant-units via combat losses.

[Dicke Bertha]

And what will it be good for? You can't award the artillery bonus just because of it.
Why not? If artillery efficiency is directly proportional to the number of artillery observers (and of course target density, entrenchment etc) with an offset, pretty much along the classical y=kx+m, wouldn't it be reasonable to have a very varying number of observers in different kind of units?

That would be worse than the ant unit attacks.
Well, sorry if I am dense, but I fail to see that. Artillery observers aren't exactly expendable, waste them in ant attacks (and remember the enemy you're attacking may have alot of observers... Maybe separate units of artillery observers could be created, with zero normal defense, and invisible to the opponent. After all, a squad that only observes, does not move around much, and is under strict orders to never engage an enemy would be difficult to spot...

The award has to be based on mass-of-assault as well as recon. If the defenders aren't under assault they can spread out and hunker down in the bottom of their bunkers. But if under serious assault, they have to man the ramparts. That is as important a factor in the artillery bonus as the recon-directed factor. Using separate artillery observers squads would also address weight; a dug-in huge infantry division with few own artillery observers would have less accurate supportive artillery (low number of observers) vs a strong attacker than a dug in recon battallion or Jäger regiment or what have you, if those were extra heavy on artillery observers. The division would still deliver a stronger volley from machine guns etc.

And, again, all existing scenarios would have to be edited to add such squads. Are they really necessary? I've got field artillery observation units in my France 1944 scenario. I used recon teams. Don't know about your France '44, I will look into it, but with your words, would that not be a 'Kluge'? And for editing all existing scenarios: no, they work fine the way they are: balance is not really the problem, so an altered engine would not (?) ask why aren't there any artillery observers... as they could have been eliminated in battle. Any designer could edit his scenario, or choose not to. However, I should add I think that the artillery observers would make a lot more sense if artillery order differentiation could be introduced. I.e. they'd have little effect on long-range artillery harassment, counter-artillery maybe too, and the 'Stoßfeuer' (two rounds of HE fired and not continued). (Hey, counter-artillery calls for yet a squad/unit: artillery location radar etc).

[Dicke Bertha]

I should add too, directed air attacks... Either through such teams, or through separate air-ground liason squads. Since we're nearing Christmas, why not add to the wish-list! ;)

[a white rabbit]

No, it's a real problem that needs to be fixed. Again, what you're describing is a "kluge". And it's a kluge that wouldn't work. Even if every unit in the scenario is the same and can't be sub-divided (what a God-awful scenario that would be!), you can still create ant-units via combat losses.

..not a kluge, two valid design tools that maybe aren't being used correctly

..Units divided in the EvilEd can't divide further, they can only be eliminated, dividing them fills the formation slots and so prevents other units dividing until they are eliminated

..i say two tools cos they seem reflect different aspects, example:dividing in the EvilEd is good for early WW2 french reservist formations, clumsy and poorly trained, just filling the formation slots does better for the class 'A' formations, as there are casualties the formation "learns" and is able to do more..

..of course, designers could also stop putting in uneeded units ?

[Ben Turner]

..of course, designers could also stop putting in uneeded units ?

What is 'needed' depends on the situation.

In my Poland, German AT battalions are including in the recon because motorised units tended to be lumped together and used as fast columns, and there is no need for AT defence since the Poles have very little armour.

Fast forward to 1944. The Germans are on the defensive- and having to deal with lots of enemy armour. Clearly it is critical for the Germans to be able to move their AT assets around. So a separate AT battalion unit makes good sense.

[Bob Cross]

Why not? If artillery efficiency is directly proportional to the number of artillery observers (and of course target density, entrenchment etc) with an offset, pretty much along the classical y=kx+m, wouldn't it be reasonable to have a very varying number of observers in different kind of units?

I'll try again: What are they going to be used for? Explain your procedure in detail. I'm not psychic. If (and I'm just guessing) you intend to award the artillery bonus just on the presence of artillery observers they will have the same effect as ant units do now.

Well, sorry if I am dense, but I fail to see that. Artillery observers aren't exactly expendable, waste them in ant attacks (and remember the enemy you're attacking may have alot of observers... Maybe separate units of artillery observers could be created, with zero normal defense, and invisible to the opponent. After all, a squad that only observes, does not move around much, and is under strict orders to never engage an enemy would be difficult to spot...

An artillery observer unit would have negligible mass and be an entirely passive defender - just like an ant unit. Players could use them to risklessly bombard their way through powerful stacks of defenders, just like with ant units. If the artillery observer unit is only going to observe and not even actually assault, why would the defenders be motivated to man the ramparts? They would remain dispersed and hunkered down. I repeat, the artillery bonus should be based on more than just the artillery being recon directed - it has to be based upon the defenders being forced to come out of their bunkers and man the ramparts. That requires a real assault.

Using separate artillery observers squads would also address weight; a dug-in huge infantry division with few own artillery observers would have less accurate supportive artillery (low number of observers) vs a strong attacker than a dug in recon battallion or Jäger regiment or what have you, if those were extra heavy on artillery observers. The division would still deliver a stronger volley from machine guns etc.

An artillery observer unit would have negligible weight and be passive to boot.

Don't know about your France '44, I will look into it, but with your words, would that not be a 'Kluge'?

What is an artillery observer doing besides recon? Can't normal squads call for artillery support and direct it?

And for editing all existing scenarios: no, they work fine the way they are: balance is not really the problem, so an altered engine would not (?) ask why aren't there any artillery observers... as they could have been eliminated in battle. Any designer could edit his scenario, or choose not to.

Existing scenarios will not have artillery observer squads. So, if this is the fix for the ant unit problem all those scenarios won't be fixed.

[Bob Cross]

..not a kluge, two valid design tools that maybe aren't being used correctly

Yes it is. If the system worked correctly there would be no need for it.

..Units divided in the EvilEd can't divide further, they can only be eliminated, dividing them fills the formation slots and so prevents other units dividing until they are eliminated

I didn't suggest they could divide further. I said they could be converted to ant units via combat losses. Suppose all units (sub-divided, of course) consist of 100 squads. Then you have combat. Soon you have some units that consist of only 3-5 squads - ant units!

..of course, designers could also stop putting in uneeded units ?

Or Matrix could fix the problem, and then designers wouldn't have to concern themselves with kluging their scenarios.

[a white rabbit]

What is 'needed' depends on the situation.

In my Poland, German AT battalions are including in the recon because motorised units tended to be lumped together and used as fast columns, and there is no need for AT defence since the Poles have very little armour.

Fast forward to 1944. The Germans are on the defensive- and having to deal with lots of enemy armour. Clearly it is critical for the Germans to be able to move their AT assets around. So a separate AT battalion unit makes good sense.

...and these German AT units were well enough trained enough and well-armed enough to be considered a valid fighting force when on their own, and when subdivided ?

..if not then make one at reg sze, divide it then scrap the other two, the generated spare can be used as replacements. result, a one off "ant" attack at worst, an attack that no-one sane would contemplate given the valueof the unit...

[a white rabbit]

Yes it is. If the system worked correctly there would be no need for it.



I didn't suggest they could divide further. I said they could be converted to ant units via combat losses. Suppose all units (sub-divided, of course) consist of 100 squads. Then you have combat. Soon you have some units that consist of only 3-5 squads - ant units!



Or Matrix could fix the problem, and then designers wouldn't have to concern themselves with kluging their scenarios.

..subdivided units are a lot weaker than the parent unit, this applies to units divided in the EvilEd, they tend not to last long as active units before going re-org, they can not redivide as a result of combat as far as i recall, they just get hammered*

..*Starship Trooper types excepted

..so what's the problem that needs solving by playing wth the motor ?..

[Bob Cross]

..subdivided units are a lot weaker than the parent unit, this applies to units divided in the EvilEd, they tend not to last long as active units before going re-org, they can not redivide as a result of combat as far as i recall, they just get hammered*

..*Starship Trooper types excepted

But under your concept, there won't be any parent units. Sub-divided units will be the norm. They will have to be designed to have the same proficiencies in their divided state that they would have had had they been designed to function in an undivided state. Combat will then produce some units with only a tiny fraction of their original TO&E left. They will then make perfect ant units.

Never mind that such a kluge would severely hamstring designers in so many ways.

..so what's the problem that needs solving by playing wth the motor ?..

The Ant-Unit problem - so we don't have to use your God-awful kluge that won't work anyway.

[Dicke Bertha]

I'll try again: What are they going to be used for? Explain your procedure in detail. I'm not psychic. If (and I'm just guessing) you intend to award the artillery bonus just on the presence of artillery observers they will have the same effect as ant units do now.

Er, well I am no designer and I do not have the thorough knowledge that you have of the engine, so I am truly sorry if I am decreasing ther signal-to-noice level in the thread, but yeah, that was the general plan... :) but their only use would be for artillery missions, not as general recon... (leaving that to the real recon squads, and the recon value of other squads). However, I understand ant units to be normally a broken down unit, like a Flak company. The basic distribution of artillery observation squads would be within other units, like an infantry battalion would have one number, a tank regiment or recce Bn another etc, Flak yet another (much lower I would assume - but it is really up to th scenario designer to decide this).

I don't have a clear procedure on their use, but for:
A. Artillery efficiency:
1) they and they alone should be what really enhances artillery efficiency
2) to cause the defenders manning the ramparts, as you say, must require attacking weight, i.e. other units attacking
3) I'd like to see this coupled with different kind of artillery missions where observers have different effect on these missions depending on the mission
4) Would it be possible to have the effect of spotter squads be like traffic control of MP squads without adding more to the ant problem?

B. No ant use:
5) make them squads integral in other units
6) make them active defenders (would this enable their use as separate support units; i.e. on a regiment scale scenario, there could be divisional and corps artillery spotter Units rather than just spotter squads in other units?).

I hadn't considered active vs passive defender before... So what if artillery observer squads are made active defenders instead, the logic could be since they group and move with the troops rather than with defensive equipment, they should be active... Artillery observers exist in real life and have a very defined use, why should that not be reflected on an operational scale? Recon is afterall something else. I am taking for granted that the automatic 10% supply drop for defenders when ground attacked will be gotten rid of.

Anyway, I know too little here to be able to present a good case, cheerio!

[Bob Cross]

Er, well I am no designer and I do not have the thorough knowledge that you have of the engine, so I am truly sorry if I am decreasing ther signal-to-noice level in the thread, but yeah, that was the general plan... :) but their only use would be for artillery missions, not as general recon... (leaving that to the real recon squads, and the recon value of other squads). However, I understand ant units to be normally a broken down unit, like a Flak company. The basic distribution of artillery observation squads would be within other units, like an infantry battalion would have one number, a tank regiment or recce Bn another etc, Flak yet another (much lower I would assume - but it is really up to th scenario designer to decide this).

I don't have a clear procedure on their use, but for:
A. Artillery efficiency:
1) they and they alone should be what really enhances artillery efficiency
2) to cause the defenders manning the ramparts, as you say, must require attacking weight, i.e. other units attacking
3) I'd like to see this coupled with different kind of artillery missions where observers have different effect on these missions depending on the mission
4) Would it be possible to have the effect of spotter squads be like traffic control of MP squads without adding more to the ant problem?

B. No ant use:
5) make them squads integral in other units
6) make them active defenders (would this enable their use as separate support units; i.e. on a regiment scale scenario, there could be divisional and corps artillery spotter Units rather than just spotter squads in other units?).

I hadn't considered active vs passive defender before... So what if artillery observer squads are made active defenders instead, the logic could be since they group and move with the troops rather than with defensive equipment, they should be active... Artillery observers exist in real life and have a very defined use, why should that not be reflected on an operational scale? Recon is afterall something else. I am taking for granted that the automatic 10% supply drop for defenders when ground attacked will be gotten rid of.

Anyway, I know too little here to be able to present a good case, cheerio!

Since I last posted, I had wondered if I had guessed wrong and you had only intended such squads to be an enhanced part of my original recon-based solution. That might have been defensible. But it seems I had guessed right and you want them to be the only determining factor for the artillery bonus. That’s not defensible for the following reasons:


All existing scenarios would have to be massively redesigned with each unit given an artillery observer detachment. How big would that detachment be? Each unit would become a new research project. This is actually much worse than the earlier suggestion that each unit be designated as "combat" or "support". At least that only required an "either/or" decision. This fact, alone, is enough to scuttle the idea. In contrast, recon is a characteristic that units already exhibit.
There is no test for weight. Perhaps designers can, as you suggest, distribute them to units as per those unit's weights, but there is no assurance that they can or will, or that the course of combat operations will maintain that relationship. Even if originally proportionately designed, units could get most of their weight elements killed while retaining most of their observers, for example (or vice-versa). Especially if observer squads are passive defenders, their loss rate will differ significantly from active elements. A further problem is that observer squads will be rare relative to other elements. My US armies in France 1944 had one or two battalions each - at most about 72 squads. Considering that each army had about 144 battalions, that's only half an observer squad per battalion. Even if you reclassify them as teams (2 teams/squad) with one team per battalion, that leaves no nuance in the loss level. A battalion will either have or will not have its one observer team. Are all battalions the same? Well, they will be in regards to artillery direction - again, there is no room for nuance. It should be obvious that weight needs to be tested against elements that actually effect the unit's weight, not elements that may be only indirectly related to it.
If, in defiance of your recommendation, designers create separate artillery observer units then they will function just like ant units.
It's disconnected from reality. Observer teams aren't the only way units can direct artillery. Virtually any element, based upon its recon, can call for support and direct it. And I don't agree that recon is "something else". Rather, it's a broader category that contains the specialty of artillery observation. In other words, artillery observation is a sub-set of recon. Recon is a more realistic vector for the artillery bonus.
You're punting on the other issue of supply sucking. That obviously has to be based upon weight, not artillery observers, and, as shown above, that's a problem for this idea.

I agree with your revision that observers should be active defenders. Passive defender status is intended for elements that remain in the rear. That obviously doesn’t apply to observer teams. But note that this just makes them look that much more like recon teams. The need for a distinct variant becomes progressively more dubious.

It seems to me that recon teams model a broad category of elements that include artillery observers. For me, that’s good enough at TOAW’s operational scale. But perhaps a case can be made for a new, more specialized, form of recon team called an artillery observer team. But its impact must fit into the existing recon structure, so that existing scenarios aren’t broken by them.

[Choowee]

What affect does counterbattery fire have on ant unit attacks? Say I have large amounts of artillery units of my own entrenched, and in range of enemy artillery, behind my amassed infantry divisions. Wouldn't this cause losses to the attacking units artillery?

I am not really sure how counterbattery fire is simulated in TOAW...

[Bob Cross]

What affect does counterbattery fire have on ant unit attacks? Say I have large amounts of artillery units of my own entrenched, and in range of enemy artillery, behind my amassed infantry divisions. Wouldn't this cause losses to the attacking units artillery?

I am not really sure how counterbattery fire is simulated in TOAW...

None whatsoever. Counterbattery fire is only applied to attacker artillery that is bombarding defending artillery-type units alone, without a ground assault. And even then, only the units being bombarded counterbattery fire, not any supporting artillery.

This is yet another gamey advantage of using ant-units. If there is a ground assault, then only the units in the ground assault are subject to the defender's fire and defender artillery support. So, if the ground assaulters are tiny, throwaway types (ant-units) then, in effect, all the defender response is wasted.

Perhaps that needs to be addressed, but I'll leave that up to Matrix. One possible way to address it would be in my procedure above. If the attackers fail their recon test, then any attacker supporting artillery would be subject to counterbattery fire if any defenders were artillery-type units.

[Bob Cross]

One possible way to address it would be in my procedure above. If the attackers fail their recon test, then any attacker supporting artillery would be subject to counterbattery fire if any defenders were artillery-type units.

Just to illustrate, I've edited my C++ post as follows (changes in red):

attackerRecon = GetTotalRecon(AttackerUnitList) * 2;
if (Random(100) <= attackerRecon)
{CombatReport->InsertText(“Attacker recon check passed”);
artilleryFactor = 4;
counterbatteryFire = false;
defenderSupplyLoss = 10;}
else
{CombatReport->InsertText(“Attacker recon check failed”);
artilleryFactor = 1;
counterbatteryFire = true;
defenderRecon = GetTotalRecon(DefenderUnitList) * 2;
if (Random(100) <= defenderRecon)
{CombatReport->InsertText(“Defender recon check passed”);
defenderSupplyLoss = 1;}
else
{CombatReport->InsertText(“Defender recon check failed”);
defenderSupplyLoss = 10;}}

Functions GetTotalRecon(), Random(), and Objects AttackerUnitList, DefenderUnitList, and CombatReport, with its method InsertText(), would be defined elsewhere in the program.

[Dicke Bertha]

Baiting :) calling every limited attack an ant attack.

My statement: I hate limited attacks. I actually consider them a far bigger issue than ant attacks (since those I've seldom encountered).

I have attacked for 75 turns as Soviets vs Mensch's excellent German defence in GiO and been frustrated to the point of considering harakiri, and then as scenario rules forbid red supply units to do normal assaults, I've increasingly been forced to conduct limited assaults - with the expected still astonishing effect on the defenders (they go to hell if a turn lasts more than two rounds). Since my entire fronts came to a standstill, the defenses disappear quicker than I could stop, as I have such a heavy shitload of Soviet artillery supporting you wouldn't believe (Didn't CyberGeneral oppose to this historical recreating of artillery? Hmm interesting).

Anyway, my question is this:

What really are limited attacks supposed to represent? Why do we need them in TOAW? Is there a scenario size -, and TOE aspect to them (i.e. useful in small company scenarios, out-of-proportion in corps size)?

I said before that it would be interesting to have also overruns to be adjustable - the attacker defining how much would be going into the attack (breakdown issues).

I think I can lose or win a scenario vs the same opponent depending simply on rule-kosher choosing of limited or normal attacks. I surely shouldn't be that way as it represents nothing of anything really?

Again sorry if this has been beaten to death.

[Bob Cross]

Baiting :) calling every limited attack an ant attack.

My statement: I hate limited attacks. I actually consider them a far bigger issue than ant attacks (since those I've seldom encountered).

I have attacked for 75 turns as Soviets vs Mensch's excellent German defence in GiO and been frustrated to the point of considering harakiri, and then as scenario rules forbid red supply units to do normal assaults, I've increasingly been forced to conduct limited assaults - with the expected still astonishing effect on the defenders (they go to hell if a turn lasts more than two rounds). Since my entire fronts came to a standstill, the defenses disappear quicker than I could stop, as I have such a heavy shitload of Soviet artillery supporting you wouldn't believe (Didn't CyberGeneral oppose to this historical recreating of artillery? Hmm interesting).

Anyway, my question is this:

What really are limited attacks supposed to represent? Why do we need them in TOAW? Is there a scenario size -, and TOE aspect to them (i.e. useful in small company scenarios, out-of-proportion in corps size)?

I said before that it would be interesting to have also overruns to be adjustable - the attacker defining how much would be going into the attack (breakdown issues).

I think I can lose or win a scenario vs the same opponent depending simply on rule-kosher choosing of limited or normal attacks. I surely shouldn't be that way as it represents nothing of anything really?

Again sorry if this has been beaten to death.

To say that every limited attack is an ant attack is obviously false. One could launch a really huge attack with multiple stacks of powerful units and designate all of it as a limited attack. That certainly would not resemble an ant attack at all.

I suspect that most of what you describe above can be attributed to the fact that those limited attacks are actually using ant units. But you do have one point. Since a limited attack is only committing half the unit, only half its recon should be factored into my algorithm. That will have to be addressed.

Personally, I find limited attacks to be an important tool in the TOAW toolbox. Sometimes you just don't want to advance. That may be because you don't want to break containment on an adjacent enemy unit, or it may be because you want to disengage for a withdrawal. The game would be lessened without them. I think if ant unit tactics are properly dealt with, limited attacks will not be a problem.

As to what they represent, well, only Norm knows for sure. But, if I'm given license to speculate, I would say they represent something akin to a skirmish. That would be an attack that doesn't progress beyond long range fire between the combatants. In other words, the attack would not be pressed home into a direct assault on the enemy works.

[viridomaros]

i'm with bob here, without limited attack the game would be not so good.
here is an example for when i use limited attacks. you're attacking along a road, you attack an ennemy roadblock and push the defenders back into forest/marshes or whatever. you have a breakthrough but the ennemy still has the road in his ZOC because his retreating unit is adjacent to the road, so doing a limited attack give you control of the road and you don't need to advance into the bad location losing a lot of mp. once you need to exploit a breakthrough limited attacks are really something one needs to master

[Dicke Bertha]

Yes, Viri, I agree, the limited attack is a very useful option, only what I question is whether it is realistic, and also the loss effect on the attackers, compared to the normal attack option.

To say that every limited attack is an ant attack is obviously false. One could launch a really huge attack with multiple stacks of powerful units and designate all of it as a limited attack. That certainly would not resemble an ant attack at all.

I suspect that most of what you describe above can be attributed to the fact that those limited attacks are actually using ant units. But you do have one point. Since a limited attack is only committing half the unit, only half its recon should be factored into my algorithm. That will have to be addressed.

Personally, I find limited attacks to be an important tool in the TOAW toolbox. Sometimes you just don't want to advance. That may be because you don't want to break containment on an adjacent enemy unit, or it may be because you want to disengage for a withdrawal. The game would be lessened without them. I think if ant unit tactics are properly dealt with, limited attacks will not be a problem.

As to what they represent, well, only Norm knows for sure. But, if I'm given license to speculate, I would say they represent something akin to a skirmish. That would be an attack that doesn't progress beyond long range fire between the combatants. In other words, the attack would not be pressed home into a direct assault on the enemy works.

Well, using several Soviet divisions and regiments in one limited attack set-up is hardly anywhere near 'anting' :) and I also cannot really see a corps-wide action coordinated as a skirmish...

I suspect what I don't like is the observed effect that attackers fare well by using limited attacks compared to normal attacks. I don't know exactly but I believe that in TOAW the defending artillery is actually only firing into the defended hex thus explaining why the attackers come off so lightly (is this true?) . If this is so, I can only think that the limited attacks are reasonable to keep in the game if the enigne is modified to also include long-range defensive battery fire mission options etc, and defensive artillery also targetting the enemy hex.

[viridomaros]

to my experience limited attack just means you don't advance into the hex after a succesfull fight and that's only why i use it.
It's written in the manual that units doing such an attack only use 1/2 of their potential force and take only 1/2 losses, to my experience this isn't that significant though i could be wrong.

[Dan Neely]

to my experience limited attack just means you don't advance into the hex after a succesfull fight and that's only why i use it.
It's written in the manual that units doing such an attack only use 1/2 of their potential force and take only 1/2 losses, to my experience this isn't that significant though i could be wrong.

I'm 99% sure based on losses suffered that the 50% losses thing isn't the case.

[viridomaros]

I'm 99% sure based on losses suffered that the 50% losses thing isn't the case.

well this is what i believe too
do you have an opinion about the 50% potential strenght of the unit used in limited attacks?

[Bob Cross]

Yes, Viri, I agree, the limited attack is a very useful option, only what I question is whether it is realistic, and also the loss effect on the attackers, compared to the normal attack option.



Well, using several Soviet divisions and regiments in one limited attack set-up is hardly anywhere near 'anting' :)

That was my point.

and I also cannot really see a corps-wide action coordinated as a skirmish...

Don't real commanders have the flexibility to order their troops into something less than an all-out attack?

I suspect what I don't like is the observed effect that attackers fare well by using limited attacks compared to normal attacks. I don't know exactly but I believe that in TOAW the defending artillery is actually only firing into the defended hex thus explaining why the attackers come off so lightly (is this true?) . If this is so, I can only think that the limited attacks are reasonable to keep in the game if the enigne is modified to also include long-range defensive battery fire mission options etc, and defensive artillery also targetting the enemy hex.

Perhaps there is a problem. But I don't think your observations have enough rigour to establish if there is. What you're observing could be caused by anything.

[Dan Neely]

well this is what i believe too
do you have an opinion about the 50% potential strenght of the unit used in limited attacks?

No clue. ANyone feel like turning on the debug flags and looking at the results?

[Dicke Bertha]

That was my point.
And a good one.


Don't real commanders have the flexibility to order their troops into something less than an all-out attack?
Yes, but - at any scale - having a battle that results in a battlefield or frontline simply abandoned by the enemy (not of his own choosing) and left open and not taken into possession by your own side for any length of time (until your next 'phase' = new orders) seems, well, somewhat contrived... it really feels like it game-wise is about compensating, for something... I don't know. I don't like it because it further accentuates the IGOYGO feature, apart from feeling funny. It only makes sense when a corps chases a company of guerillas away, but that is poor design (?).


Perhaps there is a problem. But I don't think your observations have enough rigour to establish if there is. What you're observing could be caused by anything.You're absolutely right. And I really don't know how to go about trying the very weak hypothesis... If anybody could provide any help, or guidance, it would be appreciated, and I could make some tests... I only play the game, I don't speak to it yet...

So in conclusion, maybe my observations (even that might be too strong really - it is more a feeling) are wrong. Maybe I like to dress in women's clothes too. :whist: :nuts: :devious: :o ;)

[Dicke Bertha]

don't know exactly but I believe that in TOAW the defending artillery is actually only firing into the defended h