Loss percentages can be misleading

[Heldenkaiser]

Just realized something ... the losses in the combat reports are percentages of the forces engaged. I kept wondering why the casualty ratio in my Tannenberg game kept creeping in my direction while the majority of the battles featured slightly higher loss percentages for me than for the Russians. Then it occurred to me that I was fighting brigades with battalions, as my opponent hasn't broken down his units. So when my battalion was taking 8% casualties while the opposing brigade took 6%, them Russians actually lost a good deal more (one brigade equals three battalions which thus lost 6% each). In other words, loss percentages can be misleading. :smoke:

Where was that detailed combat report again? Thanks. :)

[Heldenkaiser]

Where was that detailed combat report again? Thanks. :)

Got it ... it's already on. Not VERY detailed indeed.

[Telumar]

Got it ... it's already on. Not VERY detailed indeed.

Which amount of detail do you need - are you sure you mean those which can be put on/off in the game options dialogue? What about the toalog command line addendum..

[Heldenkaiser]

Which amount of detail do you need ...

What can I get? Basically what I am looking for is hard figures - how many men lost. Loss percentages tell only very little about the story - I may look at a 100% loss and it means nothing because a tiny worn-out company was vaporized, and I may look at 5% casualties and it's a real loss because it affected a fresh ten-thousand strong division. Where can I get the actual figures? The same goes for overall strength and overall losses. Where can I learn how many men I have in a particular scenario, and how many my opponent? And afterwards, how many men I lost, and how many he?

I reckon the same is irritating me a bit about unit strengths in the game. What's "2-2" actually mean? Is it twice as many men as "1-1"? I know I can look up the number of items of a particular equipment in a unit (at least I *think* "4/5 Marder" means this company has an authorized 5 Marders and an actual 4?), but how does this translate into actual strength in men? Can a unit be undermanned? Underequipped? I.e. is there a linear ratio between men and equipment? I am really entirely confused about this entire issue, i.e. where to get concrete information about unit strengths. I can play the game alright without that ... but I am irritated because I feel all the info is so vague. :nervous:

Any hints? Have I missed an entire part in the manual, maybe? :shy:

- are you sure you mean those which can be put on/off in the game options dialogue? What about the toalog command line addendum..

Not sure. What's "toalog command line addendum"? Thanks.

[General Staff]

There are 2 places you can look for losses:

1) Inventory & Replacements will tell you what you have, what the replacement rate is, what's assigned and what you have (really) lost. It's on the 'View' menu. In terms of translating into men lost, you need to know how many men make up a Rifle Squad say in any given formation. I generally use 10 men to a squad for approximation purposes and you could maybe use 3 for an MG- or whatever you decide.

2) Make sure 'Detailed Combat Reports' are on. It's on the 'Play' menu-> Game Options->Advanced Game Options. When it comex up at the end of each combat, it gives you an idea of what happened, what supported and the sequence of events. Clicking the skull icon with the sword shows what was engaged/disabled for you, clicking the skull icon with the shield shows what was engaged/disabled for the defender- some of this will make its way back into the replacement pool for redistribution.

As to unit strengths- I don't really care myself and they are all relative. Just as long as I have a rough idea as to suitability to task. But 6/12 does mean 6 available with 12 full strength, meaning the unit can take 6 replacements of that piece of equipment.

Hope this helps some.

[General Staff]

From the ACOW Manual (not sure whether they work with TOAWIII):

Unsupported Features for Power Users

TOAW has a number of hidden features that were originally developed for debugging purposes, or as quick and dirty utilities for use by in-house scenario designers. These features are not officially supported (which is why they are hidden from casual users and were undocumented until now), but some have interesting applications. Use them at your own risk.

Command Line Switches

TOAW has a number of hidden features that can only be turned on by use of the command line. Most are only useful for scenario designers. Two: polog and toawlog, can be useful to players who might wish to “look under the hood” after a gaming session. The po_log.txt and toaw_log.txt files can be examined using any text editor that can load large files. It is not uncommon for the log files to exceed 10 MB in size.

To insert a command line parameter into a shortcut used to launch TOAW you will need to right click on the shortcut (details vary slightly depending upon which version of Windows you are using and how you have your shortcuts set up) and select “properties”. In the “target” field, enter a space after “exe”, followed by the command line switch you wish to use. Separate multiple switches by a space. If the target field appears within quotes, place your command line switch inside the quotes.

nodelay – Useful for debugging scenarios in computer vs. computer play mode, this option turns off many of the small timer controlled delays and animations in the game. The effect is most noticeable on faster machines.
noupdate - Useful for debugging scenarios in computer vs. computer play mode, this option turns off many of the screen updates in the game. The effect is most noticeable on slower machines. This option should not be used when playing the game, as some of the updates are necessary for normal play purposes. A combination of nodelay and noupdate can speed computer vs. computer scenario test dramatically.
nosound – Turn off all sound.
norandom – Turns off system time based initialization of the random number generator used in TOAW.
polog – Turns on the programmed opponent logging feature. This will generate a po_log.txt file in your game directory. The log file is a detailed record of programmed opponent decision making during a game.
toawlog – Turns on the general game logging feature. This will generate a toaw_log.txt file in your game directory. The log file is a detailed record of many game management functions, including loading and unloading of resources and combat resolution.
nointro – Turns the introductory cinematic off.
uberdude – Increases the amount of feedback from the event engine and other game functions for debug purposes. Many event engine actions that leave no trace in normal mode will fully document themselves in the news report if you use the uberdude switch. This can be used during normal play, but is really intended for scenario designer use. It has a tendency to clutter the news report and certain graphics areas with information that isn’t needed during normal play.

Force Editor Functions

F4 saves the current order of battle as a special format text file.
F5 loads a special format text file as an order of battle.

You can edit these special oob text files with any text editor. Anything in the order of battle can be changed. Units can be renamed, copied, deleted, etc. This feature can be used to quickly put together a large order of battle outside of TOAW. There is a cost though: The f5 loader has absolutely no error checking. If you make any mistakes, or violate any formatting rules, things will head south in a hurry when you load the modified OOB. This feature was only used for one scenario that I know of – Middle East 2000.

General Scenario Editor Functions

F12 gives you the option of saving a scenario, order of battle, or map from the Opart300 editor as a standard (non-300) file. This can be very useful if you accidentally “convert” a normal scenario to a 300 format file. As with the F4 and F5 functions, there is no error checking. So be sure you haven’t violated any limits on size of order of battle, map, number of events, etc. Used carefully, this feature can also be used to clip portions out of a true 300 format scenario. You will have to manually edit the order of battle, trim the map, etc. if necessary to come under the standard limits.

[Heldenkaiser]

Thanks as always, G.S. :)

Are you saying actual unit strength is unimportant? :rolleyes:

[General Staff]

Are you saying actual unit strength is unimportant?
No, just that they are an abstraction. As long as you have an idea of the relative strengths of underlying equipment and whether your attack or defence has a prayer. Over time you build a 'feel' for what might work or not, given men/equipment, proficiency, readiness, supply, terrain, entrenchment etc...

[Telumar]

No, just that they are an abstraction. As long as you have an idea of the relative strengths of underlying equipment and whether your attack or defence has a prayer. Over time you build a 'feel' for what might work or not, given men/equipment, proficiency, readiness, supply, terrain, entrenchment etc...

Just like a real commander, there are no strength indicators on his table or interface (era dependent... ;) )
Some might say it is a weakness of toaw, others, including me, it's one of toaw's strengths.

[Heldenkaiser]

Thanks, Gentlemen.

I guess what I don't get is what the figures "2-2" really represent. They are not simply strength in men & machines - or else there wouldn't be two of them. But they are also not simply factors, capabilities, unit characteristics, whatever you call it, or else they would be the same for the combined unit and for the individual elements when broken down - they are not. So it's somewhere in between? What is it? Sorry for sounding dumb, but I reckon this is the crux of the matter for me - that I don't understand to read these figures beyond "2 is better than 1". :nervous:

[Telumar]

Thanks, Gentlemen.

I guess what I don't get is what the figures "2-2" really represent. They are not simply strength in men & machines - or else there wouldn't be two of them. But they are also not simply factors, capabilities, unit characteristics, whatever you call it, or else they would be the same for the combined unit and for the individual elements when broken down - they are not. So it's somewhere in between? What is it? Sorry for sounding dumb, but I reckon this is the crux of the matter for me - that I don't understand to read these figures beyond "2 is better than 1". :nervous:

Puh...where to start?...basically the first number on the counter represents the overall Anti-Personell strength of the unit. If you compare these two numbers on the counter with the unit stats in the upper right corner in the detailed unit report you will find they represent Anti-Personell strength and defense strength. In the upper right window of the game's main window you find also additional statistics about the unit you have currently selected. The first column shows two numbers, i.e. 17+5, of which the first one is the anti personal strength which can also be found in the unit report and on the counter (see above), the second one, after the plus, is the unit's anti armor strength, which can also be found in the unit report, but not on the counter.
So far, so good.

But: How these numbers are calculated i don't know, maybe a superhardcore-firstday veteran like GS or Jamiam can give you (and me) further enlightment..
But i know that these numbers have no real impact on combat calculations, they are just an overall average shown to the player to give him a kind of idea how strong (or weak) the unit is.

And those numbers (on the counter and their according ones in the unit report and the upper right window) are relative to the strongest land unit in the scenario, so they represent no absolute value (like equipment statistics, which are absolute and used in combat calculations). In general the strongest unit in counter numbers is the one that has either 31 in defence or in anti personal strength, for example a tank Bn with 31-17 or an artillery brigade with 31-4 or a rifle brigade with 18-31. This further means that in scenarios in which the strongest unit has a relative high anti-personal strength compared to the main combat units (i.e. AA units, which have, depending on equipment, respectively calibre, a very high anti personell rating) two units that have i.e. a 8-8 on their counters need not necessarily be equal in strength, remove the strongest units from the OOB and their values could look like 15-14 for the first one and 18-18 for the other one as those counter numbers are rated down or up in some way...

Hope this helps a bit....

Edit: The numbers on the counter are also dependent on supply, proficieny and readiness of the unit.

[Heldenkaiser]

* sigh * :nervous:

First of, many thanks for the exhaustive explanation. :shy:

Secondly, hm ... so these values are really entirely relative? They tell me nothing more than say that a "3-2" unit is stronger than a "2-1", further, that a "2-1" is stronger offensively than a "1-2", but weaker defensively?

Are the values at least proportional, i.e. is a "4-2" twice as strong as a "2-1"? A "6-3" three times as strong? Or just "stronger"; "even stronger"?

And, are the offensive and defensive strengths of the same scale? I.e., are my "2-1" and "1-2" a perfect balanced match for each other, since both would attack with the strength with which the other would defend? Or are these scales not related? :rolleyes:

Thanks for your patience. :)

[Telumar]

* sigh * :nervous:

First of, many thanks for the exhaustive explanation. :shy:

Secondly, hm ... so these values are really entirely relative? They tell me nothing more than say that a "3-2" unit is stronger than a "2-1", further, that a "2-1" is stronger offensively than a "1-2", but weaker defensively?

Are the values at least proportional, i.e. is a "4-2" twice as strong as a "2-1"? A "6-3" three times as strong? Or just "stronger"; "even stronger"?

And, are the offensive and defensive strengths of the same scale? I.e., are my "2-1" and "1-2" a perfect balanced match for each other, since both would attack with the strength with which the other would defend? Or are these scales not related? :rolleyes:

Thanks for your patience. :)

They should be proportional, but relative to the strongest unit*... Run a test in the editor: A unit with 20 Panthers, one with 10 and one with 5 and you will see.
The latter one is a good question, i would say they're the same scale...

* Let's say there are five units on the battlefield, four with the same amount and type of equiment, and one with the double amount of equiment, but the same type. Let's further say the strongest unit (the one with the double equiment ) has 31-10, then the others would have 15-5 (if rated down from 15,5).

[Hank2]

dang!

Glad you're asking these questions ... cause I was wondering what these numbers meant also.

... and another misleading thing is the prediction of success or failure at the bottom of the 'attack planning window'. Based on posts I've been reading this is apparently not reliable either. I've been discussing this at the matrix site and haven't gotten what i would like to say is a good answer why. (I think it should be a trustworthy prediction or it needs to be eliminated or the wording changed ... I used to think this prediction was good ... now I don't know what to think about it)

hank

[General Staff]

... and another misleading thing is the prediction of success or failure at the bottom of the 'attack planning window'.
It's IMO and experience totally useless. My advice- always ignore it.

[Heldenkaiser]

Recently I find myself using the attack planning dialogue less and less ... since I aim at a series of LA/ML to achieve a goal rather than trying to get there with a single co-ordinated push, it's unimportant.

[Hank2]

It's IMO and experience totally useless. My advice- always ignore it.

Its been my contention over at the matrix site that this needs to be changed or eliminated. If you're some poor sap who never reads these forums, you may depend on that prediction to formulate attacks.

Heck, I did for weeks before i started catching wind of it on the forums. Guess I'm a "poor sap".

IMHO it needs to be reworded to indicate there's a "fog of war" aspect (as was described to me by somebody at the matrix site forum); ... OR eliminated completely; ... OR changed to simply show combined attack and defense numbers.

... I think I may get a turn tonight ... yee ha!! ... my games have come to a skreeching halt with only about one move a week from both games ... If I'm lucky

later

[Heldenkaiser]

... I think I may get a turn tonight ... yee ha!! ... my games have come to a skreeching halt with only about one move a week from both games ... If I'm lucky


I wanted to try this from the Allied side anyway. So if you would like to start a new one with me, I am game. :)

[Heldenkaiser]

Just to let y'all know that John and I started a new game of 2WIN with me as the Allies ... T1 is done, sure felt different from the other side of the hill. :surprise:

We are presently discussing in which way we can share what we're doing with the other Axis team members ... so that maybe others can benefit from our experiences, too. Especially considering that John's games apparantely didn't get anywhere so far. :shy:

[General Staff]

We are presently discussing in which way we can share what we're doing with the other Axis team members ... so that maybe others can benefit from our experiences, too.
Why not just post the game here? The thread could always be moved to another area later (AARs?) once the German team have had a clean sweep.;)

It might be useful to hear things from an Allied perspective.

[Heldenkaiser]

Right, will do ... or rather, have done. :halo: