View Full Version : Unit Combat Strength
Menschenfresser
01 Jul 07, 23:48
Unit Combat Strength Calculation
Strength = equipment strength x (2 x proficiency+readiness+supply)/4.
We've all read this. I know I have. But what the hell is 'Strength' and 'equipment strength'?
Where exactly do they fit into the calculation puzzle?
Or is this simply the explanation for the mostly useless on-counter attack and defense strengths?
We've all read this. I know I have. But what the hell is 'Strength' and 'equipment strength'?
Where exactly do they fit into the calculation puzzle?
Or is this simply the explanation for the mostly useless on-counter attack and defense strengths?
:laugh: :laugh:
Equipment strength refers to the value that a single piece of equipment has. That is, its AP value, or its Anti Armor value, or its AA value, or its defense value. These can be seen when viewing the equipment in the editor, or unit panels, or inventory screens, by clicking on the specific equipment icon.
The strength calculation of (2 x proficiency+readiness+supply)/4 is the value that the sum of the various pieces of equipment in the attack/defense is multiplied by, in order to determine the total nominal effective strength of the unit.
To understand how it factors into the combat calculations, it is best to start with a basic conceptualization of how combat is resolved in TOAW. Essentially, for most types of combat, there is a pooling of available assets, a determination of the attrition levels that attacking and defensive fires are executed at, and then a resolution as to how many hits are scored on each unit type. Then morale checks are made, with units breaking off attacks, retreating from defensive hexes, and if time limits are not invoked, a repeat of the combat with the newly adjusted force pools.
There are numerous adjustments throughout the above, simplistically described routine, to account for terrain, deployment, anti-armor combat, entrenchment suppression, etc. Those should be ignored for now, but suffice it to say that for the most part, they affect the attrition level that an attacker or defender is subject to.
Attrition levels determine how many shots are nominally fired at the opposing side during each of the types of combat; bombardment, anti-armor and anti-personnel. A high attrition rate for a unit's hex means more shots are fired at it, while a low attrition rate means fewer shots are fired at it. Related to this is why the attrition divider is often misunderstood by novices, since numbers lower than than the default level of 10 cause higher levels of casualties. This is because it is a divider of the attrition level. Dividing by a lower number yields a higher result.
Now, back to the unit strength. This should be seen as another multiplier against the attrition level to determine the total number of hits scored in combat. Given two units that are identical in equipment, we can have a variety of relative differences in terms of effective strength between the two units. These differences are determined by the weighting in the formula (2 x proficiency+readiness+supply)/4.
The values for (P)roficiency range from .01 to 1, or 1% to 100%.
The values for (R)eadiness range from .33 to 1, or 33% to 100%.
The values for (S)upply range from .01 to 1.5, or 1% to 150%.
Thus, the lower bound of this multiplier is (2*Pmin+Rmin+Smin)/4, or (2(.01)+(.33)+(.01))/4 = .09,
and the upper bound is (2*Pmax+Rmax+Smax)/4, or (2(1.00)+(1.00)+(1.50))/4 = 1.125
Let's continue with the easy visualization by assuming that there is a combat where these two units are firing at a target hex. Let's make up a number for the normally expected amount of hits, say 100. Then, the first unit with the minimum values would be expected to get 9 hits, while the one with the max values would be expected to get 113 hits. Of course, these values might also be subject to further randomization, but the rough concept should start becoming more visible and understandable now.
One should hone their understanding of this concept by playing around with some number combinations, substituting in various ranges of values for proficiency, readiness, and supply and seeing how the output changes.
Equipment strength refers to the value that a single piece of equipment has. That is, its AP value, or its Anti Armor value, or its AA value, or its defense value. These can be seen when viewing the equipment in the editor, or unit panels, or inventory screens, by clicking on the specific equipment icon.
The strength calculation of (2 x proficiency+readiness+supply)/4 is the value that the sum of the various pieces of equipment in the attack/defense is multiplied by, in order to determine the total nominal effective strength of the unit.
To understand how it factors into the combat calculations, it is best to start with a basic conceptualization of how combat is resolved in TOAW. Essentially, for most types of combat, there is a pooling of available assets, a determination of the attrition levels that attacking and defensive fires are executed at, and then a resolution as to how many hits are scored on each unit type. Then morale checks are made, with units breaking off attacks, retreating from defensive hexes, and if time limits are not invoked, a repeat of the combat with the newly adjusted force pools.
There are numerous adjustments throughout the above, simplistically described routine, to account for terrain, deployment, anti-armor combat, entrenchment suppression, etc. Those should be ignored for now, but suffice it to say that for the most part, they affect the attrition level that an attacker or defender is subject to.
Attrition levels determine how many shots are nominally fired at the opposing side during each of the types of combat; bombardment, anti-armor and anti-personnel. A high attrition rate for a unit's hex means more shots are fired at it, while a low attrition rate means fewer shots are fired at it. Related to this is why the attrition divider is often misunderstood by novices, since numbers lower than than the default level of 10 cause higher levels of casualties. This is because it is a divider of the attrition level. Dividing by a lower number yields a higher result.
Now, back to the unit strength. This should be seen as another multiplier against the attrition level to determine the total number of hits scored in combat. Given two units that are identical in equipment, we can have a variety of relative differences in terms of effective strength between the two units. These differences are determined by the weighting in the formula (2 x proficiency+readiness+supply)/4.
The values for (P)roficiency range from .01 to 1, or 1% to 100%.
The values for (R)eadiness range from .33 to 1, or 33% to 100%.
The values for (S)upply range from .01 to 1.5, or 1% to 150%.
Thus, the lower bound of this multiplier is (2*Pmin+Rmin+Smin)/4, or (2(.01)+(.33)+(.01))/4 = .09,
and the upper bound is (2*Pmax+Rmax+Smax)/4, or (2(1.00)+(1.00)+(1.50))/4 = 1.125
Let's continue with the easy visualization by assuming that there is a combat where these two units are firing at a target hex. Let's make up a number for the normally expected amount of hits, say 100. Then, the first unit with the minimum values would be expected to get 9 hits, while the one with the max values would be expected to get 113 hits. Of course, these values might also be subject to further randomization, but the rough concept should start becoming more visible and understandable now.
One should hone their understanding of this concept by playing around with some number combinations, substituting in various ranges of values for proficiency, readiness, and supply and seeing how the output changes.
Oh. My. God.
Oh. My. God.
Yeah...it's simply the explanation for the mostly useless on-counter attack and defense strengths...:laugh:
Menschenfresser
02 Jul 07, 06:54
I thought as much, but I wanted to be sure before asking for an enhancement that did not matter. The manual is such a tease. :)
I've been toying around with that formula to see what kind of ranges it can produce and I started to wonder whether or not supply could play a bigger role in combat. If we take the manual's description of supply seriously, "(food, bullets, gas, etc)", a unit with an average proficiency of 70, at 33 readiness and 1 supply, still fights, or rather contributes to the overall formula, a combat strength of 43.5. (or divides Jamiam's example by .43 or .44, depending on rounding). That seems pretty damned good for a unit with enough gas to drive one tank out of a hundred, one clip per 100 rifles, and one meal for 100 men.
But we all know TOAW treats supply lightly.
So I toyed around with the formula and came up with a few alternatives. Not knowing the full formula (and now James makes me glad I don't or I might not get any sleep) I can't say if the outcomes in this fall within acceptable ranges. However, if the simplified version you gave is close to the spirit of the calculation, would it be conceivable to add in an Advanced Option for changing this formula to increase the effect supply has upon combat?
I've attached a spreadsheet showing units with different proficiencies and how they factor out with min and max readiness and supply.
The first example of each group, the formula is what exists.
The second is (2*Proficiency+Readiness+2*Supply)/5
The third is (Proficiency+Readiness+2*Supply)/4
And the fourth is (Proficiency+Readiness+Supply)/3
The same example given above could be knocked down from 43 to 26 using the third formula. On the flip side it also increases the effectiveness of stockpiled units.
I'm probably just throwing mud pies in the dark here...
Very interesting thoughts, Zac.
On the flip side it also increases the effectiveness of stockpiled units.
I personally would like this. Think about such scenarios like GiO, or any scenario with an offensive with a shock bonus to achieve historical results. If the formula would increase the effectivness of stockpiled supplies, such situations could be handled more elegantly without the (often too) artificial shock boni; not only at a scenario's start but also during the course of a scenario as it would become more rewarding to rest units prior to a major offensive. For me, and i think for many others, this would add additional realism and therefore more fun. (there's nothing about planning an offensive, assembling an appropriate force, wait for the right moment and let loose the dogs and such..but well, maybe it's just me..)
what is attrition?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
When James talks about hits, for AP does that relates exactly to kills?
When James talks about hits, for AP does that relates exactly to kills?
No, it is hits. Some hits are "disabled" results, where the equipment goes into on hand inventory, while others are "destroyed" and go into lost inventory. Also, against agile equipment, some hits are negated when the equipment "takes cover" and avoids the hit that would have otherwise been scored on it.
Very interesting thoughts, Zac! Right offthe top of my head I could think of a situation where this woould have been handy. In my Bagration game against Silvain I would have had to rest my troops much earlier and much more historically!
weren´t thre talks about a supply system that was divided into food, gas and amunition?
Menschenfresser
02 Jul 07, 18:48
Very interesting thoughts, Zac! Right offthe top of my head I could think of a situation where this woould have been handy. In my Bagration game against Silvain I would have had to rest my troops much earlier and much more historically!
It's those larger ones where this might come in handy (if it works as we're all assuming it does).
I've added a little more to the spreadsheet playing around with the various formulas. At the bottom I've taken an average unit with 70 % proficiency and shown what his combat strength would be at various supply levels according to the different formulas (assuming readiness stays the same as supply between 100 & 33). And there's a column at the end showing what % a 1% supplied unit is of a 150% supplied unit. And another (which is probably more telling) showing what % a 1% supplied unit is of a 100% supplied unit.
ralphtrickey
02 Jul 07, 22:10
weren´t thre talks about a supply system that was divided into food, gas and amunition?
I think I saw some talk, but I don't remember any concrete proposals.
We'd need to make sure it was optional somehow as well, and that it was simple to figure out. I have concerns that some people want to play a spreadsheet:o. One thing that's possible in the future with the faster machines that we have is real-time supply rules.:eek:
Ralph
Bob Cross
04 Jul 07, 12:08
I've been toying around with that formula to see what kind of ranges it can produce and I started to wonder whether or not supply could play a bigger role in combat. If we take the manual's description of supply seriously, "(food, bullets, gas, etc)", a unit with an average proficiency of 70, at 33 readiness and 1 supply, still fights, or rather contributes to the overall formula, a combat strength of 43.5. (or divides Jamiam's example by .43 or .44, depending on rounding). That seems pretty damned good for a unit with enough gas to drive one tank out of a hundred, one clip per 100 rifles, and one meal for 100 men.
This falsely assumes that 1% supply means that the unit literally has only 1% of its original supply stockpile left. That's not what it means. Rather it is merely an abstraction about the unit's supply level. It's meaning is entirely defined by the formula you stated. And we can conclude from that formula that there is a "diminishing return" effect modeled into the way supply is handled. In other words, units with lots of ammo fire at will, while units with low ammo make each round count. Although they're expending it at a much lower rate, they can still retain a lot of their original effectiveness because of those diminishing return effects.
But we all know TOAW treats supply lightly.
No it does not! Cut off a unit from supply and it will wither away before your eyes. And even units with valid supply communications can be reduced to 43% (your figures) of full strength due to supply levels alone.
So I toyed around with the formula and came up with a few alternatives. Not knowing the full formula (and now James makes me glad I don't or I might not get any sleep) I can't say if the outcomes in this fall within acceptable ranges. However, if the simplified version you gave is close to the spirit of the calculation, would it be conceivable to add in an Advanced Option for changing this formula to increase the effect supply has upon combat?
I've attached a spreadsheet showing units with different proficiencies and how they factor out with min and max readiness and supply.
The first example of each group, the formula is what exists.
The second is (2*Proficiency+Readiness+2*Supply)/5
The third is (Proficiency+Readiness+2*Supply)/4
And the fourth is (Proficiency+Readiness+Supply)/3
The same example given above could be knocked down from 43 to 26 using the third formula. On the flip side it also increases the effectiveness of stockpiled units.
I'm probably just throwing mud pies in the dark here...
So units with valid supply communications can be reduced to only 26% of their full supply strength just by supply draining. That seems severe to me, and out of pattern compared to other operational wargames. What historical basis do you have for it?
Menschenfresser
04 Jul 07, 13:28
Perhaps TOAW doesn't treat supply entirely lightly when it comes to cut off units and how desertion effects them, if that's what you mean. That formula doesn't deal with it (well, at least I don't think it does). I'm not talking about out of supply units anyway. I'm talking about units run to the brink of exhaustion.
Maybe you don't, but I do take the supply percent somewhat literally. Not as much as my post suggested. That was just an extreme point, but I still think a valid one when you consider the question of, "What's going to be the combat state of a unit with 1% supply?" 43%. 26%. 10%. Who knows. As you stated, it depends on your understanding of what that supply percent means. And you said it yourself, supply can be made to mean anything by the formula it's plugged into. That's really what I'm suggesting here: ALTERNATIVES. With that in mind I don't see a reason why formulas that mitigate the effects of supply would not be just as legitimate.
I wasn't asking these questions with an historical context in mind specifically. I proposed this more for flexibility and greater scope in modeling campaigns that stretch the engine. Some TOAW scenarios (mainly the larger maps) could benefit from added supply penalties.
Does TOAW have need of modeling units in that lower range between 'low' supply (which most many war games use) and 'extremely low' supply? These are subjective terms, I know. And I suppose they express my desire to have a little more range in the present system. This alteration wouldn't work for many, if not most, scenarios out there that model a few weeks or days. Or even entire war scenarios at larger scales...where the supply abstraction is even greater.
A 70% proficiency unit is reduced to 26% combat strength, but not just from supply drain. Readiness levels generally mirror supply levels unless a unit drops below 33% supply and I added that into the calculations. The other case I've seen regularly is when a unit makes only one or two attacks per turn without moving and suffers moderate to heavy casualties. Then I've seen readiness and supply differ by more than 10 points. In most units moving and fighting, supply and readiness are more or less equal. The unit with 26% combat strength also has 33% readiness...not just 1% supply. So, it's not just supply dragging down the equation. I've never quite understood why TOAW's math calculates these two variables in such close proximity.
Having played scenarios like FitE a number of times, I think it's hard to model stretched supply, out-running supply, the need to stop for supply occasionally, etc without resorting to hand of God type events like negative shock or ceasefire.
Again, this is all theoretical. I don't know what combat would look like with a unit factoring out to 26% combat strength that normally would have 43%. Evaporation? Casualties?
Bob Cross
04 Jul 07, 18:11
Perhaps TOAW doesn't treat supply entirely lightly when it comes to cut off units and how desertion effects them, if that's what you mean. That formula doesn't deal with it (well, at least I don't think it does).
It can represent men deserting, or it can represent guns/vehicles being abandoned due to lack of ammo or fuel. Regardless, there is nothing light about it.
I'm not talking about out of supply units anyway. I'm talking about units run to the brink of exhaustion.
Again, that description assumes that 1% supply means 1% of begining stockpile. What if it doesn't?
Maybe you don't, but I do take the supply percent somewhat literally. Not as much as my post suggested.
Think about how real-world units operate. Do they blow-off all their ammo without any consideration of how much is left? Or do they start to husband it as it becomes lower and lower? If you take the 1% literally, then that equates to the former. If you take it to mean what the formula means, then that equates to the latter.
That was just an extreme point, but I still think a valid one when you consider the question of, "What's going to be the combat state of a unit with 1% supply?" 43%. 26%. 10%. Who knows. As you stated, it depends on your understanding of what that supply percent means. And you said it yourself, supply can be made to mean anything by the formula it's plugged into. That's really what I'm suggesting here: ALTERNATIVES. With that in mind I don't see a reason why formulas that mitigate the effects of supply would not be just as legitimate.
Again, I'm just questioning what you are basing it on. Why 26% instead of 43%? That means a line can be quartered in strength without suffering any losses - just supply. Are real forces that poor managers of their resources? Whatever we use, it has to be based on reality. Personally, before I abandon Norm, I need some evidence.
Having played scenarios like FitE a number of times, I think it's hard to model stretched supply, out-running supply, the need to stop for supply occasionally, etc without resorting to hand of God type events like negative shock or ceasefire.
I think these are supply distribution issues (which is a serious problem). What if a unit was "out of supply" if it was too far from a supply source, or if supply distribution was much better modeled in some other fashion?
Menschenfresser
04 Jul 07, 20:07
I think these are supply distribution issues (which is a serious problem). What if a unit was "out of supply" if it was too far from a supply source, or if supply distribution was much better modeled in some other fashion?
Definitely right there Bob. It's distribution I'm talking about...in a very round about manner. :) Not an absence of supply in the area or theater. Having it modeled in that way would be preferable. It would be nice if supply sources had hex limits, after which a unit was out of supply. Corps & Army HQs could extend them, etc. All sorts of little tricks. I thought this might be a cheap and easy fix for the time being. Like High Supply was to fix all those old scenarios. Something optional.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.