# Modified CCT (Odds For Dummies)

#### Servius

##### Member
Since I couldn't wrap my head around the 3-2 ratio in the CC odds, I researched the topic and created the following table.

If you keep a calculator handy, divide the attacking FP by the defending FP and resolve to the left on the decimal odds if the ratio is not exact. e.g. 12 - 8 == 12 / 8 == 1.5 == Kill #6
e.g. 12 - 7 == 12 / 7 == 1.71 == Kill #6
e.g. 12 - 9 == 12 / 9 == 1.33 == Kill #5
e.g. 7 - 12 == 7 / 12 == .58 == Kill #4
e.g. 5 - 12 == 5 / 12 == .417 == Kill #3

Hope this helps and let me know if I got something wrong.

• #### Philippe D.

##### Elder Member
Not sure what the purpose is here, as I cannot see the difference with the normal table - is it just to make the calculations easier?

Dividing integers (or half-integers) is a tricky thing to do without pen-and-paper or a calculator, but multiplications are a lot easier. So the "trick" is to multiply the defender's FP by the ratio, and this gives you the minimum FP of the attacker to reach that ratio. With this in mind, only the 3:2 ratio is not completely obvious, and then you do it the other way: halve the defender (halving is reasonably easy) and add that result to the defender's original FP, this gives you the minimum FP the attacker needs to reach 3:2.

For ratios under 1:1, do it the other way around. Multiply the attacker's FP by the inverse of the ratio, and this gives you the maximum FP of a defender to reach this ratio. So if an attacker has only 2 FP, and you are facing a larger force, and you hesitate between 1:4 and 1:6 (usually you should have at least that feeling), just multiply 2 (the attacker's FP) by 4 (the inverse of 1:4): if the defender has at most 8 FP, you're at 1:4 (or better); if he has more than 8 FP, you're at 1:6 (or worse).

#### Swiftandsure

##### Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
I simply ask myself : do the units attacking have enough FP to reach a given odds column?
As the odds calculation is the same as some of the first wargames published past fifty years ago, I don't really have problems with the CC table's odds.

Last edited:

#### Servius

##### Member
Not sure what the purpose is here, as I cannot see the difference with the normal table - is it just to make the calculations easier?
The addition is the decimal odds row. For me, it makes it easier to use a calculator to calculate the odds.

#### jrv

##### Forum Guru
Not sure what the purpose is here, as I cannot see the difference with the normal table - is it just to make the calculations easier?
There are some situations where figuring out the right odds to use is tricky, especially around 3-2. I will throw out an attack at 17-11 as being plausible and not obvious, to me at least. It is close to 3-2, and as you say the trick for 3-2 is to multiply the ratio by the lower number used in the attack, so 3-2 "multiplied" by 11 is 33-22, then multiply the actual attack by the lower number in the ratio, 17-11 "multiplied" by 2 is 34-22. Since 34-22 is "greater than" 33-22, the attack is (at least) 3-2. If the lower number of the ratio is 1, use the higher numbers instead. By the same reasoning, 16-11 is < 3-2, but is clearly > 1-1, so 1-1 is used.

That said, I have met players that were uncomfortable with the mental arithmetic even in simpler cases, e.g. a ratio of 5-3. The liked to go straight to the hand calculator, and the chart gives them the values they need.

I never noticed before, but the 10-1 column is used only if the odds are *exactly* 10-1. If the odds are 10.00001-1, then you use the > 10-1.

JR

• Servius

#### volgaG68

##### Fighting WWII One DR At A Time
There are some situations where figuring out the right odds to use is tricky, especially around 3-2. I will throw out an attack at 17-11 as being plausible and not obvious, to me at least. It is close to 3-2, and as you say the trick for 3-2 is to multiply the ratio by the lower number used in the attack, so 3-2 "multiplied" by 11 is 33-22, then multiply the actual attack by the lower number in the ratio, 17-11 "multiplied" by 2 is 34-22. Since 34-22 is "greater than" 33-22, the attack is (at least) 3-2. If the lower number of the ratio is 1, use the higher numbers instead. By the same reasoning, 16-11 is < 3-2, but is clearly > 1-1, so 1-1 is used.
Wow, more complexity than I care for. In your hypothetical 17:11 example, I figure it this way. Obviously not 2:1, but obviously greater than 1:1. Half of 11 is 5.5, can you fit three 5.5s into 17? Yep, just barely (16.5).

• von Marwitz and Swiftandsure

#### clubby

##### Elder Member
That's how I figure it too, half again of the lower number, in this case 5.5. 3:2 is the only one I really have an issue with. They should have included more odd ones, like 8:5 or 3:7. #### Philippe D.

##### Elder Member
There are some situations where figuring out the right odds to use is tricky, especially around 3-2. I will throw out an attack at 17-11 as being plausible and not obvious, to me at least. It is close to 3-2, and as you say the trick for 3-2 is to multiply the ratio by the lower number used in the attack, so 3-2 "multiplied" by 11 is 33-22, then multiply the actual attack by the lower number in the ratio, 17-11 "multiplied" by 2 is 34-22. Since 34-22 is "greater than" 33-22, the attack is (at least) 3-2. If the lower number of the ratio is 1, use the higher numbers instead. By the same reasoning, 16-11 is < 3-2, but is clearly > 1-1, so 1-1 is used.
I must have been unclear... but for 3:2, I suggested what Volga said: add half the defender's FP to his FP, and compare to the attacker's.

Otherwise, you could triple the defender's FP (3x11=33) and compare to twice the attacker's (2x17=34), since 34>33 you're at 3:2 (or better). But then, 17 vs 11 should be pretty rare...