 |
|
Scenario Design Questions - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Scenario Design Questions (/showthread.php?tid=67639) |
Scenario Design Questions - 76mm - 02-11-2015 Hi, I've been messing around with the scenario editor and parameter file and have a few questions: 1) Can anyone explain what exactly the "Range Effect Modifier" in the "Combat Modifiers" part of the pdt file does? The main program manual says that "this is the modifier applied to direct fire at a range of 2 hexes", which is not very illuminating. I changed this value from 3 to 4 because when it was at 3, Panthers were regularly picking off Sov tanks at 3 hexes, which seemed a bit much to me. After changing it to 4, I'm not sure if I can tell what effect, if any, it has had. Can anyone tell me how it is supposed to work? 2) Similarly, in the Combat Value section of the pdt, there are values for Fire Low and Fire High, Attacker Low and Attacker High, and Defender Low and Defender High. The explanations on p 31 of the main program manual are not clear at all; pages 86-88 of the User Manual talk a bit about the Low Combat Value and High Combat Value, but not any of the values actually in the pdt file (Fire Low and Fire High, Attacker Low and Attacker High, and Defender Low and Defender High). There are a fair number of formula in the various manuals, hopefully I haven't overlooked one involving these values. 3) Does anyone know how to modify the VPs assigned to units? I can see them in the OOB editor, but there doesn't seem to be any way to modify them? 4) Last, a small pet peeve; in the Jump View map, it shows Axis forces as Red and Sov forces as Blue; any way to reverse this by modding the graphics files? I'd like to show the Reds as Red... Thanks in advance for you help in solving any of these mysteries. RE: Scenario Design Questions - ComradeP - 02-11-2015 Range Modifier/Range Effect: Quote:Direct Fire Range Effect Direct fire is modified by the range from the firing unit to the target in the following ways: • At range 0 (AA fire), fire values are doubled. • At range 1, fire values are nominal. • At ranges greater than 1 is modified by the Range Effect Parameter Data Value. If the range is N and the Range Effect is R, then the fire value is divided by 1 + (N-1) * (R-1). The lower the range effect, the more casualties will be caused at ranges of 2 hexes or more by direct fire. There is a problem with this, though, in how the casualties are actually determined. Panzer Campaigns/Panzer Battles uses a system where vehicle/gun/possibly aircraft casualties are in essence all abstracted casualties in men. This is described in the manual more or less as such: if a certain hit would cause 1 man loss, there's a 10% chance a vehicle or gun would be lost as vehicle/gun loss chances are based on manpower losses from 0 to 10, with 10 being a guaranteed loss of a vehicle or gun. In my opinion, this is one of the weakest parts of the combat engine. There are several problems with it. First: it is theoretically possible that 3 hits which would normally cause a loss of 1 man result in 3 destroyed vehicles. If you have an infantry unit firing at an infantry unit, and it inflicts 3 casualties on average, it will on average inflict 9 casualties if it fires three times. The same situation versus a vehicle or gun unit has a 30% chance of knocking out a vehicle, so there's a reasonable chance you lose 3 vehicles (30 men). This means even weak and puny units have a reasonable chance of knocking out a vehicle or gun, and means even weak units can knock out units which they historically wouldn't be able to do, also because the game doesn't take penetrating power into account. Second: because in essence it's just a mathematical formula that comes down to a percentage chance, it encourages using artillery against tanks, because you know there's a reasonable chance they will knock something out. I regularly knock out tanks with 82mm mortars in Panzer Battles, for example, and it removes a large part of the immersion. Third: similarly to the second point, it also encourages using vehicles at ahistorical ranges for the same reason. Panthers knocking out T-34's at 3 kilometres is unrealistic, but the system offers no absolute protection with range to model a decrease in penetrating power. For those reasons, I prefer lower range effects as higher range effects are basically a lottery where you may or may not knock out a gun or vehicle without much direct input: you're just rolling the dice. With lower range effect values, equipment will perform more or less as advertised in their SA/HA values. The issues are still there, but the outcomes become more predictable. Keep in mind that casualties per vehicle/gun in vehicle vs. vehicle, vehicle vs. gun or gun vs. gun combat are actually quite low as you generally need 10 vehicles/guns to have a credible chance of inflicting a loss. So not only are the combat results very unpredictable, but it's very difficult to model a small force overcoming a larger force in the current system, keep that in mind when editing the values. You're far more likely to get "fatigue" results than to inflict casualties currently. The values in the parameter data screen are just the effects for fire (low/high) and assaults for both sides, it's somewhat confusing but it works as described in the Combat Results part of the manual. Unfortunately, unit VP's are the only part I couldn't find in the editor either. If I recall a recent post correctly, they're set automatically based on quality and other values. RE: Scenario Design Questions - 76mm - 02-11-2015 (02-11-2015, 05:31 AM)ComradeP Wrote: Range Modifier/Range Effect:ComradeP, thanks for the very informative post; I guess you pulled the formula from the manual somewhere? I must have overlooked it, thanks for pointing it out. I don't understand one thing though--PzC classifies "Hard Targets", and you'd think that would enable the game to limit the effectiveness of 82mm mortars, for instance, vs tanks? I guess what you're saying is that artillery vs tanks is still fairly low odds (because the arty's low hard values are against the armor's relatively high defensive values?) but still results in more armored kills than it should? (02-11-2015, 05:31 AM)ComradeP Wrote: For those reasons, I prefer lower range effects as higher range effects are basically a lottery where you may or may not knock out a gun or vehicle without much direct input: you're just rolling the dice. With lower range effect values, equipment will perform more or less as advertised in their SA/HA values. The issues are still there, but the outcomes become more predictable.I really don't like WWII tanks taking out other tanks at 3km, so I'm going to go with a higher Range Effect--currently at 4. See the end of this post for a summary of my "experiments". (02-11-2015, 05:31 AM)ComradeP Wrote: Keep in mind that casualties per vehicle/gun in vehicle vs. vehicle, vehicle vs. gun or gun vs. gun combat are actually quite low as you generally need 10 vehicles/guns to have a credible chance of inflicting a loss. So not only are the combat results very unpredictable, but it's very difficult to model a small force overcoming a larger force in the current system, keep that in mind when editing the values. You're far more likely to get "fatigue" results than to inflict casualties currently.After tweaking a few parameters (see end of post), my experience is rather different: I have small units (2-5 vehicles) wiping out other other small units at two hexes, at one hex it is a real bloodbath. I think I actually need to tone things down a bit... (02-11-2015, 05:31 AM)ComradeP Wrote: The values in the parameter data screen are just the effects for fire (low/high) and assaults for both sides, it's somewhat confusing but it works as described in the Combat Results part of the manual.So it sounds like the Low Combat Value and High Combat Value referenced the manual are actually the Fire Low and Fire High values in the parameters file? (02-11-2015, 05:31 AM)ComradeP Wrote: Unfortunately, unit VP's are the only part I couldn't find in the editor either. If I recall a recent post correctly, they're set automatically based on quality and other values.A strange oversight--sometimes friendly casualties are rather important (high VP), other times the mission comes first (low VP)... Just so you understand what I'm doing: I've playing around with PzC to try to make it an operational layer for the current Combat Mission East Front game, but reducing all of the units in PzC to platoon sized-units... At first, with default parameter values, casualties were remarkably low, but now that I've changed the Fire Low and Fire High values from 10 and 50 to 50 and 200, the casualties are MUCH higher, especially for vehicles--a few platoon-sized German tank units wiped out a handful of platoon-sized Soviet tank units within a few turns at a range of 2. And you are right, there are lots of Fatigue results, and Disruptions. The area that seems the most off is artillery, which generally produces very low casualties and not much Disruption, which seems odd. Generally 2-4 mortars inflict either zero or one casualty on infantry in the open, and batteries of heavy guns don't do much better. A couple of times German nebelwerfers produced a nice batch of casualties (5-6) against infantry in the open, but Soviet rockets don't seem to have much effect, I need to look more closely at their values... I think I need to tone it down to maybe 25 and 100 and see what happens... I haven't changed the Attacker Low and High and Defender Low and High settings yet, and assault casualties are typically rather low--typically 2-3 men out of a platoon sized unit, which is OK for a probe-style attack, but not a true assault, and it has been very difficult for attackers to get defenders to retreat. I will increase these values next. I know that scale-wise Panzer Battles would be better suited for this, but I want to use the time and map scales utilized by PzC rather than PzB. RE: Scenario Design Questions - ComradeP - 02-11-2015 Quote:I guess you pulled the formula from the manual somewhere? I must have overlooked it, thanks for pointing it out. Yes, it's labelled under Range Effect, which is somewhat confusing as in practice it's a modifier so you'd look for Range Modifier. Quote:I don't understand one thing though--PzC classifies "Hard Targets", and you'd think that would enable the game to limit the effectiveness of 82mm mortars, for instance, vs tanks? I guess what you're saying is that artillery vs tanks is still fairly low odds (because the arty's low hard values are against the armor's relatively high defensive values?) but still results in more armored kills than it should? It's low odds, but mortars can fire twice and it's a simple matter of low odds attacks in such numbers that you'll get a hit at some point. It's not like you will knock out a tank company or the like, but I usually knock out about 3 or so tanks per scenario with mortars in Panzer Battles as the Soviets. What is amusing is that units with a very low defence value, like Marders with a value of 3, are actually not all that much more vulnerable than most German medium tanks with a value around 8-10 or so. When my opponent concentrated the fire of about 8 gun artillery and 2 Katyusha units on a stack of Marders, I tended to lose about 2-3 Marders per turn, which is acceptable. They're still using the same die roll of converting losses in men to a percentage chance of knocking something out after all. For the same reason (whether there's a loss depends on the die roll, and the maximum is generally 1 vehicle per barrage), soft vehicles like AA vehicles are also less vulnerable than you might expect, even though artillery SA values are generally much higher than their HA values. With a 50% chance of knocking something out (for example), there's also a 50% chance something survives, possibly with a small increase in fatigue. Attacks against vehicles or guns are an everything or nothing affair. On average, my artillery knocks out more tanks than AT weapons as the Soviets because the 76mm AT gun isn't that good not to mention the 45mm, for the Germans it's different as their artillery is generally less powerful and/or less numerous than Soviet guns and their mid war AT guns are excellent. Rocket units tend to have good HA values, at least in Panzer Battles, so they're more likely to knock out tanks than gun artillery. For the sake of clarity, I'm talking about average tanks here, with mediocre to good defence values. Units with excellent defence values like Tigers are unlikely to lose vehicles to artillery fire, but it can still happen. By the way, the various degrees of Digging in suffer from a similar problem to what vehicles and guns suffer from: higher defence values, or in this case a decrease in the intensity of incoming fire, only lowers the chance something gets killed, it's not absolute protection. In my opinion, the difference between a bunker and a trench is too significant currently, particularly for low morale units like most Soviet units. In trenches, they will just disappear when attacked by a good German force. In bunkers, they can hold out. This does depend on average unit size. A 600 man Soviet battalion in PzC has a significantly higher survival chance unless it gets ZOC locked and assaulted than a platoon or company in PB. In the former case, casualties will still be brutal over time, but at least the unit will still be there after several turns. Quote:After tweaking a few parameters (see end of post), my experience is rather different: I have small units (2-5 vehicles) wiping out other other small units at two hexes, at one hex it is a real bloodbath. I think I actually need to tone things down a bit... If you're tweaking with the extent of the variability of the high/low fire values, or significantly decrease defence values, your result is likely to happen. In a stock scenario, with the McNamara (sp?) database values for units, casualties are likely to be low per turn. Tweaked values are also at the core of the high casualties of the FWWC series, where units will get mowed down by the dozens if not hundreds by units that in PzC/PB would inflict maybe a dozen, possibly a bit more casualties per fire action. As to assaults: I feel assaults are too unpredictable and too weak in many cases. You're encouraged to Disrupt a defender first before assaulting, which can be problematic, also as it gives an incentive to a min/maxing style of play where you concentrate fire on a unit until it disrupts and then move on to the next unit, Delayed Disruption reporting being off by default in most cases. This is one of the few wargame series where assaulting is necessary to occupy a hex, but assaulting by itself isn't the most efficient way to do so. In other wargames, support weapons and a preliminary barrage would soften up the defender, possibly removing entrenchment levels or at the least reducing readiness/inflicting some casualties. The fact that odds are essentially irrelevant here because casualties are determined by a check for high/low losses also adds to the unpredictable nature of combat. That isn't a bad thing per se, but in my opinion it can go a bit too far sometimes. After the support fire, the defenders would still be able to resist and stop the assault. Furthermore, assaulting generally causes more casualties than direct fire. In PzC/PB, firing inflicts more predictable (and sometimes higher) casualties on average as I recently tested. Not reliably being able to disrupt a defender through assaulting can be a real pain, particularly with both sides using the same stacking limits making it difficult enough as it is to get good odds. When you say that Soviet rockets don't seem to have much effect, do you mean the "old" Katyusha's without a minimum range or the "new" more powerful Katyusha's with a minimum range? - Edit: as to the Jump Dialog: in Panzer Battles, the Axis are blue and the Soviets are red, so maybe there's a file that determines the colour which could be imported to PzC. RE: Scenario Design Questions - 76mm - 02-11-2015 (02-11-2015, 04:54 PM)ComradeP Wrote: On average, my artillery knocks out more tanks than AT weapons as the Soviets because the 76mm AT gun isn't that good not to mention the 45mm, for the Germans it's different as their artillery is generally less powerful and/or less numerous than Soviet guns and their mid war AT guns are excellent.At some point, you have to wonder about some of the values in the McNamara database. I thought that rockets in particular were most effective against troops in the open, and not so much against bunkers or tanks. Might make sense to tweak arty and rocket hard values down? (02-11-2015, 04:54 PM)ComradeP Wrote: In my opinion, the difference between a bunker and a trench is too significant currently, particularly for low morale units like most Soviet units. In trenches, they will just disappear when attacked by a good German force. In bunkers, they can hold out.hmm, in the alt pdt file for Minsk at least, the "modifier" is the same for trenches and bunkers (30), although bunkers have a defense value of 5, whatever that means. (02-11-2015, 04:54 PM)ComradeP Wrote: If you're tweaking with the extent of the variability of the high/low fire values, or significantly decrease defence values, your result is likely to happen. In a stock scenario, with the McNamara (sp?) database values for units, casualties are likely to be low per turn.I tweaked the Fire Lo/Hi values, didn't touch the defense values. As you say, before I changed those values, casualties were very low. (02-11-2015, 04:54 PM)ComradeP Wrote: When you say that Soviet rockets don't seem to have much effect, do you mean the "old" Katyusha's without a minimum range or the "new" more powerful Katyusha's with a minimum range?Old Katyushas--I'd added the min range but forgot about the increase in soft attack value--indeed, it went from 25 to 44. RE: Scenario Design Questions - ComradeP - 02-12-2015 Quote:At some point, you have to wonder about some of the values in the McNamara database. I thought that rockets in particular were most effective against troops in the open, and not so much against bunkers or tanks. Might make sense to tweak arty and rocket hard values down? Supposedly, rate of fire is part of the abstraction, but in my opinion rocket artillery is too good compared to gun artillery considering that the game doesn't take the terrain or degree of being dug in into account when determining the casualties (as they just reduce the intensity of incoming fire, they don't literally reduce casualties) so rockets (and Werfer projectiles) are more effective in all terrain types compared to medium artillery. Quote:hmm, in the alt pdt file for Minsk at least, the "modifier" is the same for trenches and bunkers (30), although bunkers have a defense value of 5, whatever that means. What I meant was that bunkers are hard targets, so any men or gun units inside them can't be targeted by direct fire. It doesn't feel like the next step up from trenches, it's a completely different category. Bunkers (and pillboxes, forts and other hard fortifications) increase the defence value of a unit in them as well as providing protection, as well as giving a firepower bonus. RE: Scenario Design Questions - 76mm - 02-13-2015 I've been play-testing various settings for the last couple of days, trying to obtain "normal" kill rates at two hex range, but almost eliminating kills at three hexes. I'm going to have to hoist the white flag... I've tried changing the Fire Low and Fire High values and the Range Effect modifier, but nothing works properly. The issue seems to be that the German tanks with a range of three have very high hard values, so changing the Range Effect modifier to 4, for instance, results in more kills at three hexes (for the Nashorns, Panthers, Tigers) than at two hexes for everything else (Panzer IVs, Marders, etc.). I also tried using the optional rule "Optional Fire Results", which average two die rolls, thinking that the three hex kills were outliers, but that didn't help either... I think I might just have to limit all of the ranges to 2 and be done with it, unless someone has a better idea. So no one has a specific suggestion about changing blue to red on the jump map? I've looked at all of the graphics files and don't see anything that would help, I think it is baked into the exe file somehow. RE: Scenario Design Questions - 76mm - 02-13-2015 I asked about max effective tank ranges over at the Battlefront forum, and someone provided the data below, which I thought I'd share here: more than 90% of kills by German 75mm guns occured at less than 1,000 meters, and more than 80% of kills by 88mm guns: "Red Army Handbook 1939-1945", by S. J. Zaloga and L. S. Ness, 1998 (Alan Sutton, Thrupp) gives on page 179 a table of the ranges in metres at which Soviet tanks and assault guns were knocked out by 75mm and 88mm guns in 1943-44, as follows: Range_______75mm gun_____88mm gun 100-200_______10.0%_________4.0% 200-400_______26.1%________14.0% 400-600_______33.5%________18.0% 600-800_______14.5%________31.2% 800-1000_______7.0%________13.5% 1000-1200______4.5%_________8.5% 1200-1400______3.6%_________7.6% 1400-1600______0.4%_________2.0% 1600-1800______0.4%_________0.7% 1800-2000______0.0%_________0.5% However, note the time period. Tanks and self propelled guns with weaponry capable of 2000+ meter shots with any sort of reliability comprised a very small portion of the total vehicles in battle until about mid-1944 when the Panther began to be seen in larger numbers (and were still a minority till the end of the war) |
){kind=link}