Normandy Patch Update

[Strela]

David

And like all things, a picture is worth a thousand words. The graphics for disruption/broken on the counter are completely moddable - this is my first take...

you will be able to tell if a unit is disrupted/broken by just looking at the counters on the map - even if it is in a stack.








David

[wiggum]

A comment on Kraut Corner and artillery. I probably player the scenario 4 times. The artillery could kill from 1 - 10 soldiers every salvo but in only one playing for me, and that in the penultimate turn, did the unit disrupt. All the deaths did not seem to bother them

I think thats the type of situation for which Strela has a "elegant solution" and is now waiting for John to code it.
It has been noted many times that DISRUPTION results are to rare. I hope the Patch will address this issue and make the game overall much better.

@ Strela

Great that the DISRUPTION state is now visible on the counters !

[panzerde]

Those look great, David.

The more I've played the more I agree that we need to see more disruption results. I understand the concern about making it too easy to knock off fortified lines, but I suspect this is going to cut the other way, too. Unlike Kursk, Allied troop quality is much more prone to disruption and I suspect a lot of attacks are going to bog down with disrupted units!

Seeing units absolutely evaporate under multiple turns of fire is the part that seems less realistic to me, though. I think it's contributing to much higher casualty counts than was historically the case in the scenarios I've played.

[ComradeP]

Making disruption results, any kind of disruption, more frequent would in my opinion not improve the game.

A link between the casualties suffered and how likely a unit is to disrupt: yes, please.

Units of A quality disrupting when they roll a 1 could also be an improvement, as currently they can't disrupt from what I understand. Some of the comments about disruption not being frequent enough might come from not understanding how quality helps in passing the checks (or hurts, for low quality units).

[wiggum]

Some of the comments about disruption not being frequent enough might come from not understanding how quality helps in passing the checks (or hurts, for low quality units).

I think its more likely that those (like myself) who complained about to rare disruption results feel that that the pace of movement under fire is currently very unrealistic, that units that got reduced to less then 10% of the original strength should realistically be broken, especially if no elite (A quality) troops, that a bunch of HMG's should be able to pin down (broken status after numerous casualties or disrupted at least) a Inf platoon attacking over open ground and so on...

Its not so much about the numbers, or understanding them. I personally dont care much about them, all i want is a wargame that feels "realistic" and PzB has problems in that area currently.

I still think a system on the scale like PzB needs another unit state, a PINNED state that has a temporary (the rest of the turn) effect similar entering a minefield (all remaining Movement points vanish). Because its WAY to easy currently to move towards the enemy, even if under heavy fire...i hope the patch will improve the realism in this aspect.

[ComradeP]

That would be difficult to balance, as the complete control and information the player has means he will always be able to play more efficiently than was historically the case. This is amplified by having played a scenario before and knowing roughly what to expect in terms of opposition and when it is likely to arrive in a certain area.

A pinned state, or more frequent disruptions, would probably hurt the attacker more than you think. With many C quality units facing A and B quality units, it could slow the Allied advance to a crawl and make defensive fire (more) murderous as units would be more exposed to it.

Computer wargames are hardly ever "realistic" in terms of casualties as virtual troops don't think about their own safety, PB is not worse than most other in that area. I have a much greater problem with how losses can develop in games like Steel Panthers, Close Combat or Combat Mission, where your force might be wiped out completely, than here.

[Gregor]

That would be difficult to balance, as the complete control and information the player has means he will always be able to play more efficiently than was historically the case. This is amplified by having played a scenario before and knowing roughly what to expect in terms of opposition and when it is likely to arrive in a certain area.

A pinned state, or more frequent disruptions, would probably hurt the attacker more than you think. With many C quality units facing A and B quality units, it could slow the Allied advance to a crawl and make defensive fire (more) murderous as units would be more exposed to it.

Computer wargames are hardly ever "realistic" in terms of casualties as virtual troops don't think about their own safety, PB is not worse than most other in that area. I have a much greater problem with how losses can develop in games like Steel Panthers, Close Combat or Combat Mission, where your force might be wiped out completely, than here.

I am also a bit skeptic about making disruption far more common, I feel much of that problem is taken care of by the increased casualty rates that also in my imagination account for troops bogging down and not being able to be commanded forward. I fear such changes would imbalance much of the scenarios and introduce the need of re-designing a lot of the work including values and morale of the troops.

I feel the current assault model is an approximation to pinning too. As long as the defenders are not disrupted they manage to hold the enemy at some 100 meters range. Assaults are ordered, but is pinned or stalled as the attacker taking losses. I was of the believe that in non-open terrain as the current area there would be possible to close in on an enemy without too heavy losses, but with losses mounting when getting close.

I do really feel the game gives the expected results on the average in almost all situations and promoting tactics close to the ones used historically.

[wiggum]

Computer wargames are hardly ever "realistic" in terms of casualties as virtual troops don't think about their own safety, PB is not worse than most other in that area. I have a much greater problem with how losses can develop in games like Steel Panthers, Close Combat or Combat Mission, where your force might be wiped out completely, than here.

For me its not about the total casualties, it about a realistic fire and movement mechanic.

[Strela]

Guys,

I'm sort of loath to lay this all out here, but to prevent speculation etc I will. Here is the background.

As mentioned by others there is a morale roll that works on the following basis (from the manual);


Morale is used to determine effects like Disruption and Broken. Quality is the basis for Morale. Each unit has a Quality rating from A (best) to F (worst). A descriptive way of referring to units by their Quality rating is to say that:


• A units are the Elite units
• B units are the Superior units
• C units are the Average units
• D units are the Below Average units
• E units are the Inferior units
• F units are the Abysmal units.

When a calculation requires a numeric value, these letters are mapped to numbers according to A=6, …, F=1. Quality has effects on the Morale of the unit and on its performance in combat or, for HQ’s, on its command abilities.

Morale Calculation - The nominal Morale of a unit will be the same as its Quality. The following modifiers apply to the Morale value:

• Units with Medium Fatigue have 1 subtracted from their Morale.
• Units with High Fatigue have 2 subtracted from their Morale.
• Units with Maximum Fatigue have 4 subtracted from their Morale.
• Units Low on Ammo or Fuel have 1 subtracted from their Morale.
• Units that are Disrupted or Broken have 1 subtracted from their Morale (Note: Morale F units do not have this modifier when they are attempting to recover from being Disrupted or Broken.)
• Units that are Isolated have 1 subtracted from their Morale.

A unit whose resulting Morale value is 0 or less is said to have No Morale.


Morale Check - When units suffer losses due to Combat Results, they may have to undergo a Morale Check. A random die roll from 1 to 6 is generated and compared with the unit’s current Morale value. If the die roll is less than or equal to the Morale value, then the unit passes the Morale Check. A unit which fails a Morale Check becomes Disrupted, and if already Disrupted and at Maximum Fatigue, becomes Broken.



With the above, all things being equal an 'A' morale unit will never disrupt. It needs to be fatigued, isolated or low on ammo/fuel. We removed low on ammo/fuel  for Kursk and Normandy to represent combat loads etc. Supplies were fairly plentiful and we considered the double whammy for ammo & isolation too much - leaving it only with isolation.

Therefore fatigue is the other big impact on morale. With between 1 to 4 subtracted from a morale value, fatigue can play a big part in a units morale roll.

So what does all this mean? We have found an issue with fatigue accumulation or more significantly the thresholds that have to be crossed to be considered medium/high/maximum fatigue.

In Panzer Campaigns, the fatigue thresholds are set at 100, 200 and 300 respectively. Exceed 100 fatigue and your morale drops one level, exceed 200 and it drops two level etc.

In Panzer Campaigns a battalion has a fatigue accumulation rate of X 2 (maximum) for every casualty and a company is X 6.  What this means is that a 120 man company has a fatigue potential of 720 fatigue points (120 men lost X 6) and a battalion made up of a combined three companies would also have a fatigue potential of 360 men X 2 = 720 fatigue points.

Compared as a ratio to the maximum fatigue of 300, there is 2.4x coverage (720 fatigue/300 morale).

Looking at the same situation in Panzer Battles, companies accumulate at X 2 (maximum) for each casualty and a platoon at X 6. The fatigue thresholds are set at 50, 100 & 150 respectively.

Using a 120 man company with 40 man platoons, the fatigue potential is 120 men X 2 fatigue accumulation = 240 potential fatigue points. The same math works for platoons - 40 men X 6 = 240 fatigue accumulation.

Now here is the crux of the issue - comparing the ratio we see 240 fatigue accumulation divided by 150 maximum fatigue gives a 1.6 ratio. This is only two thirds of the 2.4 value in Panzer Campaigns.

What has happened here? The fatigue thresholds were set incorrectly. They should have been set with a divisor of 3, i.e. maximum fatigue should have been 300 (PzC value) divided by 3 = 100 for maximum fatigue. All values in the calculations have assumed a divisor of three EXCEPT the fatigue thresholds. With higher fatigue thresholds there is a delay before units have their morale impacted etc.

This is one of the reasons units are taking heavier casualties than in Panzer Campaigns and not disrupting.

The suggested solution is one of two options. We have asked John to put in an optional rule for fatigue accumulation. This would move the multiplier from 2X & 6X to 3X & 9X. This would then align the ratios to Panzer Campaigns. The second option is to have a value in the parameter file for fatigue accumulation so it could be tweaked based upon the situation. With a higher fatigue accumulation, units will disrupt earlier based on casualties taken and their impact on the morale rating. 

No matter which way we go this will be an optional rule at least for Kursk & Normandy. The main reason for this is to ensure we don't break the existing scenarios and their balance but still let players try those scenarios with the optional rule if desired.

As I mentioned I didn't really want to lay out this level of detail, but I do want you to understand it is being looked at and debated. This will hopefully explain why some of the behaviour reported is occurring and what we're looking at to fix it. A big caveat - John has not committed to a fix yet. This comes down to time and resources.

David

[wiggum]

A big caveat - John has not committed to a fix yet. This comes down to time and resources.

David

Do you mean he has not yet decided which fix he will use (optional rule / parameter) or if it will get fixed at all ?
I think it would be very important to fix this.