Assault numbers are in. Bug or feature?

[LordFowl]

I agree, Impressive work!

I wondered about tweaking the assault values, but I don't know enough about the way it all hangs together.

Be careful, or with this level of testing and thoroughness you'll be drafted as a beta tester ;)

[Stas_sche]

"That's interesting. Unarmed troops? Not even a knife? I wonder what the rationale was for that."

I believe that it made to emphasise the initial state of the Viet rebels in that conflict (really poor armed). Actually, the French are not very well armed as well (using Japs tanks and even FT-17s).


Should you report your findings to the JTS Support? I contacted them about the strange assault results in SCW a couple of years ago (two indomitable Demoralized soldiers repelling three my assaults, at least one with fresh full 10 men unit. All with 0/0 result). 

[Xerxes77]

Should you report your findings to the JTS Support? I contacted them about the strange assault results in SCW a couple of years ago (two indomitable Demoralized soldiers repelling three my assaults, at least one with fresh full 10 men unit. All with 0/0 result). 

Unless we're talking of a really strong attacking force, I believe the case you describe can be explained by some unlucky rolls. The way the game is designed, demoralized soldiers are not easier to kill, they just have reduced firepower. The issue I found through testing is that said reduction can be minimal.

So typically a 0/0 result means the attacker failed to inflict a single casualty on the defender, who stood their ground and thus succesfully managed to repel the assault. It's frustrating, but not unexpected. Given what we know now, could've gone much worse for the attackers!

[fastphil]

I think using SCW as test bed, is not the best choice. The reason I say that, is along with FWW, they are the only games that provides separate hand grenades( I think). I believe all the others have hand grenades factored into the assault value.
Also knives, brass knuckles, bayonets and other weapons not represented are factored in. Also training would be a factor. The SCW was more a peoples battle and I am not sure about the levels of training on either side.
To be honest, I like the randomness of the assault results. Otherwise how do you have an Audie
Murphy or other national heroes? War on this scale is unpredictable and limits the all seeing player. You have to go with your 'gut'. That is why I like the game. JMHO

[NikolaiB]

I want to replicate this test in DBP. So, you set this up by creating a scenario in the editor?

[Xerxes77]

I want to replicate this test in DBP. So, you set this up by creating a scenario in the editor?

Yes, I started with a custom map/oob and a barebones scenario with lines of troops face to face. Then I created an Excel sheet to store the values for each test case (normal, disrupted, pinned and demoralized targets in vanilla settings; another set for the Quality Loss Modifier optional rule; another for vehicles, and so on and so forth), along with the expected average outcomes. These I derived from the procedure explained in the manual and implemented them through simple formulas.

[Xerxes77]

I think using SCW as test bed, is not the best choice.  The reason I say that, is along with FWW, they are the only games that provides separate hand grenades( I  think).  I believe all the others have hand grenades factored into the assault value.
Also knives, brass knuckles, bayonets  and other weapons not represented are factored in.  Also training would be a factor.  The SCW was more a peoples battle and I am not sure about the levels of training on either side. 
  To be honest, I like the randomness of the assault results.  Otherwise how do you have an Audie
Murphy or other national heroes?  War on this scale is unpredictable and limits the all seeing player.  You have to go with your 'gut'.  That is why I like the game. JMHO

I hear you about the randomness, and I love it. However, I think the digital Audie Murphys should be far and between, and I noticed I was getting too many of them  

Note that I'm not addressing how the game models weapons. Whether they're included explicitly or mushed together into an abstracted value shouldn't make a difference as to what essentially prompted this little investigation. At the end of the day, the average assault results should reflect the odds described in the manual.

[Xerxes77]

I want to replicate this test in DBP. So, you set this up by creating a scenario in the editor?

Hi Nikolai. Did you get the chance to run the test on DBP? I'm interested in seeing if/how this behavior affects other games in the series.

[Warhorse]

If you wouldn't mind sending me an idea how you did the Infantry/Weapons Assault Values, I would be very interested. impalass(at)ptd(dot)net. Thanks!

[NikolaiB]

I want to replicate this test in DBP. So, you set this up by creating a scenario in the editor?

Yes, I started with a custom map/oob and a barebones scenario with lines of troops face to face. Then I created an Excel sheet to store the values for each test case (normal, disrupted, pinned and demoralized targets in vanilla settings; another set for the Quality Loss Modifier optional rule; another for vehicles, and so on and so forth), along with the expected average outcomes. These I derived from the procedure explained in the manual and implemented them through simple formulas.

Ahhhh, sorry, I never got around it.