Assault numbers are in. Bug or feature?

[Ashcloud]

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.

I sent it on.

[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.

Ahhhh, sorry, I never got around it.

I sent it on.

The case of DBP is interesting, because it didn't occur to me that some scenarios would include unarmed squads. My mod makes unarmed troops essentially useless in assaults. This will probably affect the balance of existing scenarios that rely extensively on them.

One simple solution is to give these troops a knife, a rock, brass knuckles-- basically any weapon with a minimal assault value. That will give them a fighting chance.