Extreme assault?

umbro · (This post was last modified: 04-09-2009, 03:08 PM by umbro.)

Re-reading Franks post reminded me of one of the reasons that I have a problem with EA other than its impact on the game.

The original designers took great pains with the math of the CRT to ensure that there was no difference in expected results when 2x3SPs fired at a target or a single 6SP unit of the same type did the same. There is only a minor difference if units "volley" fire or not (see thread on Volley Fire).

They came up with the Indirect Fire target density adjustment to try and do the same for artillery.

The trouble with EA is that it does matter. Once you have reached the threshold of "victory" on the new assault CRT then you are better off assaulting separately as many times as possible rather than all at once. This is due to the "bottleneck" final morale test.

This breaks the essential modeling of "simultaneous" action in a turn.

If an alternative is conceived of in the future I hope that its designers will bear this issue in mind.

umbro

P.S. Did I mention that I enjoy building spreadsheets :-)

Von Earlmann · 04-09-2009, 09:41 PM,

umbro Wrote:Re-reading Franks post reminded me of one of the reasons that I have a problem with EA other than its impact on the game.

The original designers took great pains with the math of the CRT to ensure that there was no difference in expected results when 2x3SPs fired at a target or a single 6SP unit of the same type did the same. There is only a minor difference if units "volley" fire or not (see thread on Volley Fire).

They came up with the Indirect Fire target density adjustment to try and do the same for artillery.

The trouble with EA is that it does matter. Once you have reached the threshold of "victory" on the new assault CRT then you are better off assaulting separately as many times as possible rather than all at once. This is due to the "bottleneck" final morale test.

This breaks the essential modeling of "simultaneous" action in a turn.

If an alternative is conceived of in the future I hope that its designers will bear this issue in mind.

umbro

P.S. Did I mention that I enjoy building spreadsheets :-)

So,you see no matter what the rule or how it is done it can be used in a gamey sense :-)

1925frank · 04-10-2009, 12:28 AM,

That's precisely it. No matter how the mechanics are structured, it's a sure bet someone will figure it out and use that information to gain the maximum benefit for gameplay. Once one player figures out a successful tactic, other players will follow suit because it works. That was one of the problems with the regular assault rules. It didn't take long before players learned that assaulting disrupted units was a no-risk, high-payoff proposition, and that aspect of play went on to dominate every other aspect. That gamey aspect of Campaign Series did not kill the game, but I'm certain there are countless other games out there were the gaminess effectively destroyed the game and its following. That gamey aspect of Campaign Series did leave a sour taste in a lot of players' mouths, and it is one of the aspects Matrix is wrestling with.

As a designer, I'd think you'd want to head off at the pass gamey applications of the mechanics and neutralize it within the game's own mechanics as best you can.

With the defender-wins-10-percent-of-the-time-regardless-of-the-odds aspect, I can see that if we're talking about an aborted assault due to the complexities of launching an assault and due to Murphy's Law being ever present. If that's the reasoning, though, I think the game should say "Assault aborted" rather than "No effect."

I'm having a tougher time with the assaulter winning 15 percent of the time regardless of the odds. If I've got a trench, bunker, or a pillbox, I'd hate that rule, because there's no way to defend against it, and statistically it's only a matter of time before you lose the hex on the basis of a random dice roll and not on the basis of the superior tactics of your opponent or on the basis of your own inferior tactics. I suspect, though, that the 15 percent rule doesn't apply to certain terrain. I don't know.

The way to discourage the multiple-assaults-at-low-odds tactic is to have the assaulter take some SP losses due to the low odds. However, if 25 percent of the time the odds are irrelevant, of which 10 pecent means "no effect," that is, no penalty other than expending AP, and of which 15 percent means taking the hex, I'm thinking players will be willing to gamble on losing SP when the die role actually incorporates the odds into the result.

umbro · (This post was last modified: 04-10-2009, 05:43 AM by umbro.)

I do agree that whatever the mechanism folks will try to maximise their benefit - that is natural. I do believe, however, that there is a difference between maximising benefit and taking advantage of a flaw in the mechanism.

Also, I would prefer to find a mechanism that didn't have built-in flaws than have to have other rules to discourage folks taking advantage of the flaw.

Finally, I do like the idea that assaults produce more "bloody" results. I believe that the original designers thought so too as they allowed the defender to counter-assault as many times as it was assaulted in a single turn. Of course, under the original assault they never got the chance as they were captured on the first assault. That and they reduced assault strengths compared to fire strengths.

umbro

Dan Caviness · 04-10-2009, 07:53 AM,

what umbro said

1925frank · 04-10-2009, 11:09 AM,

Ditto. (How's that for conciseness?)

1925frank · 04-11-2009, 05:55 AM,

When the offense wins 15 percent of time regardless of the odds, I'm wondering how often the elaborate EA formula even comes into play. If you win by the third or fourth assault, you might have won on the basis of the 15-percent provision (a lucky roll of the dice) and not on the basis of the EA formula finally kicking in.

Although assaults are harder to win, no one is suggesting the winning percentage is anywhere near 15 percent, so the EA formula is kicking in to a degree. Still, I think it's getting diluted by the 15 percent provision. Even with the 15 percent provision, the winning percentage doesn't appear to be that phenominal. If the overall winning percentage is 45 percent, then would it be wrong to conclude that one out of three winning assaults are the result of the 15 percent provision? Even if the winning pecentage is 60 percent, that's one out of four.

stone0919 · 04-11-2009, 01:37 PM,

1925frank Wrote:When the offense wins 15 percent ...

That's why I rarely use the assault option even when it makes strategic sense to do so. I once attacked a couple of surrounded rifle squads (disrupted 2-3 sp each) with fresh tiger tanks (fully loaded), and two quality leaders. After a heavy barrage I assault their position (Concealment 1). The assault was an utter failure. I lost a couple of sp points and both my tank platoons were disrupted. More important, I wasted a turn.

Herr Straße Laufer · 04-11-2009, 09:36 PM,

stone0919 Wrote:The assault was an utter failure. I lost a couple of sp points and both my tank platoons were disrupted. More important, I wasted a turn.

Excellent point here.
Wasting turns is the most frustrating part of using EA.
If your platoons do not recover from disrupt you have wasted more than just one turn. :chin:

cheers

RR

Kool Kat · 04-12-2009, 07:55 AM,

Jumbo Wrote:Assaults did fail from time to time in real life even when the odds were dramatically in favor of the attacker. With 1.02 that would almost never happen. With Extreme assault it appears from threads that it's happening more often than seems historically accurate or realistic.

Summary of the EA debate?

Again, why not a "toned down" EA option? Reach a middle ground here and move on.