Updated T41_Alt

[Volcano Man]

Hello everyone,

I updated T41_Alt since I noticed that the Quality Fire Modifier value wasn't correctly being used. You can find it at volcanomods.com of course. ;)

[Bayes]

Hi Volcano Man,

Thanks a lot for the great effort you put into standardizing the parameters and unit values of these games.

I am a bit intrigued about why you have set the Quality Fire Modifier (QFM) to 10 in the new version of Tobruk'41. A QFM of 10 makes the high quality units much more powerful than before. B units will do 100% more damage than a C quality unit, instead of merely 10% more, while A units will do 250% more damage instead of 25% more.

E.g., a 540 man MG battalion of quality B will kill on average 27 men with Defense 16 at QFM 10, while before it would kill only 14.85 men. With quality A, it would kill even more: 47.25 men. This is quite powerful compared to what a C quality unit will achieve, with 13.5 kills on average (C quality units are not affected by the QFM).

Will not this new high Quality Fire Modifier make the Germans quite deadly with their abundance of B quality units, and shift the game balance accordingly?

I also notice that you have lowered the quality of most A level units to B, even the panzer units. However, in some scenarios the panzer units are still A. Is this not going from a state of consistency to a state of inconsistency when it comes to unit modeling?

Additionally, this lowering of unit quality from A to B also affects other parts of the game, like morale, fatigue accumulation, assaults, and movement speed. Is this desirable?

I got a bit worried about this change because I really enjoyed the previous version of Tobruk'41 ALT, and also found the 88mm satisfactory, and this new change seems to be causing potential divergence due to its massiveness, rather than standardization and convergence towards a better version of the game.

Any thoughts?

Bayes

Hello everyone,

I updated T41_Alt since I noticed that the Quality Fire Modifier value wasn't correctly being used. You can find it at volcanomods.com of course. ;)

[Volcano Man]

The concern is understandable but have you even tried the changes yet? The difference is not very noticeable with B quality units as far as I can tell, so that concern is mostly moot IMO. And also, intentionally so, there aren't that many A quality units in the OOB to begin with and I only cut down on the number of those by 10 or 15 units in total (units which I elevated to A to add "chrome" to begin with IIRC).

After testing this myself it isn't a bad thing that the B quality units are 100% more effective instead of just 10%. Where it really becomes noticeable is with killing vehicles only, and in disruptions, which was the intent. I did try all manner of values below "10" and none of them made much of a noticeable difference to be honest.

You can also assume that if I made any changes then yes those changes are desirable. ;) Of course my desires are often not perfect, but I update things to reflect feedback in those cases. Now the question of course here is what the changes do in the long run, but I don't see a problem at this point. For example, with QFM set at 1, a B quality German infantry company fires onto allied infantry and eliminated, on average, 6 men. With QFM set to 10, the same situation averaged 8 men eliminated. The differences are just not that drastic to be concerned -- it doesn't directly translate to say, 12 men eliminated on average (ie. double). That said, I will certainly keep an eye on this and check it again -- maybe my test was faulty, but this is where I need feedback from the community too.

As you hint, you probably liked the 88mm HA ratings at 52 and I may go back to that one day, who knows. But the reason the values have changed is because in order to get them officially adopted into PzC, John felt that the values were scaled too high overall so I dropped them by 25% to address that, while he in turn addressed some of the issues with ranged fire (by turning the Ranged Modifier to a floating point number) and by introducing the QFM value for small units. So, within those limitations I am trying to make the lower HA ratings work within the new capabilities of the engine, so please just be patient and try it out. If people find these changes disgusting then I will likely change them back, or go back to a ranged modifier value of "1". All of these things have yet to be figured out. ;)

[Compass Rose]

Thanks for the update Ed!

[Bayes]

Thanks for the thorough reply Volcano Man!

Just to be clear, I think that the previous ALT changes are really great, consistently giving units, equipment and terrain more distinct, realistic and characteristic behavior. I also enjoy the fact that e.g. a Superior or Elite Panther tank battalion behaves the same way, independent of which title I am playing. I also appreciate your devotion to including explicit supply in the games.

I base my comments on the QFM of 10 only on calculations using the game mechanics formulas. When studying isolated effects, like firepower, kill rates, etc., I then get the exact effect, instead of a more or less accurate estimate from performing experiments in the game. (Performing in-game experiments can produce deceivingly inaccurate results without an extensive amount of trials).

What I perhaps may like about the QFM of 10 is that with such a high value, weapon deadliness is to a much larger degree affected by troop quality (skills, training, moral, etc.), instead of merely hardware (gun, armor, etc.). An elite tank commander may for instance use a "mediocre" StuG III and achieve a large kill ratio against for instance T-34s, simply because of his skills, like Wittmann in his StuG III. Conversely, an average tank commander (C quality) may get a lower kill ratio even with a Tiger.

However, I also have some concerns:

* Are Superior troops (B quality) really able to make weapons twice as deadly in combat on average compared to C quality troops (Average), or are what we read about in the literature outstanding events, not reflecting the average? Weapon deadliness becomes even more extreme with elite troops (quality A), producing 3.5 times more kills than average troops. This is the case for both Men, Guns, and Vehicles as far as the formulas go. E.g. a tank kill ratio of 3 to 1 turns into 6 to 1 when unit quality goes from C to B (with a QFM of 10).

* The decision of making 88mm the only elite units in DAK seems a bit arbitrary. I guess there existed other units in DAK with similar skill level (quality). Why pick out just the 88mm for elite status? The high performance of 88mm could be a result of the gun itself.

* Only handpicking a few A quality units means that the majority of units needs to be fitted within the smaller range E-B, making it more difficult to distinguish between different quality levels.

* "Soft factors" like skills, morale, training, ... (i.e., Quality) and "hard factors" like gun, optics, armor (Hard Attack, Soft Attack, ...) get mixed together, with mechanisms being designed to represent soft factors being used to represent hard factors. When using high Quality to model deadly units instead of a high Hard Attack value, one also enhance all the other soft factors at the same time, instead of just the weapon deadliness.

* It sounds like an extensive task to translate a QFM of 10 to the other titles in the series, perhaps drastically changing game balance in each title.

If it is mainly the optics and gun of the 88mm that makes it better than e.g. a 75mm (and not the German AT teams manning them), why not simply increase the Hard Attack Value of 88mm instead of making extensive changes relying on tweaking the concept of Quality?

What I describe above may not happen every time. Also, other factors may sometimes enhance these effects, and sometimes reduce the effects (like terrain), but on average, over several fire exchanges, I believe the "extreme" effect of a QFM of 10 will take place.

Maybe I will like these effects when experiencing them in a real game. :-)

That's it! Thanks for your attention

Bayes

The concern is understandable but have you even tried the changes yet? The difference is not very noticeable with B quality units as far as I can tell, so that concern is mostly moot IMO. And also, intentionally so, there aren't that many A quality units in the OOB to begin with and I only cut down on the number of those by 10 or 15 units in total (units which I elevated to A to add "chrome" to begin with IIRC).

After testing this myself it isn't a bad thing that the B quality units are 100% more effective instead of just 10%. Where it really becomes noticeable is with killing vehicles only, and in disruptions, which was the intent. I did try all manner of values below "10" and none of them made much of a noticeable difference to be honest.

You can also assume that if I made any changes then yes those changes are desirable. ;) Of course my desires are often not perfect, but I update things to reflect feedback in those cases. Now the question of course here is what the changes do in the long run, but I don't see a problem at this point. For example, with QFM set at 1, a B quality German infantry company fires onto allied infantry and eliminated, on average, 6 men. With QFM set to 10, the same situation averaged 8 men eliminated. The differences are just not that drastic to be concerned -- it doesn't directly translate to say, 12 men eliminated on average (ie. double). That said, I will certainly keep an eye on this and check it again -- maybe my test was faulty, but this is where I need feedback from the community too.

As you hint, you probably liked the 88mm HA ratings at 52 and I may go back to that one day, who knows. But the reason the values have changed is because in order to get them officially adopted into PzC, John felt that the values were scaled too high overall so I dropped them by 25% to address that, while he in turn addressed some of the issues with ranged fire (by turning the Ranged Modifier to a floating point number) and by introducing the QFM value for small units. So, within those limitations I am trying to make the lower HA ratings work within the new capabilities of the engine, so please just be patient and try it out. If people find these changes disgusting then I will likely change them back, or go back to a ranged modifier value of "1". All of these things have yet to be figured out. ;)

[Volcano Man]

You are misunderstanding part of it I think. The QFM rule was made specifically for T41, --it won't be used in other Alts, it was specifically made for T41 because of the small units. And no, the complaints about quality is unfounded as far as I am concerned because, like I said, I only lowered the quality of some 10 to 15 units at most, already most units in the OOB are B, not A so for the most part things are mostly unchanged. And no, the 88s are not the only units in the OOB that are A quality now. Regardless of who has A or B, the result is arbitrary anyway, the quality level is always chosen based on their performance in the wargame, there isn't some source that historically specifies what quality each of these units should be.

In regards to your question about experienced troops (B) versus regular troops ©, well, sure -- who is to say that they should be +10% better, 2x better, of 10x better? All we know is that C is run-of-the-mill average troops, and B is "better", and A is "best". There has always been a general consensus that B quality should be a heck of a lot better than just 10% over C, so maybe going with a QFM of 5 to yield +50% is best in that it accomplishes that but without going "too far". IMO though, yes, the difference between C, B, and A should be large in this campaign so I am perfectly happy with it being a substantial difference here in this _Alt.

The real question to me, is what the range modifier should be. I may lower the QFM value a little, and go back to a ranged modifier of 1 (instead of 1.5) just for the desert, this is something I have to figure out. Still, the QFM modifier is something that I will try my best to utilize. If it doesn't work then I will drop it, but I think the best solution here is probably a QFM of 5 and a ranged modifier of 1. I will experiment with that. ;)

[Bayes]

That sounds great Volcano Man :-). I guess I misunderstood that part. Despite my arguments, I also know that being willing to experiment, also in unexpected/innovative directions, is a necessary step towards discovering better parameter configurations and game enhancements. You are doing a tremendous job!

Thanks,

Bayes

You are misunderstanding part of it I think. The QFM rule was made specifically for T41, --it won't be used in other Alts, it was specifically made for T41 because of the small units. And no, the complaints about quality is unfounded as far as I am concerned because, like I said, I only lowered the quality of some 10 to 15 units at most, already most units in the OOB are B, not A so for the most part things are mostly unchanged. And no, the 88s are not the only units in the OOB that are A quality now. Regardless of who has A or B, the result is arbitrary anyway, the quality level is always chosen based on their performance in the wargame, there isn't some source that historically specifies what quality each of these units should be.

In regards to your question about experienced troops (B) versus regular troops ©, well, sure -- who is to say that they should be +10% better, 2x better, of 10x better? All we know is that C is run-of-the-mill average troops, and B is "better", and A is "best". There has always been a general consensus that B quality should be a heck of a lot better than just 10% over C, so maybe going with a QFM of 5 to yield +50% is best in that it accomplishes that but without going "too far". IMO though, yes, the difference between C, B, and A should be large in this campaign so I am perfectly happy with it being a substantial difference here in this _Alt.

The real question to me, is what the range modifier should be. I may lower the QFM value a little, and go back to a ranged modifier of 1 (instead of 1.5) just for the desert, this is something I have to figure out. Still, the QFM modifier is something that I will try my best to utilize. If it doesn't work then I will drop it, but I think the best solution here is probably a QFM of 5 and a ranged modifier of 1. I will experiment with that. ;)

[Volcano Man]

Thanks, but I think you have caused me to doubt my value of "10" for QFM, which is good. :) I have come to realize a better solution through this exchange, I am testing it now. The magic number at the moment is QFM = 5, Range modifier = 1 (like it used to be in the previous version, under the idea that in the desert, ranged fire should be very effective) and the end result is even more powerful 88s than before even when they were rated at 52.

Anyway, I will experiment with it a bit and if it passes the test then I will update it again soon. So far though, the results are looking promising...

[Volcano Man]

Ok, I just updated T41_Alt again. This time is is version "XIIa" in the "Alternate changes" document file. We can consider the previous update a false start of sorts. Just download the link again.

This time the Range Modifier was set back to 1 (like it used to be) and QFM is set to 3. I found this to be the perfect value, which placed the 88mm FLAK guns back exactly to their old hard attack value of 62.4 (as A quality 52 HA). This also has the effect of intentionally making all the other units not much changed.

So, ranged combat is now back again and in good effect, and 88s should be just as deadly as they used to be, with minimal differences elsewhere.

Also note: I went back and looked at the stock OOB and there were very little A quality units -- actually I don't think there was a single A quality unit on either side. These A quality units on the German side were introduced by me during the _Alt revisions, so this is something to keep in mind when I change these back and forth between A and B. It is done to achieve a certain effect within the game, and the justification lies in the fact that the end justifies the means. For example, the small 2 gun 88mm FLAK guns need to be more powerful, therefore they receive the A level of quality. The German panzer units no longer need to have this boost because they use replacements and because QFM boosts their firepower a bit more than before, for example.

If, through feedback, I find that the QFM value should increase, then I will certainly do that in the future.

[Bayes]

Downloaded and playing Battleaxe

Bayes

Ok, I just updated T41_Alt again. This time is is version "XIIa" in the "Alternate changes" document file. We can consider the previous update a false start of sorts. Just download the link again.

This time the Range Modifier was set back to 1 (like it used to be) and QFM is set to 3. I found this to be the perfect value, which placed the 88mm FLAK guns back exactly to their old hard attack value of 62.4 (as A quality 52 HA). This also has the effect of intentionally making all the other units not much changed.

So, ranged combat is now back again and in good effect, and 88s should be just as deadly as they used to be, with minimal differences elsewhere.

Also note: I went back and looked at the stock OOB and there were very little A quality units -- actually I don't think there was a single A quality unit on either side. These A quality units on the German side were introduced by me during the _Alt revisions, so this is something to keep in mind when I change these back and forth between A and B. It is done to achieve a certain effect within the game, and the justification lies in the fact that the end justifies the means. For example, the small 2 gun 88mm FLAK guns need to be more powerful, therefore they receive the A level of quality. The German panzer units no longer need to have this boost because they use replacements and because QFM boosts their firepower a bit more than before, for example.

If, through feedback, I find that the QFM value should increase, then I will certainly do that in the future.