Clearing rubble

[dukemat]

One turn to remove obstructions and mine fields.

RUBBLE should be similar. Why should it be a flip of the coin.

I have had engineer units sitting turn after turn with no result.

[Green]

Like bunker construction, it's quite random. In shorter campaigns/scenarios, I've only been able to clearing RUBBLE to the lower case variant with big stacks/piles of engineer units.

The rule could use some clarification regarding what kind of modifiers apply for size or quality. For other engineer actions, there are modifiers for size or quality but it isn't clear if there are modifiers for clearing RUBBLE.

It makes quite a big difference if there are no modifiers for unit/component size, as that would make splitting a battalion into companies 3 times as efficient as having a battalion clear the RUBBLE hex.

As I understand it, the number and size of the engineer unit(s) makes no difference. A single test is performed for the hex if a there is an attempt to clear RUBBLE in that hex. The chance is not adjusted by Quality, either. The reason that no modifiers are mentioned in the manual is presumably because there are none. So placing a single engineer company in a hex to clear RUBBLE would be the optimal strategy.

John

[Green]

One turn to remove obstructions and mine fields.

RUBBLE should be similar. Why should it be a flip of the coin.

I have had engineer units sitting turn after turn with no result.

dukemat,

I understand your frustration although I feel that it reasonable that clearing a path through rubble should take longer than one turn and that the time it would take would have varied.

Having said, the way the process currently works is clearly an issue that is causing concern and this is not the first time it has been raised. So I think needs to be reviewed. The limiting factor could be the current lack of programming resources to provide a fix, if one is decided upon. Let me see what I can find out. 

I also think that the ease with which rubble is created should be reviewed. That at least could be fixed without programming being required as it is a function of a parameter data value.

John

[ComradeP]

I've always approached the percentage chances in the parameter data dialogue as a chance per unit, not the chance per hex (regardless of the number of units involved). If it's a check per hex, that would explain a lot of what I'm seeing in my Japan games.

9 companies with a 5% chance each to clear RUBBLE should on average be able to clear RUBBLE in a couple of turns, but that's not what I'm seeing. I thought the randomness came from the 5% number being for battalions (just like some other checks are made at 0.33 or 0.66 times a certain value for a single company or a combined unit of two companies compared to a modifier of 1 for a battalion).

That also brings up the question of which percentage-based checks are actually calculated for each unit. If, say, digging in simply uses the highest digging in percentage for a certain unit/stack in a hex (such as a combination of 3 non-engineer units and an engineer unit), that would make it pointless to have stacks dig in for situations where there's either no or a very low chance that the units digging in will be Disrupted. 

I know that only 1 check is made each turn to reduce mines in a hex by 1 density point, regardless of the number of engineer units, but that's a very "binary" action: the unit can either clear mines by reducing the minefield by 1 density point and does so, or can't and doesn't. No other outcome is possible, and no percentages are involved.

-

The rubble fire value itself might also not be accurate in some titles. It's usually either 1000 or 10000, which makes me suspect one of those is a typing error when filling in the data.

[Lethal]

In some scenarios I have given up trying to clear rubble presuming the scenario designer has set this due to historical reasons (only a presumption on my part!) and length of scenario. Another interesting trick is "RUBBLE" only changes to "Rubble" when the hex is cleared, easy to miss this.

If the clearing engineer unit has less than 100 pers its chance of success will be reduced accordingly.

[Green]

In some scenarios I have given up trying to clear rubble presuming the scenario designer has set this due to historical reasons (only a presumption on my part!) and length of scenario.  Another interesting trick is "RUBBLE" only changes to "Rubble" when the hex is cleared, easy to miss this. 

If the clearing engineer unit has less than 100 pers its chance of success will be reduced accordingly.

No, I do not think the number of men changes the probability for rubble clearance in any way. When the manual says "The probability that the rubble will be cleared in the hex is half the Digging-In Parameter Data value per turn", it means literally that.

I am not saying that this is how it should be but this is how it is.

John

[Green]

I've always approached the percentage chances in the parameter data dialogue as a chance per unit, not the chance per hex (regardless of the number of units involved). If it's a check per hex, that would explain a lot of what I'm seeing in my Japan games.

9 companies with a 5% chance each to clear RUBBLE should on average be able to clear RUBBLE in a couple of turns, but that's not what I'm seeing. I thought the randomness came from the 5% number being for battalions (just like some other checks are made at 0.33 or 0.66 times a certain value for a single company or a combined unit of two companies compared to a modifier of 1 for a battalion).

That also brings up the question of which percentage-based checks are actually calculated for each unit. If, say, digging in simply uses the highest digging in percentage for a certain unit/stack in a hex (such as a combination of 3 non-engineer units and an engineer unit), that would make it pointless to have stacks dig in for situations where there's either no or a very low chance that the units digging in will be Disrupted. 

I know that only 1 check is made each turn to reduce mines in a hex by 1 density point, regardless of the number of engineer units, but that's a very "binary" action: the unit can either clear mines by reducing the minefield by 1 density point and does so, or can't and doesn't. No other outcome is possible, and no percentages are involved.

-

The rubble fire value itself might also not be accurate in some titles. It's usually either 1000 or 10000, which makes me suspect one of those is a typing error when filling in the data.

My assumption has always been that for a given hex, each unit that is digging in is checked separately and the result will be a success if any of the units are successful. I am not sure but it would be easy enough to test so I will have a look at some point.

Nor am I sure if 10000 is a typo or not. A rubble fire value of 1000 is the norm but I wonder if 10000 would actually make more sense?

[LordDeadwood]

In some scenarios I have given up trying to clear rubble presuming the scenario designer has set this due to historical reasons (only a presumption on my part!) and length of scenario.  Another interesting trick is "RUBBLE" only changes to "Rubble" when the hex is cleared, easy to miss this. 

If the clearing engineer unit has less than 100 pers its chance of success will be reduced accordingly.

No, I do not think the number of men changes the probability for rubble clearance in any way. When the manual says "The probability that the rubble will be cleared in the hex is half the Digging-In Parameter Data value per turn", it means literally that.

I am not saying that this is how it should be but this is how it is.

John

I just ran a test scenario with France 40. Standard PDT digging in value of 4%, so 2% for clearing rubble. One French engineer battalion (247 men, quality B) cleared the rubble in 10, 30, and 90 turns on three consecutive runs. This seems to be statistically in line with the 2% chance per turn. Then I did the same with two engineer battalions, 247 men each. They cleared the rubble in 4, 5, 19, and 8 turns in four consecutive runs! So it certainly seems as if extra units equal less time...

[Green]

In some scenarios I have given up trying to clear rubble presuming the scenario designer has set this due to historical reasons (only a presumption on my part!) and length of scenario.  Another interesting trick is "RUBBLE" only changes to "Rubble" when the hex is cleared, easy to miss this. 

If the clearing engineer unit has less than 100 pers its chance of success will be reduced accordingly.

No, I do not think the number of men changes the probability for rubble clearance in any way. When the manual says "The probability that the rubble will be cleared in the hex is half the Digging-In Parameter Data value per turn", it means literally that.

I am not saying that this is how it should be but this is how it is.

John

I just ran a test scenario with France 40. Standard PDT digging in value of 4%, so 2% for clearing rubble. One French engineer battalion (247 men, quality B) cleared the rubble in 10, 30, and 90 turns on three consecutive runs. This seems to be statistically in line with the 2% chance per turn. Then I did the same with two engineer battalions, 247 men each. They cleared the rubble in 4, 5, 19, and 8 turns in four consecutive runs! So it certainly seems as if extra units equal less time...

The variability is high so you need a reasonably large sample size. Your results suggest a pattern but anything is possible. Perhaps if you repeated your test the results would show the opposite pattern.

I think it is easier to see what is happening if you increase the % in the PDT. I did a test with the digging in percentage set to 100%. So the rubble clearing probability is 50%. A test consisted of a single turn which is equivalent to flipping a coin. I tried this 20 times with a engineer company consisting of a single man. He cleared the rubble 9 times out of 20. So this looks like 50% to me as tossing a coin 20 times and getting 9 heads (or tails) is exactly the sort of result you would expect statistically since the average would be 10.

I then tried it 20 times with a stack of 4 engineer battalions, each with over 500 men. They cleared the rubble 11 times. Exactly the sort of result you would expect for 50%. If the percentage was increased from 50% in any significant way the you would expect something quite different. If the chance was doubled then obviously the stack would have cleared the rubble 20 times out of 20. I could have kept testing but I decided before starting that 20 would be sufficient.

This is not proof that a stack does not have an advantage of some sort. But it strongly suggests that number of men is irrelevant. And if a stack does have an advantage, it cannot be because the digging in % is increased by some factor or that each unit does its own separate test, as these would have produced very different results. So I am struggling to imagine what sort of advantage it could be.  

John

[Lethal]

Indeed, the "100 man" rule refers to bridging and minefields.

We all understand these types of rules are best guesses for gameplay. I don't think it unreasonable to stretch this to other engineer tasks but I am sure these issues have already been discussed in the head shed. But as the rules indicate, currently only bridging and minefield performance is reduced once the 100 man threshold is breached.