What does Combat +1 mean?

[Runyan99]

Any idea? How do those bonuses HQ units bestow actually work? Is it a mystery? +1 what?

[offtaskagain]

It's mostly a symbolic number. The real effect is to raise the firepower of subordinate units.

[Michael Emrys]

There was a thread on this recently. I tried to find it but without success. But basically the poster ran some tests to try to reveal what the actual consequences were for the +1 and +2 bonuses. According to his tests (and there was some question as to how conclusive they were), a +1 bonus has the same effect as increasing firepower by 15%. A +2 bonus had the same effect as increasing it by ~50%.

Someone else replied that he thought a +1 bonus was equivalent to raising the squad to the next experience level and a +2 to raising it two levels.

Michael

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Quantitatively, how does shot accuracy (specifically with PIATS, 'Zooks or Schrecks) benefit from a combat bonus? The manual states that the to-hit chance will increase... By what measure? If my 'Zook team is near my Coy HQ[+2 combat] will their shots be 50% more sure?

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Someone else replied that he thought a +1 bonus was equivalent to raising the squad to the next experience level and a +2 to raising it two levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The manual does not explicitly state this... Has BTS ever addressed it? How would one prove this? I mean, it would be a nice feature to take advantage of - if true. Although, I guess one already does, to some extent, if he maintains C&C and delegates platoons' missions based upon leadership bonuses such as stealth & combat skill.

[Michael Emrys]

Yes, it would be nice to have answers to the above two questions.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

There was a thread on this recently. I tried to find it but without success. But basically the poster ran some tests to try to reveal what the actual consequences were for the +1 and +2 bonuses. According to his tests (and there was some question as to how conclusive they were), a +1 bonus has the same effect as increasing firepower by 15%. A +2 bonus had the same effect as increasing it by ~50%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thread in question is here.

In it you will find a second test run that showed no discernable difference between a +2 bonus unit and a no-bonus unit. But the sample size was too small in both tests to be conclusive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Someone else replied that he thought a +1 bonus was equivalent to raising the squad to the next experience level and a +2 to raising it two levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As best as I can tell, this is not so. Higher experience infantry squads have a higher FP rating that can be seen when targeting enemy units. There is no differnce in FP for units under the command of a HQ with + combat bonus (at least, if there is it is hidden), even though the manual specifically states that there is.

A + combat bonus has the following effects: any AT gun or AT team (Bazooka, ect.) will have a higher to hit chance; on-board mortars using the HQ unit as a spotter will have a tighter shell fall pattern.

If there is any effect upon infantry FP, it does not show up in the targeting info, and no one has conclusively proven the existance of a hidden modifier. It is possible (gulp) that there is a bug causing this.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[James Crowley]

I think this thread, and others like it, of which there are many, indicate that there is a very positive requirement for a much more explicit manual for CMBB than was provided with CMBO.

Whilst in many ways the existing manual was admirable, I feel that the implicit, descriptive approach it takes leaves a lot to be desired.

I appreciate that BTS did not want to design a "play-by-numbers" game and that they intended it to be something of a "hands-on" learning-by expereience situation.

The problem with this approach is that while it works well enough in the real world, it is less effective in someone else's interpretation of the real world.

To some extent the creators of this "world" need to define how their interpretation works; they have to be explanatory rather than just descriptive.

We know, for example, because we have been told, that the three-man squad is just a grahical representation, not actually just three men. But to the uninitiated this could easily be misinterpreted.

How many newbies (or maybe not just newbies) know that, for instance, there are no degrees of hull-down, only hulldown or not hull down. So all that careful manouevering was just a waste of time.

That plus lots of other info. is scattered and thus effectively lost on the forum. It really needs to be in the manual!

That, together with some charts and tables showing, for instance, relative values for cover and protection in different terrain types etc.

In this way we understand how the designers have ordered their "world", the abstractions and compromises they have used, so as to be better able to play efficiently and with maximum enjoyment.

The frustrations engendered through lack of understanding would be greatly reduced as would the queries posted on this board.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Crowley:

...relative values for cover and protection in different terrain types etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This comment just bought something to mind. I know that tests have been done to reveal how far an LOS can penetrate into various kinds of concealing terrain, but has anyone ever found out if additional protection is afforded by placing units deeper into cover?

Michael

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

...but has anyone ever found out if additional protection is afforded by placing units deeper into cover?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and yes it does. It is not a dramatic difference. For example, troops on the edge of woods may have 14% percent exposure, and 20m in they would have 12%. Those may not be the exact numbers, but going from memory its close to that.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Yes, and yes it does. It is not a dramatic difference. For example, troops on the edge of woods may have 14% percent exposure, and 20m in they would have 12%. Those may not be the exact numbers, but going from memory its close to that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Vanir. I was hoping that was the case, but didn't know for sure.

Michael

[PiggDogg]

I will comment on the morale bonus - the heart.

My experience is that a platoon in command control range of a double heart leader will take almost annihilating casualties from enemy infantry fire. They usually will hold their ground until almost to the last man. :eek: They are great for holding VLs until help arrives.

Cheers, Richard

[WineCape]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Crowley:

I think this thread, and others like it, of which there are many, indicate that there is a very positive requirement for a much more explicit manual for CMBB than was provided with CMBO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye, I second this and have mentioned this more than a year ago. Well put James Crowley.

Been playing this beautiful game for quite some time now and certain game "mechanics/concepts" still allude me, mostly because I've forgotten what have been written/explained here on the Forum regarding these particular subjects (p-faust effective killing ranges, re-targeting of artillery springs to mind here )

I don't mind paying $5.00 - $10.00 more for this game so that these extra information are inluded in the CM:BB manual. Heck, the SA Rand vs. US$ exchange rate is going for the dogs anyway here in South Africa, and we have nothing to do with Zimbabwe's mess! A few bucks extra is not going to make matters worse in the grand scheme of things!

Kind regards,

b]Charl Theron

------------------

"This wine is too good for toast-drinking, my dear. You don’t want to mix emotions up with a wine like that. You lose the taste."

-- Ernest Hemingway to Count Mippipopolous in "The Sun Also Rises" (1926)

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Crowley:

I think this thread, and others like it, of which there are many, indicate that there is a very positive requirement for a much more explicit manual for CMBB than was provided with CMBO.

Whilst in many ways the existing manual was admirable, I feel that the implicit, descriptive approach it takes leaves a lot to be desired.

I appreciate that BTS did not want to design a "play-by-numbers" game and that they intended it to be something of a "hands-on" learning-by expereience situation.

The problem with this approach is that while it works well enough in the real world, it is less effective in someone else's interpretation of the real world.

To some extent the creators of this "world" need to define how their interpretation works; they have to be explanatory rather than just descriptive.

We know, for example, because we have been told, that the three-man squad is just a grahical representation, not actually just three men. But to the uninitiated this could easily be misinterpreted.

How many newbies (or maybe not just newbies) know that, for instance, there are no degrees of hull-down, only hulldown or not hull down. So all that careful manouevering was just a waste of time.

That plus lots of other info. is scattered and thus effectively lost on the forum. It really needs to be in the manual!

That, together with some charts and tables showing, for instance, relative values for cover and protection in different terrain types etc.

In this way we understand how the designers have ordered their "world", the abstractions and compromises they have used, so as to be better able to play efficiently and with maximum enjoyment.

The frustrations engendered through lack of understanding would be greatly reduced as would the queries posted on this board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well these questions come up only when we get really really deep into the game. and in this area not having an exact description is realisitic:after all, if you had a great platoon leader can you tell by exactly how much he is helping improve the unit in firepower then if he moved far away?

[JonS]

quote from Michael emrys:

---------------------------------------------Someone else replied that he thought a +1 bonus was equivalent to raising the squad to the next experience level and a +2 to raising it two levels.

---------------------------------------------

and Vanirs' reponse:

---------------------------------------------

As best as I can tell, this is not so.

---------------------------------------------

I'm inclined to agree with Vanir because ... if a Crack squad was in command of a +2 leader, what would be the benefit :confused:

Regards

JonS

[SurlyBen]

I think that the idea of the combat bonus being equivilent to raising the firepower to the next level comes from the fact that the command bonus appears to do just that. That is, a regular squad under the command of a +1 command bonus HQ has the same order delay as a veteran squad under the command of a regular ol' HQ. I think (but am not 100% sure) that command radius is affected in the same way. Somewhere there is a table that shows this, but you can easily test it too.

One problem with determining what the combat bonus means is that we don't really know what firepower means in terms of killing power and suppression. (This didn't occur to me until after I ran my (failed) tests to try and figure out the combat bonus.) I mean, if a squad comes under fire from 100 points of firepower for a minute I have a gut feeling (backed up by experience in hundreds of games of CM) that it'll get suppressed and take some casualties, but I have no real idea exactly how many, or how likely it is to be suppressed.

All I know for certain is that for a given amount of firepower you are likely to see a lot of variation in the number of kills. I have some idea that the curve that shows how likely you are to get a certain amount of kills will not have a sharp peak at a single number (hence the large standard deviation in my combat bonus results.)

Surlyben

[Wreck]

Ben -

I did some tests a while back during a HMG argument thread, which indicated with fairly good confidence that the casualties caused by firepower are proportionate to the "effective" firepower (firepower applied as reduced by cover). IIRC, There seemed to be about 1 man lost per 300 effective firepower. The range is still high -- might be 200, might be 400. But that's the ballpark.

As for morale, I have not tested it. But I would be very surprised if morale effects were not also proportionate to effective firepower.

[Slapdragon]

Part of the problem everyone faces is that the game purposely obscure certian factors in order to keep a person guessing and throw some wild cards into events. That is why there is no published information on the method used to determine AT assets in squads, effect of weak point penetrations, effect of leadership, error rate for artillery, etc.

This in fact does a better job of simulating real life uncertianty over combat. A commander knows his platoon HQ is pretty good, and that they really keep the moral together, but he will be unable to predict how long they will stay in place under a battering from Tigers. He can make some guesses, but not by the stop watch.

[Redwolf]

I tested the combat 1+ and 2+ values for mortars.

A mortar under control of an extra-combat HQ gets better accuracy. A 1+ HQ with a regular mortar gets the same accuracy as a veteran mortar without HQ. I had to dig up details, but I made sufficient testing to be statistically convinced. In special I found that two accuracy boosters for a regular 3" mortar (either vetran and 1+ HQ or regular and 2+ HQ) give them a very decent chance to kill a Pz IV - class tank :-]

The experience of the HQ did not matter.

[SurlyBen]

Wreck: is that per minute? And against what kind of squad. My test had a mere 117 points of effective firepower, and over 90 runs (for the no bonus HQ) I was gettting an everage of 4 kills per minute (against an american squad). There were a lot of results between 2 and 6, very few outside of that range. For 90 tests, my results looked like this:

Here's a graph of number of kills vs number of times that many kills were achieved (over 90 one minute runs...)

(I suspect that the number of fives is a lucky result, and is a bit higher than expected. The reason I think this is because of the shape of the curve from the +1 and +2 combat results)

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

I tested the combat 1+ and 2+ values for mortars.

A mortar under control of an extra-combat HQ gets better accuracy. A 1+ HQ with a regular mortar gets the same accuracy as a veteran mortar without HQ. I had to dig up details, but I made sufficient testing to be statistically convinced. In special I found that two accuracy boosters for a regular 3" mortar (either vetran and 1+ HQ or regular and 2+ HQ) give them a very decent chance to kill a Pz IV - class tank :-]

The experience of the HQ did not matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought this was the case with infantry units as well. IIRC, the lower the quality, the more rounds are used quicker and the more inaccurate those rounds fired are. So a green inf squad would waste 40 rounds of ammo while killing 3 people in about 3 minutes (as an example), while a crack inf squad would go through 40 rounds in 6 minutes and kill 6 people. By analogy, I thought the combat bonuses increased the accuracy of the units in C&C and selectivity of the targets fired at. Could be wrong though.

[Wreck]

Ben, it is not related to minutes. It was total firepower outgoing. I used German HMGs which come with 85 "shots". Each shot has the firepower shown when you target; I think I used a range where the FP was 66. So the total firepower applied was 85x66 = 5610. That was applied into cover of various sorts, and ended up eliminating so many men, etc.

Although it is possible, I doubt the time to fire has any bearing on the results; and so it will not matter how long the firing takes. So I did not factor in time at all.

[SurlyBen]

I see. My results are at least close to yours, then. ROF was 5-6 shots per minute. Thats around 6-700 total FP, average of 4 kills...

[James Crowley]

I would just like to reiterate that in asking for more explicit details in the manual I am not asking, necessarily, for numbers or percentages, merely an indication as to how things work; in other words, some more definition.

I used to spend ages trying to get my tanks as hull-down as possible, so as to provide them with more protection. But this was a complete waste of time as there were no degrees of hull-down factored-in to the game.

Ditto with the notion extra protection from being placed deeper into woods. All I need to know is that it is factored-in, not the numbers. Then I know it is not a waste of time manoeuvering for the extra cover.

In other words, the designer is telling me what is in the game, but the "secrets" of precisely how it works are, quite rightly and realistically, kept from me.

As I said in the previous post, it is difficult enough to learn from experience in the real-world. When you are dealing with a whole lot of different outcomes, often as the result of fuzzy-logic, it is difficult to ascertain what is or isn't actually factored-in. A little more explanation would help to alleviate that situation and save folks the effort of experimenting and running trials which often prove nothing much either way.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Alright, folks. This is weird, but I have now been able to get the target command to display an increase in FP for units under the command of a + combat HQ. I have no idea why is wouldn't work before as I have tried on several occasions. But it is working now, at least in the particular test I set up.

The answer is that each + adds 10% to the FP. This is for regular troops, I haven't tried any others.

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]