Biltong's Campaign Rules - Cont.

[Max BrauHaus]

I guess it depends on how Favor would have been used in a real war situation. Would you start complaining to your CO about the date of your next action without first knowing his plans? That'd be a sure way to loose favor! (As far as that goes, should you be able to affect the date of a Defensive action?)

And likewise with the size of your force, why start deploring for more when you don't know what you are going to have for the next attack.

Replacements are different, and may be a good place to make the player decide beforehand. I imagine every commander was wanting the best replacements possible, and probably told their CO on many occasions.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Biltong:

So we have both Minor and Tactical... Now which is greater? What would be the difference?

Minor is Minor, and Tactical is just like in idiomatic English, euphemistically admitting that you "won", in some sense, but almost Pyrhhic (sp?). You 'won', but if this kind of "winning" keeps up, you're fired!

I imagine I better take this to the big board...

As for your comments re matching CMBB - exactly my thoughts as well, why try and re-research something that the best has already done

Allow me to put those two statements by you together, and suggest that you take it to CMBB instead- let me offer you an alternative which might be worthy of considering.

Why not use the calculated 'points' in the CMBB AAR as one's "Favor" points? The people at BTS have already gone to some effort, we believe, to make that final "97% , 3%" victory calculation in the most meaningful way possible. Instead of duplicating that effort, and reinventing the wheel, at least partially, we could say that a 97% victory adds 47 Favor Points; a "35% , 65%" defeat would subtract 15 Favor Points, ( the range of { 0, 100 } is remapped to { -50 , +50 } ).

The benefits would be leveraging BTS's effort, (that number reflects multi factors), being more accessible to newbies, (by referring to a well known part of CMBB), fitting in with CMBB, and just plain fitting in with the KISS manifesto.

Downside- Favor points are now of a different magnitude than before, ( "Trade in *fifty* Favor points to alter die" ), but because we have a limited use for FPs so far, this wouldn't be a big impact...?

But what do y'all BCR junkies think?

Thanx Eden - seeing more and more posts from you - feedback much appreciated

Biltong

Aw shucks. I have to say that I'm not a grog; any thing I ever say here I just base on common sense, and I don't avow to having any true knowledge of history. But I *am* a ruthless proofreader... Are you *sure* you like feedback? Here's another one, section 28:

"Can use 10 points of FAVOR to alter die by 1"

Ah, great- I want to change the die by 4, so that's 40 points. ( or IS it? )

I suggest either:

"Can trade in 10pts of F to alter die by *maximum* of 1"

or

"Can alter die by 1 for each 10 pts of F traded in".

I'm pretty sure you mean the former; just for the next newbie.

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Max BrauHaus:

Would you start complaining to your CO about the date of your next action without first knowing his plans? That'd be a sure way to loose favor!

Right, you'd lose ("lose", btw) ten points of it!

So far I haven't complained, ( I mean, used up my favor), I simply do what I'm told. I would much much rather do what you talk about next, using my favor to *get more troops and/or weapons!!!*

I imagine every commander was wanting the best replacements possible, and probably told their CO on many occasions.

And if the commander was 'favored', (which means he must have been winning, recently), then surely he had a better chance of getting goodies...? But that's not in the rules. ( Yet? )

Eden

[Max BrauHaus]

Eden - you actually missed one spelling mistake. What I meant to say was that you would lose flavor, much like over-chewed gum.

I am nothing, if not lost, without a spell checker.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Max BrauHaus:

What I meant to say was that you would lose flavor, much like over-chewed gum.

Yes, I've lost lots o' flavor, but I'm sure it'll turn up around here someday.

That "over-chewed gum" sounds like my Battle #03- 100% / 0%. It was a *bad* map for the AI to do an ME on. Ooops! Sorry guys, but better to give than to receive.

While we're on the subject of favor... I captured three Platoon HQs, and two Co HQs, which struck me as the one thing which would impress my commander alot more than knocking out a few weapons...?

These are Soviets, of course, so I guess maybe they are HQs today, yet were vodka farmers yesterday. Still, they probably have at least a few super secret maps and whatnot- surely capturing all those guys would be a coup?

So what does Max BrauHaus think? Have I over-chewed the subject of favor? Are these ideas JuicyFruit™ good, or Bazooka Joe™ no?

Eden

[TikiBob]

Would someone mind clueing me in on what this discussion is all about? What's the current most up to date version of Billtongs rules? Is there another coming out soon? I heard something about a program that does it all for you? Something about excel pages?

How bout a FAQ for Billtongs??

Thanks,

Ken

[Max BrauHaus]

Eden,

I am all for a review of the Favor system, the points, and their possible uses. You're right - I'd say that capture of HQ units (esp. Company and higher) would be more impressive than your regular Joe (or Ivan, as the case may be).

[Biltong]

Originally posted by TikiBob:

Would someone mind clueing me in on what this discussion is all about? What's the current most up to date version of Billtongs rules? Is there another coming out soon? I heard something about a program that does it all for you? Something about excel pages?

How bout a FAQ for Billtongs??

Thanks,

Ken

Hiya Ken,

They're arguing about how 'Favor' should have worked if it was done right the first time... I sit back and copy their comments into an update doc and then later I cut out the bits that I don't understand and copy what's left into the rules - seems a bit confusing, but since I don't get to play the rules it doesn't matter too much...

For the latest version go to the 1st post of this thread...

next update on Fri

Auto Parameters - see 1st post as well

Favor to be investigated soon!

[ December 14, 2002, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Biltong ]

[Biltong]

Minor is Minor, and Tactical is just like in idiomatic English, euphemistically admitting that you "won", in some sense, but almost Pyrhhic (sp?). You 'won', but if this kind of "winning" keeps up, you're fired!

Ok - I'll keep the Pyrhhic bit and cut out the rest - we need a bit of class in the rules.

Why not use the calculated 'points' in the CMBB AAR as one's "Favor" points? The people at BTS have already gone to some effort, ...

The benefits would be leveraging BTS's effort, (that number reflects multi factors), being more accessible to newbies, (by referring to a well known part of CMBB), fitting in with CMBB, and just plain fitting in with the KISS manifesto.

I like the simplicity, but I'm worried that we'll have nothing to do?... Won't see where the Favor comes from? No after action satisfaction type thing... Some might like it, but I suspect some might not..

Feedback guys?

...But I *am* a ruthless proofreader... Are you *sure* you like feedback?

You want to take on the Great Scalpel!!? Think you can make me bleed more than him!!! Hah - no chance in hell!! Bring it on!!

Here's another one, section 28:

"Can use 10 points of FAVOR to alter die by 1"

Ah, great- I want to change the die by 4, so that's 40 points. ( or IS it? )

I suggest either:

"Can trade in 10pts of F to alter die by *maximum* of 1"

or

"Can alter die by 1 for each 10 pts of F traded in".

I'm pretty sure you mean the former; just for the next newbie.

Come on... that's just a teensy scratch - If you're aspiring to take on the Great Scalpel we'll have to see a lot more blood than that!!

Fixed in 30 seconds...

Try again

Biltong

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Biltong:

I like the simplicity, but I'm worried that we'll have nothing to do?

"Nothing to do"!!! LOL! Ok, I think I know what you mean; sorta, kinda. But honestly, there's *plenty* of stuff to do! In regards this idea for Favor- well this would be our solid, understandable, forward compatible, quick easy *baseline* paradigm for assessing favor. If you'll notice my other post above, it didn't take more than one game until I had found a circumstance, ( capturing Co HQs ), where it seemed to me that perhaps there would be a place for *extra* calulations wrt Favor.

More relevantly, I think, the place where in re Favor there will/could/should be "plenty to do" would be in deciding what to do with the Favor accrued... whether to convince command to delay the attack until wind dies down, or try to snatch that "extra" webelwerfer from B Co, et cetera.

Won't see where the Favor comes from?

It comes from BTS's grog-savvy black-box estimation algorithm of how successful we are at battle. Notice that in the rewrite, when we (allegedly?) will have more, and more sophisticated victory conditions, we will still be right on the money by adopting the above.

But I think it's clear, (I think ), so like you say, let the votes be cast...

You want to take on the Great Scalpel!!? Think you can make me bleed more than him!!! Hah - no chance in hell!! Bring it on!!

Uh oh- did I say that? Who's The Great Scalpel?

Fixed in 30 seconds...

...and all the other identical mentions? Thx.

Try again

OK. (Please notice previous post in re small PDF goofs, btw).

In 9, if Enemy force becomes "Unknown", we select "Random" for 10,11,12. Ergo on 10,11,12, there really should be a "Random" cell after the other cells, since it is a valid result/choice.

Also in 9, the result table indicates

< 8 Yes

7 > No

which according to usage in the rest of the document seems to say "8 or less => Yes ; 7 or more => No". Clearly there was a typo, but which typo was it? The #, or the answer, or...?

This condition, (or similar) exists also in sections 11, 12a, 17, 25, shoot maybe more.

Throughout the document there is inconsistency with usage of the > and < symbols- sometimes they mean "less/more than or equal to" and sometimes they mean "strictly less/more". I'd suggest picking one symbology and sticking with it- we will always find our own ways to be confused without needing the help of symbol ambiguity.

Section 33- "If Time not Day or..." I came across this one today; it's Dusk, and I don't have the knowledge of whether that counts as "Day" for the luftwaffe...? Suggest either "not Mid-Day" or "is Night".

Sections 9, 10, et cetera correspond in number to the parameters sheet, but 1 through 8 do not. Or 1 through 6 do not, or something. Consider renumbering 1 through 8, the "pre-roll" sections, as "0.1 , 0.2 , 0.3 ..." to help refer to them and distinguish them from the others which mostly follow the param sheet.

Generally, attacking the rules with a flow chart mind would most certainly help. Like cascading "if" statements- if "this condition" then "read this blob" else read next if statement. Section 01, date, right side instructions column:

Is this your first Game? [Y enter blah blah, go to somewhere else yadda]

Is this an immediate Attack? [Y add one time slot; if was night then dawn next day, so day++ also, goto X]

Are you still here maggot? [Y that means you roll like a normal person; blah blah]

Is that enough for now? I might have more typos or something when I understand everything...

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Dang- it's 'Pyrrhic' , after Pyrrhus, who wiped himself out in order to beat the Romans.

Eden

[Biltong]

Favor – You thought we’re moving on to Favor!? Hah! No, we’re back to last week:

Unit Exp Gain… Replacement…. Problem

Claude “The Scalpel” sends this:

I continue to bang my head against the thinking block trying to find ways to

improve the “Experience” experience.

As I see it, currently the player has little hope (or motivation) of ever

having troops better than the replacement level. The higher the current

point value of the unit above the replacement norm, the farther it drops

when substitutes show up to fill in for casualties (and there will be

bodies). And if the existing unit is of lower quality than the

replacements, then the commander has a strong incentive to kill off those

troops to get the higher quality newbies. (I can just picture a commander

near the successful end of a battle, herding his low experience units into

open ground, and then calling in friendly indirect fire on their heads.)

The trick is to allow a unit to keep experience gains if they do not suffer

catastrophic loss events, while discouraging commanders from slaughtering

low experience units for higher quality generic replacements. Oh, and the

solution should apply the KISS doctrine.

Taking that into account, my proposal modifies the experience gain/loss

based on one of five casualty states a unit can be in at the end of a

battle. The states and their effects are:

NONE. No casualties. (YEA!) Compute experience gain/loss

normally.

MODERATE. 1/3 or less of the unit strength are casualties. The

unit keeps its before battle experience, neither gaining or losing points.

HEAVY. More than 1/3 and less than half of the unit strength are

casualties. If the unit is over halfway to the next experience level, drop

to the halfway point. Else drop to the base experience value for the

current level of skill.

CATASTROPHIC. 1/2 or more of the unit soldiers are casualties,

but at least one person remains functional. If the unit is over halfway to

its next experience level, drop to the base points for current level. Else

drop to the halfway point of the next lower experience level.

TOTAL. Unit eliminated. Use the Replacement level experience,

if equal to or less than the current level. Else drop to the base points of

the next level down. This helps discourage heartless commanders from

slaughtering low point units for the high point replacements.

Examples of these casualty states on subsequent (post replacement)

experiences are:

NONE. A six person MG team starts the battle with 16 experience (Regular),

kills a tank (work with me here), gets rattled, and loses no soldiers. They

end the battle with six warriors and 18 experience points.

MODERATE. A six person MG team starts the battle with 16 experience

(Regular), kills a tank and loses two soldiers. They end the battle with 16

experience.

HEAVY. A ten person squad starts the battle with 16 experience (Regular),

kills a tank and loses four soldiers. They end the battle with 10

experience (still Regular). If the unit had started with 18-24 experience

points (over half-way to next level), they would end with 17 experience

points.

CATASTROPHIC. A ten person squad starts the battle with 18 (over half-way to

next level) experience (Regular), kills a tank and loses from five to nine

soldiers. They end the battle with 10 experience (still Regular). If the

unit had started with 17 experience points, they would end with 7 experience

points (Green).

TOTAL. If the replacements are Veteran level then a six person MG team

starting the battle with 16 experience (Regular), killing a tank and losing

all soldiers, they end the battle with 5 experience (Green). If instead the

replacements were Regular, then the new team would have 10 experience.

Now to run the above against existing campaign data:

Using my campaign instance, I find that my units suffer a casualty state of

"HEAVY" or worse about 9 percent of the time. So (assuming probability does

not hit till it approaches unity) after the first ten battles, a unit will

be at the (15 point) Regular experience level. Assuming the best, and it

gets hit with a "HEAVY" effect, it drops to ten points of experience, still

a Regular (barely).

Now with average experience and casualty progression from this point, the

unit will not get hit with a "HEAVY" or greater till it gets to 20

experience points. If it now receives a "HEAVY", it drops back to 17

experience points (it passed the halfway point at 18). From here it is only

eight experience points from becoming Veteran! With probability holding,

the unit should make it to that level successfully.

Gaining the next level gets dicey from here. There is a difference of 35

points separating the start of the Veteran and Crack levels. The halfway

point is 18 points from the start, almost twice the distance that the

occurrence of "HEAVY" or worse events happen.

Most likely, a commander wishing to get a Veteran unit up to Crack will have

to consciously start keeping that unit safe, holding it away from the battle

line, for use only as a last ditch reserve. This reduces the flexibility of

that commander in conducting the mission. This is a commander's

prerogative, and not necessarily a bad thing. I like the quandary this

presents. You get real reluctant to risk those high experience units,

especially when it takes sooooo long to get them there in the first place.

But not committing them also significantly reduces your combat potential.

Anyway, that is my idea on improving the “Experience” experience. It reduces

the effect of the replacement quality on unit progression, but not totally.

I look forward to your thoughts on this.

Sincerely,

Claude

"The Scalpel"

[Biltong]

“Won't see where the Favor comes from? “ It comes from BTS's grog-savvy black-box estimation algorithm of how successful we are at battle. Notice that in the rewrite, when we (allegedly?) will have more, and more sophisticated victory conditions, we will still be right on the money by adopting the above.

I missed that – tell me more… do you know what they’re planning or where can I read about it?

Who's The Great Scalpel?

Claude McDaniel – The Serial Slasher of the Unclear!!

Check t’morrow night’s Update & Unresolved Issues and you’ll see the maniac in action…

There’s 24? Pages of ‘issues’ and a goodly chunk is his attempts to convince me to make BCR half understandable.

OK. (Please notice previous post in re small PDF goofs, btw).

PDF goofs… if it’s the PDF’s on one of the websites it’s out of my bailawick (spelling?)

In 9, if Enemy force becomes "Unknown", we select "Random" for 10,11,12. Ergo on 10,11,12, there really should be a "Random" cell after the other cells, since it is a valid result/choice.

There we go!! - Listed – Enough errors for everyone to have a go – let them roll in – I’ve got a 3 week holiday coming – all set aside for cleaning purposes

Throughout the document there is inconsistency with usage of the > and < symbols….

Already fixed – new symbols are ‘< 9’ = ‘less than 9’ and ‘9+’ = ‘nine plus’, i.e. 9 and more than 9.

Section 33- "If Time not Day or..." I came across this one today; it's Dusk, and I don't have the knowledge of whether that counts as "Day" for the luftwaffe...? Suggest either "not Mid-Day" or "is Night".

As I said… – changed to ‘Mid Day’

Sections 9, 10, et cetera correspond in number to the parameters sheet, but 1 through 8 do not. Or 1 through 6 do not, or something. Consider renumbering 1 through 8, the "pre-roll" sections, as "0.1 , 0.2 , 0.3 ..." to help refer to them and distinguish them from the others which mostly follow the param sheet.

Good idea – the whole numbering system is up for a revamp as is… on the list

Generally, attacking the rules with a flow chart mind would most certainly help. Like cascading "if" statements- if "this condition" then "read this blob" else read next if statement. Section 01, date, right side instructions column:

not too sure about this one – hell of a lot of parameters interacting – that If statement would be something to see But it can definitely be used in some restricted cases. My idea was to follow the parameters as they come up on the CMBB QB screen – to make it easier for the plyayers. You fill in one and read the next rule…etc. etc… got a bit corrupt with all the changes…. Scheduled for a cleanup.

Is that enough for now? I might have more typos or something when I understand everything...

As I told Scalpel: Don’t worry that there’s a hell of a lot at the moment… Send them all now when everything is still fresh… soon you will do things without thinking/reading and then the problems remain unresolved. I list everything and eventually they will all be addressed (touch wood)

Thanx for your effort Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Biltong:

I missed [sophisticated VicCon] – tell me more… do you know what they’re planning or where can I read about it?

Alas, no, not really, not if I take your meaning. I recall a thread, (or two?), where I or someone else said, "It would be nice to have victory be definable as recon'ing gun location, or simply moving the front forward, or destroying all enemy armor at all costs, or delaying enemy sufficiently, et cetera." Whereupon, (ISTR), Steve or someone has come in and said something telling yet vague, like "Yeah, yeah- don't worry, you'll be pleased" or something. Sorry, but all I recall are hinty vague things; certainly I haven't seen Steve come out and *list* what will be, or anything, no.

Anyway, the point was, using the points in AAR screen will make us forward compatible with anything they happen to dream up.

Check t’morrow night’s Update & Unresolved Issues and you’ll see the maniac in action…

I'm there. I hope it's worth missing Green Acres, too.

"Bailiwick", from Bailiff, and Wic, village, (related to VICinity). Good one.

I’ve got a 3 week holiday coming

And you've earned one, just as soon as the rules are done.

changed to ‘Mid Day’

Oh really? So luftwaffe shouldn't be used at Dawn? Curious. I just spent 300 bucks on strafing ME109s, in my first (tactical) defeat of the campaign. I should have spent it on anything else, but your rules made me buy air, and there was nothing to strafe!!! Dreadful, dreadful battle. 9 deaths. I lost the IIC, although I picked up a JagerSomething from the repo auction. I'm quite distinctly nonplussed.

not too sure about this one – hell of a lot of parameters interacting – that If statement would be something to see

From your comments, I think you misunderstand me; you seem to be in fact agreeing with me although you don't think you are. In that example I posted last time, what I listed was only the *right* hand box of that section, whatever section it was; most of the document remains exactly as it is. As you say, it follows the screens; very good. It is mostly the right hand "blurb box" which could be turned into a completely unequivocal flow chart style. Those 'ifs' listed there would mostly end with the statement "proceed to next section", while the cases which are exceptions might say "jump to section X". Look at it again, maybe you'll see it differently.

OK! I've got another possible prettifier, in _Note 8_, concerning Immediate Assaults and whatnot. ( First, I assume that "Weather" is one of the things altered back or forth by one? ) Consider adding the Section # for each thing and listing them in order:

[section 39] Temperature

[section 40] Weather (?)

[section 41] Wind

[section 43] Map Type

[section 44] Tree Cover

[section 45] Hilliness

[section 46] Damage

Ahhhh.

Hmmmm, put "Favor" on backburner, eh? OK, then, I'm off to peruse Mssr du Scalpel's note- let me see what is being prescribed for the experience ills, hmmm.

Eden

[Ultraman]

I haven't even downloaded this yet (it's finals week) but have been reading this post closely for the past few days.

I hope you'll forgive this useless post, but, speaking for both myself and my roommate (who has downloaded it)... We love you Biltong! !

One more week and I'll dive into this thing.

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Ultraman:

...I hope you'll forgive this useless post, ...

One more week and I'll dive into this thing.

"useless posts" like these are most welcome

Your timing is good - the latest update of BCR (see post below) should be a lot "friendlier".

Biltong

[Biltong]

Friday … Time for the weekly BCR Update

BCR v1.4

A few modifiers and Most of the Notes have changed:

I think it’s imperative to download this set – it will influence your campaign considerably - hopefully for the better

Most important changes since last week’s version:

1. Experience Gain Solution implemented – Note: Replacements are still causing a problem – see my post with Scalpel’s possible solution a bit higher up.

2. Clarified how Auxiliary Experience is determined.

3. Clarified how partial units left over from an Emergency Reorganisation march off the map & later rejoin the fight.

4. Parameter Sheet cleaned up and Scrounged units now in line with the rest and rules adjusted to make this clearer.

5. Renamed Core Sheet to ‘Battle Group’.

6. Revamped the Battle Group replacement Procedure

7. Cleaned up Battle Group Sheet

Update & Unresolved Issues v1.4

BCR has now reached a stage where I doubt it will be necessary to restart a campaign due to changes that will still be implemented. The ‘large’ ones are in the bag, but there are still a lot of ‘small’ changes that need to be done, esp. to make the rules less confusing.

Note: In the future we will only be updating BCR et al every 2nd Friday to give the BCR Team and BCR campaigners more time to discuss, implement and test changes.

If you have a problem with one of the facets of the rules – have a look here and see if it is listed – if not post: and it will be prioritized & investigated.

Next on the list is finalizing Experience Gain (no 1 above) and then we move on to the Favor cleanup.

We are getting there…. :cool:

Max’s Auto Parameters v1.4

Max’s Auto Parameters has been updated to match the new 1.4 rules of course, and now includes a new sheet for calculation of the After Battle Parameters.

BCR Map Expansion List v1.4 & Map Pack 2

14 NEW MAPS ADDED!

If you haven’t tried this expansion yet, give it a spin – it’s easy – no rule changes at all! You are missing out on some really great battles!

Manstein22 has given us 14 more maps in Map Pack 2. Each one fine-tuned for a specific Battle Type, e.g.: Axis Probe etc.

Map Making Suggestions for BCR v1.4

For those of you who would like to contribute some maps… Have a look – all you need to know about making maps for BCR.

The designers would also love some feedback on their maps from the player POV… let them have it – good or bad – the end result will be better maps for everyone!

As for everything – get it here from the worlds fastest web masters!!!!

Scooby and SuperSulo

Next update: December 27!

Download and enjoy

From me & the BCR Team

A Happy and Prosperous Weekend.

Biltong

[ December 13, 2002, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Biltong ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Biltong:

Friday … Time for the weekly BCR Update

Yeehaw, yip yip!! (insert your ethnocentric cries of glee here. Actually I'm not from the South, but who's counting?). Bang, Bang! Just remember, people- fire into the *ground*, not into the *air*.

Print those doggies out and it's off to Starbucks with this (virtual) Marine!

The designers would also love some feedback on their maps from the player POV… let them have it – good or bad – the end result will be better maps for everyone!

OK.

_Manstein Fork Al AT_ is not- it is an allied defense. Unless I grossly misunderestand the naming scheme, (which is a good one- I've prodded other mappers to use a similar scheme)... To be accurate, the only flag I see as allies is on my setup zone, so... ?

Eden

[86smopuim]

I made an auto experience calculator modfication to the Bilton Rules version 1.4.

You have to take into account, I don't understand the rules and I don't know Excel.

I sent it to Biltong, hope he likes it.

If someone would like to check it out, make sure its correct I will email it to u.

cw at ponyshow dot com

Latest version track exp from battle to battle.

All u do is add your killd/events and you are done.

even calculates exp after replacements

[ December 14, 2002, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: 86smopuim ]

[TikiBob]

Uh, what's the differnce between what's on the Scooby site and the Supersolo site?

Thanks,

Ken

[Biltong]

Took the rest of last night off - but now 'm back!!

Max send me this mail (doing mails 1st)

Biltong, I saw Claude's good comment about casualties near the end of the Updates doc. I'd like to add that I think that vehicle/armor that end up being casualties aren't mostly from cold casualties to the crew themselves but some sort of mechanical casualty. Instead of losing the crew (and any gained experience) I think that the tank and crew would come back the next battle after repairs.

Fair enough: makes sense - how would one KISS it better? - Can we avoid the complication of a 'Special Parameter/Die roll/Note' - way, Guys?

BTW - Claude's note was/is:

13. Note 10 - Casualties. Please consider replacing the current text with

"Handle units (squads, individual soldiers, vehicles, etc.) missing from the

initial setup because of the Casualties (23) parameter like normal

casualties of combat. You replace them the next time you have a Normal

Replacement (56). The result of that die roll determines the quality of the

replacements."

[Apache]

Posting this just in case it is an issue.

There was an earlier post about whether anyone had tried any battles where the Axis forces were on the defence, to test the balance etc. I thought I might give it a try this weekend, if I get time.

I decided to have a look at the auto-parameter sheet to see what it rolled up for me and in tried 50 F9 presses with the date set to Nov 41. No Allied attack, assault or probe was generated. I then tried another 50 in December. Again, not one. Best that could be got is a ME. Is that right?

[Max BrauHaus]

Apache,

From those results it would seem something is wrong, but I just tested with the 1.4 version and got an Allied Assault on the third role.

The only modifier applied to the Battle Type is the date, and in all of November there is only a -1 modifier, making this the basic probabilities:

Axis Assaults - 20%

Axis Attack, Probe - 10% each

ME - 30%

Allied Probe, Attack, Assault - 10% each

In late December it gets much more skewed to the Allied Assault/Attack because the modifier is +4 by then.

The reality (of the rolls) is that Aug onward there is a pretty good chance of being on the defense (up to 40% until December at which point it is more like 80%).

[Biltong]

Eden 12/12

Oh really? So luftwaffe shouldn't be used at Dawn? Curious. I just spent 300 bucks on strafing ME109s, in my first (tactical) defeat of the campaign. I should have spent it on anything else, but your rules made me buy air, and there was nothing to strafe!!! Dreadful, dreadful battle. 9 deaths. I lost the IIC, although I picked up a JagerSomething from the repo auction. I'm quite distinctly nonplussed.

Just had a look at the whole arty/Air issue again and scheduled the following:

Investigate Arty/Air – time for air (include dawn, but not dusk?); Allied armor more likely to get air; Ax assault etc modifiers pushing points too high etc

….Those 'ifs' listed there would mostly end with the statement "proceed to next section", while the cases which are exceptions might say "jump to section X". Look at it again, maybe you'll see it differently.

I think The Scalpel and you are on the same track here – he sent me an example (I’m going to e-mail to you)

If it is the same

Let me know

Else

Please send me an example of yours

J

Note 8_, concerning Immediate Assaults and whatnot. ( First, I assume that "Weather" is one of the things altered back or forth by one? ) Consider adding the Section # for each thing and listing them in order:

[section 39] Temperature

[section 40] Weather (?)….

You and Scalpel both onto the same thing again – see update doc – listed already

… put "Favor" on backburner, eh? OK, then, I'm off to peruse Mssr du Scalpel's note- let me see what is being prescribed for the experience ills, hmmm.

Ahh good would like to get some feedback on this one and put it to bed this week-end… Got a long week-end: Monday off!!!

Manstein Fork Al AT_ is not- it is an allied defense. Unless I grossly misunderestand the naming scheme, (which is a good one- I've prodded other mappers to use a similar scheme)... To be accurate, the only flag I see as allies is on my setup zone, so... ?

My bad – I modified Manstein’s map and created the 7 battle Types in a rush for the Friday’s launch… Hopefully those rush jobs are now at an end…. changed the map – it will be uploaded in due course J

Apache 14/12

Posting this just in case it is an issue…. tried 50 F9 presses with the date set to Nov 41. No Allied attack, assault or probe was generated. I then tried another 50 in December. Again, not one. Best that could be got is a ME. Is that right?

I assume we’re talking about Max’s Auto parameters? There’s a couple out there already… & Which version?

Biltong

[Biltong]

Have a 2nd look at what Claude 'The Scalpel' wrote and give feedback. I want to take a descision tomorrow, if possible, and get rid of exp gain for once and for all - so far no-one has come up with a simpler solution... Still holding thumbs - Biltong

As I see it, currently the player has little hope (or motivation) of ever

having troops better than the replacement level. The higher the current

point value of the unit above the replacement norm, the farther it drops

when substitutes show up to fill in for casualties (and there will be

bodies). And if the existing unit is of lower quality than the

replacements, then the commander has a strong incentive to kill off those

troops to get the higher quality newbies. (I can just picture a commander

near the successful end of a battle, herding his low experience units into

open ground, and then calling in friendly indirect fire on their heads.)

The trick is to allow a unit to keep experience gains if they do not suffer

catastrophic loss events, while discouraging commanders from slaughtering

low experience units for higher quality generic replacements. Oh, and the

solution should apply the KISS doctrine.

Taking that into account, my proposal modifies the experience gain/loss

based on one of five casualty states a unit can be in at the end of a

battle. The states and their effects are:

NONE. No casualties. (YEA!) Compute experience gain/loss

normally.

MODERATE. 1/3 or less of the unit strength are casualties. The

unit keeps its before battle experience, neither gaining or losing points.

HEAVY. More than 1/3 and less than half of the unit strength are

casualties. If the unit is over halfway to the next experience level, drop

to the halfway point. Else drop to the base experience value for the

current level of skill.

CATASTROPIC. 1/2 or more of the unit soldiers are casualties,

but at least one person remains functional. If the unit is over halfway to

its next experience level, drop to the base points for current level. Else

drop to the halfway point of the next lower experience level.

TOTAL. Unit eliminated. Use the Replacement level experience,

if equal to or less than the current level. Else drop to the base points of

the next level down. This helps discourage heartless commanders from

slaughtering low point units for the high point replacements.

Examples of these casualty states on subsequent (post replacement)

experiences are:

NONE. A six person MG team starts the battle with 16 experience (Regular),

kills a tank (work with me here), gets rattled, and loses no soldiers. They

end the battle with six warriors and 18 experience points.

MODERATE. A six person MG team starts the battle with 16 experience

(Regular), kills a tank and loses two soldiers. They end the battle with 16

experience.

HEAVY. A ten person squad starts the battle with 16 experience (Regular),

kills a tank and loses four soldiers. They end the battle with 10

experience (still Regular). If the unit had started with 18-24 experience

points (over half-way to next level), they would end with 17 experience

points.

CATASTROPIC. A ten person squad starts the battle with 18 (over half-way to

next level) experience (Regular), kills a tank and loses from five to nine

soldiers. They end the battle with 10 experience (still Regular). If the

unit had started with 17 experience points, they would end with 7 experience

points (Green).

TOTAL. If the replacements are Veteran level then a six person MG team

starting the battle with 16 experience (Regular), killing a tank and losing

all soldiers, they end the battle with 5 experience (Green). If instead the

replacements were Regular, then the new team would have 10 experience.

Now to run the above against existing campaign data.

Using my campaign instance, I find that my units suffer a casualty state of

"HEAVY" or worse about 9 percent of the time. So (assuming probability does

not hit till it approaches unity) after the first ten battles, a unit will

be at the (15 point) Regular experience level. Assuming the best, and it

gets hit with a "HEAVY" effect, it drops to ten points of experience, still

a Regular (barely).

Now with average experience and casualty progression from this point, the

unit will not get hit with a "HEAVY" or greater till it gets to 20

experience points. If it now receives a "HEAVY", it drops back to 17

experience points (it passed the halfway point at 18). From here it is only

eight experience points from becoming Veteran! With probability holding,

the unit should make it to that level successfully.

Gaining the next level gets dicey from here. There is a difference of 35

points separating the start of the Veteran and Crack levels. The halfway

point is 18 points from the start, almost twice the distance that the

occurrence of "HEAVY" or worse events happen.

Most likely, a commander wishing to get a Veteran unit up to Crack will have

to consciously start keeping that unit safe, holding it away from the battle

line, for use only as a last ditch reserve. This reduces the flexibility of

that commander in conducting the mission. This is a commander's

prerogative, and not necessarily a bad thing. I like the quandary this

presents. You get real reluctant to risk those high experience units,

especially when it takes sooooo long to get them there in the first place.

But not committing them also significantly reduces your combat potential.

Anyway, that is my idea on improving the experience experience. It reduces

the effect of the replacement quality on unit progression, but not totally.

I look forward to your thoughts on this.