Normandy Patch Update

[ComradeP]

You seem to be looking at the full OOB, not at in-game examples.

The Strength dialog doesn't go below company size for most units, or even Wing/Group size for air units. This means you don't see the units you're actually using in the Strength dialog.

In-game, air units usually show up as a flight or a combined flight of sorts of 2, 4, or 8 aircraft. In Kursk, you're mostly seeing 3, 6 and 9 aircraft units.

[javier]

I read now, bombs standard aviation used by the 8th Bomber Command United States, operating from Britain, from 1942, were the so-called GP or General Purpose (General Purpose): AN-M30 100 lbs, AN-M31 300 lbs, AN-500 lbs M43, M44 AN-1000 and AN-M34 lbs 2000 lbs (1 ton).

One bomb 300lbs (150kg) make a crater of 3 meter+-. One crater each 8 meter is posible, each 4 meter ,I don't see it.. (in all 62500 m2/hex). 8 meter/crater=divided between 4 the size of the unit (12-25 aircraft)

The problem is that 'chopping air units' not only affects the oob file, but should be able to add new aerial units created, so they are available in all scenarios. I understand that is a change that involves a lot of work.

But to adequately represent the air factor in the game, you can do this change. More air units, for atack in more different hex, but less aircraft for each attack

Greetings from Spain

[javier]

To CamradeP

I have Kursk, but not Normandy, I'll buy it soon.

I was watching the units.dat OOB effectively.

I take back everything I said, my apologies. sorry

[Bayes]

BTW. It suddenly struck me that morale checks also perhaps should be scaled to accommodate for smaller units in Panzer Battles compared to Panzer Campaigns. 

Right now, a company in Panzer Battles has the same chance of  passing a moral check as a battalion in Panzer Campaigns, when they take the same loss in men, which feels wrong?

Panter Campaigns:
"When Morale Checks are applicable, they are determined based on a
probability using the given loss as:
loss / (loss + base-value)
where the base-value depends on the size of the unit and is:
• 5 for platoon and uncombined company units.
• 10 for combined company units consisting of 2 subunits.
• 15 for battalions and combined company units consisting of 3 or more
subunits.
Thus a battalion unit that takes a loss of 15 men has a 50% chance of
requiring a morale check and a battalion unit that takes a loss of 60 men has
about an 80% chance of requiring a morale check."

Panzer Battles:
When Morale Checks are applicable, they are determined based on a probability using the given loss as: 

loss / (loss + base-value) 

where the base-value depends on the size of the unit and is: 

• 5 for squad and uncombined platoon units. 

• 10 for combined platoon units consisting of 2 subunits. 

• 15 for companies and combined platoon units consisting of 3 or more subunits. 


Thus a platoon unit that takes a loss of 15 men has a 50% chance of requiring a morale check and a platoon unit that takes a loss of 60 men has about an 80% chance of requiring a morale check. 

[Strela]

BTW. It suddenly struck me that morale checks also perhaps should be scaled to accommodate for smaller units in Panzer Battles compared to Panzer Campaigns. 

Right now, a company in Panzer Battles has the same chance of  passing a moral check as a battalion in Panzer Campaigns, when they take the same loss in men, which feels wrong?

Panter Campaigns:
"When Morale Checks are applicable, they are determined based on a
probability using the given loss as:
loss / (loss + base-value)
where the base-value depends on the size of the unit and is:
• 5 for platoon and uncombined company units.
• 10 for combined company units consisting of 2 subunits.
• 15 for battalions and combined company units consisting of 3 or more
subunits.
Thus a battalion unit that takes a loss of 15 men has a 50% chance of
requiring a morale check and a battalion unit that takes a loss of 60 men has
about an 80% chance of requiring a morale check."

Panzer Battles:
When Morale Checks are applicable, they are determined based on a probability using the given loss as: 

loss / (loss + base-value) 

where the base-value depends on the size of the unit and is: 

• 5 for squad and uncombined platoon units. 

• 10 for combined platoon units consisting of 2 subunits. 

• 15 for companies and combined platoon units consisting of 3 or more subunits. 


Thus a platoon unit that takes a loss of 15 men has a 50% chance of requiring a morale check and a platoon unit that takes a loss of 60 men has about an 80% chance of requiring a morale check. 

Hi Bayes,

Thanks for the note. I had to hunt where you had seen this. It appears to have come from the combat results section. I think this description is wrong.

In the morale section it lays out the following, which I think is the applicable rule.

David





[9.2] Morale

General

Morale is used to determine effects like Disruption and Broken. Quality is the basis for Morale. Each unit has a Quality rating from A (best) to F (worst). A descriptive way of referring to units by their Quality rating is to say that:

• A units are the Elite units

• B units are the Superior units

• C units are the Average units

• D units are the Below Average units

• E units are the Inferior units

• F units are the Abysmal units.

When a calculation requires a numeric value, these letters are mapped to numbers according to A=6, …, F=1. Quality has effects on the Morale of the unit and on its performance in combat or, for HQ’s, on its command abilities.

Morale Calculation

The nominal Morale of a unit will be the same as its Quality. The following modifiers apply to the Morale value:

• Units with Medium Fatigue have 1 subtracted from their Morale.

• Units with High Fatigue have 2 subtracted from their Morale.

• Units with Maximum Fatigue have 4 subtracted from their Morale.

• Units Low on Ammo or Fuel have 1 subtracted from their Morale.

• Units that are Disrupted or Broken have 1 subtracted from their Morale (Note: Morale F units do not have this modifier when they are attempting to recover from being Disrupted or Broken.)

• Units that are Isolated have 1 subtracted from their Morale.

A unit whose resulting Morale value is 0 or less is said to have No Morale.

Morale Check

When units suffer losses due to Combat Results, they may have to undergo a Morale Check. A random die roll from 1 to 6 is generated and compared with Panzer Battles User Manual Page 75

the unit’s current Morale value. If the die roll is less than or equal to the Morale value, then the unit passes the Morale Check. A unit which fails a Morale Check becomes Disrupted, and if already Disrupted and at Maximum Fatigue, becomes Broken.

[Bayes]

Thanks for the reply, Strela. Sorry for not providing the page number.

I believe we are talking about two different checks, both part of the same two step procedure.

The first step is to determine whether a combat loss LEADS to a Morale Check.  This check is the one described on page  90 of the User Manual. The chances of passing this check is based on the number of lost men and the size of the unit (squad, platoon, company).

The actual Moral Check is described on page 74, but the Moral Check will never happen if the check on page 90 is passed by the unit first.

What worries me is that you have used a factor of 15 for Companies for the check on page 90, rather than 5.

This means that if a company in Panzer Battles loses 15 men in one single attack, which is a HUGE LOSS,  the unit will pass the first check 50% of the time.

If it does not pass this check, this triggers the Morale Check on page 74, which a C morale unit would pass 66% of the time.

A disruption is not caused before both of the above checks fail. That means that a loss of 15 men would only lead to disruption 16% of the time, which is quite rare for such a loss in my opinion. Very different from e.g. Squad Battles or Panzer Campaigns.

The story is quite different in Panzer Campaigns because there a single Company has a factor of 5 instead of 15. This means that the first check above fails 75% of the time instead of just 50% of the time.

In order words, in Panzer Campaigns a Company that loses 15 men would disrupt 25% of the time, which is 50% more often than in Panzer Battles.

When a Company loses just a single man, the difference is even greater. Then the Company disrupts 2.6 times as often more in Panzer Campaigns than in Panzer Battles, per shot...

Since a disruption in Panzer Campaigns last for minimum two hours, while a disruption in Panzer Battles lasts for minimum 1/2 hour, a disruption result  in Panzer Campaigns is also more severe.

So, not only does disruption results occur much more often in Panzer Campaigns, but they also are more severe. 

I think the above difference is the main reason why we see units being shot to death without disrupting in Panzer Battles, in addition to the fatigue factor.

Right now, a company (120 men) in Panzer Battle has the same resilience  against loss as a battalion (900 men) in Panzer Campaigns, when one consider disruption. I think this should be changed.

Thanks!

[ComradeP]

I'm not sure that morale check rule for losses actually works as documented Bayes, as statistically speaking <5 Men/D results should be uncommon in that case.

Also: battalions, particularly in older PzC games tend to be "PB size" at around 450 men to around 600 men. The only large battalions are those in recent PzC games where the Germans have 4 company battalions with abstracted heavy weapons, at 800 to 950 Men.

Note that the size of the unit in Men isn't part of the calculation, so an old PzC 450 Men battalion has the same chance of Disrupting from a certain number of losses than a 1000+ Men FWWC battalion.

The losses also only influence the chance a morale check is required, if the system works as documented, not that a morale check is passed. Losing 1 Man or 50 Men both might lead to the same morale check based purely on Quality. This causes those Soviet D quality units to go down like bowling pins in PzC.

If Disruptions would work as a two step as described in the manual, they should be rare to uncommon for low number of men lost results.

Some tests with D quality battalions and their Disruption chance:

10 Men/D= (10/(10+15)) x (3/6 simplified to 1/2) = 20% chance of failing their check.
28 Men/D= ((28/(28+15)) x "" = 32.5% chance of failing their check.
3 Men/D= (3/(3+15)) x "" = 8.3% chance of failing their check.
5 Men/D (5/(5+15)) x "" = 12.5% chance of failing their check.

[Bayes]

I'm not sure that morale check rule for losses actually works as documented Bayes, as statistically speaking <5 Men/D results should be very rare instead of uncommon in that case. For a battalion, a loss of 5 Men should lead to a morale check only once every 400 attacks and 1 Man loss results only once every 1600 attacks on average.

Also: battalions, particularly in older PzC games tend to be "PB size" at around 450 men to around 600 men. The only large battalions are those in recent PzC games where the Germans have 4 company battalions with abstracted heavy weapons, at 800 to 950 Men.

Note that the size of the unit in Men isn't part of the calculation, so an old PzC 450 Men battalion has the same chance of Disrupting from a certain number of losses than a 1000+ Men FWWC battalion.

The losses also only influence the chance a morale check is required, if the system works as documented, not that a morale check is passed. Losing 1 Man or 50 Men both might lead to the same morale check based purely on Quality. This causes those Soviet D quality units to go down like bowling pins in PzC.

Actually, not that rare. Disruption from a single loss (1 Man/D) would happen 8% of the time for a Company with Morale D in Panzer Campaigns and 3% of the time in Panzer Battles. I think this disruption rate is exactly what we are observing, but I may be wrong...

If the rules on page 90 are no longer working (you suggest that?), that would be a pity, because clearly the size of the unit and the size of the loss should influence chance of disruption.

Are you stating that the game instead triggers a Morale Check automatically, independently of loss and unit size?

[ComradeP]

My math was sloppy as I jumped the gun, I edited the post while you replied.

I'm saying that the rules might very well be working as documented, but that the unit size in terms of its label as a platoon, company or battalion (or a 1 unit, 2 unit combined unit or a 3/3+ unit combined unit) determines the calculations used for the check, independent of the number of men in a unit.

This is also why I suggested changing the fatigue accumulation in FWWC because battalions are so big that they should be able to take higher losses than their WWII counterparts before gaining much fatigue. Their chance of Disrupting is still the same, though.

[Bayes]

That makes sense, ComradeP.

BTW. As a follow up to my previous post...

I did some experiments to better understand how things work and the rules on page 74 and page 90 of the Panzer Battles user manual. (When it comes to disruption)

As far as I can see, the Disruption Check is a two step procedure. Step one is described on page 90, and step two is described on page 74. Both checks must fail before a disruption occurs.

I believed my experiments confirm this, and also that they confirm that the Company factor described on page 90 is value 15 in Panzer Battles and value 5 in Panzer Campaigns.

In the experiments, I performed 100 attacks against one company, so it is unlikely that the match between the formulas in the user manual and the experiments is random coincidence.

In Panzer Battles, I got 3 disruptions, while in Panzer Campaigns the corresponding number would be 9.

On average I get 2.3 times as many disruptions in Panzer Campaigns compared to Panzer Battles (with no fatigue).

I really enjoy the game and this is just a small thing, but I hope you can try out the following factors, to increase the number of disruptions to the same level as Panzer Campaigns:

1 for squad and uncombined platoon units.
3 for combined platoon units consisting of 2 subunits.
5 for companies and combined platoon units consisting of 3 or more subunits.

or something similar (cf. page 90). But I may of course be wrong. One reason I think something needs to be done was the difficulty I had in disrupting the American defenders in the Panzer Lehr attacks scenario :-)