American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 4.0 and Fatigue Recovery
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
The original discussion in https://wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopi ... 6&start=26



Just tell the conclusion first. Attached some related quotes. Then, other comments. Data in the bottom.



(1) I got the recurrence of illegal fatigue recovery no matter checking Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates or not. It does. Units who moved, fired, or meleed (as attackers) in the last turn can still recover fatigue normally.

Though, with Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates OFF, ineligible units recover less. Though units who meleed (as defenders), built breastworks, or were fired upon the last turn can't recover fatigue normally. But it still goes against the manual and makes the whole fatigue rules invalid and pointless. Yep, we still get a new civil game just without proper Fatigue. And I do like some small changes including showing original command ranking in square brackets, enhancing and making skirmishers less useless, and other bug fixes. I admired these efforts.

But fatigue rules make a difference. I will go back to 3.0 if I have the 3.0 version before it's fixed.

NOTE: I found the bug in Forgotten Campaign first, then tested it in Gettysburg 4.0. I suspected all 4.0 have the same bug but didn't install more 4.0 and test more.

Suggestion for those who have the same bug in 4.0: Turn Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates OFF. Can't fix the bug but relieve it.



(2) Logrus is right. Recovery Rate in PDT is not a proportion of Max Fatigue, but just a flat value.

The '%' confused me. But I insist on the other parts of the function.

In short, the recovery value of eligible units in one turn obeys uniform distribution. If the Recovery Rate in PDT is 5% (like my test), with Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates OFF, units will recover between 0 and 10, and with Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates ON, units will recover between 0 and 50 in low fatigue.



Attached quotes.

Logrus reported he didn't find the bug in his game. Those who are interested in this issue may pay attention to fatigue in your 4.0 game. It would be good if we knew if this happened in others' games.

Logrus Pattern wrote:
I just did a test scenario in 4.0 Gettysburg and I am not replicating this. Fatigue is working normally for me with no perceptible increased rate of recovery.



Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Quaama wrote:

I had originally read this post as saying that there had been a turn after the movement to enable 'fatigue recovery' and that the unit had simply recovered all fatigue as good luck [Gettysburg Parameter Data would permit a 20% chance night fatigue recovery].

If I'm now reading this correctly you are saying that a unit moved at night during one turn [say Turn 52] and then at the beginning of the very next turn [Turn 53] their fatigue was zero! If so, that is a very significant failure of WDS v4 and in my view ensures that any game that has night turns is a farce.

1. Did you test a number of units and did they all recover fatigue the very next turn or was it only some [20%?]?
2. Does the same thing occur during day turns when (in Gettysburg v4) the fatigue recovery should be a lowly 5% chance?



Tested in a day turn of Gettysburg 4.0. If I am not wrong, units who moved, fired, or meleed (as attackers) last turn can still recover fatigue normally. (Though units who built breastworks or were fired upon the last turn can't recover fatigue.) I think it already makes the whole fatigue rules invalid and pointless in both day and night turns.

Here's the original text from the manual.

Manual wrote:

Recovering Fatigue
A unit may be eligible to recover Fatigue at the beginning of a player’s Movement
Phase provided it has not Moved, Fired, participated in Melee, or been Fired upon
with any effect
from the time of the player’s previous Movement Phase.

For each such unit a random value from 0 to twice the applicable recovery rate,
determined by Parameter Data associated with the current battle, is subtracted from
the unit’s Fatigue value. See the Parameter Data Dialog in the General Help File for
the recovery rate values.



BTW, I think the '5%' and '20%' of 'Recovery' in the PDT is not the possibility of recovery, but a baseline value. I guess the recovery function may be like this.


The Reduced Fatigue = (Recover Rate) * (Random Factor) * (Additional Multiplier)



I guess the Recover Rate means 5% or 20% of Max Fatigue (900), in other words, 45 or 180 fatigue value. Not proportion but the flat value.

Random Factor is a random value between 0 and 2.

If checking Higher Fatigue Recovery (Optional Rules), there will be an Additional Multiplier. Low fatigue gets a '5x' bonus. Medium fatigue gets a '3x' bonus.



Other Comments

I suspect the program wrongly processes the turn. I notice rebs units who fire, move or melee in CSA turn can recover fatigue illegally in next CSA turn. But rebs units who are fired and meleed in USA turn can't recover fatigue in next CSA turn. Might the program think those rebs units don't move, fire, melee in USA turn (of course it's impossible) so allow them to recover fatigue in the next CSA turn wrongly?



Well, I am also a boardgame wargamer so I often compare the boardgame wargames with the computer wargames. As for fatigue, I have something to complain about.

I don't know why movement doesn't link to fatigue. An exception is Night Movement Fatigue (Optional Rules). But the feature is not enough. Where's forced march? I saw the rules in many boardgames which allow units to move further in one turn but get fatigue, disordered, or loss (stragglers). We can't actually do what A.P. Hill did in Antietam in JTS/WDS. Use a critical forced march to turn the tide of battle. Meanwhile, the forced march degraded the troop.

The manual just explains 'Fatigue values represent the Combat Fatigue of the unit and are not intended to represent the simple physical fatigue of being winded'. That's not a reason for no forced march. But I understand the 'Combat Fatigue' though I think it should be called unit efficiency. If there are no fatigue rules or fatigue rules can't work like what happens in 4.00 now, there will be strange results. A combat unit can fight all day and take 30% or even 50% loss but has no real differences with a fresh unit. Like Paul's satire, our soldiers have become supermen. That's absurd. I think fatigue is to relieve the problem. Try to show the harm of cumulative loss to units' combat efficiency. That's why fatigue is calculated from loss. Based on loss instead of proportion brings a new problem. Some small units will be eliminated before suffering high fatigue. It's unfair but rare. In a more general case, I don't think 100 loss of a 200 men and 100 loss of a 600 men combat unit should take the same fatigue (combat efficiency decline).



Anyways, having fatigue rules is better than none. I really hope the bug can be fixed soon.



---

Here's the data.

The more data, the better. But it's enough to prove the conclusion. So that's all for now.



*Game: Campaign Gettysburg ver4.00

*PDT: Max Fatigue: 900 Day Recovery: 5%

*Method:

(1)12 rebs' units begin with 100 fatigue. 2 will fire. 2 will be fired. 2 will attack in a melee. 2 will defend in a melee. 2 will just move. 2 will build breastworks.

(2) Replay 3 times.

(3) Record fatigue and recovery.

(4) Then calculate the mean and variance of recovery value.

*Table Header:

Conditions: As above

before: Fatigue Value before

test1/2/3: new Fatigue Value (Recover Value)



*(A) Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates OFF



| | Conditions | before | test 1 | test 2 | test 3 |
| ---- | ----------- | ------- | -------- | --------- | --------- |
| 1 | Fire | 100 | 92(-8) | 93(-7) | 90(-10) |
| 2 | Fire | 100 | 89(-11) | 100(-0) | 95(-5) |
| 3 | Fired | 114 | 114 | 114 | 114 |
| 4 | Fired | 106 | 106 | 106 | 106 |
| 5 | Attack | 205 | 194(-11)| 195(-10)| 197(-8) |
| 6 | Attack | 164 | 156(-8) | 158(-6) | 159(-7) |
| 7 | Defend | 107 | 107 | 107 | 107 |
| 8 | Defend | 107 | 107 | 107 | 107 |
| 9 | Move | 100 | 92(-8) | 97(-3) | 98(-2) |
| 10 | Move | 100 | 96(-4) | 93(-7) | 97(-3) |
| 11 | Build | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 12 | Build | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |


Recover Value(R1): 8, 7, 10, 11, 0, 5, 11, 10, 8 ,8, 6, 7, 8, 3, 2, 4, 7, 3

I don't know why there are double '11'. The max Recover Value should not be more than 10 in theory. (10 = 2 × 5)

Mean: 6.56

Variance: 9.47

In my function, R1~U(0,10) (Obey the uniform distribution). In theory, the mean is 5. Variance is 8.3. Value is between 0 and 10.


*(B) Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates ON. Repeat.


| | Conditions | before | test 1 | test 2 | test 3 |
| --- | ---------- | ------- | --------- | ---------- | ---------- |
| 1 | Fire | 100 | 85(-15) | 62(-38) | 73(-27) |
| 2 | Fire | 100 | 100(-0) | 100(-0) | 100(-0) |
| 3 | Fired | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 |
| 4 | Fired | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 |
| 5 | Attack | 383 | 372(-9) | 383(-0) | 358(-25) |
| 6 | Attack | 139 | 125(-14) | 107(-32) | 122(-17) |
| 7 | Defend | 106 | 106 | 106 | 106 |
| 8 | Defend | 103 | 103 | 103 | 103 |
| 9 | Move | 100 | 51(-49) | 62(-38) | 57(-43) |
| 10 | Move | 100 | 90(-10) | 85(-15) | 59(-41) |
| 11 | Build | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 12 | Build | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |


Recover Value(R2): 15, 38, 27, 14, 32, 17, 49, 38, 43, 10, 15, 41

Remove the data from line2. It's abnormal. The unit seemingly was fired by opportunity fire, so couldn't recover. Remove the data from line 5. It has been in middle fatigue with '3x' instead of '5x' recovery bonus from Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates.

Mean: 28.25

Variance: 169.18

In my function, R2~U(0,50) (Obey the uniform distribution). In theory, the mean is 25. Variance is 208.3. Value is between 0 and 50.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Last edited by Ashdoll Ren on Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Thank-you very much for all that work.

It's pleasing to see your accurately argued mathematical results although I was sorry to see that my earlier suspicions (based upon far less detailed tests) were confirmed. Wow, what a mess! Like you "I really hope the bug can be fixed soon" - it needs to be done immediately (together with FoW). Other issues (e.g. trenches) are silly and/or annoying but can probably wait as they do not seriously effect gameplay to anywhere near the same degree as Fatigue and FoW.

I do believe the new supermen abilities granted by WDS v4 fatigue rules favour the attacker as attacks can now be pressed because repeated move/fire and even melee will not fatigue them. Indeed, they will gain strength while the defenders, digging in to erect defences against the attack will recover no fatigue (fatigue that is increasing as attackers advance, fire and melee against them and getting stronger all the time).
The only measure I can suggest to temporarily combat the fatigue issue is to only play scenarios that are meeting engagements, preferably with no Objective Hexes. Such scenarios would not create a clear attacker or defender and somewhat negate the superman effect as both sides would have a more even chance in either role. That's nowhere near an ideal solution but it's the best I can think of - of course, if you suffer some early setbacks and need to act more defensively you may be in a real lot of trouble.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Ashdoll Ren wrote:

Logrus reported he didn't find the bug in his game. Those who are interested in this issue may pay attention to fatigue in your 4.0 game. It would be good if we knew if this happened in others' games.

Logrus Pattern wrote:
I just did a test scenario in 4.0 Gettysburg and I am not replicating this. Fatigue is working normally for me with no perceptible increased rate of recovery.

Hey Ashdoll, I tested again and I am seeing the bug now. I must have gotten the numbers mixed up in my head while observing and / or the observed units rolled '0's on their fatigue recovery rolls.

Did you make a bug report to WDS yet?

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Anyways, having fatigue rules is better than none. I really hope the bug can be fixed soon.

We still have fatigue rules. They don't work like the manual says and units recover faster. But without the Higher Fatigue Recovery rule it is still possible to fatigue a unit faster than it can recover, particularly in melee. I hardly think the units are supermen. Particularly in short battles.

Maybe WDS meant to change how fatigue works but did not update the manual? Or the bug was introduced when fixing the bug that caused units moving during the first dawn turn to take night movement fatigue? That is the only mention of fatigue in the change log for 4.0.

Quaama wrote:
I do believe the new supermen abilities granted by WDS v4 fatigue rules favour the attacker as attacks can now be pressed because repeated move/fire and even melee will not fatigue them. Indeed, they will gain strength while the defenders, digging in to erect defences against the attack will recover no fatigue (fatigue that is increasing as attackers advance, fire and melee against them and getting stronger all the time).

This isn't correct quite correct. With the exception of night movement, moving and firing doesn't cause fatigue. It only prevents the recovery of fatigue. And if a defender digging in has no fatigue to begin with, then not being able to recover fatigue is moot.

Given how fatigue is supposed to work in the game, fatigue management is more important for an attacker than for a defender. For a defender entrenchments -particularly breastworks- are more important than fatigue. Why? Because defenders melee at full strength regardless of how fatigued they are. Fatigue only affects attackers in melee. "But what about defensive fire?" one might ask. Auto defensive fire in turn-based play is near worthless at dissuading a determined attacker from closing and meleeing; it triggers randomly, especially without the full defensive fire optional rule, and it is only at 50% firepower. Rarely have my defending units been able to disrupt an attacker before he can melee. Even more rare is causing enough casualties so that the attacker suffers from fatigue effects before that first melee.

There are many benefits to a scenario defender, but the "alpha-strike" works greatly in favor of the scenario attacker. The game strongly encourages being the first to win melees during a scenario. The reason being that, once the attacker takes the objective or entrenchments and goes over to the defensive, the fatigue accumulated by the former attacker's units is largely meaningless. They will defend in melee at full effectiveness during a counterattack. And any defensive fire they may make is fairly inconsequential in the big picture to begin with. Fatigued defenders forced from their positions and trying to retake them suffer fatigue effects when firing and meleeing; in fact they will suffer greater penalties from fatigue than the attacker by virtue of having lost melee, which incurs a massive amount of fatigue. Even counterattacking with fresh units only provides a relative advantage while firing and possibly in morale.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Ashdoll Ren wrote:

Logrus reported he didn't find the bug in his game. Those who are interested in this issue may pay attention to fatigue in your 4.0 game. It would be good if we knew if this happened in others' games.

Logrus Pattern wrote:
I just did a test scenario in 4.0 Gettysburg and I am not replicating this. Fatigue is working normally for me with no perceptible increased rate of recovery.

Hey Ashdoll, I tested again and I am seeing the bug now. I must have gotten the numbers mixed up in my head while observing and / or the observed units rolled '0's on their fatigue recovery rolls.

Did you make a bug report to WDS yet?

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Anyways, having fatigue rules is better than none. I really hope the bug can be fixed soon.

We still have fatigue rules. They don't work like the manual says and units recover faster. But without the Higher Fatigue Recovery rule it is still possible to fatigue a unit faster than it can recover, particularly in melee. I hardly think the units are supermen. Particularly in short battles.

1. Maybe WDS meant to change how fatigue works but did not update the manual? Or the bug was introduced when fixing the bug that caused units moving during the first dawn turn to take night movement fatigue? That is the only mention of fatigue in the change log for 4.0.

Quaama wrote:
I do believe the new supermen abilities granted by WDS v4 fatigue rules favour the attacker as attacks can now be pressed because repeated move/fire and even melee will not fatigue them. Indeed, they will gain strength while the defenders, digging in to erect defences against the attack will recover no fatigue (fatigue that is increasing as attackers advance, fire and melee against them and getting stronger all the time).

This isn't correct quite correct. 2. With the exception of night movement, moving and firing doesn't cause fatigue. It only prevents the recovery of fatigue. 3. And if a defender digging in has no fatigue to begin with, then not being able to recover fatigue is moot.

Given how fatigue is supposed to work in the game, 4. fatigue management is more important for an attacker than for a defender. For a defender entrenchments -particularly breastworks- are more important than fatigue. Why? Because defenders melee at full strength regardless of how fatigued they are. Fatigue only affects attackers in melee. "But what about defensive fire?" one might ask. Auto defensive fire in turn-based play is near worthless at dissuading a determined attacker from closing and meleeing; it triggers randomly, especially without the full defensive fire optional rule, and it is only at 50% firepower. Rarely have my defending units been able to disrupt an attacker before he can melee. Even more rare is causing enough casualties so that the attacker suffers from fatigue effects before that first melee.

There are many benefits to a scenario defender, but the "alpha-strike" works greatly in favor of the scenario attacker. The game strongly encourages being the first to win melees during a scenario. The reason being that, once the attacker takes the objective or entrenchments and goes over to the defensive, the fatigue accumulated by the former attacker's units is largely meaningless. They will defend in melee at full effectiveness during a counterattack. And any defensive fire they may make is fairly inconsequential in the big picture to begin with. Fatigued defenders forced from their positions and trying to retake them suffer fatigue effects when firing and meleeing; in fact they will suffer greater penalties from fatigue than the attacker by virtue of having lost melee, which incurs a massive amount of fatigue. Even counterattacking with fresh units only provides a relative advantage while firing and possibly in morale.


1. I'd be surprised if that was the case and certainly hope it was not purposeful. What end would such a purposeful change serve?

2. Yes, you are right. Poor wording on my part. Still, as the attacker is moving forward, shooting and/or meleeing the defender will get fatigued soon enough.

3. The defender will get that fatigue soon enough as the attacker can now press the attack knowing he will recover fatigue as he does so.

4. Not under WDS v4, the attacker can be far more aggressive knowing he will get stronger as he progresses and no longer needs to rest units. The situation described in your final paragraph will now be greater.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Did you make a bug report to WDS yet?


Just reported it.


Logrus Pattern wrote:
We still have fatigue rules. They don't work like the manual says and units recover faster. But without the Higher Fatigue Recovery rule it is still possible to fatigue a unit faster than it can recover, particularly in melee. I hardly think the units are supermen. Particularly in short battles.


Even without Higher Fatigue Recovery, it is unacceptable in most scenarios. Yes, 0-10 fatigue decrease in 1 turn seems inconspicuous. But what about 10 turns, 20 turns, and more? By comparison, night march is just a small problem which can be banned in house rules. Also, please note that how the bug works benefits attackers more. As Paul said, it encourages attackers to just keep advancing. For example, moving, firing, and meleeing attackers can recover fatigue, but those being fired and being meleed defenders can't recover fatigue. The situation is more complex in offensive and defensive than the simple example. But the whole tide will be attackers keeping recovery and defenders getting weaker.

I can't believe the change is on purpose.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Just reported it.

You da man. Thanks.

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
I can't believe the change is on purpose.

I don't actually believe it either. My point was it's a bug or a(n involuntary) design decision depending on your perspective. Whether the game rules should reflect what is in the manual or whether the manual should document the game rules is a 'chicken / egg' question. The game is basically a board game with automated bookkeeping and FOW.

The game and manual should not differ from each other however. That kind of thing does drive me nuts.

Ashdoll, I was thinking about finding out how the game determines which units in a melee take casualties if there are multiple units on either side engaged in that melee. Curious? Want to work with me on it? Or you can have my idea, do the work for me and I will also let you keep the credit. :mrgreen:

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Ashdoll Ren wrote:

Ashdoll, I was thinking about finding out how the game determines which units in a melee take casualties if there are multiple units on either side engaged in that melee. Curious? Want to work with me on it? Or you can have my idea, do the work for me and I will also let you keep the credit. :mrgreen:


Thanks. Admire your curiosity. But too many game files and other jobs in real life. I am not sure if I can do this. You can email me the details or any other interesting thoughts at ashdollren《at》qq{dot}com if you'd like to.

Well, I hope the loss distribution is based on the proportion of strength. Add some more randomness. But it may be totally random?

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Well, I hope the loss distribution is based on the proportion of strength. Add some more randomness. But it may be totally random?

There seems to be an element of randomness. In melees in which the attacker suffers only minimal losses I have seen all the losses go to one unit rather than distributed among multiple units.

Testing this would be time consuming and I don't know that you could achieve certainty. I would prefer to just get an answer from the development team.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group