Answers to the question about the test itselfLogrus Pattern wrote:
Ashdoll, are the unit fatigue numbers you listed the average of the unit fatigue and the fatigue recovery for the 12 units each turn? Or did they all lose fatigue at exactly the same rate? The latter would be an unfortunate implementation in my opinion.
No worries. The fatigue recovery for every unit each turn is random. I just list 12 units' in one turn and calculate the mean. I just did a small test and didn't want a big one.
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Ashdoll, can you check your Gettysburg 4.01 pdt values again? I just looked and I see 5 day / 20 night for both Gettysburg and Overland. If correct, it means the optional rule increases recovery for lightly fatigued units by a factor of 4 and not by 2.
The same title may have a different PDT. The PDT of the test is 'Day Recovery: 10%' indeed.
===========
The meaning of higher fatigue recovery rates(HFRR)Logrus Pattern wrote:
Long story short: I don't see the point of this optional rule.
C. Hecht wrote:
Now, with higher fatigue recovery resting does matter because it enables you to get the low & medium fatigue units back to action in a foreseeable time so that they have real impact on the outcome of the scenario. Even the high fatigue units do that but likely only in multi-day scenarios. With that the gameplay of the players just changes because they regard resting again as a tool to be used and not ignored. It is just a very different gameplay and much more realistic then without this OR.
Logrus Pattern wrote:
As I see it, the optional rule doesn't incentivize meaningfully long rests. Rather, it incentivizes short rests to keep a unit from even hitting medium fatigue before moving on to attack.
The rate matters! As C.Hecht pointed out and Logrus realized, the HFRR (please allow me to use the abbr.) will encourage players to displace and rest their units even in a single-day scenario.
A happened example:
Version 3.00, Day Recovery 5, ×5 HFRR in low fatigue and ×3 in high.
My cavalry encountered and slowed the enemy down from 8 am to 11 am until my infantry arrived, then retreat with 1 unit eliminated, 2 units high(max) fatigue, 3 units middle fatigue, and others low fatigue. I ordered them to guard my flank and supply, where it is in low pressure and they can do rest. At around 5 pm, 2 high fatigue remains high fatigue, but all others became low fatigue, even 0 fatigue. They then rejoined my offensive.
Let's do a math. Day Recovery 5. How long is the average turns for recovery from 599(highest of middle fatigue) to 299(highest of low fatigue)?
Without HFRR, 60 Turns. No way to really recover enough to get rid of fatigue punishment for most units in the whole day!
With old HFRR (×3 in middle fatigue), 20 Turns. Most can recover from middle fatigue to low fatigue in half-day (6 hours). If keeping resting, they will recover faster in low fatigue because of HFRR (×5 in low fatigue).
With new HFRR (No test. Just a hypothesis. ×1.5 in middle fatigue), 40 Turns. Harder, but it is still possible to get rid of fatigue through timely rest for some units.
The rate matters!
You see, high and heavy fatigue is still hard to recover in the day. The heavy fatigue units still have to wait for nightfall. But middle and low fatigue can recover in time in the day because of HFRR. Those players who rest their men in time can benefit. If without HFRR, the recovery in the day is almost meaningless. There are no real differences between players who rest their men in time and the others. The only best strategy is to forget resting your men and just to order them to fight to the death. It's boring.
I am not an expert but just a player. I can't declare which one is more realistic and historical. (I think the rate bonus can be argued but with HFRR on and encouraging resting in time is more realistic and historical. ) But with HFRR on, the game will be more dynamic and interesting. Also, I am a supporter of the old HFRR.
=============
Other discussion about fatigue rulesLogrus Pattern wrote:
In order to hit 300 fatigue, a unit needs to take on average 150 casualties!
C. Hecht wrote:
And fatigue wise, the melee is very different, in fire combat you may need 150 casualties to hit 300 but it melee it goes:
"Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double."
So loose one melee and your fatigue can be sky high.
Fatigue results are calculated as random values between the casualty value and 3 times the casualty value. Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double.
So the worst for fire combat is ×3 and for the loser in melee combat is ×6. 300 fatigue is at least 100 fire loss or 50 melee loss. High enough.4.01 Updated: Fatigue results are calculated as random values between the casualty value and 6 times the casualty value. Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double.
So the worst for fire combat is ×6 and for the loser in melee combat is ×12. 300 fatigue is at least 50 fire loss or 25 melee loss. High enough.
=============
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Again, I still don't understand the point of this rule and it is unintuitive. Is the point to get high fatigue units back in the fight faster? If so, then it is implemented backwards. Is it to make fatigue less of a factor over multi-day scenarios? It would be better to up the night time recovery rate (more than it already is). Is it to make fatigue count less during short scenarios? Make an optional rule to turn it off completely or increase the max fatigue or fatigue thresholds. Is it to delay the onset of fatigue effects? Again, increase max fatigue, change the thresholds or use this weird optional rule as it is now.
C. Hecht wrote:
The manual explanation is nice but doesn't stand its ground because in my opinion you can very well compare this to things like elastic & plastic bending or looking a sports to an athlete going blue. I mean that fatigue isn't a straight line, low combat all day long isn't the same as one horrific assault, bending a piece of metal over the point of elastic makes the bending permanent so much worse then just an elastic bending, and an athlete overdoing it and going blue is just breaking down in his performance and in the need of much more rest then just taking it a bit slower.
Simple put, if overdoing it you are in trouble as the unit is in high fatigue ground and needs a long rest as even with the higher recovery you will not be able to get out of the high terrain quickly.
I don't see a problem in getting rid of lower combat fatigue faster then high combat fatigue because both are different, high isn't just a X multiple of low.
LOL. The analogy is interesting. Are you in the related field, like material, mechanical or reliability engineering, Hecht?
I am also not satisfied with the fatigue mechanism and manual explanation. My view is that having fatigue rules is better than none, but the current fatigue rules are not good enough and vague to some extent.Having fatigue rules is better than none. I think we all should agree that the combat efficiency of units will decline with the fighting on. The decline may result from 'fatigue'(usual meaning), organization damage, and morale decline (the latter two result from the loss, especially officer loss). The fatigue rules are a mechanic to simulate this.
The fatigue rules are vague to some extent. Or it is an abstract value for all impacts above involving combat efficiency decline. The 'fatigue' in rules is in fact different from the 'fatigue'(usual meaning). That's why the manual explains 'Fatigue is used to represent combat fatigue, not the physical state of being winded.'.
The current fatigue rules are not good enough. Given all the fatigue rules, I find it is still hard to understand the 'combat fatigue' in the designer's mind. Please consider all these rules.
>
The fatigue is irrelevant to march. Without forced march rules (fast move with additional fatigue) brings one of the biggest missing tactics in JTS ACW.
>
Exception, the night march increases fatigue. It is obvious here that fatigue is in fact an abstract value, including 'fatigue'(normal meaning). There is no direct loss.
>
The fatigue generates based on the amount of loss. One man dies and then it increases all others' fatigue? It is obvious here that fatigue is in fact an abstract value for combat efficiency, not just 'fatigue'(normal meaning) but 'combat fatigue' (in manual). I think it is mainly because of the organization damage, especially the loss of officers.
Then a new problem appears. Is it proper for the fatigue generates based on the amount of loss? As Logrus pointed out.
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Most regiments in these games are already combat ineffective due to manpower losses or wiped out before fatigue even becomes a factor.
I think the 'fatigue' is more proper to based on the loss proportion of units instead of the loss amount. Forced march, assault and charge increase additional 'fatigue'. I disagree a 50 loss for a 200 men regiment and a 50 loss for a 600 regiment should take the same fatigue increase. It is obvious the former should take heavy 'combat fatigue' (combat efficiency decline) because their organization damage heavier and more loss proportion of officers.
Also, it is odd that 100 men against 100 men in melee will produce far less fatigue than 1000 men against 1000 men. I think they should increase similar fatigue. A man may not know and be concerned about whether he is in 100 vs 100 or 1000 vs 1000. It is no different for him and he just fights against the man before him.
And, cavalry combat will hardly increase fatigue because of little loss. Really?
I heard some think HFRR is not realistic because:
Quote:
This rule is one that pits those who prefer a more historical flavor to the games against those who prefer a more action-filled approach to them. To begin with the rule only really effects longer scenarios of a day or more. Shorter scenarios will not last long enough for the optional rule to have any real difference in the outcome. Over a longer scenario the addition of the Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates would allow battle weary units to recover faster and reenter the fighting sooner. For some Members this is borderline absurd given the very destructive effects of combat on a unit’s morale, numbers, and line officers. As an example, Heth’s Division at Gettysburg was heavily engaged on the first day of battle and would spend the next 48 hours resting until called upon to participate in Pickett’s Charge. Their numbers were so reduced, and their officer corps so decimated, that they were hardly an effective force even after two days of rest. So, how realistic is it to have a Higher Fatigue Recovery Rate where once decimated units might reenter the battle as an effective force – one might argue not very.
Well, I think the fatigue itself should be blamed and not just recovery. There is no proper mechanic for loss proportion. Those who suffer over 50% (or other proportion) should take additional debuff.
BTW, calculate the fatigue recovery in Gettysburg without HFRR. Units who rest 48h will recover 810 fatigue on average. So the example is still hardly repeated in current rules. Besides, it shows the HFRR also has an unignorable effect on night recovery.
>
The fatigue has no direct effect on defenders in melee.Why? Defenders should have some advantages. But is it proper? Does it satisfy the explanation, 'combat fatigue'? I forced high-fatigue large units to hold the line and to prevent the enemy advance. One indirect disadvantage is that the units easily failed morale checks. But my enemy has no direct advantage in assaulting the high fatigue units.
---
In short, I can't find a perfect consistent meaning for the 'fatigue' to explain all fatigue rules. And I think the current fatigue rules work not good on some points.