Strange results from campaign scoring system?

[33lima]

Can anyone direct me to an explanation as to how SABOW calculates the results of battles? I'm seeing some strange results and would like to understand what actions I can take to increase the probability of a win.

Examples...first, there's the one described here: http://combatace.com/topic/85925-instant-action-sabow-style/#entry692905. Territory -keypoints - is supposed to be very important but despite having taken two key points and had less casualties, the result was a 'defeat' - see result tables at the end of the post in that link.

Second, there is the battle described here: http://combatace.com/topic/86025-sabow-revenge-of-the-chieftains/#entry692979. I suffer heavier casualties than the Iranian enemy and also do worse as regards territory. But what should clearly be a defeat, SABOW counts as a draw!

I just fought another battle in which I lost a lot of tanks - but the enemy lost slightly more. And I held all my own key points, and in a late offensive caputred at least two of theirs, confirmed by the message log on the F10 map - I think I also captured a third enemy key point just before SABOW stopped the battle, but did not confirm this from the map. A clear victory - but it was rated as a 'Draw'. Most bizzare of all, my territory before battle was '12' and after was '0/0%' - the enemy, who I think had taken NONE of my key points (on the F10 map) and who had lost two, maybe three of their key points, was terriroty before battle '9' after battle '20/200%'. Thoses numbers do not correspond at all to what happened in my battle anyway - it should be nearly the other way round.

What is going on? Is SABOW counting results in OTHER parts of the battlefield, beyond the player's tactical map? It does NOT seem to, because the tank losses seem to match those in the battle I am fighting.

I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explanation for this, and it may be obvious to GT:OS players, but it seems very counter-intuitive to me.

[Ezra]

Victory conditions and subsequent results for me are a mystery with GT. Even though I have read all the threads on the topic. e.g.Today in a campaign battle (Hooper) I had only one platoon remaining and was shortly pummelled by several armoured infantry companies. The end result was posted as a Major Victory for me, yet I was defeated and pushed from the map? Go figure.

[Tanker]

I've just concluded that I will set my own victory conditions, regardless of what the game calculates.  If I'm satisfied with my performance at the end of a campaign, then it's a victory for me.  GT makes mention of the fact that if you send a company of tanks to take care of some apcs you don't get many points for victory or some such example as that.  But I believe in sending overwhelming force, unless it's needed elsewhere.

[33lima]

Well, it's not just me then! If that is how many players find this, then it would be good if it was patched, instead of us having to compensate for an oddity which tends to jar or disturb the sense of 'being there'.. This should just need a tweak to the calculations - comparing for each side territory held and casualties suffered, weighted as necessary. It doesn't need to be complicated, just confined to the player's tactical battle.

Another thing I think would really help SABOW is a less 'gamey' end to the battle. What you get now is that the results screen appears, often quite suddenly. Apart from showing a result which seems often at odds with your battle, this is VERY 'gamey', not at all military or immersive.

What you should get is at least something like M1TP2, where you hear a simulated radio message from HQ saying something like 'FRAGO, objective achieved [or 'failed'], stand down and await further orders'.  Panzer Commander did something similar, that is, you hear and/or see simulated radio messages from HQ. Repetitive but realistic and simple to implement, just play one of two or three .wavs, depending on the result. A little imagination could easily create a similar small set of messages for SABOW. We really do need something a little less brutal and destructive of immersion to end a SABOW battle, than the sudden appearance of a table.

This sort of message would (i) help maintain the realistic illusion of the presence of your overall commander (ii) provide a less unrealistic end to the battle you have just fought and (iii) provide a decent lead-in to the 'new deployment and orders' sequence you are about to enter, for the start of the next battle.

[andrey12345]

Examples...first, there's the one described here: http://combatace.com/topic/85925-instant-action-sabow-style/#entry692905. Territory -keypoints - is supposed to be very importanty but despite having taken two key points and had less casualties, the result was a 'defeat' - see result tables at the end of the post in that link.

What about 1st Total victory, no comments? Let's be objective. If 1st Total victory you are satisfied, it must satisfy and 2nd defeat

Your forces in 11! times more than the opponent's. And you managed to lose 1 vehicle and 3 people. And enemy lost practically the same!
This is clearly a Total defeat, but the game graciously gave you just defeat. You simple spent 1 turn for lot of troops and have achieved nothing.

[andrey12345]

Well, it's not just me then! If that is how many players find this, then it would be good if it was patched, instead of us having to compensate for an oddity which tends to jar or disturb the sense of 'being there'.. This should just need a tweak to the calculations - comparing for each side territory held and casualties suffered, weighted as necessary. It doesn't need to be complicated, just confined to the player's tactical battle.

Another thing I think would really help SABOW is a less 'gamey' end to the battle. What you get now is that the results screen appears, often quite suddenly. Apart from showing a result which seems often at odds with your battle, this is VERY 'gamey', not at all military or immersive.

You do not like complicated and realistic account of the results of the battle, but you want a "realistic end"? Somehow inconsistently 

Quick battle ends only at the request of the player (if allied forces is in service). In operation total playing time is shared between combats, and stretching a combat time have negative effect to the flow of operation.

[andrey12345]

What you should get is at least something like M1TP2, where you hear a simulated radio message from HQ saying something like 'FRAGO, objective achieved [or 'failed'], stand down and await further orders'. 

This is absolutely unrealistic. How the HQ commander operative (directly in combat) knows whether or not you completed the task? Telepathy?

Correct, realistic option is when subordinates told to HQ (not HQ told to suborbs!) from the battlefield. The game is implemented by pressing a flee/truce button or automatically.

[andrey12345]

Second, there is the battle described here: http://combatace.com/topic/86025-sabow-revenge-of-the-chieftains/#entry692979. I suffer heavier casualties than the Iranian enemy and also do worse as reagrds territory. but what should clearly be a defeat, SABOW counts as a draw!

You have casaulties 4 times more on soldiers and 2 times more on vehicles and you loose all territory - it is Defeat on both criteria (looses and territory) Do you agree? , but you initially have a small forces, 3 times less than enemy and you attacks (and have a some bonuces on scoring). And as result Defeat changed to Draw.
In other words, none of the parties do not reach anything and not changed own state: you are attacked, but failed, as the enemy was on the defensive and stayed there.

[33lima]

By your standards Andrey it seems that the Battle of Alamein should be counted as a draw, or even a British defeat, because 8th Army was very strong and the DAK very weak. Clearly that would be nonsense.

You should know that militarily, battles are not won or lost on such criteria. In SABOW, whether you get a victory or a defeat seems to take into account an assessment of your side's performance, instead of concentrating on whether or not you met your mission objectives.

As Tanker said, AND IN TERMS OF VICTORY OR DEFEAT, it actually doesn't matter, if you won by concentrating overwhelming force, or if you started with superior numbers overall. A win is a win.

A win might be a Pyrrhic Victory if your losses are disproportionately high, but it is still win.

It is also a win if strong forces crush a weak one.

This is not about players being frustrated because they don't win all the time.

And if you lose a battle against high odds - losing the ground you were ordered to take or hold - you may get an award for bravery or high military competence. But you still lost. A heroic defeat, fighing against the odds, is still a defeat.

And if you crush a small force, but do it inefficiently, then no medal - but you still won. You held the ground you had to hold, or took it from the enemy.

And OF COURSE your commander, one level up the chain of command, should be able to know, fairly soon after the event, that you have achieved your mission objective. He is not sitting in a chateau, miles behind the lines, cut off from events hidden by cannon or musket smoke and reliant on messengers riding back and forth on horses. In SABOW he will be in a command vehicle, not far behind the front line, monitoring the radio net and asking for SitReps when he needs them. He will be continually monitoring the battle, that's his job!!! Telepathy need play no part in it

As you say, and as I just said above, in real life, subordinates would be reporting the situation to their commander. In SABOW there is not a 'send sitrep' button, fine. Not necessary. But even so, sitreps are sent (and asked for by the boss, if they are not). So as you say, the subordinates update the boss. He realises the job is done, and then he sends that message. That's a lot more realistic, than a table popping up. Which of course is why Panzer Commander and M1TP2 - both very good tanksims in their day - did it that way.

[andrey12345]

By your standards Andrey it seems that the Battle of Alamein should be counted as a draw, because 8th Army was very strong and the DAK very weak. Clearly that would be nonsense.

Of course no. You confuse tactical battles and operation / campaign.

Battle of Alamein is not tactical combat it is operation or campaign (in game terms). In operation obviously other criteria.

It makes no sense to distribute tactical rules for the operation and rules of operations for tactical battles. It looks weird and does not happen in the game.

[andrey12345]

You should know that militarily, battles are not won or lost on such criteria. In SABOW, whether you get a victory or a defeat seems to take into account an assessment of your side's performance, instead of concentrating on whether or not you met your mission objectives.

Why do you say that?
The SABOW is precisely accounted achieved objectives. But you just look for this in the wrong place. It is better to look for it where necessary, namely in the results of operations, rather than in local skirmishes.
If we talk about the military terms "mission" = "operation" in the terms of the game. Ie logistics, preparing, reserves and one or more tactical combats, not alone tactical combat.

In this case, it makes sense to talk about reach for some objectives or not. In the case of "capture" a piece of the desert at the cost of several tanks in the superiority 10 to 1, this is strange.

[andrey12345]

I see that the rules of operation no one is watching, and how it works is not interested .
Although everything is very simply:
1) The result of tactical combat is calculated taking into account the operation rather than personal merit (game get medals for personal and achivs for very personal merits)
2) The game for obvious reasons does not know what you have in mind for maneuver
 
If a game has given to you a draw or defeat in tactical battle, you can "compensate" this by making the correct maneuver in the operational phase - for example, taking a key point of the operation (this is the objective in military terms ) then: game compensate losses on points (added score once for the point capture (objective reach) and will add score for each turn then the point is held. Thus, even after casaulties in combat or by making "unfavorable" tactically battles you can win in the operation.

But if you're just doing odd battles with strange objectives (like "capture some pieces of desert") without any sense, there excuse - you will lose in operation.

[33lima]

You should know that militarily, battles are not won or lost on such criteria. In SABOW, whether you get a victory or a defeat seems to take into account an assessment of your side's performance, instead of concentrating on whether or not you met your mission objectives.

Why do you say that?
The SABOW is precisely accounted achieved you objectives or not. But you just look for this in the wrong place. It is better to look for it where necessary, namely in the results of operations, rather than in local skirmishes.
If we talk about the military terms "mission" = "operation" in the terms of the game. Ie logistics, preparing, reserves and one or more tactical combats, not alone tactical combat.

I'm not clear on the distinction that you are drawing between tactical and operational, for the purpose of assessing a victory.

I understand the distinction, in general terms.

Let me try to explain what I mean, though.

Let's say that you are an infantry company commander, commanding three infantry platoons and an atatched tank platoon. Youare taking part in a battalion attack. That attack is part of an attack by a regiment/brigade. Which is part of an attack by a division. Which is part of a corps attack, and so on.

Let's say that your company's objective is a farm and its outbuildings. Other companies are attacking other areas left and right and others will attack objectives beyond that, as exploitation.

Let's say your company succeeds in clearing the farm, and the other companies in your battalion likewise succeed in clearing and holding their objectives.

That is a victory. You won the battle you were fighting. The regiment or the division may or may not have achieved its objectives, but you did. Your company and your battalion was victorious.

And that is the level you are fighting tactical battles at, in SABOW. At least in the Iran-Iraq battles I have fought so far. You are equivalent to a company or battalion commander, depending on the forces you command; one who can, when the fighting starts, jump into the boots of any of his (playable) tank platoon commanders. At the SABOW operational map you may be in charge of a battalion; likely you will be at the level of a company commander, when the tactical, tanksimming part starts.

If the force you command in the tactical battle achieves its objectives - which should be very clear to the player, incidentally - you won. If it didn't, you lost. That's the way I've been looking at this, and that makes perfect sense to me, as I have tried to explain above.

The mission result examples I have posted show something different, it seems because the win/lose decision is being influenced by more subtle factors, like the ratio between the strenght of your force and that of the enemy.

Now you are bringing into the discussion a distinction between operational and tactical, saying that what matters is '...in the results of operations, rather than in local skirmishes.'

Well, first, I disagree. As I said above, if you win a local victory, you....well, WON a local victory. Even if it was only what you call a 'skirmish'. A tactical victory. A victory in your own little battle, regardless of whether it was a Pyrrhic one or not. Regardless if you only smashed a walnut with a sledgehammer. That's what I think should matter, in the results screen.

If SABOW is instead taking 'operational level' factors into consideration, fair enough, I understand now. You can achieve a tacticval victory, but at the operational level, you were defeated or only got a draw. I (and others, as you can see) still think it's confusing and would be better treated as dealing with the result of your own, tactical battle. Did I win or lose the 'skirmish' that I was actually fighting, just then?

Anyway, I now think I understand. The results are those of the battle that I saw earlier, at the 'Operational' map, which may differ from what happened in the 'tactical' level.



 

[33lima]

I see that the rules of operation no one is watching, and how it works is not interested .
Although everything is very simply:
1) The result of tactical combat is calculated taking into account the operation rather than personal merit (game get medals for personal and achivs for very personal merits)
2) The game for obvious reasons does not know what you have in mind for maneuver
 
If a game has given to you a draw or defeat in tactical battle, you can "compensate" this by making the correct maneuver in the operational phase - for example, taking a key point of the operation (this is the objective in military terms ) then: game compensate losses on points (added score once for the point capture (objective reach) and will add score for each turn then the point is held. Thus, even after casaulties in combat or by making "unfavorable" tactically battles you can win in the operation.

But if you're just doing odd battles with strange objectives (like "capture some pieces of desert") without any sense, there excuse - you will lose in operation.

OK thanks, that explanation is helpful. The mission described here...

http://combatace.com/topic/86025-sabow-revenge-of-the-chieftains/#entry692979

...is I think an example of my using the operational phase the way you suggested, to plan an attack with most of my force which is directed both at the flank attack mission I was given in the text briefing, and at capturing not just 'pieces of desert' but (if I'm reading the map markings right) some enemy key points.

I was beaten badly in the tactical battle AND the results screen seems to show the operational level went badly for me, too. It looks like I maybe got a draw because the enemy heavily outnumbered me. But I would consider this battle a defeat, or a major defeat, at either tactical or operational level.

[andrey12345]

I'm not clear on the distinction that you are drawing between tactical and operational, for the purpose of assessing a victory.

No miracles here all as the military:
Tactical = Maneur + fire -> you try destroy enemies and after this try to get best position in the operation (as result territory + casaulties) But at battle end we (and game too ) dont know you do best or not in operation, so you (and enemy) are "paying" for something that is clear (casaulties&territory) and slightly forward for others.
Operational = Tacticals + logistics -> you do right moves and rationally uses available resources and get victory or all this do enemy and you get defeat (as a result is achieving the "mission objectives")

Let's say that you are an infantry company commander, tcomamnding three infantry platoons and an atatched tank platoon. Youare taking part in a battalion attack. That attack is part of an attack by a regiment/brigade. Which is part of an attack by a division. Which is part of a corps attack, and so on.

Yes, but in alone battle game dont know this. Maybe you are attacking is not where need to go and do their own. We got the result, for example, when you capture a key point, faster. In this case game compensate score points to you.

Let's say that your company's objective is a farm and its outbuildings. Other companies are attacking other areas left and right and others will attack objectives beyond that, as exploitation.

As the game will know it? This is your own plan in your head. The game will not make any assumptions in tactical battle. Only objective criteria about waste time or waste resources not more  .

Let's say your company succeeds in clearing the farm, and the other companies in your battalion likewise succeed in clearing and holding their objectives.

Yes, it will, if you did everything right and battalion will move forward and accomplish the mission task, you will get your victory points. But not a second before .
To do this, the game mechanics on the operational map done the following:
1) +1 move to seize the territory after a successful battle.
2) allied forces 'help' (accelerate) movement for allies.
Ie breaking a hole in the defense of the enemy even at the cost of local greater losses, you can get a victory in operation.

That is a victory. You won the battle you were fighting. The regiment or the division may or may not have achieved its objectives, but you did. Your company and your battalion was victorious.

We do not know that at the end of the tactical battle. Maybe you just burned forces and any result that will not give. Game used only objective criteria - casaulties and territory, not more.

If the force you command in the tactical battle achieves its objectives - which should be very clear to the player, incidentally - you won. If it didn't, you lost. That's the way I've been looking at this, and that makes perfect sense to me, as I have tried to explain above.

And you get medals and achievements, not more  
In real world too.

[33lima]

Yes it all makes sense if we realsie that the convention is that you start at the operational level, then fight a tactical battle (in which you can/should try to do something which will achieve victory at operational level), then at the results screen, step back to operational level again. SABOW doesn't know what objectives I have set for my platoons; it can only decide if anything I did, contributed to a win at operational level. The trick then is to try to do things when you are in tactical mode, which will make that contribution. Like taking and holding key points.

OK I understand now.

I still think the result of that battle ( http://combatace.com/topic/86025-sabow-revenge-of-the-chieftains/#entry692979 ) should have been a defeat for me, or a major defeat, not a draw (at both operational and tactical levels). It looks like I am getting too much credit for being beaten by a more numerous enemy.

[andrey12345]

I still think the result of that battle ( http://combatace.com/topic/86025-sabow-revenge-of-the-chieftains/#entry692979 ) should have been a defeat for me, or a major defeat, not a draw (at both operational and tactical levels). It looks like I am getting too much credit for being beaten by a more numerous enemy.

You attacks, and the game treats that the allowable local loss for attacker can be 2-3 times higher than the defenders (it is real state of things). Plus you attack with less forces - attack is treat somthing like recon, and game gives a credit to you.
Well, in fact, nothing has changed - the AI remained in their positions, repulsed the attack. The normal state for most attacks and recons.

And you lost/get ~0 score and AI too. And then - if this recon helps to beat AI in other area, you get key point -> game compensate it. If not - AI get victory score for hold key point and you waste time and resources. But it turns out in the future.

[topnik]

I think the way the game determines the result of the battle is too complicated, and I must say unrealistic. It should be very simple - the side which remains on the battlefield and controls the area is a winner, the side which retreats or loses all teritory and/or troops is loser. The current system should be used only in case of a ceasefire.

Andrey, you often quote that example from Failteam tactics . It is funy, but it is also completely wrong. Say, if a platoon is attacked by a batalion, and the platoon gets wiped out, could the platoon claim victory, or draw? Of course not, regardless of initial strength or casualties. But in SABOW and GTOS weaker side often gets at least draw, even though it is completely destroyed.

[FB_AGA]

It should be very simple - the side which remains on the battlefield and controls the area is a winner,

Unrealistic in terms of modern wars (guerilla warfare). And at least African ww2 campaigns.

[andrey12345]

I think the way the game determines the result of the battle is too complicated, and I must say unrealistic.

You have carefully read what I wrote?

It should be very simple - the side which remains on the battlefield and controls the area is a winner, the side which retreats or loses all teritory and/or troops is loser.
 

Of course not. Do you really think that the task of fighting could be a piece of the desert or planting shrubs?

Andrey, you often quote that example from Failteam tactics . It is funy, but it is also completely wrong.
 

It is completely right and absolutely no fun. In this aspect of course.
But I understand that a human is insulting to lose to the AI, especially if human makes an obviously stupid idea  .

Say, if a platoon is attacked by a batalion, and the platoon gets wiped out, could the platoon claim victory, or draw?
 

If the battalion suffered heavy losses this would defeat if small (comparable with a platoon) it is a draw.
Its really simply rules  

Please read what I wrote a few posts ago.