Combat width calculator app

[*Mule]

I created a simple web app to show which division combat widths get what amount of combat penalty on certain types of terrains depending on how many divisions are participating in the battle. There are also options for calculating combat penalty for "Seize/Hold bridge" combat phase and battles involving attack from multiple directions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/u3skkc

 

[duke engin]

I have one problem with this app.

The green could be a lighter shade of green to make it more visible.

Other than that, this is perfect! Thank you for taking the time and sharing this.

 

[*Mule]

I have one problem with this app.

The green could be a lighter shade of green to make it more visible.

Other than that, this is perfect! Thank you for taking the time and sharing this.

Thanks for your feedback! I will definitely change the color to a lighter shade of green.

 

[Corpse Fool]

You seem to be taking the -50% width from tactics as straight halving the total width including flanks, and my testing has found that to be not how that works. My results show that the half is only applied to the base, not the added width from flanks.

 

[*Mule]

You seem to be taking the -50% width from tactics as straight halving the total width including flanks, and my testing has found that to be not how that works. My results show that the half is only applied to the base, not the added width from flanks.

I just checked it out, you are right. Only the base gets halved. Thanks for this info I will fix this.
However, during testing I noticed a strange behavior. Screenshots attached.
There are 3 things not right on the images:
1. The combat penalty is 33.3%, according to the wiki the max combat width penalty is 33%
Divisions will be added from the reserve unless the combat width penalty exceeds 33%. The combat width penalty is calculated as 1.5 * (total_width - battle_width) / battle_width, so this shows that in a 80-width battle, it is possible to have a 97 width (penalty of 31.9%), but not a hypothetical width of 98 (penalty of 33.75%).
2. Why is the game filling the frontline with 10 divisions instead of 9 which is a perfect match 135/15 = 9. Without the combat width modifier if the division width is a perfect match the game does not put more divisions into the front even if there are space left (with combat penalty).
3. The same scenario display two different combat penalty. 33.3% and 16.6%

 

[duke engin]

You seem to be taking the -50% width from tactics as straight halving the total width including flanks, and my testing has found that to be not how that works. My results show that the half is only applied to the base, not the added width from flanks.

Spoiler: just tested. Seems it still works like you said

Spoiler: So this doesn't match what happens

The case where tactics combat width modifier is -25% could be added as well (just one hold/seize bridge tactic active, or tactical withdrawal active).
Masterful blitz, encirclement or mass charge also have modifiers but are less common so not as necessary imho.

Also, shouldn't the "minimum wasted cw" be 0 in this case?

Spoiler: Rectangled below

 

[duke engin]

However, during testing I noticed a strange behavior. Screenshots attached.

3. The same scenario display two different combat penalty. 33.3% and 16.6%

There's a different tactic shown on the attacker side. Maybe that has an undisplayed effect.

2. Why is the game filling the frontline with 10 divisions instead of 9 which is a perfect match 135/15 = 9. Without the combat width modifier if the division width is a perfect match the game does not put more divisions into the front even if there are space left (with combat penalty).

Could be some rounding issues involved there, maybe? I think they always want the game to have something up its sleeve and make it harder to find perfect metas or crack with simple maths. They also tend to make it so that it favours beginner gameplay or doesn't make life so hard for beginners (which I find pleasing).

 

[Corpse Fool]

1. The combat penalty is 33.3%, according to the wiki the max combat width penalty is 33%
Divisions will be added from the reserve unless the combat width penalty exceeds 33%. The combat width penalty is calculated as 1.5 * (total_width - battle_width) / battle_width, so this shows that in a 80-width battle, it is possible to have a 97 width (penalty of 31.9%), but not a hypothetical width of 98 (penalty of 33.75%).

This certainly is strange. For 150 out of 135, the 16.6 is the correct penalty. Not really sure why it would display double that on some formations and not others. The 168/135 shouldn't be allowed.

2. Why is the game filling the frontline with 10 divisions instead of 9 which is a perfect match 135/15 = 9. Without the combat width modifier if the division width is a perfect match the game does not put more divisions into the front even if there are space left (with combat penalty).

This could have been the result of width being larger, more formations being invited in, and then width shrinking. The game won't kick formations out of the combat unless they break the max 33%, which means that if your formations are small enough you can still end up further over width than you think you should.

3. The same scenario display two different combat penalty. 33.3% and 16.6%

Yes, that certainly is strange.

 

[*Mule]

Spoiler: just tested. Seems it still works like you said

View attachment 829526

Spoiler: So this doesn't match what happens

View attachment 829527

The case where tactics combat width modifier is -25% could be added as well (just one hold/seize bridge tactic active, or tactical withdrawal active).
Masterful blitz, encirclement or mass charge also have modifiers but are less common so not as necessary imho.

Also, shouldn't the "minimum wasted cw" be 0 in this case?

Spoiler: Rectangled below

View attachment 829536

Another nice catch, if only one of the commanders can get into the Seize/Hold bridge phase, then the combat width modifier will be -25% and not -50%. I assumed -50% is always the case because if any of the commander trigger this phase the other commander will get into the counterpart of the same phase.

"Also, shouldn't the "minimum wasted cw" be 0 in this case?"
Min wasted width in this case means if you only field 2 divisions you will waste 25 combat width, 3 divs will fit perfectly. In mountains when fielding 25 cw divs this is not an useful information but for 37 width its indicates 2 of this divisions do not fit perfectly but you will only waste 1 cw which is not bad.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Another nice catch, if only one of the commanders can get into the Seize/Hold bridge phase, then the combat width modifier will be -25% and not -50%. I assumed -50% is always the case because if any of the commander trigger this phase the other commander will get into the counterpart of the same phase.

The thing here is that you can roll either sieze/hold, which will change your phase for the next round of rolls. It's during either of those phases that the common tactics combo's are going to be -50% combined, though there are some counters and such that would only be -25%.

"Also, shouldn't the "minimum wasted cw" be 0 in this case?"
Min wasted width in this case means if you only field 2 divisions you will waste 25 combat width, 3 divs will fit perfectly. In mountains when fielding 25 cw divs this is not an useful information but for 37 width its indicates 2 of this divisions do not fit perfectly but you will only waste 1 cw which is not bad.

I just think it's strange to count the penalty and also count 'wasted width'. Why not just measure the 'effective fighting width'?

 

[*Mule]

There's a different tactic shown on the attacker side. Maybe that has an undisplayed effect.

I would not worry too much about this. I can't really reproduce it. Only managed to do it once, when I took the screenshot.

The thing here is that you can roll either sieze/hold, which will change your phase for the next round of rolls. It's during either of those phases that the common tactics combo's are going to be -50% combined, though there are some counters and such that would only be -25%.

You are right, this has nothing to do with commander skill, its more like the commander with initiative rolls Start Seize Bridge combat tactic and the opponent commander does not roll a counter. But this only happens for one round. I don't think any kind of calculation needed for this edge case.

I just think it's strange to count the penalty and also count 'wasted width'. Why not just measure the 'effective fighting width'?

I think sometimes it's beneficial to know both of the values. For an example
Urban

Division width	Min wasted width (divisions)	Combat penalty (divisions)

23

4 (4)

30% (5)

Attack width 5 divisions and receive a 30% combat penalty is really bad, but attack with only 4 and waste 4 width is not so bad. At least it can be educational for players to realize sometimes its better not to fill the full frontline when attacking.
Can you please elaborate what do you mean by 'effective fighting width'? It might be a better system to display this data.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I think sometimes it's beneficial to know both of the values. For an example
Urban

Division width	Min wasted width (divisions)	Combat penalty (divisions)

23

4 (4)

30% (5)

Attack width 5 divisions and receive a 30% combat penalty is really bad, but attack with only 4 and waste 4 width is not so bad. At least it can be educational for players to realize sometimes its better not to fill the full frontline when attacking.

But if you're defending, you don't control how many of the formations in the province actually enter the combat like you can if you were attacking. The battleplanner AI also can't really be trusted to avoid these sorts of penalties, they're just going to stack formations in the oddest ways for no discernable reason. Finding a 'good width' is just trying to minimize the amount of micromanaging you have to do

Can you please elaborate what do you mean by 'effective fighting width'? It might be a better system to display this data.

If we ignore supports for a moment, width=stats. In that way a penalty to your stats for going over width, is a penalty to the width you're fighting with.

Keeping with your 5 23w, they suffer a -29.7% penalty in the 96w combat. This makes each formation nearly 30% smaller than what it really is, just over 16w. Or, out of the 115 total width that you're paying the manpower/equipment/supply/fuel to put in the zone to be bringing to the fight, you're only 'effectively fighting' with about 81w of it.
So, for 23w in urban, the EFW would only be 81, less than the 96 allowed by a fair margin and it could be said that 23 is not a good width.

 

[*Mule]

But if you're defending, you don't control how many of the formations in the province actually enter the combat like you can if you were attacking. The battleplanner AI also can't really be trusted to avoid these sorts of penalties, they're just going to stack formations in the oddest ways for no discernable reason. Finding a 'good width' is just trying to minimize the amount of micromanaging you have to do

I agree. As I briefly mentioned before min cw waste does not really make sense when there is combat penalty or the divisions fit perfectly. However when its not, it's nice to know how much width are you wasting. It's true this data could be displayed as effective fighting width, in that case closer to combat total width the better, right now its lower the better. I think its easier to read the data this way. To be honest I created this tool to min max divisions for my 1v1 games with my friend. During those games I try to minimize AI interference (multiple 2-3 tile long fronts etc...). During those games I can fine tune how many divisions I put into each tile. But I agree, during a more relaxed gameplay most of this information is not relevant.

So, for 23w in urban, the EFW would only be 81, less than the 96 allowed by a fair margin and it could be said that 23 is not a good width.

I will experiment with this idea a bit, I think it will be harder to read then the current system (lower the better for waster width and higher the worst for penalty). However I suspect EFW would be an interesting data when comparing division widths. There might be cases when the penalty for one division would be higher then the other but the EFW would be also higher therefor the division will be better but the current system would indicate its worst.
Thanks for your input again! This is really interesting discussion.