Small divisions did not survive in large scale battles

[Old Fenrir]

Firstly, I would like to thank AGEOD team for this great game.
Secondly, I would like to apologize for the bad English. This language is not my native. I'am read, but not write on it.

Essence of question.
In large scale battles in ACW and RUS, divisions often completely destroyed in single round of combat. In the same time, other divisions from the same corps did not take hits, or take little. IMHO, this is not good and historically realistic. In ACW this thing manifested mostly in the second half of game (modernized infantry, bonuses from trenches to artillery). And in RUS this sad phenomenon revealed himself already in the beginning, due to small size of the divisions.
For example: 6 small (5 combat elements in each) white divisions attacks slightly stronger red forces, which include 2 strong divisions. As a result: 35% losses in single round and almost all of them - 2 annihilated divisions. After making from 6 small divisions 4 bigger ones, there is no divisions annihilated whith same level of casualties.

In fact, this is quite annoying and historically unrealistic thing. In reality, white divisions was quite small and most of red divisions - too. Not to mention the fact, that battles on corps - army level in beginning of 20th century was lasted for days, and at least should not be completed in single round by destruction of the one-third of 30000 army.

I understand, that not all can be done, and not all can be done quick. But is there any hope? To make losses in the rounds smaller, combat more continuous and, therefore, casualties distribution less "extremal" ?

With sincere respect, best wishes and hope for an answer.

[ohms_law]

Well... multiple day battles do occur. Keep in mind that during the time period of both the ACW and RCW that large scale actions weren't nearly as common as they became during and after World War II. It takes a lot of resources to continue an actual battle over multiple days.

It helps if you consider the unit movements that occur over the days leading up to the battle, and the days following one, as part of a continuous action. I mean, battles like Antietam and Gettysburg didn't just magically happen.

Multi-day battles should probably be more common in RUS than they are in AACW, though.

[Old Fenrir]

Yes, multiple day battles is occured, but mainly whith participation of quite small and poor organized forces.
And, when you playing whith experienced human player, good organization, concentration of forces and large battles are common.

Problem is that exactly large battles with the participation of normally organized forces ending in 1-2 rounds with tremendous casualties. And, what is worst of all, with almost unavoidable annihilation of small divisions and large number of regiments.

This is the problem, mainly. In PBEM, player in fact have no choice, than create as large divisions, as he can, trying to avoid this nasty thing. Which is not good for gameplay and historical atmosphere. Almost unavoidable complete annihilation of large number of regiments, including elite ones, in normal combat (not encirclement or inability to withdraw, not overwhelming superiority of one of sides) - also not good thing.

[ohms_law]

I kind of agree, but...

I'm not exactly sure that I understand what you're trying to say though. At least, not perfectly. Is your main point that the size of divisions ends up being too large? Or, is your main point that battles are too short? Or, is your main point that individual unit elements are destroyed too easily?

"Almost unavoidable complete annihilation of large number of regiments" leads me to think that your main criticism is that the combat results cause entire elements to be casualties too often. I can agree with that, although is should still happen occasionally (especially as a result of encirclements and similar situations).

[Old Fenrir]

The point is not that the available size of divisions too large - same red divisions was large in reality.
And the point is not in that battles too short - this is sort of convention, yet.

The point is exactly in the large number of annihilated elements in small divisions in normal combat (without encirclement or inability to withdraw) of two large and well organized forces in single round of battle.

[Baris]

The best part of the Age engine is there is no clear formula whether it is good to always concentrate and create huge stacks or spread a little more. As Rus has a very big map , too big stacks can lower the mobility of your forces around the map to react med size enemy stacks for capturing objective region or gaining military control around you. In the battles as long as there is cohesion fighting continues. Terrain and entrenchment can be very important for the outcome of battles if you dont have very small force. As for very small stacks it is better not to have more than 4 units for not having evade penalty.

[Old Fenrir]

Big stacks required in PBEM with experienced player to hold or take key positions. Otherwise, your forces will massacred part by part by the concentrated forces of the enemy. RUS has large map, but the main action basically takes place around several key positions and along railroads.

In any case, regardless of the preferred playing style, large number of annihilated elements in very short time without inability of forces to retreat - it is not good or realistic thing.

[ERISS]

Big stacks required in PBEM with experienced player to hold or take key positions.

Henri Navarre had to be a pbem player, to take the Dien Bien Phu key position

[Old Fenrir]

Henri Navarre had to be a pbem player, to take the Dien Bien Phu key position

Henri Navarre was not been an experienced PBEM player to take and hold Dien Bien Phu key position. But Vo Nguyen Giap - was. apy:

[OneArmedMexican]

Yes, multiple day battles is occured, but mainly whith participation of quite small and poor organized forces.
And, when you playing whith experienced human player, good organization, concentration of forces and large battles are common.

Problem is that exactly large battles with the participation of normally organized forces ending in 1-2 rounds with tremendous casualties. And, what is worst of all, with almost unavoidable annihilation of small divisions and large number of regiments.

This is the problem, mainly. In PBEM, player in fact have no choice, than create as large divisions, as he can, trying to avoid this nasty thing. Which is not good for gameplay and historical atmosphere. Almost unavoidable complete annihilation of large number of regiments, including elite ones, in normal combat (not encirclement or inability to withdraw, not overwhelming superiority of one of sides) - also not good thing.

+ 1

This is something that has me annoyed for quite some time,too.

I understand that in the early rounds of a battle not all units engage. But the longer a battle lasts, the less relistic this gets. Eventually commanders are bound to throw in all the reserves, they have.
At that point it gets unbelievable that a single division takes all the damage to the point of annihilation while other divisions in a stack get away without a scratch.

[caranorn]

+ 1

This is something that has me annoyed for quite some time,too.

I understand that in the early rounds of a battle not all units engage. But the longer a battle lasts, the less relistic this gets. Eventually commanders are bound to throw in all the reserves, they have.
At that point it gets unbelievable that a single division takes all the damage to the point of annihilation while other divisions in a stack get away without a scratch.

I think the problem (present in many of the gams based on the Age engine) is due to too low a loss of cohesion in battle compared to actual damage. As far as I can tell, cohesion losses are heavier than damage, but possibly not yet high enough for any situation other than WWI style trench warfare (where indeed entire regiments could be decimated within hours). On the other hand the various games' time scale could justify these destructions (at least some formations did historically go from fully mobilised to destroyed within a two week tim frame, that is in research I've been doing lately for a little project of mine). I believe low cohesion units will try to avoid combat in the engine, therefore a unit that has lost sufficient cohesion will try to retreat. Of course this may fail due to commanding officers, cavalry present etc.

Outside trench warfare though I would expect units to stand a good chance of survival in a single battle (regardless of battle rounds). On the other hand repeated battles, even within a single turn should probably lead to the wreckage of substantial forces on the losing side...

I don't have enough historic knowledge of the military component of the Russian Civil War to determine whether small divisions are realistic or not (I don't understand some of this game's underlying design decisions, so don't wish to speculate on these)...

[Baris]

ongoing battles with low cohesion expenditure in battle event is a problem in especially ROP,(High NM value in unit models "3-4" resulting 11-12 NM loss in single battle) but not in RUS as there is lesser units that have NM loss oriented. But the common problem in which both games suffer are the multi-battles in a single turn. It is especially a problem when stacks get bigger especially in Drang scenario. I think the battle results are realistic as long as the battles does not occur very frequently in a single turn.
But as for addressing to the original post, The bigger the division(combined unit) is, the more likely it will suffer from enemy fire. The main advantage of the bigger division is that it can sustain more damage before destruction if it is targeted(most likely by the engine). But there is no guarantee reserves will not get targeted or survive.
*AFAIK combined units/reserves in the stack that are previously fought and take damage in the last rounds of battle are more reluctant to be chosen by the engine to battle again.

Edit: I think there should be another parameter in age engine that if surrounding regions are hostile about MC value, there should be more casualties. If less hostile there should be opportunities to escape battle for the losing side.

[Old Fenrir]

The main problem, I think, is that the units taking hits too fast. Which leads to losses about 30-40% per one or two rounds of battle. And, with the existing system of targeting, - to the annihilation of large number of elements, when large division firing on a smaller one, before smaller division can get out of combat.

As for historical realism, complete annihilation of entire regiments and divisions was very rare thing in normal combat, maneuver or trench. During several days of battles or even in several hours of battle regiments and divisions may suffer 80-90% casualties, but still survive and subsequently replenished. Complete annihilation usually occurred in the cases of encirclement, or long retreat and pursuit, accompanied by a drop of troops morale and capitulation.

Historical size of the vast majority of "red' and "white" divisions in RCW was 2000-4000 of active "bayonets" and "sabers". The Reds had few elite divisions in which there were more than 10000 active fighters.

[Narwhal]

As for historical realism, complete annihilation of entire regiments and divisions was very rare thing in normal combat, maneuver or trench. During several days of battles or even in several hours of battle regiments and divisions may suffer 80-90% casualties, but still survive and subsequently replenished. Complete annihilation usually occurred in the cases of encirclement, or long retreat and pursuit, accompanied by a drop of troops morale and capitulation.

For all practical purposes, a division with 90% casualties can be considered anniliated, as it will have to be rebuilt from scratch. Sure, the "new" division can keep the name, but that's pretty much all.

[Old Fenrir]

For all practical purposes, a division with 90% casualties can be considered anniliated, as it will have to be rebuilt from scratch. Sure, the "new" division can keep the name, but that's pretty much all.

Must disagree with this statement. We should take into account, that most of the survivors - experienced fighters, who form the backbone of military unit. And we should take into account, that much of the losses - it is wounded, who after some time will return to their unit.
In practice, even those military units, which suffered such losses, still remained alive and battleworthy organisms. Here the fighting ability affected not so much from losses, how much from the victories or defeats.
So, complete annihilation of elements in "normal" combat - it is not realistic phenomenon.

Vivid example - the "colored" forces of southern Whites. In the 2,5 years they pass through themselves a number of fighters many times exceeding their staff number. They are constantly engaged in heavy fighting, suffering heavy losses and more than once reach up to the almost complete destruction. However, in the end, they remained same elite shock troops, what they was in the beginning.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Must disagree with this statement. We should take into account, that most of the survivors - experienced fighters, who form the backbone of military unit. And we should take into account, that much of the losses - it is wounded, who after some time will return to their unit.
In practice, even those military units, which suffered such losses, still remained alive and battleworthy organisms. Here the fighting ability affected not so much from losses, how much from the victories or defeats.
So, complete annihilation of elements in "normal" combat - it is not realistic phenomenon.

Vivid example - the "colored" forces of southern Whites. In the 2,5 years they pass through themselves a number of fighters many times exceeding their staff number. They are constantly engaged in heavy fighting, suffering heavy losses and more than once reach up to the almost complete destruction. However, in the end, they remained same elite shock troops, what they was in the beginning.

What are you suggesting? Removing the elimination of elements and changing the way combat works would be a pretty massive undertaking. You'd have to completely change how the economy and production work as well. It's semantics to me whether you have to rebuild 90% of an element or buy a new one.

[Old Fenrir]

What are you suggesting? Removing the elimination of elements and changing the way combat works would be a pretty massive undertaking. You'd have to completely change how the economy and production work as well. It's semantics to me whether you have to rebuild 90% of an element or buy a new one.

I am suggest make less casualties per round of combat and, therefore, more rounds of combat. What will make distribution of casualties less "extremal" and eliminate abnormal annihilation of elements in combat. Except for the cases of inability to retreat or a large numerical superiority of the enemy.

Do not quite understand the part about the economy and production. In my opinion, they have nothing to do with this problem.
The corresponding correction of combat mechanics and it's possibility - it's a question for the developers, if one of them will honor this subject with his attention.

Leaving aside the question of historical realism, and speaking only about the realities of the game. As for that the replenish of element at 10% strength = buy new one - i don't think so. Elite elements usually is irreplaceable. And element with 3-4 level of experience and a new element with 0 level of experience - it is not the same. Not to mention the loss of NM for the destroyed elements and loss of time on the production and delivery of new elements to the front.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I am suggest make less casualties per round of combat and, therefore, more rounds of combat. What will make distribution of casualties less "extremal" and eliminate abnormal annihilation of elements in combat. Except for the cases of inability to retreat or a large numerical superiority of the enemy.

Do not quite understand the part about the economy and production. In my opinion, they have nothing to do with this problem.
The corresponding correction of combat mechanics and it's possibility - it's a question for the developers, if one of them will honor this subject with his attention.

Leaving aside the question of historical realism, and speaking only about the realities of the game. As for that the replenish of element at 10% strength = buy new one - i don't think so. Elite elements usually is irreplaceable. And element with 3-4 level of experience and a new element with 0 level of experience - it is not the same. Not to mention the loss of NM for the destroyed elements and loss of time on the production and delivery of new elements to the front.

A 3-4 level experience unit that gets 90% raw replacements is going to fall to 0-1 experience in reality. I don't think the game engine can handle that though so completely replacing a unit is probably the best way to make that realistic. And you brought up something I hadn't considered. Taking out unit eliminations would make combat much less important on NM. I already think it's lower than it should be. If no units got eliminated, even major victories would result in minor morale gains.

I'm not disputing your contention that complete destruction was rare, but adding an idea by itself that is theoretically more realistic won't necessarily make the overall game experience more realistic. What you suggest would drastically alter the way combat results are calculated, and in turn, how the players would fight the war. This isn't even considering how it would affect the AI performance. Would this change by itself bring the end result closer or farther away from a good model of the conflict? I guess I'm saying compromising on the complete destruction issue is preferrable IMO, to changing it without addressing all the other issues it would raise.

I see the same problem in AACW when people suggest making conscription correspond more realistically to history. This would cause a ripple effect of consequences that would need to be adressed. That might happen in AACW, but I don't think the official support or player base is here to handle a change of this magnitude for RUS. (then again, maybe I'm wrong about that)

To relate my argument to RUS gameplay, throwing in realisitc amounts of desertion would make this game nearly unplayable. At the very least it would result in a much different experience. Therefore desertion isn't really that realistic in this game. (at least to my limited understanding of the conflict) I find it preferrable to accept this than to attempt to change it and deal with all the consequences that would bring.

To summarize, in an ideal world your suggestion could be integrated into the system with other changes to make a more realistic experience. However, It's my opinion that this change would be a negative to the overall experience, at least in the short and probably medium term.

If you have modding experience, maybe you could try it in a mod? A change like this needs to be heavily tested to be integrated.

Anyway, sorry for rambling. I hope at least some of what I just wrote makes sense.

[Old Fenrir]

I'm sorry, but i must to disagree with the fact, that in reality a 3-4 level experience unit, that gets 90% raw replacements is going to fall to 0-1 experience. The reasons for that I outlined above. In the game, incidentally, as far as I can understand, this moment is reflected close to reality. Ie, the loss of 90% of strength causes loses not 90% of experience, but less. And this is good.
And even without destroyed elements medium size battle may costs 4-5 NM - quite a lot.

Of course, I do not propose to try to move all the realities of our world in the game.This is not technically possible and it would kill the gameplay.
But, I think, there is still a difference between save a player from the separate annoying problem, bringing at the same time game closer to the reality, and to bring down on payer's head an avalanche of 100% of the problems, that leaders during the Civil War faced the reality: antipathies and ambitions of subordinate commanders, because of which it was often impossible to achive execution of the orders; interests and moods of various political forces and population groups; changes in morale of the troops, when the troops, wich a couple of months ago has been reliable, decay or fall into apathy and completely lose combat effectiveness; sudden desertion to the enemy of entire regiments; typhoid epidemics, causing losses greater than the heaviest battles; and much, much more, that affected the outcome of the war more than weapons, organization, tactics and strategy.

As to the consequences, that may affect the entire game, - I must confess, I do not see why stopping the destruction of the elements where they should not be destroyed, should lead to dramatic changes in game balance. I do not think that mode will help (the reduction of attack and defense parameters, etc.), because it really would break the balance, making the battles bloodless. Relatively small change in the game engine, which would have made losses in each round smaller, and a retreat - a more lengthy process, would be a healthier option. In my option. As far as this is really - the question to the developers.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I'm sorry, but i must to disagree with the fact, that in reality a 3-4 level experience unit, that gets 90% raw replacements is going to fall to 0-1 experience. The reasons for that I outlined above. In the game, incidentally, as far as I can understand, this moment is reflected close to reality. Ie, the loss of 90% of strength causes loses not 90% of experience, but less. And this is good.
And even without destroyed elements medium size battle may costs 4-5 NM - quite a lot.

I actually don't know. Does unit replacements affect experience in AGE games? Using the example above, does a unit that loses 90% of it's strength and gets rebuilt lose any experience at all? I wasn't aware that it did.

Also, try getting a 4-5 NM result without unit casualties. It's very difficult to do with the current build. It would require an extremely large discrepancy in casualties. With shorter combat rounds and quicker retreats, this would be even harder to accomplish than it already is.

Of course, I do not propose to try to move all the realities of our world in the game.This is not technically possible and it would kill the gameplay.
But, I think, there is still a difference between save a player from the separate annoying problem, bringing at the same time game closer to the reality, and to bring down on payer's head an avalanche of 100% of the problems, that leaders during the Civil War faced the reality: antipathies and ambitions of subordinate commanders, from which it was often impossible to achive execution of the orders; interests and moods of various political forces and population groups; changes in morale of the troops, when the troops, wich a couple of months ago has been reliable, decay or fall into apathy and completely lose combat effectiveness; sudden desertion to the enemy of entire regiments; typhoid epidemics, causing losses greater than the heaviest battles; and much, much more, that affected the outcome of the war more than weapons, organization, tactics and strategy.

If element losses are reduced significantly, then force makeup would just continually grow. This wasn't the case in the RCW. You'd have to add in significant amounts of what you describe above as being "annoying" (and I'd agree) to maintain balance and prevent continuously growing armies.

As to the consequences, that may affect the entire game, - I must confess, I do not see why stopping the destruction of the elements where they should not be destroyed, should lead to dramatic changes in game balance. I do not think that mode will help (the reduction of attack and defense parameters, etc.), because it really would break the balance, making the battles bloodless. Relatively small change in the game engine, which would have made losses in each round smaller, and a retreat - a more lengthy process, would be a healthier option. In my option. As far as this is really - the question to the developers.

This is the rub. What you suggest is a major change. It would require significant play testing to be properly balanced. "which would have made losses in each round smaller, and a retreat - a more lengthy process" isn't an option without a ton of play testing.

The Cohesion system isn't built for that. Continuing a pursuit over multiple days/turns is very difficult even with major victories because cohesion drops power much quicker than hits do. Cohesion would have to be significantly readjusted and tested.

The retreat system isn't built for this either. How do you pursue an enemy? Where do they go when defeated? You currently can't predict that. These are 15 day turns and you can't redirect in the middle of the turn. The game was built for 1 day battles. I'm not even sure this could be properly adjusted without an entirely new engine.

The replacement system isn't built for this as I stated above in the 2nd paragraph.

The NM system isn't built for this as I stated above in the 1st paragraph.

So far, I'm arguing completely from a game limitation direction. I might be getting overly technical. AACW is probably the most popular game that Ageod has made. Units rarely were completely destroyed in the ACW as well. Yet, you can catch divisions and wipe them out in that game as well. Losing whole divisions can usually be traced back to a problem between the keyboard and the chair. Most of the time you see large amounts of elements destroyed is because one side was vastly more powerful than the other. This goes for any Age engine game. It also goes for any battle in real life. The secret is to not let that happen.

[caranorn]

Actually I've rarelly seen destruction of whole divisions in AACW, unless they were cornered and destroyed over the duration of several turns. Which is of course how it should be. In RuS the likelyhood of several elements within the same unit being destroyed seems to be higher, though I haven't paid much attention to it (my white russian formations are essentially corps, I don't keep any of the small divisions as they start for more than a few turns). In PoN casualties can be catastrophic, there I've seen entire armies whiped out in a single battle which obviously seems too much...

As to casualties within an element, replacements and experience. I believe this may indeed have changed through all Age games. I first noticed this in PoN, a unit taking casualties in battle and attrition, being refilled with replacements and now having less experience than before. I think this is tied with how units now gain (more?) experience without having to destroy entire elements of enemy units. Certainly I've noticed these two effects around the same time in PoN...

And I also agree with Old Fenrir (the wolf?) that historically units that survived battle but where massively depleted could rebuild by swallowing up relatively rough recruits and maintain a rather high level of general competence. For example some of the German Volksgrenadier divisions in WWII that were rebuilt from cadres of old experienced divisions, compared to the entirely new Volksgrenadier divisions these tended to assemble much faster and perform much better. This was in large part due to experienced officers and NCO's being able to maintain much of the old standards within the unit, something a unit encadred by old bench officers and NCO's fresh from school obviously couldn't do...

[Old Fenrir]

Also, try getting a 4-5 NM result without unit casualties. It's very difficult to do with the current build. It would require an extremely large discrepancy in casualties.

Very easy. Attack with medium size army on completely entrenched army of comparable size. Or attack with superiority of 3-4 times, compared to the defender. In other words - normal result of the normal attack in PBEM.

With shorter combat rounds and quicker retreats, this would be even harder to accomplish than it already is.

I'm not suggest shorter combat rounds and quicker retreats. I suggest more rounds with less casualties in each and more lenghty retreat.

If element losses are reduced significantly, then force makeup would just continually grow. This wasn't the case in the RCW. You'd have to add in significant amounts of what you describe above as being "annoying" (and I'd agree) to maintain balance and prevent continuously growing armies.

Disagree. Size of the armies limited by the losses of manpower, not by annihilation of elements.

This is the rub. What you suggest is a major change. It would require significant play testing to be properly balanced. "which would have made losses in each round smaller, and a retreat - a more lengthy process" isn't an option without a ton of play testing.

Yes, of course. Any noticeable change in the game requires testing. I think, in this case, no more than for any other noticeable change in the game. But this is better be judged by developers.

I suspect, that the game engine was created for BOA (no more that 4 companies(elements) in regiment). Not for divisions of 18 or 26 elements, which all fire at same enemy division and annihilate it in single volley.
Maybe it's time to change something? The 20th century has come, after all.

The retreat system isn't built for this either. How do you pursue an enemy? Where do they go when defeated? You currently can't predict that. These are 15 day turns and you can't redirect in the middle of the turn.

As far as I can remember, there is special feature in game, wich allow to conduct pursuit of enemy/frendly unit.

The replacement system isn't built for this as I stated above in the 2nd paragraph.

The NM system isn't built for this as I stated above in the 1st paragraph.

As I stated above, it is not so. apy:

So far, I'm arguing completely from a game limitation direction.

I am not suggesting to impose restrictions in the game. I'm suggesting to slightly correct battle mechanics, to prevent annoying and unnatural things and make game more close to reality.

Losing whole divisions can usually be traced back to a problem between the keyboard and the chair. Most of the time you see large amounts of elements destroyed is because one side was vastly more powerful than the other. This goes for any Age engine game. It also goes for any battle in real life. The secret is to not let that happen.

For example:


Confederate attack at 2.5 times superiority in strength and 3 times superiority in effective power. The result - destruction of one of the Confederate divisions. Division is full-blooded, 18 elements. The effect is stable - tested several times. I would not refuse to learn, what problems in the interface between chair and keyboard cause this effect. Regards.

In RuS the likelyhood of several elements within the same unit being destroyed seems to be higher,

Smaller divisions, yes.

though I haven't paid much attention to it (my white russian formations are essentially corps, I don't keep any of the small divisions as they start for more than a few turns).

You could, of course. But this is not good for historical atmosphere, nor for operative flexibility.

And I also agree with Old Fenrir (the wolf?)

Yes, he.

[ERISS]

In WW2, to hope having victory for sure without much loss, you had to fight 7 vs 1. Before this era, I don't know.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The problem with that pic would be that you should never frontal assault a force dug into that level. I do think entrenchments are overpowered. I've looked into modding the max entrench down a bit but haven't tried it yet. Nothing to do with the combat round length though.

[Old Fenrir]

Agree that the entrenchments are overpowered. Especially, considering that the 4 levels of defenses may be raised in a single turn with engineers aid. And considering that to the middle of the game it is hard to find forсes with lesser level of entrenchment.

And nothing to do with the combat round length, yes. The problem is in the too high rate of losses during round. Because of what instantly destroyed entire divisions. In single round. Despite the superiority in strength.
The rest - just consequences.

[lodilefty]

The problem with that pic would be that you should never frontal assault a force dug into that level. I do think entrenchments are overpowered. I've looked into modding the max entrench down a bit but haven't tried it yet. Nothing to do with the combat round length though.

AACW has many entrench level events to copy

I'm not sure what you mean by the point I highlited, but in \Settings\GameLogic.opt you'll find:

cbtNbRoundsPerDay = 6 // Number of rounds per day

maybe change that?
...but note that if you increase above 6, you'll need to also change the section:
// ***** ROE *****
in same file...