Ground Combat Code

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ground Combat Code

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Ground Combat Code

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 11:31:44 AM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

To Resolve Ground Combat,

does the code only calculate

AV vs AV ??

Or does it take into account the "Anti Armor" and "Anti Inf" values of a Device vs Device ?

'

< Message edited by Japan -- 5/10/2009 11:34:44 AM >

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

Post #: 1

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 11:46:23 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Both very simply and at 90,000 feet

Its a series of tests leader, exp, prep, HQ, supply etc
Its a series of fire phases which affects AV by causing disablments, fatigue, disruption etc etc
Then a further series of tests
Then an adjusted AV v AV
Then an in turn recovery phase

Its a lot more complicated than that but thats the gist

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 2

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 11:47:47 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

http://witp.kodapa.com/index.php?title=LCUs_and_Ground_Combat

This summarises the land combat model pretty well, I'm unsure of the specifics related to the code of device Vs device...

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 3

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 12:45:50 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Whoever wrote that missed the opening artillery round.

Before the odds are calculated, the units shoot at one another. First there is a round of attacker artillery, followed by a round of defensive fire (which is only artillery if bombardment attack), and then finally there is a round of regular attacker fire (if not bombardment).

After everybody is done shooting at one another, odds are calculated taking into account a zillion factors, then various things like base capture, engineer's fort reduction, retreat, and surrender are determined. Anti soft and anti armor values are only factors in the first part when units are shooting at one another. The assault value used for the odds starts with the total number of good order combat squads, combat engineer squads, and AFVs in the unit. The combat rating of each device/squad is not a factor in the initial number. (Don't ask me why, it's one of those things that's been there since the beginning and a more complete redesign didn't make the cut.)

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 4

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 3:49:32 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Taking it back to a higher level.

THere are two processes in land combat:

01 - Shooting

02 - Odds comparison/retreat determination/base ownership change.

So in the 01 - you have both the artillery fire - and the shorter ranges weapons firing - Assault Value plays no part in the shooting.

But in the 02 - the adjusted Assault Values are compared and then the determination made as to whether one side is retreated.

This is why you can sometimes see something like 1 to 2 odds but the defender still might take more casualties. In this case the casualties would all be determined by the shooting - not the odds.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 5

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 4:00:51 PM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Taking it back to a higher level.

THere are two processes in land combat:

01 - Shooting

02 - Odds comparison/retreat determination/base ownership change.

So in the 01 - you have both the artillery fire - and the shorter ranges weapons firing - Assault Value plays no part in the shooting.

But in the 02 - the adjusted Assault Values are compared and then the determination made as to whether one side is retreated.

This is why you can sometimes see something like 1 to 2 odds but the defender still might take more casualties. In this case the casualties would all be determined by the shooting - not the odds.

Thanks alot sir, thanks very much.

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 6

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 6:41:27 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Taking it back to a higher level.

THere are two processes in land combat:

01 - Shooting

02 - Odds comparison/retreat determination/base ownership change.

So in the 01 - you have both the artillery fire - and the shorter ranges weapons firing - Assault Value plays no part in the shooting.

But in the 02 - the adjusted Assault Values are compared and then the determination made as to whether one side is retreated.

This is why you can sometimes see something like 1 to 2 odds but the defender still might take more casualties. In this case the casualties would all be determined by the shooting - not the odds.

So this is where the US infantry units get their advantage if I understand correctly. It was brought up that the US units have a lower AV than Japanese and British units because they are inherantly smaller in troop numbers than the same size unt (say comparing Inf Div's). It was also pointed out that the firepower of the US units is stronger though. So, if I am understanding this, the US units have a better chance of causing disablements in the shootig phase. Is that correct?

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 7

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 7:02:46 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

All other things being equal - units with more fire power will cause more casualties - of course.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 8

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 7:04:17 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
So this is where the US infantry units get their advantage if I understand correctly. It was brought up that the US units have a lower AV than Japanese and British units because they are inherantly smaller in troop numbers than the same size unt (say comparing Inf Div's). It was also pointed out that the firepower of the US units is stronger though. So, if I am understanding this, the US units have a better chance of causing disablements in the shootig phase. Is that correct?

That was exactly the concept. The team spent a lot of time trying to balance firepower vs AV. That's one reason you'll see several new squad types in the various LCUs.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 9

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/10/2009 11:01:42 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

So this is where the US infantry units get their advantage if I understand correctly. It was brought up that the US units have a lower AV than Japanese and British units because they are inherantly smaller in troop numbers than the same size unt (say comparing Inf Div's). It was also pointed out that the firepower of the US units is stronger though. So, if I am understanding this, the US units have a better chance of causing disablements in the shootig phase. Is that correct?

A Japanese LCU that chooses the wrong time and place to assault a US LCU of modern (1942 mid or later......ex, your typical fully outfitted RCT or Marine regiment) without proper support or numbers will tend to suffer far larger "casualties" than vice versa. In most cases where no forced retreat out of the hex occurs, this will typically consist mostly of disablements, but with enough of them the Japanese LCU will quickly become combat ineffective.

An old test i once used as an example highlighted it in spades. Taking a fully intact IJN Division and attacking a fully intact Ameican RCT (Army regiment) sitting in jungle terrain with no fort levels but with no air or sea bombardment usually resulted in the division being burned out within 3 failed (0-1 modified combat odds) assaults. While mostly disablements becuase there was no retreat....the IJN Divsion's AV level was reduced to that of a Bn strength or less.

Attacking the other way (US vs. IJ unit) the casualties on the American side for a failed attack were far less severe due to the typical IJ unit having far less firepower.

so firepower is factored in the game and shows that one 0-1 odds or any modified combat odds results are not all the same due to the different device types and their values in play.

_____________________________

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 10

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 4:07:50 AM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

Very good information in this thread. I get to check off today's "one thing new learned".

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 11

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 5:06:21 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

So i would be correct saying that armor, soft/hard firepower values matter in first phase only? And second phase counts only unit morals, experience, leader ability, HQ influence, supply, terrain and of course the number of devices not disabled?

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 12

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 6:09:40 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

counts only unit morals

Morals?

That would indeed be hard to calculate

_____________________________

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 13

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 4:23:04 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

counts only unit morals

Morals?

That would indeed be hard to calculate

So we now have VD units that we stack with combat units in order to increase their morals?

_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 14

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 5:29:55 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

okay, okay forgive this poor latin language speaker: morale

Far from me being a Moralist if WITM40 ever appears i already have a bordello unit slotted for Benghazi(Italian) w/ 10 support.

and another for Oran(American), the american one was an whole building managed by the Army.

< Message edited by Dili -- 5/11/2009 8:46:15 PM >

(in reply to Charbroiled)

Post #: 15

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 6:24:58 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

One of these days, we are gonna get a computer war game for a pre-Victorian era conflict�that somehow represents the "camp follower" "unit" and that will be one heckuva fun addition to the whole 'strategic' decision process. Lessee, should I have 'em charge exorbitant fees but give major happy endings, or instead focus on the cheap quickies?

At Charbroiled:

quote:

VD units that we stack with combat units in order to increase their morals?

Didn't you mean _decrease_ morals, but increase _morales?_

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 5/11/2009 6:26:31 PM >

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 16

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 7:04:08 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

At Charbroiled:

quote:

VD units that we stack with combat units in order to increase their morals?

Didn't you mean _decrease_ morals, but increase _morales?_

"VD Units" were people that went from unit to unit to explain the dangers of catching "VD". They recommended absinance and insinuated that the enemy put "ladies/spies" in bars/brothels that had VD to intentionally infect our troops. Hence the reason to "increase morals".

_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 17

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 8:31:30 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

I remember it well. "Hey, GI want boom-boom?"

(in reply to Charbroiled)

Post #: 18

RE: Ground Combat Code - 5/11/2009 8:45:02 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

...I found myself in the company
of the leading gunners mate in the 692, one of those sailors whose work aboard and at sea leaves nothing to be desired, and whose conduct ashore is often precisely the opposite, in his case invariably sparked by overly aggressive behavior where women were concerned.
The conversation went like this: “Captain, can I ask you a personal question?” “I guess so, Guns, depends on how personal.” “Well, you just saw that Lana Turner dame, right?” “Right.” “Well, do you mean to tell me that if you knew she had VD, you..uh..wouldn’t have nothing to do with her?” “Absolutely, Guns, wouldn’t touch her with a ten-foot pole.” (A long audible sigh) then “Captain, if she has it, I want it.”
I guess some education programs have their limits

http://www.moaacc.org/Intercomjan08.pdf Page 6

(in reply to Charbroiled)

Post #: 19