Question on ground combat odds.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Question on ground combat odds.

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Question on ground combat odds.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question on ground combat odds. - 3/7/2011 8:50:53 PM

pacificbetta

Posts: 110
Joined: 12/4/2009
Status: offline

Have a question on AV combat odds, I cannot seem to find the explanation in the manual. To my understanding (and also a lot of guesswork), adjusted AV is based on the following:

Adjusted AV = Base AV * Terrain * Prep * Fort * Exp (did I leave any other factors out?)

Base AV: Well, just the basic AV that the unit has
Terrain" Terrain modifier for defender, 1 for attacker
Prep: 100% prep = x2, 50% prep = x1, 0% = x0.5 (pure guess work on my side)
Fort: Obviously higher forts = greater modifer for defenders, but can someone provide some measuring stick? eg @ level 2/4/6/9, what are the modifiers?

Now, obviously some of the above are guesswork, I really appreaciate it if someone will step in and provide more information, thanks in advance.

Post #: 1

RE: Question on ground combat odds. - 3/7/2011 9:05:12 PM

Nikademus

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

combat formulas are, as a rule, not disclosed to the general public to discourage gaming of the system.

sorry.

_____________________________

(in reply to pacificbetta)

Post #: 2

RE: Question on ground combat odds. - 3/7/2011 9:23:44 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pacificbetta

Have a question on AV combat odds, I cannot seem to find the explanation in the manual. To my understanding (and also a lot of guesswork), adjusted AV is based on the following:

Adjusted AV = Base AV * Terrain * Prep * Fort * Exp (did I leave any other factors out?)

Base AV: Well, just the basic AV that the unit has
Terrain" Terrain modifier for defender, 1 for attacker
Prep: 100% prep = x2, 50% prep = x1, 0% = x0.5 (pure guess work on my side)
Fort: Obviously higher forts = greater modifer for defenders, but can someone provide some measuring stick? eg @ level 2/4/6/9, what are the modifiers?

Now, obviously some of the above are guesswork, I really appreaciate it if someone will step in and provide more information, thanks in advance.

More guesswork: leadership, HQs, land skill, fatigue, disruption, formation, detection level, shock attack, the phase of the moon

. Terrain is up to 4x. Preparation depends on what location you're preparing for. Fortification appears to be a marginal increase (x fort level/3?), but protects against being pushed out of the hex. Experience appears to be a parameter used in a Bernoulli draw between a couple of multipliers. Leadership and HQs are also Bernoulli as is probably land skill. Fatigue, disruption, and formation appear to be multipliers. Detection level affects target acquisition during the firepower phase. Shock attack doubles the final AV.

AV isn't that important. What is important is casualty causation during the firepower phase. My rule of thumb is that firepower superiority of 1.5-1 or better going in, taking into account the multipliers for a shock attack, will improve your AV superiority coming out. I don't use deliberate attacks, but I suspect a higher superiority is needed then to improve the AV ratio.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to pacificbetta)

Post #: 3

RE: Question on ground combat odds. - 3/7/2011 10:05:35 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

It is more than just that. A Japanese tank regiment attacking a Chinese infantry unit may end up attacking at 1-6 odds. However, in the end only the Chinese unit takes losses as there are no AT assets in Chinese infantry units. Likewise a Allied tank regiment with sherman tanks will easily beat a Japanese tank regiment with it usual assortment of craptacular vehicles. Devices and squad type are important and don't necessarily get counted in the when looking at the AV.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 4

RE: Question on ground combat odds. - 3/7/2011 11:41:26 PM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

You'd have a better chance at figuring out the Flux Capacitor...but seriously...you get a feel for general odds after a run around the bush.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 5

RE: Question on ground combat odds. - 3/8/2011 7:57:22 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is more than just that. A Japanese tank regiment attacking a Chinese infantry unit may end up attacking at 1-6 odds. However, in the end only the Chinese unit takes losses as there are no AT assets in Chinese infantry units. Likewise a Allied tank regiment with sherman tanks will easily beat a Japanese tank regiment with it usual assortment of craptacular vehicles. Devices and squad type are important and don't necessarily get counted in the when looking at the AV.

I run into that quite a bit. Usually, the Japanese tank regiment has no accompanying infantry, which means in reality that it's vulnerable to close assault, lacks target acquisition assets to cover more than the frontal arc, and lacks the engineers it needs to clear roadblocks and move off the road. As a USMC major once explained to me: "It's fun and easy to kill tanks."

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6

RE: Question on ground combat odds. - 3/8/2011 7:59:08 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

You'd have a better chance at figuring out the Flux Capacitor...but seriously...you get a feel for general odds after a run around the bush.

Just keep a detailed record of all your battles. After a while, you will see the patterns. A lot of things in the model come out in the wash.

_____________________________

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 7

RE: Question on ground combat odds. - 3/8/2011 3:29:50 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is more than just that. A Japanese tank regiment attacking a Chinese infantry unit may end up attacking at 1-6 odds. However, in the end only the Chinese unit takes losses as there are no AT assets in Chinese infantry units. Likewise a Allied tank regiment with sherman tanks will easily beat a Japanese tank regiment with it usual assortment of craptacular vehicles. Devices and squad type are important and don't necessarily get counted in the when looking at the AV.

I run into that quite a bit. Usually, the Japanese tank regiment has no accompanying infantry, which means in reality that it's vulnerable to close assault, lacks target acquisition assets to cover more than the frontal arc, and lacks the engineers it needs to clear roadblocks and move off the road. As a USMC major once explained to me: "It's fun and easy to kill tanks."

Yep, drives me crazy and makes those little dinky tanks so uber in China-even in rough and mountain terrain. They have no trouble moving over mountain terrain either where they should be forbidden to go.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 8

RE: Question on ground combat odds. - 3/8/2011 8:07:56 PM

pacificbetta

Posts: 110
Joined: 12/4/2009
Status: offline

Thanks guys, for the info.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 9