Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If both the hexes that the attacker is moving from and to, are controlled by the attacker, and the river hexside is also controlled by the attacker, then wouldn't the attacker be free to move into the hex.

Or stepping thru the process.
1. Attacker crosses river hexside into the enemy controled hex - shock  attack
2. Hex control stays with defender as he was not forced out of hex. River hexside controled by attacker.
3. Attacker moves more units into hex over river hexside - possible shock attack based on AV comparison (1/3)
4. Defender forced out of hex - hex control goes to attacker. [Hex control stays with a player until no-one in hex (nuetral) or just one player left]
5. Defender moves back into hex.
6. Attacker moves units into hex across river hexside - no attack forced as attacker controls both hexes and river hexsides (NEW).

Can anyone see any flaw in this logic? All steps but (#6) is how it is now.

[edit]
Just changed 'ownership' to 'control'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If both the hexes that the attacker is moving from and to, are controlled by the attacker, and the river hexside is also controlled by the attacker, then wouldn't the attacker be free to move into the hex.

Or stepping thru the process.
1. Attacker crosses river hexside into the enemy controled hex - shock  attack
2. Hex control stays with defender as he was not forced out of hex. River hexside controled by attacker.
3. Attacker moves more units into hex over river hexside - possible shock attack based on AV comparison (1/3)
4. Defender forced out of hex - hex control goes to attacker. [Hex control stays with a player until no-one in hex (nuetral) or just one player left]
5. Defender moves back into hex.
6. Attacker moves units into hex across river hexside - no attack forced as attacker controls both hexes and river hexsides (NEW).

Can anyone see any flaw in this logic? All steps but (#6) is how it is now.

[edit]
Just changed 'ownership' to 'control'

#6 as currently worded would not require the additional unit to cross the river at the same hexside. The specific hex captured by the attacker as a result of steps 1-5 inclusive, could be on a river bend and therefore have more than one of its hexsides anchored on a river. In theory the defender could repeat step 5 many times (from the land side thereby bypassing the auto shock attack trigger) before the new owner (aka the "attacker" who has really been transformed into the defender) does step 6. However if the hex has 2 or more hexsides anchored on a river, one of the multiple steps 5 could be the defender (aka now really the attacker) moving units in from a river hexside, thus depriving that hexside from being controlled by the controller of the hex. With sufficient force already in the hex, this new river crossing need not necessarily trigger an auto shock attack.

In that eventuality, the hex controller does not really control all river hexsides.

Hence I would modify step #6 to be the controller of the hex will launch no shock attack if the reinforcements corss at a river hexside also controlled. But then we really have the same practical outcome which we currently have.

Essentially your six steps will slightly simply the process if there is only one hexside anchored on a river. It introduces a new potential "loophole" if there are 2 or more river hexsides.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

To be honest, I am having trouble trying to make sense of the river crossing rule:  "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

It is written from the perspective of an attacker crossing a river to assault a defender. And I assume that the last part means that 1/3rd of the defender AV is already in the hex.

I need to go back and see how this was  in old WITP. [Well that was no use. Old code just assaults if a river hexside]

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If both the hexes that the attacker is moving from and to, are controlled by the attacker, and the river hexside is also controlled by the attacker, then wouldn't the attacker be free to move into the hex.

Or stepping thru the process.
1. Attacker crosses river hexside into the enemy controled hex - shock  attack
2. Hex control stays with defender as he was not forced out of hex. River hexside controled by attacker.
3. Attacker moves more units into hex over river hexside - possible shock attack based on AV comparison (1/3)
4. Defender forced out of hex - hex control goes to attacker. [Hex control stays with a player until no-one in hex (nuetral) or just one player left]
5. Defender moves back into hex.
6. Attacker moves units into hex across river hexside - no attack forced as attacker controls both hexes and river hexsides (NEW).

Can anyone see any flaw in this logic? All steps but (#6) is how it is now.

[edit]
Just changed 'ownership' to 'control'

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

To be honest, I am having trouble trying to make sense of the river crossing rule:  "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

It is written from the perspective of an attacker crossing a river to assault a defender. And I assume that the last part means that 1/3rd of the defender AV is already in the hex.

I need to go back and see how this was  in old WITP. [Well that was no use. Old code just assaults if a river hexside]

As best I recollect the discussions held by developers at the time it means that the player crossing the river (AKA "Attacker") already has in the hex AV equal to or greater than 1/3 of the Defender's AV ("Defender" meaning the other player). The rationale being that friendly forces equal to 1/3 of the enemy forces, while still inferior, is enough to have established a bridgehead and thereby negate the bloody river-crossing shock attack.

I am not suggesting what way is best at this point in time, just trying to help by clarifying what people communicated that they meant way back when.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

Attacking force Assault Value = 652
Defending force Assault Value = 1752
Japanese adjusted assault: 0
Allied adjusted defense: 3490
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

True, there may be not enough troops to met the 1/3 AV rule (although the 652 vs 1752 AV seems ok).
I'm perfectly ok with shock attacks when crossing the river without enough AV.
But maybe, just maybe, a shock attack should not be triggered regardless of who own the hex?

I owned the hex. I own it for months! Not from the previous turn.
Why the crossing trigger shock attack if the hex is mine?

Based on (my) ;) simple logic, IMHO its seems a bit weird that the forces crossing into friendly hex well secured for months suffer such terrible losses. I think that if I own the hex, I've got total control of the place and the crossing is secured.

Creating bridgeheads and getting into an enemy occupied hex is one thing, normal troops movement in secured hex is something different. Should it trigger the shock attack if my troops are simply moving on a bridge to fill the long owned trench line somewhere 40 miles away?
Some losses from long range enemy bombardment attack ok, but a shock attack and annihilation of a whole division?

If in your view hex control doesn't matter during river crossing, maybe there should be some check of who owns more hexsides of the contested hex? (in metaphore -- who has more land secured, check if the forces there are not encircled etc.; like 0 - 2 shock attack, 3 bombardment attack, 4 - 6 no punishing attack at all)?

Do you still have the save when this assault happened???

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
To be honest, I am having trouble trying to make sense of the river crossing rule: "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

It is written from the perspective of an attacker crossing a river to assault a defender. And I assume that the last part means that 1/3rd of the defender AV is already in the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
As best I recollect the discussions held by developers at the time it means that the player crossing the river (AKA "Attacker") already has in the hex AV equal to or greater than 1/3 of the Defender's AV ("Defender" meaning the other player). The rationale being that friendly forces equal to 1/3 of the enemy forces, while still inferior, is enough to have established a bridgehead and thereby negate the bloody river-crossing shock attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I was looking at the individual icon type popups. Didn't think you were referring to the lists.
I have had several attempts at getting that popup right.

[edit]
okay. I have tweaked this messages further for next time.

Hey thanks!


One question I have is, are the messages of the different phases during turn processing in anyway needed?
If not I would recommend to remove them as it would considerably speed up the processing of the turn if those messages don't even appear, some phases are so fast done that the message of the phase is longer on screen than the phases itself took to be calculated, sure you can turn off message delay but then all messages are skipped what is not helpful at all.

You can suppress almost all messages by hitting the space bar during the turn. It minimizes the message delay and flies thru any that are displayed.

quote:


Besides that, would it be possible to give air groups and LCUs a text field similar to the name field on the TF screen?
Personally I use that field only to specify the job/target of the TF, making that possible for air groups and ground units would also be quite handy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff

I am very appreciative of the Betas making game so much easier, squashing bugs, and getting some tweaks in.

Idk if you are working on the AI at all or if simple fix but speaking of river hex crossings.

The AI is continually throwing units two and three at a time at singers river crossing but easily destroyed in the combat and then retreating with no bridgehead established.

Can you get the AI to coordinate the attack better waiting for a large group to attack at once? At least after the first recon attempt. This is on scenario two with Betas updated.

Thanks
Pat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


That is Andy Mac's territory.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff


I have one interface request.

Viewing the Ground Units list screen where you can either switch from hard info to soft info (Exp, Mor, etc).

When you toggle the hard/soft it always resorts the units to a predefined filter. I would like to see that the unit sort stays as pretoggle so that if you want to see who is the most fatigued unit and sort in that manner when you switch back to hard they will stay at the top and you can change their ops/combat status easily.

Just a thought if easily possible.

Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I just ran the save and those factories along with a number of other (1)0 factories are all showing the expand buttons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2
1) No matter what settings Hoplo or myself put for the speed of messages (the ones detailing the air searches and spotting ones) whizz through at 0.1 speed. Any change in the settings results in changes in game at all. Is this patch related?

quote:


2) I no longer have a bombing accuracy % for my bomber units, again is this patch related?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Also, is it intentional that "Show ships due upgrade button" now shows only ships in port with upgrades set to "Yes"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

I've encountered a strange thing during resolution of the turn attached to this post - mines at Bataan that just damaged my LSD seems unsweepable. At least, the minesweeper TF that hangs there tried to find them for over a week. Is this a bug?

Also, is it intentional that "Show ships due upgrade button" now shows only ships in port with upgrades set to "Yes"?