Land combat result modifiers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Land combat result modifiers

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 >> The War Room >> Land combat result modifiers

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 2:21:23 AM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

I've noticed nearly every time I launch a land assault (not amphibious) the defense often has modifiers to its combat value while my offensive value has none. I usually put aggressive leaders in command of divisions and regiments doing the fighting, but I haven't seen any change in CV attributed to them. I have seen negative modifiers with "leader -" shown as the reason though.

What should I do to get more positive mods for my offensives?

Post #: 1

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 3:27:48 AM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

what kind of corp or army or theater commands do you have in range?

these are mucho importante. unit leaders help the individual LCU

but for the total battle, the REMFs are critical.
i am a real fanboi for Bill Slim.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 2

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 4:42:03 AM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Are HQ units that important in getting good combat results? I've typically kept them in rear areas rather than grouping them with assault units.

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 3

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 6:51:02 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've noticed nearly every time I launch a land assault (not amphibious) the defense often has modifiers to its combat value while my offensive value has none. I usually put aggressive leaders in command of divisions and regiments doing the fighting, but I haven't seen any change in CV attributed to them. I have seen negative modifiers with "leader -" shown as the reason though.

What should I do to get more positive mods for my offensives?

I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the modifiers show the relative comparison between attacker and defender, rather than some standard that could give both sides the same modifier. E.g., if both sides are low on supplies, but one is much lower than the other, the game will show the negative for supply against the side hurting most. If both are close in their relative need of supply, it's a wash and the game does not show the factor.
So if you see Leaders + it means that side's leaders are significantly better than the other. When both sides have several units with varying leadership quality, I think the game engine calculates on average leader ability in the key factors [leadership, land skill, agression, inspiration] using the amount of AV the leader controls in the calculation.

So, to answer your question, bringing HQs, preparing for the base being attacked, etc. will improve your chances but it doesn't necessarily show up as a + in your attacker modifiers. The enemy may have HQs and thorough prep too!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 4

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 2:04:11 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've noticed nearly every time I launch a land assault (not amphibious) the defense often has modifiers to its combat value while my offensive value has none. I usually put aggressive leaders in command of divisions and regiments doing the fighting, but I haven't seen any change in CV attributed to them. I have seen negative modifiers with "leader -" shown as the reason though.

What should I do to get more positive mods for my offensives?

I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the modifiers show the relative comparison between attacker and defender, rather than some standard that could give both sides the same modifier. E.g., if both sides are low on supplies, but one is much lower than the other, the game will show the negative for supply against the side hurting most. If both are close in their relative need of supply, it's a wash and the game does not show the factor.
So if you see Leaders + it means that side's leaders are significantly better than the other. When both sides have several units with varying leadership quality, I think the game engine calculates on average leader ability in the key factors [leadership, land skill, agression, inspiration] using the amount of AV the leader controls in the calculation.

So, to answer your question, bringing HQs, preparing for the base being attacked, etc. will improve your chances but it doesn't necessarily show up as a + in your attacker modifiers. The enemy may have HQs and thorough prep too!

That is a very interesting perspective. I always wondered why the same group attacking the same target would receive different modifiers as the combat in the hex progressed. One battle it was leaders (+) and the next battle leaders (-) in the same group. A change in leaders in one or more of the enemy units would explain such variation. In my mind I attributted this phenomena to some Grisby die roll modfier

. On that note, I kind of wish there was a die roll (+) or (-) .. then I would know if my operational methodologies were right but I just lost the die roll ... .

Leaders (+) Preperation (+) Forts (+) Terrain (+) .. die roll (--) [Oh! that explains why I lost 6,000 and the enemy lost 32

!

One thing not talked about here and that is firepower .. I know the combat results are modfied by firepower, but I wonder if differences in firepower between opposing units alters the AV comparison?

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 1/1/2013 2:09:31 PM >

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 5

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 3:59:21 PM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

One thing not talked about here and that is firepower .. I know the combat results are modfied by firepower, but I wonder if differences in firepower between opposing units alters the AV comparison?

firepower and AV are not quite the same, support weapons (MGs,Flamethrowers,Tanks et al ) fire and squads fire but at different times. these values will be altered by many factors. fail to address them and your results vary. of course your results will vary anyway. WAD

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 6

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 4:29:19 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

quote:

One thing not talked about here and that is firepower .. I know the combat results are modfied by firepower, but I wonder if differences in firepower between opposing units alters the AV comparison?

firepower and AV are not quite the same, support weapons (MGs,Flamethrowers,Tanks et al ) fire and squads fire but at different times. these values will be altered by many factors. fail to address them and your results vary. of course your results will vary anyway. WAD

rms/pa

Was not suggesting that the combat resolution does not work as designed , but was proposing/asking the question if differences in firepower resources/devices as a whole in the hex affects AV somehow outside of the combat resolution of causulties. So an attacker in one situation has an adjusted AV of 'X' and the same situation controlled for terrain, supply, leaders, etc but facing different devices would be adjusted upwards or downwards. This might explain one of the variations in adjusted AV.

But on the subject of WAD ... There is the FOW of course, and not publishing certain parts of the algorithum keeps the game constrained within the FOW rather than having players understand the system completely and end up with a cheat sheet that ensures a result within certain probabilites. Like the ol' AH board games get 3-1 and win .. The concept of firepower to resolve casulties and adjusted AV to determine who runs away provides a very unique and interesting combat resolution system that produces lots of player decisions making the game interesting and fun. OTOH understanding the premise of the algorithum helps understand if a combat result is within WAD or something went very very badly that was not WAD. I have experinced results like intial AV of 4:1 but the adjusted AV go to zero and results like 10,000 vs. 47 casulties [mostly in China you would think that the IJ would at least get some kind of repetitive motion injury killing all those chineese

] which exceeds all the disasterious results with few exceptions for the battles I have researched in history

Understanding the fundementals helps at least me to understand if a result falls within the expected curve.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 7

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 5:15:58 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've noticed nearly every time I launch a land assault (not amphibious) the defense often has modifiers to its combat value while my offensive value has none. I usually put aggressive leaders in command of divisions and regiments doing the fighting, but I haven't seen any change in CV attributed to them. I have seen negative modifiers with "leader -" shown as the reason though.

What should I do to get more positive mods for my offensives?

I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the modifiers show the relative comparison between attacker and defender, rather than some standard that could give both sides the same modifier. E.g., if both sides are low on supplies, but one is much lower than the other, the game will show the negative for supply against the side hurting most. If both are close in their relative need of supply, it's a wash and the game does not show the factor.
So if you see Leaders + it means that side's leaders are significantly better than the other. When both sides have several units with varying leadership quality, I think the game engine calculates on average leader ability in the key factors [leadership, land skill, agression, inspiration] using the amount of AV the leader controls in the calculation.

So, to answer your question, bringing HQs, preparing for the base being attacked, etc. will improve your chances but it doesn't necessarily show up as a + in your attacker modifiers. The enemy may have HQs and thorough prep too!

That is a very interesting perspective. I always wondered why the same group attacking the same target would receive different modifiers as the combat in the hex progressed. One battle it was leaders (+) and the next battle leaders (-) in the same group. A change in leaders in one or more of the enemy units would explain such variation. In my mind I attributted this phenomena to some Grisby die roll modfier . On that note, I kind of wish there was a die roll (+) or (-) .. then I would know if my operational methodologies were right but I just lost the die roll ... . Leaders (+) Preperation (+) Forts (+) Terrain (+) .. die roll (--) [Oh! that explains why I lost 6,000 and the enemy lost 32 !

One thing not talked about here and that is firepower .. I know the combat results are modfied by firepower, but I wonder if differences in firepower between opposing units alters the AV comparison?

I don't think firepower has anything to do with it, and here's why. I've currently got a British infantry division landed on a southern New Guinea base, which is defended by four non-combat units. The Brits are fully prepared for the assault, there's an amphib TF landing supplies right along with the assault TF, I've assigned an aggressive British commander to the division, and the CV ratings are British 340, Japanese 0. However, I've launched two deliberate and two shock attacks against the noncombat units and have yet to take the base. The noncombat units had 3 fortifications, but if the combat results factored in firepower I would have rolled over the Japanese units on the first attack.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 8

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 5:59:48 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Are HQ units that important in getting good combat results? I've typically kept them in rear areas rather than grouping them with assault units.

Some HQ only have a one hex range, but as long as they are in range.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 9

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/1/2013 6:50:58 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've noticed nearly every time I launch a land assault (not amphibious) the defense often has modifiers to its combat value while my offensive value has none. I usually put aggressive leaders in command of divisions and regiments doing the fighting, but I haven't seen any change in CV attributed to them. I have seen negative modifiers with "leader -" shown as the reason though.

What should I do to get more positive mods for my offensives?

I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the modifiers show the relative comparison between attacker and defender, rather than some standard that could give both sides the same modifier. E.g., if both sides are low on supplies, but one is much lower than the other, the game will show the negative for supply against the side hurting most. If both are close in their relative need of supply, it's a wash and the game does not show the factor.
So if you see Leaders + it means that side's leaders are significantly better than the other. When both sides have several units with varying leadership quality, I think the game engine calculates on average leader ability in the key factors [leadership, land skill, agression, inspiration] using the amount of AV the leader controls in the calculation.

So, to answer your question, bringing HQs, preparing for the base being attacked, etc. will improve your chances but it doesn't necessarily show up as a + in your attacker modifiers. The enemy may have HQs and thorough prep too!

That is a very interesting perspective. I always wondered why the same group attacking the same target would receive different modifiers as the combat in the hex progressed. One battle it was leaders (+) and the next battle leaders (-) in the same group. A change in leaders in one or more of the enemy units would explain such variation. In my mind I attributted this phenomena to some Grisby die roll modfier . On that note, I kind of wish there was a die roll (+) or (-) .. then I would know if my operational methodologies were right but I just lost the die roll ... . Leaders (+) Preperation (+) Forts (+) Terrain (+) .. die roll (--) [Oh! that explains why I lost 6,000 and the enemy lost 32 !

One thing not talked about here and that is firepower .. I know the combat results are modfied by firepower, but I wonder if differences in firepower between opposing units alters the AV comparison?

I don't think firepower has anything to do with it, and here's why. I've currently got a British infantry division landed on a southern New Guinea base, which is defended by four non-combat units. The Brits are fully prepared for the assault, there's an amphib TF landing supplies right along with the assault TF, I've assigned an aggressive British commander to the division, and the CV ratings are British 340, Japanese 0. However, I've launched two deliberate and two shock attacks against the noncombat units and have yet to take the base. The noncombat units had 3 fortifications, but if the combat results factored in firepower I would have rolled over the Japanese units on the first attack.

Just to add some food for thought .. firepower could still be a factor if Fort level affects firepower by some factor .. that is I am proposing that the forts reduce your firepower and thus your AV besides some factor for determining AV. Now that you describe the situation .. I might suggest that Engineers would make a difference in this case. I find that my adjusted AV is not as dramatically affected if engineer units accompany an attack on a fort position. Just a thought ...

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 10

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 4:43:47 AM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

I don't think firepower has anything to do with it, and here's why. I've currently got a British infantry division landed on a southern New Guinea base, which is defended by four non-combat units. The Brits are fully prepared for the assault, there's an amphib TF landing supplies right along with the assault TF, I've assigned an aggressive British commander to the division, and the CV ratings are British 340, Japanese 0. However, I've launched two deliberate and two shock attacks against the noncombat units and have yet to take the base. The noncombat units had 3 fortifications, but if the combat results factored in firepower I would have rolled over the Japanese units on the first attack.

straight naked infantry division? no corp HQ, combat engineer unit, artillery battalion or 2,3,regiment? week or better month of preinvasion bombing of airfield/port/ground? BB bombardment for a month?

how long was the Division loaded on transports? any weather BTW origin port and target? what is the divisions fat/dis?

how long have the targets units been in place? how well were they supplied? labor battalions can dig deep in time if fed.

this is not a simplex game. likely more detailed than i can comprehend...... but i LIKE THAT.

rms/pa

the best kill is OVERKILL

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 11

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 3:20:42 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

straight naked infantry division? no corp HQ, combat engineer unit, artillery battalion or 2,3,regiment? week or better month of preinvasion bombing of airfield/port/ground? BB bombardment for a month?

Exactly my point ... Armor would have helped here also, although I still think engineers on a stacking point / effectiveness ratio reduce fort levels the most efficiently of all units. Armor although seems to produce significant casulties even at the higher fort levels (like 6) against non-combat units. From my perspective, I think the key intially is reducing fort level as rapidly as possible and reduce the bonuses that might be more than obvious rather than reduce raw AV in the hex. Once non-combat units loose thier bonus -- they are toast. Now against strong combat units and a anticipated slugfest a combination of armor to attrite the enemy firepower/AV with some balance of engineers to reduce the fort level over time is my recipe.

This learned in a recent campaign of using the UK/Commonwealth to reduce IJ forts in China playing with stacking limits. Survival in the hex required superior firepower but eventual reduction of the fort level required engineers.

Example below:

quote:

Ground combat at Wuchang (84,51)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 150564 troops, 1721 guns, 1365 vehicles, Assault Value = 4523

Defending force 35930 troops, 377 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 692

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Allied adjusted assault: 2714

Japanese adjusted defense: 715

Allied assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 2)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), preparation(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2357 casualties reported
Squads: 248 destroyed, 80 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 103 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 17 disabled
Guns lost 78 (63 destroyed, 15 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
3647 casualties reported
Squads: 14 destroyed, 367 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 83 disabled
Guns lost 48 (3 destroyed, 45 disabled)
Vehicles lost 27 (3 destroyed, 24 disabled)

Assaulting units:
7th Indian Division
XV Corps Engineer Battalion
44th Indian Brigade
19th Indian Division
13th Chinese Corps
2nd British Division
46th Indian Brigade
45th Indian Brigade
209th Combat Engineer Battalion
94th Chinese Corps
73rd Chinese Corps
Guides Cavalry Regiment
29th Chinese Corps
59th Chinese Corps
18th Chinese Corps
Provisionl Tank Brigade
XXXIII Corps Engineer Battalion
22nd (East African) Brigade
1st Garrison Brigade
8th Chinese Corps
5th Indian Division
6th Mixed A/T Mtr Regiment
26th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
165th Field Artillery Battalion
24th Indian Engineer Battalion
31st Group Army
209th Field Artillery Battalion
14th Army
154th FA Bn
20th Group Army
29th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
33rd Group Army

Defending units:
68th Division
58th Infantry Regiment
12th Ind.Infantry Brigade
6th Division
58th Division
40th Division
138th Infantry Regiment

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 12

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 3:36:55 PM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Armor would have helped here also

i see your point. but i do have a fondness for the ARTY.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 13

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 3:46:42 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Tanks are great at helping to reduce fortifications in AE.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 14

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 3:47:26 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

You appear to have a pretty good grasp of the land combat system here.

What is vital for reductions in fortifications is the Anti-Armor firepower of the attacker, relative to the Anti-Armor firepower of the defender.

As examples, here are the Anti-Armor values for some Japanese squads (in DBB, at least), with load (stacking) costs in parentheses:

IJA Cmbt Eng Sqd 41 - 15 (17)
IJA Cmbt Eng Sqd 43 - 25 (17)
IJA Motorized Squad - 15 (17)
IJA Para Squad - 5 (13)
IJA Inf Squad - 15 (17)
IJA Raider Squad - 5 (13)
IJA Hy Inf Sqd 41 - 15 (20)
IJA Hy Inf Squad 43 - 25 (20)
IJA Engineer Squad - 15 (17)
SNLF Squad - 5 (17)
SNLF HMG Squad - 5 (12)
SNLF Para Squad - 5 (13)
IJA HMG Section - 5 (12)

Type 95 Light Tank - 50 (7)
Type 97 Medium Tank - 50 (10)

Some conclusions from this:

1) Having devices with high Anti-Armor ratings present while attacking a fortified base is vital if stacking limits are a problem.
2) Always try to have combat engineers present with high Anti-Armor firepower. As expected, Japanese SNLF-type devices and parachute squads are really crap at reducing enemy fortification levels.

Big mismatches in the Anti-Armor firepower ratings between attacker and defender are very common when Japanese tank units take on Chinese infantry. Chinese Infantry Squads only have Anti-Armor ratings of 5 each. This is why a "IJA Panzer Korps" can cause havoc in China (look at it this way - a single Type 95 Light Tank requires ten Chinese Inf Sqds to counter its Anti-Armor rating. Yet, a single Type 95 Light Tank equates to 1 AV, but ten Chinese Inf Sqds equate to 10 AV).

The AV of a unit is actually a bit misleading at times. It's important for players to understand that AV is an indication of the number of undisrupted, undamaged devices capable of assaulting. However, not all devices are equal.

Later in the war, the US forces get some truly awesome firepower. Just look at the USMC 43 Cmb Eng Sq - an Anti-Armor rating of 55 with a load cost of only 12 - and the USMC 43 Aslt Eng Sq - an Anti-Armor rating of 55 with a load cost of only 14.

Then of course you need to keep all the other modifiers healthy - i.e., preparation, lack of disruption, lack of fatigue, leader with high Land skill, full support, full supplies etc.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 15

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 3:59:55 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

I must just point out above that the stacking cost for a non-squad device (like a tank) is 3 times its load cost, so for a Type 95 Light Tank above it would be 21.

The device with the largest Anti-Armor rating in the IJA arsenal is the 30cm Howitzer (209), but it has an extremely high load cost (139 for the short-barrel version).

_____________________________

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 16

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 4:05:54 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

Here's another comparison that will give AFB's hope for the future in their PBEMs:

1) USMC 43 Rifle Squad - Anti-Armor: 55; Anti-Soft: 28; Load Cost: 14.
2) IJA Hy Inf Sqd 43 - Anti-Armor: 25; Anti-Soft: 22; Load Cost: 20.

Seven IJA Hy Inf Sqds 43 will equal 140 stacking points. But for the same number of stacking points you can fit in ten USMC 43 Rifle Squads.

This results in a mismatch of 280:154 for Anti-Soft, and 550:175 for Anti-Amor...

Moral of the story? Use Marines to invade atolls with stacking limits (but no big surprises there, really).

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 17

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 4:34:08 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

Good information I did not know that anti-armor values was key to fort reducing...Also great information on the USMC squads. With not realizing the anti-armor factor, I am always in a quandary when attacking those 25,000 - 35,000 stacking islands whether to bring in more USMC "infantry" units [ a division at a stacking costs of around 15K for around 400 AV (0.26~) ] or those USMC armored units at a stacking costs of around 2K each for 86 an AV/stacking ratio of 0.04~] I have more AKA's right now than APA's so I lean toward the latter [2 AKA's load one USMC armor unit getting off in turn at a stacking costs of about 2,000 ] not realizing the information you have posted. The anti-armor component vital to reducing forts along with a much better AV/stacking ratio. [I realize many factors goes into the combat result -- my focus on AV is whether I capture the target and can start using the facilites] It just seems that the USMC armor is extermly effective despite the very poor AV/stacking point ratio I perceive the ability to reduce numbers quickly that at the end of the combat cycle there is nobody left to defend

One thing although and why I posted the combat result, the longer term fight outside of the poster's contest of a British unit facing non-combat units behind forts. Here I presented the problem of not only reducing the fort but maintaining ratios with the defender in a longer more contested series of fights. It is quite possible to reduce the fort but take horrendous casulties out of line with the defender .. fort reduced but not enough offense left to remove the defenders in enough time to prevent a rebuild. In fact, I doubt my 3:2 losses were optimal but better than previous turns that at worse with a mainly chineese army backed with commonwealth engineers were 5:1 (10,000 allied to 2,000 IJA)

but got the fort reduced from level 6 to level 4 in one turn.

Ok great post CT Grognard

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 18

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 5:35:25 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

Don't forget that armoured units are important from a different perspective, in that they are more survivable than squad-type units.

If the defender does not have a device with a penetration higher than the armor rating of an attacker's armored device, it's almost impossible to disable or destroy one of those armored devices.

For example, a Japanese 37mm Type 94 AT Gun has penetration of 40mm. This won't be able to disable or destroy a M4 Sherman (armor of 45mm).

So yes, from a purely "how do I maximise my anti-armor firepower per stacking point" perspective, armour might not appear ideal, but that armour is going to be a lot harder to kill than squad-type devices, which will explain why your USMC armor appears to be really effective.

In the late game the US player can field M26 Pershing tanks. These can only be countered (from the Japanese perspective) by field guns over 75mm employed in an AT role (the game engine decides this by itself) or Japanese tanks (only the Type 1, Type 3, Type 4 SP-Gun and Type 2 SP-Gun are able to disable or destroy a Pershing, from memory).

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 19

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 5:51:51 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

OK, I've gone and had a look at the editor.

At full TOE (under correction, I have not double checked) a Marine division has just over 450 AV, for a total stacking cost of 21,294.

For this you get a total Anti-Armor firepower of 25,044 and a total Anti-Soft firepower of 18,606.

At full TOE a USMC Amphib Tank Bn has a stacking cost of 2,496, and gives you total Anti-Armor firepower of 1,608 and Anti-Soft firepower of 860.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 20

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 9:43:16 PM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

so we should reserve the indian armour units till they get rid of the tankettes and improvized armour units?
i do so like to rush them to burma and stack them behind a river to burn out the japanese armour.
rms/pa

< Message edited by rms1pa -- 1/2/2013 9:45:21 PM >

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 21

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/2/2013 11:21:39 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I tend to harp on the use of Command HQs when attacking a base. The Allies have many more than Japan and a Japanese player needs to realize how important it is to find the 5th Fleet in Ominato and use it for the first months of advance.

"IF" an Army/Corp HQ passes the 'die roll' then 10% is added for attack and defense Adjusted AV. A Command HQ can add up to another 90% only for ATTACK. However, the Army/Corp HQ has to pass their die roll first.

Another often overlooked area is having sufficient support (regular or motorized) in the hex. If your stack of troops is short support troops, that effects your Adjusted AV. How much, I don't know, nor if there is a percentage short that makes it worse. This often come out like it was spoken of in this thread when it comes to invasions. The last things to be unloaded are those with higher load cost and that is often the support and motorized support.

Your American divisions are short 60 or more support troops. The rest of the Allied divisions are worse. An Army/Corp HQ has 180 support combined while a Command HQ has 240 support.

You can hit the "D" key and sort by devices to get the anti-armor, anti-soft, load cost, and availability along with upgrades for your devices. The big anti-armor increase for the various Allied troops comes in early '43. After they happen, Japanese troops are in trouble.

_____________________________

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 22

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/3/2013 12:30:27 AM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

so we should reserve the indian armour units till they get rid of the tankettes and improvized armour units?
i do so like to rush them to burma and stack them behind a river to burn out the japanese armour.
rms/pa

In my opinion these units do great running in the open fields of the Irrawaddy Valley and Thailand where they do not have to oppose anything .. just interdict supply lines and mess up LOC's ..

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 23

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/3/2013 1:15:23 AM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

In my opinion these units do great running in the open fields of the Irrawaddy Valley and Thailand where they do not have to oppose anything .. just interdict supply lines and mess up LOC's ..

sounds fun,will have to try that. chang mai perhaps?

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 24

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/3/2013 3:45:56 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

quote:

In my opinion these units do great running in the open fields of the Irrawaddy Valley and Thailand where they do not have to oppose anything .. just interdict supply lines and mess up LOC's ..

sounds fun,will have to try that. chang mai perhaps?

rms/pa

Given either scenario #1 [or scenario #2 and complete IJ incompetence

] I am more of the ilk to jump off at Kaylemo and drive toward the Irrawaddy Valley interceeding clear terrain driving toward the hexes south of Taung Gyi. Once the IJ are seperated from thier supply the next jump off point is Rahaeng driving down the valleys leading to Ayuthia and Bangkok .. Once in position the Chindit Brgades make great paratroopers landing on Ubon and Udon Thani and after sezing these bases it is strat movement Katy Bar the Door from this point on ...

Bases are not going to be supplied for quite some time but Supply to the troops will eventually get through .. The IJ are going to fight like all mad to disrupt Moulimein .. but in fact speed like light armor unopposed is deadly in the Northern Thai planes because movement/and attacks can take place without supply albight at reduced rates ..

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 25

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/4/2013 1:35:43 AM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rms1pa

quote:

I don't think firepower has anything to do with it, and here's why. I've currently got a British infantry division landed on a southern New Guinea base, which is defended by four non-combat units. The Brits are fully prepared for the assault, there's an amphib TF landing supplies right along with the assault TF, I've assigned an aggressive British commander to the division, and the CV ratings are British 340, Japanese 0. However, I've launched two deliberate and two shock attacks against the noncombat units and have yet to take the base. The noncombat units had 3 fortifications, but if the combat results factored in firepower I would have rolled over the Japanese units on the first attack.

straight naked infantry division? no corp HQ, combat engineer unit, artillery battalion or 2,3,regiment? week or better month of preinvasion bombing of airfield/port/ground? BB bombardment for a month?

how long was the Division loaded on transports? any weather BTW origin port and target? what is the divisions fat/dis?

how long have the targets units been in place? how well were they supplied? labor battalions can dig deep in time if fed.

this is not a simplex game. likely more detailed than i can comprehend...... but i LIKE THAT.

rms/pa

the best kill is OVERKILL

Oh I quite agree. I've been playing this game since it first came out, and I'm still learning the nuances of it. Yes, it was a fully prepped British infantry division, with no attached units. At max it had about 40% disruption, but was getting plenty of supplies. I had 40+ B-24's bombing the crap out of the Japanese LCU's for over a week prior to the landing, and at least three cruiser/destroyer TF's bombarded the base (including one mission right before the division landed). I finally did take the base, but only after about 5 assault attempts and a few days of rest and resupply.

OTOH, I had a British armored brigade take Prome in one shock attack vs two base units. The brigade moved down from Akyab and was bombed from Mandalay the entire time, with a command HQ trailing one hex behind it. The first turn it crossed the river triggered a shock attack, and routed both base units out of Prome. I'm thinking the HQ unit helped since it was so close.

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 26

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/4/2013 7:09:13 AM

Mac Linehan

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

John -

I am working from my older AMD computer as the newer i7 does not allow me (for reasons I have not yet figured out) to copy and paste.

Here is a response from a Dev several years back to a question regarding the LCU combat report:

Quote:

Combat Results Modifiers:

Part A:

Just looked at the code to refresh my memory.� There are three leader checks that can add to the combat modifiers, and two fails that can detract.�
If more than 1/2 of the stack fails, on average, both fail rolls, you get Leaders(-).� If more than 1/2, on average, pass, you get Leaders(+).� On top of that, fog of war is thrown into the mix.
-Bill

Part B:

Don't confuse the leader modifications that occur, with what is reported.
If you initiate an attack with 3 Divisions with good leaders who 'pass' their rolls, and five support units with bad leaders who 'fail', your divisions will still receive their combat bonuses, even though the report might say "Leaders(-)".
Blackhorse

End Quote

Hope that this helps -

Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 1/4/2013 7:17:15 AM >

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 27

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/4/2013 8:29:57 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

John -

I am working from my older AMD computer as the newer i7 does not allow me (for reasons I have not yet figured out) to copy and paste.

Here is a response from a Dev several years back to a question regarding the LCU combat report:

Quote:

Combat Results Modifiers:

Part A:

Just looked at the code to refresh my memory.� There are three leader checks that can add to the combat modifiers, and two fails that can detract.�
If more than 1/2 of the stack fails, on average, both fail rolls, you get Leaders(-).� If more than 1/2, on average, pass, you get Leaders(+).� On top of that, fog of war is thrown into the mix.
-Bill

Part B:

Don't confuse the leader modifications that occur, with what is reported.
If you initiate an attack with 3 Divisions with good leaders who 'pass' their rolls, and five support units with bad leaders who 'fail', your divisions will still receive their combat bonuses, even though the report might say "Leaders(-)".
Blackhorse

End Quote

Hope that this helps -

Mac

Michael essentially confirmed this a couple of months ago as well.

You have to be very careful with the combat reports, especially the bonuses. Very easy to misinterpret. There is a lot of FOW and a big dose of Gary's randomness in these outcomes. Anyone who has done a lot of replays knows this. Here's a quick, simple example:

Allied Bombardment attack
 
Attacking force 35582 troops, 238 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2117
 
Defending force 27343 troops, 196 guns, 118 vehicles, Assault Value = 869
 
Allied ground losses:
      117 casualties reported
         Squads: 1 destroyed, 17 disabled
         Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied Bombardment attack
 
Attacking force 37269 troops, 328 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2099
 
Defending force 27394 troops, 196 guns, 118 vehicles, Assault Value = 872
 
Japanese ground losses:
      32 casualties reported
         Squads: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
         Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
 
Allied ground losses:
      19 casualties reported
         Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
         Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

That's a pretty big variation in results, but most of us know that it can be quite a bit more than even this example. Only difference I did was to change a TF destination on the other side of the world.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mac Linehan)

Post #: 28

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/4/2013 2:17:27 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

That's a pretty big variation in results, but most of us know that it can be quite a bit more than even this example. Only difference I did was to change a TF destination on the other side of the world.

Hmmmm this could be like my roulette or my slot play strategy .. here I think I am calculating all the dyanamcis going into the results [the casino even posts a big score board with the last 20 roulette results to give you a feeling .."my number is going to hit!], and in reality each result is a totally independent random trial ... Please tell me that this is not true in AE!

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 29

RE: Land combat result modifiers - 1/5/2013 8:03:13 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I don't think firepower has anything to do with it, and here's why. I've currently got a British infantry division landed on a southern New Guinea base, which is defended by four non-combat units. The Brits are fully prepared for the assault, there's an amphib TF landing supplies right along with the assault TF, I've assigned an aggressive British commander to the division, and the CV ratings are British 340, Japanese 0. However, I've launched two deliberate and two shock attacks against the noncombat units and have yet to take the base. The noncombat units had 3 fortifications, but if the combat results factored in firepower I would have rolled over the Japanese units on the first attack.

The fact, that they are second line, does not mean they are not armed. Every SUPPORT squad have 5 Soft-Attack, and every non-combat Device is counted as 1/10th AV in defence. So, for example, HQ with only 300 SUPPORT squads, in reality have 30 AV in defence, and firepower of regiment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

What is vital for reductions in fortifications is the Anti-Armor firepower of the attacker, relative to the Anti-Armor firepower of the defender.

"Reduction" in what sense? I have seen only two cases, where fortifications were lowered:
1) 1 level for every final AV ratio (1:1 by 1 level, 2:1 by 2 levels, and so on)
2) pre-battle by Combat Engineers. No Combat Engineers in stack - no reduction

So I do not see any use for Hard-Attack here, unless it somehow influences final AV calculation. The only mention for Hard-Attack is that it HAVE to be present for Combat Engineers squad, for them to be able to reduce forts.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 30