Ground Combat Code (Full Version)

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



Message

Japan -> Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 11:31:44 AM)

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 ?


'



Andy Mac -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 11:46:23 AM)

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



n01487477 -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 11:47:47 AM)

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...



wdolson -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 12:45:50 PM)

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



jwilkerson -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 3:49:32 PM)

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.




Japan -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 4:00:51 PM)


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.



vettim89 -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 6:41:27 PM)


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?



jwilkerson -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 7:02:46 PM)

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




JWE -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 7:04:17 PM)


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.



Nikademus -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/10/2009 11:01:42 PM)


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.



USSAmerica -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 4:07:50 AM)

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



Dili -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 5:06:21 AM)

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?



Yamato hugger -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 6:09:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

counts only unit morals



Morals? [X(]

That would indeed be hard to calculate [:D]



Charbroiled -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 4:23:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

counts only unit morals



Morals? [X(]

That would indeed be hard to calculate [:D]


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



Dili -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 5:29:55 PM)

okay, okay forgive this poor latin language speaker: morale [:D] 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.



Anthropoid -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 6:24:58 PM)

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?_



Charbroiled -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 7:04:08 PM)


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".



morganbj -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 8:31:30 PM)

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



Dili -> RE: Ground Combat Code (5/11/2009 8:45:02 PM)

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



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.859009