WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again

WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support

Message

viberpol -> WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/10/2012 11:40:05 AM)
This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder: Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see? I doubt if I get such results if I set the bombardment manually. Moreover, we all know that it can be used to game the engine (seen many AAR examples). The turn attached. Talking about Wake. Wake is fort 5 atoll. The strength is more or less equal (at least as far as the AV is concerned). Enemy landed there a month ago but Wake did not fall. And now he is just feeding the lone regiment left there actually killing me with... what? Canned beef? [;)] In view of the deliberate attacks that has been made before and received 1:5/1:10 against the Allies I just feel the results of such autobombardments are not right. Whole units are simply anihilated because enemy unloading some convenience food and/or ammo. There used to be a time when the (normal) bombardments were thought too powerful and has been toned down a (too) bit. [;)] But does this toning down appy to autobombardment rule? It's just as if I were using catapults to throw my soldiers instead od bullets... [&:] Ground combat at Wake Island (136,98) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 1415 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 82 Defending force 2647 troops, 59 guns, 57 vehicles, Assault Value = 91 Japanese ground losses: 1090 casualties reported Squads: 86 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 25 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 14 (14 destroyed, 0 disabled) Assaulting units: 85th Naval Guard Unit 2nd Base Force Defending units: 21st Infantry Regiment The examples are repeatable. I've got one from the invasion time couple of weeks ago and it's quite similar. Again, repeating, this is all in view of an Allied deliberate attacks that bring rather nasty results for the attacker.

viberpol -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/10/2012 1:52:39 PM)
And here's the file "before". Units well supplied. INF naval guard unit that evaporated this turn in right op mode. Prepped 30%. Morale 99/EXP 60.

crsutton -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/10/2012 5:29:39 PM)
Yes, this is funky. I am only resupplying a lone depleted infantry regiment with three LSTs. Basically, I am going to take him out just by dropping off supply. Normally, I would be very happy about this but Ark is a good guy and deserves a break now and then..

michaelm75au -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/10/2012 11:40:35 PM)
Ground combat is not related to ships unloading.

HansBolter -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/11/2012 12:07:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Ground combat is not related to ships unloading. michael don't the defenders in an invasion hex automtically engage in a bombardment attack in the combat phase against enemy units unloading in the hex from ships? I believe this is what they are referring to.

michaelm75au -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/11/2012 12:12:24 AM)
Ah!. I'll look at that. Didn't think that supply unload did that as I stopped amphib bombardment against the supply runs from a TF in the original release.

crsutton -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/11/2012 6:48:22 PM)
Thanks Michael, but you still want any active eligible guns shooting at the transport as they are unloading. It is the bombardment that is questionable.

castor troy -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 7:31:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Thanks Michael, but you still want any active eligible guns shooting at the transport as they are unloading. It is the bombardment that is questionable. yeah, but if you only unload supply CD units!!! are not firing at ships. The supply unload does trigger the auto bombardment (ground combat) of defending units against invading units and it has always been so since I've been playing AE. And I always wondered why CD guns would fire on an invasion but when they are still in place, they do nothing against freighters parking off the coast unloading supplies. [:(] You see a combat replay pop up for halve a second but never ever something happens when there is only supply left to be unloaded, no matter if there is one freighter or one hundred freighters that are unloading supplies, at least not in my version of the game, which is now running the latest official beta patch.

michaelm75au -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 9:54:35 AM)
The change discussed was to do with the forcing of ground units to bombard during the land combat phase.

viberpol -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 1:07:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy The supply unload does trigger the auto bombardment (ground combat) of defending units against invading units and it has always been so since I've been playing AE. True CT. It has always been like that -- I stated it clearly in my first post. But just because "it has always been like that" it doesn't mean that it isn't dumb, right? [;)] I think it's simply stupid -- expecially if it brings such a strange result (here: destroying defending and autobombarding Japanese units) and the next day's Allied deliberate attack at Wake brings completely different results. *Compare: 86 my squads destroyed after that stupid autobombardment of enemy supply convoy with only 5 disabled during enemy* deliberate attack**. (Even if this turn I am exhausted, disrupted and out of supply because of the previous "nuclear autobombardment" [;)]). I repeat: this way the island can be taken just by dropping canned beef on my beach. [;)] Ground combat at Wake Island (136,98) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 2706 troops, 61 guns, 58 vehicles, Assault Value = 95 Defending force 3541 troops, 42 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 33 Allied adjusted assault: 32 Japanese adjusted defense: 35 Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 4) Combat modifiers Defender: forts(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), experience(-) supply(-) Attacker: leaders(-) Japanese ground losses: 55 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled) Allied ground losses: 134 casualties reported Squads: 2 destroyed, 17 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled) Assaulting units: 21st Infantry Regiment Defending units: 2nd Base Force 85th Naval Guard Unit BTW: it seems that only INF units autobombard on enemy's supply unload. My naval guard had been zeroed in AV, but the base force holds on.

ckammp -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 3:00:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder: Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see? I doubt if I get such results if I set the bombardment manually. Moreover, we all know that it can be used to game the engine (seen many AAR examples). The turn attached. Talking about Wake. Wake is fort 5 atoll. The strength is more or less equal (at least as far as the AV is concerned). Enemy landed there a month ago but Wake did not fall. And now he is just feeding the lone regiment left there actually killing me with... what? Canned beef? [;)] In view of the deliberate attacks that has been made before and received 1:5/1:10 against the Allies I just feel the results of such autobombardments are not right. Whole units are simply anihilated because enemy unloading some convenience food and/or ammo. There used to be a time when the (normal) bombardments were thought too powerful and has been toned down a (too) bit. [;)] But does this toning down appy to autobombardment rule? It's just as if I were using catapults to throw my soldiers instead od bullets... [&:] Ground combat at Wake Island (136,98) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 1415 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 82 Defending force 2647 troops, 59 guns, 57 vehicles, Assault Value = 91 Japanese ground losses: 1090 casualties reported Squads: 86 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 25 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 14 (14 destroyed, 0 disabled) Assaulting units: 85th Naval Guard Unit 2nd Base Force Defending units: 21st Infantry Regiment The examples are repeatable. I've got one from the invasion time couple of weeks ago and it's quite similar. Again, repeating, this is all in view of an Allied deliberate attacks that bring rather nasty results for the attacker. It appears the Japanese player has a few options in this situation: A) Use naval and/or air assets to interdict and prevent the Allied player from landing supply B) Land reinforcements of his own to destroy the enemy units C) Combination of A and B Or D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics.

castor troy -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 3:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm The change discussed was to do with the forcing of ground units to bombard during the land combat phase. yes I know. But still, why does supply unloading trigger an auto bombardment of the LCU but the ships are not targetted by the CD guns? I guess it does not make much sense. All ships would be targetted by CD guns if one soldier is unloaded together with hundreds of tons of supply.

viberpol -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 4:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder: Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see? D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics. I am not complaining. I'm just asking. Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense. Do you see the difference?

ckammp -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 4:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder: Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see? D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics. I am not complaining. I'm just asking. Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense. Do you see the difference? Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune. The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed. As to the issue itself, what is the problem? The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded? Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation.

viberpol -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 5:59:29 PM)
Come on... I didn�t edit or change a thing in my post. It starts exactly from what it starts: an enquiry what�s the logic behind autobombardment. Sorry, I�m not responsible for your impression of my tune... [;)] But let me ask you -- maybe just try understand the case, then comment, ok? It�s not that the unloading ships are being shot at during unloading but the forced autobombardment during land combat phase after the unload of supplies. quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded? Well... yes. IMHO it could be nice if the code was changed. But I do only suggest something. Michael has his own wetware and can decide if the change is justified or not... [;)] And: yes. I�d expect my forces to fulfil my orders and do not be forced to bombard the enemy units only because there were ships unloading some ice-cream and fuel this morning. [;)] It�s enough if my troops fire at unloading ships. I�d like control. Why would they bombard the enemy LCUs during land combat phase & against my orders?

Puhis -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 6:27:06 PM)
Viberpol, those results are totally unreasonable. Basicly your own (auto)bombardment wiped out almost entire garrison. 85th Naval Guard Unit and 2nd Base Force have 90 infantry and HMG squads, and you lost over 80... That's not right, not right at all. I believe there must be a bug, those results are more like shock attack than bombardment.

crsutton -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 7:56:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder: Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see? D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics. I am not complaining. I'm just asking. Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense. Do you see the difference? Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune. The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed. As to the issue itself, what is the problem? The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded? Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation. No, you are missing the point. I am Viperpol's opponent and it is the results-not the mechanics that are in question. The unloading of supply from three LSTs caused his dug in defenders to auto bombard a depleted American infantry regiment and they suffered outrageous losses as a result. That is what needs correcting. I have no real problem with the auto bombardment taking place as long as the results are within the scope of reason. But we are talking about two weak Japanese units vs a weak Allied unit with very few actual guns in play. Should have been a few men out of action on each side, and would have no effect on the eventual battle. I would say that this is a bug rather than a game code problem. Sorry mate, but you response to Ark is totally off base and rude to boot. His raising the issue is legitimate in my mind.

crsutton -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 8:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Thanks Michael, but you still want any active eligible guns shooting at the transport as they are unloading. It is the bombardment that is questionable. Actually, this is working fine as his guns chewed up my un-escorted LSTs while they unloaded.

HansBolter -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 9:03:26 PM)
I'm not certain it is as outrageous as it seems. Those japanese troops are exposed on the beach of a tiny atoll. How large can the beach lodgement be? 59 guns shelling a concentration of 1400 men packed into a tiny beachhead with absolutely no cover should result in high casualties. What I find most interesting though is that the japanese lost 14 guns when they only had 12???

viberpol -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 9:15:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter I'm not certain it is as outrageous as it seems. Those japanese troops are exposed on the beach of a tiny atoll. How large can the beach lodgement be? 59 guns shelling a concentration of 1400 men packed into a tiny beachhead with absolutely no cover should result in high casualties. What I find most interesting though is that the japanese lost 14 guns when they only had 12??? It's the other way around -- Allies are/should be exposed. I've got defending forces dig in with forts level 5. As far as the guns are concerned. I noticed that too. But it seems that, as I pointed out, it's just the INF unit that autobombarded, but both units received the response (id est. those guns lost are both from naval guard and base force).

HansBolter -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/12/2012 9:17:44 PM)
oh, sorry I misunderstood. yes, it seems out of whack for that level of losses from shelling level 5 forts

ckammp -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/13/2012 6:17:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder: Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see? D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics. I am not complaining. I'm just asking. Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense. Do you see the difference? Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune. The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed. As to the issue itself, what is the problem? The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded? Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation. No, you are missing the point. I am Viperpol's opponent and it is the results-not the mechanics that are in question. The unloading of supply from three LSTs caused his dug in defenders to auto bombard a depleted American infantry regiment and they suffered outrageous losses as a result. That is what needs correcting. I have no real problem with the auto bombardment taking place as long as the results are within the scope of reason. But we are talking about two weak Japanese units vs a weak Allied unit with very few actual guns in play. Should have been a few men out of action on each side, and would have no effect on the eventual battle. I would say that this is a bug rather than a game code problem. Sorry mate, but you response to Ark is totally off base and rude to boot. His raising the issue is legitimate in my mind. Sir, I would like to apologize to you and your opponent for any offence I may have caused. My initial reading of the OP's post lead me to the wrong conclusion about his motives for posting. Having read the post again, more thoroughly, I can see he has a legitimate question about the bombardment results in this situation. Hopefully, michaelm can take a look at this, and find a solution. Again, sorry for any offence.

michaelm75au -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/13/2012 9:15:38 AM)
For now, I have modified the 'auto-bombard' function due to unloading so that it wont 'destroy' itself by using up its supply. If the unit has less supply than needed, it WONT try to bombard.

crsutton -> RE: WT is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again* (1/14/2012 4:34:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder: Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see? D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics. I am not complaining. I'm just asking. Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense. Do you see the difference? Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune. The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed. As to the issue itself, what is the problem? The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded? Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation. No, you are missing the point. I am Viperpol's opponent and it is the results-not the mechanics that are in question. The unloading of supply from three LSTs caused his dug in defenders to auto bombard a depleted American infantry regiment and they suffered outrageous losses as a result. That is what needs correcting. I have no real problem with the auto bombardment taking place as long as the results are within the scope of reason. But we are talking about two weak Japanese units vs a weak Allied unit with very few actual guns in play. Should have been a few men out of action on each side, and would have no effect on the eventual battle. I would say that this is a bug rather than a game code problem. Sorry mate, but you response to Ark is totally off base and rude to boot. His raising the issue is legitimate in my mind. Sir, I would like to apologize to you and your opponent for any offence I may have caused. My initial reading of the OP's post lead me to the wrong conclusion about his motives for posting. Having read the post again, more thoroughly, I can see he has a legitimate question about the bombardment results in this situation. Hopefully, michaelm can take a look at this, and find a solution. Again, sorry for any offence. Thanks, no worries. I have stepped on enough toes here myself.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078125