Attacks against HQn units buggy?

Attacks against HQn units buggy? (Full Version)

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

Message

Lokasenna -> Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 3:37:42 PM)
We've been noticing some really weird behavior in my game against Bullwinkle. First, he retook Attu. I had the 5th Fleet based there, and though I had flown out portions of the unit, I was unable to get it all off before he set up LRCAP and CAP over the base, stopping my transports. So 80-100 devices of the unit were stuck there, on an enemy island. He would attack and get good odds, but the unit wouldn't surrender or even take many casualties. This went on for weeks: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 01, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Attu Island (153,49) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 3822 troops, 114 guns, 83 vehicles, Assault Value = 152 Defending force 1074 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1 Allied adjusted assault: 48 Japanese adjusted defense: 1 Allied assault odds: 48 to 1 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), supply(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 49 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Assaulting units: 112th Cavalry Regiment 37th Infantry Div /6 13th USN Naval Construction Battalion 27th Infantry Division 223rd Field Artillery Battalion 2nd USMC Tank Battalion 136th USA Base Force 139th USA Base Force 3rd Marine Division C Det USN Port Svc Defending units: 5th Fleet /1 AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Nov 02, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Naval bombardment of Attu Island at 153,49 Allied Ships DD Dewey DD Hammann DD Hughes DD Bailey DD Lansdowne DD Monssen DD Grayson Japanese ground losses: 8 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled DD Dewey firing at 5th Fleet DD Hammann firing at 5th Fleet DD Hughes firing at 5th Fleet DD Bailey firing at 5th Fleet DD Lansdowne firing at 5th Fleet DD Monssen firing at 5th Fleet DD Grayson firing at 5th Fleet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Naval bombardment of Attu Island at 153,49 Allied Ships BB Maryland CL Concord CLAA San Diego DD Ellet OS2U-3 Kingfisher acting as spotter for BB Maryland BB Maryland firing at 5th Fleet CL Concord firing at 5th Fleet CLAA San Diego firing at 5th Fleet DD Ellet firing at 5th Fleet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Attu Island (153,49) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 1965 troops, 69 guns, 49 vehicles, Assault Value = 81 Defending force 1002 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1 Allied adjusted assault: 28 Japanese adjusted defense: 1 Allied assault odds: 28 to 1 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), disruption(-), preparation(-) fatigue(-), supply(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 34 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Assaulting units: 112th Cavalry Regiment 13th USN Naval Construction Battalion 27th Infantry Div /6 136th USA Base Force 223rd Field Artillery Battalion C Det USN Port Svc 139th USA Base Force 37th Infantry Div /6 Defending units: 5th Fleet /1 ------------------------------- And so on. In my notes document I have 30:1 odds on November 6 and 18 casualties suffered, 16:1 on November 7 and 62 casualties. On November 8, the odds were 112:1, but only 68 casualties. Daily attacks and the 5th Fleet finally surrenders on November 17 after 3 weeks of successive attacks. They started with around 120 Naval Support squads present at 70 Exp. Ridiculous. Attached is a turn from this time period (November 8, 1942). I thought this was really weird, but maybe just a function of island combat code when the island had been captured and remnant units stuck around for a while. 5th Fleet had 70+ Exp, after all, so maybe it was just something about hunting down all the survivors and getting rid of them, even though they didn't have any real weapons. But then we had something extremely strange happen outside of Geraldton in Australia with the Southwest Area Fleet.

witpqs -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 3:58:29 PM)
We're seeing a similar thing in a 2x2 game.

Lokasenna -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 4:01:47 PM)
Attached is the save I received from Bullwinkle to run the December 12, 1942 turn. During the land combat phase, the 194th Tank Battalion attacks: quote: Ground combat at 49,140 (near Geraldton) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 765 troops, 3 guns, 85 vehicles, Assault Value = 35 Defending force 1080 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2 Allied adjusted assault: 7 Huh? [&:] Japanese adjusted defense: 4 Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 Combat modifiers Defender: disruption(-), experience(-) Attacker: leaders(-) Japanese ground losses: 26 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Assaulting units: 194th Tank Battalion Defending units: Southwest Area Fleet 96th JAAF AF Bn /1 It is worth noting that we suffered a sync bug on this day. In Bullwinkle's version, this happened: quote: Ground combat at 49,140 (near Geraldton) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 765 troops, 3 guns, 85 vehicles, Assault Value = 35 Defending force 1080 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2 Allied adjusted assault: 33 Japanese adjusted defense: 4 Allied assault odds: 8 to 1 Combat modifiers Defender: leaders(-), disruption(-), experience(-) Attacker: leaders(+) Japanese ground losses: 125 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 31 destroyed, 0 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Units retreated 2 Defeated Japanese Units Retreating! Assaulting units: 194th Tank Battalion Defending units: Southwest Area Fleet 96th JAAF AF Bn /1 It looks like maybe there was something related to leader checks for him, but a swing of adjusted AV 7 to adjusted AV 33, from a raw of 35? That's really wacko. But that's not even the weirdest thing. On the next day...

Lokasenna -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 4:23:11 PM)
Completed Allied orders from December 13 turn from Bullwinkle attached. My reaction seeing this one was "What the hell...?" quote: Ground combat at 49,140 (near Geraldton) Allied Shock attack Attacking force 757 troops, 3 guns, 85 vehicles, Assault Value = 234 Defending force 1050 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2 Allied adjusted assault: 3 [sm=dizzy.gif] WTF? Japanese adjusted defense: 4 Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 Combat modifiers Defender: disruption(-), experience(-) Attacker: shock(+), supply(-) Japanese ground losses: 48 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Assaulting units: 194th Tank Battalion 4th Aus Cav Brigade Defending units: Southwest Area Fleet 96th JAAF AF Bn /1 I get that units with 0 supply have their AV cut down to 25% or so. That's still around 50-60 adjusted AV, not 3. Bullwinkle said that one of the units had enough support and the other didn't, and they didn't have full supply (but they did have some). So why did the adjusted AV come out at THREE? Also, it was a Shock Attack, so if it had been a Deliberate would he have gotten a 1.5 adjusted AV? That is beyond absurd. It's as if the HQn's have sorcerers in them or something. And why was mine 4, despite a raw value of 2 (entirely from non-combat squads) and disruption/experience penalties? The disruption was on the AF Bn unit (just has a sound detector sitting there). The Land skill of the HQn commander is a whopping 49, Inspiration 54. This attack had important hex side control implications for the following turn. This failed attack completely changed whether my guys at Geraldton would be trapped once they entered the hex side, or able to leave this hex where this attack occurred.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 4:37:23 PM)
I want to thank Lokasenna for posting these queries. This series of moves has been beyond frustrating for me. This one failed Allied attack is the culmination of over two months of fighting and maneuvering in western OZ, by land, sea, and air that has seen horrible losses for both sides. This failed attack will probably allow two full IJN IDs to escape total destruction due to hexside control rules. When two good tank units in open terrain can't at least cause an HQ and a BF fragment to retreat there's something wrong. And before the usual suspects weigh in, yeah, the Aussies have good leaders (50 and 60 Land respectively), morale loss only in single digits, one had zero disruption AFTER the Shock attack and the other 35, and one was at a little better than 50% supply and the other only 18 points off full white. Those tanks should have crushed those two units, taken the hex, prevented the two entering IDs from escaping north while their supply base at Geraldton was taken the next day by the USMC. That was the plan, and it took over a month to put together, foiled in one day by the results Loka posted. Like I said--beyond frustrating.

Alfred -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 5:15:59 PM)
Nothing particularly untoward displayed. Everything seems to be working as stated in the manual and patch notes. As the "usual suspects" are clearly not welcomed, I won't bother explaining. But hey, just go ahead using intemperate language and relying upon personal assumptions, it is bound to elicit a sympathetic response from the devs. Alfred

Lokasenna -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 5:23:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Nothing particularly untoward displayed.� Everything seems to be working as stated in the manual and�patch notes. As the "usual suspects" are clearly not welcomed, I won't bother explaining.� But hey, just go ahead using intemperate language and relying upon personal assumptions, it is bound to elicit a sympathetic response from the devs. Alfred I thought the Attu attacks were weird, but within normal parameters. It's that last attack outside of Geraldton. The common factor has been Exp 70+ HQn units with nothing but Naval Support devices present.

Alfred -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 5:45:56 PM)
Even the Geraldton attack is within "parameters" albeit less obvious because the sync bug does bring more FOW to the discussion. One would need to know much more detail of the environment to try to find something unusual but on what has been disclosed, seems to be WAD. Essentially you are misreading what the posted CR excerpt is actually stating and as a result drawing erroneous conclusions. This is an area which has always been easily misinterpreted as the engine's ability to provide precise and meaningful messages is less than what the devs would prefer it to be. Alfred

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 6:53:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Nothing particularly untoward displayed.� Everything seems to be working as stated in the manual and�patch notes. As the "usual suspects" are clearly not welcomed, I won't bother explaining.� But hey, just go ahead using intemperate language and relying upon personal assumptions, it is bound to elicit a sympathetic response from the devs. Alfred Seems as if your martyr complex got loose again, Alfred. I'd like someone with access to the code to take a look, thanks.

Alfred -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 7:37:39 PM)
And why would a dev look at the code when it is WAD. Nothing posted so far shows otherwise. If you think otherwise then show what is not WAD. Alfred

Lokasenna -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 7:49:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred And why would a dev look at the code when it is WAD.� Nothing posted so far shows otherwise.� If you think otherwise then show what is not WAD. Alfred Extremely low adjusted AV numbers against HQn units is WAD? Check this out, the very next day against the 2 IJA divisions. Look at the adjusted AV number. quote: Ground combat at 49,140 (near Geraldton) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 2109 troops, 19 guns, 277 vehicles, Assault Value = 194 Defending force 19238 troops, 195 guns, 66 vehicles, Assault Value = 272 Allied adjusted assault: 135 Japanese adjusted defense: 99 Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 Combat modifiers Defender: disruption(-) Attacker: disruption(-) Japanese ground losses: 144 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled) Allied ground losses: 6 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled) Vehicles lost 55 (6 destroyed, 49 disabled) Assaulting units: 194th Tank Battalion 4th Aus Cav Brigade Defending units: 18th Division 33rd Division It is literally 45 times as much as the previous adjusted AV of 3, and this time he even has a disruption penalty! Note that this time, the HQn is not present.

Yaab -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 8:04:10 PM)
I remember a player who had problems wiping out Chinese remnants consisting of artillery devices only. No matter the odds, the Chinese unit would retreat each time to live another day. The solution to this cat-and-mouse game was destroying the guns with air attacks.

HansBolter -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 8:20:53 PM)
I had very similar experiences some time ago and posted about it but got nowhere as the usual suspects who descry any criticism of the game came out in droves to shout me down. Lone HQs can be almost impossible to kill off. The non-combat squads are given a token (virtual)defensive AV, but seem to be immune to being targeted by offensive fire as if the engine is leaving them out of the calculation for losses because they have an actual AV of zero. You can attack them repeatedly without ever seeing any significant losses. Surely, as Alfred so eloquently states this must be WAD.......[8\|]

Alfred -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 9:38:39 PM)
What extremely low adjusted AV.[:@] You have been around long enough to know not to peddle such rubbish which is not supported by what is printed in the CR. That the "usual suspects" were clearly not wanted is clear evidence that the two of you had already made up your minds and are not prepared to admit that your combined private analysis is just wrong. (A) What is your dislike raised in post #1. From what you wrote the dislike comes down to that it took 3 weeks to eliminate the Japanese remnant. Absolutely nothing strange that it took so long. What did you think would happen. Surrounded Japanese and Allied forces have always been treated differently when it comes to retreat and surrender. When a retreat path is available both sides retreat when the victor's adjusted AV is 2+ levels above the fortification level. Achieving 48:1, 28:1 and 112:1 odds on a continental land mass where a valid retreat path can be traced would have resulted in the Japanese remnant retreating. If under those circumstances it had not retreated, then you would have a prima facie bug. But those are not the conditions applicable here. What you had here was combat on an island. Retreat was not an option. The surrender routine instead comes into play, and as stated above, the Japanese respond differently when confronted with such a situation. Section 8.4.2.2.1 of the manual deals with retreats. Many factors are taken into account to determine whether a unit which cannot retreat, is actually eliminated. Again, with those odds against an Allied unit, if there had not been an immediate surrender you would have a prima facie bug. But not when it is a Japanese unit, particularly if the Japanese unit has good leadership/morale/experience etc. You need to achieve a 125:1 adjusted AV to be certain of eliminating a good Japanese unit. (B) Post #3 had a sync bug. That complicates matters because it adds to the overall FOW but not to the point any other bug is revealed. So what are the dislikes here? That the Japanese CR shows an Allied adjusted AV of 7 but the Allied CR shows it as 33. Rather than just stating it was wacko you should have not been so dismissive of the leader impacts. In the first CR the Allied player obtained a negative leadership modifier but a positive leadership modifier in the second CR. Also in the second CR, a negative Japanese modifier occurred. The impact of these modifiers can be clearly seen in the different damage meted out: only 3 disabled Japanese devices in the first CR but 31 destroyed Japanese devices in the second. Why would that outcome alone not go a long way towards explaining the different adjusted AV outcomes. No, nothing wacky at all if you were prepared to look at the evidence objectively (C) Post #4, basically the same complaint. Here we get a WTF expletive because the Allied unadjusted AV was 234 but the adjusted AV was only 3. You were so overwhelmed with indignation you failed to properly assess what was before your eyes. Unlike the previous CR excerpts, here there seems to be a second Allied unit involved but that is not necessarily the case. If there is any bug at all in play here is whether the second unit at the "grassy knoll" (the 4th Aust Cav Bde) participated in combat (assuming it too had been given orders to attack, a player decision not made clear at all) that you should have focussed on, not the difference in AV. That you didn't demonstrates you didn't even pick up on it. So what we have is "Attacking force 757 troops, 3 guns, 85 vehicles, Assault Value = 234". Nothing untoward here as the numerated devices is the same force projection from the 194th Tank Bn as previously seen and the increase in unadjusted AV from the previous mid 30s to 234 represents the presence in the hex of the second unit. The 194th Tank Bn unadjusted AV could never, under any circumstance jump to 234 so it is your error to make that claim. Next, in order to buttress your poor analysis, you claim that being out of supply, which the CR clearly states is the case, could not explain an adjusted AV of 3. Well yes it can. The unadjusted AV of the Tank Bn, which according to the CR is the only unit which participated in combat, probably was low 30s at best Rounding up/down, if down to 25% effectiveness because of no supply, yes an adjusted AV of 3 for the Tank Bn is not anything which remotely comes close to being properly referred to as wacky. Thirdly, the two of you have been around long enough to know that a Shock Attack does not affect AV; it impacts on the fire phase. Rather disingenuous to suggest that if it had been a Deliberate Attack, would the adjusted AV have become 1.5. Still, rather indicative of the care you have lavished on analysing this matter in a closed internal circuit. And why the Japanese AV 4? For the reasons which have often been posted on the forum, and explained by me, support squads count for final odds determination. It is just wishful thinking that one merely waves a tank wand and presto they crush the enemy. One tank = 1 AV just as a single Borneo headhunter armed with a bow = 1 AV. With the abstraction it is the total AV that goes towards crushing an opponent and here the lack of damage inflicted on the enemy is a more salient point than that tanks were involved. (D) Post #11. Where the chickens come home to roost. Note the significant change from post #4 "Attacking force 2109 troops, 19 guns, 277 vehicles, Assault Value = 194" Now we have clear evidence, as seen by the numerated devices, that both Allied units actually participated in combat this time, but not how the unadjusted AV has deteriorated as result of what had transpired logically beforehand. Alas Japanese reinforcements arrived so Bullwinkle's long drawn out planning comes to nought. Explains the frustration but not the tone and poor analysis shown in this thread. Even here we still get this fixation on misrepresenting adjusted AV and the role of HQn which is seen as the silent culprit in all this, hence the thread title. To directly answer the reiterated issue "Extremely low adjusted AV numbers against HQn units is WAD?" Yes it is WAD because the question as posed is nonsense. The adjusted AV is derived from many other factors which experienced players are well aware of. Show that the 4th Aust Cav Bde did actually receive orders to fight on 13 December and it disobeyed those orders and then you might have a valid issue worth investigation by the devs but that has nothing to do with the presence of an HQ. Alfred

Ol_Dog -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 9:51:06 PM)
As Mr Spock would say, "It is logical"

Lokasenna -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 10:10:14 PM)
I'm not even going to dignify your wall of text with much of a response as you were clearly just waiting for an excuse to get all angry. You didn't read where I wrote that the combats on Attu, while odd, seemed to be fine - island with no place to retreat. But it did take an inordinately long time. All of the other units surrendered well before the HQn did. For a person who harps on others about reading comprehension, you failed there. What doesn't seem to be fine are the attacks outside of Geraldton. Your reference to post #3 is nonsense. You're saying what I already said. There was leaders(-), then leaders(+) in Bullwinkle's sync bugged replay. I attached the relevant turns where stuff happened. I took at face value that the 4th Aus Cav Brigade had participated in the adjusted AV 3 attack. I just rewatched the replay with messages slowed way down and they did not attack. Ok, fine.

Alfred -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 10:32:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I'm not even going to dignify your wall of text with much of a response as you were clearly just waiting for an excuse to get all angry. You didn't read where I wrote that the combats on Attu, while odd, seemed to be fine - island with no place to retreat. But it did take an inordinately long time. All of the other units surrendered well before the HQn did. For a person who harps on others about reading comprehension, you failed there. What doesn't seem to be fine are the attacks outside of Geraldton. Your reference to post #3 is nonsense. You're saying what I already said. There was leaders(-), then leaders(+) in Bullwinkle's sync bugged replay. I attached the relevant turns where stuff happened. I took at face value that the 4th Aus Cav Brigade had participated in the adjusted AV 3 attack. I just rewatched the replay with messages slowed way down and they did not attack. Ok, fine. Fine. It is not really directed at you because you have a closed mind on the subject. It is directed at others who may benefit. You have misquoted me very badly in the past. You give wrong info on other occasions. You like your spreadsheets believing it tells you everything but miss the forest for the trees. You post facto reinvent your position when it dawns it is not tenable. When making accusations be certain you do your homework first. Here you failed to do your homework. I very much read your first post which if your amour proper had not blinded you, you wouldn't have made the silly statement that I had not read it. Your claim that you didn't really mind Attu is just not true otherwise why raise it at all, and in the manner you did, in the Tech subforum. You think you know how the game operates, you thought there was an issue here so you went ahead. The fact is you know more about the game than many but no where near as much as your ego believes. There is a reason why Symon is responding to you in a certain manner. But don't worry you aren't alone. Alfred

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 11:02:46 PM)
Hey, Alfred. I was nice before; now you're just being an ass. Loka and I have shared EVERY bit of data from both sides on this situation with the other. He, unlike you, knows exactly what attacked, what my supply situation was, what the leader ratings were, etc. We did the same thing in the Aleutians. For the record I wasn't looking for a surrender in the Aleutians. I was looking for utter destruction. If you look at the units listed in the CRs, and KNEW (which you don't) about the scores of 4E and BB bombardments on this lone, isolated, out-of-supply Japanese non-combat unit you'd have a point. See, Loka knows. He posted the turn files. Michael can look at them or not. But that's where the truth lies. Not in assumptions and guesses from CRs. You're the one always pointing out that players with problems don't give the complete info. Well, here he (we ) did. It just wasn't addressed to you. Maybe that gets under your skin, maybe it's something else. But here, you're out of line. And if an HQ, in open terrain, with nothing but some naval support squads (anti-armor rating=1), can BEAT two good, well-led armor units in supply and with no morale hits or disruption, I'm playing the wrong game.

Lokasenna -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/9/2014 11:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I'm not even going to dignify your wall of text with much of a response as you were clearly just waiting for an excuse to get all angry. You didn't read where I wrote that the combats on Attu, while odd, seemed to be fine - island with no place to retreat. But it did take an inordinately long time. All of the other units surrendered well before the HQn did. For a person who harps on others about reading comprehension, you failed there. What doesn't seem to be fine are the attacks outside of Geraldton. Your reference to post #3 is nonsense. You're saying what I already said. There was leaders(-), then leaders(+) in Bullwinkle's sync bugged replay. I attached the relevant turns where stuff happened. I took at face value that the 4th Aus Cav Brigade had participated in the adjusted AV 3 attack. I just rewatched the replay with messages slowed way down and they did not attack. Ok, fine. Fine. It is not really directed at you because you have a closed mind on the subject. It is directed at others who may benefit. You have misquoted me very badly in the past. You give wrong info on other occasions. You like your spreadsheets believing it tells you everything but miss the forest for the trees. You post facto reinvent your position when it dawns it is not tenable. When making accusations be certain you do your homework first. Here you failed to do your homework. I very much read your first post which if your amour proper had not blinded you, you wouldn't have made the silly statement that I had not read it. Your claim that you didn't really mind Attu is just not true otherwise why raise it at all, and in the manner you did, in the Tech subforum. You think you know how the game operates, you thought there was an issue here so you went ahead. The fact is you know more about the game than many but no where near as much as your ego believes. There is a reason why Symon is responding to you in a certain manner. But don't worry you aren't alone. Alfred You still didn't pass reading comprehension. You're insufferable. Welcome to green button land. Not even Symon made it there, nor will he I imagine. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black on reinventing positions. I've seen you walk back your arguments before without even admitting you were wrong. Classic hubris.

Yaab -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/10/2014 3:53:28 AM)
Cool it off! A new age is rising, the age of Japanese HQ samurai ubermensch! With exp 70 and 100% prep, these warriors of steel come from carefully selected HQs, which have been fragmented to death and spread among the islands chains of the Pacific Ocean. Each HQ is divided into 15 tiny commando fragments of super tough, unbeatable warriors, who can postpone their death for the Emperor indefinitely (or at least until 1973). The Allied response? The Australian commando units and US Army paras will take care of those nasty yellow devils spat by the cadet schools of Ginza! Welcome to the mini-AV war in the Pacific - pencils, fists and knives. Golden Gate in '68!

CaseLogic -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/10/2014 8:30:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Cool it off! A new age is rising, the age of Japanese HQ samurai ubermensch! With exp 70 and 100% prep, these warriors of steel come from carefully selected HQs, which have been fragmented to death and spread among the islands chains of the Pacific Ocean. Each HQ is divided into 15 tiny commando fragments of super tough, unbeatable warriors, who can postpone their death for the Emperor indefinitely (or at least until 1973). The Allied response? The Australian commando units and US Army paras will take care of those nasty yellow devils spat by the cadet schools of Ginza! Welcome to the mini-AV war in the Pacific - pencils, fists and knives. Golden Gate in '68! Add in some lone artillery devices as previously stated as well. I recently attacked a japanese fragment of only 35 artillery devices with 8000 well supplied Chinese AV, combat odds of some 6500:1, with the result of 0 casualties on both sides. For three days. This was after a previous attack wiped out the other 9 japanese units in the hex and these lone devices were all that was left (retreat cut off). I also had to destroy them by air. One attack by 3 attack bomber squadrons at LowG did the trick where 20+ corps totaling 150.000+ ground troops over several days could not. [:)] This was in latest official though, not in beta.

wdolson -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/10/2014 8:38:06 AM)
A while back I saw an issue where small units, especially badly damaged artillery units were very tough to wipe out. I haven't seen it in a long time. I suspect Michael addressed it in one of the betas. There have been a lot of bugs fixes since the last official patch. Land combat has always had some problems. It's better than WitP, but not perfect. Bill

LoBaron -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/10/2014 8:58:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson A while back I saw an issue where small units, especially badly damaged artillery units were very tough to wipe out. I haven't seen it in a long time. I suspect Michael addressed it in one of the betas. Yes, I remembered this as well while reading this thread. Did a search but came up blank. It is not mentioned in the bugfix list of the current betas - or I used the wrong search terms. edit: wasn�t this situation (also) related to garrison/static units?

HansBolter -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/10/2014 10:32:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson A while back I saw an issue where small units, especially badly damaged artillery units were very tough to wipe out. I haven't seen it in a long time. I suspect Michael addressed it in one of the betas. There have been a lot of bugs fixes since the last official patch. Land combat has always had some problems. It's better than WitP, but not perfect. Bill Thanks Bill

Lokasenna -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (10/10/2014 7:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Cool it off! A new age is rising, the age of Japanese HQ samurai ubermensch! With exp 70 and 100% prep, these warriors of steel come from carefully selected HQs, which have been fragmented to death and spread among the islands chains of the Pacific Ocean. Each HQ is divided into 15 tiny commando fragments of super tough, unbeatable warriors, who can postpone their death for the Emperor indefinitely (or at least until 1973). The Allied response? The Australian commando units and US Army paras will take care of those nasty yellow devils spat by the cadet schools of Ginza! Welcome to the mini-AV war in the Pacific - pencils, fists and knives. Golden Gate in '68! You're awesome.

rustysi -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (11/9/2015 1:29:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred What extremely low adjusted AV.[:@] You have been around long enough to know not to peddle such rubbish which is not supported by what is printed in the CR.� That the "usual suspects" were clearly not wanted is clear evidence that the two of you had already made up your minds and are not prepared to admit that your combined private analysis is just wrong. (A)� What is your�dislike raised in post #1.� From what you wrote the dislike comes down to that it took 3 weeks to eliminate the Japanese remnant.� Absolutely nothing strange that it took so long.� What did you think would happen.� Surrounded Japanese and Allied forces have always been treated differently when it comes to retreat and surrender.� When a retreat path is available both sides retreat when the victor's adjusted AV is 2+ levels above the fortification level.� Achieving 48:1, 28:1 and 112:1 odds on a continental land mass where a valid retreat path can be traced would have resulted in the Japanese remnant retreating.� If under those circumstances it had not retreated, then you would have a prima facie bug.� But those are not the conditions applicable here. What you had here was combat on an island.� Retreat was not an option.� The surrender routine instead comes into play, and as stated above, the Japanese respond differently when confronted with such a situation.� Section 8.4.2.2.1 of the manual deals with retreats.� Many factors are taken into account to determine whether a unit which cannot retreat, is actually eliminated.� Again, with those odds against an Allied unit, if there had not been an immediate surrender you would have a prima facie bug.� But not when it is a Japanese unit, particularly if the Japanese unit has good leadership/morale/experience etc.� You need to achieve a 125:1 adjusted AV to be certain of eliminating a good Japanese unit. (B)� Post #3 had a sync bug.� That complicates matters because it adds to the overall FOW but not to the point any other bug is revealed. So what are the dislikes here?� That the Japanese CR shows an Allied adjusted AV of 7 but the Allied CR shows it as 33.� Rather than just stating it was wacko you should have not been so dismissive of the leader impacts.� In the first CR the Allied player obtained a negative leadership modifier but a positive leadership modifier in the second CR.� Also in the second CR, a negative Japanese modifier occurred.� The impact of these modifiers can be clearly seen in the different damage meted out: only 3 disabled Japanese devices in the first CR but 31 destroyed Japanese devices in the second.� Why would that outcome alone not go a long way�towards explaining the different adjusted AV outcomes.� No, nothing wacky at all if you were prepared to look at the evidence objectively (C)� Post #4, basically the same complaint.� Here we get a WTF expletive because the Allied unadjusted AV was 234 but the adjusted AV was only 3.� You were so overwhelmed with indignation you failed to properly assess what was before your eyes. Unlike the previous CR excerpts, here there seems to be a second Allied unit involved but that is not necessarily the case.� If there is any bug at all in play here is whether the second unit at the "grassy knoll" (the 4th Aust Cav Bde) participated in combat (assuming it too had been given orders to attack, a player decision not made clear at all) that you should have focussed on, not the difference in AV.� That you didn't demonstrates you didn't even pick up on it. So what we have is "Attacking force 757 troops, 3 guns, 85 vehicles, Assault Value = 234". Nothing untoward here�as the numerated devices is the same force projection from the 194th Tank Bn as previously seen and the increase in unadjusted AV from the previous mid 30s to 234 represents the presence in the hex of the second unit.� The 194th Tank Bn unadjusted AV could never, under any circumstance jump to 234 so it is your error to make that claim. Next, in order to buttress your poor analysis, you claim that being out of supply, which the CR clearly states is the case, could not explain an adjusted AV of 3.� Well yes it can.� The unadjusted AV of the Tank Bn, which according to the CR is the only unit which participated in combat, probably was low 30s at best� Rounding up/down, if down to 25% effectiveness because of no supply, yes an adjusted AV of 3 for the Tank Bn is not anything which remotely comes close to being properly referred to as wacky. Thirdly, the two of you have been around long enough to know that a Shock Attack does not affect AV; it impacts on the fire phase.� Rather disingenuous to suggest that if it had been a Deliberate Attack, would the adjusted AV have become 1.5.� Still, rather indicative of the care you have lavished on analysing�this matter in a closed internal circuit. And why the Japanese AV 4?� For the reasons which have often been posted on the forum, and explained by me, support squads count for final odds determination. It is just wishful thinking that one merely waves a tank wand and presto they crush the enemy.� One tank = 1 AV just as a single Borneo headhunter armed with a bow = 1 AV.� With the abstraction it is the total AV that goes towards crushing an opponent and here the lack of damage inflicted on the enemy is a more salient point than that tanks were involved. (D)� Post #11.� Where the chickens come home to roost. Note the significant change from post #4 "Attacking force 2109 troops, 19 guns, 277 vehicles, Assault Value = 194" Now we have clear evidence, as seen by the numerated devices,�that both Allied units actually participated in combat this time, but not how the unadjusted AV has deteriorated as result of what had transpired logically beforehand.� Alas Japanese reinforcements arrived so Bullwinkle's long drawn out planning comes to nought.� Explains the frustration but not the tone and poor analysis shown in this thread. Even here we still get this fixation on misrepresenting adjusted AV and the role of HQn which is seen as the silent culprit in all this, hence the thread title. To directly answer the reiterated issue "Extremely low adjusted AV numbers against HQn units is WAD?" Yes it is WAD because the question as posed is nonsense.� The adjusted AV is derived from many other factors which experienced players are well aware of. Show that the 4th Aust Cav Bde did actually receive orders to fight on 13 December and it disobeyed those orders and then you might have a valid issue worth investigation by the devs but that has nothing to do with the presence of an HQ. Alfred OK, I don't want to open a can of worms here and I'm not trying to be a know it all or show anyone up here. What I'm trying to do is make sure everything is as it should be. Also I may be comparing apples and oranges and if I am let me know. This is WRT what I've highlighted near the beginning of the above post. I'm in scenario 1 of a CG against the AI and am patched to the latest official patch, 1124. Here's what I found: [image]local://upfiles/41204/904BB08B9253435B89BC943869A1C8F3.jpg[/image]

rustysi -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (11/9/2015 1:30:15 AM)
More... [image]local://upfiles/41204/D29B4819B959472BB6529E1520063177.jpg[/image]

rustysi -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (11/9/2015 1:31:04 AM)
Again... [image]local://upfiles/41204/9964D113AC6443C7BB143366D65AE813.jpg[/image]

rustysi -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (11/9/2015 1:31:52 AM)
Wait for it... [image]local://upfiles/41204/04B009F420CC49148ABC86AC23846CCB.jpg[/image]

rustysi -> RE: Attacks against HQn units buggy? (11/9/2015 1:39:14 AM)
OK, so the first two are before and after combat. The third is the CR, and the forth shows that three retreat paths exist. Now I know its not an HQ, but it only has support devices. Anyway I would have expected the unit to retreat. Am I missing something here???[&:] BTW I'm glad it didn't retreat as I didn't want to chase it all over New Britain.[:D] Also this 'battle' took weeks before the Lark Battalion was eliminated.[>:]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375