Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but...

Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (Full Version)

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

Message

Lokasenna -> Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 3:59:19 PM)
Look at his stats. What is going on here? I mean, it's clearly based on a die roll, but this many days in a row? It's calling into question a lot of what we "know" about leaders. All of his stats are in the upper tier of what's available to US Army leaders. It shouldn't matter as far as the leaders(+/-) goes, but the unit hasn't been in rough shape at all through this. Fatigue was in the 30s while I was taking the base, and disruption in the mid-teens. Not anywhere out of the normal for units engaged in combat. And yet, here's the litany of combats and what leader(+/-) was received by the unit. May 28: landing at Koepang May 29: leaders(-) May 30-31: no combat June 1: no combat June 2: leaders(+), fatigue(-) June 3: no bonus or penalty June 4: leaders(-) June 5 through 7: no combat June 8: leaders(-) June 9 through 14: no combat June 14: leaders(-) June 15: leaders(-) June 16: leaders(+), leaders(-) June 17: leaders(-) [image]local://upfiles/41335/E5DC5CDC8B344A86AD5C4395C6BDE998.jpg[/image]

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 4:39:56 PM)
A drinking problem? Not unheard of with US Generals...

mind_messing -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 5:00:44 PM)
Timor, I think, is simply cursed for you... [:D] The game (AFAIK) makes no distinction between what leaders value gets the penalty or bonus. I remember seeing cases where units could have both a + leaders and a - leaders Considering how his Inspiration Value is only above average, it could just be the roll of the dice.

JocMeister -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 5:24:49 PM)
Had the same thing happen with Chester Pully against a Japanese BF...

Lokasenna -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 5:50:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing Timor, I think, is simply cursed for you... [:D] The game (AFAIK) makes no distinction between what leaders value gets the penalty or bonus. I remember seeing cases where units could have both a + leaders and a - leaders Considering how his Inspiration Value is only above average, it could just be the roll of the dice. But every attack for weeks? And nah, I own Timor completely in this game. How is 65 Inspiration and 72 Land a leaders penalty for 7 out of 9 attacks (with bonuses in 2 out of 9)?

Alfred -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 6:23:59 PM)
You are asking us to assume that: (a) Spraggins is the leader being checked against, and (b) the only Allied unit present is the 1st Cav div Alfred

dr.hal -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 6:33:26 PM)
Is it also possible that if there is more than one Japanese unit, it would depend upon which unit the Cav unit is being checked against?

Alfred -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 6:43:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal Is it also possible that if there is more than one Japanese unit, it would depend upon which unit the Cav unit is being checked against? Whichever Allied unit/leader is being checked, it isn't against any enemy unit/leader. Alfred

BattleMoose -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 7:42:01 PM)
Is this the only allied unit in combat?

dr.hal -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 7:55:10 PM)
Interesting, that fact explains a lot. So the only way to ensure that your best leader is counted in the fight is to make him the ONLY leader in the fight (if there are other leaders, then put them into reserve).

HansBolter -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 8:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal Interesting, that fact explains a lot. So the only way to ensure that your best leader is counted in the fight is to make him the ONLY leader in the fight (if there are other leaders, then put them into reserve). Yea that would work if every fight could be won by a single unit. Unfortunately, we need multiple units attacking to win most fights.

dr.hal -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 8:51:26 PM)
Yes Hans that's true, but if you have a particularly poor leader in a few units, it might be more advantageous to leave that unit on the sideline (or pay the PPs to get a new leader!).

HansBolter -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 9:12:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal Yes Hans that's true, but if you have a particularly poor leader in a few units, it might be more advantageous to leave that unit on the sideline (or pay the PPs to get a new leader!). Agreed. However, it seems much more important to put the units with the highest disablements, fatigue and disruption in reserve to rest while other units carry the load. I would definitely choose spending the PPs for a decent/good leader over holding back a fresh unit. I typically try to replace crappy leaders before sending a unit into the front lines, however sometimes the front lines come to the units with crappy leaders before I get a chance to replace them.

Lokasenna -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 9:15:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred You are asking us to assume that: (a) Spraggins is the leader being checked against, and (b) the only Allied unit present is the 1st Cav div Alfred Sorry, I should have stated that explicitly. Yes, the only unit present at the hex is the 1st Cavalry. That's it. That's why this is so confusing to me. [image]local://upfiles/41335/ABBFB59C49184BA1BD653B16B86093C0.jpg[/image]

Lokasenna -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 9:18:27 PM)
Actual combat reports: quote: Ground combat at Koepang (68,116) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 8850 troops, 106 guns, 166 vehicles, Assault Value = 398 Defending force 7439 troops, 40 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 62 Allied adjusted assault: 177 Japanese adjusted defense: 163 Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0) Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 0 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), preparation(-), fatigue(-) experience(-) Attacker: leaders(-) Japanese ground losses: 53 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Allied ground losses: 58 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled) Assaulting units: 1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division Defending units: 2nd Fleet 2nd Base Force 31st Special Base Force quote: Ground combat at Koepang (68,116) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 8718 troops, 106 guns, 167 vehicles, Assault Value = 374 Defending force 7024 troops, 40 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 59 Allied adjusted assault: 155 Japanese adjusted defense: 155 Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), preparation(-), experience(-) Attacker: leaders(-) Japanese ground losses: 97 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 14 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Allied ground losses: 89 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Assaulting units: 1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division Defending units: 2nd Fleet 2nd Base Force 31st Special Base Force quote: Ground combat at Koepang (68,116) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 8653 troops, 106 guns, 167 vehicles, Assault Value = 363 Defending force 6955 troops, 40 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 59 Allied adjusted assault: 152 Japanese adjusted defense: 153 Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), fatigue(-), experience(-) Attacker: leaders(-) Japanese ground losses: 123 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 20 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Allied ground losses: 66 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 12 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled) Assaulting units: 1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division Defending units: 2nd Fleet 2nd Base Force 31st Special Base Force

HansBolter -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 9:20:43 PM)
Scary seeing a leader that good get one minus after another.

dr.hal -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 9:29:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Scary seeing a leader that good get one minus after another. I would say it is a lot more than scary, it's down right disheartening. If I expend the PPs to get a top leader in there, I would expect some sort of advantage. If it is really nothing more than a dice roll, why go to the bother??? You could have Col. Klink in there and do as much....

Lokasenna -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 10:07:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Scary seeing a leader that good get one minus after another. I would say it is a lot more than scary, it's down right disheartening. If I expend the PPs to get a top leader in there, I would expect some sort of advantage. If it is really nothing more than a dice roll, why go to the bother??? You could have Col. Klink in there and do as much.... I've never seen it happen like this, though. So many combats in a row. Am I just getting really unlucky? Is there some other factor involved, that from everything else I thought I knew shouldn't affect the particular leaders(+/-) modifier (no HQ present? compared to enemy LCU, which would be really wacko?)... Or what? I'd also like to note that the unit was/is prepped 100%, but that has its own thing (and for defensive AV only, or so I thought), so it shouldn't affect the leaders bonus/penalty, etc. In the most recent combat that I just ran (June 19), there was no leaders(+) or leaders(-) for the attack. In this particular instance, it's not really a big deal. It's just one unit at one relatively backwater base. But what if this was happening in another place where the stakes (and stacks) were much bigger? Just ugh.

mind_messing -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/30/2015 10:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal Is it also possible that if there is more than one Japanese unit, it would depend upon which unit the Cav unit is being checked against? Whichever Allied unit/leader is being checked, it isn't against any enemy unit/leader. Alfred Link to relevant developer comment please?

wdolson -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 1:15:27 AM)
Looks like the unit just got a bunch of bad die rolls. If there was an HQ in range, some of those may come from HQ leadership fails, but it doesn't sound like that's happening unless there is an amphib HQ. Bill

Lokasenna -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 3:05:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson Looks like the unit just got a bunch of bad die rolls. If there was an HQ in range, some of those may come from HQ leadership fails, but it doesn't sound like that's happening unless there is an amphib HQ. Bill Nope. No HQ anywhere remotely close, let alone prepped for that base. So...just a string of terrible rolls on a leader who is, if Inspiration and Land are the skills for land combat, a great CO.

BJStone -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 4:18:07 AM)
Any leader that attacks against superior terrain and against a master of defense gets an automatic downgrade... Most people would just call him stupid. [:'(]

Yaab -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 5:53:50 AM)
It is the Jap leader in the 2nd Fleet. His stats are probably even more obscene than Spragins's stats and the Jap gets all the good die rolls. In order of combat, Japs go first, so they should be also die rolling first. Poor Spragins.

Lokasenna -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 6:04:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab It is the Jap leader in the 2nd Fleet. His stats are probably even more obscene than Spragins's stats and the Jap gets all the good die rolls. In order of combat, Japs go first, so they should be also die rolling first. Poor Spragins. But commanders are not supposed to be compared to each other for the +/- on leaders, or at least so we've been told.

Yaab -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 6:23:15 AM)
Comb the US Army leaders, both assigned and unassigned, and pick the best one to lead the 1st Cav. See if it helps.

Chris21wen -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 8:35:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal Interesting, that fact explains a lot. So the only way to ensure that your best leader is counted in the fight is to make him the ONLY leader in the fight (if there are other leaders, then put them into reserve). Yea that would work if every fight could be won by a single unit. Unfortunately, we need multiple units attacking to win most fights. One way to know who is to put the leaders name in the combat results.

wdolson -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 8:50:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chris H One way to know who is to put the leaders name in the combat results. Unfortunately is isn't that easy. There can be many leaders involved in combat. The + or - is an aggregate of every leader in the combat which includes HQs in range as well as every leader of every unit in the combat. When telephone pole stacks of units are duking it out, it can be a couple of hundred leadership checks in one battle. Bill

Feltan -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (10/31/2015 11:17:05 PM)
Maybe the devs have a special sense of humor. The 1st Cav Div is oft maligned by others. If you look at the unit patch, you'll understand the quip one often hears on active duty: "The horse that wasn't ridden, the line that wasn't crossed, and the color of the patch will tell you why." Maybe your leader is just fine, and the they programmed the 1st Cav Div to reflect (seemingly unfair and undeserved) criticism. Regards, Feltan

Chris21wen -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (11/1/2015 8:06:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: Chris H One way to know who is to put the leaders name in the combat results. Unfortunately is isn't that easy. There can be many leaders involved in combat. The + or - is an aggregate of every leader in the combat which includes HQs in range as well as every leader of every unit in the combat. When telephone pole stacks of units are duking it out, it can be a couple of hundred leadership checks in one battle. Bill I was referring to HQ leaders only but you would not know who the enemy leaders were anyway so it would be pointless. Forget what I said, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Yaab -> RE: Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but... (5/20/2020 3:24:40 PM)
Thread resurrection. Found this thread again after a small leader test of my own. Lokasenna posted three combat reports. Each has Leader(-) malus. In each Deliberate attack the adjusted AV drops to 50% of the nominal value. It looks as if high aggro gives you a malus on Deliberate attacks. Imgaine Spragins attacking with half of his force every time. He is like a high aggro bomber group flying without escort into enemy CAP. Seems high aggro may be good in Shock attacks and bad in Deliberate attacks.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.421875