quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

They keep coming...but now there are no Zeroes....happy days.[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: T Rav

Not just Hussars, Winged Hussars!

Great video RJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Butchers Bill
Ground combat at 56,40 (near Chittagong)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 16269 troops, 203 guns, 181 vehicles, Assault Value = 652

Defending force 7672 troops, 104 guns, 52 vehicles, Assault Value = 27

Allied adjusted assault: 337

Japanese adjusted defense: 20

Allied assault odds: 16 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
1736 casualties reported
Squads: 183 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 90 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 9 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 21 (17 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 11 (7 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Allied ground losses:
138 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
7th Hussars Regiment
18th British Division
19th Indian Division
63rd Indian Brigade
6th Medium Regiment

Defending units:
Imperial Guards Division
55th Cavalry Regiment




[image]local://upfiles/44178/5B6F52BD98A648E8B1DEB82F0A50B387.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Banzai![X(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Congrats on the good turn! Serious bloody nose dished out. It was to be expected, right [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Banzai![X(]

Not recombining the ID (56th in this case) before attacking anything strong is a serious mistake for Japan. Take your time, ship in missing parts, wait for PPs, but do recombine the ID. Those parts are so fragile on offence when separated... I don't know how exactly this is coded in game but offence behaves completely different to defense. Parts of ID generally perform as an ID in defending even when not recombined, but they are all glass cannons when on offence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Congrats on the good turn! Serious bloody nose dished out. It was to be expected, right [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Banzai![X(]

Not recombining the ID (56th in this case) before attacking anything strong is a serious mistake for Japan. Take your time, ship in missing parts, wait for PPs, but do recombine the ID. Those parts are so fragile on offence when separated... I don't know how exactly this is coded in game but offence behaves completely different to defense. Parts of ID generally perform as an ID in defending even when not recombined, but they are all glass cannons when on offence.

Regiments lack firepower. Making a Division or Brigade adds heavy weapons that give greater punch in offence. In defence, forts and the defensive advantage are enough to make a Regiment much tougher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Regiments lack firepower. Making a Division or Brigade adds heavy weapons that give greater punch in offence. In defence, forts and the defensive advantage are enough to make a Regiment much tougher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
A big effect of not recombining the divisions is that enemy firepower may be concentrated on one of the subcomponents and cause a disproportionate amount of disabled then destroyed squads, when a full division has a bigger buffer to absorb disablements. Especially problematic if the player has the habit of doing shock attacks...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

More flawed commentary.

For almost 5 years I've allowed these observations to go uncorrected. Recent commentary elsewhere has made me decide its time to bring in a professional assessment, for after all, as many around here like to point out, I don't know anything about AE.

Symon, both a key dev and with access to the code, a man whose work history had included system analysis, and an intellect far higher than most who post on the forum, published his tests in this thread

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3831175&mpage=1&key=division�

to show that the generic whine that a complete division always performed better than a broken down division was just wrong. Look out for in particular his posts:

#15
#16
#17
#18
#20 (this post summarizes his conclusions)
#22 (where he tellingly makes the remark "Thing is that the forum posts on this subject are simply wrong.")

Note the honesty displayed by Symon regarding test weakness but also why it was so structured.

It really should make one consider why different testers might get different results. Surely it couldn't be that one test bed was better constructed than a different tester's test bed. How could different results be generated if the same conditions applied. And if creating the test beds is so simple, then why are the results different.

Alfred

quote:

. . . Maybe you could give Alfred a heads-up on this so he can continue doing what he does so well? . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I let Japan know about the presence of Stuart IIs in India surging thru his hapless troopers, along with the 25# artillery (the previous turn) and the great improvement in American fighter pilots tactics (as modeled in the game by a higher A2A skill). Hopefully he gets enjoyment from the knowledge...

quote:

Always is against Lowpe- his attention to detail is off the planet