Slitherine

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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!

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