Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Clash of the Battleships

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Clash of the Battleships Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 2:24:03 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Darn it. I think I just clicked into Joc's by mistake -- we are adjacent on the board. Clicked out fast though, so no harm done.

Do you mean the fuel doesn't flow well for the Chinese, Lok? Been so long since I played Allies I can't remember...


Apart from out of Sian, I just don't think fuel flows very well in China at all. The movement algorithm should be the same regardless of whether it's the Chinese or Japanese moving the fuel. In my experience, it doesn't move very well over the dirt roads. It'll move some, but nowhere near enough. Sian's innate HI eats up some (or all?) of the fuel that it produces anyway.

Edit - in my Scen 2 game, Sian has 10 HI to go with 20 Oil/20 Refinery. So it eats up its own fuel production every turn, assuming full HI production. Fuel does seem to move out of Lanchow at least, but it's peanuts. I mean, cool you've blocked it now, but it was only giving up up to 100ish supply per day anyway. He's burning hundreds verging on 1000+ when there are combat ops.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 11/18/2015 3:26:53 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 541
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 12:35:16 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Lok, you mistake my purpose for cutting China in half. I wanted to isolate the Chinese to the east and defeat them without eating up a terrible amount of my supplies. I now want to to grab the Central Plains...I have been shifting a lot of IJA forces to the west as they don't really need to worry about the Sian forces (which are quite strong).

Stopping the fuel flow to Chungking and other HI sources to the west are simply an added bonus. I will add up the HI in the western half -- I bet it is over 600 which is 1200 per day in supply gone as soon as the fuel runs out. The question is when the fuel runs out?


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 542
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 4:02:45 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Lok, you mistake my purpose for cutting China in half. I wanted to isolate the Chinese to the east and defeat them without eating up a terrible amount of my supplies. I now want to to grab the Central Plains...I have been shifting a lot of IJA forces to the west as they don't really need to worry about the Sian forces (which are quite strong).

Stopping the fuel flow to Chungking and other HI sources to the west are simply an added bonus. I will add up the HI in the western half -- I bet it is over 600 which is 1200 per day in supply gone as soon as the fuel runs out. The question is when the fuel runs out?




I have done no such thing! Just arguing that it doesn't matter whether you cut the fuel off or not.

I'd wager that the fuel has been too low to run the HI regularly or out for quite some time. I don't think they begin the game with large stockpiles there.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 543
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 5:29:40 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Lok, you mistake my purpose for cutting China in half. I wanted to isolate the Chinese to the east and defeat them without eating up a terrible amount of my supplies. I now want to to grab the Central Plains...I have been shifting a lot of IJA forces to the west as they don't really need to worry about the Sian forces (which are quite strong).

Stopping the fuel flow to Chungking and other HI sources to the west are simply an added bonus. I will add up the HI in the western half -- I bet it is over 600 which is 1200 per day in supply gone as soon as the fuel runs out. The question is when the fuel runs out?




I have done no such thing! Just arguing that it doesn't matter whether you cut the fuel off or not.

I'd wager that the fuel has been too low to run the HI regularly or out for quite some time. I don't think they begin the game with large stockpiles there.


I always thought the oil flowed well enough to keep the HI running, albeit without much of a stockpile.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 544
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 5:51:58 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		China has 590 HI in Central/Eastern China not conquered.

However, China's fuel refinery and oil in Urumchi, Sian, and Lanchow are a total of 130 each. There is also 20 HI in Sian.

130 points of oil equals 1300 oil per day equals 1,170 fuel per day produced. No supply produced in this mod.

It takes 2 fuel points to feed the HI; therefore even under perfect transport, China cannot establish a backlog of fuel to feed HI into the future unless the Burma road is open and fuel is able to move along that road network.

Opening fuel stock in China is roughly 9000 fuel. Very rough calculation here.





(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 545
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 7:00:41 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Relatively quiet couple of turns.

Manila will be attacked again today...hopefully we take the base. The Allied troops there have simply been pounded by air and artillery with no forts to hide behind and not much in the way of supply.

Quiet in India right now...Allies drop sub mines and we clear them. I am suspecting some type of attack here with surface ships, but I am also taking steps to protect the oil in the SRA with AA and fighters plus a strike package. We did manage to lay two depth charge hits on the Growler.

My hope is that Jocke moves forward, and my well escorted Betties or Nells lands a few good punches in.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 546
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 8:40:09 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

China has 590 HI in Central/Eastern China not conquered.

However, China's fuel refinery and oil in Urumchi, Sian, and Lanchow are a total of 130 each. There is also 20 HI in Sian.

130 points of oil equals 1300 oil per day equals 1,170 fuel per day produced. No supply produced in this mod.

It takes 2 fuel points to feed the HI; therefore even under perfect transport, China cannot establish a backlog of fuel to feed HI into the future unless the Burma road is open and fuel is able to move along that road network.

Opening fuel stock in China is roughly 9000 fuel. Very rough calculation here.



Are you counting Oil or Refinery as 130? Keep in mind that Urumchi isn't going to flow all the time, and not in large amounts.

Also, when DBB took away the 1 point of supply from the refinery...did it add it back in on the Fuel side? I remember looking this up in the past and thinking that they had, but I don't think I'm ever going to play DBB so I don't remember.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 547
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 8:45:13 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

China has 590 HI in Central/Eastern China not conquered.

However, China's fuel refinery and oil in Urumchi, Sian, and Lanchow are a total of 130 each. There is also 20 HI in Sian.

130 points of oil equals 1300 oil per day equals 1,170 fuel per day produced. No supply produced in this mod.

It takes 2 fuel points to feed the HI; therefore even under perfect transport, China cannot establish a backlog of fuel to feed HI into the future unless the Burma road is open and fuel is able to move along that road network.

Opening fuel stock in China is roughly 9000 fuel. Very rough calculation here.



Are you counting Oil or Refinery as 130? Keep in mind that Urumchi isn't going to flow all the time, and not in large amounts.

Also, when DBB took away the 1 point of supply from the refinery...did it add it back in on the Fuel side? I remember looking this up in the past and thinking that they had, but I don't think I'm ever going to play DBB so I don't remember.

Not to my knowledge.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 548
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 8:52:40 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Inputs and outputs.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 549
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/18/2015 8:54:32 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Fuel = 130
Oil = 130

Perfectly balanced....

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 550
Manila Falls - 11/19/2015 2:18:13 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Manila Falls. Weakest defense of Luzon I ever saw. Still 40K troops in Bataan to surrender...VP ratio now at 3.5 to 1.

Frees up substantial forces for use elsewhere. India? Perth? Noumea? West Coast (eventually).




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 11/19/2015 3:19:38 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 551
RE: Manila Falls - 11/19/2015 3:36:29 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Manila Falls. Weakest defense of Luzon I ever saw. Still 40K troops in Bataan to surrender...VP ratio now at 3.5 to 1.

Frees up substantial forces for use elsewhere. India? Perth? Noumea? West Coast (eventually).





Weakest? You had 3 divisions there! I'd argue this is tied for the strongest attack on Luzon I've ever seen. Also, what's the game date again? I've seen/caused/suffered the fall of Manila far sooner than yours. Months!

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 552
RE: Manila Falls - 11/19/2015 7:32:28 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Weakest? You had 3 divisions there! I'd argue this is tied for the strongest attack on Luzon I've ever seen.


I believe he was referring to the strength of the Allied garrison. It was probably reduced by bombardment and attrition.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 553
RE: Manila Falls - 11/19/2015 9:42:48 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I was speaking of absolutely no forts. I was expecting four attacks at each base Clark and Manila.




(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 554
RE: Manila Falls - 11/20/2015 12:08:18 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I was speaking of absolutely no forts. I was expecting four attacks at each base Clark and Manila.




Let us build forts of (4) but have no supply that becomes 1/4 of a forts of 4 (I'm not by my regular computer so I don't have my forts/supply chart .. your opponent might have made the decision to have more supply handy than build forts ...

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 555
RE: Manila Falls - 11/20/2015 12:40:19 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I was speaking of absolutely no forts. I was expecting four attacks at each base Clark and Manila.




Let us build forts of (4) but have no supply that becomes 1/4 of a forts of 4 (I'm not by my regular computer so I don't have my forts/supply chart .. your opponent might have made the decision to have more supply handy than build forts ...


I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.

Granted he would have run out of supplies quicker having built forts, but Japan most likely would have had to attack several more times.

Not to mention the added defense the forts would have provided from the artillery and aerial bombardments.

I think every Allied player should attempt to run some supply in Luzon when it is bypassed. Whether that is by subs (that carry poor torpedoes) or by lone xaks (favored approach). I would even try to run some into Wenchow too. In this game, it would be difficult to get xaks from Oz into Luzon...but normally you might have from Pearl. It is a big ocean...

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 556
RE: Manila Falls - 11/20/2015 12:52:30 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.


Let us say that 4 forts is X 2 and no supply is 1/4 that equates to 1/2 and you have no supply and your right accumulate bad stuff ... (4/2 * 1/4) the effects of supply and forts are cummulative .. now how much supply it takes over time needs to be calculated to get the right balance of how many forts/fort level to build over how much time given supply burn rate .. But I surmise your adversary made an inutitive calculation that building no forts maximized the supply end of this calculation ... that does not account for unknowns ..

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 557
RE: Manila Falls - 11/20/2015 6:12:53 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		I didn't see that there were no forts. Your screenshots are rather truncated of late. For shame!!

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 558
RE: Manila Falls - 11/20/2015 11:23:47 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Steady advance....might be another small snowball here.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 559
RE: Manila Falls - 11/20/2015 5:58:53 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.


Let us say that 4 forts is X 2 and no supply is 1/4 that equates to 1/2 and you have no supply and your right accumulate bad stuff ... (4/2 * 1/4) the effects of supply and forts are cummulative .. now how much supply it takes over time needs to be calculated to get the right balance of how many forts/fort level to build over how much time given supply burn rate .. But I surmise your adversary made an inutitive calculation that building no forts maximized the supply end of this calculation ... that does not account for unknowns ..


Not building forts in order to "save" on supply consumption is almost always a serious mistake. If rationing supply consumption is critical, much better is to remove excess mouths.

In the above exemplar of level 4 forts with no supply, the pre-combat AV impact is:

(a) if in clear terrain

(1.75)(0.25) = 0.4375

(b) but if in urban light terrain

(1.75)(2)(0.25) = 0.875

(c) and in urban heavy terrain

(1.75)(4)(0.25) = 1.75

These are the worst case scenarios. Any supply will increase the (0.25) coefficient.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 560
RE: Manila Falls - 11/20/2015 10:51:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.


Let us say that 4 forts is X 2 and no supply is 1/4 that equates to 1/2 and you have no supply and your right accumulate bad stuff ... (4/2 * 1/4) the effects of supply and forts are cummulative .. now how much supply it takes over time needs to be calculated to get the right balance of how many forts/fort level to build over how much time given supply burn rate .. But I surmise your adversary made an inutitive calculation that building no forts maximized the supply end of this calculation ... that does not account for unknowns ..


Not building forts in order to "save" on supply consumption is almost always a serious mistake. If rationing supply consumption is critical, much better is to remove excess mouths.

In the above exemplar of level 4 forts with no supply, the pre-combat AV impact is:

(a) if in clear terrain

(1.75)(0.25) = 0.4375

(b) but if in urban light terrain

(1.75)(2)(0.25) = 0.875

(c) and in urban heavy terrain

(1.75)(4)(0.25) = 1.75

These are the worst case scenarios. Any supply will increase the (0.25) coefficient.

Alfred


Not only is there a better defense, there is also a time delay too in that forts require multiple attacks before winning the base.





(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 561
RE: Manila Falls - 11/20/2015 11:08:13 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The IJA western thrust towards the Central Chinese plains resumes again.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 562
RE: Manila Falls - 11/21/2015 12:03:25 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.


Let us say that 4 forts is X 2 and no supply is 1/4 that equates to 1/2 and you have no supply and your right accumulate bad stuff ... (4/2 * 1/4) the effects of supply and forts are cummulative .. now how much supply it takes over time needs to be calculated to get the right balance of how many forts/fort level to build over how much time given supply burn rate .. But I surmise your adversary made an inutitive calculation that building no forts maximized the supply end of this calculation ... that does not account for unknowns ..


Not building forts in order to "save" on supply consumption is almost always a serious mistake. If rationing supply consumption is critical, much better is to remove excess mouths.

In the above exemplar of level 4 forts with no supply, the pre-combat AV impact is:

(a) if in clear terrain

(1.75)(0.25) = 0.4375

(b) but if in urban light terrain

(1.75)(2)(0.25) = 0.875

(c) and in urban heavy terrain

(1.75)(4)(0.25) = 1.75

These are the worst case scenarios. Any supply will increase the (0.25) coefficient.

Alfred


Not only is there a better defense, there is also a time delay too in that forts require multiple attacks before winning the base.




Ok I can buy the math ... especally when it comes from Alfred .. the only other factor that I can think of if there is some sort of supply check for morale that will induce surrender more quickly ..and if forts modify that factor ..

My understanding is that Forts only increase the adjusted AV odds needed to cause capitulation and the multiple attacks required to reduce fort level is a consequence but my understanding bring enough into the fight vs not enough defensive stuff and the fort level whatever is going to fall ...

Ok thanks for the clarification Alfred ..

BTW) It has been my strategy to build to level 3 Signapore and Manilla .. if possible .. level 4 with this new IJ strategy of taking out these locations late .. but I thought maybe there was some math that could support just keeping the supply ... given unknown factors in the code .. like thresholds ..

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 563
RE: Manila Falls - 11/21/2015 1:46:09 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Forts are a multiplier on the defender's adjusted AV, like a 0 supply penalty would be (* 0.25). You can find the fort multiplier numbers somewhere, but I think it's *2 at level 6 and the *1.75 for level 4 that Alfred just showed.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


Not only is there a better defense, there is also a time delay too in that forts require multiple attacks before winning the base.



Not if your odds are good enough, which they very well may be when he's out of supply in June.

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 564
RE: Manila Falls - 11/21/2015 3:06:39 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		For the benefit of any newbies reading this AAR, a couple of points made by Lokasenna and Crackaces warrant a bit more amplification.

1.  There is pre combat Assault Value ("AV") which is referred to within the game's documentation as unadjusted AV and post combat AV which is referred to within the game's documentation as adjusted AV.

2.  The mathematical "working out" I provided in post #560 deliberately employed the term "pre combat".  This was because the adjusted AV is greatly impacted by the casualties suffered during the fire phase of combat and by several modifiers such as terrain, fort levels, supply etc.  For the purposes of illustrating the principles involved, the unknowns of combat were excluded.

3.  The post combat odds generated, which are based on comparing the adjusted AV of both sides, are really only taken into account in determining whether a base changes ownership.  They are not in themselves completely prescriptive as to how the defeated side will react.  IOW a 2:1 adjusted AV does not guarantee that the defeated side will always retreat or surrender.  Two weeks ago I dealt with this issue in greater detail in this thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3962601&mpage=2&key=surrender&#3964140

in post #40.

4.  Morale and fatigue are two of the factors which are checked in the retreat/surrender/Banzai determination algorithm.  These are factors which are directly affected in part by the supply held by the LCU.  They are not factors directly affected by the fortification level per se.  IOW forts level 6 do not directly improve the morale/fatigue level of a LCU more than forts level 2.  I say "directly" because fortification levels are taken into account in the auto overland movement of supply between bases located in monsoon areas.

5.  The fortification level modifies the unadjusted AV as follows:

0 = x1
1 = x1.1
2 = x1.25
3 = x1.5
4 = x1.75
5 = x2
6 = x2.25
7 = x2.5
8 = x2.75
9 = x3

One can see just how difficult it is to capture a heavy urban terrain base with level 9 forts.

6.  In post #560 I mentioned they were the worst case scenarios where the LCU has zero supply.  The drop off in combat effectiveness from insufficient supply is not linear.  A LCU holding the following percentage of it's required supply level has these modifiers:

100% = x1
75% = x0.8
50% = x0.6
25% = x0.4
0% = x0.25

Alfred

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 565
RE: Manila Falls - 11/21/2015 8:27:39 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline 		Thank you Alfred. Is the terrain multiplier multiplied with the fortification modifier? For example, in x2 terrain, would the terrain plus level 9 forts combine to create a x6 multiplier?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 566
RE: Manila Falls - 11/21/2015 8:35:56 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

2. The mathematical "working out" I provided in post #560 deliberately employed the term "pre combat". This was because the adjusted AV is greatly impacted by the casualties suffered during the fire phase of combat and by several modifiers such as terrain, fort levels, supply etc. For the purposes of illustrating the principles involved, the unknowns of combat were excluded.

3. The post combat odds generated, which are based on comparing the adjusted AV of both sides, are really only taken into account in determining whether a base changes ownership. They are not in themselves completely prescriptive as to how the defeated side will react. IOW a 2:1 adjusted AV does not guarantee that the defeated side will always retreat or surrender. Two weeks ago I dealt with this issue in greater detail in this thread


This brings to mind the question of replacing Arthur Percival is worth the PP's -- I beleive the jury is still out. I am still unclear what effect morale/leadership has in the end on extending surrender although the better combat leadership values has a better chance at a leaders (+) and maybe extracting a toll on the IJ.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 567
RE: Manila Falls - 11/21/2015 7:48:10 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

Thank you Alfred. Is the terrain multiplier multiplied with the fortification modifier? For example, in x2 terrain, would the terrain plus level 9 forts combine to create a x6 multiplier?


A typical infantry division has about 450 unadjusted AV. Place it in a heavy urban hex with level 9 forts and 100% supply, the pre combat modified AV is:

(450)(4)(3)(1) = 5400 AV

That figure would be reduced by casualties suffered during the fire power phase of combat but when you add in other possible modifiers such as HQ bonus, which can reach as high as 100%, the final adjusted AV could be even higher than 5400.

Thankfully there are not that many heavy urban terrain locations. But there is plenty of terrain which provides a 2x modifier and a lot which provides a 3x modifier.

Alfred

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 568
RE: Manila Falls - 11/21/2015 7:58:48 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

2. The mathematical "working out" I provided in post #560 deliberately employed the term "pre combat". This was because the adjusted AV is greatly impacted by the casualties suffered during the fire phase of combat and by several modifiers such as terrain, fort levels, supply etc. For the purposes of illustrating the principles involved, the unknowns of combat were excluded.

3. The post combat odds generated, which are based on comparing the adjusted AV of both sides, are really only taken into account in determining whether a base changes ownership. They are not in themselves completely prescriptive as to how the defeated side will react. IOW a 2:1 adjusted AV does not guarantee that the defeated side will always retreat or surrender. Two weeks ago I dealt with this issue in greater detail in this thread


This brings to mind the question of replacing Arthur Percival is worth the PP's -- I beleive the jury is still out. I am still unclear what effect morale/leadership has in the end on extending surrender although the better combat leadership values has a better chance at a leaders (+) and maybe extracting a toll on the IJ.


I concur that the jury is still out.


  • the PP cost is very high and is a significant opportunity cost
  • the quality of the Allied LCUs is very low which makes it very difficult to exploit any potential HQ bonus modifiers
  • there are other even more significant factors needed for a strong defence of Singapore which are not affected at all by replacing Perceval


There is also an ethical consideration. Allied players who complain about Japanese opponents not following exactly the historical war script but are quite prepared themselves to remove Perceval and other perceived weak Allied leaders are just hypocrites.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 569
RE: Manila Falls - 11/21/2015 11:29:02 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

There is also an ethical consideration.


Ethics being a study of expected behaviors given a social enitity -- That is a crux of many misunderstandings in this game. [From an AFB standpoint is it always the behaviors of those JFB's I object too ] The belief systems and expected behaviors range from "anything goes that the game allows" to a very strictly defined set of home rules aimed to reproduce some perception of "what real life was," or correct what one beleives is an outrageous borking of some preciously held belief.

As it to pertains to this game .. the whole knowing where the LOD is and coming right to the edge is my moral "line of death" but again this is just a game .. a very good game ... (I just think a random line of death that neither player knowns about makes a much better game)

The whole come of a wormhole in a target hex with CAP bleedover rather than use a circles of apollonius to determine intercept points seperates me from any connection to similation or reality in this game. In general the current system works and provides a challenge but when Allies get a change at ahistorical attacks on Japan home islands from close in bases the system sort of falls apart in a way. Thus, replacing Arthur Percival is not an ethical issue for me.. but I am an AFB

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Clash of the Battleships Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984