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: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:55:11 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		If there were no retreat after combat so many of these little annoyances would be moot points. It would be up to the discretion of the commander whether to run or to stay and die (course, you'd have to keep track of progress made in marching to a destination, otherwise a perpetually attacking enemy would negate an attempt to withdraw).

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 1/31/2005 5:00:50 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 61
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:57:25 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

There's a solution to every problem; it's simply a question of how much you are willing to allow your head to hurt for said solution. Didn't we say something about drink?


Exactly

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 62
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:58:39 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Always ready for a refreshing beverage....anyone besides me think those look like three pints of Guiness?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 63
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:59:48 PM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Always ready for a refreshing beverage....anyone besides me think those look like three pints of Guiness?


Shut up. I drank my last one last night!

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 64
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:03:14 AM   
Arstavidios

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 11/19/2004
Status: offline 		Humm, I guess the problem is in the definition of contested he. The presence of enemy units in he should not make it automticlly contested. The simplest way would be to require a minimum ratio in order to contest the hex.

For exemple you could need at least 1/4 or 1/3 of the defending force to contest the hex.
A more complex way would be to make a roll based on the strength of the units presents, with leadership experience supply preparation also taken into account.

Lastly maybe surrender should not be automatic. A unit might be able to retreat through a contested hex but would take additional losses in the process.

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 65
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:05:05 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Here's a crazy idea which probably can't be done. But I'll throw it out anyway as who knows. First disallow all retreats!! The only way anyone leaves a hex is voluntarily or he is destoyed. Secondly say your the allies with no forts and your are attcaked at 3-1 odds. Now your fort level goes to negative 2. Any future combat you fight at a disadvantage of some type. You get attacked next turn at 4-1. Now your fort level goes down to negative 6. And so on. At some point your fighting at such a disadvantage that you'd be better off retreating. Or you can just wait until you are destroyed.

Lots of details to be worked out. Just a thought.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 66
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:09:25 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Here's a crazy idea which probably can't be done. But I'll throw it out anyway as who knows. First disallow all retreats!! The only way anyone leaves a hex is voluntarily or he is destoyed. Secondly say your the allies with no forts and your are attcaked at 3-1 odds. Now your fort level goes to negative 2. Any future combat you fight at a disadvantage of some type. You get attacked next turn at 4-1. Now your fort level goes down to negative 6. And so on. At some point your fighting at such a disadvantage that you'd be better off retreating. Or you can just wait until you are destroyed.

Lots of details to be worked out. Just a thought.


Then you end up with a Malay drive at the convenience of the Allied player.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 67
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:13:29 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

First disallow all retreats!! The only way anyone leaves a hex is voluntarily or he is destoyed. Secondly say your the allies with no forts and your are attcaked at 3-1 odds. Now your fort level goes to negative 2. Any future combat you fight at a disadvantage of some type. You get attacked next turn at 4-1. Now your fort level goes down to negative 6. And so on. At some point your fighting at such a disadvantage that you'd be better off retreating. Or you can just wait until you are destroyed.

Right there with you on the retreat issue. But I think if you are losing the combat such that you would retreat (the way it works now), your units are already suffering considerably in the way of disablements, disruption and fatigue. If you stay and fight, this will only get worse. I don't think there is any need to do anything more. But there would have to be some way to allow a defender who wants out to actually be able to move his units to a different hex. As it is now, if his opponent doesn't want him to go (i.e. would prefer he stayed so he could be crushed like a bug), he could just keep attacking him every few days and his movement progress would be reset to -0-

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 68
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:14:55 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

Then you end up with a Malay drive at the convenience of the Allied player.

If that's where they want to fight, I'd much rather crush the allied units in the jungle than have to root them out of the fortress.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 69
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:16:39 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

No. Ron is saying it has ONE "freebie" retreat. If it can beat and retreat the enemy units in the hex to which it retreated, it gets to move freely again. If it loses again, it dies.


It still ping pongs, look at the other side ... not just the retreating unit.

Unit A fights B in hex 1

B looses and retreats to hex 2

B fights C in hex 2

C looses and retreats to hex 3

D happens to be in hex 3 and isn't happy

Now potentially, 3 hexes have had there supply chain messed with.


However, my idea was that ZOC does not block supply in/through mutually occupied hexes.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 70
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:17:34 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Like I said it was just a thought. It would essentially give you the option to choose the time of retreat. If your ZOC was temporarily blocked you could hold in position a few turns before hitting the bug out button. Or perhaps it could work where when units are retreated but have no path they stay and have their forts reduced to negative levels. Then next turn if a unit with negative forts has an open path then it retreats.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 71
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:21:35 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline 		Back to basics.

Current problem:
1. Any unit can disallow retreats by forcing surrender or elimination. This can be gamey.
2. If we disallow blocking forces, any unit can retreat. This is very gamey.
3. Any currently proposed solution can allow either the former (ZOC's) or the latter (no ZOC's, retreats without "flags", AV requirements). This is gamey by both above definitions.

Desired result:
Small units with pointy sticks should be unable to stop the retreat of large units with lots of big guns.

Proposed solutions:
1. No ZOC's. Already tried and not helpful.
2. ZOC's only. Already tried and not helpful.
3. Retreat "flags". Requires redefining of ZOC's and retreat paths. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
4. ZOC's by AV threshold. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
*NEW* 5. Unit values. Use fatigue, disruption, and AV to generate an, as of now, nebulous value. Said nebulous value must reach a certain ration when compared to that of the enemy to block retreats. This is a good idea by virtue of being undebated and not having been beat to hell yet.

EDIT:

Objective: To arrive at an equitable solution that we can't deliberately break under current engine limitations.

< Message edited by von Murrin -- 1/31/2005 4:27:51 PM >

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 72
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:25:34 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Back to basics.

Current problem:
1. Any unit can disallow retreats by forcing surrender or elimination. This can be gamey.
2. If we disallow blocking forces, any unit can retreat. This is very gamey.
3. Any currently proposed solution can allow either the former (ZOC's) or the latter (no ZOC's, retreats without "flags", AV requirements). This is gamey by both above definitions.

Desired result:
Small units with pointy sticks should be unable to stop the retreat of large units with lots of big guns.

Proposed solutions:
1. No ZOC's. Already tried and not helpful.
2. ZOC's only. Already tried and not helpful.
3. Retreat "flags". Requires redefining of ZOC's and retreat paths. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
4. ZOC's by AV threshold. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
*NEW* 5. Unit values. Use fatigue, disruption, and AV to generate an, as of now, nebulous value. Said nebulous value must reach a certain ration when compared to that of the enemy to block retreats. This is a good idea by virtue of being undebated and not having been beat to hell yet.


5 is much as I suggested without the unit actually entering its hex.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 73
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:26:28 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Do retreats occur immediately after combat or are all combats resolved prior to retreat. In other words is it possible for a unit to be retreated into another combat.?

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 74
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:30:01 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Do retreats occur immediately after combat or are all combats resolved prior to retreat. In other words is it possible for a unit to be retreated into another combat.?


No. Retreat is immediate or retreat combats only happen after all others. Not sure which, but the effect is the same.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 75
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:33:55 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Actually my question make no sence because currently you can't retreat into a contested hex and so you can't retreat into combat.

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 76
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:35:40 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

No. Ron is saying it has ONE "freebie" retreat. If it can beat and retreat the enemy units in the hex to which it retreated, it gets to move freely again. If it loses again, it dies.


It still ping pongs, look at the other side ... not just the retreating unit.

Unit A fights B in hex 1

B looses and retreats to hex 2

B fights C in hex 2

C looses and retreats to hex 3

D happens to be in hex 3 and isn't happy

Now potentially, 3 hexes have had there supply chain messed with.


Okay. Way to break the model.

Now, does this invalidate the "flag" concept, or is there a way to prevent the "eight ball effect"? I'm thinking it breaks it, unless someone has a good solution.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 77
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:36:35 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Actually my question make no sence because currently you can't retreat into a contested hex and so you can't retreat into combat.


You're right. Way to bump my brain off track.

< Message edited by von Murrin -- 1/31/2005 4:41:51 PM >

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 78
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:37:32 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Back to basics.

Current problem:
1. Any unit can disallow retreats by forcing surrender or elimination. This can be gamey.
2. If we disallow blocking forces, any unit can retreat. This is very gamey.
3. Any currently proposed solution can allow either the former (ZOC's) or the latter (no ZOC's, retreats without "flags", AV requirements). This is gamey by both above definitions.

Desired result:
Small units with pointy sticks should be unable to stop the retreat of large units with lots of big guns.

Proposed solutions:
1. No ZOC's. Already tried and not helpful.
2. ZOC's only. Already tried and not helpful.
3. Retreat "flags". Requires redefining of ZOC's and retreat paths. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
4. ZOC's by AV threshold. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
*NEW* 5. Unit values. Use fatigue, disruption, and AV to generate an, as of now, nebulous value. Said nebulous value must reach a certain ration when compared to that of the enemy to block retreats. This is a good idea by virtue of being undebated and not having been beat to hell yet.


5 is much as I suggested without the unit actually entering its hex.


I like it, too. Let's talk about 4 and 5, as the other methods have more or less been disposed of.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 79
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:43:47 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		For options 4 and 5 you still have to have a base hex to retreat to. Otherwise you get the situation where your units retreat behind the enemy lines. Enemy moves into your hex from the south but has no unit in the hex he came from so you retreat into that hex.

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 80
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:52:22 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline 		Okay, I'm into this now.

4. AV threshold.

Units that are too small to block the retreat of a larger unit cannot do so. However... units that are too small to reach the threshold can't block anything. Understrength brigades chase each other all over the map. Then you have the Maylay landing to cut off Allied defenders. Player A lands a brigade which accumulates a some disabled elements, dropping the AV total one point below the requirement. Player A wins a combat one hex up the rail line and player B's units retreat through the now defunct blocking force. Player A screams bloody murder and breaks his monitor.

Can this be fixed or is the concept flawed?

5. The nebulous unit value.

I really can't see how this one doesn't work, as it's basically 4 with a few other factors thrown in. The ratio is most important, as now small units can block each other, but not a force 20 times their size. By adding fatigue and disruption the potential blocker can be battered into mission ineffectiveness. By having an AV ratio consideration, beat up units might not be able to block a larger unit.

So... what are the problems with this model aside from the establishment of the necessary ratio itself?

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 81
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 12:58:43 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Anytime a unit is allowed to retreat into a contested hex you have the potential that it will be involved in multiple combats in one turn. I guess theoretically under your option 5 a unit could be retreated 3 times in a turn and end up 180 miles from where it started.

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 82
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 1:01:34 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

For options 4 and 5 you still have to have a base hex to retreat to. Otherwise you get the situation where your units retreat behind the enemy lines. Enemy moves into your hex from the south but has no unit in the hex he came from so you retreat into that hex.


People are upset because one hex with enemy ZOC blocks overwhelming force in comparison with the blocker. If they could retreat one hex, they'd have a valid supply path. I've yet to see someone argue the validity of being able to create a valid supply path with a cut off unit.

The ZOC rules work. The retreat routines work. The supply routines work. The ability to block a division with a company, unfortunately, also works.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 83
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 1:09:51 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Anytime a unit is allowed to retreat into a contested hex you have the potential that it will be involved in multiple combats in one turn. I guess theoretically under your option 5 a unit could be retreated 3 times in a turn and end up 180 miles from where it started.


Okay. What if we adjust the ratios? A fights B in hex X. A is retreated to hex Y with C because C doesn't have the disruption/fatigue/morale/AV in sufficient quantity to induce the surrender of B in X. If the ratios are set correctly, C can't make B retreat, but B could make C retreat.

This is Frag's "ping-pong" effect.

Hmmm... so what if...

What if the retreat priorities are changed to make adjacent friendly units first pick?
Sort of like:
1. Friendly unit.
2. Valid supply path.
3. Friendly base.
Maybe even:
4. Favorable terrain.
5. Base size.
6. Friendly HQ.
EDIT: The hex with the highest total from the above checklist gets the retreating unit.

You're playing a wonderful devil's advocate. Break this one, please.

< Message edited by von Murrin -- 1/31/2005 5:15:09 PM >

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 84
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 1:13:03 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Here's another dumb idea. Can't you just say that to create a contested A/J ZOC the second unit has to have a line of land line of supply. So you as allies have a unit in the hex along you're retreat route. So you have an "A' ZOC. Japan drops a parachute unit on your hex but the unit has no line of supply so the hex stays as "A" and does not change to "A/J"

Doesn't the problem go away now? What am I missing.

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 85
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 1:17:09 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline 		You're missing amphibious landings. Are you also suggesting a landing force must capture a base or dot hex to begin creating ZOC's? If so, that's simple and elegant. Let me think it over and see if I can beat it up.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 86
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 1:24:56 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Yes. An amphipious force to gain a ZOC would have to be either:

A: First in the hex. or
B: Retreat the unit that was there before.

Same for a paratrooper.

Might make sence in many cases. Just taking the beach even if you have the greater force doesn't mean you control the whole hex. You might still be able to retreat through the inland portions of the hex. In some situations this rule might seem strange but not as bad as units being destroyed entirely.

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 87
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 1:37:15 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline 		A leaves you with the current situation, but B would be a definite improvement.

With A, you can still land on a coastal hex (no base or dot) and get a ZOC with ten guys, forcing three divisions to surrender.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 88
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 1:41:09 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

To arrive at an equitable solution that we can't deliberately break under current engine limitations.


Hahaha! Now that is a good one!

I give you 10 minutes and you'll find a hole in anything. You guys are grogs, not normal mortals. You live to find holes!

(in reply to von Murrin)
Post #: 89
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 2/1/2005 1:54:37 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline 		Believe me, I know. I'm still trying to get a brake chute kill with the SU-25 in LOMAC. (Hey, it is modelled as a physical object!)

How do you expect us to jump higher if we don't set the bar out of reach?

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

1.906