WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again

[HansBolter]

oh, sorry I misunderstood.

yes, it seems out of whack for that level of losses from shelling level 5 forts

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: viberpol




I am not complaining. I'm just asking.
Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense.
Do you see the difference?

Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune.
The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed.

As to the issue itself, what is the problem?
The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded?
Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation.

No, you are missing the point. I am Viperpol's opponent and it is the results-not the mechanics that are in question. The unloading of supply from three LSTs caused his dug in defenders to auto bombard a depleted American infantry regiment and they suffered outrageous losses as a result. That is what needs correcting. I have no real problem with the auto bombardment taking place as long as the results are within the scope of reason. But we are talking about two weak Japanese units vs a weak Allied unit with very few actual guns in play. Should have been a few men out of action on each side, and would have no effect on the eventual battle.

I would say that this is a bug rather than a game code problem.

Sorry mate, but you response to Ark is totally off base and rude to boot. His raising the issue is legitimate in my mind.

Sir,

I would like to apologize to you and your opponent for any offence I may have caused. My initial reading of the OP's post lead me to the wrong conclusion about his motives for posting. Having read the post again, more thoroughly, I can see he has a legitimate question about the bombardment results in this situation. Hopefully, michaelm can take a look at this, and find a solution.
Again, sorry for any offence.

[michaelm75au]

For now, I have modified the 'auto-bombard' function due to unloading so that it wont 'destroy' itself by using up its supply.
If the unit has less supply than needed, it WONT try to bombard.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: ckammp






Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune.
The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed.

As to the issue itself, what is the problem?
The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded?
Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation.

No, you are missing the point. I am Viperpol's opponent and it is the results-not the mechanics that are in question. The unloading of supply from three LSTs caused his dug in defenders to auto bombard a depleted American infantry regiment and they suffered outrageous losses as a result. That is what needs correcting. I have no real problem with the auto bombardment taking place as long as the results are within the scope of reason. But we are talking about two weak Japanese units vs a weak Allied unit with very few actual guns in play. Should have been a few men out of action on each side, and would have no effect on the eventual battle.

I would say that this is a bug rather than a game code problem.

Sorry mate, but you response to Ark is totally off base and rude to boot. His raising the issue is legitimate in my mind.

Sir,

I would like to apologize to you and your opponent for any offence I may have caused. My initial reading of the OP's post lead me to the wrong conclusion about his motives for posting. Having read the post again, more thoroughly, I can see he has a legitimate question about the bombardment results in this situation. Hopefully, michaelm can take a look at this, and find a solution.
Again, sorry for any offence.

Thanks, no worries. I have stepped on enough toes here myself.