Disrupted equipment/squads in arriving LCU gone. Bug or WAD?

[viberpol]

Hi Michael,

Some LCUs (in this case late war Japanese LCUs) should arrive with part of their TOE disrupted (see 126 Div: 114 squads ready, 210 disrupted).
In reality, they arrive without that disrupted part.

It seems to be rather bad news, as that missing disrupted squads need only to be rested to appear (if I am not wrong it does not consume supplies?),
while creating new squads/equipment and adding it takes more time and cost in supplies/HI/ARM/VEH points.
Just wondering... is it a bug or WAD?

[Puhis]

I think arriving units take armament and manpower point anyway, or am I wrong? How many points do you have in pool?
 
That's not nessessary a bad thing. The unit is part of restricted command, so now you have to pay less PPs to change it.

[viberpol]

Arriving units take the ARM/VEH points based on number of squads READY.
According to Tracker I have enough points to fill the TOE in reinforcement queue.

I believe the cost of a LCU in ARM/VEH points is NOT calculated based on ALL (meaning disrupted + ready) squads.
But the point is that the disrupted squads costs less than building a new device/equipment. Am I right?
As it is now the engine scraps new units of the disrupted squads/devices.

In '45 as Japan you need every available squad no mater where it is. I don't want to move the division anyway... [;)]
SAVE before included.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: viberpol
According to Tracker I have enough points to fill the TOE in reinforcement queue.

.. so it's not the "emergency mobilisation".

Again -- My ticked is based on assumption that repairing a disabled squad costs less than creating a new one.
If that's wrong, then there's no problem at all
as it doesn't matter if the LCU comes with disabled squads or without them... [;)]

Save after:

[michaelm75au]

Yes, the unit is build from devices in the pool.
But if it can't be built, then 25% of devices should show up in unit as 'emergency mobilisation' (free, not taken from pool).

This works for the non-disabled devices, but disabled devices get cleared out before the 25% calculation happens if there aren't enough devices in the pool. [The clearing out is from original WITP. However, the method used to work out the number of devices was changed for AE around build 1108. Should not be there now.]

For non-disabled devices in the unit, if there are not enough in the pool, the difference will be built and added to the pool. If there is still not enough in the pool, then the unit gets 25% of the active devices as above.
With disabled devices in the unit, if the devices exist in the pool, then the disabled number is put in the unit and removed from the pool. Else unit get 25% of the disabled number as above.

After updated beta:




Note that you will only get the full disabled number if that many exists in the device pool. I would think in most cases you will usually only get the 25% unless you have been building lots of the required devices.

[viberpol]

Note that you will only get the full disabled number if that many exists in the device pool

Well, in this example there is enough armament/veh points and it's NOT the emergency mobilisation as the LCU arrives with exact number of ready squads.

If I am understanding this correctly you say there is another calculation made, right?
It's the "disabled squads in a new LCU" versus "numbers in the pool"? (not POINTS to fill the pools?)
And it's mainly to lower the number of disabled squads/devices.

With disabled devices in the unit, if the devices exist in the pool, then the disabled number is put in the unit and removed from the pool.

Don't know... All I know is that IMHO we cannot put an equality mark between "ready devices in the pool" = "disabled squads". [&:]
We have little or no chance to input the stock of created squads/units as with Japanese production system the devices come automatically.

[EDIT]
Repairing devices is not that easy and above all cost time... much time. Does it cost supplies?
Sure, can't quess on the intentions and that's the level of idea of the creators
but can't understand why a "broken" equipment should cost the same as a brand new and usable from the pool... [;)]

I would think in most cases you will usually only get the 25% unless you have been building lots of the required devices.

Soo.. it's safe to say that "emergency mobilisation in disabled part" is good. [:)]
Thank you for explanations!

[michaelm75au]

Looking at the original code for this, I have decided that IF the total (ready + disabled) is covered by the device pool, then the total should be treated as 'ready' (no disabled). [effective 1122b - this is more inline with the original code.]
If not covered, then the normal rules apply.

For Japanese arriving LCUs when production is ON:
1. Build enough devices to cover the 'ready' device number - it may be possible that none can be built due to limited production points.
2. If enough 'ready' is covered by the device pool, take from the pool. Else make the 'ready' devices equal to 25% of arrival 'ready' amount - no reduction to pool.
3. If enough 'disabled' is covered by the device pool, take from the pool and make devices 'ready'. Else make disabled devices equal to 25% of arrival 'disabled' amount - no reduction to pool.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Looking at the original code for this, I have decided that IF the total (ready + disabled) is covered by the device pool, then the total should be treated as 'ready' (no disabled). [effective 1122b - this is more inline with the original code.]
If not covered, then the normal rules apply.

For Japanese arriving LCUs when production is ON:
1. Build enough devices to cover the 'ready' device number - it may be possible that none can be built due to limited production points.
2. If enough 'ready' is covered by the device pool, take from the pool. Else make the 'ready' devices equal to 25% of arrival 'ready' amount - no reduction to pool.
3. If enough 'disabled' is covered by the device pool, take from the pool and make devices 'ready'. Else make disabled devices equal to 25% of arrival 'disabled' amount - no reduction to pool.

OK. We agree that simply removing the "disabled" part of a unit is wrong. Someone creates such units with a reason.
Should disabled squads/devices cost nothing? (With its "cost" being the time needed to rest and train). Don't know. Probably not. What was the original intention?
Should disabled squads/devices cost the same as active & ready? IMHO no.

Sooo... maybe -- make matters easier -- lower the cost of disabled/disrupted squads to say... 1/4 of a new and ready one? Is it feasible?

Or -- to make matters more complicated [;)] and because of no control over autocreation the devices -- introduce the changes you are talking of in 22b (disabled squads instantly changing into active for a full price) -- but with extra changes of: (1) Possibility to produce several devices manually consuming the production points immediately in game and (2) possibility to manually "hold" creation of a new unit(s) in reinforcement queue for players to be able to "prepare" the general pool of available equipment to fill its full TOE (same as with ships?). Is it possible and worth of extra work?

[michaelm75au]

While looking at the code, there use to be a process whereby if there wasn't enough devices (ready + disabled) in the pool, the unit switched to an older device (that upgrades to the arriving one) before it took the 25% cut.
This would generally could have allowed the unit to arrive at strength (with ready and disabled devices), and later upgrade to the TOE device.

[michaelm75au]

Also, if you look at the manual, it says if the arriving unit can't fill out it's entire TOE from the pool, then it arrives at 25% of the TOE.

This would actually be worse I would think in most cases as the Japanese production system doesn't usually run at a huge margin of devices in the pool, especially for the more newer devices. This may have been the original stock reason for 'downgrading' devices in order to (hopefully) arrive at 100% strength.

The manual does not mention disabled devices which is supported by the earlier code clearing disabled devices, but in the same vane, the code should probably be looking at TOE numbers rather than the editor values in line with the manual.
The downside of that would be not being able to bring in Japanese units under-strength on purpose. So I think that the code using editor numbers at the moment is more flexible.