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
OK, I don't want to open a can of worms here and I'm not trying to be a know it all or show anyone up here. What I'm trying to do is make sure everything is as it should be. Also I may be comparing apples and oranges and if I am let me know. This is WRT what I've highlighted near the beginning of the above post.
I'm in scenario 1 of a CG against the AI and am patched to the latest official patch, 1124. Here's what I found:
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
