Leaders(-) for many days in a row, but...

[Lokasenna]

Look at his stats. What is going on here? I mean, it's clearly based on a die roll, but this many days in a row? It's calling into question a lot of what we "know" about leaders. All of his stats are in the upper tier of what's available to US Army leaders. It shouldn't matter as far as the leaders(+/-) goes, but the unit hasn't been in rough shape at all through this. Fatigue was in the 30s while I was taking the base, and disruption in the mid-teens. Not anywhere out of the normal for units engaged in combat. And yet, here's the litany of combats and what leader(+/-) was received by the unit.

May 28: landing at Koepang
May 29: leaders(-)
May 30-31: no combat
June 1: no combat
June 2: leaders(+), fatigue(-)
June 3: no bonus or penalty
June 4: leaders(-)
June 5 through 7: no combat
June 8: leaders(-)
June 9 through 14: no combat
June 14: leaders(-)
June 15: leaders(-)
June 16: leaders(+), leaders(-)
June 17: leaders(-)

[LargeSlowTarget]

A drinking problem? Not unheard of with US Generals...

[mind_messing]

Timor, I think, is simply cursed for you...

[:D]

The game (AFAIK) makes no distinction between what leaders value gets the penalty or bonus. I remember seeing cases where units could have both a + leaders and a - leaders

Considering how his Inspiration Value is only above average, it could just be the roll of the dice.

[JocMeister]

Had the same thing happen with Chester Pully against a Japanese BF...

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Timor, I think, is simply cursed for you...

[:D]

The game (AFAIK) makes no distinction between what leaders value gets the penalty or bonus. I remember seeing cases where units could have both a + leaders and a - leaders

Considering how his Inspiration Value is only above average, it could just be the roll of the dice.

But every attack for weeks? And nah, I own Timor completely in this game. How is 65 Inspiration and 72 Land a leaders penalty for 7 out of 9 attacks (with bonuses in 2 out of 9)?

[Alfred]

You are asking us to assume that:

(a) Spraggins is the leader being checked against, and

(b) the only Allied unit present is the 1st Cav div

Alfred

[dr.hal]

Is it also possible that if there is more than one Japanese unit, it would depend upon which unit the Cav unit is being checked against?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Is it also possible that if there is more than one Japanese unit, it would depend upon which unit the Cav unit is being checked against?

Whichever Allied unit/leader is being checked, it isn't against any enemy unit/leader.

Alfred

[BattleMoose]

Is this the only allied unit in combat?

[dr.hal]

Interesting, that fact explains a lot. So the only way to ensure that your best leader is counted in the fight is to make him the ONLY leader in the fight (if there are other leaders, then put them into reserve).

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Interesting, that fact explains a lot. So the only way to ensure that your best leader is counted in the fight is to make him the ONLY leader in the fight (if there are other leaders, then put them into reserve).

Yea that would work if every fight could be won by a single unit.

Unfortunately, we need multiple units attacking to win most fights.

[dr.hal]

Yes Hans that's true, but if you have a particularly poor leader in a few units, it might be more advantageous to leave that unit on the sideline (or pay the PPs to get a new leader!).

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Yes Hans that's true, but if you have a particularly poor leader in a few units, it might be more advantageous to leave that unit on the sideline (or pay the PPs to get a new leader!).

Agreed.

However, it seems much more important to put the units with the highest disablements, fatigue and disruption in reserve to rest while other units carry the load.

I would definitely choose spending the PPs for a decent/good leader over holding back a fresh unit.

I typically try to replace crappy leaders before sending a unit into the front lines, however sometimes the front lines come to the units with crappy leaders before I get a chance to replace them.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You are asking us to assume that:

(a) Spraggins is the leader being checked against, and

(b) the only Allied unit present is the 1st Cav div

Alfred

Sorry, I should have stated that explicitly. Yes, the only unit present at the hex is the 1st Cavalry. That's it. That's why this is so confusing to me.

[Lokasenna]

Actual combat reports:

Ground combat at Koepang (68,116)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 8850 troops, 106 guns, 166 vehicles, Assault Value = 398

Defending force 7439 troops, 40 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 62

Allied adjusted assault: 177

Japanese adjusted defense: 163

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), preparation(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
53 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
58 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Assaulting units:
1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division

Defending units:
2nd Fleet
2nd Base Force
31st Special Base Force

Ground combat at Koepang (68,116)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 8718 troops, 106 guns, 167 vehicles, Assault Value = 374

Defending force 7024 troops, 40 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 59

Allied adjusted assault: 155

Japanese adjusted defense: 155

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
97 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 14 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
89 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division

Defending units:
2nd Fleet
2nd Base Force
31st Special Base Force

Ground combat at Koepang (68,116)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 8653 troops, 106 guns, 167 vehicles, Assault Value = 363

Defending force 6955 troops, 40 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 59

Allied adjusted assault: 152

Japanese adjusted defense: 153

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
123 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division

Defending units:
2nd Fleet
2nd Base Force
31st Special Base Force

[HansBolter]

Scary seeing a leader that good get one minus after another.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Scary seeing a leader that good get one minus after another.

I would say it is a lot more than scary, it's down right disheartening. If I expend the PPs to get a top leader in there, I would expect some sort of advantage. If it is really nothing more than a dice roll, why go to the bother??? You could have Col. Klink in there and do as much....

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Scary seeing a leader that good get one minus after another.

I would say it is a lot more than scary, it's down right disheartening. If I expend the PPs to get a top leader in there, I would expect some sort of advantage. If it is really nothing more than a dice roll, why go to the bother??? You could have Col. Klink in there and do as much....

I've never seen it happen like this, though. So many combats in a row. Am I just getting really unlucky? Is there some other factor involved, that from everything else I thought I knew shouldn't affect the particular leaders(+/-) modifier (no HQ present? compared to enemy LCU, which would be really wacko?)... Or what? I'd also like to note that the unit was/is prepped 100%, but that has its own thing (and for defensive AV only, or so I thought), so it shouldn't affect the leaders bonus/penalty, etc.

In the most recent combat that I just ran (June 19), there was no leaders(+) or leaders(-) for the attack.

In this particular instance, it's not really a big deal. It's just one unit at one relatively backwater base. But what if this was happening in another place where the stakes (and stacks) were much bigger? Just ugh.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Is it also possible that if there is more than one Japanese unit, it would depend upon which unit the Cav unit is being checked against?

Whichever Allied unit/leader is being checked, it isn't against any enemy unit/leader.

Alfred

Link to relevant developer comment please?

[wdolson]

Looks like the unit just got a bunch of bad die rolls. If there was an HQ in range, some of those may come from HQ leadership fails, but it doesn't sound like that's happening unless there is an amphib HQ.

Bill