LCU Commander Skills

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

For a master Lee was caught with his pants down pretty often: Antietam (no fault of his own this his orders were intercepted but he could only have been saved by McClellan's 0 aggression rating), Fredericksburg (helped by the US War Dept.), Chancellorsville (saved by Hooker), Gettysburg (blundering into a major engagement unprepared) and Petersburg (saved by our friend Beauregard and the fact that the AoP II Corp had been butchered in the Wilderness).

As far as Stuart leaving Lee 'blind' before Gettysburg: 1) Stuart took 3 brigades of cavalry, the ANV still had 4 remaining, 2) it was Lee's own command structure that left his remaining cavalry inactive because no provision was made for a 2nd commander to take over while Stuart was wandering around, and 3) after Brandy Station, Lee should have made sure that Stuart performed his proper screening and reconnaissance role and not trying to restore his reputation.

Just my $.02.

Chancelorsville was Lees greatest victory and the epitome of what I mean by taking a hell of a risk by dividing his forces in front of a superior foe. You say he was helped by Hooker, but no more than he was helped by Grant at Cold Harbour. I think one of Lee's greatest traits as a commanding officer was his ability to read and understand his opponent so well. So for Lee, there was no question of how Hooker would react at Chancelorsville regardless of whether or not Hooker was knocked silly by the shock from an artillery shell, the battle would have played out similarly. In fact, I'd almost argue that it would have been better for Lee had Hooker had his full senses.

Antietam, as you say was no fault of Lees and considering the forces that opposed him--helped by McLelan's timidity--I'd almost argue that the withdrawal of the Army of Northern Virginia from Maryland means that Sharpsburg was really a great Confederate victory.

Finally there is Gettysburg, and this is what I meant by the "price" of Lee's aggressiveness. Despite the intial contact with the Army of the Potmac really being the fault of Stuart, Lee did not (unlike Antietam) have to give Federal forces a General battle. He chose to fight on that field when he could have still easily manuevered and dictated the time and place of a general engagement.

Unfortunately for the Confederacy, Lee got in his mind the he would fight it out then and there and refused any council, which was offered, not to do so.

Though I will say, despite being (again) helped a bit by Meade, Lee's withdrawal back to Northern Virginia was a work of his genius, though the genius of an army on the losing side of a war, after a lost battle, is not something often noticed.

[rustysi]

The terrain (+) and op mode (-) modifiers in this Combat Report indicates that during the combat firepower phase,

(a) at least one defending unit received a positive benefit from the terrain. This benefit resulted in fewer casualties than would otherwise have been the case which the interaction of the combat firepower phase of both defending and attacking units shooting at each other would have inflicted upon the defending unit. It does not indicate, how many (nor which) defending units benefited with fewer casualties from the terrain modifier.

(b) at least one defending unit received a negative "benefit" as a result of not being in defend mode. This negative resulted in more casualties than would otherwise have been the case which the interaction of the combat firepower phase of both defending and attacking units shooting at each other would have inflicted upon the defending unit had it been in defend mode.

The losses sustained in the combat firepower phase can be directly impacted by


unit fatigue
terrain
unit disruption
unit experience
unit morale
leadership


Die rolls are factored into the combat algorithms to determine whether the above factors are fed into the calculations. The die roll result is shown as the respective combat modifier in the combat report.

The difficulty is that the combat firepower algorithms are not solely dependent on whether die rolls are passed/failed to give that additional impact. The ability to hit the enemy during the combat firepower phase is also dependent on the target acquisition status level which is impacted by


detection level
unit fortification level
unit experience level
device range


The damage resulting from any successful hit is then dependent on


weapon values
unit leader values
unit disruption
unit fatigue
unit supply level
unit op mode
level of prior combat participation
terrain


The modifiers which are shown in the combat report essentially show when a die roll for a factor has been relevant in that combat. The impact of a factor being fed normally into the algorithm independently of die roll outcomes, is not normally shown as a modifier on the combat report. For example, a unit's experience level normally impacts on the quality of it's target acquisition (whether it actually hits), and if it does hit the unit's fatigue/disruption etc levels impact the hit outcome (amount of damage inflicted). These outcomes are not dependent on die rolls per se but are fed into the combat algorithms together with the result of any die rolls which are displayed in the combat report.

Terrain benefits the unadjusted AV in the combat firepower phase from being damaged and then post the combat firepower phase modifies the surviving undamaged unadjusted AV into the adjusted AV which is used to determine base control/retreat calculations.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred, clear as mud. No, really explains things better than I've seen to date. For me though I'm not the one who needs 'to look behind the curtain' even though I do admit to being 'frustrated' with the game on many occasions. Believe it or not I do enjoy it (well sometimes and after a while) when my 'perfect op' goes south.

I lose hair.

Now I know you don't really play this game... You still have hair.[:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I lose hair.

Now I know you don't really play this game... You still have hair.[:D]

Well, would you like a moose to experience a Canadian winter without "hair" (fur)?

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

So Leadership helps with lowering losses in defence, while Land probably with inflicting losses in attack.

Not quite.

The leadership referred to is not a specific trait but rather refers back to whatever the specific leader trait is for each relevant algorithm.

Alfred

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I lose hair.

Now I know you don't really play this game... You still have hair.[:D]

Well, would you like a moose to experience a Canadian winter without "hair" (fur)?

Alfred

Oh, wait. No, no, no. Your right, sorry.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Thanks, Alfred. Much clearer.

I just did my annual re-reading of the manual on the land combat model, and a lot of this is there, but some isn't, or isn't as clear. I'll probably never really be at peace with land combat as I want to "see" the sausage being made more fully. I don't think I'm alone there. Sometimes the results are just maddening. I'm in a siege situation now against Lokasenna in Burma--have been for many months--and the feedback I get has never really told me what to change to improve. I pull what levers I see or think I can, but so far nothing has worked. So when I get Leadership (-) lines, and I have Gen. Slim in charge, I lose hair. But if I know it's just him compared to himself it's a bit less.

One question--is it correct to say that field forts, those built in the bush by LCUs, never deteriorate or are reduced until the final break and retreat by the defenders? I recall a lot of discussion of this early, and I don't recall any patch on it, but the notes are deep now.

Well, good that it helps. I composed the post in situ focused on addressing your specific concerns; it was not drafted away from the computer which the complexity of the subject really deserves. A 101 guide on land combat would have been presented differently.

Without going into the detail which a 101 guide would contain, key principles of land combat are:

1. A Bombardment Attack involves one round of attacking unit artillery shooting at defenders and one round of defending unit artillery counter shooting. Combat then ends.

2. A Direct Attack incorporates as a preliminary phase a Bombardment Attack and is then followed by close combat where the other unit weapons participate.

3. A Shock Attack is essentially a double intensity Direct Attack.

4. Before 1-3 occurs, units have an unadjusted AV. Each ready device, (usually limited to squad and AFV devices) = 1 unadjusted AV. Unadjusted AV is therefore no indication of the quality of the device itself but is the outcome of a process which incorporates the interplay of supply, leadership, recent combat, support elements to name only some of the relevant factors. It is basically just a raw metric indicating the size of the force which is being brought to the fight. In of itself it plays no role in the fight itself.

5. It is the combat firepower phase where the quality primarily, but also to a secondary degree the quantity, of the devices together with all the relevant modifiers (some of which are dependent on die rolls and others which are not)are fed into the combat algorithms to determine battle casualties.

6. The critical initial threshold for device participation in the combat firepower phase is "target acquisition". No target acquisition, no device participation in combat. The quality of the target acquisition impacts on the effectiveness of the device participation.

7. At the conclusion of the combat firepower phase, each surviving ready device = 1 unadjusted AV. For the purpose of determining whether a base changes ownership or enemy units are required to retreat, the unadjusted AV is then modified by several factors, into a new metric which is labelled adjusted AV.


Regarding your question on field fortifications, as a refresher this thread incorporates my Fortification 101.

tm.asp?m=2763265&mpage=1&key=forts%2C101?

I have never seen a Combat Report which showed a battle in the countryside where enemy fortification levels were reduced but the enemy remained. Out in the countryside it is a one or nothing situation. At the conclusion of combat, the attacker must achieve an adjusted AV sufficient to evict the enemy from the field. If the requisite adjusted AV is not achieved, the attacker starts from scratch next time although bear in mind the force disparity for the next round has probably moved significantly in favour of the attacker. Also bear in mind that the enemy units have their own unique fortification levels (plus modifiers) so the adjusted AV may suffice to evict some of the enemy units.

As to the opaqueness of land combat. The precise details of the combat algorithms will never be disclosed. Combat will always be deeply mired to be under the hood and therefore will never satisfy the spread sheet players. For the others, such as yourself, it is possible to move levers to improve performance but this will always be, at best, akin to a blind man at home who when he wants to eat knows where the kitchen is, and where the different food/cooking utensils are located but can't "see" the physical features, and knows there is no point in going to the bedroom in order to make a sandwich.

Alfred

Alfred

[Yaab]

Let's see

If your commander Land/Aggro is 51/51 or more in both categories - assault unit
If your commander Land/Aggro is 40/40 - 50/50 - combat unit
If your commander Land/Aggro is 0/0 - 39/39 - rear area

Now, my only guess is that assault units are those units who conduct Shock Attacks and high Land/Aggro is needed for Shock Attack algorithms. You can see many Marine leaders have high Land/Aggro, possibly for atoll landings and subsequent Shock Attacks.

Combat units are those who defend and perform Deliberate Attacks/Bombardments

Rear area - garrisons, training and healing disabled squads.

BTW, at start, there is a US Army leader, who has 70Leader/70Insp, 60+Land and under 40 Aggro. He is recommended for rear area.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

BTW, at start, there is a US Army leader, who has 70Leader/70Insp, 60+Land and under 40 Aggro. He is recommended for rear area.

A good teacher, but if he can't press home an attack his unit's AV doesn't participate fully in the attack calculations.

[crsutton]

Don't get too hung up on leaders. Basically if they have decent values then they are going to do OK and you need not waste PP changing them. The unit will perform. There is not magic bullet and if you follow Alfred's basic guidelines you will do OK. Personally, I swap out some ship and air unit commanders in the early game as there tend to be some incompetents. But after mid 43 mid 43 as the Allies you can be assured that most leaders arriving will be skilled enough to lead the units they are assigned to.

Aggression is one aspect I pay attention to. I tend to avoid very aggressive TF leaders. Aggression means that they will stay longer and fight harder. This may be a good thing if you have a superior force but might just cause you to lose everything if not. I like a leader who knows when it is time to quit. Otherwise I do not worry about it. A good air, sea, land skilled leader will do his job and mid range aggression is fine for them.

[Bullwinkle58]

Alfred, that's what I recall re field forts. Wish it were more forgiving of the attacker considering they were mostly logs and dirt rather than what was available in bases, but it is what it is. I'm sure I benefitted from them in 1942.

The Burma campaign against Lokasenna, even with the land engine, has been the most complex and multi-phased of any I've fought in AE. Whomever here said always try to play someone better than yourself had it spot on. It has seen huge stacks battering each other east of Ramree, supply deserts, use of B-29s, carrier forays up the Malaysian coast, mines, both sub and air-dropped, in ports as well as transit lanes, erasing of LI production at multiple locations, an Inchon landing at Pegu that was under-resourced, but which changed the whole calculus, etc.

I usually just play the three-bank-shot of supply-disruption-disablement for my attack decisions, try to keep his air efforts in check, and wait for the monsoons to help as much as possible. It's been a real fight.

[Alfred]

Further to my posts #56 and #66, players should note wdolson's comments in post #5 of this thread.
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3684102&mpage=1&key=&#3684603
 
With 100 (approximately) modifiers in play, one can see how difficult it would be to be more descriptive in the combat report.  The amount of info provided to the player was an issue considered by the players and Eric Rutins years ago pointed out that whilst more info was provided in AE than was the case with classical WITP, there were many practical negatives to going any further down the disclosure path.
 
Alfred

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Further to my posts #56 and #66, players should note wdolson's comments in post #5 of this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3684102&mpage=1&key=&#3684603

With 100 (approximately) modifiers in play, one can see how difficult it would be to be more descriptive in the combat report.  The amount of info provided to the player was an issue considered by the players and Eric Rutins years ago pointed out that whilst more info was provided in AE than was the case with classical WITP, there were many practical negatives to going any further down the disclosure path.

Alfred

However, one cannot help but wonder at the irony of a game design that goes into myriad detail(s) about the individual squads and devices that make up the game units and yet "black box" the details of how the skills. etc. affect gameplay.

[bush]

Bullwinkle - I am still laughing over the "Like trying to read bird entrails" comment. Thank you!

Hans - What type AND level of skill(s) do you use when assigning new sub drivers?

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Don't get too hung up on leaders. Basically if they have decent values then they are going to do OK and you need not waste PP changing them. The unit will perform. There is not magic bullet and if you follow Alfred's basic guidelines you will do OK. Personally, I swap out some ship and air unit commanders in the early game as there tend to be some incompetents. But after mid 43 mid 43 as the Allies you can be assured that most leaders arriving will be skilled enough to lead the units they are assigned to.

Aggression is one aspect I pay attention to. I tend to avoid very aggressive TF leaders. Aggression means that they will stay longer and fight harder. This may be a good thing if you have a superior force but might just cause you to lose everything if not. I like a leader who knows when it is time to quit. Otherwise I do not worry about it. A good air, sea, land skilled leader will do his job and mid range aggression is fine for them.

I think it's worth a player's time to check the captains of capital ships, CVEs, and submarines when they first appear on map as the Allies.

You definitely get some naval leaders you'll want to replace--like the captain of Long Island.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Revthought


I think it's worth a player's time to check the captains of capital ships, CVEs, and submarines when they first appear on map as the Allies.

You definitely get some naval leaders you'll want to replace--like the captain of Long Island.

1944 also sees many air unit leaders come on map with Air ratings in the 30s, and even high 20s. Especially LB groups.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Revthought


I think it's worth a player's time to check the captains of capital ships, CVEs, and submarines when they first appear on map as the Allies.

You definitely get some naval leaders you'll want to replace--like the captain of Long Island.

1944 also sees many air unit leaders come on map with Air ratings in the 30s, and even high 20s. Especially LB groups.

Yes! This too. I can't believe I left them out.

[Yaab]

At least we know that generally higher values=better leaders, yet even that is not set in stone since Aggressiveness can be beneficial at lower values.

[Revthought]

Here's a question. What skill does the "bombardment" naval attack rely on? Is it naval (I always assumed) or is it something else?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Here's a question. What skill does the "bombardment" naval attack rely on? Is it naval (I always assumed) or is it something else?

Detection level! [:D]

Aggression is somewhat important - an aggressive skipper will empty more of his mags before leaving.
Naval skill should help the accuracy, but crew experience is probably more important.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Here's a question. What skill does the "bombardment" naval attack rely on? Is it naval (I always assumed) or is it something else?

Detection level! [:D]

Aggression is somewhat important - an aggressive skipper will empty more of his mags before leaving.
Naval skill should help the accuracy, but crew experience is probably more important.

And none of that is as important as these:

1) DL (you'd better recon the base the day before and get it to 9/10)
2) Spotter planes on your first-bombarding ships.