help with odds on this

[IBender]

I struggle a little with this one...my math doesnt match up to what I see here. End results were that even though they were both disorganized and non elite, they still defended better than I expected. Please see attached picture and help me do the math would be appreciated. (the defenders where in the city of Metz / France.

[paulderynck]

Fortress hexsides third attackers except for the artillery if it bombarded across it. Paradrop allows a notional which would be worth 3 unless it is a surprise impulse.

Without knowing how many of those effects were in play, it is hard to know, but a plus 4 combat ratio is a 2 to 1.

Edit: I guess no notional as that would give the attackers another plus 1 which should be listed, so I think some of the attackers were thirded. And it looks like no fractional odds are in play, so even 20 to 7 is still a 2 to 1.

[Joseignacio]

According to the odds: 13.67:7, he attacked with all through the Maginot except for the para, and including the ART: (5+9+8+7)/3= 29

29/3 = 9,67

9,67 + 4 =13,67

Then he got +4 from this (easy fractional roll) -2 for city and factory I guess +4 disorganized + 1 paradrop

The reason why they defended better was the Maginot Line. Else the die mod would have been 33:7 = 4,71 for a +9 or possible +10, plus the rest of the modifiers (-2+4+1) =+3, total +12/13.

[paulderynck]

We can see from the screen shot that the fractional odds optional has not been chosen, so the point 67 rounds up and the attacker then has 14 to 7, which is 2 to 1, which is a +4.

The Germans are lucky the French did not include their notional to make it a net +6.

[Joseignacio]

Ok, didn't know the fractionals could be seen there. But then I am confused, the ratio is said to be (capture) 13.67/7 This is not 2:1 without fractionals, it's 1.5:1. [&:]

I mean, I always use fractional odds, but i am under the impression that a ratio is always rounded down for this purposes when you are not using them...

[Centuur]

No, according RAW you have to round fractions of combat factors on both sides, before the odds are calculated.

So 13.67 becomes 14 first, than you have a 14:7 which gives a +4.

[Joseignacio]

Yes, I went through the rules and it seemed so. I wanted to take another deeper look at them because I thought there was some particular clause regarding combat rounding apart from the general rounding rules, but since you read them... and your experience counts too.

I guess this is another example of the "Luis-Ángel in Flames " rules, which is the version of my mentor in WIF, since you cannot check everything you don't agree and he was more experienced, I guess he made us swallow a lot of these inadvertently. [:(][:(]

Wait!!! Nope, there was a particular rule for this rounding off:

11.16.5 Resolving attacks
Add up the attacking units’ (modified) combat factors, shore bombardment and ground support. Round the total to the nearest whole number (rounding 0.5 up).
Total the defending units’ factors in the same way.
Choosing combat tables
You must now select one of the two land combat results tables ~ blitzkrieg or assault. The blitzkrieg table allows retreats and leaves the attacker face-up more often. The assault table will generally increase the casualties for both sides.
The attacker chooses the table if:
1. the defending hex is a non-city hex in clear, forest or desert; and
2. any attacking unit is not attacking across a fort hexside; and
3. either the attacker has more:
ï ARM and HQ-A units than the defender; or
ï MECH units than the defender and the defender has no ARM or HQ-A units.
AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2: Divisions count as 1/2 a unit (rounding up).
AsA option 3: Each defending anti-tank unit counts as an ARM corps. AA units which have a combat factor circled in red or pink are treated as AT units for the choice of land combat.
In all other cases the defender chooses.
Odds ratios
Compare the attacker’s total to the defender’s total and work out the basic ratio between them. Round the ratio to a whole number. Always round in favour of the defender. For example, 19:5 rounds to 3:1, not 4:1.

Sorry Luis Angel, this time I have been unfair... [:D]

[Joseignacio]

Ahhh, I see, you are meaning that 13.67 rounds to 14 because of the rule in black bold, while I was speaking of the lila text, which would come afterwards.

For example, if it was 12.67 it would have rounded to 13 but for no use because anyways 12 or 13 divided by 7 would represent a 1.5:1

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Ahhh, I see, you are meaning that 13.67 rounds to 14 because of the rule in black bold, while I was speaking of the lila text, which would come afterwards.

For example, if it was 12.67 it would have rounded to 13 but for no use because anyways 12 or 13 divided by 7 would represent a 1.5:1

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

[Orm]

Edit: Way to late. [:D] [:)]

[Dabrion]

dude .. have three units in the corner hex on the Maginot or you will be trolled or OCed ..