Odd combat report-anyone seen this?

[Chickenboy]

I've not seen this before. Some sort of reporting bug in the combat report?

SitRep: Japanese hold Prome (Burma) with entrenched troops. Allies try 'recon by dead paratrooper' which meets with complete disaster for the 3rd USMC Para Bn. They're wiped out to a man-460 of 'em. So why are these ascribed as Japanese casualties? [&:]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Prome (55,50)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 460 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 28

Defending force 13895 troops, 139 guns, 117 vehicles, Assault Value = 468

Assault collapses, attacking force wiped out

Japanese ground losses:
460 casualties reported
Squads: 35 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 11 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
3rd USMC Parachute Bn /1

Defending units:
Imperial Guards Division
2nd RF Gun Battalion
5th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion
8th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
36th Const Co

[btd64]

That's a new one. Never seen that before....GP

[durnedwolf]

Must be Fog of War? [;)]

Their unit was destroyed. I guess you have to hope each marine took a Japanese soldier with them to pay the ferryman's fee?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

Must be Fog of War? [;)]

Their unit was destroyed. I guess you have to hope each marine took a Japanese soldier with them to pay the ferryman's fee?

Thought that too, so I checked my IJA units-they have not sustained casualties commensurate with this report due to the assault.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

Must be Fog of War? [;)]

Their unit was destroyed. I guess you have to hope each marine took a Japanese soldier with them to pay the ferryman's fee?

Thought that too, so I checked my IJA units-they have not sustained casualties commensurate with this report due to the assault.

I have seen lots of units wipe themselves out during river crossings and the like without the confusion in the losses department. Could be a glitch in the parachute assault model? I haven't used paratroops enough to have had a complete wipe-out.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

Must be Fog of War? [;)]

Their unit was destroyed. I guess you have to hope each marine took a Japanese soldier with them to pay the ferryman's fee?

Thought that too, so I checked my IJA units-they have not sustained casualties commensurate with this report due to the assault.

I have seen lots of units wipe themselves out during river crossings and the like without the confusion in the losses department. Could be a glitch in the parachute assault model? I haven't used paratroops enough to have had a complete wipe-out.

Leaning that way myself, BBfanboy. Some other calculators of para drops that are off the beaten game code 'track' too, so I wonder if this is a figment of that.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Thought that too, so I checked my IJA units-they have not sustained casualties commensurate with this report due to the assault.

I have seen lots of units wipe themselves out during river crossings and the like without the confusion in the losses department. Could be a glitch in the parachute assault model? I haven't used paratroops enough to have had a complete wipe-out.

Leaning that way myself, BBfanboy. Some other calculators of para drops that are off the beaten game code 'track' too, so I wonder if this is a figment of that.

The paras changed sides because they realized the incompetence of their [;)] player.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Assault collapses, attacking force wiped out

See it often when a small unit is attacking against overwhelming force. Sure have seen it for quite some time already

Edit: ah, wait, there is more? Nice [:D] Is it PBEM? One can write off a lot of strange things to a desync bug

[RangerJoe]

I have seen units wiped out during the attack but never did the casualties get listed for the other side. [8|]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



I have seen lots of units wipe themselves out during river crossings and the like without the confusion in the losses department. Could be a glitch in the parachute assault model? I haven't used paratroops enough to have had a complete wipe-out.

Leaning that way myself, BBfanboy. Some other calculators of para drops that are off the beaten game code 'track' too, so I wonder if this is a figment of that.

The paras changed sides because they realized the incompetence of their [;)] player.

That's an unkind way of referring to the Allied player (AcePylut) in this game, Zilch. [:-]

ETA: [:'(]

ETA II: I'm enjoying my game with AcePylut and he's an entirely competent player.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
One can write off a lot of strange things to a desync bug

I hope that's not it. A Sync bug would really suck. Plus, except for the reporting SNAFU, these events happened just as depicted. Both sides saw it happen just this way too. Weird reporting included.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Leaning that way myself, BBfanboy. Some other calculators of para drops that are off the beaten game code 'track' too, so I wonder if this is a figment of that.

The paras changed sides because they realized the incompetence of their [;)] player.

That's an unkind way of referring to the Allied player (AcePylut) in this game, Zilch. [:-]

ETA: [:'(]

ETA II: I'm enjoying my game with AcePylut and he's an entirely competent player.

Counterpoint: 460 dead paras beg to differ with your assessment of his ability. Unless they come back as zombies...the advantage of zombie paras is they don't need parachutes.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Zorch
the advantage of zombie paras is they don't need parachutes.

Well why designate them as paras? Wouldn't 'UA' (Undead Airborne) be more apt?

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Zorch
the advantage of zombie paras is they don't need parachutes.

Well why designate them as paras? Wouldn't 'UA' (Undead Airborne) be more apt?

Because they can't fly, to the best of my knowledge.

[HansBolter]

Even the 460 casualties seem suspect.

It was only a fragment that dropped and fought, not the entire battalion.


"Assaulting units:
3rd USMC Parachute Bn /1"

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Zorch



The paras changed sides because they realized the incompetence of their [;)] player.

That's an unkind way of referring to the Allied player (AcePylut) in this game, Zilch. [:-]

ETA: [:'(]

ETA II: I'm enjoying my game with AcePylut and he's an entirely competent player.

Counterpoint: 460 dead paras beg to differ with your assessment of his ability. Unless they come back as zombies...the advantage of zombie paras is they don't need parachutes.

The Soviets dropped people from flying aircraft. They were told to steer for a deep pile of snow . . . [X(]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Even the 460 casualties seem suspect.

It was only a fragment that dropped and fought, not the entire battalion.


"Assaulting units:
3rd USMC Parachute Bn /1"

I'm OK with that. He may not have had sufficient airlift to bring in the entire battalion. And part of a USMC Para Bn. had been used a couple days previously to capture an undefended Ramree Island (don't remember if it was same Bn. or not). So the fragment in this instance makes sense.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Even the 460 casualties seem suspect.

It was only a fragment that dropped and fought, not the entire battalion.


"Assaulting units:
3rd USMC Parachute Bn /1"

I'm OK with that. He may not have had sufficient airlift to bring in the entire battalion. And part of a USMC Para Bn. had been used a couple days previously to capture an undefended Ramree Island (don't remember if it was same Bn. or not). So the fragment in this instance makes sense.

What is the AV of a zombie para battalion? Do they gain experience as they lose body parts? And do they have zombie leaders and HQs?