Ground Support is Broken

[AlvaroSousa]

You have infantry attacking infantry at low odds. Yes it will be low % retreat.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

You have infantry attacking infantry at low odds. Yes it will be low % retreat.

I don't just have an infantry attacking, I also have an 8 strength tactical air unit. So why do you say I have low odds? According to your previous post this air unit will add its tactical strength to my infantry so that my combat odds will be 2 (for the 4 strength infantry attacking across a river) + 8 (the tactical strength of the GS air unit) vs. 1 (the strength of the defending unit). So the combat odds will be 2 + 8 = 10 vs 1; therefore 10:1.

So let me put my questions in the simplest terms possible:
1. Are Air Units supposed to add their Tactical Strength to the Strength of the Ground Units in determining the Combat Odds (as you previously stated they do)?
2. If yes, do you believe this is working properly?
3. If yes, than why do you say my Combat Odds will be low if I am adding an 8 Strength Tactical Air Unit to my Attack?

[AlvaroSousa]

I ran a series of tests yesterday on combat and it looks right. The right numbers are coming into place. Maybe you got unlucky in this battle and the general's tenacity held also.
I don't know at this point. I will test a few more things out.

But all the factors are being inserted correctly.

[AlvaroSousa]

Haven't you ever played Axis and Allies... attacked with 12 infantry on 2.... and LOST? I have.

[ncc1701e]

Just like Risk. I was so upset that I bought my first real wargame: Panzer Blitz.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I ran a series of tests yesterday on combat and it looks right. The right numbers are coming into place. Maybe you got unlucky in this battle and the general's tenacity held also.
I don't know at this point. I will test a few more things out.

But all the factors are being inserted correctly.

Can you please just answer my 3 questions. I understand getting unlucky in battle probably better than anyone on the planet (just ask MM how are current game with me as the Allies is going). But based on what you have told us is the way this works I made 20 consecutive Test Attacks with Ground Support at what is supposed to be 10:1 odds and got only 3 Retreats (15%). Which is actually slightly less than the number I got attacking at 2:1 odds without Ground Support. That is not just unlucky, it is statistically impossible.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Haven't you ever played Axis and Allies... attacked with 12 infantry on 2.... and LOST? I have.

Yes, I have done this and seen it. But what I haven't ever seen is anybody in Axis and Allies or Risk attack with 12 infantry on 2 and lose and then attack another area 12 to 2 and lose, and then attack another area 12 to 2 and lose, etc 20 consecutive times. Well to be fair, in my case the Attacker did win 3 of the 20 times.

[ncc1701e]

Risk is too heavy linked to luck with dice rolls.

[Harrybanana]

I ran the Test again another 20 Times with the same results. Namely, 3 Retreat Results out of 20 Attacks. 15% Retreats is exactly what you would expect if the infantry division was Attacking by itself at 2:1 Odds. But not what you would expect (or is even statistically possible) if the Air Unit's 8 Tactical Strength is added to the infantry division's strength to give 10:1 Combat Odds.

Again, the Test is a 4 Attack Strength German Infantry division with an 8 Tactical Strength Air Unit Attacking a 1 strength Russian infantry corps across a river.

[Harrybanana]

Below are the Screenshots of the Combat Logs for the 1st ten Attacks. The Combat Odds display as 2:1, but Alvaro says the air units Tactical Strength is added to determine the Combat Odds, but the Combat Log currently doesn't show this. Alvaro is working to fix this so that the Combat Odds will display properly after the next patch. Thank you Alvaro.

I have circled the 3 Retreat Results (2 in the 1st ten and 1 in the second ten) in Red. I started to circle the Hold results in Blue, but figured that was not necessary.

[Harrybanana]

The last 10 Tests.

[Harrybanana]

Alvaro, I really do appreciate your looking into this. But I do believe that 40 Test Attacks at what is supposed to be 10:1 Combat Odds with only 6 Retreat Results proves that something is wrong. This cannot possibly be just bad luck. If you don't believe me, then setup a Test similar to mine where Ground Support should be making a big difference in the Combat Odds. Then make 10+ Test Attacks using the GS and 10+ Test Attacks without GS and see if there is any difference in the % of Retreat Results.

[Nirosi]

Hi all,

I assume the tests here (by HarryBanana) were done with the latest live patch.

Could it be that when Alvaro and NCC1701C are mentioning that it does work, could they mean in the incoming beta (that NCC1701C is testing)?

Kind of hard to follows the exact sequence of events about this since it is spread over 2-3 threads. It could explain the misunderstanding?

[Nirosi]

I meant nc1701e (not c). No offense meant![:D]

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

Hi all,

I assume the tests here (by HarryBanana) were done with the latest live patch.

Could it be that when Alvaro and NCC1701C are mentioning that it does work, could they mean in the incoming beta (that NCC1701C is testing)?

Kind of hard to follows the exact sequence of events about this since it is spread over 2-3 threads. It could explain the misunderstanding?

Harrybanana is pointing a problem with the latest official patch. Alvaro has made corrections that I am currently testing in the latest beta patch.

I can propose the following. If Harrybanana could pinpoint me a particular scenario with units nearly in place and the problem he is seeing, I may reproduce with the latest beta to see the impacts of the changes.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

I meant nc1701e (not c). No offense meant![:D]

No offense. The Entreprise, ncc1701c, an Ambassador class, actually bolstered peace with the Klingons by defending them against the Romulans.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

Hi all,

I assume the tests here (by HarryBanana) were done with the latest live patch.

Could it be that when Alvaro and NCC1701C are mentioning that it does work, could they mean in the incoming beta (that NCC1701C is testing)?

Kind of hard to follows the exact sequence of events about this since it is spread over 2-3 threads. It could explain the misunderstanding?

Good point. I am using the most recent official version. So if Alvaro is using a beta where GS had been fixed, well then "Never Mind". I will just wait for the Beta to become official and test again.

[AlvaroSousa]

I have no answer for this. I know there was 1 error where the air power was being limited by the attack modifier but it doesn't account for the above.

I have to set this situation up, then put in the debugs to show me the #s.

[Nikel]

From an outsider the evident question is, why is Harrybanana not included in the beta team?

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Nikel

From an outsider the evident question is, why is Harrybanana not included in the beta team?

Perhaps because he did not ask for?