Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Except that your leaders aren't checked against enemy leaders for the adjustment to AV. Hence, it has to be just flat out failing a roll despite stellar stats.

They aren't?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Except that your leaders aren't checked against enemy leaders for the adjustment to AV. Hence, it has to be just flat out failing a roll despite stellar stats.

They aren't?

The esteemed Alfred heavily implied that they aren't:

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

FWIW, I've always assumed they weren't because it just doesn't make sense to me from a design standpoint and it was never brought up. Something like that would be in the documentation somewhere, I'd think.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Except that your leaders aren't checked against enemy leaders for the adjustment to AV. Hence, it has to be just flat out failing a roll despite stellar stats.

They aren't?

The esteemed Alfred heavily implied that they aren't:

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

FWIW, I've always assumed they weren't because it just doesn't make sense to me from a design standpoint and it was never brought up. Something like that would be in the documentation somewhere, I'd think.

It begs the question: if the check is not against any enemy leader, then what standard is being used to decide the Leader + or - rating? That is not in any documentation either.
This discussion has convinced me that the comparison is across several skills - Leadership, Land, maybe Aggression (do you really expect your Agg 40 leader to do well when you shock attack a fortified enemy?). So perhaps the type of attack or defence (or pursuit) is compared to the leader ability to deal with it?

Has anyone got their magic eight-ball to ask the answer?[;)]

Most of the "checks" are random rolls and the value adjusts the outcome ...

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Most of the "checks" are random rolls and the value adjusts the outcome ...

Yeah, I knew random rolls are always involved, it's the adjustment part that is jelly to pin to the wall!

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Except that your leaders aren't checked against enemy leaders for the adjustment to AV. Hence, it has to be just flat out failing a roll despite stellar stats.

They aren't?

The esteemed Alfred heavily implied that they aren't:

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

FWIW, I've always assumed they weren't because it just doesn't make sense to me from a design standpoint and it was never brought up. Something like that would be in the documentation somewhere, I'd think.

Hmm. I always thought everything on that (+) (-) line did adjust AV. I'm on the other side of design; a crap leader ought to lose effect against a better leader, see-saw fashion. It also seems as if some ought to have no randomness (terrain is a defined quantity in the pwhex), but some could/should. An average leader can have a really good day for example. But I always thought the components of the line were measured against the other side's ratings. That makes the most sense to me given the +/- notation system.

If that is not the case and the (-) is just the guy against himself, it seems as if leader ratings matter even less than I thought. AV is pretty important, and if it's not in the math then pfffft.

Terrain is not a random in the adjusted AV.

And yeah, the leader(+) and/or leader(-) is the result of die rolls compared to your leader. Everything in that line does affect AV.

Just a thought here- but what if admin affected AV through the "employment" of the commanders off-screen subordinate officers? Rommel surrounded himself with incredible junior staff officers that definitely only helped him do his job- kicking the Tommy's butts in North Africa. Its said that he would simply sack anyone on his staff that proved to be incompetent or lacking in skill. Maybe the admin skill has an affect on your leaders "+/-" in the combat summary.

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Just a thought here- but what if admin affected AV through the "employment" of the commanders off-screen subordinate officers? Rommel surrounded himself with incredible junior staff officers that definitely only helped him do his job- kicking the Tommy's butts in North Africa. Its said that he would simply sack anyone on his staff that proved to be incompetent or lacking in skill. Maybe the admin skill has an affect on your leaders "+/-" in the combat summary.

It is idle speculation which often leads to the creation of AE urban myths.

Alfred

Do not confuse the impact during the fire phase with the final adjusted AV.
 
Alfred

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Beauregard was a master at how do you defeat a superior foe and sometimes making him wish he'd never heard your name. Aggression in a commander will measure whether he will sit on his backside or take advantage of a situation that presents itself. Unless your strategy is to collapse as slowly as possible to bide for time, aggression in a commander is your friend. If you are playing the Japanese side, watch out for samurai swords. But, you know, they might usher you into a better reality.

I don't know. Beauregard certainly performed less well than AS Johnston had on the first day of Shiloh when he took command after Johnston's death. Though, to be fair Beauregard, at Shiloh, Grant certainly benefited from the arrival of Buell's Army of the Ohio on the second day.

I know this might be a "popular" assessment, but I think Lee, of any Commanding Officer during the American Civil War, is the most deserving of that title of "master at how do you defeat a superior foe and sometimes making him wish he'd never heard your name."

After Lee then Jackson--just based on Jackson's performance during the Valley Campaign. Then maybe Forrest.

Incidentally, Lee is also a great illustration of both how aggressiveness when facing a superior opponent can pay off, and the price an army often pays for that aggressiveness.

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.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Terrain is not a random in the adjusted AV.

And yeah, the leader(+) and/or leader(-) is the result of die rolls compared to your leader. Everything in that line does affect AV.

So what does this mean:

Ground combat at 81,33 (near Lanchow)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1258 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 29

Defending force 13470 troops, 123 guns, 84 vehicles, Assault Value = 484

Allied adjusted assault: 0

Japanese adjusted defense: 1588

Allied assault odds: 1 to 99

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-)
Attacker:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Terrain is not a random in the adjusted AV.

And yeah, the leader(+) and/or leader(-) is the result of die rolls compared to your leader. Everything in that line does affect AV.

So what does this mean:

Ground combat at 81,33 (near Lanchow)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1258 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 29

Defending force 13470 troops, 123 guns, 84 vehicles, Assault Value = 484

Allied adjusted assault: 0

Japanese adjusted defense: 1588

Allied assault odds: 1 to 99

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-)
Attacker:

The defenders were in good defensive terrain and at least one of their units was not in Combat/Defend mode or Reserve (likely in Move mode).
Unfortunately, because the AI cannot divide by 0 (the defender's AV), the assault odds get the default 99:1 odds.

What's your point? I think everyone agreed that the Terrain bonus affects the outcome.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Terrain is not a random in the adjusted AV.

And yeah, the leader(+) and/or leader(-) is the result of die rolls compared to your leader. Everything in that line does affect AV.

So what does this mean:

Ground combat at 81,33 (near Lanchow)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1258 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 29

Defending force 13470 troops, 123 guns, 84 vehicles, Assault Value = 484

Allied adjusted assault: 0

Japanese adjusted defense: 1588

Allied assault odds: 1 to 99

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-)
Attacker:

The defenders were in good defensive terrain and at least one of their units was not in Combat/Defend mode or Reserve (likely in Move mode).
Unfortunately, because the AI cannot divide by 0 (the defender's AV), the assault odds get the default 99:1 odds.

What's your point? I think everyone agreed that the Terrain bonus affects the outcome.

My point is that Terrain is on the plus minus line, but I'm being told it doesn't affect adjusted AV. Which I'm willing to believe, because Lokasenna runs rings around me on any Land issue.

But it's also just BS in the design. Ten years in and people are STILL debating the Land reports. GG was too clever by half with his hide-everything mania. So I get a Leadership (-) in my CR. OK, what does that mean? Can I do anything about it? Which leader in the stack got the (-)? How much did it matter? Is it worth changing him? I don't know any of that because it's all black-box and all I'm doing is riding in the backseat watching the scenery go by.

I can grasp how a Naval leader might affect rate of fire, accuracy, DC, etc. But naval battles don't tease me with (-) and (+). Why put that feature in the CR if it's behind glass and all I can do is press my nose up on it?

Grump.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




So what does this mean:

Ground combat at 81,33 (near Lanchow)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1258 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 29

Defending force 13470 troops, 123 guns, 84 vehicles, Assault Value = 484

Allied adjusted assault: 0

Japanese adjusted defense: 1588

Allied assault odds: 1 to 99

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-)
Attacker:

The defenders were in good defensive terrain and at least one of their units was not in Combat/Defend mode or Reserve (likely in Move mode).
Unfortunately, because the AI cannot divide by 0 (the defender's AV), the assault odds get the default 99:1 odds.

What's your point? I think everyone agreed that the Terrain bonus affects the outcome.

My point is that Terrain is on the plus minus line, but I'm being told it doesn't affect adjusted AV. Which I'm willing to believe, because Lokasenna runs rings around me on any Land issue.

But it's also just BS in the design. Ten years in and people are STILL debating the Land reports. GG was too clever by half with his hide-everything mania. So I get a Leadership (-) in my CR. OK, what does that mean? Can I do anything about it? Which leader in the stack got the (-)? How much did it matter? Is it worth changing him? I don't know any of that because it's all black-box and all I'm doing is riding in the backseat watching the scenery go by.

I can grasp how a Naval leader might affect rate of fire, accuracy, DC, etc. But naval battles don't tease me with (-) and (+). Why put that feature in the CR if it's behind glass and all I can do is press my nose up on it?

Grump.

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


Edit: Posts #66 and #71 should also be read

The opaque made at least translucent! Thank you Alfred! I never really understood the sequence of calculations in combat resolution and this helps me a lot!
[&o][&o]

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

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.

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.

I'm still a relative newbie - I've only been playing this magnificent game about 18 months now - but I have struggled with understanding land combat from the start. I agree with Moose, it would be nice to know which levers generated which responses, so you could help influence the results.