Matrix Games Forums

Sorry Treespider I dont think this is anything we can prove one way or the other it needs someone with a diagnostic tool to set up a test and run through what happens step by step which probably means Joe or Don
 
Sneer I dont know for sure but 45k is a lot for 2 units of course intel isnt perfect in the game a US Aviation regt arrives with c 8,000 men and a respawn corps has about 5,000 so two units is hard to see adding to 45k

i think it is high time for Matrix to check it
i sent a savegame /this before my attack / to michaelm early in the morning so maybe they will tell us how it works

I wonder why people keep telling me it´s a fault of me not to bring enough supplies?!?! Like in Sneers game there are hundreds of thousands tons of supply at the coast but inland it just doesn´t get higher than 20 - 40 thousand!

I have a solution: scrap all the land combat, so supplies don´t matter. Delete the continents and do only naval assaults. This will solve the problem. Telling people they should bring more supply isn´t a solution when obviously the system is crap. And it´s laughable to hear that it´s normal that the AV drops from 100% to 25% because of some modifiers like fatigue, leaders,.... This isn´t the case - for sure. Only thing IS supply. And there´s obviously no way to bring the supply to a level where you can fight. So????? Should we stop fighting and make War in the pacific a merchant fleet simulation?

The only reason we don´t see such results at assaults from the sea is that you bring your supply with AKs and this is directly unloaded into your LCUs.

So the question is why don´t I see such results in island assaults if it´s fatigue, leadership,.... Because that isn´t the case, it´s only supply and the supply is unloaded into the LCUs. Perhaps I should bring some AKs with wheels into the heart of china. [:(][:(][&:][&:]

And next thing to wonder, my troops could have pulled at least 60 - 70000 supplies from Changsha and Kweiyang.

Hi, OK back to boot camp.
LCU show required supply and supply present. If supply present exceeds supply required the unit has combat supply. If supply present exceeds required by 2x the unit has a 2x combat bonus.

when a unit expends supply it will attempt to draw new supply. It will attempt to draw new supply to replace basic supply if basic supply below required. This supply will come from the base if unit in a friendly base hex and base has more then required supply present. Supply will come via supply path from another base if base has above required.  If unit has required supply present and it has expended supply in combat it will attempt to draw replacement combat supply in the same manner.
So units that have combat supply at start of turn have combat supply for turn. They will draw new combat supply that turn if requirments are met. (So units always have supply for combat before they attack)
If a unit does not have combat supply at start of turn it is because the requirments for drawing supply were not met THE TURN PRIOR.
when you stack a large number of units in a single hex HQ will draw supply before combat units. Never have more HQ present then are required to provide 100 percent support to stack. (excess support serves no purpose but HQ like to carry supply around)
Unit "A" will draw supply before Unit "B" Unit "B" will draw supply before unit "C"  I doubt it is possible to provide supply to entire stack after combat in a single day.  (unless combat is occuring in a friendly base hex and base contains 100,000+ excess supply)

All units that capture a enemy base dump all their supply over their basic required into the new base hex. So as Japan advances in China the combat units that begin with 2x required supply loaded unload this excess. (capturing a base results in units giving up their combat supply unless the new base now has required supply and enough excess to provide combat supply back but you will never reissue as much as you turned in because while the stack is in the hex the required supply at base will be high. Many players think they have captured supply not understanding the supply is in fact their own.

So before a stack can advance to a new objective with the same 2x required it had when it captured the prior objective NEW supply equal to or in excess of the supply expended plus the supply now held by the base must be moved into the new base and time allowed for units to draw it. (here is when you move that higher HQ into hex)

A rapid advance can run units out of supply simply because they drop it off as well as consuming it for basic needs and combat.  New supply requirements will always grow unless the player allows his LCU to be attrited and thus have lower requirments.

Hi, At Origins I proposed to Joel Billings that we add a new Land Combat Unit. The Logistic Transport Unit. This unit will be able to load supply directly from a base and then physically transport to another hex where it becomes a supply source. (a mobile base that always has a 0 required supply making all supply on board aviailable for use as basic or combat supply)(supply transported via the LTU would not be able to produce replacement TOE items or aircraft)
The LTU would be crated in a base hex and unit would be removed when supply on board reached 0.

example" Japanese player has 100,000 supply at shanghai he creates LTU there consuming 10k supply and now has a LTU with 10k loaded.
LTU moves at infantry rate. Has 0 attack and defense. May be bombed (ground attack only supply is destroyed and not TOE items)

what still needs research is how many LTU can be placed by any nation at any time.
would allied LTU have faster movement rate compared to Japanese (excluding Chinese who like Japan would be mostly anaimal drawn transport)

before my attack i checked carefully one by one all units - all had supplies above their requirements
on the other hand looks like fighting div has 2.5k -3k req and unit not fighting half of that
so unit not fighting (in supply) entering combat will automaticly hit out of supply category / my theory for what happened/

OK I ran a VERY simplistic test I am aware of the limitations of this test and I ONLY ran it once because I have PBEM turns waiting and cnt bew bothered to do more now.
 
Situation
 
16th Mixed Brigade 1 Hex out of Homan assaulting 1 Chinese Corps on the rail line no HQ in hex or in range
 
Starting Max AV for IJN Bde 349.
 
XP 45
Morale 45
Disruption 5%
Leader GC XP 76
Fatigue 22%
 
Attack is deliberate.
 
Homan has 3x required supply.
 
From starting AV of 349 adjusted AV is 39 in combat
 
Now I rationalise this as follows
 
AV is first reduced by xp of unit so 349 x 45% = 157
AV is then reduced by leader xp so 157 x (1-78%) = -38
AV is then reduced by disruption so 157 x 5% = -8
AV is then reduced by morale so 157 x 45% = -71
 
Total Adjusted AV before comparative squad firepower 41
 
Now Chinese Sqds Firepower is 26, IJA Firepower is 25 in 45 (this was run on 1945 campaign) but the Japanese unit has slightly more artillery although this reduces Chinese AV not increase Japanese
 
So comparative difference is minimal with small edge to Chinese.
 
Actual AV per the game when I ran the turn was 39 so a difference of 2 for comparative squad strength is not unreasonable.
 
To me this implies that the Japanese did not get reduced by 50% before combat began for supplies.
 
Now I appreciate this is just my understanding of how ground combat works and is calculated and I can test it form both sides if I get time tonight but it appears (on I admit the sketchiest of evidence) that supply seems to work in this instance.
 
I am happy to be corrected on what factors are important for ground combat

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK back to boot camp.
LCU show required supply and supply present. If supply present exceeds supply required the unit has combat supply. If supply present exceeds required by 2x the unit has a 2x combat bonus.

Mog,

so does that mean e.g. if a LCU hase 2500 required and 2501 present it should attack at it´s 100% AV (if all other factors would be ok..)? What I´ve posted before is that I have never seen a LCU carrying 2 times the required suplly even if it´s in range of a supply base with 500.000 supplies.

for me it is ok in theory but ...
my units were penalized in such situation

Hi, I have units loaded with close to 2x required but they did not load this in 1 turn. (After fall of Manila units spent several months there preping for next objective and replacing loss and recovering. While there they gradually loaded excess supply. However they then dropped most of it when I ordered them to load onto transports.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I have units loaded with close to 2x required but they did not load this in 1 turn. (After fall of Manila units spent several months there preping for next objective and replacing loss and recovering. While there they gradually loaded excess supply. However they then dropped most of it when I ordered them to load onto transports.

Likewise I've seem some of my units with 10x supply, but only after invasions where they came in by boat.

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK I ran a VERY simplistic test I am aware of the limitations of this test and I ONLY ran it once because I have PBEM turns waiting and cnt bew bothered to do more now.

Situation

16th Mixed Brigade 1 Hex out of Homan assaulting 1 Chinese Corps on the rail line no HQ in hex or in range

Starting Max AV for IJN Bde 349.

XP 45
Morale 45
Disruption 5%
Leader GC XP 76
Fatigue 22%

Attack is deliberate.

Homan has 3x required supply.

From starting AV of 349 adjusted AV is 39 in combat

Now I rationalise this as follows

AV is first reduced by xp of unit so 349 x 45% = 157
AV is then reduced by leader xp so 157 x (1-78%) = -38
AV is then reduced by disruption so 157 x 5% = -8
AV is then reduced by morale so 157 x 45% = -71

Total Adjusted AV before comparative squad firepower 41

Now Chinese Sqds Firepower is 26, IJA Firepower is 25 in 45 (this was run on 1945 campaign) but the Japanese unit has slightly more artillery although this reduces Chinese AV not increase Japanese

So comparative difference is minimal with small edge to Chinese.

Actual AV per the game when I ran the turn was 39 so a difference of 2 for comparative squad strength is not unreasonable.

To me this implies that the Japanese did not get reduced by 50% before combat began for supplies.

Now I appreciate this is just my understanding of how ground combat works and is calculated and I can test it form both sides if I get time tonight but it appears (on I admit the sketchiest of evidence) that supply seems to work in this instance.

I am happy to be corrected on what factors are important for ground combat

What would be interesting to see is the supply of the Japanese unit before and after the attack, both on hand and required...

I appreciate the effort but I am curious about the math you used to arrive at 41? 157 - 117 = 40.

Why are the following 3 modifiers (leadership, disruption, morale) applied to 157 and not 349 or some factor of 157 after each is applied? What happened to fatigue? I think the GC model is more involved than what you presented.

LTUs are a fine idea. They were a good idea 18 months ago too.[;)]

Andy we can go this way
example is my battle at chungking

i had initial 15k AV
avg exp 90+
avg leader 70
avg morale 45
avg disruption 5
avg fatigue 10

multiples for attacker 0,9*0,7*0,45*0,95*0,9 = circa 26-27%

defender
initial 6000 AV
i will guess about numbers
avg leader 50 ( maybe little optimistic)
avg morale 60
avg exp 60 - some units have some combat exp
avg disruption 10
avg fatigue10  last 2 numbers slightly higher because of my constant bombing campaign

multiples for defender 0,5*0,6*0,6*0,9*0,9 = circa 15%
city x4
fortsx3
so x12 for terrain
and x.25 for lack of supply - i doubt 200k chinase troops can live and fight for 6 months on 9k supplies /month
so x3for total other modifiers

both sides have both low and high level HQs in range so their effects should negates themselves as well as preparing points

15k x 25% = 4k roughly - we have seen it
6k x 45% = 3k roughly  - enemy had 5k+ so major diffrence here

so 25% vs 45% of initail values should be seen in combat report in rough estimation
it is before diffrence in firepower from inf squads but i think japan is haevier here /from memory/
also 8k guns should be able to inflict some disruption to enemy so nemy modifier would be lower - maybe even to 30-35%
so 1:1 should be easily achieved and there should be chances to get even 2:1

difficult question still as math shows there is sth more in it

Hi, From the manual (copy paste)
[font=arial][left]The exact effectiveness of fire combat is[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Weapon values[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Unit leader values[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Unit disruption[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Unit fatigue[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Unit supply level[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Type of attack - defensive fire is doubled against shock attacks[/left][left]Unit leaders and HQs that are within their command ranges of the battle heavily affect these[/left][left]odds. Units executing a Shock Attack are doubled for odds calculation purposes. Based on these[/left][left]odds, some fortifications may be destroyed, a base may be captured, and the defending side may[/left][left]be forced to retreat or surrender. Unit Fatigue, Terrain, Disruption, Experience, Morale, and[/left][left]Leadership directly impact combat firepower, losses, and the odds of attack. Losses[/left][left]co[font=arial]mbat include the destruction or disabling of squads, guns, and vehicles. Disabled elements[/left][left][/font]not allowed to fire during combat, and may be destroyed. Disabled elements (the numbers listed[/left][left]in parenthesis on the Ground Unit Information Screen) may be healed/repaired and listed again[/left][left]normally (this requires supply, support troops, and a low Fatigue level) however, if all the ground[/left][left]units on one side in a contested hex are disabled and cannot retreat, they will be destroyed.[/left][left] [/left][left] [/left][left] [/left][left]Attacking units are fired at before they attack. If they are disrupted enough they may abort the attack before they contribute their fire. (Fatigued and disrupted and low morale units add their potentional AV and troop strength to combat reports without actually adding anything to final assault value.) [/left][/font]

when you order a shock attack you double the defenders defensive fire before your units calculate final assault value. (however you loss incourred should still be composed mainly of disabled items not killed while the defender will be killed unless he has been able to repair and rest in prior turns. Bases do not "REPAIR items or issue supply to units if they ARE BELOW REQUIRED SUPPLY. So Chungking cut off might be able to sustain a large stack of Chinese units for a few turns versus shock attacks but once supply goes red all that will cease.

To many players are able to capture this and other urban hexes for supply to the the issue. I think it is simply players seeing it done in other games and being in too great a hurry to duplicate the result to realize how time consuming it was in the other games. If Manila can be taken when odds are lower then those posted in Chungking then any base can be captured if enough time and supply is devoted to it. But it might take months. And certainly not days. The only way it would take days is if the defenders had been pushed all the way to Chungking from Changsha and arrived already shot to pieces.

Mog, the bottom line even after your "bootcamp" (which I myself will thank you, it was helpful, though it still mystifies me at times) is that ground combat and supply is still very confusing and quite frustrating to the group of us as a whole. I thought we only needed master degrees to play WitP, not PHD's. Sorry I had to vent a bit.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, From the manual (copy paste)
[font=arial][left]The exact effectiveness of fire combat is[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Weapon values[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Unit leader values[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Unit disruption[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Unit fatigue[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Unit supply level[/left][/font][font=wingdings-regular][left]�� [/font][font=arial]Type of attack - defensive fire is doubled against shock attacks[/left][left]Unit leaders and HQs that are within their command ranges of the battle heavily affect these[/left][left]odds. Units executing a Shock Attack are doubled for odds calculation purposes. Based on these[/left][left]odds, some fortifications may be destroyed, a base may be captured, and the defending side may[/left][left]be forced to retreat or surrender. Unit Fatigue, Terrain, Disruption, Experience, Morale, and[/left][left]Leadership directly impact combat firepower, losses, and the odds of attack. Losses[/left][left]co[font=arial]mbat include the destruction or disabling of squads, guns, and vehicles. Disabled elements[/left][left][/font]not allowed to fire during combat, and may be destroyed. Disabled elements (the numbers listed[/left][left]in parenthesis on the Ground Unit Information Screen) may be healed/repaired and listed again[/left][left]normally (this requires supply, support troops, and a low Fatigue level) however, if all the ground[/left][left]units on one side in a contested hex are disabled and cannot retreat, they will be destroyed.[/left][left] [/left][left] [/left][left] [/left][left]Attacking units are fired at before they attack. If they are disrupted enough they may abort the attack before they contribute their fire. (Fatigued and disrupted and low morale units add their potentional AV and troop strength to combat reports without actually adding anything to final assault value.) [/left][/font]

when you order a shock attack you double the defenders defensive fire before your units calculate final assault value. (however you loss incourred should still be composed mainly of disabled items not killed while the defender will be killed unless he has been able to repair and rest in prior turns. Bases do not "REPAIR items or issue supply to units if they ARE BELOW REQUIRED SUPPLY. So Chungking cut off might be able to sustain a large stack of Chinese units for a few turns versus shock attacks but once supply goes red all that will cease.

To many players are able to capture this and other urban hexes for supply to the the issue. I think it is simply players seeing it done in other games and being in too great a hurry to duplicate the result to realize how time consuming it was in the other games. If Manila can be taken when odds are lower then those posted in Chungking then any base can be captured if enough time and supply is devoted to it. But it might take months. And certainly not days. The only way it would take days is if the defenders had been pushed all the way to Chungking from Changsha and arrived already shot to pieces.

As I said before I am not taking issue with the result of the battle....just the allocation of combat supply to the units for a fight in the battle...which would affect the assault values utilized in the battles....I just ran a quick test and will post relevant numbers shortly...

LTU are a good idea and need to be associated with HQ's for size and amount of supplies they can carry. The rail lines in China/India would become a lot more important in moving supply form port hexes to the front lines.
Now in only they can figure out how to add it to the game mechanics. [:D]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

LTUs are a fine idea. They were a good idea 18 months ago too.[;)]

Hi, It goes back further then that.

All projects expand to fill all the time alloted to them. If you contiue to allot more time the project will expand to fill all the time. At some point you have to declare a "drop dead" date where no more time will be alloted. In the time before your drop dead date you finish the project.
Now we had a drop dead date before release where no new items could be introduced.
Many intended things were omited as a result. Many of these items have since been added because of impact. If you think about it honestly WITP could still be in development 2 years after it's release because new features keep being added. I think I've spent 2/3rd as much time after release testing as i did before (when i was not playing the game only testing it 18 hours a day 7 days a week)

We could go on forever thinking of really good, valid features that would improve the game.
We could have a "what ever happen to" thread where all the intended but not included items were listed.

The LTU was connected to both over land movement and river movement. (ack no river movement in game) River transport was vital in China and to replace it's loss we have increased movement via land.
I'm not defending any decision made because there would have always been choices that impacted final product. The problem with WITP is not any design being good or bad (they all work when used correctly) but that WITP allows players to post feedback.
Most games are released "Here it is come and get it thank you good bye" You may wish something was fixed changed or added but thats all you get to do (wish) In WITP players are able to post every problem real or imagined and complain or praise the system at great length and post "what they should have done" topics.

2by3 tried to include as much as possible in the time allowed and they expanded the time allowed by several factors beyond what they first planned to commit.

I want to make something else clear. I grant it is the right of all players to post on the forums but feel a great deal of harm was done by players who posted without understanding. Changes were introduced where no change was really required if the players understood how to actually use the system. WITP has been altered in many ways never intended to suit players who were getting it wrong to start with and now WITP does not have a standard set of results but several produced by different styles and levels of understanding.

Just because you lose a battle does not mean the enemy was too strong or you were too weak. (but we have modified much based on this kind of thinking)