Lambs to the slaughter (Lowpe (J) vs Jocke; BillBrown (A)) Finished

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.

Let us say that 4 forts is X 2 and no supply is 1/4 that equates to 1/2 and you have no supply and your right accumulate bad stuff ... (4/2 * 1/4) the effects of supply and forts are cummulative .. now how much supply it takes over time needs to be calculated to get the right balance of how many forts/fort level to build over how much time given supply burn rate .. But I surmise your adversary made an inutitive calculation that building no forts maximized the supply end of this calculation ... that does not account for unknowns ..

Not building forts in order to "save" on supply consumption is almost always a serious mistake. If rationing supply consumption is critical, much better is to remove excess mouths.

In the above exemplar of level 4 forts with no supply, the pre-combat AV impact is:

(a) if in clear terrain

(1.75)(0.25) = 0.4375

(b) but if in urban light terrain

(1.75)(2)(0.25) = 0.875

(c) and in urban heavy terrain

(1.75)(4)(0.25) = 1.75

These are the worst case scenarios. Any supply will increase the (0.25) coefficient.

Alfred

Not only is there a better defense, there is also a time delay too in that forts require multiple attacks before winning the base.

[Lowpe]

The IJA western thrust towards the Central Chinese plains resumes again.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Crackaces



Let us say that 4 forts is X 2 and no supply is 1/4 that equates to 1/2 and you have no supply and your right accumulate bad stuff ... (4/2 * 1/4) the effects of supply and forts are cummulative .. now how much supply it takes over time needs to be calculated to get the right balance of how many forts/fort level to build over how much time given supply burn rate .. But I surmise your adversary made an inutitive calculation that building no forts maximized the supply end of this calculation ... that does not account for unknowns ..

Not building forts in order to "save" on supply consumption is almost always a serious mistake. If rationing supply consumption is critical, much better is to remove excess mouths.

In the above exemplar of level 4 forts with no supply, the pre-combat AV impact is:

(a) if in clear terrain

(1.75)(0.25) = 0.4375

(b) but if in urban light terrain

(1.75)(2)(0.25) = 0.875

(c) and in urban heavy terrain

(1.75)(4)(0.25) = 1.75

These are the worst case scenarios. Any supply will increase the (0.25) coefficient.

Alfred

Not only is there a better defense, there is also a time delay too in that forts require multiple attacks before winning the base.

Ok I can buy the math ... especally when it comes from Alfred .. the only other factor that I can think of if there is some sort of supply check for morale that will induce surrender more quickly ..and if forts modify that factor ..

My understanding is that Forts only increase the adjusted AV odds needed to cause capitulation and the multiple attacks required to reduce fort level is a consequence but my understanding bring enough into the fight vs not enough defensive stuff and the fort level whatever is going to fall ...

Ok thanks for the clarification Alfred ..

BTW) It has been my strategy to build to level 3 Signapore and Manilla .. if possible .. level 4 with this new IJ strategy of taking out these locations late .. but I thought maybe there was some math that could support just keeping the supply ... given unknown factors in the code .. like thresholds ..

[Lokasenna]

Forts are a multiplier on the defender's adjusted AV, like a 0 supply penalty would be (* 0.25). You can find the fort multiplier numbers somewhere, but I think it's *2 at level 6 and the *1.75 for level 4 that Alfred just showed.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


Not only is there a better defense, there is also a time delay too in that forts require multiple attacks before winning the base.

Not if your odds are good enough, which they very well may be when he's out of supply in June.

[Alfred]

For the benefit of any newbies reading this AAR, a couple of points made by Lokasenna and Crackaces warrant a bit more amplification.
 
1.  There is pre combat Assault Value ("AV") which is referred to within the game's documentation as unadjusted AV and post combat AV which is referred to within the game's documentation as adjusted AV.
 
2.  The mathematical "working out" I provided in post #560 deliberately employed the term "pre combat".  This was because the adjusted AV is greatly impacted by the casualties suffered during the fire phase of combat and by several modifiers such as terrain, fort levels, supply etc.  For the purposes of illustrating the principles involved, the unknowns of combat were excluded.
 
3.  The post combat odds generated, which are based on comparing the adjusted AV of both sides, are really only taken into account in determining whether a base changes ownership.  They are not in themselves completely prescriptive as to how the defeated side will react.  IOW a 2:1 adjusted AV does not guarantee that the defeated side will always retreat or surrender.  Two weeks ago I dealt with this issue in greater detail in this thread
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3962601&mpage=2&key=surrender&#3964140
 
in post #40.
 
4.  Morale and fatigue are two of the factors which are checked in the retreat/surrender/Banzai determination algorithm.  These are factors which are directly affected in part by the supply held by the LCU.  They are not factors directly affected by the fortification level per se.  IOW forts level 6 do not directly improve the morale/fatigue level of a LCU more than forts level 2.  I say "directly" because fortification levels are taken into account in the auto overland movement of supply between bases located in monsoon areas.
 
5.  The fortification level modifies the unadjusted AV as follows:
 
0 = x1
1 = x1.1
2 = x1.25
3 = x1.5
4 = x1.75
5 = x2
6 = x2.25
7 = x2.5
8 = x2.75
9 = x3
 
One can see just how difficult it is to capture a heavy urban terrain base with level 9 forts.
 
6.  In post #560 I mentioned they were the worst case scenarios where the LCU has zero supply.  The drop off in combat effectiveness from insufficient supply is not linear.  A LCU holding the following percentage of it's required supply level has these modifiers:
 
100% = x1
75% = x0.8
50% = x0.6
25% = x0.4
0% = x0.25
 
Alfred

[paradigmblue]

Thank you Alfred. Is the terrain multiplier multiplied with the fortification modifier? For example, in x2 terrain, would the terrain plus level 9 forts combine to create a x6 multiplier?

[Crackaces]

2. The mathematical "working out" I provided in post #560 deliberately employed the term "pre combat". This was because the adjusted AV is greatly impacted by the casualties suffered during the fire phase of combat and by several modifiers such as terrain, fort levels, supply etc. For the purposes of illustrating the principles involved, the unknowns of combat were excluded.

3. The post combat odds generated, which are based on comparing the adjusted AV of both sides, are really only taken into account in determining whether a base changes ownership. They are not in themselves completely prescriptive as to how the defeated side will react. IOW a 2:1 adjusted AV does not guarantee that the defeated side will always retreat or surrender. Two weeks ago I dealt with this issue in greater detail in this thread

This brings to mind the question of replacing Arthur Percival is worth the PP's -- I beleive the jury is still out. I am still unclear what effect morale/leadership has in the end on extending surrender although the better combat leadership values has a better chance at a leaders (+) and maybe extracting a toll on the IJ.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

Thank you Alfred. Is the terrain multiplier multiplied with the fortification modifier? For example, in x2 terrain, would the terrain plus level 9 forts combine to create a x6 multiplier?

A typical infantry division has about 450 unadjusted AV. Place it in a heavy urban hex with level 9 forts and 100% supply, the pre combat modified AV is:

(450)(4)(3)(1) = 5400 AV

That figure would be reduced by casualties suffered during the fire power phase of combat but when you add in other possible modifiers such as HQ bonus, which can reach as high as 100%, the final adjusted AV could be even higher than 5400.

Thankfully there are not that many heavy urban terrain locations. But there is plenty of terrain which provides a 2x modifier and a lot which provides a 3x modifier.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

2. The mathematical "working out" I provided in post #560 deliberately employed the term "pre combat". This was because the adjusted AV is greatly impacted by the casualties suffered during the fire phase of combat and by several modifiers such as terrain, fort levels, supply etc. For the purposes of illustrating the principles involved, the unknowns of combat were excluded.

3. The post combat odds generated, which are based on comparing the adjusted AV of both sides, are really only taken into account in determining whether a base changes ownership. They are not in themselves completely prescriptive as to how the defeated side will react. IOW a 2:1 adjusted AV does not guarantee that the defeated side will always retreat or surrender. Two weeks ago I dealt with this issue in greater detail in this thread

This brings to mind the question of replacing Arthur Percival is worth the PP's -- I beleive the jury is still out. I am still unclear what effect morale/leadership has in the end on extending surrender although the better combat leadership values has a better chance at a leaders (+) and maybe extracting a toll on the IJ.

I concur that the jury is still out.

• the PP cost is very high and is a significant opportunity cost
• the quality of the Allied LCUs is very low which makes it very difficult to exploit any potential HQ bonus modifiers
• there are other even more significant factors needed for a strong defence of Singapore which are not affected at all by replacing Perceval

There is also an ethical consideration. Allied players who complain about Japanese opponents not following exactly the historical war script but are quite prepared themselves to remove Perceval and other perceived weak Allied leaders are just hypocrites.

Alfred

[Crackaces]

There is also an ethical consideration.

Ethics being a study of expected behaviors given a social enitity -- That is a crux of many misunderstandings in this game. [From an AFB standpoint is it always the behaviors of those JFB's I object too [8D] ] The belief systems and expected behaviors range from "anything goes that the game allows" to a very strictly defined set of home rules aimed to reproduce some perception of "what real life was," or correct what one beleives is an outrageous borking of some preciously held belief.

As it to pertains to this game .. the whole knowing where the LOD is and coming right to the edge is my moral "line of death" but again this is just a game .. a very good game ... [;)] (I just think a random line of death that neither player knowns about makes a much better game)

The whole come of a wormhole in a target hex with CAP bleedover rather than use a circles of apollonius to determine intercept points seperates me from any connection to similation or reality in this game. In general the current system works and provides a challenge but when Allies get a change at ahistorical attacks on Japan home islands from close in bases the system sort of falls apart in a way. Thus, replacing Arthur Percival is not an ethical issue for me.. but I am an AFB [8D]

[Lowpe]

Very good discussion.[&o]

If you are going to change Percival you really need to consider changing the larger unit commanders under him too. Even more PP.[&:]

Anecdotal evidence...I remember seeing a Bullwinkle58 game where he changed out the commander in this theater and did very well, he was playing against one-eyedjacks. Nothing up my sleeve....[&o]

But he aggressively reinforced Singers with supply, I recall he got supply convoys in as late as April of 42.

To me the question of changing Percival depends upon the game and what you are going to try and accomplish. If you are just swapping Percival, then I doubt it is worth it. But changing Percival as part of a larger, coordinated strategy then it could be like magic!

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

To me the question of changing Percival depends upon the game and what you are going to try and accomplish. If you are just swapping Percival, then I doubt it is worth it. But changing Percival as part of a larger, coordinated strategy then it could be like magic!

+1

[ny59giants]

I think the decision to change leaders would depend on how aggressive the Japanese player is. If you are facing a day two or three landing at Mersing, then probably not as you will not get enough troops into Singapore to hold for any length of time. If you face a more conventional attack down the peninsula and the Allies are able to get most of the two Indian divisions back intact. Then, it makes sense to pay all those PPs to get better leaders.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Very good discussion.[&o]

If you are going to change Percival you really need to consider changing the larger unit commanders under him too. Even more PP.[&:]

Anecdotal evidence...I remember seeing a Bullwinkle58 game where he changed out the commander in this theater and did very well, he was playing against one-eyedjacks. Nothing up my sleeve....[&o]

But he aggressively reinforced Singers with supply, I recall he got supply convoys in as late as April of 42.

To me the question of changing Percival depends upon the game and what you are going to try and accomplish. If you are just swapping Percival, then I doubt it is worth it. But changing Percival as part of a larger, coordinated strategy then it could be like magic!

In that game changing P. out seemed to help, yes. I subbed in a CO with high Admin and it seemed--seemed, mind you--to get slightly elevated replacement rates. That part of the game has a lot of AAR text describing it. Note though it was a stock game where Pbang made a lot of excess supply from the refineries.

[Lowpe]

From Bullwinkle58's AAR:

March 9, 1942:1) Another epic struggle at Singers, keying on two stiff Aussie infantry units as well as superior leadership bought over months with precious PPs. I am even more convinced that this arena has been, outside of Japan's own moves of course, driven by the twin factors of the Allies' being permitted to build to Forts 4 initially, and replacement of key COs with high Admin-rated leaders who have expertly drawn in replacements during the lulls in the fighting and restored disabled squads. The 150 spent to sack Perceval was money well spent.

Going back and looking at this AAR, is very informative and time well spent. Alfred chimes in a lot, as do many excellent players.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

From Bullwinkle58's AAR:

March 9, 1942:1) Another epic struggle at Singers, keying on two stiff Aussie infantry units as well as superior leadership bought over months with precious PPs. I am even more convinced that this arena has been, outside of Japan's own moves of course, driven by the twin factors of the Allies' being permitted to build to Forts 4 initially, and replacement of key COs with high Admin-rated leaders who have expertly drawn in replacements during the lulls in the fighting and restored disabled squads. The 150 spent to sack Perceval was money well spent.

Going back and looking at this AAR, is very informative and time well spent. Alfred chimes in a lot, as do many excellent players.

Well, time can be a mellowing factor. [:)]

I think I had time to replace the LCU COs in pretty much all the infantry units at least. The replacements might have been me looking for a silver lining. I'm pretty sure there was an uptick with good Admin scores, but I doubt determinative. The supply getting in was the key.

[Lowpe]

End of June 1942

A little bit of deception here at Prince Rupert.

Yesterday, I bombarded with the Hei. No planes, but another bombardment group, the Ise was spotted on approach. And the Allies, bit, they relocated fighters and bombers here and the Ise gave a good bombardment.

Meanwhile we targeted some of the growing fighter planes on runways in the North Pacific and did well.

[Lowpe]

Good results...

[Lowpe]

Got more supply into India...so we are resuming our great distraction here.

Lots of mobile warfare here, and the Allies have the numbers if not the quality. Japanese air bases are building up, and look to deliver some nasty blows this turn.

I am debating about pulling off the air landing to the far west and threaten the rail lines to Calcutta. Not yet, but I am in position to do it any day now.

My naval strength here is all destroyers now....heavy ships are at Moulmien. I even have two carriers present.[X(] In a few more days the Oscar IIa will be arriving along with Tojo IIa.

Kind of exciting cat and mouse here, and I need to be careful and not let Jocke steal a march on me.

[Lowpe]

First blush at the West Coast planning. I have identified 11 Divisions to attack with. Some are free now; others will be free in a week; others in about two months.

The engineering and aviation support will be a struggle. I have currently 9 AKVs and I was thinking of primarily transporting in all fighter squadrons.

The goal is to sack and burn San Diego and then pretty much leave.

I need to calculate out shipping...I figure it will take almost 100% of Japanese shipping to pull this off. In fact, this is my next task -- to examine my shipping capacity.