Reducing forts outside base hexes does NOT work!!!

[castor troy]

The title says it all. Even with 4:1 odds + it´s not possible to reduce forts outside of base hexes. Another bug...

See the main forum for more info. Admiral Laurent has also done some tests...

[:o][:o][:o][:o][:o][:o][:o][:o][:o][:o][:o]

[AmiralLaurent]

Fort reduction outside base works only if the attack ratio is over 10 to 1, so is only useful against surrounded units (if not surrounded the attacked units will lose all forts while retreating with such ratio).

Attacked units are supposed to retreat if defeated at 2 to 1 or more, regardless they have forts or not.... but obviously didn't do that in most cases.

By the way units are very fast to build level 1 fort and so many "outside base" attacks should face this kind of fort. I wonder if the not-retreat when ratio of 2 to 1 of more only is seen if fort is above 1 (that requires that the unit will be there for some time... but a Chinese Div will have fort 3-4 in some weeks).

[Helpless]

Trying to be constructive.. we have saves before and after last 4:1 attack.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Trying to be constructive.. we have saves before and after last 4:1 attack.

Let me check if this is a bug, or "working as designed" first...

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Trying to be constructive.. we have saves before and after last 4:1 attack.

Let me check if this is a bug, or "working as designed" first...

There are multiple die rolls involved in the non-base fort reduction process, so the results are not 100% predictable. That being said, the decision as to whether a retreat happens is not dependent upon reduction of non-base forts. For non-base hexes the retreat decision is a separate decision from the fort reduction decision and both involve mutliple die rolls.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Trying to be constructive.. we have saves before and after last 4:1 attack.

Let me check if this is a bug, or "working as designed" first...

There are multiple die rolls involved in the non-base fort reduction process, so the results are not 100% predictable. That being said, the decision as to whether a retreat happens is not dependent upon reduction of non-base forts. For non-base hexes the retreat decision is a separate decision from the fort reduction decision and both involve mutliple die rolls.

Anyway - it *sounds* like it is probably working as intended... LOTS of uncertainty in combat in nonbase hexes.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Trying to be constructive.. we have saves before and after last 4:1 attack.

Let me check if this is a bug, or "working as designed" first...

There are multiple die rolls involved in the non-base fort reduction process, so the results are not 100% predictable. That being said, the decision as to whether a retreat happens is not dependent upon reduction of non-base forts. For non-base hexes the retreat decision is a separate decision from the fort reduction decision and both involve mutliple die rolls.

Sorry, I really have to doubt that ALL the attacks that had odds in my (attacker) favour weren´t been able to take down the forts because a die roll. There were several attacks already and NO fort reduction.
There were several 3:1 and 2:1 attacks and the last one was a 4:1 attack and the forts didn´t go down... Die roll???? I bet it´s not working, though if it is working and half a dozen attacks with odds up to 4:1 are not able to take down the forts then I have seriously to doubt if the odds for the die roll to hit are being set by a smart guy...


Didn´t you mention that fort reduction works the same as in base hexes, ONLY thing different is that it´s not displayed? [:(]

Admiral Laurent test showed also no fort reduction... Would eat a broom if this "feature" really works and seriously doubt it is working...

I´m not complaining here about the retreat decision... If the designer of this rule thinks it´s good, well be it. I´m complaining about forts not going down...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso



Let me check if this is a bug, or "working as designed" first...

There are multiple die rolls involved in the non-base fort reduction process, so the results are not 100% predictable. That being said, the decision as to whether a retreat happens is not dependent upon reduction of non-base forts. For non-base hexes the retreat decision is a separate decision from the fort reduction decision and both involve mutliple die rolls.

Anyway - it *sounds* like it is probably working as intended... LOTS of uncertainty in combat in nonbase hexes.

I surely don´t have to discuss the ground combat model in WITP... [:D][:D]

Though if it´s now really intended to have forts not being reduced when outside of base hexes than I would really be willing to spend the 1000 Euros for a ticket to the US to get to know the person who is responsible for the ground combat including this routine...

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson




There are multiple die rolls involved in the non-base fort reduction process, so the results are not 100% predictable. That being said, the decision as to whether a retreat happens is not dependent upon reduction of non-base forts. For non-base hexes the retreat decision is a separate decision from the fort reduction decision and both involve mutliple die rolls.

Anyway - it *sounds* like it is probably working as intended... LOTS of uncertainty in combat in nonbase hexes.

I surely don´t have to discuss the ground combat model in WITP... [:D][:D]

Though if it´s now really intended to have forts not being reduced when outside of base hexes than I would really be willing to spend the 1000 Euros for a ticket to the US to get to know the person who is responsible for the ground combat including this routine...

i think G.G. is hiding in a bunker at an undisclosed location... [;)]

[jwilkerson]

Well, I hope our recent fascination with non-base fort reduction will pass eventually. As near as I can tell the code in this area remains unchanged since before WITP was released, so it has always been this way, we've just recently started worrying about it. And again, the fort reduction or lack thereof does not prevent retreats from happening, you do not have to reduce the forts in non-base hexes to get a retreat. And we all know units outside bases can be retreated since we've seen it happen many times.

As with any land battle, if you want to take a hex, throw as many troops at it as you can afford for a long as you can afford and hope for the best.

I win some battles that surprise the hecque out of me and I just lost one, that also surprised the hecque out of me. By my estimate I had 4:1 before my shock-attack effects were factored in and I was dropping an airborne which can reduce the enemy AV .. but I got 0:1 odds and lost heavily .. there are many, many die rolls involved in each and every combat and predicting the outcome is (by design) very difficult.

[herwin]

I will discuss the ground combat model, however...

Whoever wrote it doesn't understand ground combat even as well as a real-world company first sergeant.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso





Anyway - it *sounds* like it is probably working as intended... LOTS of uncertainty in combat in nonbase hexes.

I surely don´t have to discuss the ground combat model in WITP... [:D][:D]

Though if it´s now really intended to have forts not being reduced when outside of base hexes than I would really be willing to spend the 1000 Euros for a ticket to the US to get to know the person who is responsible for the ground combat including this routine...

i think G.G. is hiding in a bunker at an undisclosed location... [;)]

[:D][:D][:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well, I hope our recent fascination with non-base fort reduction will pass eventually. As near as I can tell the code in this area remains unchanged since before WITP was released, so it has always been this way, we've just recently started worrying about it. And again, the fort reduction or lack thereof does not prevent retreats from happening, you do not have to reduce the forts in non-base hexes to get a retreat. And we all know units outside bases can be retreated since we've seen it happen many times.

As with any land battle, if you want to take a hex, throw as many troops at it as you can afford for a long as you can afford and hope for the best.

I win some battles that surprise the hecque out of me and I just lost one, that also surprised the hecque out of me. By my estimate I had 4:1 before my shock-attack effects were factored in and I was dropping an airborne which can reduce the enemy AV .. but I got 0:1 odds and lost heavily .. there are many, many die rolls involved in each and every combat and predicting the outcome is (by design) very difficult.

Yes I´m aware of the fact that it is possible to force troops to retreat even when forts are not reduced. Though I´m in the bad situation of having tens of thousands troops (all in all) getting disabled with achieving odds in my favour that are a) not being able to reduce forts and b) won´t ever get THAT high to achieve a 7 or 8:1. Getting such high odds is hardly doable if you face a lot of troops in wooden hexes with forts of 4, 5 or even higher. The forts are probably at least at 4 as not a single unit retreated (out of 9) when I achieved the 4:1. And as I said I just can´t sustain losses of 3-5000 with every attack as this will wreck a dozen divisions in no time. With wreck I don´t mean "kill" but if I´m not able to take Mandalay in Summer 42 and 8 divisions are 50% disabled while trying to achieve that then this is for me "wrecking" divisions. To need 500.000 men to drive on Mandalay seems a bit "strange" to me because
this would be needed to achieve a 10:1 and ignore the forts...

I know throwing as many troops as possible is the best way to take a hex, I just wonder how many PBEM players are using 4000+ assault points to drive on Mandalay? I´m doing it right now and all that is preventing me from being there already is (for me) a bug that makes it not possible to reduce forts in a half a dozen attacks where the odds were in favour of my attacking troops. Not to speak about all the combat eng I brought also. There are so many units already, the combat replay screen can´t display them all...[8|]

I also know that there are many many die rolls, again I have to say that those many many die rolls have to hit at least once when the probabilities are set right and so should it then happen to reduce the forts at least not just once but more often when 6 succesful attacks are made. I´m not talking about throwing the troops back but reducing the forts.

If it´s the same as in base hexes, then they should be reduced 99% as I have yet to see a succesful attack at a base that has NOT reduced the forts...

Of course you can "always" have a good or bad die roll, but it should still be modeled in a way that even with always the worst die roll the Japanese should not own every base on the map in 8/45!

[jwilkerson]

Castor,

I'm not clear which side you're playing or what the general situation is. Are you playing Japan in 1942 and unable to take Burma with 4000 AV?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well, I hope our recent fascination with non-base fort reduction will pass eventually. As near as I can tell the code in this area remains unchanged since before WITP was released, so it has always been this way, we've just recently started worrying about it. And again, the fort reduction or lack thereof does not prevent retreats from happening, you do not have to reduce the forts in non-base hexes to get a retreat. And we all know units outside bases can be retreated since we've seen it happen many times.

As with any land battle, if you want to take a hex, throw as many troops at it as you can afford for a long as you can afford and hope for the best.

I win some battles that surprise the hecque out of me and I just lost one, that also surprised the hecque out of me. By my estimate I had 4:1 before my shock-attack effects were factored in and I was dropping an airborne which can reduce the enemy AV .. but I got 0:1 odds and lost heavily .. there are many, many die rolls involved in each and every combat and predicting the outcome is (by design) very difficult.

Yes I´m aware of the fact that it is possible to force troops to retreat even when forts are not reduced. Though I´m in the bad situation of having tens of thousands troops (all in all) getting disabled with achieving odds in my favour that are a) not being able to reduce forts and b) won´t ever get THAT high to achieve a 7 or 8:1. Getting such high odds is hardly doable if you face a lot of troops in wooden hexes with forts of 4, 5 or even higher. The forts are probably at least at 4 as not a single unit retreated (out of 9) when I achieved the 4:1. And as I said I just can´t sustain losses of 3-5000 with every attack as this will wreck a dozen divisions in no time. With wreck I don´t mean "kill" but if I´m not able to take Mandalay in Summer 42 and 8 divisions are 50% disabled while trying to achieve that then this is for me "wrecking" divisions. To need 500.000 men to drive on Mandalay seems a bit "strange" to me because
this would be needed to achieve a 10:1 and ignore the forts...

I know throwing as many troops as possible is the best way to take a hex, I just wonder how many PBEM players are using 4000+ assault points to drive on Mandalay? I´m doing it right now and all that is preventing me from being there already is (for me) a bug that makes it not possible to reduce forts in a half a dozen attacks where the odds were in favour of my attacking troops. Not to speak about all the combat eng I brought also. There are so many units already, the combat replay screen can´t display them all...[8|]

I also know that there are many many die rolls, again I have to say that those many many die rolls have to hit at least once when the probabilities are set right and so should it then happen to reduce the forts at least not just once but more often when 6 succesful attacks are made. I´m not talking about throwing the troops back but reducing the forts.

If it´s the same as in base hexes, then they should be reduced 99% as I have yet to see a succesful attack at a base that has NOT reduced the forts...

Of course you can "always" have a good or bad die roll, but it should still be modeled in a way that even with always the worst die roll the Japanese should not own every base on the map in 8/45!

So this complaint seems to stem from the fact that as the Japanese you waited 6+months to try and drive on Mandalay allowing the Allies to reinforce and entrench for 6+ months....and now that your 8 divisions are insufficient for the task at hand there is a bug...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Castor,

I'm not clear which side you're playing or what the general situation is. Are you playing Japan in 1942 and unable to take Burma with 4000 AV?

exactly... [:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well, I hope our recent fascination with non-base fort reduction will pass eventually. As near as I can tell the code in this area remains unchanged since before WITP was released, so it has always been this way, we've just recently started worrying about it. And again, the fort reduction or lack thereof does not prevent retreats from happening, you do not have to reduce the forts in non-base hexes to get a retreat. And we all know units outside bases can be retreated since we've seen it happen many times.

As with any land battle, if you want to take a hex, throw as many troops at it as you can afford for a long as you can afford and hope for the best.

I win some battles that surprise the hecque out of me and I just lost one, that also surprised the hecque out of me. By my estimate I had 4:1 before my shock-attack effects were factored in and I was dropping an airborne which can reduce the enemy AV .. but I got 0:1 odds and lost heavily .. there are many, many die rolls involved in each and every combat and predicting the outcome is (by design) very difficult.

Yes I´m aware of the fact that it is possible to force troops to retreat even when forts are not reduced. Though I´m in the bad situation of having tens of thousands troops (all in all) getting disabled with achieving odds in my favour that are a) not being able to reduce forts and b) won´t ever get THAT high to achieve a 7 or 8:1. Getting such high odds is hardly doable if you face a lot of troops in wooden hexes with forts of 4, 5 or even higher. The forts are probably at least at 4 as not a single unit retreated (out of 9) when I achieved the 4:1. And as I said I just can´t sustain losses of 3-5000 with every attack as this will wreck a dozen divisions in no time. With wreck I don´t mean "kill" but if I´m not able to take Mandalay in Summer 42 and 8 divisions are 50% disabled while trying to achieve that then this is for me "wrecking" divisions. To need 500.000 men to drive on Mandalay seems a bit "strange" to me because
this would be needed to achieve a 10:1 and ignore the forts...

I know throwing as many troops as possible is the best way to take a hex, I just wonder how many PBEM players are using 4000+ assault points to drive on Mandalay? I´m doing it right now and all that is preventing me from being there already is (for me) a bug that makes it not possible to reduce forts in a half a dozen attacks where the odds were in favour of my attacking troops. Not to speak about all the combat eng I brought also. There are so many units already, the combat replay screen can´t display them all...[8|]

I also know that there are many many die rolls, again I have to say that those many many die rolls have to hit at least once when the probabilities are set right and so should it then happen to reduce the forts at least not just once but more often when 6 succesful attacks are made. I´m not talking about throwing the troops back but reducing the forts.

If it´s the same as in base hexes, then they should be reduced 99% as I have yet to see a succesful attack at a base that has NOT reduced the forts...

Of course you can "always" have a good or bad die roll, but it should still be modeled in a way that even with always the worst die roll the Japanese should not own every base on the map in 8/45!

So this complaint seems to stem from the fact that as the Japanese you waited 6+months to try and drive on Mandalay allowing the Allies to reinforce and entrench for 6+ months....and now that your 8 divisions are insufficient for the task at hand there is a bug...

no, what you are saying is completely wrong... [:-] would recommend reading the previous posts before making such a comment... [&:]

[Helpless]

So this complaint seems to stem from the fact that as the Japanese you waited 6+months to try and drive on Mandalay allowing the Allies to reinforce and entrench for 6+ months....and now that your 8 divisions are insufficient for the task at hand there is a bug...

exactly... [:D]

[AmiralLaurent]

The complaint is now that one side has four more troops than another and so should win. It is that after doing all well to achieve local superiority and launch several attacks in a row that achieve good ratio (up to 2 to 1 for me, 4 to 1 for castor), it didn't change anything for the defender side. Had it been in a base hex, fort will have reduced by several levels now (by the way engineer will have a chance to do so) and the base may have fallen or not, but that is not the problem.

The problem is that field forts are not working as base forts, and are in fact far more resistant AND easy to build. Not the way it should be IMOO.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

So this complaint seems to stem from the fact that as the Japanese you waited 6+months to try and drive on Mandalay allowing the Allies to reinforce and entrench for 6+ months....and now that your 8 divisions are insufficient for the task at hand there is a bug...

exactly... [:D]

pfff, smart guy! You are the one who can confirm that the forts never go down! And not I´m the one in our game that is retreating everything everywhere to stack all troops into one base. Territory isn´t important in the game, so the stacking just forces me to bring 3 times more troops than usual to every stack on the map!! [:D]