What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: Helpless
Trying to be constructive.. we have saves before and after last 4:1 attack.
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...
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.
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.
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...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 think G.G. is hiding in a bunker at an undisclosed location... [;)]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...
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
i think G.G. is hiding in a bunker at an undisclosed location... [;)]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...
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.
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!
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?
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...
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...
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]