Attack odds

[warspite1]

What am I missing please?

I have 31.5 attacking 4 in a city in Fine weather.

The nos all add up (there are only two German divisions behind the river) so its 7:1.

But the French HQ succeeded in HQ Support - so shouldn't this be 5:1? The column shift shows as being in effect - but its not in effect.

[Omnius]

warspite1,
I saw a similar bug report regarding combat odds with the 1D-10 table in the Tech Support forum section. What version are you playing with? The other guy missed saying what version he was playing with. I really enjoy 2D-20 better. You'd probably cringe at me saying that over 3 turns in 1946 I had over 300 destroyed units. That's not counting sunk convoy points or damaged ships or shattered ground units which aren't shown.

Omnius

[Orm]

31.5 should be rounded to 32 against 4. That gives me the odds 8 to 1 and reducing that with one odds is 7 to 1.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

31.5 should be rounded to 32 against 4. That gives me the odds 8 to 1 and reducing that with one odds is 7 to 1.

warspite1

Ahhh... that is the same mistake I made a few months back. I am counting the combat columns - 5:1, 7:1, 10:1 and not the mathematical odds. Thanks.

[paulderynck]

Bad time for the defender to choose the Blitz table.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Bad time for the defender to choose the Blitz table.

warspite1

Eh? The defender chose the Assault Table?

[paulderynck]

I thought the 'B' beside the 7-1 meant a Blitz was chosen.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What am I missing please?

I have 31.5 attacking 4 in a city in Fine weather.

The nos all add up (there are only two German divisions behind the river) so its 7:1.

But the French HQ succeeded in HQ Support - so shouldn't this be 5:1? The column shift shows as being in effect - but its not in effect.

In this case the French are not allowed HQ support.

11.16.3 HQ support (option 13)
HQ support gives you a chance to modify the combat odds, both attacking and defending, at the cost of turning an HQ face-down.

HQ support cannot be used in overruns nor during an impulse the HQ is surprised.

Support
After all land attacks are declared, the inactive side announces HQ support for target hexes. You can only allocate 1 face-up HQ to support each hex. It must be in, or adjacent to, the target hex. It can’t provide support to a unit it does not co-operate with, to an adjacent hex if it is separated from it by an impassable hexside, or if its own hex is also being attacked.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I thought the 'B' beside the 7-1 meant a Blitz was chosen.

Warspite1

I don't know why that is there - but in the upper middle of the form it says combat type Assault. That is what I chose.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What am I missing please?

I have 31.5 attacking 4 in a city in Fine weather.

The nos all add up (there are only two German divisions behind the river) so its 7:1.

But the French HQ succeeded in HQ Support - so shouldn't this be 5:1? The column shift shows as being in effect - but its not in effect.

In this case the French are not allowed HQ support.

11.16.3 HQ support (option 13)
HQ support gives you a chance to modify the combat odds, both attacking and defending, at the cost of turning an HQ face-down.

HQ support cannot be used in overruns nor during an impulse the HQ is surprised.

Support
After all land attacks are declared, the inactive side announces HQ support for target hexes. You can only allocate 1 face-up HQ to support each hex. It must be in, or adjacent to, the target hex. It can’t provide support to a unit it does not co-operate with, to an adjacent hex if it is separated from it by an impassable hexside, or if its own hex is also being attacked.

warspite1

Maybe one of the rules gurus can comment further but I take that to mean the HQ cannot provide support to an adjacent hex if it is under attack too. It makes no sense that an HQ cannot support itself. It is - I believe - coded correctly and Georges CAN provide defensive support to itself.

[paulderynck]

No you are right Warspite1. It can support itself, and it cannot support an adjacent unit if they don't cooperate or the HQ is also being attacked. The key word is "also". If it couldn't support itself when attacked then the word "also" would be superfluous.

And MWiF had that right anyway because it gave you the -1.

[Extraneous]

The rule says "or" not "also". I would agree if the rule said "also" but it does not.
 

It can’t provide support:
to a unit it does not co-operate with,
to an adjacent hex if it is separated from it by an impassable hexside,
or if its own hex is also being attacked.

 
Secondly it says you are supporting units in a hex or adjacent hex.
 
It cannot support itself since there is no other unit in the same hex.
 

Support tr.v.
1.To bear the weight of, especially from below; keep from falling, sinking, or slipping. Pillars support the roof.
2.To bear or hold up (an amount of weight). The bridge supports 10 tons.
3.To keep from weakening or failing; give confidence or comfort to. The letter supported him in his grief.
n. noun
1.The act of supporting. Our candidate needs your support.
2.The state of being supported. The candidate's support has been overwhelming.
3.One that supports. How many supports does the bridge have?

 
 

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


The rule says "or" not "also". I would agree if the rule said "also" but it does not.

It can’t provide support:
to a unit it does not co-operate with,
to an adjacent hex if it is separated from it by an impassable hexside,
or if its own hex is also being attacked.

Secondly it says you are supporting units in a hex or adjacent hex.

It cannot support itself since there is no other unit in the same hex.

Support tr.v.
1.To bear the weight of, especially from below; keep from falling, sinking, or slipping. Pillars support the roof.
2.To bear or hold up (an amount of weight). The bridge supports 10 tons.
3.To keep from weakening or failing; give confidence or comfort to. The letter supported him in his grief.
n. noun
1.The act of supporting. Our candidate needs your support.
2.The state of being supported. The candidate's support has been overwhelming.
3.One that supports. How many supports does the bridge have?

warspite1

Re the first point the rule (11.16.3) states:

It (the HQ) must be in, or adjacent to, the target hex.

If an HQ cannot provide support to its own stack then the bold and underlined wording is superfluous. It would only need to state:

It must be adjacent to the target hex.

Re the second point, you are now trying to say that because the HQ is on its own, it cannot provide support to itself.

Nowhere do the rules state that however.

If you want to liken the dictionary definition to what is happening in the game well that is pretty easy:

The HQ is - unlike previous additions of WIF - an armoured or infantry unit itself (i.e. not just the HQ). The HQ assets are effectively providing support to that unit.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Omnius

warspite1,
I saw a similar bug report regarding combat odds with the 1D-10 table in the Tech Support forum section. What version are you playing with? The other guy missed saying what version he was playing with. I really enjoy 2D-20 better. You'd probably cringe at me saying that over 3 turns in 1946 I had over 300 destroyed units. That's not counting sunk convoy points or damaged ships or shattered ground units which aren't shown.

Omnius

I had that question come up a lot during development, so I changed the label for the Charts button on the form to display either 1-D-10 or 2-D-10.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the first point the rule (11.16.3) states:

It (the HQ) must be in, or adjacent to, the target hex.

If an HQ cannot provide support to its own stack then the bold and underlined wording is superfluous. It would only need to state:

It must be adjacent to the target hex.

Re the second point, you are now trying to say that because the HQ is on its own, it cannot provide support to itself.

Nowhere do the rules state that however.

If you want to liken the dictionary definition to what is happening in the game well that is pretty easy:

The HQ is - unlike previous additions of WIF - an armoured or infantry unit itself (i.e. not just the HQ). The HQ assets are effectively providing support to that unit.

That is correct Because the HQ is on its own it has nothing to support. If there were one ground unit in the hex it could support it. The HQ (A or I) assets are too few to provide for a proper defense of the hex and support itself at the same time.

As others have posted it is inferred in the rules that the HQ has to support a unit.

11.16.2 Shore bombardment
Shore bombardment lets you support a land attack with your SCS. You can shore bombard a coastal hex with any face-up SCS in the sea area (AsA/MiF option 25: except for those carrying cargo ~ see 11.4.5).


11.16.3 HQ support (option 13)
Support
It can’t provide support to a unit it does not co-operate with


11.16.4 Ground support
Ground support permits you to support a land attack with bombers.

[warspite1]

Okay. But I've no idea why you think the examples you gave make the case any clearer?. Bombers or NGS supports ground troop battles - that is what the HQ is doing. But at the end of the day we are both interpreting the rule in a different way and neither of us can be certain.

For my part, I will continue to play as I believe the rule is intended and as is coded. If ADG (or one of the rules gurus on their behalf) confirm otherwise then I will amend my stance accordingly. I am sure others may take the opposite view - but until we can actually play multiplayer, I guess it's not the most pressing concern [;)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Okay. But I've no idea why you think the examples you gave make the case any clearer?. Bombers or NGS supports ground troop battles - that is what the HQ is doing. But at the end of the day we are both interpreting the rule in a different way and neither of us can be certain.

For my part, I will continue to play as I believe the rule is intended and as is coded. If ADG (or one of the rules gurus on their behalf) confirm otherwise then I will amend my stance accordingly. I am sure others may take the opposite view - but until we can actually play multiplayer, I guess it's not the most pressing concern [;)]

Well said.

[composer99]

warspite1 is completely correct. HQs (in the case in question HQ Georges) can provide defensive HQ support to themselves, even if they're the only defending units.

It's right there in the proverbial black and white:

the inactive side announces HQ support for target hexes. [Emphasis mine
It must be in, or adjacent to, the target hex.

The hex is the target - that is to say, the HQ supports all participating units in the hex. So if the HQ is the only unit in the hex and it supports itself, so be it.

Further, the rules would be contradicting themselves if we took the final clause of:

It can’t provide support to a unit it does not co-operate with, to an adjacent hex if it is separated from it by an impassable hexside, or if its own hex is also being attacked.

to mean that HQ's can't support their own hex, when the immediately preceding sentence allows the HQ to be in the target hex (that is, the hex being attacked).

The parsing of what an HQ can't support is modified by the word "to", and thus is as follows:
- An HQ can't support a hex if it contains a unit it does not cooperate with (it follows, necessarily, that this is an adjacent hex since the HQ couldn't stack with the non-cooperating unit)
- An HQ can't support an adjacent hex if the intervening hexside is impassible or if the hex the HQ is in is also being attacked.

(Also, I'm not sure why quoting dictionary definitions of common uses is applicable for a 'jargonised' terminology such as the rules of (M)WiF, and at any rate common usage of 'support' absolutely does include self-support.)

[Extraneous]

Hummm my post being deleted again [&:]

[warspite1]

Which post?