Matrix Games Forums

Something tells me this shouldn't have happened:



1) There was never a fragment of this unit at Tokyo. They went from Malaya to Palembang to Australia. This fragment was just surrounded there this turn:

CombatEvents.txt

Japanese Unit(s) surrounded at Carnarvon

LEADER REASSIGNMENT PHASE
23rd Ind.Mixed Brigade arrives at Canton
18th Division arrives at Tokyo - what?

2) Bullwinkle should have gotten VPs for these devices being destroyed. I am not sure if he did or not, as we also had an attack at Chungking this turn. His VPs for LCUs ticked upwards by 30 points even, but it's possible that at least 2/3 of that is from Chungking.

2a) Besides that, this unit fragment should be worth 39 VPs. This leads me to believe he didn't get them.

3) They retained their movement order when they respawned at Tokyo. They missed IRL Halloween by a couple of weeks. Doing zombie night in Tokyo now is just tacky.

4) Tracker LCU history portion of the screenshot shows that I had a fragment of 18th Division at Hedland already, but last turn after he attacked the "main" unit became the one at Hedland, and 18th Division/1 was assigned to the Carnarvon fragment.

Help us, Michael! [&o]

Would it be possible to remove this zombie unit and manually bump up the Japanese Army Loss total?


Or is this somehow WAD? Why would units that are surrounded respawn? Has anyone else had it happen?

Turn attached.

Considering the EXP level of the unit in question, they fought through the Ozzie lines, reached Brisbane, stole a ship, and made it back to Tokyo.

The 90 disruption is from the party they threw to celebrate their escape.

Did you have replacements on on the Carnarvon fragment? Could be a small glitch/logic error in the replacement system.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Did you have replacements on on the Carnarvon fragment? Could be a small glitch/logic error in the replacement system.

I would have to go back and look. I will do that when I get a chance... my guess is yes, but it's possible that they were off to save supplies.

I had an Aussie unit do that one time that I remember. Was in Port Moresby. Thought it was a destroyed unit. Didn't see it listed as a lost unit in the combat reports. Next turn it was in Sydney....GP

My thoughts are that it was a replacement fragment. The first 18/1 was lost during the combat of the turn then during the replacement phase an "new" 18/1 appeared in Tokyo. I've seen this kind of behavior many times in my games & assume it might be happening due to some kind of supply/HQ thing & appears in the "home" city of nation instead of nearby HQ or main land unit itself.

Hi,

Probably an old "glitch" in the code from the original WitP. I've just had the same thing happen to me in a WitP game.

I'm not so sure it's a bad thing. IRL I think this is exactly what happened. As long as you have replacement devices available and the experience is adjusted to newcomers.

Regards
BPRE

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Considering the EXP level of the unit in question, they fought through the Ozzie lines, reached Brisbane, stole a ship, and made it back to Tokyo.
The 90 disruption is from the party they threw to celebrate their escape.

+1, an epic tale of indomitable valor, true grit, yamato spirit & big brass cojones. NTM that they deserve a party after having marched 4186 miles. All hail the veterans of the 18th Div!

Blah, blah, blah. I want my 39 VPs. It's equivalent to a sunk CA. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Blah, blah, blah. I want my 39 VPs. It's equivalent to a sunk CA. [8D]

An Allied CA, maybe....

IJN CAs are worth at least 25% more than that! Mine are better than yours....kind of...

In a game vs. the AI, I had a glunch w/ a USMC Rgt. I'd divided a USMC div to 3 Rgts, & sent them off separately to do dirt to the enemy. Something weird happened code-wise to the B rgt - even though it didn't take hvy casualties, it changed its name to "Div/B/1". Its parent "Div/B" never appeared as a destroyed unit for buy-back & Div/B/1 never updated itself to Div/B - so I was never able to re-combine that USMC div, when they eventually got co-located at the same base.

In your case, don't you still have the parent 18th Div on-map at Port Hedland? As your game continues, it'd be interesting to learn if the PH contingent is destroyed, will the 18/1 then become the parent 18th Div?

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Blah, blah, blah. I want my 39 VPs. It's equivalent to a sunk CA. [8D]

An Allied CA, maybe....

IJN CAs are worth at least 25% more than that! Mine are better than yours....kind of...

They sink faster to.[:D]....GP

ORIGINAL: jmalter

In a game vs. the AI, I had a glunch w/ a USMC Rgt. I'd divided a USMC div to 3 Rgts, & sent them off separately to do dirt to the enemy. Something weird happened code-wise to the B rgt - even though it didn't take hvy casualties, it changed its name to "Div/B/1". Its parent "Div/B" never appeared as a destroyed unit for buy-back & Div/B/1 never updated itself to Div/B - so I was never able to re-combine that USMC div, when they eventually got co-located at the same base.

In your case, don't you still have the parent 18th Div on-map at Port Hedland? As your game continues, it'd be interesting to learn if the PH contingent is destroyed, will the 18/1 then become the parent 18th Div?

My guess is yes.

And I suppose I'll just recombine them, but... something happened here that shouldn't have. I guess Bullwinkle will have to accept extra fuel burn on my part instead of 39 VPs.

I have an update to this. I think there is almost definitely a bug in the routine that displays the "unit(s) surrounded at [base]" message. This is the second time this has occurred, with far greater consequences this time.

The first time was earlier in this thread - as detailed, the division fragment was "surrounded" at a base in NW Australia but appeared in Tokyo the very next turn. Bullwinkle never received credit for killing these devices (39 VPs worth), when he certainly should have.

Next, this just happened within the past 3 turns or so. Sequence of events:

1) Port Blair falls to the Allies. Prior to this, I had lifted out portions of the AF Bn and Infantry Division at the base so that I would not have to buy them back with PPs, or completely rebuild them.

2) This causes 48th Division/1 to be present at the base I lifted them out to, while the parent unit 48th Division was still at Port Blair. In the screenshot of the Formation history in Tracker I will add to this thread, you will see a minimum count of what occurred.

3) After another successful Allied attack at Port Blair, there are some IJA casualties... and during the turn resolution, it says:

94th JAAF AF Bn Wiped Out at Port Blair by attrition!!!

Japanese unit(s) surrounded at Port Blair [this would be the 48th Division, since only 2 units were there

4) Post-turn Tracker showed a gain of 18 VPs for the Allies for Japanese LCUs this turn. There was no other significant action, so that's a credit for about 108 devices.

5) 48th Division parent moved to the other base, and the devices did not teleport to Tokyo like they did last time. However, they simply disappeared. Bullwinkle got no credit for destroying them.


Here is what the 48th Division looked like prior to this turn, as well as the AF Bn.



I'm not even sure what's happening here, but my coder's hunch says it's within whatever happens when a unit is surrounded since strange behavior has now happened twice with that message, and because it always appears to award full VPs when you see "wiped out due to attrition!!!" But the 29 devices in the AF Bn unit are only worth 5 VPs at the most, and yet he gained 18 for the day without appreciable action elsewhere, so he might've gotten partial credit for the division?

Turn from November 26 attached. During the replay for November 26, Port Blair falls, so this is 1 or 2 turns prior to the bug, depending on how you count.

Turn from November 27 attached, which I just generated by running the November 26 turn and used to take the screenshot of LCU status at Port Blair. It is during the resolution of this turn that the bug occurs.

Thanks, Loka. If I can provide any info from my side to Michael I will. But I think you have all the truth in the Japanese data.

Yes, there is something funny. For the 48th, it looks like you are only getting points for the 'disabled' devices, not the rest. And I don't think that it should removing the unit - I suspect that in this case the unit should stay put and every turn it would lose some devices (and thus points).