Matrix Games Forums

Tribute to those not recently seen, but not forgotten:

round combat at Lunga (114,138)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 51374 troops, 512 guns, 156 vehicles, Assault Value = 2049

Defending force 13365 troops, 240 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 460

Japanese adjusted assault: 1782

Allied adjusted defense: 399

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2324 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 172 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 43 disabled

Allied ground losses:
307 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 29 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Vehicles lost 72 (36 destroyed, 36 disabled)

Gotta luv Gary's random outcomes to play this game …

[&o][&o][&o]

Anything peculiar about this…?

Fred

ORIGINAL: Leandros


Anything peculiar about this…?

Fred

[&:]

You don't see any peculiar about it?

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Leandros


Anything peculiar about this…?

Fred

[&:]

You don't see any peculiar about it?

Not a thing, which is why I posted it. Perfectly reasonable under Gary's Laws of "Anything can Happen".

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

PS: Yes, I am crying in my coffee this morning, but I drink it that way a lot with my ability … [;)]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
You don't see any peculiar about it?

Apart from the fact that the 4:1 Japanese advantage doesn't work this time - as it usually does in this game - no....

Fred
-----

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
PS: Yes, I am crying in my coffee this morning, but I drink it that way a lot with my ability … [;)]

Do not despair - it is no fault of yours...[;)]..

Fred
-----

Lea, thanks for the kind words, but I know deep in my heart that it really is my fault … nd a[;)]yet I continue to play the game.

The Allies had the advantage of terrain and poor leadership. The Sergeants and Privates knew better than to listen to the officers, especially the 2nd LTs, and either retreat or surrender! [:D]

They were also probably hungry and knew that the best way to get some food was to let the Japanese get close, knife then, and then get their food.

Only thing odd is the lack of a fort reduction on a 4:1 outcome.

Otherwise the 4:1 odds mean nothing.

It took me at least five years to get over being outraged by the lack of positive results from favorable odds attacks.

It stems from a lifetime of playing games wherein the odds determine the combat results.

We experienced players know fully well that the odds mean almost nothing with respect to casualty determination.

Casualties, ie… combat results are determined by individual devices within LCUs firing at each other and only after all of the firing is done and the casualties incurred are combat odds calculated for the limited purpose of determining if forts are reduced and if defenders retreat.

The problem for us gamers who spent a lifetime using combat odds to determine results is in the misleading combat reports. We see stated odds and stated casualties in combat reports and intuitively expect them to be linked when they are not. Combat reports would be more useful to players if the provided a comparison of firepower along with the casualties and then followed that with an odds comparison that is coupled with any reported fort reductions or retreats.

Seeing a comparison of firepower would go a vey long way toward making combat reports both more accurate and easier to comprehend.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
They were also probably hungry and knew that the best way to get some food was to let the Japanese get close, knife then, and then get their food.

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

[&o][&o][&o]

PS: Yes, I am crying in my coffee this morning, but I drink it that way a lot with my ability …

Just make coffee with salt in the water the way that the US Navy does it, it is a lot easier . . .

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

PS: Yes, I am crying in my coffee this morning, but I drink it that way a lot with my ability …

Just make coffee with salt in the water the way that the US Navy does it, it is a lot easier . . .

Yep, that is the way I have it … just not with a salt shaker though. [;)]

I wouldn't be outraged by lack of success in a 4:1 assault, but I would be surprised by an outcome like this one. Surprised enough to double-check everything, make sure I had good commanders and that fatigue, morale and supply were okay, that the units had upgraded squads, etc. This is enough of an anomaly to prompt double-checking.

Then switch to Baileys and Kahlua, it is tastier . . .

Oh I double checked, be sure of it. But, you may recall that I only play Ironman Nasty, Nasty (modified to be Nasty through 1946) … so I'm pretty sure that while my troops are pretty good (exp ~ +65) the allies are 99 (they would be higher if Andy could have gotten it!).

I mostly posted it in memory of the old "Borked" threads that used to appear ….

Pax, I wasn't suggesting you should attend to those things, just making a general observation as to what I might do if I encountered such a result. Contrary to the views of several of those above, I think this is a real outlier result.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I wouldn't be outraged by lack of success in a 4:1 assault, but I would be surprised by an outcome like this one. Surprised enough to double-check everything, make sure I had good commanders and that fatigue, morale and supply were okay, that the units had upgraded squads, etc. This is enough of an anomaly to prompt double-checking.

In a recent attack by Chinese forces in my "Rookie II" thread their advantage against the Japanese was 72:1. Did it matter..? No.

Fred
-----
P.S.: They managed it the following day...[:)]..

Chinese forces are so much weaker - lack of heavy weapons, perhaps early-war squads - that it wouldn't be as surprising. That this took place without forts and with a supply malus is pretty unusual.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Pax, I wasn't suggesting you should attend to those things, just making a general observation as to what I might do if I encountered such a result. Contrary to the views of several of those above, I think this is a real outlier result.

CR;

I agree, it is an outlier. 4:1 and I suffer almost 10x the losses. But, hey, we've all experienced this type of outcome. Not happily, but we have. [;)]

Just think of some of the reactions 5 years ago … there would have been some major rants … [:D]

My follow-up attack had more typical results :

Ground combat at Lunga (114,138)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 52956 troops, 592 guns, 266 vehicles, Assault Value = 1939

Defending force 13074 troops, 239 guns, 94 vehicles, Assault Value = 383

Japanese adjusted assault: 1061

Allied adjusted defense: 207

Japanese assault odds: 5 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), fatigue(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
292 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 63 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 19 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1464 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 29 disabled
Non Combat: 65 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 39 (2 destroyed, 37 disabled)
Vehicles lost 40 (38 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Units destroyed 1