Page 1 of 1
Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 1:14 am
by ToxicThug11
jubjub v me game
Turn 11
3 Security Detachments were defending Zaporozhye. 254 out of 5490 killed. We lost 16 rifle squads, and 51 damaged, out of 309, and comparatively fewer mortars and machine guns.
Now two of my security detachments have disappeared. They were not scheduled to disband. There is no log of their disbandment. Were they destroyed, disbanded? This has totally screwed up my defense.
They were attacked, won the battle well, and then just decided to disappear?
Here is the save file.
https://easyupload.io/o42vgk
DM me for password.
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 7:10 am
by loki100
I've just gone back to an old save for T11 and they are still in the FE and again on T12 so its not a scripted disband.
2 questions though, why use a Far East HQ and what degree of system manipulation is needed to get units that tend to have <1 cv.
so it maybe a product of you moving them to the map and pushing their cv out of the bounds of the intended design?
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 7:22 am
by Stamb
what is their typical CV?
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 7:28 am
by Stamb
also it is worth mentioning that in my game, we were playing with unlocked TBs, i moved some NKVD to a map from a NF, and some of them also disbanded without a reason
they might be bugged
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 7:31 am
by loki100
Stamb wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:22 am
what is their typical CV?
<1
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 10:32 am
by Zebtucker12
loki100 wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:10 am
I've just gone back to an old save for T11 and they are still in the FE and again on T12 so its not a scripted disband.
2 questions though, why use a Far East HQ and what degree of system manipulation is needed to get units that tend to have <1 cv.
so it maybe a product of you moving them to the map and pushing their cv out of the bounds of the intended design?
I always bring the Red Banner armies to map simply because of their awesome name.
Never been any problem which is lucky since i always have my best guard corps under the Red Banner armies.
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 3:57 pm
by Stamb
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 6:01 pm
by AlbertN
I find it quite strange that the NKVD folks get such high CV ...
Then again I may wonder why these units are not SU only considering their size.
So they cannot be abused either as CCP soaker and Combat-Delay maker.
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 8:51 pm
by Joel Billings
I think there is something in the code that disbands the NKVD regiments. I think it may have to do with them either going unready or depleted, and there may be a percent chance they'll disband under these cases. I don't see it documented, but I have a vague recollection of something like this.
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 6:05 am
by ToxicThug11
loki100 wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:10 am
2 questions though, why use a Far East HQ and what degree of system manipulation is needed to get units that tend to have <1 cv.
so it maybe a product of you moving them to the map and pushing their cv out of the bounds of the intended design?
Good morning!
The system manipulations used are 100 CPP and LVL 3 Fort.
NKVD Detachments have PPSH-41 SMGs which perform better in Urban hexes.
AFVs tend to not perform as well in urban situations, especially against entrenched opponents.
Additionally, the enemy was conducting a hasty attack.
The Red Banner Army has a cool name.
NKVD Security Detachments tend to have 20 defensive CV when heavily entrenched in urban hexes
Kind regards,
Marshal Grigory Kulik
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 6:10 am
by ToxicThug11
Joel Billings wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:51 pm
I think there is something in the code that disbands the NKVD regiments. I think it may have to do with them either going unready or depleted, and there may be a percent chance they'll disband under these cases. I don't see it documented, but I have a vague recollection of something like this.
Thank you, very interesting. If this is the case I dont think I will be using them to hold important cities anymore.
However, I dont believe they went unready or depleted. They only lost about 4.6% of their elements with around 5% more elements percent damaged.
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 10:55 am
by loki100
ToxicThug11 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:05 am
...
The system manipulations used are 100 CPP and LVL 3 Fort.
..
CPP has no impact on defensive cv
since the natural TOE of these formations is 102 Rifle Squads my reading of your combat report is by the end of the battle every element was disrupted or worse, that puts them depleted and they rout/shatter, seems the battle outcome is WAD - unless you've done your trick of inflating the elements in those units? In which case no idea
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 11:11 am
by Stamb
if
natural TOE of these formations is 102 Rifle Squads
then on an image we can see that there were 309 rifle squads
3 units in battle
309/3 = 103 rifle squad per each unit
where is an abuse?
i am sure that i saw in some other thread that same elements might be disrupted multiple times per battle
so again
no magic here
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 11:19 am
by Stamb
so my answer to a hold in this battle is - new urban combat in action
why do this heroes disappear after a battle?
probably bug
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 3:31 pm
by Jango32
CPP has no impact on defensive cv
That can't be right, the manual says that CPP is included in defensive CV during combat.
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 4:16 pm
by FortTell
Jango32 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 3:31 pm
CPP has no impact on defensive cv
That can't be right, the manual says that CPP is included in defensive CV during combat.
Uh, no?
Manual 23.2.3 wrote:Attacking units will have their CV for combat calculations
modified by the number of CPPs they possess if they are
attacking. Every 1 CPP adds 1% to the final CV so a unit
with 100% preparation points will have their attacking CV
doubled.
...
In effect CPP primarily gives an advantage to a well
rested and prepared attacking force. However, the
secondary advantages (supply, fatigue reduction and
Support Unit commitment) also benefit the defender.
Nothing is said about increasing the defender's CV
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 5:32 pm
by Joel Billings
CPP will help a bit with indirect artillery fire on the defense, IIRC, but does not help with CVs. That's why you can see the attack CV value higher than the defense CV if in clear terrain without fortifications.
As for the original item, Gary looked it up in the code and the Border Guard Detachments start to go away at the beginning of July 1941. It does not appear to be related to their status, but it also does not appear that they will all go away immediately on turn 3. It's sort of like the situation with the Soviet Corps HQs, where it's WAD that they go away, but the details aren't 100% clear. It does appear from my test games that the Border units are protected in the TBs as they are sticking around. Sorry that we didn't get this documented.
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2022 6:50 pm
by ToxicThug11
Joel Billings wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:32 pm
CPP will help a bit with indirect artillery fire on the defense, IIRC, but does not help with CVs. That's why you can see the attack CV value higher than the defense CV if in clear terrain without fortifications.
As for the original item, Gary looked it up in the code and the Border Guard Detachments start to go away at the beginning of July 1941. It does not appear to be related to their status, but it also does not appear that they will all go away immediately on turn 3. It's sort of like the situation with the Soviet Corps HQs, where it's WAD that they go away, but the details aren't 100% clear. It does appear from my test games that the Border units are protected in the TBs as they are sticking around. Sorry that we didn't get this documented.
Thank you for clarifying. I've noticed that not all Soviet Corps HQ disband on turn 24, some earlier, maybe I should note them down and compile a list of which Corps HQ are disbanding on what turn.
Re: Any idea what happened here?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2022 11:01 pm
by Joel Billings
In the editor, you can see in the scenario file /unit tab that some of the HQs are set to rename. Other than those that rename, most are set to disband on turn 4 (mech) or turn 24 (rifle). These can all be seen in the data. But there is code that will come in and disband them earlier, and I think that can happen to any of those that don't have renames and aren't in a TB (not sure if that includes the reserve TB). It would probably help to have a list of those that rename. Pavel has said recently that it will eventually be possible to add in the planned renames into the Reinforcement & Transfer screen so it will be easier to filter and see what units are going to change.
