River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post bug reports and ask for help with other issues here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by castor troy »

Hi

I have seen this in the past already and it came up last turn again. I have an army of over 2000av in a base in China (Chikiang sp?) and a small unit comes in from another direction crossing the river and triggering a shock
attack. Now I am fine with the unit having to do a shock attack, but it also triggers the whole Army there to do a shock attack. Now if it would be at least a real working shock attack, but it isn't. All that
happens is my full army taking the losses as if they all would shock attack, but they a) don't lower forts b) don't do any damage to the defender and c) they take the full losses of a shock attack. What seems
to happen is a shock attack of the crossing unit and then the game turns crazy, dishing out damage to all units that are in the hex already but those units don't do any damage in return.

In the end, I have several trashed units, have done no damage to the defender at all and none of the "pseudo shock attacking" units have taken disruption or fat, which makes me sure that this is nothing but flawed.

I know that river crossings result in shock attacks, but the crossing units should shock attack and not the units that are already across the river. And if they attack, then I think they should really attack,
not just take horrible losses for no gain. Safe attached.

edit: and here's the combat report just to give you an idea. A unit with a couple of hundred men crossed the river, the whole army is triggered, takes horrendous losses and scores what? Not a single Chinese casualty with
an adjusted av of 0?

Ground combat at Chihkiang (78,50)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 61902 troops, 471 guns, 36 vehicles, Assault Value = 1929

Defending force 137592 troops, 688 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3820

Japanese adjusted assault: 0

Allied adjusted defense: 5221

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99 (fort level 3)

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

Japanese ground losses:
8197 casualties reported
Squads: 21 destroyed, 838 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 91 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 28 disabled

Assaulting units:
34th Division
12th Ind.Mixed Brigade
6th Division
13th Division
3rd Division
18th RGC Temp./C Division
11th Army
13th Army

Defending units:
78th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps
58th Chinese Corps
72nd Chinese Corps
74th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
44th Chinese Corps
63rd Chinese Corps
73rd Chinese Corps
18th Chinese Corps
50th Chinese Corps
87th Chinese Corps
99th Chinese Corps
30th Group Army
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment
23rd Group Army
12th Group Army
7th War Area
6th War Area
20th Group Army
29th Group Army
19th Group Army
27th Group Army
9th War Area
56th AT Gun Regiment
Attachments
wpae005.txt
(2.88 MiB) Downloaded 1 time
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by GreyJoy »

That seems really strange to me. Once it was not like that, at least I've never experienced anything like that.
But for sure, if that's the new behaviour of the latest beta, there's something that needs to be changed!

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by witpqs »

In the Betas (but not really recent Betas) I have seen shock attacks in those situations that went properly, meaning that it was clear from the results that only the proper unit made a shock attack. I assume this situation that Castor ran into snagged some bug that Michael is trying to ferret out.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In the Betas (but not really recent Betas) I have seen shock attacks in those situations that went properly, meaning that it was clear from the results that only the proper unit made a shock attack. I assume this situation that Castor ran into snagged some bug that Michael is trying to ferret out.


yeah, usually my shock attacks work as designed but that one clearly wasn't when only that Chinese btn should have shock attacked crossing the river through an enemy ZOC.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by GreyJoy »

Anyone here? Pretty important imho...

BUMP
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Anyone here? Pretty important imho...

BUMP
Saw a similar situation river-crossing shock attack in my game with latest Beta (x4) last turn. It went properly with it obvious that only the crossing unit shock attacked.

So at least we know the bug does not happen all the time.
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

I'll have a look at the save later in the week to understand what was triggered.
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

Explanation:
This attack was caused by one unit (#8020) moving from (78,51) to (78,50) - lower right hex to the base hex.
1. Both sides of the hex were not controlled by Japanese as shown in image - there is a green/red color to the hex-side between them along the river.
2. Nor are both hexes Japanese controlled. Thus it is treated as a contested move.
3. Shock attack is made if
a) the total attacking AV is less than 1/3 of the total defending AV at the start of the move - for this move attacker AV was 2326, and total defender AV was 3795, so this did not apply. [Beachhead rule]
b) hex-side moving into is enemy controlled - which it is from image.

This is how it has been since patch 3.


Image

The unit moving from the east hex across the river wont cause a shock attack as both hex-sides of the river between them is J controlled.
Attachments
shock.jpg
shock.jpg (15 KiB) Viewed 165 times
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

I look up unit 8020 at the start of the turn, and it actually warned you that it was crossing an enemy held river.

Image

Stopping this unit from moving across river does remove the shock attack.
To make the hex-side J controlled I think, needs a J unit to move across it to the other hex where unit 8020 is. Or only J units in hex to control all 6 sides
Attachments
shock2.jpg
shock2.jpg (7.16 KiB) Viewed 164 times
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

Load image and blow it up to show the hex-side color better

Attachments
shock3.jpg
shock3.jpg (69.07 KiB) Viewed 175 times
Michael
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by witpqs »

I think that Castor's report was different - that since only the one unit moved in, only the one unit should have shock attacked, but judging by the casualty figures it was all units that shock attacked.
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

Combat in a hex involves all available units. Not sure how that would apply if only one unit was set to Shock.
[I'll try to see how that applies]

It uses the highest attack level for the hex combat (Shock in this case is the highest). But that might only be for the general combat type.
Terribly confusing...this may take a bit of time
Lucky there is only 2 ground combat sessions in the turn[:D]
Michael
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by witpqs »

I can say for certain that with the same version (x4) in my PBM we recently had a combat where, with a bunch of units already in the hex, one more crossed in, and that unit did shock attack. But the other units did not shock attack (they had player-given orders to 'defend'), which is the behavior consistent with how it has been for a long time. We were able to tell that from the casualty list, which was very small and (in this case) would have been far larger had all units shock attacked.

Not sure what the difference is. But, I just checked and I still have the saves from that turn. In case it helps for comparison, here is the combat report snippet and the combat replay is attached. Let me know if you need a full save.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 2608 troops, 89 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1200

Defending force 243531 troops, 152 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4321

Japanese adjusted assault: 0

Allied adjusted defense: 2365

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99 (fort level 6)

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

Japanese ground losses:
1218 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 22 destroyed, 26 disabled
Guns lost 15 (8 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
377 casualties reported
Squads: 21 destroyed, 15 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
13th Tank Regiment
27th/B Division
13th/C Division
17th Ind.Mixed Brigade
13th/A Division
19th Ind.Mixed Brigade
39th Ind Engineer Regiment
31st Engineer Regiment
13th RGC Temp. Division
51st Engineer Regiment
3rd Mobile Infantry Regiment
9th Mongol/A Cavalry Division
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
31st Mountain Gun Regiment

Defending units:
19th Chinese Corps
87th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Corps
85th Chinese Corps
83rd Chinese Corps
1st New Chinese Corps
98th Chinese Corps
23rd Chinese Corps
29th Chinese Corps
71st Chinese Corps
18th Chinese Corps
59th Chinese Corps
22nd Chinese Corps
40th Chinese Corps
48th Chinese Corps
10th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Corps
57th Chinese Corps
66th Chinese Corps Corps
82nd Chinese Corps
96th Chinese Corps
33rd Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
34th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
42nd Chinese Corps
11th Chinese Corps
8th Chinese Corps
38th Chinese Corps
44th Chinese Corps
17th Chinese Corps
65th Chinese Corps
26th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
115th Red Chinese Division
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
3rd Chinese Cavalry Corps
92nd Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
69th Chinese Corps
41st Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
88th Chinese Corps
52nd Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
51st Chinese Corps
36th Chinese Corps
89th Chinese Corps
47th Chinese Corps
72nd Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
13th Chinese Corps
9th Separate Brigade
28th Chinese Corps
60th Chinese Corps
81st Chinese Corps
84th Chinese Corps
45th Chinese Corps
39th Chinese Corps
129th Red Chinese Division
61st Chinese Corps
8th Prov Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Cavalry Corps
4th Chinese/A Corps
57th AT Gun Regiment
37th Group Army
36th Group Army
39th Group Army
15th Group Army
12th Construction Regiment
13th Construction Regiment
31st Group Army
15th Chinese Base Force
7th Group Army
6th Construction Regiment
5th Chinese Base Force
9th Chinese Base Force
5th Construction Regiment
25th Group Army
2nd Chinese Base Force
CAF HQ
38th Group Army
8th Construction Regiment
4th Group Army
15th Chinese Corps
18th Artillery Regiment
33rd Group Army
56th AT Gun Regiment
64th Chinese Corps
40th Group Army
24th Group Army
4th Chinese Base Force
8th War Area
12th Chinese Base Force
2nd War Area
4th Heavy Mortar Regiment
3rd Chinese Base Force
49th Chinese Division
Red Chinese Army
14th Group Army
22nd Group Army
16th Construction Regiment
Jingcha War Area
17th Group Army
34th Separate Brigade
Central Reserve
4th Construction Regiment
10th Group Army
7th Chinese Base Force
7th Construction Regiment
13th Group Army
41st AA Regiment
18th Group Army
14th Construction Regiment
10th Chinese Base Force
19th Chinese Base Force
1st War Area
32nd Group Army
8th Group Army
34th Group Army
30th Group Army
5th War Area
80th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese
8th Chinese Base Force
China Command
6th Chinese Base Force
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment
12th Group Army
79th Chinese Corps
20th Artillery Regiment
49th AA Regiment
3rd Group Army
1st Chinese Base Force
20th Chinese Base Force


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments
19440103wpae001.zip
(3.42 MiB) Not downloaded yet
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

The list of assaulting units is misleading. The list is of any unit that is involved in the combat - bombardment, engineers, actual assault troops.
From what I can see so far, only the units that have a shock attack actually assault the enemy. The other non-defending stance units will supply artillery and maybe some combat engineers to the attack which will assume a 'bombardment attack' stance.
However, the enemy will target any non-defending stance units in the hex for return fire.
Michael
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by witpqs »

In the case of my PBM, Walter had no units attacking or bombarding, just the unit that crossed in fresh made its shock attack. In Castor's case, I don't know if he had other units bombarding or something as I didn't see that in his post. Are you saying that his other units were bombarding and therefore that is why they were subjected to fire from the defenders once the crossing unit shock attacked? (Restating it my own way to make sure I understand it.)

In any event, it's late here so I am attaching that full save just in case you decide you want it (no harm done if you don't need it).
Attachments
19440103wpae015.zip
(3.44 MiB) Downloaded 4 times
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

Yes, there were bombarding units. I'm trying to determine what the loss rate was before actual assault.

From what I can tell the majority (if not almost all) are due to enemy bombardments.

There may be a problem in that defending units in 'defend' or 'bombardment' appear to be using all devices to counter-fire against a unit firing in bombardment mode. So while the attacker can only use ranged weapons, the defender in position can use all weapons.

Result of combat with adjusted rule:
Ground combat at Chihkiang (78,50)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 61902 troops, 471 guns, 36 vehicles, Assault Value = 1929
Defending force 137592 troops, 688 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3820

Japanese adjusted assault: 0
Allied adjusted defense: 5164

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
532 casualties reported
Squads: 18 destroyed, 69 disabled
Non Combat: 13 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 8 (2 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
24 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

This seems more in line with units shelling each other, while one unit shock attacks across the river.
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: River crossing and flawed shock attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

There may be a problem in that defending units in 'defend' or 'bombardment' appear to be using all devices to counter-fire against a unit firing in bombardment mode. So while the attacker can only use ranged weapons, the defender in position can use all weapons.

Adjusted rule would be:
In defensive fire against a bombardment attack, only ranged weapons (as would be allowed in a bombardment attack) are fired in the defending unit if it is in 'defend' or 'bombardment' stance.
This might make bombardments less bloody to the attacker.[&:] Especially against units with few ranged weapons.
I'll create an updated EXE to attach here for players to try out later today.

Note that this applies to all such combat. The river attack above just made it stand out.
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Adjusted exe for bomardments only attacks

Post by michaelm75au »

Here is a EXE to try out. Just unzip into the Beta2 directory.
Changed Limit the return fire from LCU in defend/bombard stance when being attacked by a enewy LCU in bombard stance.
Attachments
Warinthe.._1123x5a.zip
(1.93 MiB) Downloaded 32 times
Michael
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9798
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Adjusted exe for bomardments only attacks

Post by PaxMondo »

Using it and so far looks good. I haven't had many grounds yet, but the few I have had did not look disturbing.
Pax
Spidery
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:47 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

RE: Adjusted exe for bomardments only attacks

Post by Spidery »

Are there any unexpected side-effects? For example,

1. If the defense only fires its artillery, does that mean it is now possible to bombard Chinese units without giving them a big boost in experience?

2. Does this mean the intel on the defense given in the combat report no longer includes all the strength of the defenders? E.g. omitting units that have no artillery.

3. Does this reduce the amount that the defending units supply demand increases, because only part of the units fire? Do units without artillery not increase their supply demand at all?

Not saying these are bad changes to make but it would be worth knowing all the consequences of such a change.
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”