Constant SHOCK attacks at Saipan

[Rainer]

Test Scenario:
WinXP Pro SP2 US
1.8 updated from 1.3 comprehensive via 1.6 with all steps in between.
Allies vs. Computer, very hard, Game Date May 11, 1944
Daily turns
NO MODS
Sound and Video subdirs renamed (disabled).
Alternate Font


Mid March 44 Allied forces (1. 2. 3. 4. Marines) attacked Saipan, and after three or four days took the base.
Since then - it is May 11 now - the Allies EACH DAY shock attack the Japanese forces.
It doesn't matter if I order Deliberate Attack, Bombardement Attack or even Defensive Stance (and I set the "ALL" parameter, of course).
The program always initiates a shock attack during the execution phase.
I do understand this is by design if the base in question is an atoll. But Saipan is not an atoll, is it?
Anybody with a good explanation?

Please note: my question is NOT how to conquer Saipan or how difficult this will be. My question is only why I - the player - cannot control the level of attack.
Saves (daily back to April 11) available upon request.
Cheers
Rainer

[dpstafford]

No, Saipan is not an atoll. Further, since you control the base, even on an atoll the auto-shock attack would not come into play.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Test Scenario:
WinXP Pro SP2 US
1.8 updated from 1.3 comprehensive via 1.6 with all steps in between.
Allies vs. Computer, very hard, Game Date May 11, 1944
Daily turns
NO MODS
Sound and Video subdirs renamed (disabled).
Alternate Font


Mid March 44 Allied forces (1. 2. 3. 4. Marines) attacked Saipan, and after three or four days took the base.
Since then - it is May 11 now - the Allies EACH DAY shock attack the Japanese forces.
It doesn't matter if I order Deliberate Attack, Bombardement Attack or even Defensive Stance (and I set the "ALL" parameter, of course).
The program always initiates a shock attack during the execution phase.
I do understand this is by design if the base in question is an atoll. But Saipan is not an atoll, is it?
Anybody with a good explanation?

Please note: my question is NOT how to conquer Saipan or how difficult this will be. My question is only why I - the player - cannot control the level of attack.
Saves (daily back to April 11) available upon request.
Cheers
Rainer

Send save to wigwamitus@gmail.com

[Rainer]

Done.
Thanks for attention.
Cheers
Rainer

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Done.
Thanks for attention.
Cheers
Rainer

Rainer, I still haven't received your save, could you resend ?

wigwamitus@gmail.com


thanks.

Joe W.

[Rainer]

Done.
Good luck
Rainer

[jwilkerson]

Still haven't received your save. Can you try sending from a different email ?

wigwamitus@gmail.com

[Rainer]

I have only that email account.
However, Don Bowen asked me to send the save to him, which I did.
Rainer

[Don Bowen]

Turns out this is not a bug but an intentionally coded feature.

The game mechanics will make some attack and defend decisions on it’s own. These are based on the relative odds between “attacker” and “defender” in a given hex. The odds are based on the available assault value of all of the attacker and defender units in the hex, adjusted by the unit(s) condition and leadership.

If the attacker has sufficient odds, an attack will be ordered. Depending on the odds, the attack might be Bombardment, Deliberate, or Shock. I do not specifically know why this is done but it may have something to do with automatically handling cut-off enemy units.

In your game there are a bunch (make that uppercase BUNCH) of allied units on Saipan and the odds are well over 100 to 1. This is enough to trigger the automatic shock attack. Attack/Defend settings of the units will simply be ignored.

Attacks will continue until the odds reduce or the cut-off enemy units are destroyed. I guess the best thing to do is sit back and enjoy it

[Feinder]

It sounds like a "clean up" feature. It also sounds like Rainer was looking to do some training with his his squardons on the cut off enemy troops.

USMC General : Charge! Kill 'em all!
USAF General : No wait! We want to bomb 'em slowly!
USMC General : Charge! Ack! I can't help myself! Must kill, mame, destroy! CHARGE!

-F-

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Turns out this is not a bug but an intentionally coded feature.

The game mechanics will make some attack and defend decisions on it’s own. These are based on the relative odds between “attacker” and “defender” in a given hex. The odds are based on the available assault value of all of the attacker and defender units in the hex, adjusted by the unit(s) condition and leadership.

If the attacker has sufficient odds, an attack will be ordered. Depending on the odds, the attack might be Bombardment, Deliberate, or Shock. I do not specifically know why this is done but it may have something to do with automatically handling cut-off enemy units.

In your game there are a bunch (make that uppercase BUNCH) of allied units on Saipan and the odds are well over 100 to 1. This is enough to trigger the automatic shock attack. Attack/Defend settings of the units will simply be ignored.

Attacks will continue until the odds reduce or the cut-off enemy units are destroyed. I guess the best thing to do is sit back and enjoy it

Don, is there any chance that you might be able to put this "Feature" on a future "look at" list? I suspect that a number of us would like this as a selectable "option" rather than a hard-wired given, particularly for PBEM.

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

[Rainer]

First of all, thanks for looking into this.
And you're right. At times I had no less than 8 (eight!) divisions at Saipan.
However, this feature is one I have difficulties to "like".
The result of this - probably well intentioned - feature is that I had to withdraw the Marines (all four divisions) because they were depleted to less than 50% of their assault values. They suffered 250 to 1000 (give and take because FOW) casualties PER DAY due to this "feature". This also makes it impossible to stage troops in contested areas which really have been transported to the combat area to be deployed later on elsewhere (Guam and Tinian in this case).
The "good" news: the Marines are now in Hawaii to recuperate (parents, watch your girls!).
The bad news: the US Army divisions have to take the - remaining - brunt, and will probably not be prepared very well to go and take Guam and Tinian.

Conclusion: This - again, well intentioned - feature deprives the Supreme Commander (that is me, the player) from exercising a "brilliant" strategy. Not something I like.
Afterthougt: Probably related to some AI programming and needs. But THAT's a whole new topic and a "can of worms" we're going to open later.

As far as I'm concerned: thanks to everybody who's taken care.
These procedures are now closed.

[Rainer]

You're right with the quoted Generals. The 4th Marines are commanded by HMS.
Nope, that's not "His Majesty Ship".
It's "Howling Mad Smith" (aka Holland M. Smith).
But THAT you knew, didn't ya?
Cheers
Rainer

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

Don, is there any chance that you might be able to put this "Feature" on a future "look at" list? I suspect that a number of us would like this as a selectable "option" rather than a hard-wired given, particularly for PBEM.

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

The best way to get this (and other) requests into consideration is to post them in the WITP Wish List thread:
tm.asp?m=687130

Joe Wilkerson is in the process of assembling wishes and putting together a list (and checking it twice??).

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Turns out this is not a bug but an intentionally coded feature.

The game mechanics will make some attack and defend decisions on it’s own. These are based on the relative odds between “attacker” and “defender” in a given hex. The odds are based on the available assault value of all of the attacker and defender units in the hex, adjusted by the unit(s) condition and leadership.

If the attacker has sufficient odds, an attack will be ordered. Depending on the odds, the attack might be Bombardment, Deliberate, or Shock. I do not specifically know why this is done but it may have something to do with automatically handling cut-off enemy units.

You're just making that up right?!?

First I've heard of it! And there aren't many players around with more turns under their belt than me. Or many with a better won-loss record.

So, I request that you confirm what you said here.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford
First I've heard of it! And there aren't many players around with more turns under their belt than me. Or many with a better won-loss record.

So, I request that you confirm what you said here.

Geez, I have seen this so often, I just accept it as being part of the game and have always figured everybody else did the same ... certainly no one I have ever played against has remarked that AI-subordinate-ordered attacks of various kinds were anything but de rigeur.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

You're just making that up right?!?

First I've heard of it! And there aren't many players around with more turns under their belt than me. Or many with a better won-loss record.

So, I request that you confirm what you said here.

If you are asking me to confirm it - I do. That's the way I read the code. The reason for it is my best guess.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
If you are asking me to confirm it - I do. That's the way I read the code. The reason for it is my best guess.

So, you're not really sure.

Could you have been looking at the code that controls the AI? Or computer controlled HQ's?

Can anyone else confirm the seemingly preposterous claim that human controlled LCU's launched their own unordered attacks (except in the known SHOCK combat exceptions)?

[FeurerKrieg]

To me is sounds like he is sure that the human controlled LCUs are doing what they feel like once odds are beyond a certain point. What is his guess is why the code was written that way.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

To me is sounds like he is sure that the human controlled LCUs are doing what they feel like once odds are beyond a certain point. What is his guess is why the code was written that way.

Well, that's your interpretation. I still say he is probably wrong about this.