Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Evaporating LCUs

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Evaporating LCUs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Evaporating LCUs - 11/23/2010 11:09:44 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1920
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Long-running PBEM with aztez, I believe we are both patched current.

We have a long-standing Allied siege of the Japanese at Ponape. When I ran the current turn, most of the allied units disappeared by the land combat phase, and there was only a handful of AV (versus something like 1700 the turn before).

Aztez says he didn't load the troops, and sent me a new turn. Not sure what he changed. Now, things look OK on day 1 land combat, but day 2 (2 day turns) shows the allied units again mostly gone and only 5 AV.

Turn attached is the second one.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by erstad -- 11/23/2010 11:10:09 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/23/2010 11:12:11 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1920
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Day 1 combat


Ground combat at Ponape (119,113)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 16780 troops, 324 guns, 43 vehicles, Assault Value = 632

Defending force 43555 troops, 1277 guns, 1011 vehicles, Assault Value = 1728

Japanese ground losses:
230 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled



Assaulting units:
10th Division
43rd Ind.Mixed Bde /1
5th South Seas Det.
Combined 8th SNLF /1
14th Garrison Unit /2
13th Ind.Mixed Rgt /1
4th Div /1
86th Nav Gd /1
I./90th Infantry Battalion
52nd/C Div /1
42nd Naval Guard Unit
Ponape Naval Fortress
21st Div /1
2nd JNAF AF Unit /1
24th Field AF Construction Battalion
27th Electric Engineer Regiment
35th JNAF AF Unit /4
115th JAAF AF Bn
38th JNAF AF Unit /1

Defending units:
5th USMC Tank Battalion
767th Tank Battalion
670th Tank Destroyer Battalion
1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division
711th Tank Battalion
706th Tank Battalion
164th Infantry Regiment
21st Marine Regiment
93rd Infantry Division
102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
24th Marine Regiment
3rd Marine Regiment
4th USMC Tank Battalion
641st Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
33rd Infantry Division
31st Infantry Div /8
134th Field Artillery Battalion
XXIV US Corps
III US Amphib Corps
V US Amphib Force
77th Coast AA Regiment
V US Amphib Corps
7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 2
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/23/2010 11:13:47 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1920
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Day 2 combat


Ground combat at Ponape (119,113)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 15509 troops, 322 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 561

Defending force 9065 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 5



Assaulting units:
43rd Ind.Mixed Bde /1
10th Division
14th Garrison Unit
I./90th Infantry Battalion
86th Nav Gd /1
Ponape Naval Fortress
4th Div /1
52nd/C Div /1
5th South Seas Det.
13th Ind.Mixed Rgt /1
42nd Naval Guard Unit
Combined 8th SNLF /1
21st Div /1
24th Field AF Construction Battalion
27th Electric Engineer Regiment
35th JNAF AF Unit /4
115th JAAF AF Bn
2nd JNAF AF Unit /1
38th JNAF AF Unit /1

Defending units:
93rd Infantry Division
3rd Marine Regiment
33rd Infantry Division
21st Marine Regiment
31st Infantry Div /8


(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 3
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/24/2010 12:06:00 AM   
USS America


Posts: 16111
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Have you confirmed with your opponent that they are actually gone on the turn after that combat?  If they are gone, were they maybe scheduled for withdrawal?  

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 4
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/24/2010 11:23:07 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9106
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Did they load on to the transports by themselves? Sometimes an invasion can be deemed to have failed and units will go back onto transports.
I have only ever seen this occur after one or two turns following an invasion while there are still troops being unloaded.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 5
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/24/2010 11:50:30 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9106
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Yep. Looking at the save, those missing LCUs are on transports fleeing the scene.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 6
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/24/2010 12:00:36 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9106
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
And before you ask:
While subsequent landings occur, a check is made to determine if the invading units should withdraw if not building up fast enough.

For Japan:
if invader's attack strength landed in hex*10 < defender's strength plus a check based on landing TF leader's land+aggression+skill, then re-embarks landing force

For Allies:
if invader's attack strength landed in hex*5 < defender's strength plus a check based on landing TF leader's land+aggression+skill, then re-embarks landing force



It should be reported in the operation's report when this happens.
--- from Allied report ----
LCU 164th Infantry Regiment reported destroyed
LCU 77th Coast AA Regiment reported destroyed
TF 378 re-embarks landing force at Ponape and retires
LCU 641st Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion reported destroyed
LCU 134th Field Artillery Battalion reported destroyed
LCU 767th Tank Battalion reported destroyed
LCU 7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion reported destroyed
LCU 706th Tank Battalion reported destroyed
LCU 711th Tank Battalion reported destroyed
LCU 670th Tank Destroyer Battalion reported destroyed
LCU 4th USMC Tank Battalion reported destroyed
LCU 5th USMC Tank Battalion reported destroyed


[Note I have just pulled this from the code. No discussion as to right or wrong.]

< Message edited by michaelm -- 11/24/2010 1:33:03 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 7
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/24/2010 7:23:45 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1189
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

For Japan:
if invader's attack strength landed in hex*10 < defender's strength plus a check based on landing TF leader's land+aggression+skill, then re-embarks landing force

For Allies:
if invader's attack strength landed in hex*5 < defender's strength plus a check based on landing TF leader's land+aggression+skill, then re-embarks landing force


Good - nay, vital - to know!
Thanks Michael

_____________________________

WitP/AE Devs Fan Boy
1.7.11.23x10 beta
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 8
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/24/2010 10:13:06 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3945
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Intresting indeed.

I know the enemy is flying troops via airlift here and that lift seems able to bring in big guns also not just ground units which I find odd as well.

I don't want to go into too much details here but this invasion is definately not an lost cause...

Lets just say that the AV value is almost 1:3 againts japanese now and the odds would not have gotten any better... even by saying that I reveal too much to my opponent...

Is there a way around this so called retreat / embark?

Change leaders perhaps since this definately is an game breaker here no doubt about it.

Just hate to throw away so much time on this PBEM.


(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 9
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/24/2010 10:33:39 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1920
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Do only the newly landed troops count for the check, or all troops in the hex?

If the latter, it doesn't seem like the check should trigger as he has ~3x my AV, and that's before the *5 multiplier.

If the former, is a workaround to either unload lots of troops or none in a given turn? Also, would a check be triggered if one is just unloading supply?

Even though I'm the evil opponent, I do agree with Aztez that there is no way these particular units should be reembarking; they have 3x the AV and have been established on the island for many, many turns.

Edit: Is the check based on raw AV, or adjusted AV? And if the latter, does it include adjustments for things like defender fort level, even if no actual attack is taking place? Any info would be helpful as aztez and I will have to figure out some way to work past this.






< Message edited by erstad -- 11/24/2010 10:42:04 PM >

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 10
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/24/2010 10:43:48 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1920
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

I know the enemy is flying troops via airlift here and that lift seems able to bring in big guns also not just ground units which I find odd as well.


There's part of a CD unit that was airlifted in but the biggest guns that came via air for that unit are 8cm T88 DP guns and some 70-85mm howitzers and mountain guns. So not to worry! (The 12.7cm and 14cm guns were part of the Ponape Naval Fortress unit, which starts as a static unit on Ponape)

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 11
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/25/2010 12:30:33 AM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1189
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
What makes you think a prudent retreat is a game breaker?

EDIT: Withdrawn. See next post by michaelm (active bug hunting)

< Message edited by Rainer -- 11/25/2010 10:55:28 PM >


_____________________________

WitP/AE Devs Fan Boy
1.7.11.23x10 beta
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 12
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/25/2010 10:06:09 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9106
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Assault value used for re-embark check:
1. Defender - sum LCUs in same hex for same player
Unit AV (raw - value show on army screen IIRC) + 10%AV if in range of a Corp or Command HQ

2. Attacker - sum LCUs in same hex for same player
Unit AV (raw - value show on army screen IIRC) adjusted for % damage
*2 if in range of a Corp and Command HQ, or +10%AV if in range of a Corp or Command HQ
*2 if prep level >80
*2 if fatigue <40
*2 if experience >random(60 to 80)

Note that units that have not landed yet don't count for the AV in the hex.

I suspect it is triggered while any landing is occurring in a contested hex.






< Message edited by michaelm -- 11/25/2010 10:07:20 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 13
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/25/2010 11:31:56 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9106
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I think I have found a hole.

A value of 99 unload phases from the amphib TF is used to determine that a landing has failed.
When I had another look at the amphib TF, it's current unload count is 96!!!

Three more and it is automatically failing despite the passing the AV check.

I have updated the save you have attached here to reset the counter to 20 - lower numbers have unloading implications - for this TF.
You could use this save to rerun this turn.

A workaround for this problem is to stop unloading, withdraw a few hex and then have the TF re-enter destination hex and unload.
A TF seems to do about 3-6 unloading phases a day. So I would use the workaround every 10 days.

It (96 unloading phases) seems an excessive long time for one TF to unload.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by michaelm -- 11/25/2010 12:04:23 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 14
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/25/2010 12:28:37 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9106
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Here is  the same report using the updated save.
As you can see, the Allies haven't fled because it took 99 landing phases to unload the troops and supplies.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR May 19, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Ponape (119,113)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 16780 troops, 324 guns, 43 vehicles, Assault Value = 632

Defending force 43555 troops, 1277 guns, 1011 vehicles, Assault Value = 1728

Japanese ground losses:
     174 casualties reported
        Squads: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled
        Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
     Guns lost 13 (1 destroyed, 12 disabled)



Assaulting units:
   Combined 8th SNLF /1
   86th Nav Gd /1
   43rd Ind.Mixed Bde /1
   I./90th Infantry Battalion
   10th Division
   42nd Naval Guard Unit
   Ponape Naval Fortress
   52nd/C Div /1
   13th Ind.Mixed Rgt /1
   5th South Seas Det.
   4th Div /1
   14th Garrison Unit /2
   21st Div /1
   35th JNAF AF Unit /4
   115th JAAF AF Bn
   24th Field AF Construction Battalion
   27th Electric Engineer Regiment
   2nd JNAF AF Unit /1
   38th JNAF AF Unit /1

Defending units:
   24th Marine Regiment
   641st Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
   670th Tank Destroyer Battalion
   4th USMC Tank Battalion
   21st Marine Regiment
   5th USMC Tank Battalion
   33rd Infantry Division
   3rd Marine Regiment
   1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division
   164th Infantry Regiment
   706th Tank Battalion
   102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
   767th Tank Battalion
   711th Tank Battalion
   93rd Infantry Division
   31st Infantry Div /8
   XXIV US Corps
   V US Amphib Corps
   V US Amphib Force
   77th Coast AA Regiment
   134th Field Artillery Battalion
    III US Amphib Corps
   7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Ponape (119,113)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 35430 troops, 1181 guns, 972 vehicles, Assault Value = 1728

Defending force 19036 troops, 334 guns, 123 vehicles, Assault Value = 620

Allied adjusted assault: 858

Japanese adjusted defense: 2393

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+)
Attacker: disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
     1430 casualties reported
        Squads: 67 destroyed, 72 disabled
        Non Combat: 46 destroyed, 57 disabled
        Engineers: 3 destroyed, 9 disabled
     Vehicles lost 26 (10 destroyed, 16 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
     1760 casualties reported
        Squads: 7 destroyed, 136 disabled
        Non Combat: 22 destroyed, 80 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
     Vehicles lost 38 (10 destroyed, 28 disabled)


Assaulting units:
   1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division
   767th Tank Battalion
   670th Tank Destroyer Battalion
   24th Marine Regiment
   93rd Infantry Division
   4th USMC Tank Battalion
   5th USMC Tank Battalion
   21st Marine Regiment
   641st Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
   164th Infantry Regiment
   706th Tank Battalion
   33rd Infantry Division
   3rd Marine Regiment
   711th Tank Battalion
   102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
   31st Infantry Div /8
   XXIV US Corps
   134th Field Artillery Battalion
   V US Amphib Force
   77th Coast AA Regiment
   V US Amphib Corps
    III US Amphib Corps
   7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
   13th Ind.Mixed Rgt /1
   5th South Seas Det.
   4th Div /1
   52nd/C Div /1
   14th Garrison Unit /2
   Combined 8th SNLF /1
   I./90th Infantry Battalion
   86th Nav Gd /1
   Ponape Naval Fortress
   42nd Naval Guard Unit
   43rd Ind.Mixed Bde /1
   10th Division
   21st Div /1
   115th JAAF AF Bn
   27th Electric Engineer Regiment
   24th Field AF Construction Battalion
   2nd JNAF AF Unit /1
   35th JNAF AF Unit /4
   38th JNAF AF Unit /1


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR May 20, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Ponape (119,113)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 15164 troops, 323 guns, 35 vehicles, Assault Value = 534

Defending force 42331 troops, 1277 guns, 991 vehicles, Assault Value = 1626

Japanese ground losses:
     102 casualties reported
        Squads: 7 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
     Guns lost 10 (9 destroyed, 1 disabled)



Assaulting units:
   42nd Naval Guard Unit
   13th Ind.Mixed Rgt /1
   52nd/C Div /1
   14th Garrison Unit
   4th Div /1
   Ponape Naval Fortress
   43rd Ind.Mixed Bde /1
   Combined 8th SNLF /1
   86th Nav Gd /1
   5th South Seas Det.
   10th Division
   I./90th Infantry Battalion
   21st Div /1
   35th JNAF AF Unit /4
   115th JAAF AF Bn
   2nd JNAF AF Unit /1
   24th Field AF Construction Battalion
   27th Electric Engineer Regiment
   38th JNAF AF Unit /1

Defending units:
   4th USMC Tank Battalion
   5th USMC Tank Battalion
   24th Marine Regiment
   3rd Marine Regiment
   93rd Infantry Division
   641st Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
   670th Tank Destroyer Battalion
   1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division
   711th Tank Battalion
   767th Tank Battalion
   33rd Infantry Division
   706th Tank Battalion
   102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
   21st Marine Regiment
   164th Infantry Regiment
   31st Infantry Div /8
   V US Amphib Corps
    III US Amphib Corps
   77th Coast AA Regiment
   XXIV US Corps
   V US Amphib Force
   134th Field Artillery Battalion
   7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion




_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 15
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/25/2010 4:05:24 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1920
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Thanks, Michael, you're a treasure to this community! You've saved us a lot of time messing with different leaders or settings or ... to try to work past this.

From the stuff my CDs have fired at, I suspect Aztez is unloading supply (not troops) from xAKs, which might be part of the reason its been unloading so long. Me, I would use my AKAs or LSTs, but who am I to argue if my opponent wants to use xak?

As you note, now that the problem is identified one can work around if it needed.



(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 16
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/25/2010 7:11:19 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14656
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Thanks, Michael! Good catch and very important in the more hotly contested PBM's.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 17
RE: Evaporating LCUs - 11/25/2010 9:15:57 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 3945
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
Thank you very Michael. Absolutely fantastic and we have now moved past that "turn".

That did the trick so to speak! ...

Oh, witpqs I will do complete update during the weekend. The new job has kept me busy but things are looking up.



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Evaporating LCUs Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.090