Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

HQ Command/Corps Question

 
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 >> The War Room >> HQ Command/Corps Question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
HQ Command/Corps Question - 12/20/2014 5:40:16 PM   
durnedwolf


Posts: 140
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline
If a Corps HQ is within range of ground units AND a Command HQ is within 2X its command range it can add up to an additional 90% bonus to the Assault Value. The bonuses are impacted by the leadership ratings of the commanders of the HQs.

So just to make sure in my mind:

- both leaders, Command and Corps, are part of this process?
- Only the Leadership rating for the Command/Corps HQs are used - there's no need for strong Land or Aggression ratings?

There's nothing else I can use to increase the odds of receiving a high-end bonus to the assault value? I ask because I seem to remember someone saying that if my units had 2X the supplies required there was an additional assault bonus, but for the life of me I can't seem to find that anywhere in the manual.

_____________________________


Bye for now,

DW
Post #: 1
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 12/20/2014 5:47:50 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 1143
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline

Look no more:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3545042&mpage=1&key=�

Read anything there by Alfred.

(in reply to durnedwolf)
Post #: 2
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 12/20/2014 6:59:21 PM   
durnedwolf


Posts: 140
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline
Thanks Yaab. I've read the thread and supporting thread offered by Alfred. What I don't see referenced is the leadership rating(s) used as part of the process to determine a possible bonus of 1-90%.

If I understand the thread correctly the HQs must be planning for the same target. the Future Objective planning of both headquarter units also influences a bonus. I'm just trying to find out if there is anything besides the Leadership rating that is also part of the equation. If, for example, the Land rating of a HQ leader also influences the quality of the assault bonus then I want to factor that into the selection process I use for determining who I select for the Corps/Command leaders.



_____________________________


Bye for now,

DW

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 3
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 12/20/2014 7:04:56 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 1143
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
The manual speaks of Leadership test solely. I guess you would have to sand-box a HQ test in order to find other correlations.

(in reply to durnedwolf)
Post #: 4
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 12/21/2014 4:48:18 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3940
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

Thanks Yaab. I've read the thread and supporting thread offered by Alfred. What I don't see referenced is the leadership rating(s) used as part of the process to determine a possible bonus of 1-90%.

If I understand the thread correctly the HQs must be planning for the same target. the Future Objective planning of both headquarter units also influences a bonus. I'm just trying to find out if there is anything besides the Leadership rating that is also part of the equation. If, for example, the Land rating of a HQ leader also influences the quality of the assault bonus then I want to factor that into the selection process I use for determining who I select for the Corps/Command leaders.




With both a corps and command HQ, the cumulative bonus can be up to 100%.

A couple of years ago I started work on a 101 guide similar to my ship repair guide. Even got to the stage of having a first draft written up. What became obvious to me is just how little hard data has ever been provided by the devs. In fact most of what has been disclosed in the past was done in the classical WITP forum. This has meant that most AE posts which attempt to be definitive re the precise workings of the various leader ratings, notwithstanding their good intentions, fall well short of the mark of lifting the veil of what happens under the hood. We can see what probably has an impact but not quantify the exact relationship impact.

When you click on a leader in order to change the leader, the relevant part of the leader database is opened. Here you see 7 leader ratings:


  • leadership
  • inspiration
  • naval
  • land
  • air
  • admin
  • aggression


All leaders are given a rating in all these seven areas even though not all areas are relevant to the tasks undertaken by a particular leader.

If you read closely the game manual and the editor manual, for your purposes, one can immediately dismiss the naval and air ratings from any consideration.

Section 8.1.1 of the game manual makes reference to:

"The bonuses are impacted by the leaderships rating of the commander of the HQ"

Note the use of the word " leaderships" and not "leadership". If it had been the singular form used, then the inference would be that the specific "leadership rating" disclosed in the opened leader database (and also displayed on the LCU screen under name of commander) is the key rating. But it isn't as simple as that. For the actual form used, viz the plural could refer to either the two commanders of the two HQs or alternatively, to several of the leader ratings ascribed to each one. It is important to realise that in the game manual, the term "leadership" is not necessarily restricted to the one of seven disclosed "leader ratings" called "leadership". To see the multi use of the term, look at s.7.2.1.4 of the manual which refers to a "leadership test" in which the context clearly indicates that the "inspiration rating" would be a relevant factor. You can also look at s.8.2.1 of the manual and see how both the leadership and inspiration ratings are lumped together as being of benefit in improving combat efficiency. On balance, I believe that the better view of s.8.1.1 supports the inference that it is referring to several of the leader ratings, as appropriate.

Further support for my view is found in s.3.8.1 of the editor manual which says the following regarding the 7 leader ratings:

Overall Skill is the Leader’s overall effectiveness.

Inspiration is the Leader’s ability to influence those under his command. The higher the value, the
more effective those under him will be.

Surface Actions measures the Leader’s ability to direct naval surface warfare operations.

Air Operations measures the Leader’s ability to direct all manners of air operations (air strikes,
reconaissance, etc.).

Land Combat measures the Leader’s ability to direct land-based forces.

Administration measures the Leader’s organizational abilities.

Aggressiveness measures the Leader’s willingness to take risks. The higher the number, the more
chances the Leader will take and will more often seek contact than not.[/I]


From the editor manual, one would be justified in believing that the inspiration, land combat and probably administration ratings, would all be fed into the algorithm matrix.

Also remember that the potential bonus is capped at 100% maximum. The actual received bonus in any one turn of combat might be 17%, or 43% or 86%. That too would be consistent with more than one leader rating being fed into the algorithm.


I have gone through this forensic exercise for a couple of reasons. Firstly to show how difficult it is to get at the inner workings of the game and that the devs, on purpose, leave the inner workings of the engine, opaque. You may have heard of the "Peter Principle" in real life. One never really knows in advance how someone who is promoted will perform at their new job. So it is in AE. Many a player essentially just wants exact knowledge , as if AE were merely a spreadsheet, so that if they input certain data, they will always get the same, already known in advance, outputs. This is something which devs consistently point out is not part of the AE game design. An excellent demonstration of that philosophy is the game treatment of leaders.

Secondly, you have done your homework and thought about the issue. In all likelihood you hadn't thought of the above considerations as you are a relatively new player. However, now armed with this additional knowledge, you will be better informed when making your selection.

As always, it would be best if a dev with access to the code were to answer your query. This however has been a topic which for many years, the devs have simply not been forthcoming in enlightening players.

Alfred

(in reply to durnedwolf)
Post #: 5
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 12/21/2014 9:10:00 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 758
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Many a player essentially just wants exact knowledge , as if AE were merely a spreadsheet, so that if they input certain data, they will always get the same, already known in advance, outputs. This is something which devs consistently point out is not part of the AE game design.


As it should be. If I knew exactly what would happen in every event I would eventually lose interest. There is no all knowing in this game, and I for one wouldn't want it any other way. All you can and should be able to do is try and have things set up to hopefully get the best result. Or, maybe just one you could live with, which isn't going to occur in every instance in this game. I guess what I'm trying to say is CYA and pray.

P.S. I'll bet eventually you'll find me here lamenting the loss of some 'perfect' op. When such happens please fell free to show no mercy.

< Message edited by rustysi -- 12/21/2014 10:11:38 PM >


_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 12/24/2014 7:38:23 PM   
durnedwolf


Posts: 140
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline
Hello Alfred,

Thanks for your comments on trying to nail down the parameters of the command bonus. This subject rapidly became much more complicated than I was anticipating. It sounds like if a person ever received a 100% bonus it would be in line with the odds of winning a state lottery.

I think that I will deploy much of your analysis to selecting the individual unit leaders in the contested hex also. I normally looked for a high land rating and then checked to see that the recommendation for the type of unit assigned was in line with the mission. You’ve given me much food for thought.

There is a section of the combat sequence on page 196 where it describes the “exact effectiveness of fire” and gives a list of factors from weapon value to terrain. Do you know if that is actually a weighted list where the second factor in determining combat effectiveness is in fact the leader values?

Thanks again. I wish you and yours a very merry Christmas.


< Message edited by durnedwolf -- 12/24/2014 8:41:03 PM >


_____________________________


Bye for now,

DW

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 7
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 1/1/2015 10:29:08 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2949
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
POST 1276, SCREEN ONE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THEATRE COMMAND, CORP, AND TWO DIVISIONS ON THE FIRST ATTACK AGAINST A LEVEL 5 FORT, ALL AT 100 PREP SAME LOCATION..

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2495125&mpage=43&key=


POST 1261, SCREEN 3 AT SAIPAN IS AN EXAMPLE OF 2 US DIVISIONS FULLY PREPPED WITHOUT HQ SUPPORT OF ANY KIND GETTING STUCK FOR OVER ONE GAME MONTH ON AN ISLAND W/ THE JAPS IN A LEVEL 6 FORT.

The Marianna's are an example of the speed at which the US can advance across the pacific usung theatre commands in support of ground attacks. IIRC the US has Norpac, Pac ocean, Sopac, and swpac. It takes about 30 days for a Theatre command to gain +90 prep on a new objective. I used Pac ocean on Tinian, then got stalled at Saipan. It may be important in late game to bring NorPac into the Marianna's.



< Message edited by bigred -- 1/2/2015 12:23:21 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to durnedwolf)
Post #: 8
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 1/17/2015 10:55:13 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 1143
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
The plot thickens.

If you choose any HQ in the game and try to change its leader, you will be presented with a list of eligible HQ leaders. The list varies according to your PP numbers. Let's say you are awash with PPs and see all eligible leaders. One can notice the leaders fall into three recommendations: assault HQ, frontline HQ and rear HQ. Frontline HQ leaders seem to be the most represented, but what about assault HQ? If you go to the manual you will find NO reference to "assault HQ". Well, nothing new here, since the manual is vague on many topics. Now, why are only some leaders recommended for assault HQ? I tried to find a pattern and here it is what I found in Da Babes A.

In every nation, any leader with land skill >= 51 and aggression >= 51 is recommended to lead those mysterious assault HQs. There is no other correlation. If your land skill is 50, or your aggression is 49, you are recommended for frontline HQ. If your land/aggro=51, admin=30, inspiration=40, you are still recommended for an assault HQ etc.

I said assault HQ recommendations are rare, but I meant the Allied nations exclusively. If you switch to the Japanese side, you will see a plethora of fanatical officers who want to die for the Emperor, with land skill above 70 and aggro of 80 or 80+!

So, if we use the game recommendations system as a yardstick for successful HQ bonus check, then it seems the check is on land skill and aggression values of HQ leaders.

Alfred wrote:
"From the editor manual, one would be justified in believing that the inspiration, land combat and probably administration ratings, would all be fed into the algorithm matrix".

The above contradicts directly the in-game HQ recommendation system.



< Message edited by Yaab -- 1/17/2015 11:56:08 AM >

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 9
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 1/17/2015 5:47:31 PM   
mussey


Posts: 148
Joined: 12/2/2006
From: Cleve-Land
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

The plot thickens.

If you choose any HQ in the game and try to change its leader, you will be presented with a list of eligible HQ leaders. The list varies according to your PP numbers. Let's say you are awash with PPs and see all eligible leaders. One can notice the leaders fall into three recommendations: assault HQ, frontline HQ and rear HQ. Frontline HQ leaders seem to be the most represented, but what about assault HQ? If you go to the manual you will find NO reference to "assault HQ". Well, nothing new here, since the manual is vague on many topics. Now, why are only some leaders recommended for assault HQ? I tried to find a pattern and here it is what I found in Da Babes A.

In every nation, any leader with land skill >= 51 and aggression >= 51 is recommended to lead those mysterious assault HQs. There is no other correlation. If your land skill is 50, or your aggression is 49, you are recommended for frontline HQ. If your land/aggro=51, admin=30, inspiration=40, you are still recommended for an assault HQ etc.

I said assault HQ recommendations are rare, but I meant the Allied nations exclusively. If you switch to the Japanese side, you will see a plethora of fanatical officers who want to die for the Emperor, with land skill above 70 and aggro of 80 or 80+!

So, if we use the game recommendations system as a yardstick for successful HQ bonus check, then it seems the check is on land skill and aggression values of HQ leaders.

Alfred wrote:
"From the editor manual, one would be justified in believing that the inspiration, land combat and probably administration ratings, would all be fed into the algorithm matrix".

The above contradicts directly the in-game HQ recommendation system.




I rarely changed my Leaders vs the AI, but now I'm gearing for a Tassaforanga/Lunga assault (Japs have 5k on one, 43k the other), so now I'm contemplating changing 1st Amphib XXX's leader. I was stumped last night by seeing the several classifications Assault/Front line/ Rear area, and procrastinated what to do, since I don't know the difference between Assault vs Front-line.

I saw this post now, and decided to change it to a higher Assault leader (Geiger). Either way, it should be better than it's original leader MGen Upshur (though previously, he did reconquer New Caledonia for me).

_____________________________

Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 10
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 1/18/2015 6:27:05 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 1143
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
BTW, the same threshold applies to the recommendation process of LCU leaders. If any leader has land/aggro >=51, then he his recommended for an assault unit. If his land/aggro skills are <=50, then he is recommended for a frontline unit. No other skills are considered.

(in reply to mussey)
Post #: 11
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 1/26/2015 11:36:08 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2949
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
Soon I will be running a test with the US 10th Army HQ. It has a command radius of 5 hexes. I will place the US 1st Corp under the 10th Army. All will be at 100 prep and then I will see the effect on a futre objective. I want to find out if the 10th Army acts as a surrogate Command HQ.

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 12
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 1/27/2015 2:47:01 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 1143
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
As far as I know, Army HQs are equivalent of Corps HQs in terms of bonus ( they both give 10% AV boost). Army HQs are just Corps HQs, but with bigger command ranges.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 13
RE: HQ Command/Corps Question - 2/1/2015 10:36:04 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 758
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

As far as I know, Army HQs are equivalent of Corps HQs in terms of bonus ( they both give 10% AV boost). Army HQs are just Corps HQs, but with bigger command ranges.


And you can only get the 10% bonus from one HQ no matter how many are prepped. The 90% bonus must come from a Command HQ.


_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> HQ Command/Corps Question 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

0.102