Explain this combat result (please)
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
-
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:56 pm
- Location: Florida, USA
Explain this combat result (please)
Ground combat at Nauru Island (127,128) Atoll
Allied Shock attack
Attacking force 145 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 20
Defending force 893 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Allied adjusted assault: 2
Japanese adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 3)
Allied forces CAPTURE Nauru Island !!! How? Should only reduce forts to 1!
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Assaulting units:
7th Marine Regiment
I Marine Amphib Corps /3
6th Marine Rgt /1
2nd AmphTrac Engr Bn /1
Defending units:
82nd Naval Guard Unit
Allied Shock attack
Attacking force 145 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 20
Defending force 893 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Allied adjusted assault: 2
Japanese adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 3)
Allied forces CAPTURE Nauru Island !!! How? Should only reduce forts to 1!
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Assaulting units:
7th Marine Regiment
I Marine Amphib Corps /3
6th Marine Rgt /1
2nd AmphTrac Engr Bn /1
Defending units:
82nd Naval Guard Unit
-
- Posts: 6948
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
If your the Allies it's luck, smile and clap your hands, if your the Japanese it's ill luck, curse and throw things but for both just carry on, stuff happens. But seriously looking at the units, combat mods and assault values I'm not surprised.Uncivil Engineer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:13 pm Ground combat at Nauru Island (127,128) Atoll
Allied Shock attack
Attacking force 145 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 20
Defending force 893 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Allied adjusted assault: 2
Japanese adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 3)
Allied forces CAPTURE Nauru Island !!! How? Should only reduce forts to 1!
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Assaulting units:
7th Marine Regiment
I Marine Amphib Corps /3
6th Marine Rgt /1
2nd AmphTrac Engr Bn /1
Defending units:
82nd Naval Guard Unit
-
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:56 pm
- Location: Florida, USA
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
Well, yeah, I'm playing Japan. The base would be lost in a day or two anyway, but I thought there were strict rules on fort reduction, etc. I thought maybe there were special rules for atolls, but couldn't find anything.
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
Combat engineers. Your USMC regiments have combat (assault) engineers as part of their TO&E. Combat engineers reduce fortifications. Another factor: enemy unit disruption. If enough devices are disrupted then it's easier since those weapons don't show up for the fight.
Rangers Lead The Way!
Sua Sponte
Sua Sponte
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
Here it is:
Attacking force 145 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 20
Defending force 893 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
The unadjusted Jap AV was only 1. Seems there was only one active Jap squad, rest were disabled. The loss was inevitable. The Jap unit was really a field hospital masqeurading as a garrison.
Attacking force 145 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 20
Defending force 893 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
The unadjusted Jap AV was only 1. Seems there was only one active Jap squad, rest were disabled. The loss was inevitable. The Jap unit was really a field hospital masqeurading as a garrison.
-
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:56 pm
- Location: Florida, USA
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
Yes, but the Allied adjusted AV was 2 (down from 20), so they are not in such great shape either!Yaab wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 3:54 pm Here it is:
Attacking force 145 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 20
Defending force 893 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
The unadjusted Jap AV was only 1. Seems there was only one active Jap squad, rest were disabled. The loss was inevitable. The Jap unit was really a field hospital masqeurading as a garrison.
My point is - Doesn't a 2:1 combat result only reduce forts from 3 to 1? A 2:1 combat result would only capture a base if the forts were ZERO - which they were not.
As I said in an earlier post the base would be lost in a day or two anyway. With forts down to 1 after this attack and a day for the Allies to recover disablements, the next attack would be 20:1 or more. So it's moot.
-
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:56 pm
- Location: Florida, USA
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
I'm playing Japan.pnzrgnral wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 3:26 pm Combat engineers. Your USMC regiments have combat (assault) engineers as part of their TO&E. Combat engineers reduce fortifications. Another factor: enemy unit disruption. If enough devices are disrupted then it's easier since those weapons don't show up for the fight.
Nowhere in the combat summary does it say the engineers reduced forts. Yes, he has engineers, but they don't seem to be doing much. And I know the Japanese force is disrupted, they've been getting pounded by B-17s and cruisers, thus the (-) disruption malus.
My point is a 2:1 combat result should only reduce forts from 3 to 1, NOT capture the base.
- Mike Solli
- Posts: 15874
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
Actually, combat engineers CAN reduce fortifications. That's not a guarantee:
8.1.3 ENGINEERS
These units include Combat Engineers, Construction units (such as the famed U.S. Navy Sea
Bees), and Base Force units. All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base
facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications during combat. Construction
Engineers have only the word “Engineer” in the device name. Combat Engineer units have
additional nationality and function designations (e.g. IJA Engineer Squad, Soviet Sapper Sqd,
Aus Cmbt Eng).
With level 3 fortifications that are not reduced in combat, you need a 5:1 result in a combat to take the base. What I suspect happened in this case was that the defenders were destroyed in the combat. That's how a 2:1 attack with level 2 forts managed to take the base.
8.1.3 ENGINEERS
These units include Combat Engineers, Construction units (such as the famed U.S. Navy Sea
Bees), and Base Force units. All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base
facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications during combat. Construction
Engineers have only the word “Engineer” in the device name. Combat Engineer units have
additional nationality and function designations (e.g. IJA Engineer Squad, Soviet Sapper Sqd,
Aus Cmbt Eng).
With level 3 fortifications that are not reduced in combat, you need a 5:1 result in a combat to take the base. What I suspect happened in this case was that the defenders were destroyed in the combat. That's how a 2:1 attack with level 2 forts managed to take the base.
Created by the amazing Dixie
-
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:56 pm
- Location: Florida, USA
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
Yes, understood, engineers can reduce forts - but if so doesn't the combat summary specifically say that the engineers reduced the forts?Mike Solli wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:24 pm Actually, combat engineers CAN reduce fortifications. That's not a guarantee:
8.1.3 ENGINEERS
These units include Combat Engineers, Construction units (such as the famed U.S. Navy Sea
Bees), and Base Force units. All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base
facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications during combat. Construction
Engineers have only the word “Engineer” in the device name. Combat Engineer units have
additional nationality and function designations (e.g. IJA Engineer Squad, Soviet Sapper Sqd,
Aus Cmbt Eng).
With level 3 fortifications that are not reduced in combat, you need a 5:1 result in a combat to take the base. What I suspect happened in this case was that the defenders were destroyed in the combat. That's how a 2:1 attack with level 2 forts managed to take the base.
And the defenders were not destroyed in combat - in fact, 2 days later the unit still exists AND with level 3 forts -
So, it's something else. But, what?
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
I would guess, with only one squad, if the squad was destroyed/disabled during the turn, somewhere in the combat calculations there is a "x 0" calculation. The real final odds were 2 to 0, but I don't think the game will display zero as a result. At least I've never seen it.
With no defenses, the fort level bonus is meaningless. Again, the math is likely invisible within the combat calculations.
With no defenses, the fort level bonus is meaningless. Again, the math is likely invisible within the combat calculations.
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."
Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
dcpollay wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:45 pm I would guess, with only one squad, if the squad was destroyed/disabled during the turn, somewhere in the combat calculations there is a "x 0" calculation. The real final odds were 2 to 0, but I don't think the game will display zero as a result. At least I've never seen it.
With no defenses, the fort level bonus is meaningless. Again, the math is likely invisible within the combat calculations.
Thats it pretty much.
High disruption, high fatigue, AV of less than 1, I bet in the combat replay it showed a value of 0...
I think 10 support squads equals about 1 AV if there is no disruption....so Japanese troops had absolutely no combat potential.
Pretty common for forts to remain even once you are kicked out of the base on atolls. Not sure if this represents pillboxes, dug in defense, cave defenses etc or simply a feature that the developers never got around to working on...I prefer to believe the former. Especially since you don't get retreat losses...
Also, reporting conventions aside there is also fog of war present in the combat report.
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
When one side has 0 AV, the assault odds are always 99:1 - a code set number because the computer cannot calculate a divide-by-zero number.dcpollay wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:45 pm I would guess, with only one squad, if the squad was destroyed/disabled during the turn, somewhere in the combat calculations there is a "x 0" calculation. The real final odds were 2 to 0, but I don't think the game will display zero as a result. At least I've never seen it.
With no defenses, the fort level bonus is meaningless. Again, the math is likely invisible within the combat calculations.
The AV ratio shown is before the artillery and mortars started firing - that 1 AV could have been lost then. My first thought is that the firepower of the marines made their assault stronger than the AV ratio would suggest. High experience might have had an impact too.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
-
- Posts: 2818
- Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
My bet is some kind of rare rounding error in the combat odds code, with the actual odds 4:1 or better. It is a reall small margin between 1 and 0 for Japanese
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
My conclusion also. The defenders all died so the base was taken by default, despite the rules on forts.Mike Solli wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:24 pm Actually, combat engineers CAN reduce fortifications. That's not a guarantee:
8.1.3 ENGINEERS
These units include Combat Engineers, Construction units (such as the famed U.S. Navy Sea
Bees), and Base Force units. All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base
facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications during combat. Construction
Engineers have only the word “Engineer” in the device name. Combat Engineer units have
additional nationality and function designations (e.g. IJA Engineer Squad, Soviet Sapper Sqd,
Aus Cmbt Eng).
With level 3 fortifications that are not reduced in combat, you need a 5:1 result in a combat to take the base. What I suspect happened in this case was that the defenders were destroyed in the combat. That's how a 2:1 attack with level 2 forts managed to take the base.
Re: Explain this combat result (please)
What others have said.
Most likely first phase in combat destroyed or disabled all squads with assault value and while it shows 2:1 before assault was calculated, practically it was automatic 99:1.
Most likely first phase in combat destroyed or disabled all squads with assault value and while it shows 2:1 before assault was calculated, practically it was automatic 99:1.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-