Iron Ranger Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I hope Hubert responds to this. Has anyone else noticed that if you operate a unit and its attacked the same turn, the combat losses for that unit is 1-2 point higher then if it had just moved into the location? I have not done a study with the editor on this but after 200+ games, this trend just seams too much to put off as bad luck. Has anyone else noticed this? BTW: The first post in an attempt to get this board back to disscussing the game and playing stlye, even though its almost a year old and I think we've beaten it like the dead horse in my living room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Hi Iron Ranger, Yes, time to come back to the game. I was also curious about what happens when you operate or move or buy a unit and how strong they fight. So I tested it some time ago. Supply and HQ command will be calculated at the start of each turn. So e.g. if you play Axis, supply/command is calculated for both sides at the start of your turn. At the start of the allied turn it is calculated again for BOTH sides. So it can be that your axis units that were in supply/HQ supported in your turn are not supported any more - e.g.if you moved them to the front, out of HQ range - and the enemy can attack these (now) week units. Concerning your operated units: as far as I can see, they are treated like if you had just moved them. You operate them, the enemy turn starts, supply/HQ command are calculated, then the combat occurs with the recalculated unit readiness. Perhaps you have the impression that operated units are weaker than moved ones, cause if you operate, you probably often operate them in a position out of supply/without HQ (even if there is a HQ, if you operate too much units there, it cant support all of them any more at the start of the enemy turn). The "problem" is, that your units dont keep the readiness they had in your turn. It changes at the start of the enemy turn. A missing HQ support would explain the worser combat results. Only new built units have a penalty if you buy them at the frontline. They start with 0 supply and without HQ support, so they are very weak and easy to kill for one turn - thats something for the guys that want it more realistic.. if you throw fresh recruits to the front they fight very poor for a while. Their supply/HQ command will NOT be recalculated at the start of your enemy turn. For these units, you have to wait until your next own turn, to get supply/command for them. Hope this helps [ November 04, 2003, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: Terif ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted November 4, 2003 Author Share Posted November 4, 2003 Only new built units have a penalty if you buy them at the frontline. They start with 0 supply and without HQ support, so they are very weak and easy to kill for one turn - thats something for the guys that want it more realistic.. if you throw fresh recruits to the front they fight very poor at the start. Their supply/HQ command will NOT be recalculated at the start of your enemy turn. For these units, you have to wait until your next own turn, to get supply/command for them Well, thats something new, and unexpected. I'll need to look at that. The rest while true, doesn't really matter in this case (I think). A moved or operated unit will have entrenchment 0 - so thats not it. And supply or lack of will effect the damage you cause to the attacking unit. What I'm saying is: 1) you operate a unit 2) Its attacked that 'same' turn (yes supply is recalculated). The damage it inflicts will be based on this supply. 3) The damage to the defending (just operated) unit is always higher then I would have expected. And this is taking into accout the +/- 1 you will see in all combat. This is a guess but I think operated units ALWAYS recive +1 damage and move from the 1/3 +1 - 1/3 0 - 1/3 -1 combat results to 1/2 +1 - 1/2 0 random combat results. Unless Hubert responds I tink finding this out will be hard, but with sevral responces we, as a group might get a 'feel' for this event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonheart Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Iron Ranger, I m not really sure but i noticed this several times. Units just operated are extremely vulnerable even when you operate a HQ with them as the HQ will command that units when your round is starting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I just looked it up in the manual. According to the combat formula, the readiness of the defender also influences the losses of the defender, not only the attacker ones. But you are right, if you are sure it is not because of the readiness, there is perhaps another effect in action. I never noticed higher losses, but I didnt watch explicit for this. But I think when I operated my Malta airfleet to London, it usually had the same losses when attacked as the other airfleet already standing there. But I can be wrong. [ November 04, 2003, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Terif ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonheart Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I saw higher losses in one of my games ag serbian, he operated 3 airunits + Hq to sicily and i could destroy one air, and damaged the other ones heavily with my ships and CV. To avoid such "surprise" attacks i first operate the hq and place the airfleets within range of Hq, but if possible not in interception or combat range and then fly the already under command being untits to the location i want them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted November 4, 2003 Author Share Posted November 4, 2003 I just looked it up in the manual. According to the combat formula, the readiness of the defender also influences the losses of the defender, not only the attacker ones. Are you sure? When I looked this up (from the view point of the attacker) the only factors in determing the readness (opps - that must be it) was HQ - SL - Str - exp of HQ divided by 3. OK, looks like I need to look at that again. Though not stated I've seen this most in ground units. Air has a seperate 'control' on operations (SL=3+) and cambat with air units after a few levels of tech is just too high to see what is causing all the damage, its just too massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Dragonheart: One explanation can be that an operated HQ doesnt support the units at the new place. But I dont know it, I never tested it and it happens too seldom that I operate HQ+units and they get attacked, so I have not enough experience values here. Another explanation for your particular situation at Sicily is: the readiness from your carrier comes from the units strength and not so much from supply, therefore the first strike from carriers is always very strong and perhaps you had some luck with your ships . Expected loss is usually 1 for the airfleet (no entrenchment), when attacked by a ship. So if you have enough ships to attack them and the necessary luck (with luck the ships can do a damage of 2).... BTW: were the german airfleets at full strength ? Usually they are damaged when operated to Sicily after France. To kill a full strength airfleet with carriers when you have no Jet tech is very difficult. Or did you have Jet tech ? [ November 04, 2003, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Terif ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I think it has to do with what Terif said. The HQ attachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonheart Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 they were at 10 strenghpoints each....i dont think it was luck....just as i mentioned before....just operated, no HQ support as HQ also just arrived, low readiness, no entrenchment.... as far i can recall carrier did 3-4 damage ships 2 each Which units are support by any HQ is recalculated on the beginning of your own turn, in case of transfered HQ they support no unit until your turn . [ November 04, 2003, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Dragonheart ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 hmm... carriers 3-4 is average (enemy HQ supported), ships 2 is lucky I guess. Expected should be 1, together with the +-1 random factor it can be 2. If you want, you can test it in Hotseat if a HQ makes a difference so that your ships make higer or lower damage (with and without HQ). But I guess it makes no difference, cause the attack factor of a ship vs air is so low. As long as the calculation result is between 0.5 and 1.5 the expected loss is still 1 (the calculation result will be rounded)... Anyway, it seems to clear this, we would need a large test-run or Hubert to clear this. But I dont know if its worth doing a long test, since this situation happens only very seldom... [ November 04, 2003, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Terif ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 So many thoughts here I may have lost track of all the questions. For operated units it is as Terif described, I don't keep track of these units in any special way so my guess is that perhaps you operated a unit into a low supply, or lack of HQ, or simply the loss of entrenchment type situation that probably resulted in higher losses. If there was anything else more specific, just ask again and I'll try and answer them. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Condor Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Originally posted by Terif: Concerning your operated units: as far as I can see, they are treated like if you had just moved them. You operate them, the enemy turn starts, supply/HQ command are calculated, then the combat occurs with the recalculated unit readiness. Perhaps you have the impression that operated units are weaker than moved ones, cause if you operate, you probably often operate them in a position out of supply/without HQ (even if there is a HQ, if you operate too much units there, it cant support all of them any more at the start of the enemy turn). The "problem" is, that your units dont keep the readiness they had in your turn. It changes at the start of the enemy turn. A missing HQ support would explain the worser combat results. Well, im surprised u say this. I asked u about this long time ago cos i noticed that i suffered terrible losses when i operated AFs from Russia to the West. U told me, if dont remember wrong that u have tested it and u were 100% sure that operated units kept former HQ supply/command, so i asumed that operating my AFs (120% readiness) to the West was worthwhile. Now i read this is crap!, well i now see how i lost those games when u killed my AFs in the West whilst i was doing a very good campaign. I know now u r a truly descendent of goebbles, Terif Goebbles, minister of misinformation. :eek: If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. Paul Joseph Goebbles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Condor: I am not almighty and not omniscient. Like everyone else I learned all the things I know about SC while playing and improved my knowledge from month to month. Yes, a long time ago I thought units would keep their readiness when operated. In the meantime I have learned they do not. When someone asks me something about SC, then I answer it with my current knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. If you think I would know everything about SC from my birth, then I cant help you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Condor Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 But...but...Terif! you've runied my life!, u told me...me...100% not 80% not even 99% but...100%!!! :eek: . I once believed in god, not anymore, and i absolutely believed in your tests, now how can i believe again? My faith is lost forever for that reason, so were my wars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Are you 100% sure I said 100% ? It must be several month ago, I even cant remember when you asked me this...I very seldomly say I am 100% sure. Are you 100% sure that your memory is perfect after such a long time and a lot of questions and answers ? Usually I say: I think, I am pretty sure, probably, as far as I know.... I am flattered that you think everything is 100% correct, even if I said I am not sure, but I think...or something similar. I didnt really test it until some weeks ago and if I didnt test something I usually dont say I am 100% sure. There I am 99% sure, or is it 100% ? BTW: I am not sure if I ever said 100%. I really dont know and when someone can show me a post from me where I say I am 100% sure about something he gets a reward (this post here is excluded ) - I dont have the time to search for it myself in my nearly 2000 posts now (As I just notice this magical number I ask myself: is there a birthday present or so, when I reach the 2000 posts ?) lol [ November 04, 2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Terif ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Condor Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 All i remember is that u told me u were totally sure, u have tested it. I dont remember if u inserted "100%" in the sentence. But u were totally sure thats for sure . And i do think u said 100% but im not 100% sure of that . [ November 04, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Codename Condor ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Condor Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Iron Ranger This is about the game we had running and i thought didnt exist. I read yer post and u r absolutely right, ive totally forgoten all about it but as soon as i read your post i remembered the game, the fight in the MED...u made me operate half my AFs to advance to Iraq. And yes i even remember myself saying "Interesting" cos it was. It was something different, the Allies were defending the MED, so i dont understand your cookie-cutter sentence. To attack Norway-Sweden-Vicky-Spain is not cookie-cutter, its the unique thing Axis can do to get full suply, increase MMP income and get ready for the bad days to come. Almost everybody has realized this, the way SC is implemented makes Axis player to optimize his supply to get more MMPs. And anyway, if u were defending heavily the MED i dont think i declared war on Spain, maybe even not on vicky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 I don't keep track of these units in any special way Hubert, thanks for the answer. This is what I was looking for. I must just remember the 'bad' event when you operate a unit and it gets destroyed right away, for what ever reason. Are you sure we can't talk you into a 'small' patch, v1.08? I have a list of bugs just waiting for you, LOL. At some point, all project need to be called "DONE' and move on to another job. SC is no different, looking forward to your next rollout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 so i dont understand your cookie-cutter sentence I don't remember saying this at all, you sure I wasn't refering to another game? And yes I know why people do the CC, even I do it at times (rarely), but as I've said before (and this is just my opinion) CC is boring to play on both sides - but normally only possiable due to a weak defence. Which leads to a 'poll' I asked about last month : Should the allies give up if France falls before May 1940. In a roundabout way I think the answer was yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Condor Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Well, yes u actually did write CC, that surprised me, its buried somewhere in the opponents finder forum. Anyway, it was an interesting game, we didnt resume and probably the fault was mine, ive had some burnt-out phases and that was probably one of them. Also I lose interest in games when u have to resume em some time after and i dont remember what i was doing nor what had happened. ANd also for the reasons u explain: I see just after France if im gonna win/lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_von_Schmidt Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 I have seen the extra loss effect as well. Increased losses after operating or creation seems quite realistic to me; the unit in question has not had the time to deploy properly. it might be a bug or unintended effect, but it definitely worth keeping. von Schmidt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Hmmm being a board gamer I equate everything to board games (something I can't seem to stop doing either). In board games, if you move a unit "opearate" it that is (or use whatever term is relevant in the game), it is normally unavailable for combat or disadvantaged for immediate combat. Therefore, finding out that a unit that operated has lost combat efficiency makes perfect sense to me. I would not be shocked if it was part of the game. I am not sure it was intentionally designed into the game. But it looks like you guys have stumbled onto what I would call a "non problem". Want to operate a unit, fine, just make sure it can do so safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piumarcobaleno Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Terif, i found one occasion that saw u saying '100%' in SC forum history! Enjoy! Zapp: You compare Spain with the Rome gambit, thats like comparing apples and oranges... Against the Rome gambit no counter was possible, success rate around 100 %, Italy out of the war and 95 % of the Axis players would surrender. Therefore it has been forbidden (BTW: I have won against the Rome gambit as Axis and never lost to it...But its really unfair and boring against nearly every other player) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Pium: Yes, nearly There is "100%", but It is the success rate of the Rome gambit, not that I would be 100% certain about something hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts