[PON] Conflict in Europe - General Thread

[De_Spinoza]

Regarding the battles this turn: I have yet to look at them in person, but looking at the the screenshots provided by Nemethand I am inclined to agree with Phil and Jim. In Gansu you were fighting a full cavalry force on clear terrain without adverse weather conditions: ideal situations for my cavalry to catch up on your retreating forces. This differs greatly from the battle in Ulan Baator: not only was the terrain not flat (but wooded hills), it was also raining heavily - that explains the fewer casualties on my side compared to your casualties in the aftermath of the Gansu battle. To me this all seems working as designed.

[nemethand]

Thanks for the answers.

During the 2nd battle (day 7), you took 27% hits for your force (which was over the 25% threshold, which forced an auto retreat). It appears that his entire force that fought was cavalry units.

PS - it appears that the number of men per hit is extremely low for the Chinese (so even though he takes a lot of hits, he has a lot of hits, and only a few *men* are killed)

That's exactly the issue I simply fail to understand. I caused more than twice (!) as many hits as I received, yet Russian forces reached auto retreat (I have also checked the battlelog), but Chinese did not - why? Is Autoretreat different for Chinese? According to the battlelog, it counts hits not men. And in hits, the Chinese had at least twice as many as the Russians.

Auto retreat triggered, TotalHits remaining: 622 Avg Cohesion%: 65 Base AutoRet%: 25 Hits taken: 233

Regarding the battles this turn: I have yet to look at them in person, but looking at the the screenshots provided by Nemethand I am inclined to agree with Phil and Jim. In Gansu you were fighting a full cavalry force on clear terrain without adverse weather conditions: ideal situations for my cavalry to catch up on your retreating forces. This differs greatly from the battle in Ulan Baator: not only was the terrain not flat (but wooded hills), it was also raining heavily - that explains the fewer casualties on my side compared to your casualties in the aftermath of the Gansu battle. To me this all seems working as designed.

On the above basis, I can understand why the retreat hist were 10x more in one case than in another. I have no problem with the results of the last battle - it was the 3rd (4th) in a row, most likely troops were fatigued.

But I seriously think that the second battle - which is really determining factor in the series of battles - should not have been a Russian defeat. Again, against a smaller force, Russians caused 2x as many hits. I simply cannot think of any real life situation in which this would count as a 'defeat'.

Like you said: good weather, clear terrain. Basically, your cavalry would have been decimated by gunfire by the time they reached Russian entrenched (!) positions. (or did they go round and attacked from behind? :blink

Again, the question is if the auroretreat lvl is different for various nations. If not, the Chinese should have retreated, as they were also supposed to have reached the autoretreat lvl.

[unclejoe]

In a past War, the Chinese kept going into Shanghai and kept retreating .... but invariably caused as much or more damage than received, I think I recall. The only time I remember the Chinese being hurt was in Bad Weather and Terrain....... and Gong Wang never should have retreated..... it was my decision to retreat..... and Gong Wang was rather Mad at me!

[Jim-NC]

According to the screen shot, for that battle on day 7, even with all those hits he received, he did not take 25% damage. He took 14,016 men out of a starting force of 65,161 which equates to 21.5%. Your forces took 20,705 men out of a starting force of 71,849, which equates to 28.8% (these are not completely accurate, as there are slight differences in men between units in the same army - i.e. cavalry and infantry). We know that you retreated after suffering over 25% casualties (from the log). It furthermore appears that each of his hits equates to 25.6 men, while each of yours equates to 88.9 men (based on the casualties taken. Using that figure, you were actually outnumbered 3 to 1 (according to the number of hits in each army), as you had a starting army of 808 hits (71,849/88.9), while his army was 2,545 hits (65,161/25.6).

On day 11, you took 60% casualties (16k out of 26k).

In the battle where the Chinese retreated, they lost 30,058 men out of 225,874 which was only 13.3%, while you took only 4,048 out of 173,835 which was 2.3% losses. I am not sure why the Chinese retreated (I would have to look at the log later tonight). I can say based on the casualties, that your average men/hit was 90.0, and China's was 49.7. Thus your starting army had 1,932 hits, and the Chinese army had 4,545. Thus you were outnumbered 2 to 1 for that battle (based on hits).

PS - I realize that the men and hits don't match for army size, but usually for AGEOD games, the men are flavor numbers, and not reflective of true strength of the unit, and thus should not be used for anything other as a pretty indicator of units. The important number is hits, and in both cases you were out numbered.

[nemethand]

According to the screen shot, for that battle on day 7, even with all those hits he received, he did not take 25% damage. He took 14,016 men out of a starting force of 65,161 which equates to 21.5%. Your forces took 20,705 men out of a starting force of 71,849, which equates to 28.8% (these are not completely accurate, as there are slight differences in men between units in the same army - i.e. cavalry and infantry). We know that you retreated after suffering over 25% casualties (from the log). It furthermore appears that each of his hits equates to 25.6 men, while each of yours equates to 88.9 men (based on the casualties taken. Using that figure, you were actually outnumbered 3 to 1 (according to the number of hits in each army), as you had a starting army of 808 hits (71,849/88.9), while his army was 2,545 hits (65,161/25.6).

Thanks for your efforts, Jim. Now, the results start to make sense.

However, how does the number of hits you calculated relate to "power" (CP), as indicated by the battle screen, which ration was 2242:2344?



Reason for asking that I have thought that CP=total hits. It obviuosly not, based on your above explanation, so I should not have used relative CPs as a base for comparison.

In the battle where the Chinese retreated, they lost 30,058 men out of 225,874 which was only 13.3%, while you took only 4,048 out of 173,835 which was 2.3% losses. I am not sure why the Chinese retreated (I would have to look at the log later tonight). I can say based on the casualties, that your average men/hit was 90.0, and China's was 49.7. Thus your starting army had 1,932 hits, and the Chinese army had 4,545. Thus you were outnumbered 2 to 1 for that battle (based on hits).

EDIT: FYI - They retreated because the rolled the required number.

2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Checking combat stance for China in region 1220 Ulaan Baator
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) InCS %: 0 New Retreat Will %: 100
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Ammo %: 100 New Retreat Will %: 100
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Weighted average of Trench levels: 0
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Power of opponents compared to us: 341.28 % Base Retreat Will: 100.00 %
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Dice rolled: 39
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) => We will try to retreat
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Dice rolled: 46
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Army of Xinjang succeeded in retreating
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Army of Xinjang will take 16 hits while retreating (though no hits can be done on round 0)
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Army of Xinjang is retreating toward Dalandzaggad

[Jim-NC]

Thanks for your efforts, Jim. Now, the results start to make sense.

However, how does the number of hits you calculated relate to "power" (CP), as indicated by the battle screen, which ration was 2242:2344?



Reason for asking that I have thought that CP=total hits. It obviuosly not, based on your above explanation, so I should not have used relative CPs as a base for comparison.



EDIT: FYI - They retreated because the rolled the required number.

2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Checking combat stance for China in region 1220 Ulaan Baator
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) InCS %: 0 New Retreat Will %: 100
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Ammo %: 100 New Retreat Will %: 100
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Weighted average of Trench levels: 0
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Power of opponents compared to us: 341.28 % Base Retreat Will: 100.00 %
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Dice rolled: 39
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) => We will try to retreat
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Dice rolled: 46
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Army of Xinjang succeeded in retreating
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Army of Xinjang will take 16 hits while retreating (though no hits can be done on round 0)
2:30:16 PM (Reporting) Army of Xinjang is retreating toward Dalandzaggad

For CP, hits aren't the whole story. That's were things like NM, Cohesion, Supply and others factors are counted. They modify the CP, and thus according to that, the fighting forces were almost evenly matched. So I would say that your units were "better" in other abilities (like you have artillery, and ranged fire ability), but fewer in number. Thus although you were heavily outnumbered, your troops were superior (China had quantity, you had quality).

In the 2nd case, the retreat was due to several factors, including your power level (CP) versus his. Yours was much higher (over 3 times), and he was forced to retreat. Also, look at the 46 number, that meant that he was able to retreat, and it ?may? impact how many hits taken during the retreat. I am not sure about that.

I would have to say there are 2 methods of forcing a retreat - 1. Auto retreat if at 25% casualty rate, and 2. Retreat if too weak/out of ammo or supply (relative power difference). There may be others as well.

[bjfagan]

Early May 1875

[Sir Garnet]

But is a hit the same quantity of damage done and taken in either case?

[Jim-NC]

I don't think hits are the same. For example, an infantry unit has 20-30 hits, while an artillery has 10 I think. They cost different amount of money, officers, conscripts and mfg goods. Thus an artillery hit is more costly in some terms, but cheaper in others. Also, I don't know that a unit costs the same for different nationalities, and thus their hits could cost different. So for example, if you hit an artillery for 11 hits, it would be destroyed, but an infantry regiment could keep fighting.

In the example above, there were 808 Russian hits with 57 elements (thus each element had an average of 14.2 hits), versus the Chinese who had 2545 hits with 268 elements (thus each element had an average of 9.5 hits). The Russian formations were bigger (due to the infantry units), but there were many more Chinese units.

[nemethand]

For those who are interested, there is no craftsmen production of Electrical. My factory has come on line, and I have some in inventory, but no craftsmen production.

I apologise for contradicting you, Jim, after the detailed explanation you have given me regarding the battle mechanism.

It would seem that there is. This turn, Russian entrepeneuers managed to close a deal of 9 Electric parts for 300 PC. There's no operating Russain factory, although it is being built and soon is to be finished.

[Jim-NC]

No apology necessary.

Let me say that I have no craftsmen production, but I too can get Entrepeneuers as well (which are merchants). When I say craftsmen, I am talking about the number on the F4 screen (on the line where it has your consumption). It will say craftsmen production of x, internal sales of y. Currently I have no craftsmen production listed there. Last turn, my Entrepeneuers were able to purchase some electrical parts as well. So some one else must be making them, but it's not me.

I blame the Germans They must have a secret factory somewhere producing these things by the million! (this is a joke!)

[bjfagan]

I blame the Germans They must have a secret factory somewhere producing these things by the million! (this is a joke!)

I wish I had a secret factory. I was late to the game on the electrical parts factories believing there was no immediate need or market for them. However, when I upgraded my mfg goods factory it now wants electrical parts for operation. That was a big surprise, that I should have foreseen, but took a very big factory offline for me. So, waiting for the British to start selling some of their excess supply, I got the entrepreneur success too and landed 25 electrical parts.

[Kensai]

I don't think anyone is selling them. The entrepreneurs event is simply an abstraction as long as at least one factory can make them. Since it's such a rare resource (product) right now, I believe we will get a lot of these events, with the necessary (high) cost probably.

As far as I know: Great Britain is the first nation to build such as a factory, followed by Japan and Brazil. I am not sure if other nations have managed to get the tech yet or have electrical factories under construction (which take more than a year to get ready, btw)!

[coolbean]

The usa has one factory running, but waiting for stocks to fill before selling. Another factory should be online in a couple of turns.

[bjfagan]

Uh oh, I sense overproduction coming....

[coolbean]

Uh oh, I sense overproduction coming....

I'm not falling into that trap again...

I only plan on producing enough for domestic consumption and some extra. If you plan on producing for export and a healthy world economy, you might as well plan on having half of your factories closed.

[bjfagan]

Early June 1875

Make that Late May 1875

[Jim-NC]

I seem to have a problem. The region of Sorong in New Guinea shows a Dutch flag, but it says it is 100% British Controlled. It even has a red line separating it from the rest of British New Guinea. However, I can't play colonial cards there as I don't "own" the region. Is there a way to fix this? The game shows me and the Dutch as owning (depending on which measure you look at). For example, it's red when the military control key is used, and hovering over it shows 100% British MC. But it has a Dutch flag, and I can't play certain cards.

How do I fix this?

[Jim-NC]

Those wise gnomes over at Jane's Defense have completed their review for 1875. It can be found in the drop box.

[Sir Garnet]

I seem to have a problem. The region of Sorong in New Guinea shows a Dutch flag, but it says it is 100% British Controlled. It even has a red line separating it from the rest of British New Guinea. However, I can't play colonial cards there as I don't "own" the region. Is there a way to fix this? The game shows me and the Dutch as owning (depending on which measure you look at). For example, it's red when the military control key is used, and hovering over it shows 100% British MC. But it has a Dutch flag, and I can't play certain cards.

How do I fix this?

This is exactly the situation Portugal has faced in Gemena in Congo since the 1860s with the Belgian flag and structures disabling the playing of SOME cards. Schools could be played, and were repeatedly played to get loyalty up, but something is stuck. Portugal would like to play immigrants there, but the territory though a Portuguese Colony is not "owned". The past advice was that a war with Belgium to capture the structures might fix it or the fort and depot might decay.

It sounds like there are no Dutch-owned structures in Sorong, which suggests that the structures may be irrelevant.

[Jim-NC]

There's a Dutch military outpost. I don't mind that the outpost is there. I also don't mind that the flag is showing Dutch. The problem is that the game says both of us "own" it. That simply can't be. I want the game to show either that the Dutch own it, or that I do, and have the same ownership in everything (flag, and MC). I would offer to purchase it, if that will fix the problem. But I want to make sure that is what fixes the problem.

[PhilThib]

I believe the issue is related to colonial status and not ownership...you can have a protectorate over something you don't own, which is WAD and intended...the only issue (and bug) here is that it should be only valid between a European power and an unorganized or tribal nation, not vis-a-vis a great power.
I believe the error comes from the fact that, at game start, those regions are owned by nobody while at the same time being under some kind of colonial influence (e.g. Dutch in Sorong, Portuguese in Cabinda)...but the "nobody's" lose territory to the benefit of the first 'nation' to "conquer" them...it is what happend in NG I believe...some GB troops moved there and grabbed it from the nobody's...although this did not affect whatsoever the Dutch activity in the colonial sphere...

This is a non-solvable game engine issue unless Pocus spend hours fixing, so I would suggest players define a rule of conduct and once agreed, it's corrected by script.

[Kensai]

It's a military outpost that's blocking the deal. What about doing a war to take it? Or buying it out? Most nations (that can do anything in this game) are played by humans after all. Discuss and come to terms.

[Sir Garnet]

It's a military outpost that's blocking the deal. What about doing a war to take it? Or buying it out? Most nations (that can do anything in this game) are played by humans after all. Discuss and come to terms.

It is not clear what would fix it. Maybe a straight ownership change script?

[Kensai]

Well, if agreed by the interested nations, why not?

Early June 1875

[Kensai]

Late June 1875

[Ech Heftag]

I'm relocating the coming week, and don't really have the time needed to give meaningful orders to Italy. Is there someone who's interested and willing to play as Italy during the week?

[coolbean]

There's going to be some incongruities in the Chesapeake trade area in the coming days. For reasons beyond my understanding I've been bleeding coal the past few turns, despite not changing anything. Even after trying to stem it by shutting down a lot of coal eating buildings, I somehow managed to use up a few hundred units of coal in one turn and now have -112.

I haven't experienced anything like this and have never had a problem with managing amount of materials from turn to turn until now. I'm just going to take the hit and let all of my coal burning buildings shut down for next turn, and try to see what's going on with a clean slate.

I just wanted to give everyone a head's up, and hopefully I will have all of my buy/sell orders back to normal soon.

[lukasberger]

I'm relocating the coming week, and don't really have the time needed to give meaningful orders to Italy. Is there someone who's interested and willing to play as Italy during the week?

Sure!

[lukasberger]

There's going to be some incongruities in the Chesapeake trade area in the coming days. For reasons beyond my understanding I've been bleeding coal the past few turns, despite not changing anything. Even after trying to stem it by shutting down a lot of coal eating buildings, I somehow managed to use up a few hundred units of coal in one turn and now have -112.

I haven't experienced anything like this and have never had a problem with managing amount of materials from turn to turn until now. I'm just going to take the hit and let all of my coal burning buildings shut down for next turn, and try to see what's going on with a clean slate.

I just wanted to give everyone a head's up, and hopefully I will have all of my buy/sell orders back to normal soon.

Cancel some of the units you recently bought or structures you built, see if that helps. This sounds like my issues with the steel bug with the battleships (which Pocus cannot reproduce, unfortunately).