• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Special Disruption Ruling
07-15-2020, 08:36 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-15-2020, 08:37 PM by unonimus.)
#1
ahelp  Special Disruption Ruling
For Special Disruption Rules in [5.2] Fire Values and Modifiers, does that mean that when the unit we try to pound (which we assume that it is subject to those rules) has a 5/6 chance of Disruption (i.e. morale F), the chance is 10/6 (!) (i.e. always), or 5.5/6 (because it has a 1/6 probability of not being disrupted so it is halved)? What if it has no chance of disruption (i.e. morale A or No Effect)? Does it increase probability of being disrupted to 1/2? Or is it something else that I didn't think about?

I searched it on the forums and I couldn't find a satisfactory answer, especially to the first question. The second is my estimate/deduction from search results but I couldn't be sure.
:(
Quote this message in a reply
07-15-2020, 09:06 PM,
#2
RE: Special Disruption Ruling
My understanding is that what is meant is that the probability of requiring a morale check is doubled. If the check is actually required it is then resolved in the normal manner.

The probability that a morale check is required is explained in user manual (section[12.0] Combat Results);

"When Morale Checks are applicable, they are determined based on a probability using the given loss as:

                           loss / (loss + base-value)

where the base-value depends on the size of the unit and is:

• 5 for platoon and uncombined company units.
• 10 for combined company units consisting of 2 subunits.
• 15 for battalions and combined company units consisting of 3 or more subunits.

Thus, a battalion unit that takes a loss of 15 men has a 50% chance of requiring a morale check and a battalion unit that takes a loss of 60 men has about an 80% chance of requiring a morale check."

This is what is referred to in the Special Disruption Rules as the 'disruption effect'. It is rather cryptic but I believe that is what they are getting at.
Quote this message in a reply
07-15-2020, 11:56 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-16-2020, 04:21 PM by unonimus.)
#3
RE: Special Disruption Ruling
Oh, I forgot that there is a probability for going into a morale check. 5/6 is when we assure that the troop requires a morale check, it doesn't change with that effect, then.

It still does not, however, explain disruption without loss and fatigue for bunkers. Sure, it is not 1/2. In fact, it is still an ordinary check if needed. But isn't the probability of morale check for bunkered manned units 0 if losses are zero?
:(
Quote this message in a reply
07-16-2020, 12:10 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-16-2020, 12:11 AM by ComradeP.)
#4
RE: Special Disruption Ruling
I don't recall ever seeing a No Effect/D result for units consisting of Men.

If by "disruption without loss" you're referring to units consisting of Guns (or Vehicles), that's because a roll is made whenever a Gun or Vehicle unit suffers anything except a No Effect result to determine whether the damage is enough for the unit to lose a Gun or Vehicle.

That, in turn, is because the damage is always calculated as a loss in Men equivalents. If a Gun or Vehicle unit would "lose" 1 Man after the various combat calculations are done, there's a 10% chance a Gun or Vehicle will be lost.

Fatigue will then be calculated based on that "loss" regardless of whether a Gun/Vehicle was lost.

That "loss" in Men will also be used to determine whether the unit requires a Morale Check for Disruption. Failing that check when no Gun/Vehicle is lost will show up as Fatigue/D (if Delayed Disruption reporting is off).
Quote this message in a reply
07-16-2020, 12:24 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-16-2020, 12:26 AM by unonimus.)
#5
RE: Special Disruption Ruling
Mr. Freer said No Effect/D happened for units in bunkers (I am assuming those units consist of Men, but I might be wrong) here:

http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/s...#pid373883

I couldn't be sure whether disruption of those units is a bug or it wasn't actually No Effect so it is results which are bugged.
:(
Quote this message in a reply
07-16-2020, 12:40 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-16-2020, 12:59 AM by ComradeP.)
#6
RE: Special Disruption Ruling
That does seem strange as a loss of 0 Men shouldn't trigger a Morale Check roll based on the manual. If it does, the formula doesn't make sense, and neither does the Special Disruption modifier making it more likely that a unit disrupts. 2x0 is still 0.

I'll keep an eye out for No Effect/D results to check what's going on.

Edit: after a few turns of shelling the Maginot Line, I haven't seen any No Effect/D results or No Effect/Fatigue out of a few dozen No Effect results on units consisting of Men.
Quote this message in a reply
07-16-2020, 06:47 AM,
#7
RE: Special Disruption Ruling
(07-16-2020, 12:40 AM)ComradeP Wrote: That does seem strange as a loss of 0 Men shouldn't trigger a Morale Check roll based on the manual. If it does, the formula doesn't make sense, and neither does the Special Disruption modifier making it more likely that a unit disrupts. 2x0 is still 0.

I'll keep an eye out for No Effect/D results to check what's going on.

Edit: after a few turns of shelling the Maginot Line, I haven't seen any No Effect/D results or No Effect/Fatigue out of a few dozen No Effect results on units consisting of Men.

Yes, I totally agree. I have never seen a case of disruption associated with a 'no effect' result and it is contrary to the my understanding of how the process works. Even if we are talking about a gun/vehicle there should still be fatigue rather than 'no effect'.

The only explanation I can think of is that it works on the loss result prior to rounding. So for example a fractional loss of 0.4 men, could be used in determining if a morale check is required and then if the losses are rounded down they would be reported as 'no effect'. This would make it rare but still possible for disruption to occur without loss.

But personally, I doubt this is how it works and so I will remain skeptical for now.
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)