Questions about certain unit's stats

[Epperaliant]

i was wondering:

The "lightning" value seem to indicate the exact amount of entrenchment removed with each attack.
But what about the "explosion" value? It's supposed to indicate the efficiency reduction on the enemy: Engineers have 20. What does it mean? -20% with each attack?


Also, about the flanking bonus:
Is that a "flat" value or it's modified by factors like the supporting unit type, efficiency & strength condition and such?

[GabeKnight]

i was wondering:

The "lightning" value seem to indicate the exact amount of entrenchment removed with each attack.
But what about the "explosion" value? It's supposed to indicate the efficiency reduction on the enemy: Engineers have 20. What does it mean? -20% with each attack?

Yes. And yes.

Also, about the flanking bonus:
Is that a "flat" value or it's modified by factors like the supporting unit type, efficiency & strength condition and such?

Some info here viewtopic.php?p=883593#p883593

Personally I think it doesn't matter. Even zero-efficiency units give flanking bonus. I understand this as laying suppressive fire to distract the enemy a little in favour of your attacking friendly unit.

[Epperaliant]

Thanks, useful info.
What's the highest efficiency reduction attack in the entire game?

Also, does the presence of adjacent enemy units prevent or slows a unit in gaining entrenchment and regain lost efficiency? I am talking of enemies just sitting around doing nothing.
Had an airborne unit capture a town. It was isolated, surrounded by enemies but never once was out of supplies, first because of their " reserve", then there was the town output.
Well, that unit remained yellow for many turns and I swear it didn't entrench as fast as usual.

[prestidigitation]

Thanks, useful info.
What's the highest efficiency reduction attack in the entire game?

I don't believe I've seen an attack higher than 30 efficiency damage.

Also, does the presence of adjacent enemy units prevent or slows a unit in gaining entrenchment and regain lost efficiency?
I am talking of enemies just sitting around doing nothing.
Had an airborne unit capture a town. It was isolated, surrounded by enemies but never once was out of supplies, first because of their " reserve", then there was the town output.
Well, that unit remained yellow for many turns and I swear it didn't entrench as fast as usual.

No, but keep in mind that airborne units require 4 supply and the town may not have provided as much. Strategic bombers can also damage the supply output of a tile (which btw is helpful on many missions as the Soviets... envelop Germans and then hit their nearest town a few times to cut their eff regen). The only factors that seem to matter are "has the unit moved" and "has the unit attacked".

[Epperaliant]

Silly me, before the airborne capturing the town I had bombed it for like 5 turns with a Flying Fortress.

[prestidigitation]

Silly me, before the airborne capturing the town I had bombed it for like 5 turns with a Flying Fortress.

This kills the supply!

[Epperaliant]

Another question, why sometimes when I move troops on some terrains there's a big "0" shown on the hex, where usually there's the terrain efficiency penalty?

[terminator]

Another question, why sometimes when I move troops on some terrains there's a big "0" shown on the hex, where usually there's the terrain efficiency penalty?

Interesting question

[GabeKnight]

It's still the "terrain efficiency penalty" indicator, but less than "10". Because infantry have that whatever-it's-called trait to reduce terrain disruption.

[Epperaliant]

Oh, clear, thanks.

[Epperaliant]

Closely stat-related:

I had two marine units guarding a river bridge, both in "white" efficiency, both at half star vet.
Japanese infantry unit arrives on bridge and sits there: one Marine units has odds like 3+ - 1, the other has 2-2. What could possibly make the result so different?

Wish I had taken a screenshot.

[conboy]

Obviously, if one marine unit was in a river hex guarding the bridge and the other on land, they would have much-differing combat odds, especially if the non-river one was in a wooded hex. Right?

I just checked it out with a US infantry (no exp) confronting two SS Infantry (no exp) - one SS unit on the bridge and one next to it in the woods (not a river hex).

The US infantry has 3:1+ against the bridge unit and 1+:2 against the SS unit in the woods next to it. Pretty much in keeping with your query.

conboy

[Epperaliant]

Obviously, if one marine unit was in a river hex guarding the bridge and the other on land, they would have much-differing combat odds, especially if the non-river one was in a wooded hex. Right?

I just checked it out with a US infantry (no exp) confronting two SS Infantry (no exp) - one SS unit on the bridge and one next to it in the woods (not a river hex).

The US infantry has 3:1+ against the bridge unit and 1+:2 against the SS unit in the woods next to it. Pretty much in keeping with your query.

conboy

I think I expressed myself wrong, both marine units were on dry land next to the bridge and the Japanese one was sitting on the bridge. The prediction were for the marine units attacking the Japanese on the bridge.
The only difference I could tell was that one marine unit was on open ground, the other in the jungle but I assume that shouldn't make any difference as it's the defender terrain that counts (at least I think that).

Maybe there was some slight efficency and veteranency difference that cumulated and caused this?

[Halvralf]

Obviously, if one marine unit was in a river hex guarding the bridge and the other on land, they would have much-differing combat odds, especially if the non-river one was in a wooded hex. Right?

I just checked it out with a US infantry (no exp) confronting two SS Infantry (no exp) - one SS unit on the bridge and one next to it in the woods (not a river hex).

The US infantry has 3:1+ against the bridge unit and 1+:2 against the SS unit in the woods next to it. Pretty much in keeping with your query.

conboy

I think I expressed myself wrong, both marine units were on dry land next to the bridge and the Japanese one was sitting on the bridge. The prediction were for the marine units attacking the Japanese on the bridge.
The only difference I could tell was that one marine unit was on open ground, the other in the jungle but I assume that shouldn't make any difference as it's the defender terrain that counts (at least I think that).

Maybe there was some slight efficency and veteranency difference that cumulated and caused this?

I might be wrong but what terrian you attack from makes a difference. When attacking you add your attack value vs opponents defense value. At the same time your predicted (or actual) losses is calculated based on your defense value and that is where terrian comes in play. Attack from rivers,bridges etc always gives worse attack and defense modifier. Attacking from entrenched in djungle will make you loose less.

[Epperaliant]

This is useful, I didn't thought that the attacker terrain had any effect on the attack, that explains everything.