(02-04-2018, 04:50 PM)Ocito80 Wrote: I understand the point, and it has led me to see the error in my thinking. I was thinking that the mechanic applied to all unit types, but it only effects infantry. I will adjust accordingly.
I will end this by explaining how I viewed the "penalty" in this discussion. It serves no purpose other than to bring closure to this matter.
**
If you have two similar units with the same stats, one has a 200 strength and the other 100. The larger unit is reduced to a strength of 100. Now both units are equal in strength and stats, but now that reduced unit is weaker by the percentage calculated through the pdt values. To me, that is a penalty for the originally larger unit when compared to the other unit.
(Visual aide)
Before Combat
Unit A (same stats) / Unit B (same stats)
Strength 200 / Strength 100
Effectiveness 100% / Effectiveness 100%
After Combat
Unit A / Unit B
Strength 100 (half strength) / Strength 100
Effectiveness 60/70%? / Effectiveness 100%
**
Respectfully
Atheory (Ocito80)
Sorry but I don't believe you are applying this correctly (and I do believe it applies to all units). The effectiveness is applied against full strength, rather than the current strength. So the reduced unit in your example would apply the effectiveness of say 60% against its original strength of 200, and thus fight like there are still 120 men, versus the other unit that will fight like it has - 100 men. So it would be 20% more effective. At least that is how the rule is described. So there aren't two penalties, one for current strength and one for effectiveness. The rule clearly states that the remaining men will keep a higher proportion of the unit firepower in action as they lose men - i.e. more MGs per man.
If I get a chance before the super bowl starts I will set up a test and see what happens, with on map results turned off in order to see the firepower calculated. It could be there is a bug around how it is implemented too, but it should be boosting overall strength not lowering it. I think I tested it 15 years ago and found it to work as I expected, not as you describe.
Regards
Rick