Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: More information needed...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: More information needed... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: More information needed... - 12/14/2009 3:29:35 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Well artillery was actually used to disrupt enemy defense, not to kill him.
Covering approaches, disrupting telephone cables, keeping enemy soldiers head down, obscuring field of fire, using smoke to limit enemy visibility, his forward oservers and so on.

So to me effects of sustained artillery fire (bombardment) is to cause disruption and limit enemy efficiency - actually fatigue and morale in game terms, not to kill and disrupt squads. However I dont know if this can be changed in actual witp-combat.



I wonder, does disabling squads accurately represent the items in bold? Disabled squads do repair quickly with supply, while destroyed ones take a while.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 31
RE: More information needed... - 12/14/2009 3:37:22 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Just from my own testing the real killer is the medium regiments i.e. the 10cm's and allied Medium Arty Bns.

Smaller calibre Arty does an ok job but doesnt kill to much its the the big guns in the medium arty regiments that hurt the japanese 15cm guns, CW 5.5" and 4.5" guns and the US 155mm's

These are the real killers especially when massed against a big stack.

If I was going to recommend a house rule it would be no more than one or two big gun indpt regt per hex the damage difference from having three or four of these in one hex is dramatic.

So a Div that them organically is fine and no more than one or two Indpt Regts.


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 32
RE: More information needed... - 12/14/2009 3:39:08 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Although high level forts protect against even these guns.

The losses suffered against 15cm guns when in the open/lvl 0 forts and heavy jungle/lvl 6 forts is dramatic.

Andy

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 33
RE: More information needed... - 12/14/2009 4:05:59 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Although high level forts protect against even these guns.

The losses suffered against 15cm guns when in the open/lvl 0 forts and heavy jungle/lvl 6 forts is dramatic.

Andy



Canoerebel posted in his first post that he had nearly level 9 forts and IMO in this case he shouldn´t suffer at all from artillery. Disruption yes, hundreds of squads killed? Sure not. It always was in WITP and it seems still to be true in AE that forts are very poorly reflected comparing to real life. Imagine those "crappy" Japanese artillery pieces doing a bombardment of the Maginot line (with 8.76 fort I guess we could compare it with the Maginot line, even though this probably would be a 9 then). For sure the Allied casualties would not even be 1% of what Canourebel´s Chinese suffer. Of course you couldn´t stuck hundreds of thousands Chinese into the Maginot line either and you wouldn´t be able to build it in a couple of months like the Chinese have built their level 8.76. IMO with this fortification in Canourebel´s example the Chinese shouldn´t suffer more than 600 casualties (combined killed and disabled - mostly disabled).

All in all, IMO not artillery is the thing that isn´t working at all, it always was and still is the fortification that is a complete mess in WITP and AE. The changes in AE made it a little bit better but it´s still completely off.

Fortifications should help as they helped in real life and they should be as hard to build as in real life. Level 9? Use hundreds of eng squads to build a level 9 fort and it should take three years, so perhaps when you reach the later stages of the war you could encounter such fortifications. In 42? Doubtful when you start building in Dec 41.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 12/14/2009 4:12:15 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 34
RE: More information needed... - 12/14/2009 4:49:02 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The developers aren't going to react solely based upon my observations, but it's just one bit of information they'll consider.  If it turns out I'm an anomaly, they'll have every reason to disregard my results.  If it turns out what's going on is an accurate reflection of the game as a whole then I know changes will be made.

I was defending well in China until the appearance of the Artillery Death Star.  Even the strategic bombing hadn't broken my back.  My troops were in a stout MLR and I was pretty sure I could hold out for a long, long time; probably until the Western Allies were on the march so that the heat would be reduced in China.  But the Artillery Death Star blasted through my MLR, collapsed my northern flank, and ruined about twenty Chinese corps and divisions.  Since strategic bombing had destroyed my industry and supply structure, I couldn't replace my losses. 

In other words, an Artillery Death Star was the beam that broken the camel's back, severed his spine, and buried the poor critter under ninety-seven feet of cellulose.

The air war in China is also a problem that ultimately contributed to my demise.  The AVG fights well but the units can't be replaced, so it attrits down to nothing very quickly.  The Japanese can then concentrate on bombing airfields and sweeping any remaining Allied fighters and that clears the skies over China. Broken down airplanes can't be repaired due to low supply and they get stranded at airfields that are pummeled every day by Japanese bombers. You can't base fighters at more remote bases because they have very short legs and thus won't reach the front lines. The air war in WitP was very tough in China, but in AE it's impossible.

I think I'm a decent player.  In my two WitP games I really didn't have any problems holding China against experienced opponents. I held Changsha and Sian throughout both games. But China is a mess in AE and my AE opponent is one of those I faced in WitP.

Got it. Artillery death star is a problem for you in China. Message understood very clearly.

I'm not yet convinced that it is a problem in mine or that many others to merit developer recoding and persistent 'tweaking'. I think this situation is amenable for HRs first and foremost. Considering the noble efforts of the devs to rise to the fore and 'tweak' the game to suit the needs of those that are most outspoken, it is probably worth noting that your gameplay experiences here may not result in a satisfactory conclusion for yourself without significantly altering gameplay (for the worse) with others.

Unfortunately, once the 'nerf' pendulum starts swinging, it takes some time to find the right center without overcompensating. How many iterations of BB bombardment and B-17 bombardment did the stock WiTP go through? Many would say that these issues are still not satisfactorily modeled to their taste.

@Andy Mac: I like your suggestion of an interim HR involving restrictions on the heavy guns. I would much rather try out different HRs than have coding iteration upon iteration that will likely result in unintended consequences. Or at least until a more holistic solution can be found.

@Canoerebel: I have been reticent to overcommit the IJA airforce to China. If I use it there, it will not be available for me elsewhere, including the SRA, New Guinea, Australia or Burma theatres. I use my comparatively small IJ Chinese airforce to bomb and harass Chinese units still behind the lines for the most part. If your opponent is using the IJA airforce in quantity in China, consider yourself fortunate that he's bottled them up there. He's likely very short elsewhere.

My experiences about the 'impossibility' of the air war in China in AE do not align with yours, apparently. I've seen no indication in my game that the air war in China is an impossibility *when both players use some historic restraint in their persecution of the war*.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 35
RE: More information needed... - 12/14/2009 5:09:13 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Are you PBEM?  I'm hearing similar concerns by other PBEMers, with the possible exception of those who have imposed house rules.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 36
RE: More information needed... - 12/14/2009 5:39:42 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Are you PBEM?  I'm hearing similar concerns by other PBEMers, with the possible exception of those who have imposed house rules.

.
No USSHenrico or Crimguy please.....
.
.
.
.
.






Yes, I'm PBEM (x2) as IJ versus USSHenrico and Crimguy (Allied).

To be fair, your (and other) PBEM AAR 'heads up' re: this issue stoked these conversations and encouraged me to continue to have them. I've been keeping in very close communication with my PBEM partners throughout all of these sieges and altering my activities accordingly. We haven't had that many sieges yet, as we are earlier in our game (one day turns).

Versus USSHenrico, one siege that we just wrapped up (January 1942) involved the Loyang / Nanang and Chusien (?) (at work-no map) triangle. This was my number one goal from day one. I prepped all units for these points and used a large number of infantry regiments, HQ, armored units and all available divisions at this schwerpunkt. I brought a small number (3 regiment and 1 battalion) of independent artillery as well. Early in the game (before this issue was widely recognized), I bought out one unit of the heavy artillery from Kwantung for use in this seige warfare.

I had overwhelming AV force at the first offensive point (Chusien), yet it held for 2-3 days. The Chinese retreated to Loyang (North 2 hexes). I rested / reorganized for a couple days to get disruption and fatigue down and then moved.

Bombardment at Loyang resulted in heavy casualties (1700-2000/day) for a few days (3?) before two days of assault broke the defense and routed the Chinese defenders. HOWEVER:

1. Many units here had retreated from the Chusien fight and were undoubtedly fatigued and / or disrupted.
2. I don't know about the Chinese supply situation, but I doubt there was adequate Chinese supply to support a spirited defense.
3. Huge differences in troop experience, leadership.
4. Early in the war for us. Fortification levels were no higher than 3 (Chusien) or 2 (Loyang).
5. Open terrain for both cities.
6. Much of the IJA artillery fire was from organic division or regimental organic artillery rather than independent artillery battalions or regiments.

Now that I've fractured the Loyang / Nanang line, and secured this sector's resource bases, I will suspend offensive operations in Eastern China. I'm not intending to drive on Sian and / or Chungking, but wouldn't mind my partners thinking that I'm capable of doing that.

I will be investing Singapore within the week and have started a seige on Bataan. Both have larger number of independent artillery battalions or regiments than did the Loyang / Nanang salient. So far, my partner has not cried foul, but if things look way out of whack, I'll hold myself back. Bataan is borderline, we'll see how Singapore goes.

I am willing to titer force to effect to meet the expectations of my partners. I have no desire to drive on Chungking in December 1942 or to break the interface and make my partner(s) miserable. There are some things that are outright gamey that have occured in some AARs that I've seen here that I would never inflict upon my partner nor tolerate were they done unto me. But this about partner communication first (and, yes, HRs) and recoding / code 'tweaking' second, IMO.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 37
RE: More information needed... - 12/14/2009 5:44:50 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks, Chickenboy.   You need to start an AAR as it would be interesting to get another AAR from the Japanese perspective. 

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 38
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 6:13:34 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

In my, admittedly limited experience, artillery deathstars are only a problem when one side has a ton of arty, and the other has next to none. Only if enemy is completely outgunned and cannot effectively fire back, the situation devolves from siege to massacre. I have no problem with that. The side that is completely inferior in artillery (and cannot compensate by naval bombardements, huge air attacks, etc) should suffer unsurmountable disadvantage in hex-contesting battles of attrition, one way or another, to reflect realities of WW II battlefields. It simply has no means to save itself from having its defences gradually picked apart. The problem with bombardement lies in low supply requirements, which allow to use it turn after turn, until artillery units are too fatigued, even on unimportant targets. So bombarding is no-brainer and you don't need to bother with picking, where you really need your artillery. And supplying extended campaigns in China is too easy for Japanese in general.


The problem is not that there is an advantage to the side with much better arty, the problem is time. The time factor is skewed horribly. If the weaker side has insufficient supply/reinforcements, they will lose eventually - but unrealistic arty casualties make that happen much more quickly, which can decisively change what is happening in the campaign. If the weaker side does have sufficient supply/reinforcements, then they might hold - but unrealistic arty casualties make them break.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 39
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 6:20:36 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Regarding fortifications - just as an example, what did artillery do to the defenders on some of the heavily fortified islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa? What level would those IRL forts be considered in-game?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 40
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 6:30:52 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Allied naval and air bombardments accomplished little at Iwo Jima.  I'd say the forts were roughly equivalent to a level 7 or 8 in the game?  The Japanese only began building in earnest around summer of '44.

Of course, artillery "taught" wise Japanese leaders that defenses above ground were'nt the way to go, so Lt. Gen. Kuribayashi (spelling?) did a great job designing the defenses at Iwo.  I think the Japanese commander at Peleliu had done the same thing.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/14/2009 6:32:06 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 41
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 6:37:21 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Regarding fortifications - just as an example, what did artillery do to the defenders on some of the heavily fortified islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa? What level would those IRL forts be considered in-game?

Artillery, aerial bombardment and ship to shore bombardment was ineffective at breaching the deepest and sturdiest forts in these examples, although it did cause some appreciable damage to the beachfront pillboxes, above ground installations and lighter fortifications on Iwo, IIRC.

I think Iwo would have to be 8-9 rating, with all the interconnected tunnels, dug in heavy artillery and the like. Okinawa varied more, but certainly the redoubt around the Shuri castle and ridges north were warrens of interlocking pillboxes and tunnels. Not to mention some of the old caveside burial crypts that were so effective defensive points. Maybe 7-8 for Okinawa by my reckoning?

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 42
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 6:41:16 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		I am not to sure to sure about artillery problems in game. I did a first bombardement round on Hong Kong with the standard stack and caused about 100 casualties so that seemed fine to me.

I do know that if you stick 100.000 soldiers in a small area and start to shell the crap out of them they should be hurting. Not to sure about fortifactions although they should limit the effect.

I saw someone posting that artillery was used to cut signal lines, disrupt resupply etc. This is true but it was also used to wreak havoc on troops. For example, 30th corps Artillery kept the 1st airborne division at Oosterbeek alive.

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 43
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 7:28:19 PM   
budman999


Posts: 34
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		Once the Japanese learned their lessons earlier in the war (Betio - Tarawa), they entrenched heavily on islands they considered of strategic importance.
Even the bombardments at Tarawa (surprisingly) were not considered all that effective by the Japanese, other than to disrupt communications between
posts on the island(s) and to inhibit movement of reinforcements.
Casualties from naval bombardments were relatively light on heavily entrenched troops. Equipment that was well hidden or heavily entrenched suffered little damage,
and were not put out of action until direct observed fire was introduced via aircraft or ships or they were cleared by close assault.

Artillery is generally employed as a suppression weapon. In other words, when employed it can aid actions (ie. an attack) by keeping the opponent in a situation where they are unable to respond to my actions or can be used by me to disrupt the actions of the opponent (damaging their attack) when defending. Damage to men and material generally is considered a secondary, though much desired effect. (I'm not saying it can't cause large casualties, it can especially to an attacker over defensible terrain.)
A bombardment is more likely to cause disruption and loss of morale over a period of time than sustained casualties, as was proven time and again in WWII. Once soldiers go to ground, the casualties inflicted by artillery drops quite a bit (surprise is always desired whenever possible).

Artillery was rarely used as direct fire weapon, and in essence should not be treated as such. The 'accuracy' should be far less than that of a direct fire weapon.
I've been on missions trying to hit a small target (pillbox, tank, etc.) and it is difficult, even with modern devices helping (other than by sheer volume of fire).

Does the WITP:AE model treat artillery as a direct fire system? And what is the rate of fire like?



(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 44
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 7:40:40 PM   
ColCathcart

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/2/2009
Status: offline 		Is it possible that part of the problem is generic N x M issue  - the same which was apparently responsible for overbloody aircombat in original WitP? I mean if single arty unit during bombardment phase had an opportunity to shoot at each and every unit in enemy stack then it would result in accumulating unrealistic number of casualties in case of large stacks. Would be interesting to see test results with bombardments against variable number of enemy units in a stack.

(in reply to budman999)
Post #: 45
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 8:41:25 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Keep at the testing guys. Kudos for being forthcoming and honest without denigrating the devs as I know they are looking at this. We all have a stake in making this game better.



<waves hand to agree> seconded.

In addition I would like to thank all contributors to this thread for being civil and level headed. And lo and behold we get the Devs who can read the situation and can comment on it without fear of derogotary comments or personal attacks.

Keep it up folks , this is the way forward from the shadowy dells of recent lows to the sunny uplands of reason and civility ( tad florid there ).

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 46
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 9:23:42 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK
Keep it up folks , this is the way forward from the shadowy dells of recent lows to the sunny uplands of reason and civility ( tad florid there ).

Ugh. Too late, Rob. We just hit one those shadowy dells again, old chap.


_____________________________


(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 47
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/14/2009 10:40:03 PM   
Altaris

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColCathcart

Is it possible that part of the problem is generic N x M issue  - the same which was apparently responsible for overbloody aircombat in original WitP? I mean if single arty unit during bombardment phase had an opportunity to shoot at each and every unit in enemy stack then it would result in accumulating unrealistic number of casualties in case of large stacks. Would be interesting to see test results with bombardments against variable number of enemy units in a stack.



I think this is the core of the issue. I did some testing a few weeks back, and found that casualties for defense stayed roughly the same percentages when the defending numbers were changed, but the attackers were not. Thus, with a defending stack of 100K taking 6,500 casualties a day, a second case scenario of 1K was taking about 700 casualties a day (pretty much the same percentage).

So yes, it seems ART hits every single defending unit equally, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps it should receive some bonus for concentrated units, but this is very high.

(in reply to ColCathcart)
Post #: 48
RE: More information needed... - 12/15/2009 12:27:05 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Disabled squads do repair quickly with supply, while destroyed ones take a while.


LOL you must never play the Chinese. It takes months sitting at a rear area base in rest mode to recover large chunks of disabled squads for the Chinese. Only Japan can recover theirs in front line bases in just a few days. Once a squad is disabled in a Chinese unit that is in combat, for all purposes you should think of it as destroyed. It won't have time to recover.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 49
RE: More information needed... - 12/15/2009 12:33:26 AM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

It won't have time to recover.

Isn't that the truth! It is one of the problems in China. With a good commander, supply and an HQ in the same hex it will repair 1 squad a day. I have units with over 300 disrupted squads, and just send them to Chungking.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 50
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 12:42:51 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:



For logistics purposes the following rules could apply:
1 - Any unit using bombardment will use 5 x the logistics supply of a normal (non-artillery) unit.
2 - If the unit cannot draw 5 x the supply the unit could still fire but then the effects of the bombardment are reduced by 20% for each 20% of supply (rounded down) that
the unit cannnot draw. Example: An artillery unit wishes to bombard. A normal (non-artillery) unit would require 1000 supply. An artillery unit using bombardment
would require 5 x 1000 (5000) supply to fire at 100%. If there was only 2000 supply the unit would fire at 40% of its bombardment value.


Why reduce the amount of arty according to th enumber of units ? At the size hexes with Death Stars we are talking about WWI style conflicts where there is a frontage of maybe 10 divisions. This will mean you can run a Land Death star and US artillary will not do much damage either.

I note the above combat was in an open hex, it is also worth noting that in the Battle of Changsha in 42 almost 90,000 were killed ( so ~200,000 casualties) in a 2 week batlle ( 120K Japanese vs 300K CHinese) most from the Japanese which were encircled. Note in the battle
"
On January 1, the Chinese quickly counter-attacked and surprised the Japanese with heavy guns and inflicted heavy casualties on them.
"

Changes suggested.
- Arty bombardment consumes *3 supplies.
- I do agree fortrifications should reduce casualties significantly
- Units in combat mode should be dug in unless its attacking .

Also note you should use reserve see the Nomahan Redux AAR as this will remove units from the front line. It is VERY important historically ahainst heavy artillary to have significant reserves and small front lines. If you are doing a mass attack against a huge artillary bombardment you should expect massive losses.

(in reply to budman999)
Post #: 51
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 12:54:24 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		DAY1

quote:

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 110187 troops, 1048 guns, 478 vehicles, Assault Value = 4010

Defending force 103976 troops, 487 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3930

Japanese ground losses:
59 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
6223 casualties reported
Squads: 65 destroyed, 147 disabled Non Combat: 137 destroyed, 319 disabled
Engineers: 11 destroyed, 17 disabled
Guns lost 11 (2 destroyed, 9 disabled)


Note only 65 combat squads destroyed. Why so many non Combat in the hex historically the Chinese evacuated these including HQs etc .
Nothing wrong with these results it is not unusual to see 6000 casualties in a heavy day of combat with 100K+ forces


Attacking force 110142 troops, 1048 guns, 478 vehicles, Assault Value = 4005

Defending force 99548 troops, 485 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3695

quote:

Japanese ground losses:
60 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1718 casualties reported
Squads: 42949658 destroyed, 117 disabled
Non Combat: 37 destroyed, 152 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 8 (1 destroyed, 7 disabled)


Except for the bug note the massive reduction maybe troops are asumed dug in now and surprise is lost.

If your concerned Japan can blead you dry , definetly . You cant sit there under artillary for ever ( if they have the supplies) historically China won a great victory but they had to move large parts out of the city and maneuver and they committed 300K troops as the city is so important. If you sit there you will just trade casualties for Japanese supplies.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 52
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 1:18:41 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		65 squads is a heck of alot of destruction in a single day of bombardment (not combat).  The Chinese only get 200 squads per month.  If you lose 65 in one day in one hex, math tells you you're in a serious net loss situation.

So, what happened at Sian?  A little more than a week ago, Sian was the bastion on the north line of the Chinese MLR.  I had 4,000 AV there behind four forts.  My troops were well-rested, high morale (most at 99%), and high experience (50-55%).  Supplies were low due to the usual problem in China exacerbated by the strategic bombing campaign against my industry.

Then a Japanese army arrived - 4000 AV with 7 artillery units (three mortar, three medium FA, one heavy FA).  You'd think with 4,000 AV against 4,000 AV a long siege would be in order.  You'd also think that given the quagmire nature of the real war in China that a long siege would be in line with what happened historically.

Instead, the Japanese blasted through Sian easily.  For all of us playing AE, this should be sobering unless my game is somehow an anomaly. 

How did Miller do it?  Well, it took him about 8 days as follows:

Days 1 & 2 - back-to-back bombardments already summarized above (6,223 casualties day one, 1,718 day two; Chinese AV drops from 4,000 to 3,600).

Days 3 & 4:  Japanese deliberate attack on day 3 comes off at 1:2, forts remain 4, Japanese suffer 6,397 casualties to 14,378 for the Chinese (110 squads destroyed, making a total of something like 200 in three days in this one hex).  The Japanese are the attackers but suffer less than half the casualties. The Japanese rest on the 4th day.

Days 5 & 6:  Japanese bombard inflicting 2,503 casualties (75 squads destroyed) day 5 and 1,519 on day 6 (36 squads destroyed).

Days 7 & 8:  Japanese deliberate attack at 2:1 drops forts to 3 and inflicted 7,584 casualties on the Japanese (who lose a horrific 7 squads) to 5,897 for the Chinese (who lose 33 squads).  On Day 8, a 4:1 attack drops forts to 2 and inflicted 5,156 on the Japanese and 6,540 on the Chinese.

Since the Japanese have acheived 4:1 odds and halved the fortification level, I have no choice but to withdraw from Sian.  So, in less than ten days, the Japanese easily take a heavily defended Chinese fort and suffer nearly no casualties in doing so.  Meanwhile, the Chinese army is close to being a wreck and will be if the Japanese attack next turn before the Chinese can leave the hex.

Now that Sian has fallen the Allies have lost essentially all of northern China.  The next stand will be in the mountains, then Kienko, then Chungking.

While 65 squads lost in a single day to a Japanese bombardment may not seem horrendous in isolation, when that piece is added to the rest of the puzzle it helps reveal the awfully skewed situation in China.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/15/2009 1:35:45 AM >

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 53
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 2:20:28 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		Good post, reb. This issue bears ongoing discussion. Thanks for following it through.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 54
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 2:51:52 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Also note you should use reserve see the Nomahan Redux AAR as this will remove units from the front line. It is VERY important historically ahainst heavy artillary to have significant reserves and small front lines. If you are doing a mass attack against a huge artillary bombardment you should expect massive losses.



Interesting point I've not seen made as yet. Like to see some testing results.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 55
RE: More information needed... - 12/15/2009 4:46:16 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I switched about 1/5th of the Chinese troops to reserve status after the first two deliberate attacks on days 3 and 4. Having troops in reserve didn't seem to help.

Also, bklooste, I didn't attack the Japanese. I was on the defensive behind four forts.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 56
RE: More information needed... - 12/15/2009 7:08:20 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Also be aware, that until fairly recently - last few months anyway - most of the AE team were unaware that neither terrain nor forts affected either artillery fire or aerial bombardments. We are starting to add such effects in - but we also have to race against time - and without many man years of testing we cannot totally rebuild the combat system. But, we are trying to add in some effects for forts and terrain for artillery and air - but it will not get perfect over night.


This is just part of Joe's post in the "Fortifications Recode" thread. Seems pretty clear the Devs are looking hard at the issue and have spotted some things to work on. I would just ask folks to be patient and keep Chickenboy's cautionary warning in mind before expecting too much too soon:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Unfortunately, once the 'nerf' pendulum starts swinging, it takes some time to find the right center without overcompensating. How many iterations of BB bombardment and B-17 bombardment did the stock WiTP go through? Many would say that these issues are still not satisfactorily modeled to their taste.


That said, this is a MAJOR development and suggests there is reason to be optimistic that improvements are coming.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 57
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 8:00:39 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
65 squads is a heck of alot of destruction in a single day of bombardment (not combat).  The Chinese only get 200 squads per month.  If you lose 65 in one day in one hex, math tells you you're in a serious net loss situation.


200 per month....there must be an issue there 1200 squads per year or about 12K men , clearly thats wrong unless a squad suddenly became a battalion... I wouldnt be surprised if China got 200 per day ,Japan and the US do.


quote:


I switched about 1/5th of the Chinese troops to reserve status after the first two deliberate attacks on days 3 and 4. Having troops in reserve didn't seem to help.

Also, bklooste, I didn't attack the Japanese. I was on the defensive behind four forts.

Thats worth noting . Note i was thinking more like 2/3 should be on reserve with a good comander they will get comitted if attacked with 1/5 you shouldnt see much. Read the AAR it goes into much more detail and im spilling this 2nd hand.


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 58
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 9:00:11 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

let us get a bit more tied to facts. I have a feeling that some of us are discussing a bit "abstract", assuming a transfer from one nationality/theatre to another is possible. I think the problems of someone who is playing China in a PBEM are "typically Chinese", so let me try to illustrate some of them with data from my PBEM.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

200 per month....there must be an issue there 1200 squads per year or about 12K men , clearly thats wrong unless a squad suddenly became a battalion... I wouldnt be surprised if China got 200 per day ,Japan and the US do.



Why don't we look it up ? It's readily available:




Production is 200 squads per month. 6 per day, 19 during three days of production in January - it all matches.

But that production rate is not the limiting factor for replacements. As you see from the above data, which are from January 3rd 1942, 32 Chinese Inf squads have been used. That's a bit more than one per day. In other words, the recruiting output of China that actually reaches the troops is 1 squad per day. And this is the rate early in the game, when China still has relatively high supply levels. They are going down continuously. The production of Chinese infantry never reaches the LCUs.

To be continued...

Hartwig

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 12/15/2009 9:09:13 AM >

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 59
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 9:13:45 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

let's next give those of you who did not play China in a PBEM so far a feeling for actual rates of recovery for disabled squads. This is the status of a unit at Chungking, which has HQs and is my best-supplied place in China, on December 10, 1941 and January 3, 1942, respectively. During the entire time, it has been sitting on rest/train.




Did anyone say "disabled troops recover quickly" ? These are the facts in China: A unit in a place with as much supply as you can get, HQs, away from the frontlines, resting continuously gets in 24 game days 9 (!) Rifle squads out of disruption.

Do you understand better why 100 disabled squads are a big issue for the respective player ? Given the present rate of reenablement, it takes me 10-11 months at a quiet base to get back to where I was before the bombardment. Those effects may be a bit too long-lived...

As a side note, one interesting aspect is that the other parts of the TOC get back into fighting condition much more quickly. Is the likelihood for recovery a device-dependent parameter ? If so, maybe the one for Chinese rifle squads should be checked / modified.

I hope these facts help to bring the discussion a bit closer to the facts rather than wild assumptions.

Hartwig

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 12/15/2009 9:28:43 AM >

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: More information needed... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.406