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: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two

 
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: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 10:52:06 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

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


Using a leader with an admin rating of 29 is not the best idea if you want fast recovery of disabled squads/devices.

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 61
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 11:54:08 AM   
modrow

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Using a leader with an admin rating of 29 is not the best idea if you want fast recovery of disabled squads/devices.


In general, you are correct, but what does this really mean in this context?

If the recovery scales in a linear way with admin rating, there would be 18 Rifle Squads replacement (so recovering from a day of barrage with 100 disabled sqads would just take 5.5 months) if an admin 58 leader (the Chinese have a total of 7 leaders with 58 or a better admin level ready for deployment) would be in command. Really destroys the entire point shown above. Or does it not ?

Also, note that the other assets than rifle squads recovered reasonably fast.

Problem is that I am using game data, not test data, which means that a) there are not many units that have been sitting for a long time at a well supplied base without interaction with the enemy in rest mode and b) I frankly believe there are better things to do with your 50PP per turn than replacing leaders in China in places where nothing is happening right now. But I can try to check whether there is another unit that qualifies...

Ideally, I could run a test - perhaps I actually will, but that is not a promise.

Hartwig

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 62
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 11:59:51 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

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


Using a leader with an admin rating of 29 is not the best idea if you want fast recovery of disabled squads/devices.



that´s true. What´s also true is that the Chinese leaders are 99% crap.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 63
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 12:34:13 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

Kereguelen,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Using a leader with an admin rating of 29 is not the best idea if you want fast recovery of disabled squads/devices.


In general, you are correct, but what does this really mean in this context?

If the recovery scales in a linear way with admin rating, there would be 18 Rifle Squads replacement (so recovering from a day of barrage with 100 disabled sqads would just take 5.5 months) if an admin 58 leader (the Chinese have a total of 7 leaders with 58 or a better admin level ready for deployment) would be in command. Really destroys the entire point shown above. Or does it not ?

Also, note that the other assets than rifle squads recovered reasonably fast.

Problem is that I am using game data, not test data, which means that a) there are not many units that have been sitting for a long time at a well supplied base without interaction with the enemy in rest mode and b) I frankly believe there are better things to do with your 50PP per turn than replacing leaders in China in places where nothing is happening right now. But I can try to check whether there is another unit that qualifies...

Ideally, I could run a test - perhaps I actually will, but that is not a promise.

Hartwig


It doesn't. Dice rolls/randoms involved.

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 64
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 1:31:57 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		If China recovers 200 per day it would surprise maybe it includes the fact that units automatcially respawn.

Durring the WOR the Chinese deaths were 3-4 million soldiers. If we asume 2 Million deaths in 1941-45 , thats 500K per year or 1370 per day or about 100-130 squads Killed per day every day, note wounded etc is normally 3* the rate. So that amount in a battle is low.

Considering that either
- The 200 rate does not respresent per month
- The Chinese recovery in the game relies entirely on respawns.
- The army was fully mobilized in 41 which means it would have a strength to absorb those 2M losses. (Knowing China this is unlikely its easy enough to round up another 20 K when needed )


With regard to disabled its a good idea to rotate units into reserve it should make a massive difference as the new units wont have any disabled ( this doesnt solve the recruitment or fort value problem)

Lastly while Changsha itself is flat its ringed with hills historically Chinese artillary here was quite devistating ( and this is where they used there heavy guns which included German 105 and 150mm)

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 65
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 7:43:02 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Durring the WOR the Chinese deaths were 3-4 million soldiers.


China did not lose 3-4 million dead, they lost 1.3 million dead from the Nationalist forces for the entire period 1937-1945. Also most of those killed in battle had already died by 1941. There was very little fighting in China after Pearl Harbor compared to what had gone on before Japan declared war on the rest of the world.

Sure there was fighting still, but nowhere near the same scale as before. Japan was for the most part content to simply sit on what they had and focus their efforts in the pacific.

http://worldwar2database.com/html/frame5.html

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 66
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/15/2009 10:45:26 PM   
modrow

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
It doesn't. Dice rolls/randoms involved.


Sorry, maybe I'm wrong, but to me that does not rule out a linear dependence:

If the check is "roll a number n between 1 and N (100?), if the number is smaller or equal to X then reenable", then the chance that the reenablement occurs is twice as high if you use twice as high a threshold. Unless you are using loaded dice (i.e. the distribution of results of the roll is not equal), you will get twice the replacements if you do enough rolls.

Hartwig



< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 12/15/2009 10:47:22 PM >

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 67
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/16/2009 12:00:52 AM   
bklooste

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Durring the WOR the Chinese deaths were 3-4 million soldiers.


China did not lose 3-4 million dead, they lost 1.3 million dead from the Nationalist forces for the entire period 1937-1945. Also most of those killed in battle had already died by 1941. There was very little fighting in China after Pearl Harbor compared to what had gone on before Japan declared war on the rest of the world.

Sure there was fighting still, but nowhere near the same scale as before. Japan was for the most part content to simply sit on what they had and focus their efforts in the pacific.

http://worldwar2database.com/html/frame5.html

Jim



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_China

3 studies show 3-4M dead.

The offical account of the war published in Taiwan reported the Nationalist Chinese Army lost 3,238,000 men ( 1.797,000 WIA; 1,320,000 KIA and 120,000 MIA.) and 5,787,352 civilians in casualties. Personally i think these are about as reliable as the USSRs 1945 figures ie not very considering the MIA is 1/2 the KIA.

An academic study published in the United States estimates total war deaths of 15-20 million from all causes: military casualties: 1.5 million killed in battle, 750,000 missing in action, 1.5 million deaths due to disease and 3 million wounded;

Thats 3.7M military death (KIA ,MIA and disease) and a total of 6.7M Casualties. There is also reports of 3M militia/conscripts dead . I may be out but not by a major margin. The Major battles in terms of numbers occured later in the war ie the 1942 Battle of Changsha and the 44-45 battles. Even if you change it to 1/4 of the losses for 1941-45 it only halves it. SO if you take it as casualties your still looking at 200 squads per day of which half would be killed.




< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/16/2009 12:53:26 AM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 68
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/16/2009 1:18:18 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		hartwig.modrow,

Sorry, but IMHO your screenshots show you have made a mistake.  You say the base is well supplied...and that may well be true.  But it is largely irrelevant for the purposes of your argument.

Look at the supplies required on 3 January 1942 for the unit.  It is 726 and is in the red.  That is the relevant figure and it shows the unit is not really well enough supplied to enable a more rapid recovery in disrupted infantry squads.

Alfred

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 69
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/16/2009 7:57:47 AM   
modrow

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

hartwig.modrow,

Sorry, but IMHO your screenshots show you have made a mistake.  You say the base is well supplied...and that may well be true.  But it is largely irrelevant for the purposes of your argument.

Look at the supplies required on 3 January 1942 for the unit.  It is 726 and is in the red.  That is the relevant figure and it shows the unit is not really well enough supplied to enable a more rapid recovery in disrupted infantry squads.

Alfred


well, the question is: why have I made a mistake then (unless you refer to the mistake trying to show something a lot of people apparently don't want to accept). Unless the admin rating of the leader influences the amount of supply a unit receives (which I don't know), I am not aware of any way to exert influence this (glad to get more info on that). Then the question should be why Chinese units at a well supplied base with a HQ in rest/training mode doesn't pull enough supplies, though I think that pulling supply into units was reportedly addressed in patch 2.

As it happens to be, I found that I am in a position to show that a unit which meets the above criteria reasonably well with a leader whose admin rating is 64 (acceptable ?) did reenable a whopping 26 Rifle squads in 25 turns. So it's just 100 days to recover from a barrage with 100 disenabled rifle squads under ideal conditions.

I'll prepare and post the pictures as soon as I have the time.

Hartwig

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 12/16/2009 7:59:45 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 70
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/16/2009 8:08:23 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		As indicated above, here's the picture.

Let me just say one thing in advance: Yes, there IS yet another anomaly in that picture: on December 10, the required supply was 0. So let's discredit that in order not to have to face the facts and be done with it...

or not.

Route army was formed on december 10 from the red divisions. That's why the required supply is 0.




Hartwig

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 12/16/2009 8:09:33 AM >

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 71
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/16/2009 8:59:17 AM   
Venividivici10044


Posts: 137
Joined: 8/29/2009
Status: offline 		Just some testing thoughts... If you mod out the game leaving just a small part of the map (in this case China), you can run relatively quick test runs for problems like these.  I did this in researching my hypothesis of the Indomitable joining PoW and Repulse.   

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 72
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/16/2009 10:20:56 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

Alfred,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

hartwig.modrow,

Sorry, but IMHO your screenshots show you have made a mistake.  You say the base is well supplied...and that may well be true.  But it is largely irrelevant for the purposes of your argument.

Look at the supplies required on 3 January 1942 for the unit.  It is 726 and is in the red.  That is the relevant figure and it shows the unit is not really well enough supplied to enable a more rapid recovery in disrupted infantry squads.

Alfred


well, the question is: why have I made a mistake then (unless you refer to the mistake trying to show something a lot of people apparently don't want to accept). Unless the admin rating of the leader influences the amount of supply a unit receives (which I don't know), I am not aware of any way to exert influence this (glad to get more info on that). Then the question should be why Chinese units at a well supplied base with a HQ in rest/training mode doesn't pull enough supplies, though I think that pulling supply into units was reportedly addressed in patch 2.

As it happens to be, I found that I am in a position to show that a unit which meets the above criteria reasonably well with a leader whose admin rating is 64 (acceptable ?) did reenable a whopping 26 Rifle squads in 25 turns. So it's just 100 days to recover from a barrage with 100 disenabled rifle squads under ideal conditions.

I'll prepare and post the pictures as soon as I have the time.

Hartwig


hartwig.modrow,

The mistake I refer to is simply the implication your assertion makes that because the base is well supplied and the unit has been in rest mode all the time, a better rate of recovery for the disabled squads would be expected. My post did not apply to any other point made in your argument.

All that I am saying is that the unit in question itself was not well supplied (the figure being in red) and that is the problem which I expect slows down the rate of recovery of disabled squads. It is not sufficient that a base be well supplied, the supplies must also be distributed to the unit.

Whether or not there is a problem in the program actually distributing supplies to Chinese units is not something I have an opinion on. However I most definitely would not expect units which are not well supplied (as evidenced by being in the green) to quickly recover disabled squads.

Alfred

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 73
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/16/2009 4:17:04 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: bklooste
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_China

3 studies show 3-4M dead.

The offical account of the war published in Taiwan reported the Nationalist Chinese Army lost 3,238,000 men ( 1.797,000 WIA; 1,320,000 KIA and 120,000 MIA.) and 5,787,352 civilians in casualties. Personally i think these are about as reliable as the USSRs 1945 figures ie not very considering the MIA is 1/2 the KIA.

An academic study published in the United States estimates total war deaths of 15-20 million from all causes: military casualties: 1.5 million killed in battle, 750,000 missing in action, 1.5 million deaths due to disease and 3 million wounded;

Thats 3.7M military death (KIA ,MIA and disease) and a total of 6.7M Casualties. There is also reports of 3M militia/conscripts dead . I may be out but not by a major margin. The Major battles in terms of numbers occured later in the war ie the 1942 Battle of Changsha and the 44-45 battles. Even if you change it to 1/4 of the losses for 1941-45 it only halves it. SO if you take it as casualties your still looking at 200 squads per day of which half would be killed.


First things first. Never quote Wiki as source for anything if you wish to be taken seriously. It’s unreliable and changes constantly as people add and remove from it all the time. We even had a proven case once in the old WitP forums where a poster went and modded wiki to back up some assertions he was making in a topic of discussion.

That said the numbers you cite back up the fact there were 1.3 million dead. You can’t then go and pile on those lost from disease and wounds and try and say they should be part of the casualties caused in combats.

Disease was a big part of every armies total war casualties, but the game does not model that kind of attrition and it is wrong to try and count them when analyzing game numbers. We have killed and disabled. Killed is killed, simple enough. Disabled is missing and wounded, or damaged vehicles and equipment that can be recovered over time.

Attrition figures are “sort of” modeled in the fatigue and morale numbers, but there are no permanent losses in game that would account for them.

As to Changsha 44 being one of the major battles of the war, I agree. But in terms of numbers lost (100,000 Chinese), it doesn’t even come close to the second battle of Shanghai (or many other early battles) where China lost 250,000 of the 700,000 that defended the city, Japan lost 40,000 out of the 300,000 involved in the attack.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=144

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=85


The numbers cited for Changsha 44 are actually the total for the entire Operation Ichi Go, which encompassed an entire 17 division offensive that would be fought across half of southern China. In terms of scale, casualties after 1941 were nowhere near as bad as what had happened in the first five years of the Sino-Japanese War. China had learned to fight and their troops for the most part preformed far better than in the early years.

But the most important thing to note from the Shanghai battle is the fact the battle lasted from Aug. 37 to Nov. 37. It took 3 months to reduce this large body of Chinese troops to a point where they could be overcome. THAT is the true weakness of the current system in game. Currently Shanghai would take days or weeks to reduce and Japan would have minimal losses and would be able to move to the next objective immediately.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 74
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 5:17:58 PM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		In a related theme, I just read "The Last Valley" about the battle of Dien Ben Phu. The effects of concentrated artillery fire on the entrenched French troops was devastating.

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 75
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 6:30:08 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: kaleun
In a related theme, I just read "The Last Valley" about the battle of Dien Ben Phu. The effects of concentrated artillery fire on the entrenched French troops was devastating.


So let’s use Đięn Bięn Phú as an example for intense artillery fire effects against entrenched troops then. The French had a total of 15,709 men defending Đięn Bięn Phú. By the end of the battle they had suffered 1,726 KIA and another 5,234 wounded. This occurred between November 20, 1953 and May 7 (about 5 ˝ months), 1954. So they lost about 10 men per day killed (31 wounded) over the course of the battle. That’s not quite 1 squad in WitP terms, which I think assumes 12 men per squad.

They had trenches and sandbag dugouts at the battle, so we can assume they were about level 3-4 fortifications. And at that level they lost an average of 1 destroyed and 3 disabled squads a day under massive artillery barrages and huge human wave assaults by a force of roughly 100,000 Viet Minh.

http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 12/16/2009 6:35:39 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to kaleun)
Post #: 76
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 6:57:04 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
So let’s use Đięn Bięn Phú as an example for intense artillery fire effects against entrenched troops then.

Very true Jim. But there's other corners to the box.

French were subject to (oh shoot, I don't know, let's just call it) interdiction fires, with occasional occasional prompt pushes. They (them other folks) had the high ground and could get pretty gnarly specific, but just didn't have the pile of shells to do what we might consider a destruction bombardment.

Phan Thu'yen was a very well respected artillerist, and if he had the means, given the situation, he would have compelled capitulation far in advance of the historical schedule. But he didn't, so he couldn't.

Đięn Bięn Phú wasn't really intense, by any measure. It was merely sufficient.

< Message edited by JWE -- 12/16/2009 6:58:09 PM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 77
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 7:04:51 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Sorry guys I am late to this thread what exactly is the issue ?

Is it Chinese replacement rate ? or is It Arty.

We are fixing the latter via hot fix and 200 per month is more than China can use anyway with its supply status but its not a massive problem I can bum em up for next patch.

Andy

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 78
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 7:25:45 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Sorry guys I am late to this thread what exactly is the issue ?

Is it Chinese replacement rate ? or is It Arty.

We are fixing the latter via hot fix and 200 per month is more than China can use anyway with its supply status but its not a massive problem I can bum em up for next patch.

Andy

Long draft reply got eaten by the internet Gods.

The thread has been about artillery effect post patch, particularly in China. Please see the comments advising caution in 'nerfing' artillery lest there be major gameplay problems for the Allies on the offensive or for defensive Japanese artillery.

Pretty sure that adding more Chinese squad replacements was not identified as a feasible long-term resolution to the problem, as they would in turn be vaporized.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 79
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 7:34:46 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun
In a related theme, I just read "The Last Valley" about the battle of Dien Ben Phu. The effects of concentrated artillery fire on the entrenched French troops was devastating.


So let’s use Đięn Bięn Phú as an example for intense artillery fire effects against entrenched troops then. The French had a total of 15,709 men defending Đięn Bięn Phú. By the end of the battle they had suffered 1,726 KIA and another 5,234 wounded. This occurred between November 20, 1953 and May 7 (about 5 ˝ months), 1954. So they lost about 10 men per day killed (31 wounded) over the course of the battle. That’s not quite 1 squad in WitP terms, which I think assumes 12 men per squad.

They had trenches and sandbag dugouts at the battle, so we can assume they were about level 3-4 fortifications. And at that level they lost an average of 1 destroyed and 3 disabled squads a day under massive artillery barrages and huge human wave assaults by a force of roughly 100,000 Viet Minh.

http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/

Jim


Yes, but this is only looking at one side of the equation-the casualties assumed by the recipient of this fire.

How many tubes fired how many rounds at how many targets? Without that information, a compilation of the butcher's bill is without meaning. My limited recollection of DBP is that ammunition for the Viet Minh was in short supply and targets were scrutinized carefully to see if they merited artillery attention. I also (IIRC) don't think the VM had all that great of a number of tubes, a particularly accurate fire control system, etc to merit comparison to a first rate industrial army artillery unit (IJA, USAA, British Army, etc.)

I would also argue that a 'disabled' squad is more than just a rough approximation of numbers of wounded casualties. It would also include those with equipment destroyed, disorganized, reforming, etc.


_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 80
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 7:39:03 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		The gist of the thread is the destruction (havoc) wrought by Japanese artillery against well-entrenched Chinese troops.  You'll have to browse through the thread to find the plentiful examples cited.  Other threads have been started by a gent who has been doing tests that support the proposition with data.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 81
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 7:50:17 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
How many tubes fired how many rounds at how many targets?


That’s one Kaleun will have to answer as I didn’t read the book. He mentioned he read about devastating concentrated artillery fire, so I found the casualty lists to give us a guide as to what had occurred.

As to supply, the Viet Minh were being supplied by the Communist Chinese at the time and the French airforce wasn’t really large enough to mount a meaningful interdiction effort at the time. Almost 100% of the aircraft in country were assigned to try and keep the garrison supplied by air.

The largest concentration of Japanese artillery in the Second Sino-Japanese war was at the Xiushui River crossing. I would imagine the Viet Minh had a similar number of tubes, though perhaps not any 155s, but I’m not sure as I can’t find and good OOB site for them.

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/artillery_history.html

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 82
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 8:05:26 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
French were subject to (oh shoot, I don't know, let's just call it) interdiction fires, with occasional occasional prompt pushes. They (them other folks) had the high ground and could get pretty gnarly specific, but just didn't have the pile of shells to do what we might consider a destruction bombardment.


Right but all that kind of detail is lost in the massive abstraction of the games combat engine. All we have are raw statistical numbers to go on, tactical considerations of any given fight should have no place in an engine that tries to model 40 mile hexes and unlimited stacking restrictions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Phan Thu'yen was a very well respected artillerist, and if he had the means, given the situation, he would have compelled capitulation far in advance of the historical schedule. But he didn't, so he couldn't.


I think it was more political concerns than lack of supplies. They wanted to use the garrison as a bargaining chip in talks, so total destruction had to be held back. But that doesn’t change the effect of the artillery barrages themselves against the men in the trenches, other than perhaps the fact there was a lull period in the battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Đięn Bięn Phú wasn't really intense, by any measure. It was merely sufficient.


Compared to what Japan’s historically largest artillery concentration was in China (see above posts link) it was a pretty large scale bombardment.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 83
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 9:07:08 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Yup ok if its the arty issue then its been fixed and is being tested fair warning getting caught by medium arty in open ground in move mode is always going to be asking to be toasted no matter what we do.

There will be an adjustment for forts thats slightly more than whats in there now and a bit more protection for some kinds of terrain but getting caught in the open when the big guns start no matter who you are is going to be bad news

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 84
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 9:27:06 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I believe everybody understands that artillery does bad things to troops that aren't entrenched.  It's the effect on well-entrenched troops that is the problem (at least in China as things now stand).  I fear that the problem is much, much greater than an "adjustment for forts that's slightly more" will address.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 85
RE: More information needed... - 12/16/2009 9:55:22 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Right but all that kind of detail is lost in the massive abstraction of the games combat engine.

I suspose. Oh, well, given the wealth of data on, and from, both sides, and that it's part of the syllabus in darn near everyone's advanced schools, I guess there's no real point in discussing further in this context. Too bad. Two or three of the school solutions coulda helped out Navarre, especially when ya look at Na Sang contextually. Definitely coulda kept Piroth from eating that grenade.

Oh well. What the heck.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 86
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/17/2009 7:09:04 AM   
bklooste

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_China

3 studies show 3-4M dead.

The offical account of the war published in Taiwan reported the Nationalist Chinese Army lost 3,238,000 men ( 1.797,000 WIA; 1,320,000 KIA and 120,000 MIA.) and 5,787,352 civilians in casualties. Personally i think these are about as reliable as the USSRs 1945 figures ie not very considering the MIA is 1/2 the KIA.

An academic study published in the United States estimates total war deaths of 15-20 million from all causes: military casualties: 1.5 million killed in battle, 750,000 missing in action, 1.5 million deaths due to disease and 3 million wounded;

Thats 3.7M military death (KIA ,MIA and disease) and a total of 6.7M Casualties. There is also reports of 3M militia/conscripts dead . I may be out but not by a major margin. The Major battles in terms of numbers occured later in the war ie the 1942 Battle of Changsha and the 44-45 battles. Even if you change it to 1/4 of the losses for 1941-45 it only halves it. SO if you take it as casualties your still looking at 200 squads per day of which half would be killed.

quote:



First things first. Never quote Wiki as source for anything if you wish to be taken seriously. It’s unreliable and changes constantly as people add and remove from it all the time. We even had a proven case once in the old WitP forums where a poster went and modded wiki to back up some assertions he was making in a topic of discussion.

That said the numbers you cite back up the fact there were 1.3 million dead. You can’t then go and pile on those lost from disease and wounds and try and say they should be part of the casualties caused in combats.

One i used Wikipedias reference which iMHO is pretty reliable.

The MIA ( which were mostly KIA ) should be added they were by the US and actually Disease must be modelled in the rates of wounded etc else China in 45 should have a lot more troops which is not approrpiate . China is particularly bad in terms of disease which prob shows up in terms of Division support and the recover of units from casualties or disablements. Note in my original i highlighted 100 squads KIA per day and said there was prob a 3 * modifier for Casualties .


quote:

The numbers cited for Changsha 44 are actually the total for the entire Operation Ichi Go, which encompassed an entire 17 division offensive that would be fought across half of southern China. In terms of scale, casualties after 1941 were nowhere near as bad as what had happened in the first five years of the Sino-Japanese War. China had learned to fight and their troops for the most part preformed far better than in the early years.


There were many engagements in the early war the main battle was Shanghai ( which was the biggest battle of the war by a wide margine I agree) but the forces involved were also much bigger in the later war ( at least from the Japanese side) .


quote:

But the most important thing to note from the Shanghai battle is the fact the battle lasted from Aug. 37 to Nov. 37. It took 3 months to reduce this large body of Chinese troops to a point where they could be overcome. THAT is the true weakness of the current system in game. Currently Shanghai would take days or weeks to reduce and Japan would have minimal losses and would be able to move to the next objective immediately.


250,000KIA or Casualties in Shanghai is still 250 squads per day ( KIA or Casualties) over 3 months , i was pointing out the squads lost in a day was not excessive however the poster countered that the monthly rate is 200squads ( I note Japan in some games builds Hundreds and Thousands of squads) . My point is

1) loosing 200 squads casualties per day or much more in a major battle is not inappropriate
2) There is a major issue if the Chinese only get 200 squads per month you cant tell me that Japan equiped only 15000 man per year from 42-45. The respawns are not good either as it forces China to be aggressive where historically they would gain strength by not being aggresive. You could up this to 2000 squads per month and it would still be a low realistic 150K raised per year.
3) It is well worth noting in these major engadgements the Chinese Historically often commited 300K men and their best artillary eg the 42 battle of Changsha yet when the Japanese Death Star comes in the game the Chinese player tries to defend with 100K so the strategy is certainly off compared to historical where they quickly moved most of the Ichang forces to the more important Changsha.




< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/17/2009 9:00:03 AM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 87
RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two - 12/17/2009 9:15:02 AM   
modrow

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
hartwig.modrow,

The mistake I refer to is simply the implication your assertion makes that because the base is well supplied and the unit has been in rest mode all the time, a better rate of recovery for the disabled squads would be expected. My post did not apply to any other point made in your argument.

All that I am saying is that the unit in question itself was not well supplied (the figure being in red) and that is the problem which I expect slows down the rate of recovery of disabled squads. It is not sufficient that a base be well supplied, the supplies must also be distributed to the unit.

Whether or not there is a problem in the program actually distributing supplies to Chinese units is not something I have an opinion on. However I most definitely would not expect units which are not well supplied (as evidenced by being in the green) to quickly recover disabled squads.

Alfred


I understand what you are saying, however I do not *expect* any rate of recovery, I am just trying to make a point that the disablements induced in China are a problem for the Allied player and one cannot just disregard them by saying "oh, they are reenabled quickly". They are not. I do not say reenablement should be higher, I just say it affects what the Allied player can do.

I completely agree that I was not using an optimized example - I think I provided a better one later on which shows that even under good conditions (for China) getting diabled rifle squads back to fighting mode is difficult-, but that is not the issue. I was using a realistic example.

Let me say one more thing: The 64 leader is a factor of 2.2 better than the 29 leader. The replacement rate achieved by the fully supplied and better administrated unit (note that there was one more day available) is about a factor of 2.8 better. We are not talking about huge effects of the suboptimal conditions here, no factors of 10 or so involved.

So what can the Allied player realistically do in China for more than one or two selected units ? He can move units to places that are backwater and well supplied and put them in rest mode. If that does not lead to "quick reneablement" (and it does not), he won't get quick "quick reenablement", so disabled squads are a problem.

If people say one could use better leaders for better results, that's totally correct if you talk about one or two units - but capable leaders in China always used to be scarce, plus you can replace 3-4 per turn if you spend all your PPs on China, which I think may not be their best use. So this does not provide a solution for the problem caused by disabled units.

If people say, the units should be supplied better - yeah, sure. But it's a know fact that supply in China is scarce, so this is a bit difficult to achieve.

None of this is a solution to the Allied player's problem. All I advocate is to recognize that this is a restriction he is facing and that must be considered when discussing the results of the artillery.

Hartwig

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 88
RE: More information needed... - 12/17/2009 9:23:41 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Andy Mac,
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Sorry guys I am late to this thread what exactly is the issue ?

Is it Chinese replacement rate ? or is It Arty.

We are fixing the latter via hot fix and 200 per month is more than China can use anyway with its supply status but its not a massive problem I can bum em up for next patch.

Andy


My feeling is that we are amidst a good teutonic philosophy school type discussion. So I think there are various issues . Anyway, they have spawned a question or two for me, maybe you can provide an answer or three:

a) is rest/training the mode in which disabled sqads get back into fighting condition ? Specifically, reserve mode may be another candidate...

b) I seem to note based on lousy statistics that disabled devices and Engineers get back online much faster then Infantry squads and Support squads. Does this effect truly exist, and if so is it a device-dependent parameter or is it because a certain amount of "reenablement points" are (or aren't depending on the admin rating of the leader) allotted per turn and then used in a prioritized way (getting a big gun back into working shape may be more important then an infantry squad).

c) from your experience, what is the best average reenablement rate per turn for Chinese rifle squads that you have seen in China (without use of a supply pump pulling large amounts of supplies from India) ?

Thanks for satisfying our curiosity !

Hartwig

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 89
RE: More information needed... - 12/17/2009 11:17:13 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
How many tubes fired how many rounds at how many targets?


That’s one Kaleun will have to answer as I didn’t read the book. He mentioned he read about devastating concentrated artillery fire, so I found the casualty lists to give us a guide as to what had occurred.

As to supply, the Viet Minh were being supplied by the Communist Chinese at the time and the French airforce wasn’t really large enough to mount a meaningful interdiction effort at the time. Almost 100% of the aircraft in country were assigned to try and keep the garrison supplied by air.

The largest concentration of Japanese artillery in the Second Sino-Japanese war was at the Xiushui River crossing. I would imagine the Viet Minh had a similar number of tubes, though perhaps not any 155s, but I’m not sure as I can’t find and good OOB site for them.

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/artillery_history.html

Jim



Interestng read Jim, what site is that ?

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two 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

1.143