Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Once again your using Europe as an example. The IJA did not have the same military doctrine as was the case in Europe. The IJA did not place any emphasis on air/artillery coordination as was the case in Europe. In fact they didn't have in widepreas use spotter planes like other armies.

In fact I don;t think they had anything like the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch or spotter places like the American had.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Here is the results from a PBEM I have going. We're playing 2 day turns. If my opponent doesn't retreat my atry will evicerate him. Seems way too powerful.

Ground combat at 58,45

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 26470 troops, 530 guns, 655 vehicles, Assault Value = 935

Defending force 38883 troops, 499 guns, 207 vehicles, Assault Value = 1289

Japanese ground losses:
     923 casualties reported
        Squads: 8 destroyed, 37 disabled
        Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 63 disabled
        Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
     Guns lost 10 (1 destroyed, 9 disabled)
     Vehicles lost 7 (4 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
     19 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
   29th British Brigade
   26th Indian Brigade
   2nd Recce Regiment
   268th Motorised Brigade
   72nd British Brigade
   5th Indian Division

Defending units:
   5th/A Division
   41st Infantry Regiment
   4th Guards Division
   56th Infantry Regiment
   5th/B Division
   5th/C Division
   33rd/A Division
   56th Field Artillery Regiment
   54th Field AA Battalion
   15th Army
   3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
   18th Mountain Gun Regiment
   56th Field AA Battalion
   3rd Mortar Battalion




Ground combat at 58,45

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 26499 troops, 530 guns, 654 vehicles, Assault Value = 941

Defending force 38241 troops, 498 guns, 203 vehicles, Assault Value = 1254

Japanese ground losses:
     1201 casualties reported
        Squads: 8 destroyed, 45 disabled
        Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 97 disabled
        Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
     Guns lost 25 (14 destroyed, 11 disabled)
     Vehicles lost 10 (2 destroyed, 8 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
     14 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
        Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
     Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Assaulting units:
   72nd British Brigade
   2nd Recce Regiment
   268th Motorised Brigade
   26th Indian Brigade
   29th British Brigade
   5th Indian Division

Defending units:
   4th Guards Division
   5th/C Division
   5th/B Division
   41st Infantry Regiment
   56th Infantry Regiment
   5th/A Division
   33rd/A Division
   56th Field AA Battalion
   18th Mountain Gun Regiment
   3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
   54th Field AA Battalion
   15th Army
   56th Field Artillery Regiment
   3rd Mortar Battalion

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I agree.  Artillery is still too powerful.  It will work both ways - both sides will suffer a-historical casualties regularly.  But it will make it very difficult (as ETF pointed out above) for one side to advance on the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

I understand you have strong opinions about this subject, and you certainly have the right to express those opinoins, but isn't enough, enough?

quote:

....as well as ngfs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

....as well as ngfs

what is ngfs ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
What is so hard to understand?

Units caught in clear terrain WILL be hammered by artillary. That is what happened in RL, that is what is happening in AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

....as well as ngfs

what is ngfs ?

Naval Gun Fire Support.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Frankly, I don't understand the defensiveness.  The only way to bring issues to the attention of the developers is to bring issues to their attention.  We're not doing so in a rude fashion; we're not piling on; we're not slinging poisoned darts.  We love the game and when we think we see problems we want to point it out.

There is no way in the Pacific Theater (especially Burma) that you would have sustained bombardment casualties of this sort in WWII.  Either artillery is too powerful or it is too easy to mass artillery in this game.  If people (and the developers) are comfortable with this, fine.  The problem will cut both ways, so it will effect both sides.  But it does detract from the historic feel of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think the answer is made up of many "tweaks"

The latest patch addressed some of the supply based problems, it may prove OK but experience will tell.

Some "tweaking" of the devices is needed.
The ratings are Range,Accuracy, Penetration, Effect, Anti-Armour, Anti -Soft
A japanese 75mm Infantry Gun has 8/8/40/12/40/12
The British 25pdr 12/5/60/25/60/32  
The USA 105mm 12/6/6/35/60/36

Maybe a review of these figures is needed and a base "scenario" created to test results. Though Artillery offensives were rare in the PTO (maybe Okinawa?)

I havent tried ths much in AE, though in WITP I worked on Bombs, Torps & Naval Guns to take some of the edge off super torpedos and Nuclear Shore Bombardments, seemed to work if you used small increments and approached all devices equally.

IMHO, it would be very unusual to get 1000 casualties in one day on a 40 mile front, not every gun can reach every soldier (in open terrain the troops would be evenly spread in depth therefore the Arty would have to spread out their attack.

Keep at it Guys, you'll have it right for WITPAE II.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
What is so hard to understand?

Units caught in clear terrain WILL be hammered by artillary. That is what happened in RL, that is what is happening in AE.

You’re missing the point. I agree units caught in the open were often massacred by artillery, but those units were advancing to the attack, i.e. they had an assault order. The problem in game is you can get that kind of devastating fire on your opponents turn after turn even if your opponent is just sitting idle trying to dig in.

That never occurred in real life. It wasn’t possible because the hex is a 40 mile hex. Your spotters might see an occasional target of opportunity to shoot at, but for the most part everyone stayed out of the LOS of the opponent when not massing for the attack.

Artillery needs to be prevented from bombarding period unless an attack is going in. It’s a game breaker pure and simple in its current form and has no basis in history. Artillery did not blanket saturate massive numbers of large combat units every single day causing thousands upon thousands of casualties. It was a targeted weapon used to blast individual strongpoints in the enemy line.

On defense it could devastate exposed attacking infantry, so attacking artillery tried to suppress defending artillery. But just sitting around on the line each day you’d be lucky to spot an enemy squad sized patrol to shoot at. In game artillery hits every single unit with 100% accuracy every single day… patently absurd situation.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
There is nothing wrong with the way artillery is modeled in AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Frankly, I don't understand the defensiveness.  The only way to bring issues to the attention of the developers is to bring issues to their attention.  We're not doing so in a rude fashion; we're not piling on; we're not slinging poisoned darts.  We love the game and when we think we see problems we want to point it out.

There is no way in the Pacific Theater (especially Burma) that you would have sustained bombardment casualties of this sort in WWII.  Either artillery is too powerful or it is too easy to mass artillery in this game.  If people (and the developers) are comfortable with this, fine.  The problem will cut both ways, so it will effect both sides.  But it does detract from the historic feel of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I apologize for "running to the forum" with my concerns.  For some reason doing so really irks some people.

I've said this repeatedly:  Either artillery is too powerful or the ability to employ it in the game is wrong.  Rather than avoid the issue or assign blame to the innocent player employing artillery to defend or attack, identify and fix the problem (assuming there is one).

My opponent isn't doing anything wrong in the game.  He has six artillery units at Akyab.  They tore the Allies to pieces in ways that don't seem (to me) historical. 

Others are expressing similar concerns. Let's determine if there is a problem and if so fix it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Chickenboy, thanks for adding in your data.  I think everybody who has chimed in agrees that the artillery model against fortified positions (whether Bataan, Changsha, whatever) has been tweaked and is now satisfactory.  Of course, many more people will be playing and going through the siege process, so we'll get more data as time passes, but everything looks very promising in this regard.

The main question now up for consideration is whether or not artillery is too strong against unintrenched troops.  Thus far the comments have been divided:  some say yes, some say no.  I think the answer is most definately "yes." 

I hope people will continue to weigh in with the results from their games along with their commentary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Sure, both of those might be effective ways of addressing the situation.

Here's how I would expect artillery to play out in AE (this would be a bell-shaped curve, allowing for some decidely unusual results on occasion):

1.  Artillery in prepared positions against an attacking enemy in relatively open terrain should be quite effective.  Example:  Iwo Jima.

2.  Artillery in relatively open, unprepared positions should take high losses.  Example:  the Japanese at Tarawa.  Artillery in prepared positions should be tough to take out.  Example:  Iwo Jima.

3.  Artillery against a non-attacking enemy in a fortified position should have a slight affect (and this is indeed the case thanks to the recent Hot Fix).  Examples:  Bataan, Corregidor.

4.  Artillery against an attacking enemy in an unfortified but "rough" hex (jungle, mountain, etc) should have a moderate effect.  Example:  Guadalcanal.

5.  Artillery against an attacking enemy in an unfortified and open hex should have a major effect.  Example:  Tarawa (though in that case the "artillery" was actually naval fire).