Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

Your results seem buggy, 47 casualties should (in my experience) only be 3 or 4 disabled, and maby 1 or 2 destroyed (if you're unlucky). 1 squad, 71 non combat, 3 guns, and 108 vehicles destroyed should be way way way more then 47 casualties in the first line.

quote:

ORIGINAL: awadley

At what point is the Base Hex Over-Stacked??  What is the penalty for over-stacking??

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Btw: why on earth did you bombard with that unit composition?
Shock attack and get done with it.

quote:

Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: awadley

At what point is the Base Hex Over-Stacked??  What is the penalty for over-stacking??

Thatīs Darwin, you canīt overstack Darwin or any other hex on a non-island hex. The Japanese own the base but why would that matter? Have you noticed their "counterbattery fire"? And that counterfiring is independent of who owns what.

As a side note, people should note that probably 80%+ of all available US artillery units have been placed in this hex. Boy, artillery is soooo broken... The mighty Japanese divisional artillery took out a full tank unit if you count all these tanks together. But hey, a deliberate attack that has been tried with this "Panzerarmee" also saw hundreds of tanks knocked out by the Japanese that have been known as the number one anti tank Nation in the world. Have you ever heard about the Famous 8.8? The best anti tank weapon of the world at that time... Same as their famous Japanese Tiger tanks, they slice through my tank units like a hot knife through butter.

oh wait, were these German designs? And the Japanese were employing 37mm or 45mm pop guns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
oh wait, were these German designs? And the Japanese were employing 37mm or 45mm pop guns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

quote:

Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

quote:

Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days

This is absolutely possible.

But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions.

I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are.
I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode.
He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns.
We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are.
We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops.
He looks brutally anemic on infantry.
The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force.


So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses
it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post.


Concidering all the above I can only shrug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

quote:

Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days

This is absolutely possible.

But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions.

I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are.
I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode.
He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns.
We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are.
We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops.
He looks brutally anemic on infantry.
The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force.


So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses
it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post.


Concidering all the above I can only shrug.

being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if itīs obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "itīs right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer.

I wonder whatīs not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think thatīs correct. Iīm not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, Iīm arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on whatīs behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

quote:

Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days

This is absolutely possible.

But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions.

I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are.
I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode.
He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns.
We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are.
We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops.
He looks brutally anemic on infantry.
The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force.


So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses
it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post.


Concidering all the above I can only shrug.

being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if itīs obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "itīs right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer.

I wonder whatīs not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think thatīs correct. Iīm not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, Iīm arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on whatīs behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack.

Ah and before I forget:

We donīt even know it the destroyed vehicles are really tanks.
They could be eng vehicles or motorized support (although I am not sure if this counts as a vehicle) when I look at this troop composition...

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

quote:

Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days

This is absolutely possible.

But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions.

I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are.
I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode.
He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns.
We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are.
We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops.
He looks brutally anemic on infantry.
The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force.


So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses
it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post.


Concidering all the above I can only shrug.

being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if itīs obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "itīs right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer.

I wonder whatīs not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think thatīs correct. Iīm not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, Iīm arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on whatīs behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack.

Ah and before I forget:

We donīt even know it the destroyed vehicles are really tanks.
They could be eng vehicles or motorized support (although I am not sure if this counts as a vehicle) when I look at this troop composition...

WE in terms of the rest of the forum of course doesnīt know that but I know. And yes, motorized support and eng vehicles do show up as vehicles destroyed. And no, not all of these "vehicles destroyed" were tanks but a rough guess would be 50%. Sorry that I didnīt count up every single tank every turn to compare it the next turn. Of course you would have to believe me in that aspect but I of course canīt expect that.

Again, Iīm not arguing about the effect of the side that actually DID the bombardment, Iīm not fine with that kind of magic COUNTERbombardment.

And yes, this is only one example once more and I also clearly stated in my op that this is NOT the norm. Not meaning that I would think the norm is ok, but surely the norm is more ok than this totally off result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

quote:

Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days

This is absolutely possible.

But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions.

I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are.
I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode.
He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns.
We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are.
We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops.
He looks brutally anemic on infantry.
The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force.


So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses
it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post.


Concidering all the above I can only shrug.

being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if itīs obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "itīs right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer.

I wonder whatīs not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think thatīs correct. Iīm not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, Iīm arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on whatīs behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack.

Ah and before I forget:

We donīt even know it the destroyed vehicles are really tanks.
They could be eng vehicles or motorized support (although I am not sure if this counts as a vehicle) when I look at this troop composition...

WE in terms of the rest of the forum of course doesnīt know that but I know. And yes, motorized support and eng vehicles do show up as vehicles destroyed. And no, not all of these "vehicles destroyed" were tanks but a rough guess would be 50%. Sorry that I didnīt count up every single tank every turn to compare it the next turn. Of course you would have to believe me in that aspect but I of course canīt expect that.

Again, Iīm not arguing about the effect of the side that actually DID the bombardment, Iīm not fine with that kind of magic COUNTERbombardment.

And yes, this is only one example once more and I also clearly stated in my op that this is NOT the norm. Not meaning that I would think the norm is ok, but surely the norm is more ok than this totally off result.

So the rough guess is based on you actually looking at the number of vehicles in your units before and after the battle or
is it just a random value?

Just to explain my impression on this thread in case it was not clear:

Before:

Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances.

After:

Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances.

Wow, this army composition looks like someone believes "balance of force" means adding a small stone as counterweight so the whole
thing does not topple over on first contact, and i need neither a brain nor do need to be sober to come to this conclusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
what you never notice (true for the other discussion too) is that what you describe or can think of has nothing to do with what actually happened. You could also make an assumption about where my carriers were or the weather in Burma or if my 4E flew an attack against Rabaul. Force composition? Thatīs an argument if I would talk about a succesful or unsuccesful attack but we are NOT talking about an attack here. We are talking about two sides firing at each other with artillery. There were no infantry or tank attacks so your argument about composition of force totally misses the point. We had one STRONG artillery force ordered to do a bombardment and the bombarded WEAK force counterbombarded shredded the one that actually was dishing out dozens or hundreds of times more shells than the bombarded.

But hey, we both probably are happy with our thoughts, because Iīm sure you think that everything is ok when I say itīs not and vice versa. For me, that example is off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Just to explain my impression on this thread in case it was not clear:

Before:

Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances.

After:

Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances.

Wow, this army composition looks like someone believes "balance of force" means adding a small stone as counterweight so the whole
thing does not topple over on first contact, and i need neither a brain nor do need to be sober to come to this conclusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pionkki

Just wanted to share different kind of results. Firing weapons: 2*80mm mortar