Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: koontz

Ground combat at Kiska Island (157,51)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3783 troops, 38 guns, 4 vehicles, Assault Value = 134

Defending force 6813 troops, 144 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 124

Allied adjusted assault: 53

Japanese adjusted defense: 232

Allied assault odds: 1 to 4 (fort level 2)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
657 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 24 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 41 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled


Allied ground losses:
82 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled


Assaulting units:
53rd (Sep) Infantry Regiment
1/151st Combat Engineer Battalion
4th USN Naval Construction Battalion

Defending units:
Maizuru 3rd SNLF
4th Engineer Coy
303rd Ind.Infantry Battalion
Kiska Air Defense AA Division
51st JNAF AF Unit
8th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
Northern Army /4

Anyone know what happend?

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

Ground combat at Kunming (69,48)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1350 troops, 12 guns, 192 vehicles, Assault Value = 102

Defending force 12109 troops, 26 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 456

Japanese adjusted assault: 88

Allied adjusted defense: 943

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 10 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker:


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


Assaulting units:
7th Ind.Tank Brigade

Defending units:
5th Chinese Corps
China Air TaskForce
5th Group Army
11th Group Army
16th Chinese Base Force

This ofc does not count since my guys are no-good Chinese, but still not even a dent in his tanks...

Terje

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Don't forget that the game engine also reports any attack that includes any attacking non-artillery ground units as an assault rather than a bombardment even if it is a 3 man fire team pinning the enemy down for a 700 gun bombardment.

Although it doesn't appear to be the case here, I have seen outrageously obscenely negative odds for an attacker that yielded tremendous casualties for the defender while leaving the attacker almost unscathed. When I asked about the strangeness of this kind of result the responses I received all pointed to the fact that there were few actual attackers to take casualties while the defenders got hammered by overwhelming artillery fire.

Personally, I think it's a bit absurd to portray what is essentially a bombardment as an assault. It results in combat reports that make no sense and only lead to confused and bewildered players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
WitP-AE does not model armour or anti-armour operations with any degree of realism. However, it's not seen by most players as that important. I've been scratching my head about the problems we see in this area and the positive respect garnered by the same design team for WitE. It may have a lot to do with the turn length and hex size.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

One of the strengths of the Beyond Valor/WitP/AE system is that it depicts triphibious warfare (land, sea, and air). However, the system was originally designed for naval and air power with land combat done as something of an abstraction from the real thing. The way the land combat part of the game is designed, it will never be completely accurate. The goal was to make sure the overall results fell within the boundaries of reality most of the time and that land battles would usually last about as long as real ones with overall results (ie who won the battle) would match reality most of the time.

Sometimes the combat details will look a bit odd and the engine allows some unrealistic things like the "telephone pole" stack of units in one hex that make Operation Bagration look like a small tiff. There really wasn't anyway around these things without a very major rewrite from scratch of the land combat system. That alone could have taken as long as the entire project did.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Don't forget that the game engine also reports any attack that includes any attacking non-artillery ground units as an assault rather than a bombardment even if it is a 3 man fire team pinning the enemy down for a 700 gun bombardment.

Although it doesn't appear to be the case here, I have seen outrageously obscenely negative odds for an attacker that yielded tremendous casualties for the defender while leaving the attacker almost unscathed. When I asked about the strangeness of this kind of result the responses I received all pointed to the fact that there were few actual attackers to take casualties while the defenders got hammered by overwhelming artillery fire.

Personally, I think it's a bit absurd to portray what is essentially a bombardment as an assault. It results in combat reports that make no sense and only lead to confused and bewildered players.

This is an armoured assault, not a bombardment. Tanks are essentially invulnerable to infantry fire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

One of the strengths of the Beyond Valor/WitP/AE system is that it depicts triphibious warfare (land, sea, and air). However, the system was originally designed for naval and air power with land combat done as something of an abstraction from the real thing. The way the land combat part of the game is designed, it will never be completely accurate. The goal was to make sure the overall results fell within the boundaries of reality most of the time and that land battles would usually last about as long as real ones with overall results (ie who won the battle) would match reality most of the time.

Sometimes the combat details will look a bit odd and the engine allows some unrealistic things like the "telephone pole" stack of units in one hex that make Operation Bagration look like a small tiff. There really wasn't anyway around these things without a very major rewrite from scratch of the land combat system. That alone could have taken as long as the entire project did.

Bill

True. Actually if these details were kept invisible to the player and the end result still looks right most of the time then we won't get much complaining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
WitP-AE does not model armour or anti-armour operations with any degree of realism. However, it's not seen by most players as that important. I've been scratching my head about the problems we see in this area and the positive respect garnered by the same design team for WitE. It may have a lot to do with the turn length and hex size.

One of the strengths of the Beyond Valor/WitP/AE system is that it depicts triphibious warfare (land, sea, and air). However, the system was originally designed for naval and air power with land combat done as something of an abstraction from the real thing. The way the land combat part of the game is designed, it will never be completely accurate. The goal was to make sure the overall results fell within the boundaries of reality most of the time and that land battles would usually last about as long as real ones with overall results (ie who won the battle) would match reality most of the time.

Sometimes the combat details will look a bit odd and the engine allows some unrealistic things like the "telephone pole" stack of units in one hex that make Operation Bagration look like a small tiff. There really wasn't anyway around these things without a very major rewrite from scratch of the land combat system. That alone could have taken as long as the entire project did.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Don't forget that the game engine also reports any attack that includes any attacking non-artillery ground units as an assault rather than a bombardment even if it is a 3 man fire team pinning the enemy down for a 700 gun bombardment.

Although it doesn't appear to be the case here, I have seen outrageously obscenely negative odds for an attacker that yielded tremendous casualties for the defender while leaving the attacker almost unscathed. When I asked about the strangeness of this kind of result the responses I received all pointed to the fact that there were few actual attackers to take casualties while the defenders got hammered by overwhelming artillery fire.

Personally, I think it's a bit absurd to portray what is essentially a bombardment as an assault. It results in combat reports that make no sense and only lead to confused and bewildered players.

This is an armoured assault, not a bombardment. Tanks are essentially invulnerable to infantry fire.

"Although it doesn't appear to be the case here," ..........guess you missed this part.


While somewhat off point, my comments are on topic in the sense that they illustrate a part of the manner in which the combat reporting system produces reports that are difficult to decifer. What are essentially bombardments are portrayed by the reporting system as assaults.

What further obsfucates the reports is the inclusion in them of every unit in the hex instead of only the units actually participating in the assault.

Example: A force of 3 divisions, one battalion and 3 independent artillery units "assaults" a defending force of 6 divisions. The way the "assault" is structured by the attacker only the one battalion actually assualts while the 3 divisions support that assault with bombardments by thier organic artillery along with bombardments by the 3 independent artillery units. The defending force divisions have very small organic artillery forces while the attacking divisions have large artillery forces. The resultant reported combat odds are an absurd 1-47, yet the attacker inflicts 867 casualties on the defender while suffering only 132 casualties themselves.

These are the kinds of reports that lead to questioning posts by bewildered players. The player comes here for answers and is told to "read between the lines" of the report to identify that it was an overwhelming artillery advantage for the attacker that led to the defender suffering greater casualties than the attacker.

It is the combat report portraying what is essentially a bombardment as an outrageously low odds assault that creates the confusion. If it had been reported as a bombardment which it essentially was, which does not include combat odds that will appear to be in conflict the apparent force sizes, it would be far more apparent to the defender why he suffered more casualties than the attacker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Don't forget that the game engine also reports any attack that includes any attacking non-artillery ground units as an assault rather than a bombardment even if it is a 3 man fire team pinning the enemy down for a 700 gun bombardment.

Although it doesn't appear to be the case here, I have seen outrageously obscenely negative odds for an attacker that yielded tremendous casualties for the defender while leaving the attacker almost unscathed. When I asked about the strangeness of this kind of result the responses I received all pointed to the fact that there were few actual attackers to take casualties while the defenders got hammered by overwhelming artillery fire.

Personally, I think it's a bit absurd to portray what is essentially a bombardment as an assault. It results in combat reports that make no sense and only lead to confused and bewildered players.

This is an armoured assault, not a bombardment. Tanks are essentially invulnerable to infantry fire.

"Although it doesn't appear to be the case here," ..........guess you missed this part.


While somewhat off point, my comments are on topic in the sense that they illustrate a part of the manner in which the combat reporting system produces reports that are difficult to decifer. What are essentially bombardments are portrayed by the reporting system as assaults.

What further obsfucates the reports is the inclusion in them of every unit in the hex instead of only the units actually participating in the assault.

Example: A force of 3 divisions, one battalion and 3 independent artillery units "assaults" a defending force of 6 divisions. The way the "assault" is structured by the attacker only the one battalion actually assualts while the 3 divisions support that assault with bombardments by thier organic artillery along with bombardments by the 3 independent artillery units. The defending force divisions have very small organic artillery forces while the attacking divisions have large artillery forces. The resultant reported combat odds are an absurd 1-47, yet the attacker inflicts 867 casualties on the defender while suffering only 132 casualties themselves.

These are the kinds of reports that lead to questioning posts by bewildered players. The player comes here for answers and is told to "read between the lines" of the report to identify that it was an overwhelming artillery advantage for the attacker that led to the defender suffering greater casualties than the attacker.

It is the combat report portraying what is essentially a bombardment as an outrageously low odds assault that creates the confusion. If it had been reported as a bombardment which it essentially was, which does not include combat odds that will appear to be in conflict the apparent force sizes, it would be far more apparent to the defender why he suffered more casualties than the attacker.

A bombardment by a single battalion of guns on a defending division in a 46 mile hex producing 238 casualties? That was roughly the number of casualties an assaulting US division would take in a day on a four mile front. We're talking 1/10th the target density and 1/5th the target exposure. Most WWII guns only had an effective range of a few miles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Don't forget that the game engine also reports any attack that includes any attacking non-artillery ground units as an assault rather than a bombardment even if it is a 3 man fire team pinning the enemy down for a 700 gun bombardment.

Although it doesn't appear to be the case here, I have seen outrageously obscenely negative odds for an attacker that yielded tremendous casualties for the defender while leaving the attacker almost unscathed. When I asked about the strangeness of this kind of result the responses I received all pointed to the fact that there were few actual attackers to take casualties while the defenders got hammered by overwhelming artillery fire.

Personally, I think it's a bit absurd to portray what is essentially a bombardment as an assault. It results in combat reports that make no sense and only lead to confused and bewildered players.

This is an armoured assault, not a bombardment. Tanks are essentially invulnerable to infantry fire.

"Although it doesn't appear to be the case here," ..........guess you missed this part.


While somewhat off point, my comments are on topic in the sense that they illustrate a part of the manner in which the combat reporting system produces reports that are difficult to decifer. What are essentially bombardments are portrayed by the reporting system as assaults.

What further obsfucates the reports is the inclusion in them of every unit in the hex instead of only the units actually participating in the assault.

Example: A force of 3 divisions, one battalion and 3 independent artillery units "assaults" a defending force of 6 divisions. The way the "assault" is structured by the attacker only the one battalion actually assualts while the 3 divisions support that assault with bombardments by thier organic artillery along with bombardments by the 3 independent artillery units. The defending force divisions have very small organic artillery forces while the attacking divisions have large artillery forces. The resultant reported combat odds are an absurd 1-47, yet the attacker inflicts 867 casualties on the defender while suffering only 132 casualties themselves.

These are the kinds of reports that lead to questioning posts by bewildered players. The player comes here for answers and is told to "read between the lines" of the report to identify that it was an overwhelming artillery advantage for the attacker that led to the defender suffering greater casualties than the attacker.

It is the combat report portraying what is essentially a bombardment as an outrageously low odds assault that creates the confusion. If it had been reported as a bombardment which it essentially was, which does not include combat odds that will appear to be in conflict the apparent force sizes, it would be far more apparent to the defender why he suffered more casualties than the attacker.

A bombardment by a single battalion of guns on a defending division in a 46 mile hex producing 238 casualties? That was roughly the number of casualties an assaulting US division would take in a day on a four mile front. We're talking 1/10th the target density and 1/5th the target exposure. Most WWII guns only had an effective range of a few miles.

The combat results numbers, as well as the combat odds I used where completely arbitrary. I have seen enough combat results with numbers of this magnitude to make the point valid. If you like I can wade through the combat reports for the last couple hundred turns I have played and provide actual examples of similar reports. Besides, I stated that three dividions worth of organic artillery AND three independent artillery units ALSO fired in conjuction with the attacking battalion. I didn't portray it as a bombardment by a sole battalion.

Since you don't seem to be capable of grasping the point I am making regarding the confusing manner of the combat reports please disregard.


p.s. Try looking past the trees to see the forest, you are getting caught up in the minutia