Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ?

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 >> Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 12:03:26 AM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

That attack was not funny

. I would say there is no way to capture such a base without cutting off supply.

Ground combat at Pegu (55,53)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 138389 troops, 2219 guns, 1257 vehicles, Assault Value = 4869

Defending force 167376 troops, 2260 guns, 2798 vehicles, Assault Value = 5323

Japanese ground losses:
155 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 16 (2 destroyed, 14 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
4694 casualties reported
Squads: 110 destroyed, 291 disabled
Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 46 disabled
Engineers: 10 destroyed, 55 disabled
Guns lost 113 (25 destroyed, 88 disabled)
Vehicles lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Assaulting units:
1st New Chinese Corps
23rd Indian Division
19th Indian Division
40th Infantry Division
14th Indian Division
81st (West African) Division
3rd New Chinese Corps
11th (East African) Division
6th New Chinese Corps
36th Indian Division
5th Chinese Corps
26th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
2/13th Field Regiment
8th Medium Regiment
85th British AT Gun Regiment
2/9th Field Regiment
III Indian Corps
23rd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
24th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
98th Field Artillery Battalion
30th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
25th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
29th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
XXXIII Indian Corps
33rd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
2nd Indian Field Regiment
6th Mixed A/T Mtr Regiment
272/273rd Bty 80th AT Gun Regiment
2/11th Field Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
5th Field Regiment

Defending units:
1st Tank Division
14th Tank Regiment
2nd Indpt SNLF Coy
24th Ind.Mixed Brigade
46th Division
41st Division
2nd Guards Division
56th Division
25th Ind.Mixed Brigade
28th Ind.Mixed Brigade
22nd Tank Regiment
5th Division
20th Division
1st Division
9th Tank Regiment
75th Infantry Brigade
26th Ind.Mixed Brigade
30th Division
21st Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Tank Division
Yokosuka 2nd SNLF
4th RF Gun Battalion
52nd Construction Battalion
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
5th RF Gun Battalion
6th RF Gun Battalion
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
60th JNAF AF Unit
5th Field AF Construction Battalion
53rd Const Co
10th RF Gun Battalion
15th Const Co
35th Fld AA Gun Co
92nd JAAF AF Bn
7th Field AF Construction Battalion
49th Field AA Battalion
20th AA Regiment
6th Air Division
11th RF Gun Battalion
25th JAAF AF Bn
22nd Ind.AA Gun Co
2nd Ind.AA Gun Co
23rd AA Regiment
11th Ind.AA Gun Co
31st Field AA Battalion
1st RF Gun Battalion
3rd Mortar Battalion
21st Air Defense AA Regiment
26th Fld AA Gun Co
2nd Mortar Battalion
Southern Army
26th Air Defense AA Regiment
15th Army
21st Ind.AA Gun Co
1st Air Defense AA Regiment
21st Fld AA Gun Co
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
29th Army
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd RF Gun Battalion
38th Field AA Battalion
5th Mortar Battalion
40th Field AA Battalion
25th Air Defense AA Regiment
11th Air Defense AA Regiment
37th Const Co
42nd Air Defense AA Regiment
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
32nd Field AA Battalion
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
36th Const Co
32nd Air Defense AA Battalion
51st Construction Battalion
54th Const Co
11th JAAF AF Bn

< Message edited by beppi -- 10/13/2011 12:05:39 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 12:07:20 AM

ADB123

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline

It looks like the Allies were shooting uphill and the Japanese were shooting downhill...

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 2

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 12:43:17 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

And your point is?. You are attacking a dug in defender with less than 1-1 odds and using some pretty craptacular Chinese troops with very little in the way of equipment . Generally 3-1 is the bare minimum and you will have to wear them down. Yes, I would expect the only way to take them out is to surround them.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to ADB123)

Post #: 3

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 12:47:45 AM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And your point is?. You are attacking a dug in defender with less than 1-1 odds and using some pretty craptacular Chinese troops with very little in the way of equipment . Generally 3-1 is the bare minimum and you will have to wear them down. Yes, I would expect the only way to take them out is to surround them.

The point is more or less, 95% of the squad losses where Indian and British units and 110 killed squads + 291 disabled is quite a good rate for a bombardement.

< Message edited by beppi -- 10/13/2011 12:48:48 AM >

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 4

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 12:55:26 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

It was your own personal "Cold Harbor"

"I have always regretted the second assault at Cold Harbor was made. No advantage whatsoever, was gained, to make up for the terrible loss of life" U.S. Grant

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 5

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 1:11:33 AM

Misconduct

Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

Yeah, hate to say this - but you are going to need some massive airpower to break this defense. Even then with the losses you will need some serious reinforcements to that.

I really ignore all Chinese units, AI or PBEM - I even gave my PBEM opponent a great tip by telling him i won't even bother with it, really the key is to defend and hold up objectives, however when you lack supplies or airpower, in my "opinion" its not worth since he can easily out gun me in every respect except manpower.

_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 1:16:34 AM

ADB123

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And your point is?. You are attacking a dug in defender with less than 1-1 odds and using some pretty craptacular Chinese troops with very little in the way of equipment . Generally 3-1 is the bare minimum and you will have to wear them down. Yes, I would expect the only way to take them out is to surround them.

The point is more or less, 95% of the squad losses where Indian and British units and 110 killed squads + 291 disabled is quite a good rate for a bombardement.

The 3:1 rule holds for artillery as well as infantry in AE. If you want to bombard, you have to have a significant advantage in numbers of big guns. And even then it works much better if your opponent's troops are cut off from supply and disrupted by Air attacks.

In general, Artillery attacks in AE are very risky unless you know for certain that your opponent is heavily outgunned. Otherwise counter-battery fire will devastate you as you saw there.

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 7

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 2:52:41 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And your point is?. You are attacking a dug in defender with less than 1-1 odds and using some pretty craptacular Chinese troops with very little in the way of equipment . Generally 3-1 is the bare minimum and you will have to wear them down. Yes, I would expect the only way to take them out is to surround them.

The point is more or less, 95% of the squad losses where Indian and British units and 110 killed squads + 291 disabled is quite a good rate for a bombardement.

I'll go even further and say that bombardment attacks only have two valid purposes:

1) Recon by fire: the number of your dead will tell you how strong they are
2) Sap supplies: If you have a reasonable amount of artillery and your opponent has very little you can significantly deplete his supplies at little cost by bombarding. Of course if your opponent has a lot of artillery you deplete his supplies even more but your cost is pretty much as shown in the OP.

< Message edited by pompack -- 10/13/2011 2:53:36 AM >

(in reply to ADB123)

Post #: 8

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 2:53:34 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Yeah, hate to say this - but you are going to need some massive airpower to break this defense. Even then with the losses you will need some serious reinforcements to that.

I really ignore all Chinese units, AI or PBEM - I even gave my PBEM opponent a great tip by telling him i won't even bother with it, really the key is to defend and hold up objectives, however when you lack supplies or airpower, in my "opinion" its not worth since he can easily out gun me in every respect except manpower.

From my game, January 1945:
===============================
Ground combat at Taiyuan (91,40)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 43724 troops, 663 guns, 253 vehicles, Assault Value = 795

Defending force 80289 troops, 496 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2876

Japanese adjusted assault: 398

Allied adjusted defense: 7285

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 18

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

Japanese ground losses:
10540 casualties reported
Squads: 264 destroyed, 170 disabled
Non Combat: 395 destroyed, 124 disabled
Engineers: 34 destroyed, 33 disabled
Vehicles lost 46 (17 destroyed, 29 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
254 casualties reported
Squads: 22 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Assaulting units:
110th Division
41st Division
9th Ind.Mixed Brigade
4th Cavalry Brigade
27th Division
36th Division
69th Division
37th Division
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
9th Mongol Cavalry Division
1st Army
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
43rd Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
40th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Cavalry Corps
33rd Chinese Corps
80th Chinese Corps
8th Route Army
1st Chinese Corps
47th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
34th Chinese Corps
57th Chinese Corps
3rd Prov Chinese Corps
24th Group Army
14th Group Army
13th Group Army
15th Group Army
Jingcha War Area
18th Group Army
8th Group Army
39th Group Army
36th Group Army
6th Group Army
1st War Area
7th Group Army
10th Chinese Base Force
===========================

This is not an abberation; there have been dozens of attacks such as this as the Japanese AI seeks to stop the steamroller a late-war, well-supplied, Chinese army can be. Note that the Chinese side has a (-) in experience, yet still won decisively.

I'll say it again--many Allied players need to get into the late war and stop re-playing 1942 over and over. It's a different game.

Would a human Japanese player make this attack? Maybe not. But the AI is doing it largely because I'm not giving it a choice. A PBEM game could be directionally the same.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 10/13/2011 2:55:39 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Misconduct)

Post #: 9

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 4:00:03 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

And,

The AI is quite happy to set up a kamikaze force of 1000's of airframes.

Given the lack of real AAA it becomes an interesting battle approaching the Home Islands.

On the OT, hopefully the new stacking experiment would make it very expensive to have stacks like this.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 10

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 7:19:24 AM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

It might be that some people missed it, but the first attack was a BOMBARDMENT attack. I can see how a shock or even deliberate would cause such casualties to the attacker, but bombardment ?

_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 11

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 7:24:29 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And your point is?. You are attacking a dug in defender with less than 1-1 odds and using some pretty craptacular Chinese troops with very little in the way of equipment . Generally 3-1 is the bare minimum and you will have to wear them down. Yes, I would expect the only way to take them out is to surround them.

you have noticed that this is a BOMBARDMENT?

The old story of COUNTERbombardment always being many times more effective than BOMBARDMENT. The one that bombards actually is the one that usually gets his head chopped.

Even that in the op�s example the defender got far more and better artillery but in general, counterfire is more effective than prepared bombardments for what reason ever. Just stop bombarding.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 10/13/2011 7:28:01 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 12

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 7:28:28 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Bring in the KB and bombard it for a few days. That will wipe out the supply.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 13

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 8:16:18 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

Bombardment hasn't been a good option since it was nerfed in the early days. Now, in the case at hand, I'd be looking at an Inchon-like invasion at Tavoy or even further down the coast. That would break the impasse. Also, shore bombardments are still quite effective.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 14

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 11:10:11 AM

ADB123

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Bring in the KB and bombard it for a few days. That will wipe out the supply.

Harry - that was the Allies who were attacking... But you are certainly right - hit those Chinese troops with the KB too and they'll soon be begging for more counter-battery fire instead...

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 15

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 11:25:16 AM

henhute6

Posts: 100
Joined: 1/8/2002
From: Tehran
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Bring in the KB and bombard it for a few days. That will wipe out the supply.

What a waste to use KB for that. The only mission of KB should be sinking of Allied shipping and especially carriers.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 16

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 12:22:19 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Bring in the KB and bombard it for a few days. That will wipe out the supply.

Harry - that was the Allies who were attacking... But you are certainly right - hit those Chinese troops with the KB too and they'll soon be begging for more counter-battery fire instead...

The Allies should lie low. Calculate the force required to hold out during a shock attack and pull out the rest.

_____________________________

(in reply to ADB123)

Post #: 17

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 12:29:25 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: henhute6

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Bring in the KB and bombard it for a few days. That will wipe out the supply.

What a waste to use KB for that. The only mission of KB should be sinking of Allied shipping and especially carriers.

You need to mass the KB (and the Combined Fleet to protect it) to keep it from being attrited. The massed KB creates a no-go zone for Allied warships and shipping, which means it is most useful against targets that can't flee from it--i.e., bases.

_____________________________

(in reply to henhute6)

Post #: 18

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 2:36:43 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

It might be that some people missed it, but the first attack was a BOMBARDMENT attack. I can see how a shock or even deliberate would cause such casualties to the attacker, but bombardment ?

I was responding to a tangent about Chinese units. Not trying to hijack.

To your point, yes it is a bombardment, but the OP doesn't give any Fort data for either side. Also, 2000+ guns for both sides is probably at the extreme for the engine, and we've often seen cases where large numbers of weapons cranked through the algorithms can give interesting results. We also don't know exactly, without much editor digging, what sort of gun type ratios are in those 2000+ tubes for each side.

(Warning: AI player POV directly ahead) One thing the AI does, which I wish it didn't, is it lets the Japanese bombard late-war Allied bases nearly every day and recieve sometimes 200 squad KIA totals for no gain in Allied KIAs. I don't think that's a script issue, but rather a base code issue. It's also a situation where it's hard for a human player to "cut the AI some slack" by playing around the practice. Short of abandonning the base it's impossible to stop the AI from bashing against the beseiged base turn after turn. I have one case in northern Sumatra where the AI has lost probably 20,000 KIA over several months doing this while costing me essentially nothing. A human player would have stopped long ago.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 19

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 2:49:37 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Bullwninkle, are you sure your'e playing agaist the AI? It sounds to me like you're playing against John III.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 20

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 2:49:56 PM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

In general i did not mean to complain about anything. I just did not expect such high losses for a simple bombardement. You always learn

In general some points from my side regarding to KB and Chinese corpses. I use the Chinese corpses just as a part of a blocking force for pegu. I control of all external hexsides except to the SE where another 4k japanese blob (with a gazillion of AA is sitting) and Rangoon itself. As Pegu you can bombarde pegu from the sea, it is quite easy to keep the attrition high and the supply low so i see no real threat beeing pushed out of the hex (but a danager always remains). The battle will be fought in the hex SE of pegu either until the japanese units retreat (wise decision) or ill cut off pegu and rangoon.

In general regarding to KB. Game is currently in 6/44 and KB is in full force but poses no threat for the allies, just for the japanese player cause it burns quite a lot of fuel. I took the game overy a year agon in 2/43 with the allied CV/BB force destroyed and no losses for Japan, but with an good overlapping base system you can grind you way in the central pacific just with landbased fighters. Regarding to any actions around Burma. My opponent tried some KB action a few game months ago which just resulted in some damaged carriers through subs. I always keep my 12 hex no fly zone around my assaulting forces, have around 500 4E and 200 2E and around a 1000 fighters (F4U-1, F4U-1A, F6F, P47-D25, P38-L, Spit VII (Oz ones and Brithish ones and some New Zeeland squads) which provide enough diversion to win any attrition fight. So KB would just burn its planes as the last time and the would retreat. Late 44 is no longer 42 or 43 where KB poses a real threat to land based stuff.

Me and my opponent more or less agreed that he would not exploit his little death star (even japan bombarding results in quite nasty losses) in trade of a 12 hex and not 30 hex no fly zone.

< Message edited by beppi -- 10/13/2011 2:50:03 PM >

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 21

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 2:55:00 PM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

It might be that some people missed it, but the first attack was a BOMBARDMENT attack. I can see how a shock or even deliberate would cause such casualties to the attacker, but bombardment ?

I was responding to a tangent about Chinese units. Not trying to hijack.

To your point, yes it is a bombardment, but the OP doesn't give any Fort data for either side. Also, 2000+ guns for both sides is probably at the extreme for the engine, and we've often seen cases where large numbers of weapons cranked through the algorithms can give interesting results. We also don't know exactly, without much editor digging, what sort of gun type ratios are in those 2000+ tubes for each side.

(Warning: AI player POV directly ahead) One thing the AI does, which I wish it didn't, is it lets the Japanese bombard late-war Allied bases nearly every day and recieve sometimes 200 squad KIA totals for no gain in Allied KIAs. I don't think that's a script issue, but rather a base code issue. It's also a situation where it's hard for a human player to "cut the AI some slack" by playing around the practice. Short of abandonning the base it's impossible to stop the AI from bashing against the beseiged base turn after turn. I have one case in northern Sumatra where the AI has lost probably 20,000 KIA over several months doing this while costing me essentially nothing. A human player would have stopped long ago.

I have no clue what the fort levels are for my opponent as i would by no mean try a deliberate attack on that base. Tried it some time ago when we fought for burma but even 3,5k defending AV with a lot of arty and lvl 6 forts result easily in 300+ squads destroyed and > 1000 squads disabled. But i would expect them around 4+ and my units had a open terrain fort of 1-2.

And yes i know that that situation stretches the engine to the limits, so no blame to the engine. It is a great game which gives me daily fun and challenge and there are ways to forc the enemy to retreat. But basically fights against 4k+ AV or even assaulting bases with 4k+ AV and Forts > lvl 4 is complete impossible. with good defender prep i would assume i need around 15k+ AV to even capture that base, and there are still 5k+ AV in Rangoon and the hex SE of Pegu.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 22

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 3:07:42 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Bullwninkle, are you sure your'e playing agaist the AI? It sounds to me like you're playing against John III.

Ahem . . .

Don't you have a "Kerfluffle in the Kuriles" to deal with? I mean, if you're going to alliterate ya gotta get the Ks with the Ks, man.

My game now is a little like kicking kittens, but it's satisfying after a year to have my revenge. The AI won't quit on me, while a lot of humans would be gone already. Last week I decided the AI had had its fun with mass kami attacks on my ops in the PI, Java, and Sumatra, so I got 800 ships I wasn't doing anything with moving toward Manila for further ops against Formosa and the Chinese coast.

Eight . . . hundred . . . ships.

I love 1945.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 23

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 3:16:33 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

Artillery is strictly for recon purposes only in my game.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 24

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 3:17:30 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

And yes i know that that situation stretches the engine to the limits, so no blame to the engine. It is a great game which gives me daily fun and challenge and there are ways to forc the enemy to retreat. But basically fights against 4k+ AV or even assaulting bases with 4k+ AV and Forts > lvl 4 is complete impossible. with good defender prep i would assume i need around 15k+ AV to even capture that base, and there are still 5k+ AV in Rangoon and the hex SE of Pegu.

I've assaulted bases with Forts 9 and, while not 4000 AV, probably 2500 were present defending. The key is engineers (natch), and supply denial. The latter takes time. Chinese units never really have sufficient engineering assets to work on Forts 9, so it's supply denial for them. Months and months of it sometimes.

An aside from your former post up-thread. Your English is very, very good (I don't speak any German), but "corpses" in English are "dead bodies." The plural of "corps" is "corps." Blame the French.

Both words find their root in the Latin "corpus" ("body"), which makes sense as a corps is a large body of troops.

Just a little chuckle the way you wrote it.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 25

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/13/2011 3:28:47 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

It might be that some people missed it, but the first attack was a BOMBARDMENT attack. I can see how a shock or even deliberate would cause such casualties to the attacker, but bombardment ?

You are right, I totally missed that it was a bombardment and it seems a bit extreme. But as said, the total number of guns for each side is extreme and we have seen that the game sometimes has trouble with extremes. Nothing new there.

In addition, we don't know the fort level of the defender-or for that matter the forts levels of the attackers. Had they just arrived in the hex and have not accumlated any forts for themselves? If he has just moved 2000 guns into the hex and banged away the next day vs a well fortifed enemy, I would almost expect those results. I wonder if accumulated forts for the attacker units make much of a differrence. Have not really paid attention to that.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 26

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/14/2011 6:36:32 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Bullwninkle, are you sure your'e playing agaist the AI? It sounds to me like you're playing against John III.

Ahem . . .

Don't you have a "Kerfluffle in the Kuriles" to deal with? I mean, if you're going to alliterate ya gotta get the Ks with the Ks, man.

My game now is a little like kicking kittens, but it's satisfying after a year to have my revenge. The AI won't quit on me, while a lot of humans would be gone already. Last week I decided the AI had had its fun with mass kami attacks on my ops in the PI, Java, and Sumatra, so I got 800 ships I wasn't doing anything with moving toward Manila for further ops against Formosa and the Chinese coast.

Eight . . . hundred . . . ships.

I love 1945.

He's just smarting from our last little contest which led CR to swear off of AE for a while. The rematch between us is inevitable...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 27

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/14/2011 6:53:59 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And your point is?. You are attacking a dug in defender with less than 1-1 odds and using some pretty craptacular Chinese troops with very little in the way of equipment . Generally 3-1 is the bare minimum and you will have to wear them down. Yes, I would expect the only way to take them out is to surround them.

you have noticed that this is a BOMBARDMENT? The old story of COUNTERbombardment always being many times more effective than BOMBARDMENT. The one that bombards actually is the one that usually gets his head chopped. Even that in the op�s example the defender got far more and better artillery but in general, counterfire is more effective than prepared bombardments for what reason ever. Just stop bombarding.

I think this is due to fort levels, and not due to a difference in game mechanics between bombardement and counterbombardement.
Had the IJA ordered the bombardement attack the results would have looked quite the same.
This is easy to prove as the extreme results tend to happen mostly in base hexes where one side has high fort levels.
In the open the effects tend to cancel each other out.

Fort levels have quite an extreme effect on bombardemet since the arty death star nerf.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 28

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/14/2011 7:35:19 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And your point is?. You are attacking a dug in defender with less than 1-1 odds and using some pretty craptacular Chinese troops with very little in the way of equipment . Generally 3-1 is the bare minimum and you will have to wear them down. Yes, I would expect the only way to take them out is to surround them.

you have noticed that this is a BOMBARDMENT? The old story of COUNTERbombardment always being many times more effective than BOMBARDMENT. The one that bombards actually is the one that usually gets his head chopped. Even that in the op�s example the defender got far more and better artillery but in general, counterfire is more effective than prepared bombardments for what reason ever. Just stop bombarding.

I think this is due to fort levels, and not due to a difference in game mechanics between bombardement and counterbombardement.
Had the IJA ordered the bombardement attack the results would have looked quite the same.
This is easy to prove as the extreme results tend to happen mostly in base hexes where one side has high fort levels.
In the open the effects tend to cancel each other out.

Fort levels have quite an extreme effect on bombardemet since the arty death star nerf.

plain and simple, no... can be easily tested though if that isn�t obvious from long term playing anyway. Don�t want to be snippy, but that�s how it is. Of course forts are a factor but the general claim stands, counterbombardment > bombardment. For what reason ever. I�ve complained about it long ago (while being happy nuke bombardments without using appropriate supply were toned down) and a forum member sent me a pm he found out the effect of counterbombarding is a couple of times higher than bombardment. YOUR forts help to reduce the damage YOU TAKE but aren�t a factor for damage YOU CAUSE TO THE ENEMY.

You can�t be seriously saying you never noticed in your games that you do no damage when you ORDER a bombardment but the same troops suddenly do a lot damage when the same enemy bombards you and is hit by counter bombardment? Really?

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 29

RE: Has the imperium rebuilt its Death Star ? - 10/14/2011 8:06:43 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
You can�t be seriously saying you never noticed in your games that you do no damage when you ORDER a bombardment but the same troops suddenly do a lot damage when the same enemy bombards you and is hit by counter bombardment? Really?

CT, just to be clear, I think we are in agreement that something is a bit off about these results.
We only disagree on what the root cause could be.

All I am saying is you usually ORDER a bombardement when you are the attacker. Which often implies you got
a lot of less forts than the defender. Which, if you ignore that, can lead to the assumption that the outcome is related
to whether you attack or defend. Which may be possible but is for sure not the whole story.

If the discrepancy in forts levels is not extreme then you start getting results that are more balanced.
Below is a bombardement attack where both sides have low/no forts in early �43. There is nothing extreme with this
result, and we had similar bombardements over and over again.
When the situation is balanced as far as forts and arty pieces are concerned, you mostly get balanced results.
And this contradicts the counterbattery theory a bit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Mandalay (59,46)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 38396 troops, 842 guns, 1259 vehicles, Assault Value = 3383

Defending force 97016 troops, 925 guns, 776 vehicles, Assault Value = 3489

Japanese ground losses:
147 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 15 (2 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
154 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 11 (2 destroyed, 9 disabled)

Assaulting units:
70th British Division
6th Australian Division
23rd British Brigade
16th British Brigade
39th Indian Division
46th Indian Brigade
7th Armoured Brigade
7th Australian Division
2nd British Division
5th Chinese Corps
2/11th Field Regiment
77th Heavy AA Regiment
1st Burma Auxiliary AA Regiment
2/13th Field Regiment
13th Indian Light AA Regiment
2/9th Field Regiment
III Indian Corps
28th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
RAF 222 Group Base Force
103rd RAF Base Force
221 Group RAF
XV Indian Corps
8th Medium Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
107th RAF Base Force
104th RAF Base Force
25th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
14th Indian Light AA Regiment

Defending units:
41st Infantry Regiment
6th Tank Regiment
5th Recon Regiment
42nd Infantry Regiment
33rd Division
21st Infantry Regiment
56th Infantry Regiment
Sasebo 3rd SNLF
21st Division
143rd Infantry Regiment
2nd RTA Division
10th Division
14th Tank Regiment
148th Infantry Regiment
1st Tank Regiment
55th Infantry Regiment
Imperial Guards Division
4th RTA Division
51st Field AA Battalion
10th RF Gun Battalion
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
20th AA Regiment
8th RF Gun Battalion
31st Field AA Battalion
25th Army
15th Army
21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion
11th RF Gun Battalion

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 10/14/2011 8:07:29 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 30