Artillery Death Stars Post Patch Two Hot Fix

Artillery Death Stars Post Patch Two Hot Fix (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Canoerebel -> Artillery Death Stars Post Patch Two Hot Fix (12/14/2009 12:52:46 AM)
I had hoped that Artillery Death Stars would be toned down by Patch Two, but that definately isn't the case. Since Miller and I installed Patch Two early this week, he has engaged in six or eight bombardments at Changsha, employing eight artillery units there. The losses inflicted average about 1,000 per day and about 10 infantry and 20 non-combat squads per day. At this rate, over the course of a month the Chinese would lose roughly 300 infantry squads, which is 100 more than the Chinese receive in a month. Bear in mind that the Chinese were well rested, behind 8.75 forts (until a Japanese deliberate attack at 1:8 odds dropped forts to 7.0 in one turn), and have decent experience (avg. low 50s). The point being that the Japanese can inflict casualties at a higher rate in just one hex than the Chinese can replace in the entire country. What, you might inquire, would happen if the Japanese were to bombard in multiple hexes? Well, a Japanese army of seven infantry divisions, several regiments and brigades, and seven artillery (three mortar, three medium FA, and one heavy FA) just arrived at Sian, where the Chinese are well-rested, have 4 forts, and 4,000 AV (the Japanese also have 4,000 AV). Here's the results: Ground combat at Sian (83,41) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 110187 troops, 1048 guns, 478 vehicles, Assault Value = 4010 Defending force 103976 troops, 487 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3930 Japanese ground losses: 59 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Allied ground losses: 6223 casualties reported Squads: 65 destroyed, 147 disabled Non Combat: 137 destroyed, 319 disabled Engineers: 11 destroyed, 17 disabled Guns lost 11 (2 destroyed, 9 disabled) Assaulting units: 31st Infantry Regiment 36th Division 5th Infantry Regiment 35th Division 4th Ind.Mixed Brigade 17th Infantry Regiment 8th Engineer Regiment 15th Ind.Mixed Brigade 37th Division 15th Division 32nd Division 41st Division 23rd Division 12th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment 11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment 6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion 1st Army 9th Medium Field Artillery Regiment 13th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion Defending units: 76th Chinese Corps 43rd Chinese Corps 93rd Chinese Corps 3rd Chinese Corps 57th Chinese Corps 61st Chinese Corps 48th Chinese Corps 91st Chinese Corps 5th New Chinese Corps 34th Chinese Corps 115th Red Chinese Division 22nd Chinese Corps 16th Chinese Corps 9th Chinese Corps 69th Chinese Corps 7th Chinese Corps 27th Chinese Corps 15th Chinese Corps 35th Chinese Corps 33rd Chinese Corps 8th New Chinese Corps 2nd Group Army 38th Group Army Lusu War Area 8th Group Army 15th Chinese Base Force 37th Group Army 34th Group Army 7th Group Army Red Chinese Army 7th Construction Regiment 6,223 men lost to a single bombardment. 65 infantry squads destroyed. 137 non-combat squads destroyed. In a single day. Here's the report from the next day, which I hope contains a bit of a typo, though given the nature of Artillery Death Stars I am not sure: Ground combat at Sian (83,41) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 110142 troops, 1048 guns, 478 vehicles, Assault Value = 4005 Defending force 99548 troops, 485 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3695 Japanese ground losses: 60 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled) Allied ground losses: 1718 casualties reported Squads: 42949658 destroyed, 117 disabled Non Combat: 37 destroyed, 152 disabled Engineers: 2 destroyed, 5 disabled Guns lost 8 (1 destroyed, 7 disabled) Assaulting units: 41st Division 15th Ind.Mixed Brigade 8th Engineer Regiment 17th Infantry Regiment 37th Division 4th Ind.Mixed Brigade 15th Division 5th Infantry Regiment 31st Infantry Regiment 32nd Division 36th Division 35th Division 23rd Division 9th Medium Field Artillery Regiment 1st Army 12th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment 6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion 11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment 13th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion Defending units: 61st Chinese Corps 76th Chinese Corps 3rd Chinese Corps 22nd Chinese Corps 115th Red Chinese Division 91st Chinese Corps 27th Chinese Corps 9th Chinese Corps 7th Chinese Corps 5th New Chinese Corps 33rd Chinese Corps 93rd Chinese Corps 48th Chinese Corps 16th Chinese Corps 57th Chinese Corps 69th Chinese Corps 43rd Chinese Corps 15th Chinese Corps 35th Chinese Corps 34th Chinese Corps 8th New Chinese Corps 7th Group Army 8th Group Army Lusu War Area 37th Group Army 15th Chinese Base Force 38th Group Army Red Chinese Army 2nd Group Army 34th Group Army 7th Construction Regiment Over two days, I lost 400 AV. At this rate, the Japanese can reduce Sian by bombardment in a few weeks. But I don't have that long. Either I'd have to withdraw as all the units in my army dropped to double-digit AVs in order to save my army, or Miller can deliberate attack once he knocks my AV down from 4,000 to, say 1,500, and take the base.

stuman -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:33:08 AM)
You have been playing longer than me and thus I defer to your analysis. But I do not think that result seems necessarily skewed to me. I think I am so used to games representing the Eastern Front that to see 9 or so well trained divisions , with twice the arty tubes ( and good ones ) take on a less wll trained opponent, who doesn't seem to have even a single vehicle, well I would expect some major carnage. But I agree that losing 42 MILLION squads seems excessive [:)]

USS Henrico -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:40:02 AM)
Questions come to my mind: 1)Is there an additional hit to supply for bombarding in Patch 2? (I have a PBEM going on and haven't upgraded yet) 2)Are the massive casualties coming from using the stand alone artillery units or are we seeing it from the inherent artillery in division/regiments? 3)Can we isolate the casualties to specific artillery weapons that are being fired so that players can come up with house rules to avoid overusing them, and push for these killers to be toned down in the next patch (whenever that is)? 4)Is there an issue (bug?) with how the forts protect against artillery fire in general? Or against specific artillery weapons? Seems like we can come up with a solution(s) if we can pinpoint the cause.

Canoerebel -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:41:53 AM)
The problem, as I see it, is that the Japanese are going to wipe out yet another major base on the Chinese MLR - and don't even have to attack to do so. If the Japansse can sustain bombardments like this there is no reason that they can't take any base. If Miller and I hadn't declared a cease fire that lasted for about two or three months, he'd have already taken Sian. There's only one base between Sian and Chungking - Kienko. It's next. We'll have to see what happens. Perhaps he won't be successful. Perhaps these bombardments are sucking his supplies dry; or perhaps the garrison requirements will prevent him from advancing much further. But from everything I've seen in the game the Japanese can pretty much advance at will assuming they are willing to employ Artillery Death Stars and bomb strategic resources. It's totally up to the Japanese player whether he wants to conquer China. It is not within the Allied player's ability to stop him. Also, well-rested troops in fortified hexes should not be taking casualties on this scale. In just one day in one hex the Japanese destroyed 68 squads - 1/3rd what the Chinese will draw as replacements in the entire country in a month. China is supposed to be a quagmire for both sides - a place where the going is tough and meaningful progress is slow.

stuman -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:44:15 AM)
Let us know what is up ( probably just a reporting bug ) with the 43 million squad loss after you run another turn.

Canoerebel -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:45:35 AM)
I don't think I actually lost 43 million men that second bombardment. My AV is about 3,500 (having dropped form 3,900 over two turns) and Miller doesn't suddenly have 25,673 points for ground casualties inflicted. [:D]

khyberbill -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:46:34 AM)
I guess this is WAD and what Matrix desires because they have certainly heard a lot about it and had chances to make changes. Being behind forts doesn't seem to help against artillery barrages, or if it does, it certainly isn't noticeable. The big difference with Patch 2, is that now it takes 10 days to destroy 100 squads instead of one day. However, once the attack comes, you lose the other 900 squads. A city such as Sian will now fall in 21 days instead of 7. In my PBEM, I had a similar amount of troops in Sian and the result was about 20 corps with less than 30 squads of infrantry in each. Several had no infantry left at all. Four days of artillery, three deliberate attacks and it fell. Not only do you lose lots of infantry, but lots of points. An aggressive game in China and Burma should certainly lead to the destruction of China and a points victory by the end of 43 with all the troops available to be bought out from Chungking and perhaps some of the troops from PI. What new HR have you entertained? Good luck!

Canoerebel -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:52:38 AM)
No House Rules is our motto! We're both hoping this will help us ferret out things -good or bad - for the benefit of the game and our brother gamers as a whole. We started with this in mind, but I have allowed some of the problems to get under my skin. It was just a gradual result of seeing things go wrong, trying to address them in some creative way, then only to see them get worse or a patch tweak things that negated my efforts. I can give examples, but my fingers hurt from typing.[:D] I think (and have always thought) that the developers are anxious to address whatever problems exist as soon as they know they exist. At present, though, we're still early in the process and a consensus hasn't developed yet. There are still players out there who think China is okay and that the submarine warfare glitches I've reported are an anomaly and so forth. If and when a consensus develops that a problem exists the developers will hop right on it.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:54:55 AM)
We are continuing to look into this.

Canoerebel -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 1:57:48 AM)
Thanks, Eric, I know that you guys are monitoring things and I appreciate the way you approach the game.

khyberbill -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 2:47:35 AM)
Canoerebel, as a follow up to your recent actions, the below combats just came in from my foe, Zachary and we are doing two day turns. Below is the results of the most recent attack in Changsha (12/10/42): Ground combat at Changsha (82,52) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 100992 troops, 998 guns, 164 vehicles, Assault Value = 3225 Defending force 139411 troops, 767 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4131 Allied ground losses: 627 casualties reported Squads: 42 destroyed, 20 disabled Non Combat: 21 destroyed, 33 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled Guns lost 4 (0 destroyed, 4 disabled) Assaulting units: 116th Division 17th Division 55th Infantry Brigade 6th Division 12th Ind.Mixed Brigade 61st Infantry Brigade 15th Division 3rd Division 39th Division 40th Division 1st Ind.Mixed Brigade 15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment 11th Army 14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment 1st Mortar Battalion Defending units: 18th Chinese Corps 76th Chinese Corps 73rd Chinese Corps 85th Chinese Corps 21st Chinese Corps 44th Chinese Corps 79th Chinese Corps 53rd Chinese Corps 71st Chinese Corps 37th Chinese Corps 46th Chinese Corps 59th Chinese Corps 49th Chinese Corps 60th Chinese Corps 10th Chinese Corps 87th Chinese Corps 24th Group Army 29th Group Army 17th Chinese Base Force 22nd Artillery Regiment 6th Chinese Base Force 34th Group Army 4th Group Army 11th Chinese Base Force 7th War Area 27th Group Army 9th War Area 14th Group Army 38th Group Army 31st Group Army 36th Group Army 19th Group Army 12th Group Army 56th AT Gun Regiment As you can see, the damage was done with a relatively small force on the part of the Japanese. However, almost 20% of the monthly infantry reinforcement was destroyed in this one bombardment. Below is the bombardment of the second day: Ground combat at Changsha (82,52) Japanese Bombardment attack Attacking force 102029 troops, 998 guns, 164 vehicles, Assault Value = 3307 Defending force 154849 troops, 848 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4833 Japanese ground losses: 42 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Allied ground losses: 564 casualties reported Squads: 23 destroyed, 31 disabled Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 16 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled) Assaulting units: 61st Infantry Brigade 55th Infantry Brigade 116th Division 40th Division 12th Ind.Mixed Brigade 6th Division 15th Division 39th Division 17th Division 3rd Division 1st Ind.Mixed Brigade 15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment 14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment 11th Army 1st Mortar Battalion Defending units: 71st Chinese Corps 44th Chinese Corps 37th Chinese Corps 49th Chinese Corps 73rd Chinese Corps 21st Chinese Corps 10th Chinese Corps 87th Chinese Corps 63rd Chinese Corps 18th Chinese Corps 79th Chinese Corps 85th Chinese Corps 46th Chinese Corps 59th Chinese Corps 60th Chinese Corps 53rd Chinese Corps 76th Chinese Corps 99th Chinese Corps 12th Group Army 38th Group Army 29th Group Army 34th Group Army 7th War Area 36th Group Army 4th Group Army 6th Chinese Base Force 24th Group Army 11th Chinese Base Force 27th Group Army 31st Group Army 9th War Area 14th Group Army 22nd Artillery Regiment 19th Group Army 17th Chinese Base Force 56th AT Gun Regiment Over 10% of the monthly infantry destroyed on the second day. Over 30% in two days. Previous to this, a similar force had destroyed about 40 corps around Sian in several engagements as I tried to keep a line of defense. When Changsha falls in the next few days there are no really strong units left to protect Chungking. All the shattered Corps from earlier fights are sitting there. The reinforcement pool is empty, has been since May.

Mynok -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 2:59:19 AM)
Keep at the testing guys. Kudos for being forthcoming and honest without denigrating the devs as I know they are looking at this. We all have a stake in making this game better. [8D]

stuman -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 3:10:18 AM)
Let me ask the question another way : is it unreasonable to think that 1000 guns firing at a big bunch of moderately trained troops ( my assumption [;)] ) would " destroy " 60 squads out of the thousands engaged ? Isn't that about .5 % in terms of total Allied troops? That does not seem unreasonable to me. ( this is looking at kyhberbills numbers ). Now equating losses with a replacement rate; I just do not know if that is a good measuring stick or not.

Canoerebel -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 3:19:12 AM)
You're looking at one part of a circular and deadly problem in China, so look at the sitaution as a whole: 1. The Chinese cannot fight in the open. They take devastating, overwhelming, massive losses. 2. Therefore, the only option is to get the Chinese onto good defensive terrain and into bases hexes with good fortifications. 3. But fortifications are not durable. Artillery death stars, engineers, and deliberate attacks reduce them readily and quickly. 4. Meaning that the only real defensive option to the Chinese isn't effective. 5. Meaning the Japanese can advance at will and the Chinese have to retreat, giving up vast sections of the country. 6. So, China isn't the slow, slogging, usual stalemate it's supposed to be.

Kull -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 3:23:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins We are continuing to look into this. There was an excellent discussion of the matter in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2293922&mpage=1&key= A little bit of angst and posturing, but mostly good, thoughtful analysis. Whether some of the suggestions could be coded is another matter entirely, but definitely worth reading. I have this gut level fear that "fixing" China will completely hose the island warfare, but hopefully I'm wrong and the code can be tweaked to support both.

Canoerebel -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 3:29:43 AM)
That's true. There may be creative ways of addressing the sitaution, though, that will leave the main model (and therefore the island campaigns) untouched. Perhaps creating a special "terrain" in China that simply makes advancing much slower and the use of artillery much less effective. I think China would be fine if Chinese fortifications were more durable, if artillery wasb't a death star, and if the Japanese can't employ strategic bombing. I'm all in favor of a quagmire in China.

stuman -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 3:30:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel You're looking at one part of a circular and deadly problem in China, so look at the sitaution as a whole: 1. The Chinese cannot fight in the open. They take devastating, overwhelming, massive losses. 2. Therefore, the only option is to get the Chinese onto good defensive terrain and into bases hexes with good fortifications. 3. But fortifications are not durable. Artillery death stars, engineers, and deliberate attacks reduce them readily and quickly. 4. Meaning that the only real defensive option to the Chinese isn't effective. 5. Meaning the Japanese can advance at will and the Chinese have to retreat, giving up vast sections of the country. 6. So, China isn't the slow, slogging, usual stalemate it's supposed to be. I do not mean to keep wearing you guys out, but in the short run, are there a few HRs you can suggest to make China play more like you think it should ? Something not too difficult to monitor ? I am honestly not sure what I would suggest atm.

Canoerebel -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 3:35:43 AM)
There are some good house rules that would help: 1. No strategic bombing in China (on either side) until probably 1944. 2. Restrict artillery significantly - probably allow no more than one artillery unit per 30,000 or maybe even 50,000 troops. (From what I've seen in my game, "one unit per division" is still far, far too potent). Note, however, that the only way we're going to get a handle on the true state of the game is for players to forego House Rules and work the game hard to ferret out the gremlins (pardon me, I must be waxing eloquent tonight). Some folks understandably don't want to invest that much time in an out-of-kilter match, so they'll use House Rules to address problems. So please bear with us folks that are forging ahead without House Rules. Sometimes we (meaning "me") will yelp and squeal and holler "foul," but by doing so at least we are bringing forward the "raw data" that may be helpful in identifying and fixing problems.

stuman -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 3:39:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel There are some good house rules that would help: 1. No strategic bombing in China (on either side) until probably 1944. 2. Restrict artillery significantly - probably allow no more than one artillery unit per 30,000 or maybe even 50,000 troops. (From what I've seen in my game, "one unit per division" is still far, far too potent). Note, however, that the only way we're going to get a handle on the true state of the game is for players to forego House Rules and work the game hard to ferret out the gremlins (pardon me, I must be waxing eloquent tonight). Some folks understandably don't want to invest that much time in an out-of-kilter match, so they'll use House Rules to address problems. So please bear with us folks that are forging ahead without House Rules. Sometimes we (meaning "me") will yelp and squeal and holler "foul," but by doing so at least we are bringing forward the "raw data" that may be helpful in identifying and fixing problems. Well that makes sense tbh. thx for the input

budman999 -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 4:13:33 AM)
I was an ex-artilleryman in the Canadian Forces for several years; top artillery technician in our regiment, part of a FOO crew, safety staff, and gun bunny, etc... It appears to me that the artillery model is "inaccurate" as it currently stands. The casualties inflicted seem to be too high, and the logistical nightmares caused by "deathstar" artillery should be nearly impossible to overcome in the Pacific theatre, even for the Allies. Casualties inflicted should be extremely high if: a) the enemy is caught by surprise (and only for a short while) and/or b) the enemy has no form of entrenchments or fortifications and/or c) the terrain is not suitable for defence. Fortifications of any sort dramatically reduce the casualty effects of artillery fire. Even simple foxholes or shell scrapes can signifcantly reduce the number of casulaties inflicted and any major forms of fortifications should negate the great majority of casualties. Every soldier is taught to 'dig in' whenever they can, as this is effective versus artillery fire. From the internet: "Surprise may be essential or irrelevant. It depends on what effects are required and whether or not the target is likely to move or quickly improve its protective posture. During World War II UK researchers concluded that for impact fuzed munitions the relative risk were as follows: •men standing - 1 •men lying - 1/3 •men firing from trenches - 1/15-1/50 •men crouching in trenches - 1/25-1/100 Airburst munitions significantly increase the relative risk for lying men, etc. Historically most casualties occur in the first 10-15 seconds of fire, i.e. the time needed to react and improve protective posture, however, this is less relevant if airburst is used." So using a very generic model from the above, perhaps the effects could be similar to this: 1 - Entrenchment level 0 = 100% efffect from bombardment 2 - Entrenchment levels 1-9 = *100% - 10 the current entrenchment level of the units** ie. level 4 would suffer only 60% of the effects of the bombardment, etc... As for death stars I would propose a simple formula for this: 1 - If the bombarding unit is the sole artillery unit bombarding a hex the effect is at 100% for the unit; 2 - If there is more than one artillery unit in the hex, then a random roll would apply to every artillery unit in the bombarding group's hex. This roll would apply similar to this: a) one unit selected at random would fire at 100%; b) each additional unit would fire at an effect of 100 divided by the total number of artillery units in the bombarding group's hex. For example: if there are 4 artillery units in a hex, 1 would fire at 100% and the remaining 3 would fire at 25% of the bombardment value. For logistics purposes the following rules could apply: 1 - Any unit using bombardment will use 5 x the logistics supply of a normal (non-artillery) unit. 2 - If the unit cannot draw 5 x the supply the unit could still fire but then the effects of the bombardment are reduced by 20% for each 20% of supply (rounded down) that the unit cannnot draw. Example: An artillery unit wishes to bombard. A normal (non-artillery) unit would require 1000 supply. An artillery unit using bombardment would require 5 x 1000 (5000) supply to fire at 100%. If there was only 2000 supply the unit would fire at 40% of its bombardment value. Note that I haven't really studied the WITP AE model of artillery, nor am I privy to the inside of how the model works, but 'simple' rules like the above could curtail the 'abuse' of artillery that I am reading about these boards. Ubique.

stuman -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 4:37:48 AM)
Very interesting. Thank you for adding your insight. And please post more often ! It is nice to hear from guys with actual experience.

Sardaukar -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 6:49:34 AM)
What Budman said. Based on my military service and what I have read about history of WW II, fortifications reduce effect of artillery drastically indeed. So, basically even lvl 1 fortification in game (basically individual foxholes) should drop casualties to 1/10 compared to non-fortified unit. This is for bombardment only.

FatR -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/14/2009 8:47:33 AM)
In my, admittedly limited experience, artillery deathstars are only a problem when one side has a ton of arty, and the other has next to none. Only if enemy is completely outgunned and cannot effectively fire back, the situation devolves from siege to massacre. I have no problem with that. The side that is completely inferior in artillery (and cannot compensate by naval bombardements, huge air attacks, etc) should suffer unsurmountable disadvantage in hex-contesting battles of attrition, one way or another, to reflect realities of WW II battlefields. It simply has no means to save itself from having its defences gradually picked apart. The problem with bombardement lies in low supply requirements, which allow to use it turn after turn, until artillery units are too fatigued, even on unimportant targets. So bombarding is no-brainer and you don't need to bother with picking, where you really need your artillery. And supplying extended campaigns in China is too easy for Japanese in general.

Chickenboy -> More information needed... (12/14/2009 1:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS Henrico Questions come to my mind: 1)Is there an additional hit to supply for bombarding in Patch 2? (I have a PBEM going on and haven't upgraded yet) 2)Are the massive casualties coming from using the stand alone artillery units or are we seeing it from the inherent artillery in division/regiments? 3)Can we isolate the casualties to specific artillery weapons that are being fired so that players can come up with house rules to avoid overusing them, and push for these killers to be toned down in the next patch (whenever that is)? 4)Is there an issue (bug?) with how the forts protect against artillery fire in general? Or against specific artillery weapons? Seems like we can come up with a solution(s) if we can pinpoint the cause. I agree with USSHenrico. I think we need some additional explanation for the effects rather than just the end result to be able to tell what's going on here. Lots of potential explanations that have yet to be fully investigated, IMHO. @ Budman: very interesting idea. I don't know the current effects of bombardment / artillery in the programming-would be interesting to hear the specifics on how they are currently calculated vis a vis entrenchment levels at this time.

Chickenboy -> RE: More information needed... (12/14/2009 2:19:55 PM)
By the way, for those of you on the 'dishing out' side of the artillery equation a question: What are your experiences re: fatigue / disruption levels on your artillery units after a day or two of bombardment? An example for myself: (Pre patch II, early-mid January 1942) I've moved several independent artillery regiments and battalions onto Luzon to effect the seige of Bataan, where my Allied PBEM opponent has fallen back. I control all other hexes on Luzon and supply is not an issue. Units are partially prepped for Bataan. After 1-2 days of bombardment, they rise from 0/5 to 14/56 (disruption / fatigue) and need to stand down a day or so to recuperate, lest they be less combat effective. I suggest that this needed 'pause' is another brake that should slow down the use of bombardment. I don't know how those using 'artillery death stars' can carry out bombardment turn after turn without this coming up as an issue. @ Canoerebel: Playing as IJ in PBEM (x2), I find China to be quite engaging. My opponent is using Chinese forces well to delay, obfuscate, annoy and harass my movements. He (dirtbag [;)]) has effectively used AVG to ambush some unescorted LBA bombers of mine, requiring me to be more conservative with my bombing efforts too. As I am intentionally not overly concentrating my forces (with the exception of a pretty sizable nucleus to fracture the Loyang / Nanyang line), I'm finding that the Chinese can defend well. Already, the IJA have been bloodied where they have ventured too far too fast. The Chinese have defended well in wooded hexes, broken terrain and at river hexes, particularly when HQ support is present. Outside of the supply picture (and HRs prohibiting no strategic bombing of Chinese cities), I'm not sure what can be done to change the effect of artillery without unintended consequences. Before wholesale changes are adopted, I'd like a better feel for how 'nerfing' artillery will affect the island campaign, the 1944 battle for the Phillipines and DEI, the campaign in Burma and (sometimes) Australia and the Solomons. Artillery on Iwo Jima and Okinawa IRL was absolutely murderous in defense. It will affect the chemistry of the game unless this is 'gotten right'. For one, I think that China theatre changes (only) is a non-starter. This will impede the ability of the Allies to mount an offensive through China later in the war, should they so choose. It could also allow the Chinese hordes to run roughshod over dug in IJA troops even if the latter have artillery superiority in defense. So, Canoerebel, with due deference to your thread: I respectfully submit that I'm not convinced that the problems you are seeing merit developer recode of artillery at this time in China. I am enjoying my game(s) very much without nerfed artillery. I respectfully submit that perhaps you and Miller should impose some HRs, however philosophically unpalatable they may be to you, to address your problems. That will likely be the route that I take with my PBEM partners with similar issues that arise.

Shark7 -> RE: More information needed... (12/14/2009 3:07:22 PM)
Has anyone done testing of this against the AI? I'm not yet running patch 2 and against the AI I'm averaging 300-1000 casualties even with a 1500+ gun artillery stack. I'll post results when I get home from work, if the reports still exist.

crsutton -> RE: More information needed... (12/14/2009 3:10:10 PM)
Yep, I am still getting whupped in China, and he is not using any death stars. Just beating the heck out of me and I have pretty much run out of troops. It is April 42. Sian is gone, Kweilin is gone, Changsha is gone. He should have Chunking within 3 months. I don't have enough supply for replacments. Since the patch, most of my forward cities now have no supply and will not draw any. I can't use any airforce, (even the AVG) out of a front line city as they will all break down without supply. My opponent is smart enough to never surround or eliminate any of my troops so they cannot return as reinforcments in 30 days. Just pushes them back and slays them. Shock attack after shock attack. No city is safe, no river line is defensible, no terrain helps. I am getting blown out of every spot I try to defend. He had dedicated a lot of forces to China so I am realistic but I would have expected the campaign to take much longer even under the circumstances. Once China goes, I am going to have serious problems elsewhere. In order for the game to work right, China should be a morass for Japan. It is not now. Death star is the least of my worries there.

Canoerebel -> RE: More information needed... (12/14/2009 3:17:00 PM)
The developers aren't going to react solely based upon my observations, but it's just one bit of information they'll consider. If it turns out I'm an anomaly, they'll have every reason to disregard my results. If it turns out what's going on is an accurate reflection of the game as a whole then I know changes will be made. I was defending well in China until the appearance of the Artillery Death Star. Even the strategic bombing hadn't broken my back. My troops were in a stout MLR and I was pretty sure I could hold out for a long, long time; probably until the Western Allies were on the march so that the heat would be reduced in China. But the Artillery Death Star blasted through my MLR, collapsed my northern flank, and ruined about twenty Chinese corps and divisions. Since strategic bombing had destroyed my industry and supply structure, I couldn't replace my losses. In other words, an Artillery Death Star was the beam that broken the camel's back, severed his spine, and buried the poor critter under ninety-seven feet of cellulose. The air war in China is also a problem that ultimately contributed to my demise. The AVG fights well but the units can't be replaced, so it attrits down to nothing very quickly. The Japanese can then concentrate on bombing airfields and sweeping any remaining Allied fighters and that clears the skies over China. Broken down airplanes can't be repaired due to low supply and they get stranded at airfields that are pummeled every day by Japanese bombers. You can't base fighters at more remote bases because they have very short legs and thus won't reach the front lines. The air war in WitP was very tough in China, but in AE it's impossible. I think I'm a decent player. In my two WitP games I really didn't have any problems holding China against experienced opponents. I held Changsha and Sian throughout both games. But China is a mess in AE and my AE opponent is one of those I faced in WitP.

Shark7 -> RE: More information needed... (12/14/2009 3:22:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel The developers aren't going to react solely based upon my observations, but it's just one bit of information they'll consider. If it turns out I'm an anomaly, they'll have every reason to disregard my results. If it turns out what's going on is an accurate reflection of the game as a whole then I know changes will be made. I was defending well in China until the appearance of the Artillery Death Star. Even the strategic bombing hadn't broken my back. My troops were in a stout MLR and I was pretty sure I could hold out for a long, long time; probably until the Western Allies were on the march so that the heat would be reduced in China. But the Artillery Death Star blasted through my MLR, collapsed my northern flank, and ruine about twenty Chinese corps and divisions. Since strategic bombing had ruined my industry and supply structure, I couldn't replace my losses. In other words, an Artillery Death Star was the beam that broken the camel's back, severed his spine, and buried the poor critter under ninety-seven feet of cellulose. The air war in China is also a problem that ultimately contributed to my demise. The AVG fights well but the units can't be replaced, so it attrits down to nothing very quickly. The Japanese can then concentrate on bombing airfields and sweeping any remaining Allied fighters and that clears the skies over Japan. I think I'm a decent player. In my two WitP games I had no problem holding China against experienced opponents. But China is a mess in AE. It was a mess in real life to, though I doubt that is much consolation. The problem is most likely the stacking. The post patch supply sitation seems to be a problem as well, but I can't really comment on it as I have yet to patch it. As far as the air stuff goes, in real life the units had to either reform or pull back to bases in Burma to rebuild, not unrealistic, but for the game it can become a huge problem. In the real war, the reinforcements would arrive in Burma/India then simply be flown in to the receiving unit via ferry mission. I'm starting to wonder if a stacking limit for all terrain types isn't the best solution, tbh. They tried to fix it with the supply routing, and from the reports of players it seems to have created an even larger problem.

Barb -> RE: More information needed... (12/14/2009 3:27:34 PM)
Well artillery was actually used to disrupt enemy defense, not to kill him. Covering approaches, disrupting telephone cables, keeping enemy soldiers head down, obscuring field of fire, using smoke to limit enemy visibility, his forward oservers and so on. So to me effects of sustained artillery fire (bombardment) is to cause disruption and limit enemy efficiency - actually fatigue and morale in game terms, not to kill and disrupt squads. However I dont know if this can be changed in actual witp-combat.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6113281