RE: More information needed... (Full Version)

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



Message


Jim D Burns -> RE: More information needed... (12/17/2009 1:43:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman
Interestng read Jim, what site is that ?


It’s the web site of Akira Takizawa, a Japanese author who’s had a couple books published covering the Japanese military. A lot of great stuff on his site, since he uses Japanese source material for most of his research.

Here's the front page:

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/

Jim




bklooste -> RE: More information needed... (12/17/2009 2:18:07 PM)

Has ( ie can ) someone look at havind 2/3 on reserve see the impact and then rotate units after a few days it and see how quickly the disablement rate comes back ? MY gut feel is disablement comes back according to divisional support ( which is vlow for CHinese) so put some major HQs there to see the difference.




JWE -> RE: More information needed... (12/17/2009 2:48:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
How many tubes fired how many rounds at how many targets?


That’s one Kaleun will have to answer as I didn’t read the book. He mentioned he read about devastating concentrated artillery fire, so I found the casualty lists to give us a guide as to what had occurred.
Jim

I wouldn’t mind knowing that meself. Viet Minh artillery tactics at Dien Bien Phu were a bit unconventional. Many of the tubes were fired in DF. VM didn’t have enuf trained artillerists and FOs to do otherwise, even with PA assistance, so they dug holes, opened up a firing port, set up the battery scopes and then shot everything they could see. They would shoot and then move the guns to another hole. It wasn’t intensity so much as accuracy. They knew exactly where Piroth’s guns were and whacked the crap out of them. Poor Piroth could do nothing in return.




Cmdrcain -> RE: More information needed... (12/17/2009 11:11:14 PM)

Hummm


In all of this has any looked into if the Low Supplies in China for Chinese have any effect?

If Chinese are in low supply then actually less then nwhat see maybe  in defense and the low supply troops more vulnerable to attacks with a greater number going disabled.

Japanese have better supplies

Also perhaps the lower start Forts  in china are an problem... is strange the so called beta testers for AE  should have noticed this... none tested such things for china?

What CODE changes between AE and WITP in regard to arty were done? That in itself maybe the problem
maybe yank out those changes and put back in the WITP Arty code.

This really is something the beta testers SHOULD have caught!

They could have used editor to have setup a large stack to see effects..

Maybe there actually is a need for also Stack limits even on land not just islands...
the amount of some japanese stacks and even chinese stacks is absurd... the amount of both at one city really wouldn't likely have occurred in real life due to space and terrain limiting factors...  perhaps for Land... a limit on number of divisions/Corps in ANY hex...go over and you
start to incur some penalty...double supply use perhaps...   Could really japan put 8-10 divisions right in a 40 mile city hex?

With Chinese having 8-10 Corps in  same hex? Its as if their sitting on top of each...

But the bigger thing is that japan's arty does more damage then chinese...
If it was mere  guns vs guns I would think 400-500 arty would at least be doing half as much back ie: where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?

So I think it REALLY has to do with SUPPLY and that china should start out with plenty of supply and gain more
otherwise if its supply...theres no way to prevent it.

Also if its supply... the cost in supply for Japan should be alot more then it is now to bombard... a doubling of the cost in the code for japanese maybe ?







Jim D Burns -> RE: More information needed... (12/18/2009 4:01:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?


Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim




Shark7 -> RE: More information needed... (12/18/2009 2:17:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?


Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim


Yep, you got it.

In hexes where I don't have my Japanese guns bombard, the Chinese are able to get hundreds of casualties, just like mine are doing. Unfortunately the turn order is supressing the Allied bombardments. Might be a good idea to randomize the order if possible.




Sardaukar -> RE: More information needed... (12/18/2009 3:03:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?


Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim


Yep, you got it.

In hexes where I don't have my Japanese guns bombard, the Chinese are able to get hundreds of casualties, just like mine are doing. Unfortunately the turn order is supressing the Allied bombardments. Might be a good idea to randomize the order if possible.


My pet peeve with WitP engine is that it is not true WEGO in land combat, since Japan goes first always. Combat should be resolved simultaneously when same units in same hex are involved.




Canoerebel -> RE: More information needed... (12/18/2009 3:05:47 PM)

That's interesting.  I had never thought of that before.




Jim D Burns -> RE: More information needed... (12/19/2009 3:01:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Yep, you got it.

In hexes where I don't have my Japanese guns bombard, the Chinese are able to get hundreds of casualties, just like mine are doing. Unfortunately the turn order is supressing the Allied bombardments. Might be a good idea to randomize the order if possible.


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim




bklooste -> RE: More information needed... (12/19/2009 11:11:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim


This is quite major my vote is side with the lowest AV goes first , you could modify the AV with a leadership/recon modifier. If this doesnt exist already.

Speaking of which does anyone have any Combat reports of 100K Japanese vs 300K Chinese including there heavy artillary ?




Shark7 -> RE: More information needed... (12/19/2009 4:31:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim


This is quite major my vote is side with the lowest AV goes first , you could modify the AV with a leadership/recon modifier. If this doesnt exist already.

Speaking of which does anyone have any Combat reports of 100K Japanese vs 300K Chinese including there heavy artillary ?


Most combats took place by a handfull of divisions on each side at most. Brigade and Regimental level actions were far more common than full out Corps level battles.




Cmdrcain -> RE: More information needed... (12/20/2009 1:50:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?


Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim




Umm nope... when Chinese counter fire later theres 400-500 guns and only like 40-50 japanese loss vs their doing 6000 with a bit over double the guns... so the question on supply





Cmdrcain -> RE: More information needed... (12/20/2009 1:58:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?


Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim


Yep, you got it.

In hexes where I don't have my Japanese guns bombard, the Chinese are able to get hundreds of casualties, just like mine are doing. Unfortunately the turn order is supressing the Allied bombardments. Might be a good idea to randomize the order if possible.


My pet peeve with WitP engine is that it is not true WEGO in land combat, since Japan goes first always. Combat should be resolved simultaneously when same units in same hex are involved.






Actually... in battles... often one side does inite a barrage... then other side counter fires trying aim at where fire came from... the one fireing first is firing where believe others guns are... so
really one fireing first should gain LESS in hits.. cause of guns movement... missing many that moved where the counter fire would be spotted onto where saw the firing first arty firing.

Arty sitting still would die so between firings usually their positions changed..

So really japan firing first shouldn't gain so much damage but game engine doesn't seem to put a proper fog of war into it... its simple numbers it seems... x firing does x damage... as if first firing knows exactly where every unit of opponent is and where all their guns are.

Of course I don't know the code... if theres any randomizing for damage...if not then it really doesn't sim the reality of arty fire and counter fire...

Arty in reality depended on spotters... and it was a chess game on both sides in where arty would be...







bklooste -> RE: More information needed... (12/20/2009 2:00:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim


This is quite major my vote is side with the lowest AV goes first , you could modify the AV with a leadership/recon modifier. If this doesnt exist already.

Speaking of which does anyone have any Combat reports of 100K Japanese vs 300K Chinese including there heavy artillary ?


Most combats took place by a handfull of divisions on each side at most. Brigade and Regimental level actions were far more common than full out Corps level battles.


True but im trying to see the losses for the Changsha42 battles with a historical TOE since we are talking about death stars :-)




Cmdrcain -> RE: More information needed... (12/20/2009 9:43:21 AM)

Heres why I think low supplies cause losses... Allied do a bombardment yet only they get losses...

Ground combat at Changsha (82,52)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 47037 troops, 231 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2635

Defending force 77836 troops, 809 guns, 211 vehicles, Assault Value = 2728


Allied ground losses:
     137 casualties reported
        Squads: 3 destroyed, 8 disabled
        Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
     Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)


Assaulting units:
   99th Chinese Corps
   37th Chinese Corps
   53rd Chinese Corps
   73rd Chinese Corps
   18th Chinese Corps
   72nd Chinese Corps
   10th Chinese Corps
   78th Chinese Corps
   74th Chinese Corps
   44th Chinese Corps
   26th Chinese Corps
   8th Chinese/B Corps
   58th Chinese Corps
   8th Chinese/C Corps
   19th Group Army
   30th Group Army
   27th Group Army
   9th War Area
   17th Chinese Base Force
   29th Group Army
   5th Construction Regiment

Defending units:
   40th Division
   39th Division
   6th Division
   9th Armored Car Co
   3rd Division
   13th Division
   14th Division
   15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
   2nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
   52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
   4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
   2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
   14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
   1st Mortar Battalion
   51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
   7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion






KenchiSulla -> RE: More information needed... (12/20/2009 11:18:57 AM)

Looks like the Japanese open fire before the Chinese and neutralize your 200 tiny guns with 800 guns before you get a shot off.....




Shark7 -> RE: More information needed... (12/20/2009 4:25:56 PM)

Unit experience is bound to play a part as well. Poorly equipped, poorly trained troops will yield poor results.




Cmdrcain -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/21/2009 4:09:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Durring the WOR the Chinese deaths were 3-4 million soldiers.


China did not lose 3-4 million dead, they lost 1.3 million dead from the Nationalist forces for the entire period 1937-1945. Also most of those killed in battle had already died by 1941. There was very little fighting in China after Pearl Harbor compared to what had gone on before Japan declared war on the rest of the world.

Sure there was fighting still, but nowhere near the same scale as before. Japan was for the most part content to simply sit on what they had and focus their efforts in the pacific.

http://worldwar2database.com/html/frame5.html

Jim





With Game:

If Japan is aggresive in China.. then japan burns supplies etc in china and has less for other areas...also the Reinf of troops would suck away afv, etc that would go to
other areas.

So a japan player attacking alot in China hurts things elsewhere.

Same could be said for an allied player... through allied player really cant that easy fight.. with WITP it was easier I think.. allied is more on defense and best sitting and defending the key points.





EUBanana -> RE: More information needed... (12/21/2009 9:28:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
Umm nope... when Chinese counter fire later theres 400-500 guns and only like 40-50 japanese loss vs their doing 6000 with a bit over double the guns... so the question on supply


Chinese guns that are well in supply do nothing even remotely comparable.

So no, I don't think it is supply. Maybe the Chinese 75mms have bad stats. Maybe it's their low experience. But in supply or out of supply, they get wasted.




Jim D Burns -> RE: More information needed... (12/21/2009 10:26:13 AM)

It’s a combination of everything adding up to equal a very bad day every day for China in game. I don’t know the exact workings of the combat engine, but for examples sake let’s say China starts with 100 ready squads.

After rolls for things like weather, leadership, morale, fatigue, etc. etc., China may have 20 of those 100 squads available to fire in the fire phase (read bombardment for guns). Now to top it off, the individual stats of the Chinese equipment have been nerfed so low that you’d be lucky to get 1 hit out of the 20 squads that fire. And even if it is a hit, more often than not, it’ll be a disabling hit not a kill.

But just to add a little more icing on top of the Chinese bad day, Japan gets to shoot first. So those 20 squads get annihilated along with half of the 80 squads that are sitting around doing nothing, and China has nothing to shoot back with in its own fire phase.

Whether combats are sequential or not, Chinese crap equipment items combined with all the crap leaders and units stats means even if Japan doesn’t shoot first China can’t do much when it shoots. You’ll never see Japan lose 40,000 troops in an assault on Changsha as they did historically.

AE simply has it wrong in China, they need to be able to dish out at least some meaningful damage to Japan when they are on defense. Otherwise it won’t matter if they reduce the effects of artillery fire.

In General I think things were close to correct in CHS. Chinese units preformed well enough to hold a location, but it took immense efforts to even try to mount an offensive with them, let alone a successful one.

Jim




bklooste -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/21/2009 11:36:11 AM)

quote:





With Game:

If Japan is aggresive in China.. then japan burns supplies etc in china and has less for other areas...also the Reinf of troops would suck away afv, etc that would go to
other areas.

So a japan player attacking alot in China hurts things elsewhere.

Same could be said for an allied player... through allied player really cant that easy fight.. with WITP it was easier I think.. allied is more on defense and best sitting and defending the key points.




It should be that way but there is very little difference in teh supply China draws if on the offensive or just sits there , the extra supply is mainly air craft




bklooste -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/21/2009 11:32:53 PM)

Did we sort out the issue that the Chinese replacement rate is like 1% of Japans ?




ETF -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/22/2009 12:06:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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.






100% Agree!!!!
What is the delay in fixing this glaring problem? I was surpriesd it was not at least tweaked in our most recent patch or did I miss something?




ckammp -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/22/2009 12:20:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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.






100% Agree!!!!
What is the delay in fixing this glaring problem? I was surpriesd it was not at least tweaked in our most recent patch or did I miss something?



Check out the new hotfix, released a couple days ago. It addressed this problem.




ckammp -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/22/2009 12:32:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Did we sort out the issue that the Chinese replacement rate is like 1% of Japans ?


The Chinese replacement rate is the same (200). There's an easy fix, tho - just use the editor to change the rate.




ETF -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (12/24/2009 5:17:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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.






100% Agree!!!!
What is the delay in fixing this glaring problem? I was surpriesd it was not at least tweaked in our most recent patch or did I miss something?



Check out the new hotfix, released a couple days ago. It addressed this problem.

Wow thanks now I just have to look for it hmmmm. Search no go......




Canoerebel -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (1/2/2010 12:09:34 AM)

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.




Chickenboy -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (1/2/2010 12:24:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.


NO CRIMGUY OR USSHENRICO>>>


I'll have something meaningful to add to this discussion in the near term, as I am investing Bataan and Singapore with large numbers of supporting independent artillery battalions and regiments and will also be attacking Chengchow with a massive IJA assault, including at least 8 independent artillery units. The Chenchow operation is nearly the same assault as I ran with my other PBEM opponent prepatch II (and hotfix), so it ought to be an approximate apples to apples conversation.

I would expect (from other much more limited examples) that artillery damage is between one half and one third as effective prepatch / hotfix, but let's see what the data say.




bklooste -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (1/2/2010 3:24:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.


Th only alteration was for terrain.forts , if you fight in the open its unchanged AFAIK. I wish they would just reduce all Artillary so the heavy arty US divisions become useless [:D]

btw we still havent sorted out why the Chinese replacement rate is about 1% of Japan.




BigJ62 -> RE: Artillery Death Stars Continue Post Patch Two (1/2/2010 12:01:22 PM)

Exactly. If you fight in open terrain and no forts you can expect to get plastered.


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.


Th only alteration was for terrain.forts , if you fight in the open its unchanged AFAIK. I wish they would just reduce all Artillary so the heavy arty US divisions become useless [:D]

btw we still havent sorted out why the Chinese replacement rate is about 1% of Japan.






Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125