Artillery

Artillery (Full Version)

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

Message

castor troy -> Artillery (8/24/2010 5:57:09 PM)
Lots has been said about artillery and I sure have welcomed the change in the patch that reduced the nuclear artillery that used no notable amount of supplies (which probably was what has been really flawed) but what artillery is now is just as ridicoulos and saying that it now is ok is only flawed. Why? Because it sure isn´t. Another reason for it? Because the same that said it´s ok now, also said it was ok pre patch (being the total opposite - aka nuclear aritllery). How would that match? First: "white is right"... then: "black is right"... [&:] being a politician or what? What it is now is really a pity result and can´t be taken serious. Having WITP results sure would be cool, amazing if you have to say something like that. Ground combat at Darwin (76,124) Allied Bombardment attack Attacking force 49726 troops, 844 guns, 1582 vehicles, Assault Value = 2354 Defending force 40330 troops, 342 guns, 613 vehicles, Assault Value = 1343 Japanese ground losses: 62 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 6 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Vehicles lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled) Allied ground losses: 47 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled Non Combat: 71 destroyed, 5 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 5 (3 destroyed, 2 disabled) Vehicles lost 110 (108 destroyed, 2 disabled) Assaulting units: 1st Army Tank Regiment 2/11th Armoured Car Battalion 766th Tank Battalion 2/8th Armoured Regiment 2nd USMC Tank Battalion 3rd Motor Brigade 767th Tank Battalion 5th Australian Division 627th Tank Destroyer Battalion 637th Tank Destroyer Battalion 2nd Australian Division 193rd Tank Battalion 1st Australian Division 1st USMC Corps Tank Battalion 632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion 1st USMC Tank Battalion 754th Tank Battalion 2/6th Armoured Regiment 4th Australian Division 2/7th Armoured Regiment 2/4th Armoured Regiment 763rd Tank Battalion 762nd Tank Battalion 4th Armoured Brigade 3rd Australian Division 1st Motor Brigade 181st Field Artillery Regiment I Australian Corps III Australian Corps 2nd USMC Field Artillery Battalion 188th Field Artillery Regiment 70th Coast AA Regiment 183rd Field Artillery Regiment 205th Field Artillery Battalion 2nd Australian Army 2nd RAAF M/W Sqn 30th Field Artillery Regiment 94th Coast AA Regiment 1st Australian Army 4th Field Artillery Battalion 216th Coast AA Regiment 223rd Field Artillery Battalion 168th Field Artillery Regiment 226th Field Artillery Battalion 198th Coast AA Regiment 134th Field Artillery Battalion 114th USAAF Base Force 503rd Coast AA Regiment 148th Field Artillery Battalion 96th Coast AA Regiment 197th Coast AA Regiment 154th FA Bn 10th RAAF Base Force II Australian Corps 16th RAAF Base Force 1st USMC Field Artillery Battalion 40th Field Artillery Regiment 198th Field Artillery Battalion 97th Field Artillery Battalion 249th Field Artillery Battalion 1st RAN Base Force 2nd RAN Base Force 13th Australian Hvy AA Regiment Defending units: 3rd Tank Regiment 16th Division 54th Division 21st Division 8th Tank Regiment 18th Div /1 14th Tank Regiment 5th Div /1 11th JAAF Base Force 16th Army 16th AA Regiment 40th JNAF AF Unit /1 15th Ind.Art.Mortar Bn /3 one of the real stupid results... granted, this result sure isn´t the norm but it´s nevertheless totally stupid... fear the mighty COUNTERBOMBARDMENT of 3 Japanese divisions... remember: AE is a game... AE is a game... AE is a game... WITP is a game... WITP is a game... AE is a game... AE is a game... Command and Conquer is a game...

Gobstopper -> RE: Artillery (8/24/2010 6:11:11 PM)
obviously they forgot to nerf counter-battery fire when they nerfed air and ground bombardment. against the AI you can use this to your advantage though. i was able to take chunking simply by moving a large stack with a bunch of artillery in and just let it sit for 6 months while the AI bombarded itself to death. :) in anything but clear terrain, artillery no longer serves a purpose. it does work to hold zone of control though, so you can move it into the woods and not waste a useful unit while trying to encircle.

witpqs -> RE: Artillery (8/24/2010 8:54:55 PM)
Counter-battery fire could stand a peak at the code.

Sredni -> RE: Artillery (8/24/2010 10:23:26 PM)
Your results seem buggy, 47 casualties should (in my experience) only be 3 or 4 disabled, and maby 1 or 2 destroyed (if you're unlucky). 1 squad, 71 non combat, 3 guns, and 108 vehicles destroyed should be way way way more then 47 casualties in the first line.

awadley -> RE: Artillery (8/25/2010 12:40:50 AM)
At what point is the Base Hex Over-Stacked?? What is the penalty for over-stacking??

awadley -> RE: Artillery (8/25/2010 12:41:40 AM)
Another thing what is the level of fort at the base and who has control of the base?

castor troy -> RE: Artillery (8/25/2010 8:03:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni Your results seem buggy, 47 casualties should (in my experience) only be 3 or 4 disabled, and maby 1 or 2 destroyed (if you're unlucky). 1 squad, 71 non combat, 3 guns, and 108 vehicles destroyed should be way way way more then 47 casualties in the first line. vehicles for example never show up as "casualties". Believe me, after looking at my units, I can asure you that this was a nuke. Now the next thing would be to think about "those vehicles were just motorized support". No, at least halve of the vehicles destroyed were tanks. Grants, Shermans, Stuarts... [8\|] Seems like that´s the usual example of all units had a die roll to fire at all my units. Just don´t use artillery, you´re better off then. Again, I´m happy not to see the "all you need are three artillery btn to conquer the map" routine anymore, but saying it´s now working is the same as saying the Earth would be flat.

castor troy -> RE: Artillery (8/25/2010 8:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awadley At what point is the Base Hex Over-Stacked?? What is the penalty for over-stacking?? That´s Darwin, you can´t overstack Darwin or any other hex on a non-island hex. The Japanese own the base but why would that matter? Have you noticed their "counterbattery fire"? And that counterfiring is independent of who owns what. As a side note, people should note that probably 80%+ of all available US artillery units have been placed in this hex. Boy, artillery is soooo broken... [:'(] The mighty Japanese divisional artillery took out a full tank unit if you count all these tanks together. But hey, a deliberate attack that has been tried with this "Panzerarmee" also saw hundreds of tanks knocked out by the Japanese that have been known as the number one anti tank Nation in the world. Have you ever heard about the Famous 8.8? The best anti tank weapon of the world at that time... Same as their famous Japanese Tiger tanks, they slice through my tank units like a hot knife through butter. oh wait, were these German designs? And the Japanese were employing 37mm or 45mm pop guns?

LoBaron -> RE: Artillery (8/25/2010 8:28:58 AM)
Wow CT you really like to cushion your attacks with devices. Not related to whether this is buggy or not, with that a crowded place I guess a salvoe of arty shells explodes a couple of dozen guns and tanks you stacked 4 storeys high. [:D] Doesnt look like a well balanced force TBH. [;)]

LoBaron -> RE: Artillery (8/25/2010 8:35:33 AM)
Btw: why on earth did you bombard with that unit composition? Shock attack and get done with it.

herwin -> RE: Artillery (8/25/2010 8:50:54 AM)
The vehicle casualties are very strange, writing as someone who used to do tactical OR analyses.

castor troy -> RE: Artillery (8/25/2010 10:52:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Btw: why on earth did you bombard with that unit composition? Shock attack and get done with it. Scherzkeks... really nice advice for sure. I did a deliberate attack and to avoid further nonsaying discussion I´m not going to post the result against the tank killing Japanese Army. Guess it´s easier to "stack" this kind of Army in the open range around Darwin than what people usually put onto islands. But I´m ok with you to think these results are ok, explains why our opinions on other things don´t match too.

AcePylut -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 2:42:32 AM)
Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units?

vicberg -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 3:20:43 AM)
In my last PBEM, I did an experiment. I bombarded all chinese locations I was in contact with for weeks (3 at least). I was beating them soundly in the open, so they retreated into defendable terrain and I was taking high losses attacking them. Some places, I was in contact with only a division. Other places, it was multiple divisions plus 8-10 artillery regiments/brigades. The chinese were all stacked to keep me at bay and their stacking was higher than mine. This lasted weeks. I had already taken Mandalay, so their supply from India was cut. I was hoping to cause disruption, errode their supply base, slow down any fort building, and follow up with attacks in the hopes of making some progress. I also attacked consistently with air bombings in various places, but that's not moot to this discussion. After weeks of this, the only thing that happened is that I damaged myself more than my opponent and caused disruption to my troops from artillery bombardment. Consistently. Everywhere. 6+ different locations at least. After a few weeks of this, I asked my opponent if there were any effects at all on his troops and the answer was none. No disruption, no extra supply loss. Nothing. All I suceeded in doing was damaging and disrupting myself. I'm going to avoid the historical/a-historical discussion about artillery. There's enough discussions about that. I can tell you that artillery as an independent weapon is useless and in many ways counterproductive. I don't know if this is what the devs intended.

vicberg -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 3:30:37 AM)
quote: Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units? You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days

Sheytan -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 3:37:07 AM)
A 37 mm or 45 mm AT could take out a Sherman. A Stuart or anything lighter for sure. Why do you think they are incapable of destroying a Sherman? There is alot of information available about gun types and armour penetration, you can look it all up on the interwebs and see for yourself what I stated is true. You perhaps are assuming the soldiers of the Emperor only fire at the frontal armour of the Sherman because they are trained to do so. That would be a incorrect assumption. quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: awadley At what point is the Base Hex Over-Stacked?? What is the penalty for over-stacking?? That´s Darwin, you can´t overstack Darwin or any other hex on a non-island hex. The Japanese own the base but why would that matter? Have you noticed their "counterbattery fire"? And that counterfiring is independent of who owns what. As a side note, people should note that probably 80%+ of all available US artillery units have been placed in this hex. Boy, artillery is soooo broken... [:'(] The mighty Japanese divisional artillery took out a full tank unit if you count all these tanks together. But hey, a deliberate attack that has been tried with this "Panzerarmee" also saw hundreds of tanks knocked out by the Japanese that have been known as the number one anti tank Nation in the world. Have you ever heard about the Famous 8.8? The best anti tank weapon of the world at that time... Same as their famous Japanese Tiger tanks, they slice through my tank units like a hot knife through butter. oh wait, were these German designs? And the Japanese were employing 37mm or 45mm pop guns?

Rainer79 -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 6:49:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy oh wait, were these German designs? And the Japanese were employing 37mm or 45mm pop guns? Actually they even have some 32cm mortars at Darwin. I bet a hit from one of these would even impress a King Tiger. [:D] Not that it makes the result any better.

LoBaron -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 7:12:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vicberg quote: Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units? You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days This is absolutely possible. But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions. I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are. I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode. He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns. We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are. We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops. He looks brutally anemic on infantry. The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force. So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post. Concidering all the above I can only shrug. [8\|]

castor troy -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 7:17:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units? who said I did that? I can´t even do that because they got no artillery. Only the units above with artillery conducted a bombardment.

castor troy -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 7:20:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: vicberg quote: Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units? You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days This is absolutely possible. But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions. I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are. I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode. He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops. [sm=dizzy.gif] He looks brutally anemic on infantry. [sm=dizzy.gif] The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force. [sm=dizzy.gif] [&o][&o][&o] So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post. Concidering all the above I can only shrug. [8\|] being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if it´s obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "it´s right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer. I wonder what´s not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think that´s correct. I´m not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, I´m arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on what´s behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack.

LoBaron -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 7:34:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: vicberg quote: Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units? You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days This is absolutely possible. But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions. I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are. I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode. He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops. [sm=dizzy.gif] He looks brutally anemic on infantry. [sm=dizzy.gif] The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force. [sm=dizzy.gif] [&o][&o][&o] So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post. Concidering all the above I can only shrug. [8\|] being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if it´s obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "it´s right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer. I wonder what´s not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think that´s correct. I´m not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, I´m arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on what´s behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack. Ah and before I forget: We don´t even know it the destroyed vehicles are really tanks. They could be eng vehicles or motorized support (although I am not sure if this counts as a vehicle) when I look at this troop composition...

castor troy -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 8:01:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: vicberg quote: Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units? You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days This is absolutely possible. But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions. I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are. I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode. He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops. [sm=dizzy.gif] He looks brutally anemic on infantry. [sm=dizzy.gif] The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force. [sm=dizzy.gif] [&o][&o][&o] So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post. Concidering all the above I can only shrug. [8\|] being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if it´s obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "it´s right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer. I wonder what´s not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think that´s correct. I´m not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, I´m arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on what´s behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack. Ah and before I forget: We don´t even know it the destroyed vehicles are really tanks. They could be eng vehicles or motorized support (although I am not sure if this counts as a vehicle) when I look at this troop composition... WE in terms of the rest of the forum of course doesn´t know that but I know. And yes, motorized support and eng vehicles do show up as vehicles destroyed. And no, not all of these "vehicles destroyed" were tanks but a rough guess would be 50%. Sorry that I didn´t count up every single tank every turn to compare it the next turn. Of course you would have to believe me in that aspect but I of course can´t expect that. Again, I´m not arguing about the effect of the side that actually DID the bombardment, I´m not fine with that kind of magic COUNTERbombardment. And yes, this is only one example once more and I also clearly stated in my op that this is NOT the norm. Not meaning that I would think the norm is ok, but surely the norm is more ok than this totally off result.

LoBaron -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 8:21:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: vicberg quote: Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units? You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days This is absolutely possible. But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions. I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are. I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode. He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops. [sm=dizzy.gif] He looks brutally anemic on infantry. [sm=dizzy.gif] The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force. [sm=dizzy.gif] [&o][&o][&o] So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post. Concidering all the above I can only shrug. [8\|] being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if it´s obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "it´s right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer. I wonder what´s not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think that´s correct. I´m not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, I´m arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on what´s behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack. Ah and before I forget: We don´t even know it the destroyed vehicles are really tanks. They could be eng vehicles or motorized support (although I am not sure if this counts as a vehicle) when I look at this troop composition... WE in terms of the rest of the forum of course doesn´t know that but I know. And yes, motorized support and eng vehicles do show up as vehicles destroyed. And no, not all of these "vehicles destroyed" were tanks but a rough guess would be 50%. Sorry that I didn´t count up every single tank every turn to compare it the next turn. Of course you would have to believe me in that aspect but I of course can´t expect that. Again, I´m not arguing about the effect of the side that actually DID the bombardment, I´m not fine with that kind of magic COUNTERbombardment. And yes, this is only one example once more and I also clearly stated in my op that this is NOT the norm. Not meaning that I would think the norm is ok, but surely the norm is more ok than this totally off result. So the rough guess is based on you actually looking at the number of vehicles in your units before and after the battle or is it just a random value? Just to explain my impression on this thread in case it was not clear: Before: Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances. After: Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances. Wow, this army composition looks like someone believes "balance of force" means adding a small stone as counterweight so the whole thing does not topple over on first contact, and i need neither a brain nor do need to be sober to come to this conclusion. [8D]

castor troy -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 8:50:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: vicberg quote: Why would you conduct a bombardment attack with Tank units? You can't bombard with tank units. But they are in the hex and subject to counter-battery fire. It's the extreme losses of tank units that's in question. At a more base level, it's the artillery game mechanics. Gobstopper, I believe, has it right. They nerfed the artillery fire routines, but not the counter-battery artillery fire routines. Caster Troys numbers remind me of the death-star days This is absolutely possible. But with this weird stack you got nothing at hand for credible conclusions. I BET that those weird results with stacks of doom happen also because CT neglects the "reserve" mode based on what his current intentions are. I BET that those tanks were all on "defend" OP mode. He ignores repeated comments on penalties to overstacking for ALL services (Land/Air/Naval) at the cost of diminishing returns. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea what the fort levels at Darwin are. [sm=dizzy.gif] We have not the slightest idea on fatigue level of his troops. [sm=dizzy.gif] He looks brutally anemic on infantry. [sm=dizzy.gif] The Japanese troops on the other hand look like a quite balanced force. [sm=dizzy.gif] [&o][&o][&o] So basically my conclusion when I read something like this is that its a single extreme example (and from the looks there are a LOT of extremes here) and Castor Troy uses it to deliver a point that might or might not be correct, but which is for sure not proven with such a post. Concidering all the above I can only shrug. [8\|] being a member in the C&C forum too? With your fantasy you could also justify the results of that game. What you ignore is reality and even what you see because if it´s obvious that something is not working right you still obey the magic devs that say "it´s right" just to find out it was not wad... have we seen that already? Yes we have... perhaps you want to dig out these threads. Considering all the above I wonder why I even answer. I wonder what´s not clear to you, if most of the US artillery on the map opens up fire to do a bombardment and the "counterfire" (which magic counterfire are we talking about?) of a couple of Japanese units suddenly destroys more or less full tank units then you must be either total ignorant or drunk at 8:00 am to think that´s correct. I´m not arguing about the damage done by the ALLIED artillery, I´m arguing about the counterfire. Open your eyes and turn on what´s behind of them. All your funny "reasons" for the counterbombardment results sure are good. Very reasonable for sure. Heck, even better than the advise to shock attack. Ah and before I forget: We don´t even know it the destroyed vehicles are really tanks. They could be eng vehicles or motorized support (although I am not sure if this counts as a vehicle) when I look at this troop composition... WE in terms of the rest of the forum of course doesn´t know that but I know. And yes, motorized support and eng vehicles do show up as vehicles destroyed. And no, not all of these "vehicles destroyed" were tanks but a rough guess would be 50%. Sorry that I didn´t count up every single tank every turn to compare it the next turn. Of course you would have to believe me in that aspect but I of course can´t expect that. Again, I´m not arguing about the effect of the side that actually DID the bombardment, I´m not fine with that kind of magic COUNTERbombardment. And yes, this is only one example once more and I also clearly stated in my op that this is NOT the norm. Not meaning that I would think the norm is ok, but surely the norm is more ok than this totally off result. So the rough guess is based on you actually looking at the number of vehicles in your units before and after the battle or is it just a random value? Just to explain my impression on this thread in case it was not clear: Before: Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances. After: Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances. Wow, this army composition looks like someone believes "balance of force" means adding a small stone as counterweight so the whole thing does not topple over on first contact, and i need neither a brain nor do need to be sober to come to this conclusion. [8D] what you never notice (true for the other discussion too) is that what you describe or can think of has nothing to do with what actually happened. You could also make an assumption about where my carriers were or the weather in Burma or if my 4E flew an attack against Rabaul. Force composition? That´s an argument if I would talk about a succesful or unsuccesful attack but we are NOT talking about an attack here. We are talking about two sides firing at each other with artillery. There were no infantry or tank attacks so your argument about composition of force totally misses the point. We had one STRONG artillery force ordered to do a bombardment and the bombarded WEAK force counterbombarded shredded the one that actually was dishing out dozens or hundreds of times more shells than the bombarded. But hey, we both probably are happy with our thoughts, because I´m sure you think that everything is ok when I say it´s not and vice versa. For me, that example is off.

LoBaron -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 9:03:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy what you never notice (true for the other discussion too) is that what you describe or can think of has nothing to do with what actually happened. You could also make an assumption about where my carriers were or the weather in Burma or if my 4E flew an attack against Rabaul. Force composition? That´s an argument if I would talk about a succesful or unsuccesful attack but we are NOT talking about an attack here. We are talking about two sides firing at each other with artillery. There were no infantry or tank attacks so your argument about composition of force totally misses the point. We had one STRONG artillery force ordered to do a bombardment and the bombarded WEAK force counterbombarded shredded the one that actually was dishing out dozens or hundreds of times more shells than the bombarded. But hey, we both probably are happy with our thoughts, because I´m sure you think that everything is ok when I say it´s not and vice versa. For me, that example is off. quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Just to explain my impression on this thread in case it was not clear: Before: Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances. After: Counterbattery might or might not be a bit faulty given the circumstances. Wow, this army composition looks like someone believes "balance of force" means adding a small stone as counterweight so the whole thing does not topple over on first contact, and i need neither a brain nor do need to be sober to come to this conclusion. [8D] CT DO you read and understand answers to your posts sometimes? Because it for sure does not leave the impression that you do. [;)]

castor troy -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 9:42:41 AM)
I do, but despite your "before" and "after" statements I did not have the impression you could even think at something being wrong.[:'(]

SuluSea -> RE: Artillery (8/26/2010 4:33:02 PM)
If we were playing stratego I'd question the outcome but in this game so many other details go into the formula the determines the battle outcome- Off the top of my head I'd say- What are his leaders ratings? What are the fort levels? What is his supply situation? What is your supply situation? Have you done due diligence with your leaders, are they the best suited for the job? I don't see combat engineers although I may have missed them. What is the morale of your troops/his? Have air assets prepped the battlefield? Any ship to shore bombardments? How many disabled troops do you have in your stack?

pionkki -> RE: Artillery (8/27/2010 6:29:29 PM)
Just wanted to share different kind of results. Firing weapons: 2*80mm mortar [image]local://upfiles/21888/8D1EB9EA6C6B40FFB70442C572349336.jpg[/image]

JeffroK -> RE: Artillery (8/27/2010 11:01:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pionkki Just wanted to share different kind of results. Firing weapons: 2*80mm mortar [image]local://upfiles/21888/8D1EB9EA6C6B40FFB70442C572349336.jpg[/image] 1, Fog of War? 2. They will have to move the Saki shop a bit further back[8D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125