RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (Full Version)

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

Message

RogerJNeilson -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 9:40:24 AM)
Nothing as cunning Jim. 5th USMC has had orders set to deliberate attack, the 8th KGV are set to Reserve/Pursuit. So my opponent's force in Cam Ranh Bay has choices.... 1. Sit and take the fire from a distance, gradual sapping of morale and supplies and increasing disruption.... 2. Attack me - gets to close quarters with all manner of improvised weapons like moltovs, but comes out of fortifications and faces machine guns etc 3. Bugs out and heads into the jungle - or to Dalat - inland base where one of his units has just marched from - either way unless he times it exquisitely I will end up taking the base as his AV diminishes and my 8th KGV in pursuit hacks the routed forces apart. As Dalat is cut off anyway and has no sea connection it would seem better to be at Cam Ranh, and hope the odd 'invisible barge' (as a sideline how do you kill invisible barges?) brings in supplies or evacuates cadres. Either way they are in terminal decline.... and very much a written off part of the front for me now - no time pressure on its 'liberation'. Roger

Alfred -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 9:58:50 AM)
Fighters at 100' on naval attack. Otherwise fighter bombers will pick up the invisible barges. Alfred

obvert -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 10:18:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Units in reserve do not participate in contact. A unit in reserve on the attacking side gains the benefit of hot pursuit if the defender is forced to retreat. If the unit is in reserve on the defending side, it neither suffers casualties from enemy bombardment (with one caveat) nor does it contribute to the attack. The caveat is that on the defensive, if the attacker is on the verge of getting a 2:1 odds result, there is a die roll to see if the unit in reserve is activated and then it participates as normal on the defence. Alfred However, if reserve units take part in combat they do it in move mode, so at reduced effectiveness.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 11:59:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Units in reserve do not participate in contact. A unit in reserve on the attacking side gains the benefit of hot pursuit if the defender is forced to retreat. If the unit is in reserve on the defending side, it neither suffers casualties from enemy bombardment (with one caveat) nor does it contribute to the attack. The caveat is that on the defensive, if the attacker is on the verge of getting a 2:1 odds result, there is a die roll to see if the unit in reserve is activated and then it participates as normal on the defence. Alfred However, if reserve units take part in combat they do it in move mode, so at reduced effectiveness. I believe this piece of the mode is not widely known. Good reminder.

czert2 -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 12:31:51 PM)
can you post screenshot from booth sides of units involved to get clear picture ? of course, unless you find it confidental.

RogerJNeilson -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 12:57:28 PM)
8th KGV [image]local://upfiles/41758/756F4912C33147639DD1D764E9E87908.jpg[/image]

RogerJNeilson -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 12:58:15 PM)
5thUSMC [image]local://upfiles/41758/0F7DA872183B4000910E5110AA6518FB.jpg[/image]

Yaab -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 2:53:27 PM)
How come the Japs cannot destroy Stuart tanks? Have the defenders lost their field artillery pieces?

Lecivius -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 3:26:42 PM)
I'm gonna agree with Alfred here, and therefore with Roger as well. I see nothing wrong in any of this, and everything as expected.

witpqs -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 5:05:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab How come the Japs cannot destroy Stuart tanks? Have the defenders lost their field artillery pieces? They destroy plenty in my PBM, so the defender is just in a poor position here. No HR is appropriate.

Gaspote -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 6:03:39 PM)
Checking the units in the editor, I noticed japanese units don't get a single device able to penetrate the allied tanks even artillery gun sucks. Does that mean if armor is superior to penetration, the device can't damage the others ? Is this the reason why the allied tank didn't get damaged ?

Lokasenna -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 6:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gaspote Checking the units in the editor, I noticed japanese units don't get a single device able to penetrate the allied tanks even artillery gun sucks. Does that mean if armor is superior to penetration, the device can't damage the others ? Is this the reason why the allied tank didn't get damaged ? I imagine there's a die roll involved. Note that in my previous post of my combat at Urumchi, the Chinese troops didn't have any artillery tubes whatsoever, yet I still lost tanks. Destroyed, not just disabled.

Gaspote -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 6:21:24 PM)
What was the attack, shock or deliberate ? Perhaps it make a difference. Are you absolutely sure they were no gun ? AA guns work against tank too.

Lokasenna -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 6:42:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gaspote What was the attack, shock or deliberate ? Perhaps it make a difference. Are you absolutely sure they were no gun ? AA guns work against tank too. No guns. Chinese troops. They don't have any guns. Combat replay said 0 guns. It was a deliberate attack. What made the difference was a lack of supply in my units. They weren't at 0, but they were definitely below their required amount. Supply has a very bad effect on units if you don't have enough.

AE Veteran -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 8:29:08 PM)
This is one of my units, with 37 mm At guns and engineers. Everyone has forgotten to bring pole bombs, flamethrowers, satchel charges, magnetic mines, Molotov cocktails etc. I'm not expecting my boys to rout the Allies but in three turns they have endured 500+ casualties without any Allied losses. Those Humber armoured cars sure are real mean machines! [image]local://upfiles/44952/ED40D243D8A84D6BB0408628DC62096B.jpg[/image]

SqzMyLemon -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 8:52:44 PM)
Much ado about nothing. I'd suggest you get on with your game. Go back over your old combat reports of Japanese armour attacks in China. It's your turn and you need to put the right units in play to slow down Allied armour rather than ask for an unfair house rule. You can slow Allied armour under the right conditions at this point, but you'll never stop it completely. You better get used to it.

Werewolf13 -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 9:00:53 PM)
Forget the numbers. Here's a real life story about just how scary tanks can be when thrown at troops that have a minimal ability to fight back. 1973 - Northern Germany. A 5 Army field exercise that lasted a month. The US, German, British, French and Dutch armies participated. About the 2nd week in, the tank company I was serving in with M-60A1 tanks, Co C, 4th Bn, 64th Armor, 3rd Bgd, 3rd Inf div was assigned to attack a Dutch leg infantry battalion. The dutch (I won't capitalize dutch anymore - they failed as soldiers) were camped out in a valley. Whole battalion, about 800 guys. Ovelooking the valley was a lightly wooded hill. We moved our company to the edge of the woods over looking the dutch camp slowly during the night and shut our engines down. At dawn, just as the sun begain peeking over the eastern horizon, all 17 tanks fired up their engines and on command rolled out of the woods and moved out towards the dutch camp at 10 mph (if you've ever been in a tank you know moving cross crounty at speed can be a not fun experience so we went slow off that hill). The dutch camp was about 1000 yards away. We lit off our artillery simulators (made big booms) and started firing our coax and TC's cupola mounted 50's. Here's what happened. Keep in mind this was an exercise. No one was going to be hurt. No bullets flying, no artillery landing just 17 tanks manned by 68 guys charging 800 guys who had AT weapons, foxholes, CAS on call etc. 800 guys took off running, on foot, as fast as they could to get away from us. Took a minute or two for the exercise umpires to bring us to a screeching halt and about an hour to round up the dutch and get 'em back to their camp. Point of the story! You're lucky your virtual Japs only suffered, what, 289 casualties. In real life against Shermans with little real way to do more than scratch the paint or rattle the inside a little a whole battalion of Sherman's could have wreaked some very real havoc. ROFLMAO! One sherman firing its coax MG and hull mounted bow MG could have taken out twice as many as 289 guys in just a few minutes if they were in a concentrated enough location. Like one poster said: Take yur lumps and move on!

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 9:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AE Veteran This is one of my units, with 37 mm At guns and engineers. Everyone has forgotten to bring pole bombs, flamethrowers, satchel charges, magnetic mines, Molotov cocktails etc. I'm not expecting my boys to rout the Allies but in three turns they have endured 500+ casualties without any Allied losses. Those Humber armoured cars sure are real mean machines! [image]local://upfiles/44952/ED40D243D8A84D6BB0408628DC62096B.jpg[/image] The Humbers are in Reserve mode, as shown in the screenshot. You aren't getting to shoot at them. You've got to read the thread and give up on your wishes how you'd like the game to behave. The answers to why this is happening are all there, and your opponent has been kind enough to give you FULL info, including disablements, supply state, leadership, and shoe sizes on his units. Take the learning and play on.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 9:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon Much ado about nothing. I'd suggest you get on with your game. Go back over your old combat reports of Japanese armour attacks in China. It's your turn and you need to put the right units in play to slow down Allied armour rather than ask for an unfair house rule. You can slow Allied armour under the right conditions at this point, but you'll never stop it completely. You better get used to it. If you play long enough to see full Soviet armored divisions . . .

AE Veteran -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 10:51:27 PM)
A fair number of people goe on about the Chinese. Cant remember any suicide Chinese squads? Apples and pears. Fraid the game is broken. Allied Abrams tanks vs Japs inferior technology. Draw your conclusions.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/21/2014 11:02:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AE Veteran A fair number of people goe on about the Chinese. Cant remember any suicide Chinese squads? Apples and pears. Fraid the game is broken. Allied Abrams tanks vs Japs inferior technology. Draw your conclusions. I conclude this ain't the game for you. Bye.

USSAmerica -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 1:01:52 AM)
Where's Ron when we need him? [:D] "The Allied armor is BORKED!!!" [8D]

Jim D Burns -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 3:15:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AE Veteran This is one of my units, with 37 mm At guns and engineers. Everyone has forgotten to bring pole bombs, flamethrowers, satchel charges, magnetic mines, Molotov cocktails etc. I'm not expecting my boys to rout the Allies but in three turns they have endured 500+ casualties without any Allied losses. Those Humber armoured cars sure are real mean machines! [image]local://upfiles/44952/ED40D243D8A84D6BB0408628DC62096B.jpg[/image] I’m starting to think this has to do with the combat odds ratio. He has such an abysmal odds ratio, his guys are probably breaking off the combat before the tanks can close in to range with your AT guns, so they never actually get to shoot back. Someone with a much better understanding of the combat routines would have to confirm this, but my guess is your guns aren’t even getting to shoot at him. Simply put, he outranges you then the combat breaks off due to his low odds attack. Slow down your combat replay and carefully read all the messages in the battle display as they come up. It may give you some insight into what is going on. Jim

czert2 -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 1:33:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AE Veteran This is one of my units, with 37 mm At guns and engineers. Everyone has forgotten to bring pole bombs, flamethrowers, satchel charges, magnetic mines, Molotov cocktails etc. I'm not expecting my boys to rout the Allies but in three turns they have endured 500+ casualties without any Allied losses. Those Humber armoured cars sure are real mean machines! [image]local://upfiles/44952/ED40D243D8A84D6BB0408628DC62096B.jpg[/image] well i just have to ask - why 37mm guns dont fire back ? lack of range ? and since enemy tank units dont have artylery gun there, why uits are not set al least to bombard ? yeah, knocking out enemy tank will be mamtter of luck, but you can disable him, and minimaly play on tankers nerves. Mayby even deliberate attack should be considered - it it fail, well whats difference if that place fall one week earlier or later ?

czert2 -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 1:51:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AE Veteran A fair number of people goe on about the Chinese. Cant remember any suicide Chinese squads? Apples and pears. Fraid the game is broken. Allied Abrams tanks vs Japs inferior technology. Draw your conclusions. Well, you didnt knowed that allied will have booth numbers and quality advantages in tank over japs from 43 and mainly 44+ on ? Ok, np it is just lack of history knowlenge, no one can know all. but you have problem that you can deal with it in game ? well, that your problem.¨ deliberate attack with tanks is, well, just direct fire artilery with some nice anti-shell protection :). It is NOT charging of enemy treches with tanks they will NEVER do it unless defender colapse) for that it is shock assault. You want to get to molotov coctails range ? well, wait eigter for shock attack (which may never come), or well do counterattack by yourself (deliberate/shock) - but well, you will lose defence bonuses.

LoBaron -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 2:02:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: czert2 quote: ORIGINAL: AE Veteran A fair number of people goe on about the Chinese. Cant remember any suicide Chinese squads? Apples and pears. Fraid the game is broken. Allied Abrams tanks vs Japs inferior technology. Draw your conclusions. [...]It is NOT charging of enemy treches with tanks they will NEVER do it unless defender colapse) for that it is shock assault. You want to get to molotov coctails range ? well, wait eigter for shock attack (which may never come), or well do counterattack by yourself (deliberate/shock) - but well, you will lose defence bonuses. This is a very good comment actually. And in AE, depending on the circumstances, Inf, even with low antiarmor values, can dish out quite well against tanks in case the tanks are not supported by Inf themselves. But for this they have to attack with reasonable numbers (triple to quadruple AV as minimum). In this specific case I doubt though that IJA numbers and unit quality is anywhere near the amount required. The results are pretty unsurprising.

AW1Steve -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 2:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326 Forget the numbers. Here's a real life story about just how scary tanks can be when thrown at troops that have a minimal ability to fight back. 1973 - Northern Germany. A 5 Army field exercise that lasted a month. The US, German, British, French and Dutch armies participated. About the 2nd week in, the tank company I was serving in with M-60A1 tanks, Co C, 4th Bn, 64th Armor, 3rd Bgd, 3rd Inf div was assigned to attack a Dutch leg infantry battalion. The dutch (I won't capitalize dutch anymore - they failed as soldiers) were camped out in a valley. Whole battalion, about 800 guys. Ovelooking the valley was a lightly wooded hill. We moved our company to the edge of the woods over looking the dutch camp slowly during the night and shut our engines down. At dawn, just as the sun begain peeking over the eastern horizon, all 17 tanks fired up their engines and on command rolled out of the woods and moved out towards the dutch camp at 10 mph (if you've ever been in a tank you know moving cross crounty at speed can be a not fun experience so we went slow off that hill). The dutch camp was about 1000 yards away. We lit off our artillery simulators (made big booms) and started firing our coax and TC's cupola mounted 50's. Here's what happened. Keep in mind this was an exercise. No one was going to be hurt. No bullets flying, no artillery landing just 17 tanks manned by 68 guys charging 800 guys who had AT weapons, foxholes, CAS on call etc. 800 guys took off running, on foot, as fast as they could to get away from us. Took a minute or two for the exercise umpires to bring us to a screeching halt and about an hour to round up the dutch and get 'em back to their camp. Point of the story! You're lucky your virtual Japs only suffered, what, 289 casualties. In real life against Shermans with little real way to do more than scratch the paint or rattle the inside a little a whole battalion of Sherman's could have wreaked some very real havoc. ROFLMAO! One sherman firing its coax MG and hull mounted bow MG could have taken out twice as many as 289 guys in just a few minutes if they were in a concentrated enough location. Like one poster said: Take yur lumps and move on! +1

AW1Steve -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 2:21:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: AE Veteran A fair number of people goe on about the Chinese. Cant remember any suicide Chinese squads? Apples and pears. Fraid the game is broken. Allied Abrams tanks vs Japs inferior technology. Draw your conclusions. I conclude this ain't the game for you. Bye. +1

Yaab -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 4:17:12 PM)
Those two brigades and the AA battalion should have enough field, AT and AA artillery pieces to at least successfully disable the Stuarts and halftracks. What is wrong with their targeting?

witpqs -> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour (5/22/2014 4:36:50 PM)
For one thing the morale of the unit shown is 56 - really terrible.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.953125