RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (Full Version)

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

Message

RangerJoe -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/26/2019 2:19:40 PM)
Hans, when that happens to me I shut down the game and then restart. I runs fine then. I might also help if you have something like CCleaner to clean up any junk files.

Ian R -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/26/2019 3:03:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Discouraging that I came so close to actually playing a scenario to completion only to come up short dues to a technical failure. I can only suggest going into your task manager before loading the game, and turning off everything non-essential - which includes the internet and wifi stuff. Or using a USB drive to act as additional RAM. Or both. My recently new machine with about 8 gig of RAM, etc, loads it OK after I turn all the rubbish off.

RangerJoe -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/26/2019 3:24:54 PM)
My Dell with 4 Gigs of RAM runs it fine with Firefox running. But turn off IE or Edge since they seem to take priority over all other programs which slows everything down. I don't know why Microsoft will have Microsoft Internet Exploder and/or Microsoft Edge have priority over all other programs. I just don't understand their reasoning . . .

HansBolter -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/26/2019 3:57:17 PM)
The game has run fine on this minimal machine for over 1500 turns of this scenario. Map scrolling is a little slow and game saves take a long time, but other than that I had no performance issues until this current turn. Will try all the things suggested.

traskott -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/31/2019 8:45:20 AM)
Hans, im playing an iroman tier 3 too, and having lot of trouble to keep my sealanes open, too much raiders and surprise attacks. how could you do it in your game? Thanks

HansBolter -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/31/2019 10:06:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: traskott Hans, im playing an iroman tier 3 too, and having lot of trouble to keep my sealanes open, too much raiders and surprise attacks. how could you do it in your game? Thanks It's been a couple of years in game time since I had to deal with that so you are taxing my memory a little here. Yes, the tier 3 Ironman AI is very aggressive in raiding the sealanes and gets lots of armed merchant cruisers that are easily capable of taking out CLs. I was purposely passive with my carriers, not wanting to break the AI early, so I didn't go raiding with them and primarily used them to cover invasions once I started moving forward. During the early game when the sealanes were getting raided heavily I used them to patrol the sealanes and hunt down raiders, be they armed merchant cruisers, small surface combat TFs or carriers. I also stationed light surface TFs, mostly CL/DD TFs at various supply path waypoints and used them to patrol and react along the sealanes.

Ian R -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/31/2019 11:22:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter I also stationed light surface TFs, mostly CL/DD TFs at various supply path waypoints and used them to patrol and react along the sealanes. Put SBD groups on islands along your supply route and give it complete "air zoc" coverage. Akagi Maru problem minimised.

traskott -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/31/2019 12:04:45 PM)
They intercept my convoys out of SBDs cover, plus the A6M-S and Lindas eat my ships for breakfast. Even when I put an strongpoint, the cover of the convoys in the places where there is no cover is troublesome. Besides with those uberAMCs or put CV as escorts or my CA/CLs got suni kickly..

HansBolter -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/31/2019 2:37:40 PM)
Next Up: Nagoya. Also Heavy Urban with level 9 forts, but less stoutly defended than Osaka: Ground combat at Nagoya (111,60) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 134468 troops, 2156 guns, 3424 vehicles, Assault Value = 4449 Defending force 83721 troops, 954 guns, 457 vehicles, Assault Value = 1814 Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 8 Allied adjusted assault: 2009 Japanese adjusted defense: 6357 Allied assault odds: 1 to 3 (fort level 8) Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), preparation(-) experience(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 3314 casualties reported Squads: 31 destroyed, 232 disabled Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 51 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled Guns lost 79 (5 destroyed, 74 disabled) Vehicles lost 59 (9 destroyed, 50 disabled) Allied ground losses: 6888 casualties reported Squads: 34 destroyed, 477 disabled Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 172 disabled Engineers: 21 destroyed, 192 disabled Guns lost 148 (14 destroyed, 134 disabled) Vehicles lost 291 (26 destroyed, 265 disabled) Assaulting units: 779th Tank Battalion III Corps Engr Grp 13th Armored Division XIV Corps Engr Grp 7th Infantry Division Provisionl Tank Brigade 719th Flame Tank Battalion 632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion IV Corps Engineer Battalion 1st Regt de Cheval Regiment 640th Tank Destroyer Battalion 754th Tank Battalion XVIII Corps Eng Grp VII Corps Engr Grp 2nd British Division XXXIII Corps Engineer Battalion 32nd Infantry Division 25th Indian Division 6th Infantry Division 93rd Infantry Division Groupement Massu Brigade 18th British Division 8th Indian Division 148th Field Artillery Battalion 443rd Field Artillery Battalion Defending units: 10th Garrison Division 119th Ind.Mixed Brigade 8th Ind.Tank Brigade 38th Ind.Mixed Brigade 303rd Division 73rd Division 100th Division 143rd Division 120th Ind.Mixed Brigade 19th JAAF AF Bn 51st Air Division 125th AA Regiment Nagoya Fortress 97th Field AA Battalion 13th Area Army 98th Field AA Battalion 37th Ind. Hvy.Art. Battalion 38th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion Tokai JNAF Base Force 54th Army 12th Machine Canno AA Battalion 7th Imperial AA Division 106th Machine Canno AA Battalion Gifu JAAF Base Force

traskott -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/31/2019 2:50:12 PM)
How are you pools?

Yaab -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (8/31/2019 3:59:43 PM)
Re battle at Nagoya. Hand Bolter, the AI does not use any battalion-sized units which can AV. Can't you just disband your CE battalions into the pools and fill late-war American divisions with them? It would save the CE battalions from destruction during sieges as divisions soak up losses better.

HansBolter -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/1/2019 12:20:26 AM)
Here are the Combat Engineer pools. Only the US Army and Indian pools are dry. The few US Army battalions that could be disbanded would be a drop in the bucket toward the replenishment needs of the burnt out 81 AV Corps Groups even if they were anywhere near a location they could disband in. Disbanding smaller units is, however, something to consider planning for in a future game. Thanks for mentioning it. [image]local://upfiles/21458/E8FBA11F66DB4A1EA0CD147C72FE08B3.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/1/2019 12:35:07 AM)
In a future game, maybe also consider only using the CE regiments in large battles and use the CE battalions like extra engineer units, defenders, and only in combat in smaller battles.

Ian R -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/2/2019 9:03:08 AM)
I use the CE battalions only when ultimately, the infantry attack to help with fort reduction- but, as commented above, I use pure* tank units on shock attack and massive bombardments to "crumble" the defenders for weeks/months before the infantry go in. [*I include in that description tank brigades etc which have expended their infantry devices - it is less costly in the long run if you just repair/replace the tanks.]

HansBolter -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/2/2019 12:40:59 PM)
Round two at Nagoya comes earlier than round two at Osaka and takes a heavy toll on combat engineers. Moving more tanks into the siege battles as previously I was using them to execute surrounds on the siege hexes. I had loads of 1E and 2E bombers hitting Kanazawa (sp?) to clear the rail line linking the Western Allied and Soviet sectors and forgot to retarget them after clearing out the riff raff. They all targeted Tokyo, taking very heavy losses to flak, but putting extreme casualties on the heavily overstacked defenders. This is promising as ground attacks against heavy urban usually don't do much damage to defenders that are not overstacked. I have the potential to invest Tokyo by mid February, leaving about a month and a half to pound on it before the scenario ends. Ground combat at Nagoya (111,60) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 168426 troops, 2784 guns, 4334 vehicles, Assault Value = 5316 Defending force 81764 troops, 944 guns, 443 vehicles, Assault Value = 1645 Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 7 Allied adjusted assault: 1658 Japanese adjusted defense: 9093 Allied assault odds: 1 to 5 (fort level 7) Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), experience(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 2071 casualties reported Squads: 9 destroyed, 141 disabled Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 29 disabled Engineers: 3 destroyed, 18 disabled Guns lost 68 (7 destroyed, 61 disabled) Vehicles lost 27 (8 destroyed, 19 disabled) Allied ground losses: 12307 casualties reported Squads: 112 destroyed, 861 disabled Non Combat: 101 destroyed, 324 disabled Engineers: 176 destroyed, 260 disabled Guns lost 288 (60 destroyed, 228 disabled) Vehicles lost 564 (217 destroyed, 347 disabled) Units destroyed 1 Assaulting units: XVIII Corps Eng Grp 7th Armoured Brigade VII Corps Engr Grp 779th Tank Battalion XXXIII Corps Engineer Battalion 1st Regt de Cheval Regiment 2nd British Division 32nd Infantry Division 6th Infantry Division 267th Armoured Brigade 44th Infantry Division 719th Flame Tank Battalion 640th Tank Destroyer Battalion 13th Armored Division 7th Infantry Division IV Corps Engineer Battalion 28th Infantry Division 632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion 8th KGV Light Cav Regiment Groupement Massu Brigade XIV Corps Engr Grp 18th British Division Provisionl Tank Brigade 25th Indian Division 93rd Infantry Division 754th Tank Battalion 33rd Infantry Division 8th Indian Division 443rd Field Artillery Battalion 148th Field Artillery Battalion III Corps Engr Grp Defending units: 10th Garrison Division 100th Division 303rd Division 143rd Division 120th Ind.Mixed Brigade 8th Ind.Tank Brigade 119th Ind.Mixed Brigade 73rd Division 38th Ind.Mixed Brigade 19th JAAF AF Bn 38th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion 125th AA Regiment 98th Field AA Battalion Nagoya Fortress 97th Field AA Battalion 51st Air Division 106th Machine Canno AA Battalion Tokai JNAF Base Force 37th Ind. Hvy.Art. Battalion 13th Area Army 7th Imperial AA Division 12th Machine Canno AA Battalion 54th Army Gifu JAAF Base Force

RangerJoe -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/2/2019 4:56:11 PM)
If you strip out any soft elements from your armor, they will perform with fewer losses. Use air transports and/or APDs to do this. Use the resulting pure mobile forces to reduce forts.

Ian R -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/2/2019 11:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe If you strip out any soft elements from your armor, they will perform with fewer losses. Use air transports and/or APDs to do this. Use the resulting pure mobile forces to reduce forts. I seem to get more results where they cause significant casualties/disablement at little cost, rather than fort reduction, but it all helps. @Hans - you might want to leave a city garrison a retreat route of your choice into, preferably, flat open terrain where they will arrive in a state of disarray and not fortified. And then lock them in there and send the tanks & airforce in.

RangerJoe -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/2/2019 11:54:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe If you strip out any soft elements from your armor, they will perform with fewer losses. Use air transports and/or APDs to do this. Use the resulting pure mobile forces to reduce forts. I seem to get more results where they cause significant casualties/disablement at little cost, rather than fort reduction, but it all helps. @Hans - you might want to leave a city garrison a retreat route of your choice into, preferably, flat open terrain where they will arrive in a state of disarray and not fortified. And then lock them in there and send the tanks & airforce in. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe If you strip out any soft elements from your armor, they will perform with fewer losses. Use air transports and/or APDs to do this. Use the resulting pure mobile forces to reduce forts. I seem to get more results where they cause significant casualties/disablement at little cost, rather than fort reduction, but it all helps. @Hans - you might want to leave a city garrison a retreat route of your choice into, preferably, flat open terrain where they will arrive in a state of disarray and not fortified. And then lock them in there and send the tanks & airforce in. Crunch N' Munch!

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/4/2019 8:57:25 AM)
I once played an Ironman up to attacking Tokyo. I started the turn with the Tokyo attack and went to bed. The turn was still running when I woke up in the morning. I stopped the game there. Then I did Ian R's "Long Road to Tokyo" mod (which is excellent, by the way) on my latest computer and attacked something like 1.4 million troops at Tokyo. About 80% of all US and Commonwealth combat units were there as well as about 1/3 of the Russian army. There was no noticeable delay in the turn and the IJA retreated to the mountains to the northeast on the first attack (I had done a lot of shore bombardment, but very little aerial attack since the AA shredded my aircraft like you wouldn't believe). Regarding commerce raiders in the Ironman scenarios, those AMCs with 20 aircraft are deadly. The only way to supply Pearl early on was to do fully escorted convoys (with every CV available) timed to run between KB fragment sweeps. I also set up convoys between Port Stanley, Tahiti and Christchurch as well as Cape Town and Hobart. Eventually you can sink all of those killer AMCs by sweeping SoPac, EastPac and west of Australia with your CVs, being careful to keep them away from large KB fragments. Cheers, CB

traskott -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/4/2019 10:04:03 AM)
Yes, but till you sweep all those AMCs, resuppling the SLOC or OZ becomes very difficult.

RangerJoe -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/4/2019 1:51:35 PM)
It sounds like I need to try this Ironman for a challenge.

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/5/2019 6:33:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: traskott Yes, but till you sweep all those AMCs, resuppling the SLOC or OZ becomes very difficult. Yes, you have to go very, very low on the map. Even then, I'd still get hit west of Oz once in a while. Cheers, CB

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/5/2019 6:37:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe It sounds like I need to try this Ironman for a challenge. Yes, I'd recommend it if you are not doing PBEM. Another challenge is to run a scenario as computer vs. computer on continuous mode for six months or more, stop the game, and then take over as the Allies. For the biggest challenge of all do that with an Ironman scenario. Cheers, CB

traskott -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/5/2019 7:04:12 AM)
South of Tahiti, leading to Christchurch ( South NZ ) and up to Melbourne... That convoy surely will need AOs to replenish...

Ian R -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/5/2019 9:16:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: traskott South of Tahiti, leading to Christchurch ( South NZ ) and up to Melbourne... That convoy surely will need AOs to replenish... I think you are actually better off shuttling stuff to Capetown off map, and then running it up to Adelaide (requires 19300/17900 endurance cargo boats to keep their escorts refueled) and Cochin. After the Med opens, Aden based Tfs can take over in the west. At that point those long ranged Tfs from Capetown can push supply right up to Borneo and the Celebes (Manado being a key 9 level airfield on the way back to Manila).

HansBolter -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/5/2019 11:31:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: traskott South of Tahiti, leading to Christchurch ( South NZ ) and up to Melbourne... That convoy surely will need AOs to replenish... Refueling stations can be established at either Pago Pago or Tahiti, if the route to PP is too cluttered with raiders. AOs are far too valuable to risk and waste escorting cargo TFs. They should be reserved for use with the combat fleet. However, in a pinch, I have been known to use them as tankers. If they are on station with the fleet and an important forward base runs dry, with no tanker TF immediately enroute, I will divert the AOs to make a fuel delivery. As I have mentioned before, once Liberty ships come on line they have the legs for even a convoluted route to OZ, but it isn't necessary to cart everything all the way to OZ when Kiwi land can be used as a stockpile destination for all of SoPac. Short legged xAKLs can easily make the run from New Zealand to Australia. New Zealand is also more removed from the threat. I have never seen the AI make a play for NZ. Only very aggressive Japanese players looking to overrun all of SoPac make forays against New Zealand. Like IanR, I also establish routes to Cape Town and Aden once the Med opens up, but I don't use them exclusively. I use them to supplement the on board routes. Keeping multiple highways open ensures the maximum delivery.

HansBolter -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/7/2019 10:39:01 AM)
Round 2 at Osaka leaves me with three gutted Combat Engineer Groups and three gutted Infantry Divisions that are now moving out to Kure to recover. It's turning into another Kagoshima. Working to get more tanks into the battle. Reducing the Japanese strongpoints is consuming my Army. Ground combat at Osaka/Kyoto (109,59) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 176892 troops, 3403 guns, 2764 vehicles, Assault Value = 4548 Defending force 131167 troops, 1457 guns, 229 vehicles, Assault Value = 2793 Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 7 Allied adjusted assault: 1170 Japanese adjusted defense: 20321 Allied assault odds: 1 to 17 (fort level 7) Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 1888 casualties reported Squads: 8 destroyed, 65 disabled Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 13 disabled Engineers: 2 destroyed, 23 disabled Guns lost 48 (2 destroyed, 46 disabled) Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled) Allied ground losses: 20510 casualties reported Squads: 668 destroyed, 1564 disabled Non Combat: 53 destroyed, 350 disabled Engineers: 90 destroyed, 426 disabled Guns lost 594 (107 destroyed, 487 disabled) Vehicles lost 215 (29 destroyed, 186 disabled) Assaulting units: 2nd Infantry Division 86th Infantry Division 5th Infantry Division 8th Infantry Division 8th Australian Division V Corps Engr Grp 10th Indian Division 31st Infantry Division 10th Army Engr Grp 38th Infantry Division 4th Infantry Division 194th Tank Battalion 9th Indian Division 767th Tank Battalion 82nd (West African) Division 87th Infantry Division 1st Army Engr Grp 5th Indian Division 87th Medium Regiment 86th Medium Regiment 134th (East Ang) Regiment 147th Field Artillery Battalion 85th Medium Regiment 8th Belfast Heavy Regiment 72nd Mortar Battalion 778th Field Artillery Battalion 85th Mortar Battalion 2nd Indian Field Regiment 780th Field Artillery Battalion 1st Indian Medium Regiment 6th Medium Regiment 786th Field Artillery Battalion 789th Field Artillery Battalion 779th Field Artillery Battalion 88th Medium Regiment Defending units: 37th Ind.Mixed Brigade 190th JAAF AF Bn 61st JAAF AF Bn 56th Ind.Mixed Brigade 216th Division 144th Division 143rd JAAF AF Bn 84th Division 153rd Division 355th Division 189th JAAF AF Bn 163rd JAAF AF Bn 61st Ind.Mixed Brigade 6th Ind. Brigade 147th Division 25th Ind.Mixed Brigade 49th Division 316th Division 16th Ind. Brigade 225th Division 13th JAAF AF Bn 123rd Ind.Mixed Brigade 246th JAAF AF Bn 11th Machine Canno AA Battalion 45th Ind. AA Battalion 11th Air Division 45th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion 53rd Air Flotilla Maizuru Naval Base Force 13th Base Force 2nd Machine Cannon AA Battalion 65th Construction Battalion 15th Area Army Kinki JNAF Base Force 121st AA Regiment 22nd Ind. AA Battalion 26th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion 25th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion Osaka Naval Base Force 8th Imperial AA Division 5th Imperial AA Division 13th Ind. AA Battalion Kakogawa JAAF Base Force [image]local://upfiles/21458/C60ED6FE6B434CDEBB064FE478417F95.jpg[/image]

Yaab -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/7/2019 11:08:54 AM)
Remove the mortar battlions from you siege stacks. Mortars have very short range and lousy anti-soft values. They are best in defense when enemy shock attacks and you have two rounds of fire. Right now the bring nothing to the siege.

Ian R -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/7/2019 1:46:23 PM)
quote: Allied ground losses: 20510 casualties reported Ouch.

Naskra -> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction (9/10/2019 8:08:02 PM)
You can trick the AI mega-stack into shock attacking by sending a small force in one day ahead of the main body. Repeat as necessary.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328125