Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Stavka_lite -> Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 2:53:10 AM)

It is early '44 (using 1.4)and I have been bombing and bombarding(BBs, CA and CLs in large formations)daily the daylights out of Truk and Kewajelien(sp) for the better part of a year. Kwj. still has 21 units, no supplies, aircraft or ships( I peeked afterwards) and still they managed to wipe out two Rested, supplied and trained American divisions during amphib assault. I have seen Kwaj. with my own eyes and it is pretty damn barren. There just ain't no way anything on that bare piece of rock and coral could have survived the battering I gave that island much less mount some sort of feasible defense. Ok, I can chock that one down for experience, but I looked at Truk and it has 132 ships in various states of destruction and 61 ground units and 60K of supplies. I thought 1.4 fixed this AI fixation!!!! I can understand 15-20 units but 61 and this is down from 75. I believe the missing 14 went to Palau. Can we get some sort of stacking limitation or penalaties in 1.5 please. [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]



byron13 -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 3:01:53 AM)

I'd be up for that, but I don't think we'll see it. Different stacking limits depending on whether its an atoll or some other land type. Same thing would go for a/c stacking on atolls, but we won't see this either since that number of a/c is determined by airfield size, and airfield size is present primarily to determine the type of a/c that can fly from the base and not the number.

But it is a good idea.



Stavka_lite -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 3:04:59 AM)

There you go making sense again. I was really hoping to play on the developers emotions.



tsimmonds -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 4:48:25 AM)

So why are you beating your head against that wall? It is irrelevant (and I should know[;)]). Take someplace that is easier and build it up fast so you can use it. You are the USA, you can do all manner of instant terraforming to conjure up ports and airfields out of mere holes in the ground.



BrucePowers -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 4:00:43 PM)

I agree with Irrelevant. Historically, the US used carrier air to make Truk irrelevent and then just bypassed the place to not waste men and resources. You can do the same. Some of the people I work with are scuba divers and they say Truk lagoon is a fastinating place with all those sunk merchant ships.



Nikademus -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 5:19:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stavka_lite

There just ain't no way anything on that bare piece of rock and coral could have survived the battering I gave that island much less mount some sort of feasible defense.



Thats what the American planners thought at Tarawa too. [;)]



moses -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 5:43:58 PM)

Just A thought.

Has it ever been considered allowing navel bombardment to reduce the fortification value of atols. This would have no effect exept on atols where supply was low. ( They would just build them back up). It would increase supply useage on atolls which were under continuous attack and would help reduce defences of atols which had been bombarded over a period of time to zero supply.

I'm thinking of a very limited effect. Something like one fort reductions occuring at the frequency of 1/20th that of supply pt hits.


Also in 1.5 if the number of actual kills increases this may help a bit in reducing atols through long term bombardment.



Nikademus -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 5:52:15 PM)

no.

reduced fort levels from bombardment would make things too easy for the attacker.



Gen.Hoepner -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 6:21:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

no.

reduced fort levels from bombardment would make things too easy for the attacker.


and tarawa campaign prooved that it's not written that with naval bomb you can destroy forts



moses -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 6:40:43 PM)

Like I said just a thought.

Is the problem that with large concentrations of force on atols that attacking forces are just ejected with the initial shock attacks and destroyed in a couple days? I haven't gotten to a point as allies where I have attempted landings against heavily defended bases.



von Murrin -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 8:41:48 PM)

I have yet to see this.

I've found continuous port and airfield attacks will cause enough supply hits to chew through all stocks in a matter of weeks, then you can work over the units themselves. The PH BB's and B-24's work great for this. I tried a full scale amphib invasion of Truk and succeeded with three divisions against four times the number of defenders. Prep points, LCI/M's, LST's, AGC's, good leadership, naval and air bombardment can wipe out any defense.

I've never seen or assaulted a base with 70+ defenders (I don't see the point. Let 'em starve.), but Truk had 24 or more LCU's and my initial assault troops took about 30-50% disabled elements.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 9:28:19 PM)

quote:

Is the problem that with large concentrations of force on atols that attacking forces are just ejected with the initial shock attacks and destroyed in a couple days? I haven't gotten to a point as allies where I have attempted landings against heavily defended bases.


Name a single Atoll you actually need to take to win ... batter them and move on. Save troops for targets worth dying for.



esteban -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 9:45:17 PM)

A couple problems with stuff being described.

Stacking limits on atolls would have to be applied both ways. If you could only defend with a brigade or so of troops, then you could only attack with about the same number of troops.

Reducing fortifications using bombardment is not realistic. In real life, notable examples of this NOT working were Tarawa and especially Iwo Jima, which got the crap pasted out of it.

If you see an atoll with about 10 units defending it, then it is probably best to just bypass that atoll, even if it is the only one where you can build those valuable size 5/6 airfields.



byron13 -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 9:50:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Frag
Name a single Atoll you actually need to take to win ... batter them and move on. Save troops for targets worth dying for.


I guess that means Tokyo.


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

So why are you beating your head against that wall? It is irrelevant (and I should know[;)]). Take someplace that is easier and build it up fast so you can use it. You are the USA, you can do all manner of instant terraforming to conjure up ports and airfields out of mere holes in the ground.


Correction, Irrelevant. Instant terraforming of mere holes that are designated as bases at the beginning of the game. My efforts at terraforming barren and perfectly flat atolls/islands for airbases that are not designated as bases in the beginning has been very slow going. I'm not sure what the base designation represents - maybe an officer's club, BX/PX, Class VI store, or swimming pool. Regardless, without it, there ain't no "instant" in instant terraforming.



moses -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 9:51:05 PM)

Van Murrin:

Thats what I would think should happen. But its hard to reconcille this with the original poster.

I don't have a lot of experience with attacks on heavily defended atols. Maybe some other can add their experience in defeating (or not defeating) these locations.

I would think it should be possible to defeat any atol despite the garrison with enough preparation. Bombard long enoug, supply drys up, units die. then you land. Does it work this way?



Nikademus -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 9:59:36 PM)

well....one thing for sure....there were places in the Pacific that had so many troops (Rabaul...Truk) that the US just said..."see ya" and went elsewhere. Which is not to say they were impregnible...but they would have been costly to take both in terms of time as well as manpower.



von Murrin -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 10:34:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Van Murrin:

Thats what I would think should happen. But its hard to reconcille this with the original poster.

I don't have a lot of experience with attacks on heavily defended atols. Maybe some other can add their experience in defeating (or not defeating) these locations.


He said himself there was 60k supply at Truk. That right there is the problem. He was hitting 100k+ well supplied troops behind fortifications on an atoll with three divisions. No wonder it was bloody murder.

quote:

I would think it should be possible to defeat any atol despite the garrison with enough preparation. Bombard long enoug, supply drys up, units die. then you land. Does it work this way?


That is exactly how it works. Any island can be taken by US amphib invasion, it is simply a matter of how much planning and materiel and how much time the player wishes to devote to the task.



tsimmonds -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 10:35:25 PM)

quote:

Instant terraforming of mere holes that are designated as bases at the beginning of the game.


Yeah, you're right. But there are plenty of suitable spots, and IJA can't have boys piled to the sky on all of them.



moses -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 10:44:25 PM)

Nikademus:

Sure.

Obviously you can't take every base and some should be left alone. But once you have put in the effort and bombarded supply down to zero, it should be the case that the location should be not overly difficult to take.

I'm just curious what others experiences are with this. Van Murran indicated that its not impossibly difficult to take well defended bases after proper preparation. Stavka_lite indicates that it is nearly impossible. I'm hoping others will shed further light on this.

I don't know and am just trying to find out from others.



von Murrin -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 10:50:31 PM)

Recon the base for a few weeks before the assault. Assume there are double the reported number of troops, that they are all combat formations, and plan accordingly. You can never have too much bombardment from sea or air, and never quit striking the island just because your troops are on the beach.

If you have doubts as to the success of your planned operation and feel you absolutely need the place, just keep pounding it and wait. I hit Truk six months after it was isolated. That's six months of daily bombardment by air and sea.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 10:55:12 PM)

Von Murin is correct. Here's the strategy: Start with an airbase you own. Put lots of 2e or 4e bombers on it. Start pasting your target. I start with Port, so that you whittle down the CD guns. Anyway, bomb the airfield or port for about 2 weeks. This will eliminate the supply at that base. Now, start bombing ground targets. The AI picks the most ablebodied LCU. The first LCU gets the crap beat out of it, so the next day, another LCU is picked. That one gets beat as well. etc etc.

If you bomb ground targets for about 30 days, the LCU's will have very very few ablebodied squads and guns. You can land with a fully prepped LCU from LST's and take very few losses. You'll have to rest your unit, but by this time, you should have another LCU start prepping for the next base.

You may also need to use your carriers and subs to keep supply convoys from relieving the garrison

The places that this method won't work are where you don't have an airfield in range of the base you want to take, or on bases that have land supply routes to other bases (large islands, Asia, etc). You can't eliminate the supply when it can suck it from neighboring bases. And, places like Wake or Iwo Jima might be too far to have a good LBA suppression on the defending troops. Of course, taking large islands (like Java), you just land on an unopposed hex and you get almost the same effect. (that's cheating, though)

IMO, this is ok. Japan gets to kill lots of allied LCU's in 42 at almost no cost (no lost troops), so the allies get to kill lots of Japanese troops in 44 at almost no cost.

(it's not realistic, but it is consistent)



Onime No Kyo -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 11:05:22 PM)

I'm probably going to catch all sorts of flak for this but I just have to say that I am simply amused by people who post these "Bombardment/LBA doesn't so sh!t, we need to tweak the game" things. Be realistic! Just throwing munitions at realeste has never accomplished anything. You can destroy supplies, you can shake people up for a few hours, but this "Shock and Awe" BS has never worked and never will.

I'm with Stavka on the point that there is no place to put 70K people (or whatever) on an atoll, but bombarding the damn island won't sink it.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 11:11:47 PM)

I think it's the problems with land combat, not the Atoll combat that are wrong.

The attacker almost never takes any killed losses if they have enough superiority. And, troops wither and die way too fast. Even without any help from your opponent, LCU's will lose 15% of their squads to malaria in about 30 to 60 days. Add in some LBA and you just increase the rate of decay exponentially.

It is way too easy to destroy defenders in the game. Knowing how to destroy defenders allows you to take no losses when invading.

The rate of disabled/destroyed squads needs to go way up when attacking and way down when defending. From all sources except maybe artillery bombardment.



moses -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 11:17:51 PM)

I believe in 1.5 there are supposed to be more kills.

So you're saying taking atolls is easy with proper preparation? Quite a contrast with the original poster.

The malaria losses. I've seen heavy losses with small LCU's. SNLF's and the like. LOW density items die quickly. Large LCU's seem to be much less effected. So is that 15% figure for small or large LCU?



Nikademus -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 11:22:27 PM)

the system isn't designed to have LCU's fall down like a house of cards even in a low supply situation. Their effectiveness diminishes, but they still have teeth. Destroying the supplies alone wont gurantee a mop up operation but it helps. You'll need to keep up the pressure (bombardment wise) The more troops there are the greater the lingering effect.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 11:35:24 PM)

Here's what I did (vs the AI)

I took the small base in the Marshals that was undefended (I'm the allies). I think it's called Majuro. Then I built it up to level 4. Now, I base 50 fighters and 150 B-25's. I pick the first target (maybe Wotje, since it's close to Kwajelein). I start bombing for about 30 days. Meanwhile, I have 2/3's of one division preping for Wotje. And maybe another 2/3's of a division prepping for Jaluit. After 40 days, I load up all 2/3's of the Wotje force and land with 30 LST's. Bombard with a couple of BB groups the day you land, continue to air bombard troops while there are troops left to kill. I take about 25% disrupted losses and maybe 3 to 6 squads destroyed in the landing and first phase of combat. Sometimes, the defenders will be completely eliminated on the first day of fighting. Now, I base some more b-25's on Wotje and start bombing Jaluit in force. Rinse and repeat on makin, Tarawa, Kwajelein, Eniwetok, etc. I didn't even need B-17's to do this. I could also have started on Baker and taken one of the Gilberts first.

Generally, I have my B-17's blasing my "big leap forward objective" while my B-25's blast the rear bases that I've bypassed, but will need to kill for the points at the end (if playing PBEM).

Like Von Murrin said, all you need is LBA and some time.

Anyway, that's my experience from playing the AI. It doesn't mean it's logical, it's just what I've seen. Against a player, it'll be tougher. He'll have surface forces and CV's to help on the pressure. But, against the AI, it's pretty easy.



Tanaka -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/15/2005 11:38:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stavka_lite

There just ain't no way anything on that bare piece of rock and coral could have survived the battering I gave that island much less mount some sort of feasible defense.



Thats what the American planners thought at Tarawa too. [;)]


and at Iwo Jima, Palau, Okinawa....



Stavka_lite -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/16/2005 12:14:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Van Murrin:


quote:

He said himself there was 60k supply at Truk. That right there is the problem. He was hitting 100k+ well supplied troops behind fortifications on an atoll with three divisions. No wonder it was bloody murder.


Actually I had decided on bypassing Truk since 12/8/41. I was ranting about the number of units that the AI had placed there. I attacked Kwaj. not Truk. I consider Truk target practice.



von Murrin -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/16/2005 12:21:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stavka_lite

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Van Murrin:


quote:

He said himself there was 60k supply at Truk. That right there is the problem. He was hitting 100k+ well supplied troops behind fortifications on an atoll with three divisions. No wonder it was bloody murder.


Actually I had decided on bypassing Truk since 12/8/41. I was ranting about the number of units that the AI had placed there. I attacked Kwaj. not Truk. I consider Truk target practice.


Did you pound the IJN merchies to hell in '42? If you deprive the AI of its means of transport, naturally the units tend to pile up like firewood at the hubs.[;)]

If I intend to make a game out of it with the AI, I try to leave the merchies alone until the second quarter of '43. Usually the IJN will have deployed more or less sensibly by then and the Allied AI will have so much shipping it won't matter. The only time I've seen the pile-on effect you describe was when I sank all the AI transports at the beginning of the game.



Stavka_lite -> RE: Unrealistic Japanese concentrations (2/16/2005 12:26:21 AM)

To further describe the situation. Kwaj was the only island left in that island group and had net been able to recieve supplies for some time as I had destroyed or turned back several convoys including attampts to supply by sub.(those SCs are great) As for the attack: prior to that I had spent all of '43 platering Kwaj. All of the other islands fell in turn and very quickly, albeit they only had a few units, Ponape had 9. I don't have a real problem with my invasion being rejected given the number of troops. I just have a problem with the number of troops that are allowed on those islands. Okinawa, by the way, is big as islands go, as is Truk. Io Jima, Okw, and Truk also have features that lend to defense, Kwaj is not very big and featureless. You might get 60K of people on there if they where all standing up<G>. I know that this won't happen but maybe have different classes of island that have limits based on size etc.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.421875