lousy troops

lousy troops (Full Version)

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

Message

Gem35 -> lousy troops (8/9/2005 11:12:54 PM)
My good and faithful RCT, least I thought they were..... This unit also help capture Tarawa, landed on Nauru Island, captrued it and now lost it to remnant Japs on the Island.[:(][:(] I love how the japs can win a battle without any guns. [:@][:@] Japanese Deliberate attack Attacking force 337 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles Defending force 1535 troops, 25 guns, 0 vehicles Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 0) Japanese forces CAPTURE Nauru Island base !!! Japanese ground losses: 86 casualties reported Allied ground losses: 2778 casualties reported Guns lost 39

Feinder -> RE: lousy troops (8/9/2005 11:16:48 PM)
I'm sorry, but this somehow seems funny to me. You mean to say that You captured the island (so you had 2-1 at some point). The IJA didn't surrender however (seems odd). They counterattacked, and killed you? (how could they possibly have gotten 2-1, when they lost to begin with?) -F-

Oznoyng -> RE: lousy troops (8/9/2005 11:33:05 PM)
Unit Types, Experience, Morale, Leader skill ratings, Preparation points, Supply level, disruption and fatigue of all of the above units please. All of the preceding are factors in determining if the result is plausible. As Mogami demonstrated against Erik Rutins at Laman Bay, Japanese SNLF's, Nav Gd's, and NLF's are nasty beyond the number of troops. They are almost all combat troops. I would take on an understrength RCT fatigued from previous battles at Tarawa, with low prep points for the current target, left on an island with no supply, disrupted from repeated attacks, with an IJN SNLF with combat tested veterans, a good knowledge of the terrain(prep points), good leadership, decent supply, and good morale. All it takes is a sub force dropping off some supply, a few turns rest, and neglect on the part of the allied player to turn the tide.

mc3744 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 1:12:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oznoyng Unit Types, Experience, Morale, Leader skill ratings, Preparation points, Supply level, disruption and fatigue of all of the above units please. All of the preceding are factors in determining if the result is plausible. As Mogami demonstrated against Erik Rutins at Laman Bay, Japanese SNLF's, Nav Gd's, and NLF's are nasty beyond the number of troops. They are almost all combat troops. I would take on an understrength RCT fatigued from previous battles at Tarawa, with low prep points for the current target, left on an island with no supply, disrupted from repeated attacks, with an IJN SNLF with combat tested veterans, a good knowledge of the terrain(prep points), good leadership, decent supply, and good morale. All it takes is a sub force dropping off some supply, a few turns rest, and neglect on the part of the allied player to turn the tide. Not conviced. I mean, obviously it can happen in the game, Gem just told us about it, but it doesn't make much sense to me. We all know that defending is much 'easier' than attacking, especially when in a base (= prepared positions and ground knowledge). Now, a unit not strong enough to hold on defence is a little while later able to win on attack!?! Nah, doesn't sound right to me ... funny? Yes, it does [:D] Sorry Gem [;)]

Gem35 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 1:15:46 AM)
Yes, Feinder, that's what happened, I do admit though that the RCT was a bit under supported. The japs had 2 eng units and one very very weak infantry unit there. It is funny but still, how can japs win without guns? [&:]

Tom Hunter -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 1:22:38 AM)
Gem, Do fill us in on the details. Saying I sent an RTC actually means very little, since the important factors are not the RTC but the various things mentioned by Oznoyng. It is kind of funny. Posts like this make me more and more interested in overwhelming force.

Oznoyng -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 1:29:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gem35 Yes, Feinder, that's what happened, I do admit though that the RCT was a bit under supported. The japs had 2 eng units and one very very weak infantry unit there. It is funny but still, how can japs win without guns? [&:] Guns means Artillery. It doesn't mean infantry rifles. One way you can win without Artillery is to get in close enough that employing artillery was as dangerous to the enemy's health as to your own. Failing that, bayonet's existed for a reason.

Oznoyng -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 1:41:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mc3744 Not conviced. I mean, obviously it can happen in the game, Gem just told us about it, but it doesn't make much sense to me. We all know that defending is much 'easier' than attacking, especially when in a base (= prepared positions and ground knowledge). Now, a unit not strong enough to hold on defence is a little while later able to win on attack!?! Nah, doesn't sound right to me ... funny? Yes, it does [:D] Sorry Gem [;)] Supply can make a huge difference. Imagine an RCT that landed with enough ammo to take the base, but expended their supply taking the base and received no supply after taking it. When a group goes out of supply, they fight at 25% combat efficiency. So between the disruption increase from the inital attack and lost effectiveness from lack of supply, the 2 to 1 odds that won the battle the first time could turn into less than 0.5 to 1 odds for the Alllies (2 to 1 or better for the IJN forces). The tables would then be turned. As for having a hard time believing it, I can think of lots of times where armies took territory that they were unable to hold due to losses and supply constraints. It is not far-fetched to me that the situation might occur, and the lesson is not one of overwhelming force, it is "Supply and support your units!"

Gem35 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 1:54:18 AM)
There were 3k or so supplies at the base, unit was the 153rd regimental combat team, prep points were around 50.. It had 50 support the rest was destroyed during the initial landings and subsequent fighting. It's fatigue and disruption are unknown, I didnt look at it closely enough, I figured I had the base and didnt think I would lose it. I guess I should have saved this battle in a different slot, it's been saved over now a few turns. As far as this not happening? why would I post a make believe story? [&:] I'll get even with the Japs , perhaps i will drop an A-bomb on Nauru just for fun later on. [:'(]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 2:07:46 AM)
Land combat is probably the weakest desin aspect of this game. No joy in sight either.[:(]

RUPD3658 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 2:32:39 AM)
Could be inaccurate intel on the true number of enemy troops, poor leadreship, or just the element of suprize. There are many cases of a smaller force defeating a larger better equiped force for just these reasons. Still sucks to be on the losing end. [:(] I guess the moral here is that no island is secure until every last Jap is dead.

Feinder -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 5:23:29 AM)
About all I can say is, if the initial attack was one of those where the attacker suffers massive casualties, it -might- be plausable. I know that since v1.5(?) attack casualties have gone up. And in my China game vs. Dude, there was a group of my guys that he would get 8-1 odds against, and HIM still suffer more casualties. Eventually, he beat them down, but he my point being that, if his RCT suffered massive casualties on the initial attack, it might be possible that the defending unit (suffering much less), could counter attack. Mathematically, it doesn't make sense. If he won at 2-1, with no reinformcents for the defender, the defenders should never be able to attack him at better than 1-2 odds. But again, I've seen some wierd results where the attacker gained the 2-1 odds, but lost scads of guys. If the attackers strenght was so dimished, the defender could attack, and litterally "beat the odds". Very odd tho. I can only imagine the "WTF????!!!!" expression on your face when that happened.

Gem35 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 7:29:58 AM)
I am just glad it happened against the AI and not a pbem game because if that were the case I suppose I would have been angry.[;)] I am soundly thumping the AI , and after I see this war through, perhaps it's time to take on a human opponent.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 11:46:00 AM)
The Japanese don't need guns, they have 'spirit' [:D]. But what are you doing on Nauru in the first place? It's a worthless piece of rock in the middle of nowhere.

Marten -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 12:25:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget But what are you doing on Nauru in the first place? It's a worthless piece of rock in the middle of nowhere. he was probably looking for those tiny thai girls with small boo.... errr... [:'(]

Speedysteve -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 2:45:44 PM)
He's looking in the wrong place then [:D]

WhoCares -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 3:12:29 PM)
Long way from Nauru to Bangkok, indeed [:D] Did the RCT suffer from bombardments (naval and/or air)?

Arkan -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 4:40:31 PM)
quote: he was probably looking for those tiny thai girls with small boo.... Boats?

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 5:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marten he was probably looking for those tiny thai girls with small boo.... errr... [:'(] Ah, that would explain why the Japanese were so determined to take Nauru back again [:D].

Gem35 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 7:36:31 PM)
Excuse me LargeSlowTarget, but who's playing my game, me or you?[;)] What difference does it make where I attack? The Island was taken by me and retaken by the Japs with the same forces I defeated three turns earlier. The Japs sent a few bombers to hit the Island from Kwaj. on one of the turns.

Tom Hunter -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 7:51:05 PM)
Excuse me Gem35, but if you post your defeats and victories in the forums then we get to comment on your manuevers, be they brilliant, bone headed or just amazingly unlucky.

Bradley7735 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 8:45:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter Excuse me Gem35, but if you post your defeats and victories in the forums then we get to comment on your manuevers, be they brilliant, bone headed or just amazingly unlucky. Speaking of which..... Tom, where's your next AAR post??!?!? Your thread is like cocaine to me. I need my next fix!!!!!!! [:D]

Gem35 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 9:23:48 PM)
Ok Tom, I'll go make fun of your AAR and all the dumb moves you made.... [;)]

Rob322 -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 10:09:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder About all I can say is, if the initial attack was one of those where the attacker suffers massive casualties, it -might- be plausable. I know that since v1.5(?) attack casualties have gone up. And in my China game vs. Dude, there was a group of my guys that he would get 8-1 odds against, and HIM still suffer more casualties. Eventually, he beat them down, but he my point being that, if his RCT suffered massive casualties on the initial attack, it might be possible that the defending unit (suffering much less), could counter attack. Mathematically, it doesn't make sense. If he won at 2-1, with no reinformcents for the defender, the defenders should never be able to attack him at better than 1-2 odds. But again, I've seen some wierd results where the attacker gained the 2-1 odds, but lost scads of guys. If the attackers strenght was so dimished, the defender could attack, and litterally "beat the odds". Very odd tho. I can only imagine the "WTF????!!!!" expression on your face when that happened. C'est la guerre. You can always dig up real world examples of small forces beating the crap out of bigger forces. These things have been known to happen. Still, I've found sending in one RCT to an island defended by both infantry and engineers to be insufficient. While I eventually took and held the island the original RCT was so badly chewed up I couldn't use it for months and the second one I hastily sent over to reinforce also got very rough treatment. Japanese forces rarely surrender, they need to be bludgeoned. Maybe if your gut tells you to send an RCT then you need to send a division.

Tom Hunter -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 10:28:37 PM)
Gem35: "Ok Tom, I'll go make fun of your AAR and all the dumb moves you made.... " Your more than welcome too, though when I do bone headed things I try to admit them.[:@] When we ask for others opinions we take the risk that they will not be flattering, that is just the way things go. Bradley I only got one turn from Blackwatch yesterday and not a whole lot happened. I am still waiting for the next turn, but I am out from 4:45 to 9pm or later, so if it does not come soon there won't be much happening. And in case your wondering I still hold Nauru...[:D] A whole island of solidified bird dung, and its mine, all mine!

Feinder -> RE: lousy troops (8/10/2005 10:47:48 PM)
I'm not sure which is worse: Nauru being an island of solidified bird dung (true enough, according to CIA factbook), or Baker being an island of solidified rat dung (also true). Just another mission for one of Gem35's bombers over Nauru... -F- [image]local://upfiles/7554/F445716EFAD249808A4CFF032F7DF60E.jpg[/image]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.671875