Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman
Interestng read Jim, what site is that ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
How many tubes fired how many rounds at how many targets?

That’s one Kaleun will have to answer as I didn’t read the book. He mentioned he read about devastating concentrated artillery fire, so I found the casualty lists to give us a guide as to what had occurred.
Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?

Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?

Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim

Yep, you got it.

In hexes where I don't have my Japanese guns bombard, the Chinese are able to get hundreds of casualties, just like mine are doing. Unfortunately the turn order is supressing the Allied bombardments. Might be a good idea to randomize the order if possible.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Yep, you got it.

In hexes where I don't have my Japanese guns bombard, the Chinese are able to get hundreds of casualties, just like mine are doing. Unfortunately the turn order is supressing the Allied bombardments. Might be a good idea to randomize the order if possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim

This is quite major my vote is side with the lowest AV goes first , you could modify the AV with a leadership/recon modifier. If this doesnt exist already.

Speaking of which does anyone have any Combat reports of 100K Japanese vs 300K Chinese including there heavy artillary ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?

Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim

Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!

Battlestar Pegasus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?

Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim

Yep, you got it.

In hexes where I don't have my Japanese guns bombard, the Chinese are able to get hundreds of casualties, just like mine are doing. Unfortunately the turn order is supressing the Allied bombardments. Might be a good idea to randomize the order if possible.

My pet peeve with WitP engine is that it is not true WEGO in land combat, since Japan goes first always. Combat should be resolved simultaneously when same units in same hex are involved.

Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!

Battlestar Pegasus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim

This is quite major my vote is side with the lowest AV goes first , you could modify the AV with a leadership/recon modifier. If this doesnt exist already.

Speaking of which does anyone have any Combat reports of 100K Japanese vs 300K Chinese including there heavy artillary ?

Most combats took place by a handfull of divisions on each side at most. Brigade and Regimental level actions were far more common than full out Corps level battles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Durring the WOR the Chinese deaths were 3-4 million soldiers.

China did not lose 3-4 million dead, they lost 1.3 million dead from the Nationalist forces for the entire period 1937-1945. Also most of those killed in battle had already died by 1941. There was very little fighting in China after Pearl Harbor compared to what had gone on before Japan declared war on the rest of the world.

Sure there was fighting still, but nowhere near the same scale as before. Japan was for the most part content to simply sit on what they had and focus their efforts in the pacific.

http://worldwar2database.com/html/frame5.html

Jim

Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!

Battlestar Pegasus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
Umm nope... when Chinese counter fire later theres 400-500 guns and only like 40-50 japanese loss vs their doing 6000 with a bit over double the guns... so the question on supply

quote:





With Game:

If Japan is aggresive in China.. then japan burns supplies etc in china and has less for other areas...also the Reinf of troops would suck away afv, etc that would go to
other areas.

So a japan player attacking alot in China hurts things elsewhere.

Same could be said for an allied player... through allied player really cant that easy fight.. with WITP it was easier I think.. allied is more on defense and best sitting and defending the key points.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What Budman said.

Based on my military service and what I have read about history of WW II, fortifications reduce effect of artillery drastically indeed.

So, basically even lvl 1 fortification in game (basically individual foxholes) should drop casualties to 1/10 compared to non-fortified unit. This is for bombardment only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What Budman said.

Based on my military service and what I have read about history of WW II, fortifications reduce effect of artillery drastically indeed.

So, basically even lvl 1 fortification in game (basically individual foxholes) should drop casualties to 1/10 compared to non-fortified unit. This is for bombardment only.

100% Agree!!!!
What is the delay in fixing this glaring problem? I was surpriesd it was not at least tweaked in our most recent patch or did I miss something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Did we sort out the issue that the Chinese replacement rate is like 1% of Japans ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What Budman said.

Based on my military service and what I have read about history of WW II, fortifications reduce effect of artillery drastically indeed.

So, basically even lvl 1 fortification in game (basically individual foxholes) should drop casualties to 1/10 compared to non-fortified unit. This is for bombardment only.

100% Agree!!!!
What is the delay in fixing this glaring problem? I was surpriesd it was not at least tweaked in our most recent patch or did I miss something?

Check out the new hotfix, released a couple days ago. It addressed this problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.

Th only alteration was for terrain.forts , if you fight in the open its unchanged AFAIK. I wish they would just reduce all Artillary so the heavy arty US divisions become useless

btw we still havent sorted out why the Chinese replacement rate is about 1% of Japan.