RE: Artillery Testing

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Artillery Testing

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 5:16:45 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

One final graph I find interesting -

This is the Cumulative Difference in supply from Turn to Turn.

I would have expected both Combat groups to have been paired and the non combat groups to be paired...

However Shark's Non-Combat Group appears to be paired with BigJ's Combat Group

and Shark's Combat group is paired with Big J's Non-Combat Group.

What is most surprising to me is that Shark7's Non-Combat Group resulted in having the largest difference between starting and ending supply - in spite of the presence of industry.

I would have expected that they should have the least difference as they would not be expending supply like the combat group and would presumably be having supply added by the industry.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/10/2010 5:27:17 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 91

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 7:07:03 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

Ok, finally finished the test runs

This is also HK but I added the additional infantry available in Canton and the artillery in the Pescadores that is programed for the PI.

There are three runs, the first is the force with no independent artillery assaulting each turn until HK falls. The second is the same force with independent artillery added. The third is a sport with only a single infantry unit assaulting with the artillery, once the full division and once only a security force.

Here is the first run. HK fell in six days and the Japanese took a nominal loss of 3587 troops

10Mar10
Setup: Scen1, FOW OFF, H2H, All ops cancelled except HK assault,
Normal extra inf from Canton & art from Pescadores

Run 1: No Artillery in HK

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 31070 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 1012

Defending force 6625 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 225

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 1229

Allied adjusted defense: 453

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1063 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 77 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 15 disabled
Vehicles lost 3 (0 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
328 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 50 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 13 (0 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Assaulting units:
20th RGC Division
38th Division
66th Infantry Regiment
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
21st Ind. Engineer Regiment
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
104th/A Division
104th/C Division
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
14th Army
56th Const Co
3rd Engineer Construction Battalion

Defending units:
Hong Kong Fortress
1st Middlesex Battalion
Winnipeg Grenadiers Battalion
Rifles of Canada Battalion
Kowloon Brigade
102nd RN Base Force

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 13, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 30126 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 933

Defending force 6185 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 202

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 670

Allied adjusted defense: 517

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
530 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 24 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 19 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
392 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 35 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 11 (1 destroyed, 10 disabled)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 14, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 29687 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 907

Defending force 5732 troops, 132 guns, 79 vehicles, Assault Value = 171

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 1142

Allied adjusted defense: 585

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
438 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 13 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
614 casualties reported
Squads: 15 destroyed, 34 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 9 (2 destroyed, 7 disabled)

FTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 15, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 29332 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 891

Defending force 5084 troops, 132 guns, 76 vehicles, Assault Value = 131

Japanese adjusted assault: 978

Allied adjusted defense: 589

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
938 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 53 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 50 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
Vehicles lost 6 (0 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
496 casualties reported
Squads: 44 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 50 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 4 (0 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 14 (13 destroyed, 1 disabled)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 16, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28541 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 841

Defending force 4519 troops, 132 guns, 63 vehicles, Assault Value = 129

Japanese adjusted assault: 484

Allied adjusted defense: 169

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Hong Kong !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
572 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 34 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 44 disabled
Vehicles lost 8 (3 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
7101 casualties reported
Squads: 274 destroyed, 32 disabled
Non Combat: 510 destroyed, 97 disabled
Engineers: 25 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 196 (190 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 87 (82 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units destroyed 6

Nominal Japanese Losses: 3587

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 92

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 7:10:50 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

Here is the second run with the artillery added. HK fell in three days and the Japanese took a nominal 1632 losses. Artillery is clearly a life saver.
Note that the results will vary slightly in the runs because of random effects. However the change is sufficiently large that I think we can conclude that artillery does indeed help the attack substantially

Setup: Scen1, FOW OFF, H2H, All ops cancelled except HK assault,
Normal extra inf from Canton & art from Pescadores

Run 2: Independent Artillery in HK

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 35076 troops, 587 guns, 354 vehicles, Assault Value = 1025

Defending force 6615 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 227

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 673

Allied adjusted defense: 265

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
885 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 57 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 54 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 21 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
522 casualties reported
Squads: 14 destroyed, 37 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 42 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 22 (6 destroyed, 16 disabled)

Assaulting units:
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
20th RGC Division
104th/A Division
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
66th Infantry Regiment
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
38th Division
21st Ind. Engineer Regiment
104th/C Division
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd RF Gun Battalion
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
21st Mortar Battalion
56th Const Co
2nd Mortar Battalion
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
14th Army
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
5th RF Gun Battalion
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
48th Field Artillery Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
3rd Engineer Construction Battalion

Defending units:
1st Middlesex Battalion
Winnipeg Grenadiers Battalion
Hong Kong Fortress
Rifles of Canada Battalion
Kowloon Brigade
102nd RN Base Force

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 13, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 34296 troops, 587 guns, 354 vehicles, Assault Value = 963

Defending force 5888 troops, 132 guns, 74 vehicles, Assault Value = 176

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 1053

Allied adjusted defense: 385

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
349 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 15 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
487 casualties reported
Squads: 20 destroyed, 18 disabled
Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 17 (12 destroyed, 5 disabled)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 14, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 34059 troops, 587 guns, 353 vehicles, Assault Value = 953

Defending force 5300 troops, 132 guns, 62 vehicles, Assault Value = 150

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 841

Allied adjusted defense: 229

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Hong Kong !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), preparation(-), morale(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
398 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 15 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Vehicles lost 3 (0 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
8419 casualties reported
Squads: 307 destroyed, 54 disabled
Non Combat: 583 destroyed, 98 disabled
Engineers: 28 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 195 (191 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 83 (81 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Units destroyed 5

Nominal Japanese Losses: 1632

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 93

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 7:14:28 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

Here are a couple of one-offs demonstrating the effect of reduced infantry in the attack. The first (run #3) uses the single infantry division with all of the independent artillery. The artillery effect is substantial. The next (run#4) uses a single security unit with an AV of 43. The results are only slightly better than a bombard except for the much larger attacker losses; note that the single assaulting infantry LCU was virtually destroyed.

10Mar10
Setup: Scen1, FOW OFF, H2H, All ops cancelled except HK assault,
Normal extra inf from Canton & art from Pescadores

Run 3: Independent Artillery in HK, assault by largest inf LCU ONLY
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 17937 troops, 451 guns, 293 vehicles, Assault Value = 1025

Defending force 6615 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 227

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 373

Allied adjusted defense: 317

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
770 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 42 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 74 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 34 (3 destroyed, 31 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
185 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 14 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
38th Division
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
104th/A Division
21st Ind. Engineer Regiment
20th RGC Division
66th Infantry Regiment
104th/C Division
5th RF Gun Battalion
14th Army
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
21st Mortar Battalion
2nd RF Gun Battalion
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
56th Const Co
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
48th Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd Mortar Battalion
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
3rd Engineer Construction Battalion

Note that the Assaulting Units list and the Attacking Force summary are counting the total units in the hex, not just the ones assaulting.

10Mar10
Setup: Scen1, FOW OFF, H2H, All ops cancelled except HK assault,
Normal extra inf from Canton & art from Pescadores

Run 4: Independent Artillery in HK, assault by smallest inf LCU ONLY
FTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 5084 troops, 339 guns, 224 vehicles, Assault Value = 1025

Defending force 6615 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 227

Japanese adjusted assault: 0

Allied adjusted defense: 321

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
442 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 37 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 27 (1 destroyed, 26 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
20 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

< Message edited by pompack -- 3/10/2010 7:20:54 PM >

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 94

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 7:20:09 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

My Conclusions:

While others may not agree

, I have come to the conclusion that the current artillery rules are very close to perfect

If you bombard moderate entrenchmemts in urban terrain, you mostly just burn up ammunition. As Kull stated elsewhere, if you use your artillery in conjunction with your infantry and engineers (anybody say "combined arms"?) you get a very substantial improvement in combat effectiveness over simple infantry assaults.

Furthermore, these results are comforting to me because even with quite heavy artillery support for an infantry assult it is certainly not a "Death Star". It still requires multiple days of assulting with infantry, engineers, and artillery to reduce urban fortifications.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 95

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 7:46:07 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Guys I over-reacted earlier, for that I apologize.

I have nothing else to add to this discussion.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 96

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 8:06:48 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Guys I over-reacted earlier, for that I apologize.

I have nothing else to add to this discussion.

I just want to add my thanks for your work Shark. You started the ball rolling and now many of us have a much better understanding of how things work.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 97

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 8:20:57 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

And I want to second that. Shark, without your work I would still be wasting ammo bombarding all over the map.

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 98

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 9:12:53 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Thanks Shark for the testing and the patience and thankyou to everybody who contributed to this thread. Shark showed us how to prove if something is working or not. BigJ62 can you post your Sandbox scenario so we can all use a standard testing method ?

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 99

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 9:49:21 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

I just think it's great that everyone is being rational here discussing this issue. We'll learn if there is or is not a problem. If there is one it will be addressed in due time.

If not...suck it up princess's

(myself included!)

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 100

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 11:50:34 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Started conducting my own tests as a result I discovered a tidbit about production which I will post in the War Room.

As to the framework of the test -

Grand campaign Scenario #1

Non Historical Start
Single Day turns
FOW - OFF

No Building
No Replacements

Chosen hex - Hong Kong
All units Combat Mode
Transferred Aircraft to Pakhoi
Transferred all ships to Pakhoi
No repair to Industry

Ran 10 straight days with 0, None, Nada Activity...just the Allied units in the hex.

Synopsis to follow shortly.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 101

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 12:08:56 AM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

why even have the bombard option? you either include independent artillery units in an attack or not. end of discussion...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 102

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 12:29:26 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

For my own and your edification...

BaseLine Test
Hong Kong starts with has 3000 Resource points, 60 Resource centers, 106700 Fuel and 160 Heavy Industry(HI) Factories and 220 Light Industry factories.

Every few turns with Resource production the HI will produce 320 supply points and consume 3200 resource points and 320 fuel. The LI will do nothing without an outside influx of resource points.

Ran 9 turns

AT START - Hong Kong Base and the 6 units contain 18937 total supply. Hong Kong the base had 16620 supply and the units contain 2317 supply points.

Turn 1 Execution saw the units dump their At-Start excess supply into the Hong Kong Base

Turns 1, 3, 6, and 9 also saw the HI add 320 supply points to the base.

The units consumed 27 - 28 supply points per turn.

As a result by the end of the 9 turn cycle the Total Supply in Hong Kong increased from 18937 to 19968.

The resource level fluctuated with production but with no outside influence the resource level entered into a cycle....see this THREAD

Fuel levels decreased with the Industry production Cycle.

Chart of Total Supply

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 103

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 12:31:45 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

why even have the bombard option? you either include independent artillery units in an attack or not. end of discussion...

Because as BigJ demonstrated - in an isolated base such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Bataan or any single hex island...the attackers bombardment attack will cause the defender to consume supply at an elevated rate... thus any siege will end sooner.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)

Post #: 104

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 1:30:23 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Very good

One question are the guns types same for all tests. I mean, heavier guns wouldn't make any difference in consumption and destruction?

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 105

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 2:21:54 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

why even have the bombard option? you either include independent artillery units in an attack or not. end of discussion...

And Bombard is an excellent recon for exact (FOW excepted) AV counts on the defenders.

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)

Post #: 106

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 2:26:17 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Very good

One question are the guns types same for all tests. I mean, heavier guns wouldn't make any difference in consumption and destruction?

I hope to have an answer for you by the end of the weekend.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 107

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 2:35:06 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

My Conclusions:

While others may not agree , I have come to the conclusion that the current artillery rules are very close to perfect

If you bombard moderate entrenchmemts in urban terrain, you mostly just burn up ammunition. As Kull stated elsewhere, if you use your artillery in conjunction with your infantry and engineers (anybody say "combined arms"?) you get a very substantial improvement in combat effectiveness over simple infantry assaults.

Furthermore, these results are comforting to me because even with quite heavy artillery support for an infantry assult it is certainly not a "Death Star". It still requires multiple days of assulting with infantry, engineers, and artillery to reduce urban fortifications.

What's really amazing is that I was simply opining about how artillery works in the "real world" (at least circa 1940s), and to see that it's actually modeled that way in game is simply astounding! Thanks very much for running those tests - they seem to prove that once again, the devs got it absolutely right!

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 108

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 2:38:03 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

For my own and your edification...

BaseLine Test #2 - Japanese Units in the hex
Hong Kong starts with has 3000 Resource points, 60 Resource centers, 106700 Fuel and 160 Heavy Industry(HI) Factories and 220 Light Industry factories.

Every few turns with Resource production the HI will produce 320 supply points and consume 3200 resource points and 320 fuel. The LI will do nothing without an outside influx of resource points.

Ran 9 turns. Started the Japanese stack adjacent to HK on the march with the execution of the At Start Turn.

AT START (Turn 0) - Hong Kong Base and the 6 units contain 18937 total supply. Hong Kong the base had 16620 supply and the units contain 2317 supply points.

Turn 1 Execution saw the units dump their At-Start excess supply into the Hong Kong Base

Turns 1 Execution saw the HI add 320 supply points to the base.

The units consumed 27 - 29 supply points per turn.

Turn 2 Execution saw the Japanese stack enter Hong Kong. As a result the 60 point resource center stopped producing resources. As such Hong Kong Industry no longer produced supply as the Resource points never advanced beyond the 1000 point level.

As a result by the end of the 9 turn cycle the Total Supply in Hong Kong only increased from 18937 to 19002. Howevr the increase was attributed to a one time input of 320 points from Industry on Turn 1.

One small interesting observation - in baseline Test #1 unit fatigue started at 0 and fluctuated from 1 & 2 after Turn 1 but most of the units were 2. In baseline Test #2 after the Japanese entered the hex the unit fatigue went to 3 and fluctuated between 2 & 3 with most units remaining at 3. Conclusion - the mere presence of an enemy stack in the hex is sufficent for a 1 point increase in fatigue.

Chart of Total Supply

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 109

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 2:39:17 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

why even have the bombard option? you either include independent artillery units in an attack or not. end of discussion...

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Because as BigJ demonstrated - in an isolated base such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Bataan or any single hex island...the attackers bombardment attack will cause the defender to consume supply at an elevated rate... thus any siege will end sooner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

And Bombard is an excellent recon for exact (FOW excepted) AV counts on the defenders.

Also (as the devs have stated elsewhere) artillery bombardments are modified by terrain. So while bombarding into a City Hex is not very effective, try doing the same thing in a Clear Hex. The difference should be significant.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 110

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 2:42:45 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Artillery Test #3 will consist of the Japanese 24 cm Artillery guns firing by themselves from the Japanese stack.

The Japanese have two Artillery units with eight and six 24cm guns respectively

They also have one unit with eight 15cm guns

They also have two units with twenty-four and twelve 75mm guns

and finally a unit with 36 x 81mm mortars.

I plan on running tests for each caliber firing separately and then one test for the group firing together.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 111

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 4:56:21 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

treespider any chance of doing a test with no large caliber but decent infantry ? The first and only inf test had some art and fluked a pre attack fort reduction.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 112

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 5:05:52 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I hope to have an answer for you by the end of the weekend.

Thanks treespider

quote:

What's really amazing is that I was simply opining about how artillery works in the "real world" (at least circa 1940s), and to see that it's actually modeled that way in game is simply astounding!

Remember that Artillery was one of the bigger killers in typical mobile combat. Here the testing is only in a fortified scenario.

_____________________________

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 113

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 7:53:13 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

Thanks, pompack. This means hauling ART around still makes sense. Just using bombardment orders (except to gauge enemy's AV) doesn't.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 114

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 11:27:00 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

treespider any chance of doing a test with no large caliber but decent infantry ? The first and only inf test� had some art and fluked a pre attack fort reduction.

Eventually...

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 115

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 1:13:10 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Thanks, pompack. This means hauling ART around still makes sense. Just using bombardment orders (except to gauge enemy's AV) doesn't.

And don't forget the effect of artillery on troops in the open. I am looking forward to Treespider's open field test. My hat is off to him for these tests because now I realize just how much work running and documenting these test can be

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 116

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 4:25:50 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

And then the main objective should be to make Artillery effects comparable to air bombing and naval bombardment. It would not make sense to have aerial bombardments with much more causalities for same or less explosive delivered.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 117

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 4:39:45 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

And then the main objective should be to make Artillery effects comparable to air bombing and naval bombardment. It would not make sense to have aerial bombardments with much more causalities for same or less explosive delivered.

Or simply have it affect morale, disruption and fatigue. Won't go into detail here, but in the Artillery Pointless thread, I posted an example of what I'd like to see. I do not want the death star back, but I do think it should affect the units morale and combat effectiveness, with resistance based on the unit's experience.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 118

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 5:15:35 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Or simply have it affect morale, disruption and fatigue. Won't go into detail here, but in the Artillery Pointless thread, I posted an example of what I'd like to see. I do not want the death star back, but I do think it should affect the units morale and combat effectiveness, with resistance based on the unit's experience.

Historically, main use of artillery when used offensively was indeed disrupt and demoralize defender. Defensively artillery was often very deadly against advancing enemy.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 119

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/11/2010 7:21:21 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Or simply have it affect morale, disruption and fatigue. Won't go into detail here, but in the Artillery Pointless thread, I posted an example of what I'd like to see. I do not want the death star back, but I do think it should affect the units morale and combat effectiveness, with resistance based on the unit's experience.

Historically, main use of artillery when used offensively was indeed disrupt and demoralize defender. Defensively artillery was often very deadly against advancing enemy.

i might also add it was to slow the defenders' building of forts, airfields, ports etc. at least that would seem to be the reason for japanese bombardment of henderson field area during guad (if you consider one shell per night "bombardment")

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 120