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: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

 
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: House rules for impregnable Allied armour Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/22/2014 5:33:51 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline 		AE's land combat model gets the limited AT capability of Japan just right.

If you want to beat Allied armour you must do as many of the following as possible:

- bomb them, both to disable and destroy tanks as well as to keep disruption up
- get as many guns opposing them as you can. A dozen 37mm AT guns won't cut it, you need as many of those RF AT gun units as you can get your hands on, as well as the bigger 75mm field guns and upwards.
- get in good terrain and behind forts. Tanks won't to a good job trying to dig fortified infantry out of a jungle, and they'll die in droves on the assault.


Japan historically had limited anti-tank capability. Don't make the same mistake. If you've got an area where you're likely to face Allied tanks, get as many big cannons into action against them.

You'll not be able to stop the armoured juggernaught that is the Red Army come 1945, but you'll be able to reap a great many VP's from Soviet armour beating itself to death on anti-tank units behind level 6 forts.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 61
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/22/2014 5:44:35 PM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline 		I dont think there should be any expectation of moltovs, stickbombs or anything of the sort if the Japanese orders are defend. That sounds like close assault type combat.

If you order a shock attack you will get a few tanks destroyed, as you would expect. You'd also taken more than token casualties, as you would expect if you want your men to attack tanks with gas bombs.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 62
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/22/2014 5:46:01 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Well, for one thing, the game does not have anti-tank mines as a separate devices. Are they abstracted and lumped into fort level or are they totally non-existent?

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 63
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/22/2014 6:28:16 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, for one thing, the game does not have anti-tank mines as a separate devices. Are they abstracted and lumped into fort level or are they totally non-existent?


I'd imagine they're abstracted as fortification levels. After all, it does take some time to lay dense minefields, and minelaying would be done by engineers.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 64
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/22/2014 10:05:10 PM   
Gaspote


Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Those two brigades and the AA battalion should have enough field, AT and AA artillery pieces to at least successfully disable the Stuarts and halftracks. What is wrong with their targeting?


No, they don't these AA gun are bad, 50 penetration when stuart got 60 armor. All jap gun present can't penetrate more than 50mm. It look like if allied don't shock attack and nothing reduce the range, AT gun simply don't damage allied tank.

I'm surprise the fact cam ranh bay is a Jungle rough hex (x3 defence bonus) don't reduce the range of device in this case though.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 65
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/22/2014 11:58:12 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Those two brigades and the AA battalion should have enough field, AT and AA artillery pieces to at least successfully disable the Stuarts and halftracks. What is wrong with their targeting?


No, they don't these AA gun are bad, 50 penetration when stuart got 60 armor. All jap gun present can't penetrate more than 50mm. It look like if allied don't shock attack and nothing reduce the range, AT gun simply don't damage allied tank.

I'm surprise the fact cam ranh bay is a Jungle rough hex (x3 defence bonus) don't reduce the range of device in this case though.


For grins I looked at Wiki ( so shoot me; I don't have a library on this stuff) for the 37mm Type 01. The base gun was fielded in 1937 and wasn't a great opponent for 1937 tanks even.

Using the most optimistic manufacturer lies there were claims it had a max range of 6000yds and penetration of 44mm of armor at 700yds. The Sherman, from what I could find, exceeds that armor on all sides, and on the front by about double (plus slope.) The Stuart had a couple of dozen variants, but from what I could find quickly it was vulnerable on the non-front--a bit.

The few combat reports I found said the 37mm family of AT guns was essentially a no-go against the Sherman.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Gaspote)
Post #: 66
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/23/2014 1:15:03 AM   
kbfchicago


Posts: 359
Joined: 10/17/2009
From: NC, USA
Status: offline
5. The Allied player is doing absolutely nothing which is gamey. There is no exploitation of the game engine. It is merely the proper application of standard real world military principles to the game situation.

+1

As a former Armor officer I find AE does an exceptional job of reflecting operational level realities (and yes, I've been on both ends of this having played since AE came out);

- Your best counter to enemy tanks, are your tanks
- Your second best counter is strong AT and solid defense (terrain/forts)
- If you have none of the above, take your lumps until the tanks try to run you down (shock attack) you'll knock out a few and may hold your ground if terrain/forts/morale favor you. In a less than optimal position, you're toast. If he comes in with tanks alone, count your blessings as you then have a real chance of giving him a bloody nose (as happened to my worthy IJA opponent in Burma '42).

If you are armor AND AT challenged, a cagey (no offense Roger [:) cagey being a term of endearment] opposing commander should and will stand off (deliberate attack vs shock) and weaken your defenses for a subsequent combined arms or infantry assault. It is folly to rush in (shock attack) with your armor (especially alone) unless you know defenses are not prepared and the enemy's already in flight/heavily disrupted. AE does a great job reflecting all these realities at an operational level. No house rule needed.

Your choice likely boils down to tie up as much of his forces as you can for as long as you can and die later or come out of your foxholes and take a chance at breaking out.

If you want to go after him with your pole bombs, sticky mines, satchel charges, etc..(although not seeing many cmbt engineer units which is where you typically find those) or Molotov cocktails and bundles of hand grenades, you've got to get up close and very, very, personal, which means you'll need to shock attack (banzai in JFB lingo). Am sure the Nissan commanders will highly motivate your stevedores in the 11th Shipping and impressed Thai or Vietnamese infantry men in your mixed Bdes...and you could get very, very lucky...he may run out of HE rounds and MG bullets before you run out of troops. There's only (fully loaded) 4,750 30.06 hull and turret MG rounds, per tank.

Sorry for make'n fun (it is a game ) Seriously...you're just in a bad spot, it happens. Draw as many troops away from the main advance for as long as possible...if his tanks are hang'n out in a backwater siege, your the winner here.

Kevin



(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 67
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/23/2014 2:05:58 AM   
kbfchicago


Posts: 359
Joined: 10/17/2009
From: NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Those two brigades and the AA battalion should have enough field, AT and AA artillery pieces to at least successfully disable the Stuarts and halftracks. What is wrong with their targeting?


Yaab, I think you're missing a key point of the game. AE is "operational" level ground warfare (AE is not AH's Squad Leader). Engine assumes the right application of the right force in the manner ordered (deliberate or shock) at a "unit" level.

At the risk of being condemned for citing a more "tactical" analogy; In this case the 5th USMC Bn Co is not closing range with M3 half tracks and Stuarts...he's running parallel company or platoon attack lines across the front of any jungle space that gives him +300 yards of separation with the M4s. Because he knows nothing can hurt him at that range. The X3 jungle bonus is keeping this from being +900 casualties. The IJA commander is given credit for defense in depth, cover, fortification, and appropriate use of his weapons when presented an opportunity to do so. IJA just has very few opportunities and even less options as the defender.

No super tanks, just proper use of the forces at hand. No inept IJA defenders, they're simply outclassed in a ranged fight. I would assume the chance of IJA picking off a vehicle in this circumstance is plausible, but very slim chances. Which is exactly what I would expect given the forces at hand and orders given.

On a side note to all who were involved...this is exactly what I love about this game. Abstract reality. If the IJA in this circumstance could pick off a peck of M3s which would never be forward in such an attack with AA guns that are most likely fending off air attacks and not dug in at a forward defensive post, this game would be no better than rolling a six sided die on a CRT and I'd go back to board games. Thankfully its much better than that, but you can't put "a" tank, against "a" gun, that's not what it's representing and if that's important to you I'd recommend Steel Panthers or some other more tactical game that focuses on that level of play.

Sorry for the rant...am starting to sound like Alfred (really, love'ya Alfred...) Kevin

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 68
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/23/2014 7:58:12 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		I, for one, would like to see an IJA shock attack on the tanks. That might actually do something, albeit at a cost.

From a strategic perspective, the allies have two mobile battalions tied up in a backwater and they won't dislodge the defenders for quite a while at the rate they are disrupting squads. I'd say the situation is in Japan's favor at the moment.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that there are plenty of games out there which model Molotov cocktails and other means of infantry assault on armor in much more detail. This one models it in the hard attack value of the device in question. By the way, what is the hard attack value of one of these IJA infantry squads?

Cheers,
CC

< Message edited by Commander Cody -- 5/23/2014 9:10:05 AM >

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to kbfchicago)
Post #: 69
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/23/2014 12:29:55 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

By the way, what is the hard attack value of one of these IJA infantry squads?




IJA 1943 infantry (as good as it gets): 5 anti-hard, 20 anti-soft.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 70
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/23/2014 2:10:07 PM   
czert2

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Those two brigades and the AA battalion should have enough field, AT and AA artillery pieces to at least successfully disable the Stuarts and halftracks. What is wrong with their targeting?

with that sruarts are in reserve dont participiating in attack, just waiting for posible breakthrought and halftack are second line/supply truck which never ever participiate in attack and can be only destroyed if enemy break throught front line ?

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 71
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/23/2014 7:51:48 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		First off, pretty much yes to kbf and moose. The “shooting” part of the combat algorithm takes place at a minimum of the magical 200 yard paradigm. It is there to for the express purpose of “conditioning” the assaulting force before it crosses “the last 200 yards” to hard contact; which is modeled in the “assault” phase. So there are no Molotov cocktails, sticky mines, suicide dogs, or suicide Toshi’s; just as there are no grenades, trench guns, K-bars, or C-4 (except for engineers).

This is an operational scale game. If one cannot deal with that on its own terms, then yes, one should go play Squad Leader or some FPS thing.

AT has not evolved much since the Grigsby original in UV. It has always been a bit strained but not susceptible to code manipulation – it’s too deeply embedded. But there is a bit of light on the horizon for them that might wish to use a mod.

Babes has a better Anti-Armor value for early squads predicated on the availability of AT rifles, like the Boys or the T-97. Some squads get better, over time, because of the Piat and Bazooka, other squads pretty much stay where they are. I’ll let you guess who does what.

One of the first things we did was normalize AT gun penetration stats to standard ranges. The bigger guns got penn rated at 1000 yards (or meters), the smaller ones at 500 yards (or meters). I believe our data was incorporated into the last comprehensive Stock update of 1108r9, but if not, it’s in AndyMacs updates and in all Babes scenarios.

But then there are the tanks themselves. GG used the largest value of frontal armor as the “armor” number for each of his AFVs. This value was propagated throughout all the subsequent versions of the game, including AE. Not all that goodnik when taken in conjunction with the 1000m/500m penn data.

Mike Osterhaut (some of you may remember MO) did a nice Device file for our personal games that addresses this issue. He has a tank armor algorithm that looks at front, side, side, back and comes up with a value that has been working for us for several years. We have also been aggregating certain Lt tanks, A/Cs, and ‘other’ AFVs into pairs in the data process. We also do not use HTs, Matadors, or other things like that. Our guns have LCs that intregally include their PMs. Extraneous vehicles do nothing but add to Sup cost and soak up fire. Sorry, Andy, but useless.

We could do this for the BabesLite scenarios, if you wish. What say you?


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 72
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/24/2014 3:24:07 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

First Mike Osterhaut (some of you may remember MO) did a nice Device file for our personal games that addresses this issue. He has a tank armor algorithm that looks at front, side, side, back and comes up with a value that has been working for us for several years. We have also been aggregating certain Lt tanks, A/Cs, and ‘other’ AFVs into pairs in the data process. We also do not use HTs, Matadors, or other things like that. Our guns have LCs that intregally include their PMs. Extraneous vehicles do nothing but add to Sup cost and soak up fire. Sorry, Andy, but useless.

We could do this for the BabesLite scenarios, if you wish. What say you?


I think that would be excellent and would love to see it.

Thanks John.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 73
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/24/2014 8:23:29 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		John, as always, thanks for your dedication to this game, and simple but cunning ways to bypass the game engines´ limitations!

_____________________________


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 74
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/24/2014 5:12:41 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Just been reminded that I've been having a senior moment. Seems we did some of this to Babes a couple years ago. Didn't do it for everything, and did it on a swag basis, but a bunch of it is already there. Lots of AFVs are way different from stock. Looking at the stock numbers, I can see why we did this so long ago. Some of them are pretty squirly. So, I'll finish it out and polish it up a bit and set it up as a Babes standard (yet another one ... sigh).

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 75
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/25/2014 12:39:23 PM   
Gaspote


Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline 		I just tried in my PBEM.

---------------------------------------
Ground combat at Wasu (79,8)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1514 troops, 8 guns, 188 vehicles, Assault Value = 104

Defending force 1902 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 82

Japanese adjusted assault: 70

Allied adjusted defense: 514

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 7 (fort level 1)

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

Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
30 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
5th Tank Regiment
1st Recon Battalion

Defending units:
259th Brigade
---------------------------------------------

The same applies to jap, if the chinese don't got AT gun, the chinese don't damaged a single tank even if the japanese tank really sucks.
So I learn something about land combat with topic and how to use tanks, thanks.

< Message edited by Gaspote -- 5/25/2014 1:39:43 PM >

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 76
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/25/2014 3:14:57 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		There is also this.

Only 2 squads were "destroyed". Those were the Shinto boys who actually charged the Stuarts and Shermans with the sticky bombs.

Do either of those two Allied armor units have organic infantry support? If not it is a bit far-fetched on the abstracted tactical level given that the opposing forces were entrenched in favorable terrain.

Still, you have to realize the strategic and operational scope of the game.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 77
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/26/2014 7:25:23 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline 		John -

That would be absolutely outstanding.

You have my vote for YES!

Thank You for your willingness to go the extra mile - we are so fortunate to have you and the Team around.

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 78
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/27/2014 1:17:23 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I just tried in my PBEM.

---------------------------------------
Ground combat at Wasu (79,8)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1514 troops, 8 guns, 188 vehicles, Assault Value = 104

Defending force 1902 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 82

Japanese adjusted assault: 70

Allied adjusted defense: 514

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 7 (fort level 1)

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

Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
30 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
5th Tank Regiment
1st Recon Battalion

Defending units:
259th Brigade
---------------------------------------------

The same applies to jap, if the chinese don't got AT gun, the chinese don't damaged a single tank even if the japanese tank really sucks.
So I learn something about land combat with topic and how to use tanks, thanks.



Yes, this is what happens but as pointed out the defending unit lost only three squads. So that tank force won't take much in the way of casualties but won't move that infantry brigade out of wooded terrain hex. So, I see nothing wrong. Combine the tank force with good infantry and you will get a bonus to your attack and drive that defending brigade out. Use artillery and air power as well and that brigade will not last one turn. Wait, we have just discovered the principal of "combined arms." I agree that there should be more tank losses in any attack (simple attrition) but this is the way it works. It is not too bad.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Gaspote)
Post #: 79
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/27/2014 6:58:14 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline 		In my experience with using IJ armor in China, the armored units may still suffer often 1 or two but sometimes even several tank disablements even if that doesnt get mentioned in the combat report. I'm not sure how or why it happens as those units have been in good supply too. Possibly lacking support + fighting + disruption & fatigue has something to do with it.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 80
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/27/2014 7:40:20 AM   
RogerJNeilson


Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline 		I'd say any use of tanks for anything is going to result in some disablements - throwing tracks, engine problems, collisions. However these disablements will be short lived in the main. The key thing surely is that provided the unit is in supply they repair quickly enough. Its when there isn't the supply that problems arise and disablements in the long term can be as good as a kill.

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 81
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.656