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: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

 
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: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/26/2019 2:19:40 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Hans, when that happens to me I shut down the game and then restart. I runs fine then. I might also help if you have something like CCleaner to clean up any junk files.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 31
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/26/2019 3:03:26 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Discouraging that I came so close to actually playing a scenario to completion only to come up short dues to a technical failure.


I can only suggest going into your task manager before loading the game, and turning off everything non-essential - which includes the internet and wifi stuff. Or using a USB drive to act as additional RAM. Or both.

My recently new machine with about 8 gig of RAM, etc, loads it OK after I turn all the rubbish off.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 32
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/26/2019 3:24:54 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		My Dell with 4 Gigs of RAM runs it fine with Firefox running. But turn off IE or Edge since they seem to take priority over all other programs which slows everything down. I don't know why Microsoft will have Microsoft Internet Exploder and/or Microsoft Edge have priority over all other programs. I just don't understand their reasoning . . .

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 8/26/2019 3:29:36 PM >

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 33
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/26/2019 3:57:17 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		The game has run fine on this minimal machine for over 1500 turns of this scenario.

Map scrolling is a little slow and game saves take a long time, but other than that I had no performance issues until this current turn.

Will try all the things suggested.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 34
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/31/2019 8:45:20 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Hans, im playing an iroman tier 3 too, and having lot of trouble to keep my sealanes open, too much raiders and surprise attacks. how could you do it in your game? Thanks

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 35
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/31/2019 10:06:31 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

Hans, im playing an iroman tier 3 too, and having lot of trouble to keep my sealanes open, too much raiders and surprise attacks. how could you do it in your game? Thanks



It's been a couple of years in game time since I had to deal with that so you are taxing my memory a little here.

Yes, the tier 3 Ironman AI is very aggressive in raiding the sealanes and gets lots of armed merchant cruisers that are easily capable of taking out CLs.

I was purposely passive with my carriers, not wanting to break the AI early, so I didn't go raiding with them and primarily used them to cover invasions once I started moving forward. During the early game when the sealanes were getting raided heavily I used them to patrol the sealanes and hunt down raiders, be they armed merchant cruisers, small surface combat TFs or carriers. I also stationed light surface TFs, mostly CL/DD TFs at various supply path waypoints and used them to patrol and react along the sealanes.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 36
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/31/2019 11:22:23 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I also stationed light surface TFs, mostly CL/DD TFs at various supply path waypoints and used them to patrol and react along the sealanes.



Put SBD groups on islands along your supply route and give it complete "air zoc" coverage. Akagi Maru problem minimised.



< Message edited by Ian R -- 8/31/2019 11:44:25 AM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 37
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/31/2019 12:04:45 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		They intercept my convoys out of SBDs cover, plus the A6M-S and Lindas eat my ships for breakfast. Even when I put an strongpoint, the cover of the convoys in the places where there is no cover is troublesome. Besides with those uberAMCs or put CV as escorts or my CA/CLs got suni kickly..

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 38
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/31/2019 2:37:40 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Next Up: Nagoya.

Also Heavy Urban with level 9 forts, but less stoutly defended than Osaka:

Ground combat at Nagoya (111,60)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 134468 troops, 2156 guns, 3424 vehicles, Assault Value = 4449

Defending force 83721 troops, 954 guns, 457 vehicles, Assault Value = 1814

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 8

Allied adjusted assault: 2009

Japanese adjusted defense: 6357

Allied assault odds: 1 to 3 (fort level 8)

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

Japanese ground losses:
3314 casualties reported
Squads: 31 destroyed, 232 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 51 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled
Guns lost 79 (5 destroyed, 74 disabled)
Vehicles lost 59 (9 destroyed, 50 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
6888 casualties reported
Squads: 34 destroyed, 477 disabled
Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 172 disabled
Engineers: 21 destroyed, 192 disabled
Guns lost 148 (14 destroyed, 134 disabled)
Vehicles lost 291 (26 destroyed, 265 disabled)

Assaulting units:
779th Tank Battalion
III Corps Engr Grp
13th Armored Division
XIV Corps Engr Grp
7th Infantry Division
Provisionl Tank Brigade
719th Flame Tank Battalion
632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion
IV Corps Engineer Battalion
1st Regt de Cheval Regiment
640th Tank Destroyer Battalion
754th Tank Battalion
XVIII Corps Eng Grp
VII Corps Engr Grp
2nd British Division
XXXIII Corps Engineer Battalion
32nd Infantry Division
25th Indian Division
6th Infantry Division
93rd Infantry Division
Groupement Massu Brigade
18th British Division
8th Indian Division
148th Field Artillery Battalion
443rd Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
10th Garrison Division
119th Ind.Mixed Brigade
8th Ind.Tank Brigade
38th Ind.Mixed Brigade
303rd Division
73rd Division
100th Division
143rd Division
120th Ind.Mixed Brigade
19th JAAF AF Bn
51st Air Division
125th AA Regiment
Nagoya Fortress
97th Field AA Battalion
13th Area Army
98th Field AA Battalion
37th Ind. Hvy.Art. Battalion
38th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
Tokai JNAF Base Force
54th Army
12th Machine Canno AA Battalion
7th Imperial AA Division
106th Machine Canno AA Battalion
Gifu JAAF Base Force

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 39
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/31/2019 2:50:12 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		How are you pools?

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 40
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 8/31/2019 3:59:43 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Re battle at Nagoya.

Hand Bolter, the AI does not use any battalion-sized units which can AV. Can't you just disband your CE battalions into the pools and fill late-war American divisions with them? It would save the CE battalions from destruction during sieges as divisions soak up losses better.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 41
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/1/2019 12:20:26 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Here are the Combat Engineer pools.

Only the US Army and Indian pools are dry.
The few US Army battalions that could be disbanded would be a drop in the bucket toward the replenishment needs of the burnt out 81 AV Corps Groups even if they were anywhere near a location they could disband in. Disbanding smaller units is, however, something to consider planning for in a future game. Thanks for mentioning it.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 42
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/1/2019 12:35:07 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		In a future game, maybe also consider only using the CE regiments in large battles and use the CE battalions like extra engineer units, defenders, and only in combat in smaller battles.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 43
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/2/2019 9:03:08 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		I use the CE battalions only when ultimately, the infantry attack to help with fort reduction- but, as commented above, I use pure* tank units on shock attack and massive bombardments to "crumble" the defenders for weeks/months before the infantry go in.

[*I include in that description tank brigades etc which have expended their infantry devices - it is less costly in the long run if you just repair/replace the tanks.]

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 44
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/2/2019 12:40:59 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Round two at Nagoya comes earlier than round two at Osaka and takes a heavy toll on combat engineers.

Moving more tanks into the siege battles as previously I was using them to execute surrounds on the siege hexes.

I had loads of 1E and 2E bombers hitting Kanazawa (sp?) to clear the rail line linking the Western Allied and Soviet sectors and forgot to retarget them after clearing out the riff raff. They all targeted Tokyo, taking very heavy losses to flak, but putting extreme casualties on the heavily overstacked defenders. This is promising as ground attacks against heavy urban usually don't do much damage to defenders that are not overstacked. I have the potential to invest Tokyo by mid February, leaving about a month and a half to pound on it before the scenario ends.

Ground combat at Nagoya (111,60)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 168426 troops, 2784 guns, 4334 vehicles, Assault Value = 5316

Defending force 81764 troops, 944 guns, 443 vehicles, Assault Value = 1645

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 7

Allied adjusted assault: 1658

Japanese adjusted defense: 9093

Allied assault odds: 1 to 5 (fort level 7)

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

Japanese ground losses:
2071 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 141 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 29 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 18 disabled
Guns lost 68 (7 destroyed, 61 disabled)
Vehicles lost 27 (8 destroyed, 19 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
12307 casualties reported
Squads: 112 destroyed, 861 disabled
Non Combat: 101 destroyed, 324 disabled
Engineers: 176 destroyed, 260 disabled
Guns lost 288 (60 destroyed, 228 disabled)
Vehicles lost 564 (217 destroyed, 347 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
XVIII Corps Eng Grp
7th Armoured Brigade
VII Corps Engr Grp
779th Tank Battalion
XXXIII Corps Engineer Battalion
1st Regt de Cheval Regiment
2nd British Division
32nd Infantry Division
6th Infantry Division
267th Armoured Brigade
44th Infantry Division
719th Flame Tank Battalion
640th Tank Destroyer Battalion
13th Armored Division
7th Infantry Division
IV Corps Engineer Battalion
28th Infantry Division
632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion
8th KGV Light Cav Regiment
Groupement Massu Brigade
XIV Corps Engr Grp
18th British Division
Provisionl Tank Brigade
25th Indian Division
93rd Infantry Division
754th Tank Battalion
33rd Infantry Division
8th Indian Division
443rd Field Artillery Battalion
148th Field Artillery Battalion
III Corps Engr Grp

Defending units:
10th Garrison Division
100th Division
303rd Division
143rd Division
120th Ind.Mixed Brigade
8th Ind.Tank Brigade
119th Ind.Mixed Brigade
73rd Division
38th Ind.Mixed Brigade
19th JAAF AF Bn
38th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
125th AA Regiment
98th Field AA Battalion
Nagoya Fortress
97th Field AA Battalion
51st Air Division
106th Machine Canno AA Battalion
Tokai JNAF Base Force
37th Ind. Hvy.Art. Battalion
13th Area Army
7th Imperial AA Division
12th Machine Canno AA Battalion
54th Army
Gifu JAAF Base Force


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 45
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/2/2019 4:56:11 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		If you strip out any soft elements from your armor, they will perform with fewer losses. Use air transports and/or APDs to do this. Use the resulting pure mobile forces to reduce forts.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 46
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/2/2019 11:15:40 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If you strip out any soft elements from your armor, they will perform with fewer losses. Use air transports and/or APDs to do this. Use the resulting pure mobile forces to reduce forts.


I seem to get more results where they cause significant casualties/disablement at little cost, rather than fort reduction, but it all helps.

@Hans - you might want to leave a city garrison a retreat route of your choice into, preferably, flat open terrain where they will arrive in a state of disarray and not fortified. And then lock them in there and send the tanks & airforce in.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 47
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/2/2019 11:54:14 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If you strip out any soft elements from your armor, they will perform with fewer losses. Use air transports and/or APDs to do this. Use the resulting pure mobile forces to reduce forts.


I seem to get more results where they cause significant casualties/disablement at little cost, rather than fort reduction, but it all helps.

@Hans - you might want to leave a city garrison a retreat route of your choice into, preferably, flat open terrain where they will arrive in a state of disarray and not fortified. And then lock them in there and send the tanks & airforce in.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If you strip out any soft elements from your armor, they will perform with fewer losses. Use air transports and/or APDs to do this. Use the resulting pure mobile forces to reduce forts.



I seem to get more results where they cause significant casualties/disablement at little cost, rather than fort reduction, but it all helps.

@Hans - you might want to leave a city garrison a retreat route of your choice into, preferably, flat open terrain where they will arrive in a state of disarray and not fortified. And then lock them in there and send the tanks & airforce in.


Crunch N' Munch!

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 48
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/4/2019 8:57:25 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		I once played an Ironman up to attacking Tokyo. I started the turn with the Tokyo attack and went to bed. The turn was still running when I woke up in the morning. I stopped the game there.

Then I did Ian R's "Long Road to Tokyo" mod (which is excellent, by the way) on my latest computer and attacked something like 1.4 million troops at Tokyo. About 80% of all US and Commonwealth combat units were there as well as about 1/3 of the Russian army. There was no noticeable delay in the turn and the IJA retreated to the mountains to the northeast on the first attack (I had done a lot of shore bombardment, but very little aerial attack since the AA shredded my aircraft like you wouldn't believe).

Regarding commerce raiders in the Ironman scenarios, those AMCs with 20 aircraft are deadly. The only way to supply Pearl early on was to do fully escorted convoys (with every CV available) timed to run between KB fragment sweeps. I also set up convoys between Port Stanley, Tahiti and Christchurch as well as Cape Town and Hobart. Eventually you can sink all of those killer AMCs by sweeping SoPac, EastPac and west of Australia with your CVs, being careful to keep them away from large KB fragments.

Cheers,
CB



_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 49
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/4/2019 10:04:03 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Yes, but till you sweep all those AMCs, resuppling the SLOC or OZ becomes very difficult.

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 50
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/4/2019 1:51:35 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		It sounds like I need to try this Ironman for a challenge.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 51
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/5/2019 6:33:39 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

Yes, but till you sweep all those AMCs, resuppling the SLOC or OZ becomes very difficult.


Yes, you have to go very, very low on the map. Even then, I'd still get hit west of Oz once in a while.

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 52
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/5/2019 6:37:10 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It sounds like I need to try this Ironman for a challenge.


Yes, I'd recommend it if you are not doing PBEM. Another challenge is to run a scenario as computer vs. computer on continuous mode for six months or more, stop the game, and then take over as the Allies. For the biggest challenge of all do that with an Ironman scenario.

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 53
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/5/2019 7:04:12 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		South of Tahiti, leading to Christchurch ( South NZ ) and up to Melbourne... That convoy surely will need AOs to replenish...

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 54
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/5/2019 9:16:27 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

South of Tahiti, leading to Christchurch ( South NZ ) and up to Melbourne... That convoy surely will need AOs to replenish...


I think you are actually better off shuttling stuff to Capetown off map, and then running it up to Adelaide (requires 19300/17900 endurance cargo boats to keep their escorts refueled) and Cochin.

After the Med opens, Aden based Tfs can take over in the west. At that point those long ranged Tfs from Capetown can push supply right up to Borneo and the Celebes (Manado being a key 9 level airfield on the way back to Manila).

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 55
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/5/2019 11:31:07 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

South of Tahiti, leading to Christchurch ( South NZ ) and up to Melbourne... That convoy surely will need AOs to replenish...



Refueling stations can be established at either Pago Pago or Tahiti, if the route to PP is too cluttered with raiders.

AOs are far too valuable to risk and waste escorting cargo TFs. They should be reserved for use with the combat fleet. However, in a pinch, I have been known to use them as tankers. If they are on station with the fleet and an important forward base runs dry, with no tanker TF immediately enroute, I will divert the AOs to make a fuel delivery.

As I have mentioned before, once Liberty ships come on line they have the legs for even a convoluted route to OZ, but it isn't necessary to cart everything all the way to OZ when Kiwi land can be used as a stockpile destination for all of SoPac. Short legged xAKLs can easily make the run from New Zealand to Australia.

New Zealand is also more removed from the threat. I have never seen the AI make a play for NZ. Only very aggressive Japanese players looking to overrun all of SoPac make forays against New Zealand.

Like IanR, I also establish routes to Cape Town and Aden once the Med opens up, but I don't use them exclusively. I use them to supplement the on board routes. Keeping multiple highways open ensures the maximum delivery.


< Message edited by HansBolter -- 9/5/2019 11:35:52 AM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 56
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/7/2019 10:39:01 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Round 2 at Osaka leaves me with three gutted Combat Engineer Groups and three gutted Infantry Divisions that are now moving out to Kure to recover. It's turning into another Kagoshima. Working to get more tanks into the battle. Reducing the Japanese strongpoints is consuming my Army.

Ground combat at Osaka/Kyoto (109,59)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 176892 troops, 3403 guns, 2764 vehicles, Assault Value = 4548

Defending force 131167 troops, 1457 guns, 229 vehicles, Assault Value = 2793

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 7

Allied adjusted assault: 1170

Japanese adjusted defense: 20321

Allied assault odds: 1 to 17 (fort level 7)

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

Japanese ground losses:
1888 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 65 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 23 disabled
Guns lost 48 (2 destroyed, 46 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
20510 casualties reported
Squads: 668 destroyed, 1564 disabled
Non Combat: 53 destroyed, 350 disabled
Engineers: 90 destroyed, 426 disabled
Guns lost 594 (107 destroyed, 487 disabled)
Vehicles lost 215 (29 destroyed, 186 disabled)

Assaulting units:
2nd Infantry Division
86th Infantry Division
5th Infantry Division
8th Infantry Division
8th Australian Division
V Corps Engr Grp
10th Indian Division
31st Infantry Division
10th Army Engr Grp
38th Infantry Division
4th Infantry Division
194th Tank Battalion
9th Indian Division
767th Tank Battalion
82nd (West African) Division
87th Infantry Division
1st Army Engr Grp
5th Indian Division
87th Medium Regiment
86th Medium Regiment
134th (East Ang) Regiment
147th Field Artillery Battalion
85th Medium Regiment
8th Belfast Heavy Regiment
72nd Mortar Battalion
778th Field Artillery Battalion
85th Mortar Battalion
2nd Indian Field Regiment
780th Field Artillery Battalion
1st Indian Medium Regiment
6th Medium Regiment
786th Field Artillery Battalion
789th Field Artillery Battalion
779th Field Artillery Battalion
88th Medium Regiment

Defending units:
37th Ind.Mixed Brigade
190th JAAF AF Bn
61st JAAF AF Bn
56th Ind.Mixed Brigade
216th Division
144th Division
143rd JAAF AF Bn
84th Division
153rd Division
355th Division
189th JAAF AF Bn
163rd JAAF AF Bn
61st Ind.Mixed Brigade
6th Ind. Brigade
147th Division
25th Ind.Mixed Brigade
49th Division
316th Division
16th Ind. Brigade
225th Division
13th JAAF AF Bn
123rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
246th JAAF AF Bn
11th Machine Canno AA Battalion
45th Ind. AA Battalion
11th Air Division
45th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
53rd Air Flotilla
Maizuru Naval Base Force
13th Base Force
2nd Machine Cannon AA Battalion
65th Construction Battalion
15th Area Army
Kinki JNAF Base Force
121st AA Regiment
22nd Ind. AA Battalion
26th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
25th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
Osaka Naval Base Force
8th Imperial AA Division
5th Imperial AA Division
13th Ind. AA Battalion
Kakogawa JAAF Base Force






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 57
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/7/2019 11:08:54 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Remove the mortar battlions from you siege stacks. Mortars have very short range and lousy anti-soft values. They are best in defense when enemy shock attacks and you have two rounds of fire. Right now the bring nothing to the siege.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 58
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/7/2019 1:46:23 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

Allied ground losses:
20510 casualties reported


Ouch.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 59
RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction - 9/10/2019 8:08:02 PM   
Naskra

 

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/12/2005
Status: offline 		You can trick the AI mega-stack into shock attacking by sending a small force in one day ahead of the main body. Repeat as necessary.

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
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

3.391