Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101


...Do squads/devices actually consume supply when they upgrade? That would be a very useful thing to conclusively find out. Undoubtedly a question that Alfred knows the answer to if he could chime in!

Yes.

There should be older posts of mine that expand on the details.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A unit can expend up to 10 shots in combat. Each shot raises the supply required by 10%. Hence if all 10 shots are expended the total supply requirement figure is doubled. Most combat doesn't result in all 10 shots being expended.

The only way to attempt to reduce a unit's supply consumption from combat is to have it in "reserve" mode, and hope it isn't automatically moved out of "reserve" status.

Alfred

Alfred,

Just to clarify; the supply consumption is based upon the device LC, correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101


...Do squads/devices actually consume supply when they upgrade? That would be a very useful thing to conclusively find out. Undoubtedly a question that Alfred knows the answer to if he could chime in!

Yes.

There should be older posts of mine that expand on the details.

Alfred

They do, based upon LC if my memory serves me ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
The situation in Ulan Bator is developing in my favor as my flanking forces gain all hex sides around the city bar one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
The situation in Ulan Bator is developing in my favor as my flanking forces gain all hex sides around the city bar one.

Just a note that you gained hexes not hex sides, which in itself does not restrict movement out of UB hex. Hex sides in the UB hex are still green, and will turn red only when you cross them

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Kido Butai Operational Results

The KB has wrapped up its port strike operation in Australia, this is the estimated damage inflicted on my opponent in terms of sunk ships:

1 CA
1 CL
1 DD
1 CM
2 PG
2 AM

2 AO
14 TK
1 AMC
19 AP
76 AK
29 AKL

I would qualify this as a good result for the investment allocated. Is this better than a strike on Pearl Harbor? I would say that depends heavily on your particular goals and approach. Given my particular strategy going into the game, I think this operation was a success.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have fought in India, but not as far as you are now....this is an odd game, so for what it is worth:

Allied troops move very fast...

Allied troops have interior lines and easy resupply...

Allied troops start getting better TOE? Allied armor is very problematic. Very difficult to make offensive moves, especially if you have lost the air war, which makes retreat thru clear terrain very ugly. Watch those Allied air bases.

There is a lot of supply generation that makes taking risks here very worthwhile, but losing troops can easily snowball on you.

You are a good player, just don't let the Allies pick your retreat paths and pay attention to the front, keep your recon up, then you should not be surprised and manage a fighting withdraw...but keep track of Allied naval strength and once a flanking invasion becomes possible you must answer it...it maybe that Allied attention is more focused on other areas and they are willing to cede India for quite a long time.

On the other hand if he is focused on pushing forward, a slow gradual retreat might keep him occupied and away from a flanking invasion...and you have land to cede him slowly without jeopardizing much.

Still, it is not too early to build the Bangkok forts, Tavoy line, and even the Vinh line.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Kido Butai Operational Results

The KB has wrapped up its port strike operation in Australia, this is the estimated damage inflicted on my opponent in terms of sunk ships:

1 CA
1 CL
1 DD
1 CM
2 PG
2 AM

2 AO
14 TK
1 AMC
19 AP
76 AK
29 AKL

I would qualify this as a good result for the investment allocated. Is this better than a strike on Pearl Harbor? I would say that depends heavily on your particular goals and approach. Given my particular strategy going into the game, I think this operation was a success.

I was reviewing your early war activities. Like I said a couple days ago, that move to strike Australia’s harbours was interesting, but while reading it at first, I was wondering about your fuel levels for KB. Reading it again, I see you did moves at flank speed, which would expend even more fuel. Where did you bring your fleet oilers ? The Allies have a couple of cruisers in the vicinity, and while you hit Canberra and Perth, the USS Louisville and Pensacola and not very far, as well as HMNZS Leander and Achilles, and even HMAS Adelaide might present a threat for a bunch of AO with light escort. My first reaction upon seeing a KB strike on Sydney December 7th, would be « where are the oilers » and send a couple of surface forces to look for them...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Defending in India

With Andy making full use of the Karachi wormhole, it is really only a matter of time until the Allies assemble a large enough force to try to take back India. The days of the Japanese offensive in the subcontinent are largely over, so I am starting to wrestle with how to defend here or really, if to defend at all.

In any case, at least for the period where I do decide to defend, where should I draw my defensive lines I wonder? When I look at the map of India in the game I see precious few clear defensive lines, even if there are some excellent strongpoint locations like Calcutta. Anyone defend in India before as Japan? Some additional thoughts/perspectives on this would be very welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Allied troops move very fast...

Allied troops have interior lines and easy resupply...

Allied troops start getting better TOE? Allied armor is very problematic. Very difficult to make offensive moves, especially if you have lost the air war, which makes retreat thru clear terrain very ugly. Watch those Allied air bases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
The Soviets counterattack one of my flanking forces near Chita - will the Japanese hold?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
The Soviets counterattack one of my flanking forces near Chita - will the Japanese hold?

Wonder that Andy keeps attacking in situations that do not absolutely require it. It was his hex. This is a defensive war for him, he needs to occupy high ground (including flanks of key bases) and wait for you to get a bloody nose against tough terrain. I also get the impression that he neglects defensive fighting outside of bases, specifically positioning units in good terrain behind rivers and entrench.

Strategically it looks like he now has to run for the hills and abandon Ulan-Ude too, cause clear terrain Kyaktah is untenable under your coming air bombing from Ulan-Bator.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
The Soviets counterattack one of my flanking forces near Chita - will the Japanese hold?

Wonder that Andy keeps attacking in situations that do not absolutely require it. It was his hex. This is a defensive war for him, he needs to occupy high ground (including flanks of key bases) and wait for you to get a bloody nose against tough terrain. I also get the impression that he neglects defensive fighting outside of bases, specifically positioning units in good terrain behind rivers and entrench.

Strategically it looks like he now has to run for the hills and abandon Ulan-Ude too, cause clear terrain Kyaktah is untenable under your coming air bombing from Ulan-Bator.

I can't speak for him but I suspect it may be a mixture of frustration and a desire to grab at a chance to give me a bloody nose and keep me from getting too brazen. I mean technically it could have succeeded, I think I got a decent roll there too. You would probably have to ask him in his AAR for a real answer though.

If I was Andy I would probably now head for the mountains around Irkutsk. If he can't stop me in a situation where he had the excellent terrain around Chita and with the disadvantaged Japanese position (logistics/airbases) around Ulan Bator then he should have an even harder time stopping me around Ulan Ude. But from what I have learned in playing him thus far I get the impression he fights hard wherever he can, so I doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
The Soviets counterattack one of my flanking forces near Chita - will the Japanese hold?

Wonder that Andy keeps attacking in situations that do not absolutely require it. It was his hex. This is a defensive war for him, he needs to occupy high ground (including flanks of key bases) and wait for you to get a bloody nose against tough terrain. I also get the impression that he neglects defensive fighting outside of bases, specifically positioning units in good terrain behind rivers and entrench.

Strategically it looks like he now has to run for the hills and abandon Ulan-Ude too, cause clear terrain Kyaktah is untenable under your coming air bombing from Ulan-Bator.

I can't speak for him but I suspect it may be a mixture of frustration and a desire to grab at a chance to give me a bloody nose and keep me from getting too brazen. I mean technically it could have succeeded, I think I got a decent roll there too. You would probably have to ask him in his AAR for a real answer though.

If I was Andy I would probably now head for the mountains around Irkutsk. If he can't stop me in a situation where he had the excellent terrain around Chita and with the disadvantaged Japanese position (logistics/airbases) around Ulan Bator then he should have an even harder time stopping me around Ulan Ude. But from what I have learned in playing him thus far I get the impression he fights hard wherever he can, so I doubt it.

That Soviet counter attack was not a mistake.

The real mistake has been (a) the abandonment of the forward positions and (b) the failure to launch attacks, if not on day 1 then certainly once it became clear where the schwerpunkt was heading.

The Soviets had substantial forces to attack from the Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and Blagovehchenk sectors. Instead he has either attempted to run away or sit tight in a giant self imposed POW camp. Attacking would have accomplished all of the following:

(a) tested whether there were any weak spots in the Japanese line

(b) forced Japan to consume additional supply. As these attacked Japanese units are closer to Japanese supply depots than the advancing columns on Borzya/Chita and Ulan Bator, they would get first dibs on resupply. This is one way to have starved the advancing Japanese columns of supply and consequently weakened their combat effectiveness

(c) even if the Soviet attacks had not been successful initially and the Trans Siberian been cut (and not subsequently reopened) Soviet casualties would have reduced the number of mouths to feed in the POW camp

(d) provided Soviet forces to recapture the Trans Siberian which at the very least would have diverted forces from the schwerpunkt and thereby allowed more time for consolidating the Irkutsk/Chita line.

Instead Andy has lost considerable time by attempting to run away, then remaining in their festungs when the Trans Siberian was cut. They have contributed zilch to helping their comrades around Chita/Ulan Bator/Irkutsk. Now Andy finds combat occurring largely where he is substantially outnumbered whereas inferior Japanese forces are holding at bay strong Soviet Forces. Plus attempting to fight out of pockets were the terrain greatly assists the Japanese defense.

What Andy has attempted is a Sir Robin for the Soviets. The Sir Robin is not optimal strategy for the Western Allies; it is equally sub optimal for the Soviets.

That loss of the sturmovik factory is a huge strategic blow. It wouldn't have happened this early in the campaign had he attacked out of his forward positions.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

Careful, you are verging on reaching some incorrect conclusions.

1. If you fully acquaint yourself with Andy Mac's posting history, you will see he has a fondness for the AE land disband system. I pointed this out some 11 years ago.

2. Patch #3 (dated 28 February 2010), Code Change #89, altered the land disbanding rules from those listed in the manual.

3. Read my posts in this thread;

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3576038&mpage=1&key=disband�

for the current rules on LCU disbanding. NB the disbanding limitations outlined.

4. Disbanded Soviet LCUs will return at Vladivostok, not at some other Soviet base in the north. Unless of course if Vladivostok is captured by Japan before their scheduled return ...

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Disbanded LCUs are meant to return at the National Home Base. For the USSR, that is Vladivostok.

The problem is that anything involving the USSR never received the degree of vigorous testing which was undertaken for the rest of the game. This means that the potential always exists for a bug affecting only the Soviets but not affecting anyone else. For example, s.16.6 of the manual lists Krasnoyarsk and the Soviet Union as the primary and secondary bases but this should have been altered, IIRC without tracking down the relevant dev post. Certainly the code definitely has Vladivostok as the disbanding base, else as per the patch change I referred to, no LCU disbanding would be possible there at all. The disbanding base is meant to be the National Home Base as that would be consistent with other resurrection rules.

Alfred

EDIT:

There was a reason why I used the ellipsis in post #866

Read posts #91, #104 and #120 from michaelm75au in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2656570&mpage=4&key=disband�

#91 mused about it being the national base
#104 confirms Vladivostok is the Soviet LCU disbanding base
#120 confirms their return base

But just when you thought it was safe to venture out again, this thread

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3976041&mpage=1&key=national�

has important posts from michaelm75au which show the manual is somewhat out of date on this issue. In particular post #10 has the national bases (as at 30 November 2015) and Krasnoyarsk is not on the list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

That’s smart. While I agree with Alfred’s assessment, that Andy should have gone on the offense on the south when he saw you were only holding your positions while focusing on the north*, this move by Andy essentially voids your strategy of « siege and let wither » Vladivostok. Like I said earlier, the battles to conquer Vladivostok would be extremely bloody, so this is reason enough to keep a decent portion of forces there ; but with enough supplies he could have endured a year-long siege without assaults before he would have supply problems, if not two years, and before you could see the effects of the lack of supply.
Come to think of it, maybe he didn’t move as much supply in the pocket before the invasion.

You’re right that the big advantage of a Soviet invasion is amassing VP, and those essentially come from destroyed devices (and planes). You now face the choice of letting your future haul of VP disappear, or expend the supply and troops to conquer Vladivostok now. Maybe he’s trying to elicit that response of you.

This evacuation is a bit gamey though, given the unrealistic transfer of all those assets to an off-map base, IMHO, but it’s your game.



* another advantage of an offensive is that, if I’m not mistaken on the game engine’s particularities (I never tested that case), capturing a Manchurian or Korean base by the Soviets would allow the other Allies to base bombers (and other planes) from there, enabling a strategic bombing campaign, even if short lived until you bring reinforcements to reconquer it.