ADavidB
Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001 From: Toronto, Canada Status: offline
|
May 16 - This was yet another good day for Tophat. First off, he put LR CAP over Koepang again and the Zeros hammered my B-25s. Normally I expect B-25s to hold their own, but the experience gap must be way too large, so I lost half of my squadron and they hit nothing. But I am sending the B-17s next turn anyway, albeit at a much higher altitude. I'm hoping that the Zeros will be fatigued and the B-17s may damage a few of them. The high experience of these Zeros makes it seem like the "Zero Bonus" is still in place even though it is the middle of May. Tophat also sent bombers after the port at Lae - I guess that he noticed that I had docked the poor old Argo there. Fortunately, although there were Port hits the Argo wasn't touched, but I had to put her out to sea again anyway, despite not being able to repair her flotation damage. Tophat's troops kept on landing at Munda this turn. The fact that he hasn't bothered to capture it yet suggests to me that he is landing support troops along with a combat unit. Tophat's troops did capture Babo this turn. The situation that gave me the most heartburn was the battle of the crossroads between Homan and Kaifeng. Tophat's artillery bombardment resulted in even higher Chinese casualties this turn, despite the fact that I now had 5 good units there and had withdrawn the wiped-out HQ and infantry units. So I've decided that I have to give up the position and I ordered the remaining units to retreat to Homan. Start Soap Box - I've learned a painful lesson about the game mechanics here. Artillery bombardments are controlled by the relative quantities of troops on both sides, not by the relative quantities of artillery pieces. Also, and much more important, having good, full-strength units in a hex is much, much worse than having wiped-out units! I first noticed this during the siege of Singapore where, despite Tophat bringing in more and more troops, my losses due to artillery bombardments kept on decreasing until they reached a very low steady state. At that point the HQ in Singapore had zero units left in it, as did the next couple of units. In China, when I allowed the HQs to decrease to near zero units, the effect of the Japanese bombardments also went down dramatically. But because I was swapping out wiped-out units with fresh units I was seeing sudden increases in casualties, until the swapped-in HQs lost most of their strength again. An additional difference between the situation in China and that in Singapore was that I had no way to replace losses in Singapore, therefore the artillery induced losses reached a bottom and stayed there. But in China I have not only been swapping out wiped-out units but also allowing those units that are still in battle to receive replacements. Therefore, my losses have remained present even when I've maintained relative parity in total numbers. So, in summary, if I leave "empty" HQs in a stack I can minimize the effect of enemy bombardments. If I "do the right thing" by withdrawing worn out units and replacing them with fresh, strong units I am "punished" by receiving orders of magnitude more casualties to the new units. Add to this my observation that removing the "top" unit in a stack of units in a non-base hex will result in all fortifications being wiped out and I can see a new, totally unrealistic (e.g., gamey) way to slow down offences by leaving "empty" HQs with replacements set to "off" in stacks of otherwise good infantry units. It's too bad that the land mechanics of this game are so poorly done. End Soap Box. Dave Baranyi
|