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: air offensives

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: air offensives Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 2:08:29 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Yes I do indeed grow bold. 

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1021
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 4:43:21 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		i'm sorry but only short notice
I'm too pissed to post anything more
ground combat makes me #%@&@$#$ !!!!!
I did everything ok - even asked Mogami for consultation - sent him my savegame
redeployed HQs
rested troops at changsha
when i noticed all is ready i pull trigger to see:


Ground combat at Chungking
 
Japanese Deliberate attack
 
Attacking force 766715 troops, 8173 guns, 1183 vehicles, Assault Value = 15306
 
Defending force 223671 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 7002
 
Japanese max assault: 15130 - adjusted assault: 4975
 
Allied max defense: 6117 - adjusted defense: 5325
 
Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 3)
 
 
Japanese ground losses:
51461 casualties reported
Guns lost 1159
Vehicles lost 35
 
Allied ground losses:
4464 casualties reported


supply requirements differs significantly every turn
troops do not draw combat supply from base - all major HQs and 60k at changsha + 120k+ above requirements in coastal ports
again troops were penalized and lost 25% of combat value  - next 2 weeks will be strenght regaining
i stay at chungking 6th month and i'm close to throwing my notebook out of window
i should have 2:1 today again  - chungking shouls be taken 3 months ago in most pesimistic variant
what the F**** is this ?

meanwhile i lost 40 helens at benares - my escort chose to stay at home that day
and i managed to hit hard enemy DM/ML TF west of PM 
 



_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 1022
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 5:34:10 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		My initial thought is not that the IJA did anything wrong you were very very close to a 1:1 there the Chinese AV looks like it wasnt attrited enough.

Are you round the clock bombing and switching to ground support on the day of the attack ?

The only thing I can think of is that it is physically not possible to supply 750,000 Japanese at Chungking over the roads but as you have checked it I am at a loss. 

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1023
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 5:38:51 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, This is actually a big step forward, just 350 adjusted assault points from 1-1... You will get it eventually.

Keep it up !!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1024
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 6:17:19 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		common guys be serious - this is f***********************************!
i'm furious  you don't want to hear what I shouted when saw the result

i should have 11-12k adjusted value and 2:1
due to unknown feature i need to bring max overkill
I have all china army + burma + southern available - should i bring Home island or kwantung  looks like 4-5 big un its needed  - unadjusted 20k
almost 40 big units - in theory fully supplied - with whole china full of supplies
i did not bombed as it puts supplies in negatives and under current version troops do not have surplus supplies
i wanted max fresh troops before attack

obvious bug - troops do not draw supplies
after attack very deep in red
also weird thing

average div unit needs 1.4-1.5k supplies
after attack their req was 2.6k ///from my memory this value was in earlier version standard amount of supplies carried by jap inf div////
next day 1.7
2 day later 1.5
with req going down also available suppy goes down - NO SURPLUS SUPPLY - they move supply to F******* rear bases which are full of it

there will be no land attack till Matrix fix what they broke
i need ap 15 days to go back to full strenght
game will be halted at this point till patch correcting supply routine



_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 1025
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 6:33:09 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Um I could be misreading what you are saying Sneer but I am not convinced this is broken

My understanding is that units in combat (subject to or commencing any attack) immediately operate off of a higher supply scale and actually use a lot of supplies in the attack. (therefore they need to draw it if possible over the transport network on the turn in question)

So just because a unit is in the green the day before the attack while not bombarding or doing anything  does not mean they will be in the green when they actually attack and the required supply increases because they are attacking (I thought it was 2x for combat elements at least). i.e. because they are attacking the required supply increases and if they cannot draw it forward immediately they operate with reduced supply....drawing enough supply for 750k attacking troops is difficult if not impossible over the Chinese road system

So the turn after an attack where you have been in combat all units should be in the red unless you have a major supply hub close enough to draw supplies until the in combat supply status fades over the next three to four days.

Basically what I am saying is I dont think it is possible in China to have 750,000 men supplied for an offensive over the road network.

As most of your supply sources are road trasnport away it is unlikely that your ground forces can draw sufficinet supply over the road network in time to get back to green immediately on the turn of the attack.

The combat requirement for supplies drops away over time which is why you see the supply draw drop off but the troops do consume a lot of supplies in that attack phase.

I have fought in China in this same scenario once and on that occasion my opponent had 400,000 v 400,000 at Chungking and he basically used airpower to take the city and it took 12 months to do it.

I dont think I am being especially clear sorry

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1026
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 7:49:26 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		Andy, would you mind to look into ground combat again thread? (i checked all my units and none of them doesn't have 2x supply)

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1027
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 7:56:51 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:



Basically what I am saying is I dont think it is possible in China to have 750,000 men supplied for an offensive over the road network.




I would say that this is the key comment. I doubt it would have been possible for keeping such a Japanese army well supplied.

As for allied side... well the game starves those Chinese units itself. Chinese production is not good at all. So, If an IJN gets all the bonuses for their offensives what is the point of having China in the game in first place.

Ground combat system screws both ways. (I do not want to rant about IJN infantry men garrisoning atolls... that is a .... there you will really need odds to even capture the place)

Anyway keep up the AAR

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1028
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 10:49:48 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline
quote:

Um I could be misreading what you are saying Sneer but I am not convinced this is broken

you need to look closer to my post in main thread as well as up to date combat in this AAR

quote:

My understanding is that units in combat (subject to or commencing any attack) immediately operate off of a higher supply scale and actually use a lot of supplies in the attack. (therefore they need to draw it if possible over the transport network on the turn in question)

i have more than enough supply at sian and changsha as well in cpastal bases - i already pointed that - but troops do not use it

quote:

So just because a unit is in the green the day before the attack while not bombarding or doing anything does not mean they will be in the green when they actually attack and the required supply increases because they are attacking (I thought it was 2x for combat elements at least). i.e. because they are attacking the required supply increases and if they cannot draw it forward immediately they operate with reduced supply....drawing enough supply for 750k attacking troops is difficult if not impossible over the Chinese road system

they are over req every day - most of these troops were 3 weeks ago at changsha they could bring it with them - problem is that in changsha they did not accumulated supplies - i have 250k surplus supplies in china - should be ok for 1 attack ???


quote:

So the turn after an attack where you have been in combat all units should be in the red unless you have a major supply hub close enough to draw supplies until the in combat supply status fades over the next three to four days.

after attack they are red one day - no supply loss to ANY!!!! base in china - nothing was drawn!!!!!! next day after they are filled without problems - so does it work ok or not

quote:

Basically what I am saying is I dont think it is possible in China to have 750,000 men supplied for an offensive over the road network.


we talk about machanics so question not in place
or exactly as in plac as allied 4e hammer tactics - leave it alone ok ?

quote:

As most of your supply sources are road trasnport away it is unlikely that your ground forces can draw sufficinet supply over the road network in time to get back to green immediately on the turn of the attack.


i lost over 6 months there - there should be possibility to stockpile supplies meanwhile for 1 attack ??? - again i don't see problems with supplies going to changsha in any amount

quote:

The combat requirement for supplies drops away over time which is why you see the supply draw drop off but the troops do consume a lot of supplies in that attack phase.

it is known issue i had no problems with ANY!!!! land combat till change in supply routine
damn i have fastest manila/singapore in PBEM record for GOd sake!!!
problem is that earlier thay keep accumulating supplies that was used as "combat supply" now they don't do it

quote:

I have fought in China in this same scenario once and on that occasion my opponent had 400,000 v 400,000 at Chungking and he basically used airpower to take the city and it took 12 months to do it.


you fought before supply routine changed - doesn't count for me
500 helens is unable to stop chinase numbers rising during 6 months
quote:


I dont think I am being especially clear sorry

I think you are wrong - even very wrong

< Message edited by Sneer -- 7/3/2006 10:59:43 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1029
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 10:53:21 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		AAR will be stopped after 2 weeks game time till Matrix solve it
Aztez I'm sorry
I'm almost addicted to this game and belive me I don't want to do this
but I see no choice - too many of my units is involved there for too long and chinase in chungking will not starve - their numbers rise


< Message edited by Sneer -- 7/3/2006 10:57:45 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1030
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 11:29:23 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

AAR will be stopped after 2 weeks game time till Matrix solve it
Aztez I'm sorry
I'm almost addicted to this game and belive me I don't want to do this
but I see no choice - too many of my units is involved there for too long and chinase in chungking will not starve - their numbers rise




Sad to hear that the game has stopped. I have experienced a lot of "bad" things with the ground combat system in my games too. (especially the one with Vorsteher, Hawker and now FDR) The ridicilious fatigue/distruptions levels + crazy stubborn defenders which just wohn't surrender, etc). Yes, those things are frustrating but I kind a glad that I continued. Also, Erstad really kicked my butt in China with those shock assaults. That was very frustrating too but thankfully he stopped and the game is very enjoyable at the moment.

Just a thought... maybe you two could agree on somekind of ceasefire in China? I mean IF you think Chungking will be hopeless to conquer than maybe you could reorganize/withdraw your troops to new locations. This way the Chinese operational theatre would not become the decisive one.


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1031
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 11:32:07 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		cease fire would be biggest victory to allied in this game - troops are needed elswhere soon
i could go for karachi - i assumed it would not be ok and decided to limit myself to china
spend lots of time , resources - my air offensive costed me about 600 army bombers - 400 to ops
endless amounts of supply
now long after schedule i want to finish it
i should easily reach 2:1 with gathered force

< Message edited by Sneer -- 7/3/2006 11:33:53 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 1032
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 11:35:00 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		That is exactly my point. I doubt he could launch any serious offensives in China anytime soon.

You do control Burma and Southern India so basically China is one big POW camp. Meaning that you could use troops elsewhere once needed!

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1033
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 11:35:35 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		i want to use them all not half of them 

_____________________________


(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 1034
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 11:39:07 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

i want to use them all not half of them 


That would be a problem than

Anyway just a thought from my own experience. I think we both lost thousands of aircraft in battle over Kweiyang and Chungking. Well hopefully you guys are able to continue. Witp is not perfect and I have grown somewhat "immune" of it's shortcomings.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1035
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 11:41:58 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		me too especially soon I will face ubercap and i plan to live with it
i got used to 4e hammer
basicly only one Kendari is safe in southern perimeter
and big hammer will destroy japan air force within next half of year in india 1:1 losses will not let me live long
but i want to do what i should be able to do


_____________________________


(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 1036
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 11:44:18 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Yeah, it can be frustrating. (Try to take an atoll with +2 IJN Divisions guarding... well... )

My point was that the game can be still enjoyable with shortcomings and such. You two could agree on somekind of an solution to keep the game going.

Good luck though.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1037
RE: air offensives - 7/3/2006 11:52:43 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		we will wait i think
for me supply issue is obvious "to-fix" for matrix


_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 1038
RE: air offensives - 7/4/2006 12:04:06 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline 		Maybe Raver would agree to going back to 1.80. I'd hate to see this AAR die.

It would also be interesting to see that last attack at Chungking played with 1.80 - while I believe you're right that the supply system is borked now but running the turn under 1.80 might confirm that.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1039
RE: air offensives - 7/4/2006 8:53:28 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		i'm not sure if it was n0t earlier change
initial attacks at chungking were badly too

this AAR will not die - i can promise


_____________________________


(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 1040
RE: air offensives - 7/4/2006 5:33:43 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		it is not a game we started playing
from current discussion in main thread I was informed /i feared/ that under current supply distribution system max AV of my troops before any other modifiers is 50% - it is huge change from 1.6 and it explains a lot why I have been staying at chungking for 6 months
I don't know what to say ....
I don't know what to do ....





_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 1041
RE: air offensives - 7/4/2006 5:35:56 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		as far as war operations
today 150 enemy bombers razed HI at Jamshedpur - sign that air war in east india is in final stage as i loose ability to keep my bases secured from the air
4 bases - each needs 200+ fighters to be safe + 50% reserve
i don't even know if I have so many land based fighters


_____________________________


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1042
RE: air offensives - 7/4/2006 10:49:37 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Sneer, check out my analysis thread. I think it sums up the situation quite accurately.

Even with enough supplies in China etc to push enough to Chungking to attack at DOUBLE STRENGTH for a full two months not enough arrives to let my troops attack at full strength EVER.

In effect you and I are being robbed of 3/4 of the combat strength the game model ( as initially designed) wants us to have because of the unexpected ramifications of poorly thought-out changes to the game mechanics... Honestly they should concentrate less on myriad tiny bug fixes and more on actually fixing the over-arching game MECHANICS which are what is messing up our games much more than small point-effect bugs.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1043
RE: air offensives - 7/5/2006 12:19:48 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		funny thing is that when i started this game under 1.6 there was no problem with supply distribution
i took both malaya and PI in record time...
...now they fixed it and nobody knows how it works + there is strong suspicion it doesn't work well
I'm tired of shouting laud that sb need to look at it
sb else must do it
there are only few things that needs developers attention

ubercap / stacking limits+ aviation support / land combat
rest is not important to me  - from my point of view they loose their time on fixing minor issues and due to low priority of project there is little hope it will be done ever

unless bugged land combat (i still have fresh chinase surrounded not surrending troops after whole year ) i could have finished china in 42  as Raverdave did some small mistakes I could use against him

At this moment i'm tired/furious and Raverdave is worried as game reached place when it is most interesting to allied player

Nemo - there is no way we can check supply flow and if troops have enough of it to fight and at what efficiency level they fight now
i still hope Matrix will look at it but it looks like it will take weeks or months as we are still at point where people must notice that problem exists - it is highly inconvinient to currently played PBEM - I know
looks like I need to have huge overkill at chungking

I had big plans for china army - with more than 6 months delay they are outdated - I was thinking about 40 inf division
 pacification of India - even so late in game - nothing like Karachi siege - but isolating few bases and killing enough troops to secure this front till late 45 when i want to use troops against russia and to force RN to come back to IO
i know i have enough supplies /manpower/armament.
just imagine Raverdave surprise seeing 10k AV elite troops marching for Madras and later to Delhi forcing him to leave Benares - all is gone - pity
it is joint AAR so no plans were posted earlier now it is too late so i can write about it

it is too late  - troops should be already on offensive and in early 44 i will be deeply dig in defence with every unit send to pacific

maybe some day they will check it
maybe in another game i will have another chance




_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 1044
RE: air offensives - 7/5/2006 12:55:51 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Yes and don't forget that when, as the Japanese player, you quit out of disgust at a completely hosed system which robs you of much of your combat power ( which the Allied player has the masses of supply and reinforcement to simply completely outmass any defence to such an extent that the same relative reduction in combat power does not fatally inhibit their plans) then you are called a bad loser etc.

Gees, I was, in the past, of the opinion that Allied and Japanese fanboys were as bad as eachother but every time I post demonstrable, quantifiable statistically relevant issues with the game the same cohort of players ( all of them allied players) sweep in to belittle the points. Its like Fing mob rule where whatever favours the Allies is good and pure and whatever attempts to fix flaws in Japanese modelling is something too inconsequential to bother with. Hell Pasternakski actually said that the reduction in Japanese combat strength by 3/4 from what it should be achieving "isn't too bad". LOL!!! I'd like to see him say that when we suggest no Allied carrier fleet in 1944 and onwards should be allowed to set CAP to more than 20% ( a similar reduction in that force's combat power).

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1045
RE: air offensives - 7/5/2006 1:07:07 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		i think we caused enough noise to have reaction from Matrix
let's sit and wait for official statement

Mogami wrote today that my campaign at chungking is ok and I'm winning what is visible in combat report so it is ok - no comment

steam preassure was high today and now I wait only for technical staff


< Message edited by Sneer -- 7/5/2006 1:15:49 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1046
RE: air offensives - 7/5/2006 7:34:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Yes and don't forget that when, as the Japanese player, you quit out of disgust at a completely hosed system which robs you of much of your combat power ( which the Allied player has the masses of supply and reinforcement to simply completely outmass any defence to such an extent that the same relative reduction in combat power does not fatally inhibit their plans) then you are called a bad loser etc.

Gees, I was, in the past, of the opinion that Allied and Japanese fanboys were as bad as eachother but every time I post demonstrable, quantifiable statistically relevant issues with the game the same cohort of players ( all of them allied players) sweep in to belittle the points. Its like Fing mob rule where whatever favours the Allies is good and pure and whatever attempts to fix flaws in Japanese modelling is something too inconsequential to bother with. Hell Pasternakski actually said that the reduction in Japanese combat strength by 3/4 from what it should be achieving "isn't too bad". LOL!!! I'd like to see him say that when we suggest no Allied carrier fleet in 1944 and onwards should be allowed to set CAP to more than 20% ( a similar reduction in that force's combat power).


Let's look at the issues here. Supply quantity is the main problem. Because the is so effing much of it players on either side can sustain offensives on a daily basis using every unit for the entire effing war. Is this correct? Of course not. But what are you guys asking? That they correct a bunch of wrongs with more wrongs so these fantasy offensives can continue? Patton ran out of gas...this can't happen in this game with the joke supply model designed primarily to prop up a crippled and hopeless AI.

What needs to happen is the delinking of supply production to resource production to enable the scenario/map modders to fix the problem with civilian supply sinks, more realistic supply availability etc. Once supply is reduced on a massive scale maybe the game will work more like it was supposed to.




< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 7/5/2006 7:39:19 AM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1047
RE: air offensives - 7/5/2006 7:36:16 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

i think we caused enough noise to have reaction from Matrix
let's sit and wait for official statement

Mogami wrote today that my campaign at chungking is ok and I'm winning what is visible in combat report so it is ok - no comment

steam preassure was high today and now I wait only for technical staff



Folks were trying to get major design issues fixed since UV...I don't think this one little outburst will tickle hairs on the backs of their necks.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1048
RE: air offensives - 7/5/2006 9:20:07 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		Ron don't be like the others...
i'm tired to write that i don't want to take chungking overnight
it is my 6th month there - i'd like lower at least forts meanwhile
All 6-7 assaults were massacres - with no single guns on chinase side 3:1 in manpower and absolute advantage in equipment - it is not Stalingrad - in stalingrad defenders did not have to fight 6 months with bayonets and small arms - damn 8k guns and over 1k tanks + 500 bombers - is it nothing against light infantry ?????
are people without imagination????? //// why second iraqi war was able to take Bagdad ????////
during 6 months with abundant supplies all over china and no other fight in almost whole asia i'd like to have supplies stockpiled in offensive purposes

why people don't read - it looks like permament feature on this forum - write before ending reading?!

why people don't look at map ?!

Changsha is not the only base to draw supplies
Sian has 30k surplyus supplies as well
it is total of 80k surplus supplies in the area
there is also route via Kwieyang available


why do I waste time to write anything here????
I'm japenase fanboy because i play Japan and because i want some things to work as it should be.

Why should I write again and again obvious facts ?

PLEASE - before you write - THINK !


< Message edited by Sneer -- 7/5/2006 9:24:40 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 1049
RE: air offensives - 7/5/2006 11:07:36 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

Ron don't be like the others...
i'm tired to write that i don't want to take chungking overnight
it is my 6th month there - i'd like lower at least forts meanwhile
All 6-7 assaults were massacres - with no single guns on chinase side 3:1 in manpower and absolute advantage in equipment - it is not Stalingrad - in stalingrad defenders did not have to fight 6 months with bayonets and small arms - damn 8k guns and over 1k tanks + 500 bombers - is it nothing against light infantry ?????
are people without imagination????? //// why second iraqi war was able to take Bagdad ????////
during 6 months with abundant supplies all over china and no other fight in almost whole asia i'd like to have supplies stockpiled in offensive purposes

why people don't read - it looks like permament feature on this forum - write before ending reading?!

why people don't look at map ?!

Changsha is not the only base to draw supplies
Sian has 30k surplyus supplies as well
it is total of 80k surplus supplies in the area
there is also route via Kwieyang available


why do I waste time to write anything here????
I'm japenase fanboy because i play Japan and because i want some things to work as it should be.

Why should I write again and again obvious facts ?

PLEASE - before you write - THINK !



I'm not mindlessly defending the game design like many do around here, otherwise I would probably be on the board of directors. I'm not denying that the land combat model is a failure...I've been saying that before you ever saw the game. But certain models (all!!) fail when the forces employed become large or excessive. And fielding nearly a million men at Chungking and launching assaults with these same men for about a year straight in a theatre that realistically was barely able to sustain limited ground offensives once in awhile during the 41-45 period unless in pursuit of the rice harvests is excessive. So while the land combat needs reworking obviously, so too do the many factors which are allowing the outlandish use of units which often highlight the flaws which many are complaining about.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 1050
Page:   <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: air offensives Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   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

1.375