AE Land and AI Issues [OUTDATED]

[wild_Willie2]

Hi guy's , how is land based FLAK coded into AE?. Do we have the same lame land based FLAK as in WITP, or do we get more deadly FLAK like NIKmod ?

[Andy Mac]

It varies depending on type of Flak I think its better

[String]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The Alamein Line Oct 1942

On a 30-35 mile front, the 8th Army had 7 Infantry Divisions, 3 Armoured Divisions & approx 2 Div eqiv in Brigades. This was not a deep formation and had many areas covered by patrol.

On the night of the attack, 4 Infantry Divs & Armoured Units made the major attacks, An Armd Div made a major diversionary attack and the other units made probing attacks.

Maybe someone could find the unit densities of other areas such as Normandy, Op Diadem, The Ardennes or the Soviet attacks into eastern Europe etc

A Western infantry battalion usually attacked a positional defence on a 500-700 meter front. The division usually went in on a 3-5 kilometer front. It defended about 8 kilometers, and could screen twice that frontage.

But that's with average western europe terrain I assume. In forested/mountainous/swampy areas the areas would be different, right?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The Alamein Line Oct 1942

On a 30-35 mile front, the 8th Army had 7 Infantry Divisions, 3 Armoured Divisions & approx 2 Div eqiv in Brigades. This was not a deep formation and had many areas covered by patrol.

On the night of the attack, 4 Infantry Divs & Armoured Units made the major attacks, An Armd Div made a major diversionary attack and the other units made probing attacks.

Maybe someone could find the unit densities of other areas such as Normandy, Op Diadem, The Ardennes or the Soviet attacks into eastern Europe etc

A Western infantry battalion usually attacked a positional defence on a 500-700 meter front. The division usually went in on a 3-5 kilometer front. It defended about 8 kilometers, and could screen twice that frontage.

But that's with average western europe terrain I assume. In forested/mountainous/swampy areas the areas would be different, right?

There are lots of differences depending on METT. For example, Red Army divisional attacks on German fortified positions were sometimes on a 2 km frontage. Amuse yourself with the Gamer's OCS series if you want to see the range of variation. The Burma game is particularly relevant.

[Wirraway_Ace]

herwin, I agree with your comment about Mission, Enemy Terrain, Troops and Time available; however, if I had to pick one factor to model a frontage, it would be Terrain. A stacking limit is not an issue in a non-atoll/island hex, but the terrain certainly can affect how many units can attack out of it along a single hexside. 30 Corps was an enormous concentration of men and equipment occupying a singel AE hex as it advanced during Market Garden; however, at times only a single battalion was able to fight along the road. Jungle, mountain and river hexsides should be very limited in the number of squads that can effectively fight their way forward. This limit could be modified by leadership.

Of course, this would be true of the defender as well, so the battle would devolve into the quality of the squads committed and the leadership ability of one commander to employ effectively more squads.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: herwin




A Western infantry battalion usually attacked a positional defence on a 500-700 meter front. The division usually went in on a 3-5 kilometer front. It defended about 8 kilometers, and could screen twice that frontage.

But that's with average western europe terrain I assume. In forested/mountainous/swampy areas the areas would be different, right?

There are lots of differences depending on METT. For example, Red Army divisional attacks on German fortified positions were sometimes on a 2 km frontage. Amuse yourself with the Gamer's OCS series if you want to see the range of variation. The Burma game is particularly relevant.

Ahh, The Gamers. I know Dean Essig well. I've got all the OCS, TCS and RSS along with a great deal of the others. Great systems. I recommend the TCS to see an abbreviated version of what it takes to plan a battle.

[Andy Mac]

Chad asked a good question in another thread I am going to answer it hear to try and keep all the answers in one place.
 
(Actually because of testing for the next few weeks I will only be answering questions in this thread I cannot go through multi threads so if you have a question on land ask it here and if I can I wil answer it)
 
OK the question chad asked
 
Stacking levels are seperate for each side.
 
On the smallest atolls each side may stack 6,000 men without penalty.
 
so the defender may have 6,000 men behind maximum level 6 forts without penalties.
 
The attacker may also only use 6,000 men without penalty.
 
Now both sides may overstack a little without the penalties becoming critical although its easier for the attacker.
 
The penalties are supply based and also increased disruption/fatigue - basically more supply spoils because not enough space to store it and men get grumpy and cannot remain combat effective because they are all standing on each other !!!
 
IF an attacker has air and sea superiority he can afford to overstack a little more e.g 12,000 men for a few days to take the base - the penalties especially supply usage are exponential but it can be done BUT to unload that number of men you had better have air and sea superiority as your transports are sitting ducks off shore. A lot more so than stock specifically if a SAG gets in amongst them sitting still unloading it will be nasty.
 
Basically overstacking can be done to a limited degree - its more difficult for the defender to overstack because the long term impact of overstacking hurts (supplies primarily)
 
An attacker can also overstack but there is a limit to how effective it will be and if you overcook it you are hurting your adjusted AV because you physically cannot unload enough supplies no matter how many ships you bring to keep the overstacked forces at 100% combat supply.
 
Finding that sweet spot well thats going to be your pleasure just like in real life fair warning the first idiot that brings 100,000 men to invade a flea speck atoll will need more than the entire US Merchant Marine in WW2 to keep em supplied - yes its that exponential !!!.
 
Now the question may be asked well how do you taske atolls with lvl 6 forts well the answer to that is
 
Be prepared
Make sure you have naval support
Make sure you have air superiorty
 
And hope to god the defenders have a few non combatants.
 
6,000 SNLF troops against 6,000 dug in marines is a BAAAD proposition
 
as is
 
6,000 Marines against 6,000 IJA Infantry
 
those same troops with CAS and NGS doable if the forts are not to nasty and you have time.
 
without CAS or NGS or the defender being all support troops.....
 

[Andy Mac]

p.s. as I appear to be the designated Q&A guy on the AI I will answer any questions I can on that subject in this thread as well but fair warning that is still being worked on.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Chad asked a good question in another thread I am going to answer it hear to try and keep all the answers in one place.

(Actually because of testing for the next few weeks I will only be answering questions in this thread I cannot go through multi threads so if you have a question on land ask it here and if I can I wil answer it)

OK the question chad asked

Stacking levels are seperate for each side.

On the smallest atolls each side may stack 6,000 men without penalty.

so the defender may have 6,000 men behind maximum level 6 forts without penalties.

The attacker may also only use 6,000 men without penalty.

Now both sides may overstack a little without the penalties becoming critical although its easier for the attacker.

The penalties are supply based and also increased disruption/fatigue - basically more supply spoils because not enough space to store it and men get grumpy and cannot remain combat effective because they are all standing on each other !!!

IF an attacker has air and sea superiority he can afford to overstack a little more e.g 12,000 men for a few days to take the base - the penalties especially supply usage are exponential but it can be done BUT to unload that number of men you had better have air and sea superiority as your transports are sitting ducks off shore. A lot more so than stock specifically if a SAG gets in amongst them sitting still unloading it will be nasty.

Basically overstacking can be done to a limited degree - its more difficult for the defender to overstack because the long term impact of overstacking hurts (supplies primarily)

An attacker can also overstack but there is a limit to how effective it will be and if you overcook it you are hurting your adjusted AV because you physically cannot unload enough supplies no matter how many ships you bring to keep the overstacked forces at 100% combat supply.

Finding that sweet spot well thats going to be your pleasure just like in real life fair warning the first idiot that brings 100,000 men to invade a flea speck atoll will need more than the entire US Merchant Marine in WW2 to keep em supplied - yes its that exponential !!!.

Now the question may be asked well how do you taske atolls with lvl 6 forts well the answer to that is

Be prepared
Make sure you have naval support
Make sure you have air superiorty

And hope to god the defenders have a few non combatants.

6,000 SNLF troops against 6,000 dug in marines is a BAAAD proposition

as is

6,000 Marines against 6,000 IJA Infantry

those same troops with CAS and NGS doable if the forts are not to nasty and you have time.

without CAS or NGS or the defender being all support troops.....

Thanks for answering! [:)]

BTW, I asked this few tmes before here but this feature must have been "under construction" at the time of my question(s)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Andy Mac]

Sorry I answer what I see when I can if I miss it keep asking !!!

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Sorry I answer what I see when I can if I miss it keep asking !!!

No problem at all Mac... you guys just concentrate on what is most important - the WitP-AE!

We are all very grateful to all of you!!! [:)][&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Chad asked a good question in another thread I am going to answer it hear to try and keep all the answers in one place.

. . .

Be prepared
Make sure you have naval support
Make sure you have air superiorty

. . .

Thanks for answering Andy.

This may have already been answered, but will naval and air support play a bigger role in amphib operations this time around?

In stock WitP, air support simply meant that they could fly ground attack missions against usually a single unit. Is AE going to take their overwhelming presense further than that? Somehow factor their constant presense (again assuming complete air supperiority) into the land combat routines outside of their actual ground attacks against a single unit?

So in other words, will AE represent the ability of all those Marines to have 200 Helldivers and Avengers from all those carriers on call? That would have a huge impact on combat, especially against an enemy in little/no fortifications.

The same goes for overwhelming naval support. Will their support be limited to bombardment mission, or the game factor into the land combat routines the overwhelming presense of all those big ships with big guns which are on call?

Thanks in advance

Chad

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

p.s. as I appear to be the designated Q&A guy on the AI I will answer any questions I can on that subject in this thread as well but fair warning that is still being worked on.

I will shoot out a quick and simple question regarding the planned state of the AI:

Will it be a viable opponent past the end of 1942?

[Andy Mac]

The fact that 6,000 men or even slightly more if overstacked will mean that fewer units will be on each atoll.
 
Even if you have four or five units CAS will have a greater impact because there are fewer targets that days of stacking 20 units on an atoll by EITHER side are hopefully over.
 
CAS in some ways is both better an worse - destroyed devices will be slower as most LCU's have more devices so to some extent CAS is less powerfull than stock but its disruption effect is slightly wider so on balance in big combats - IMO and this is my opinion it will be slightly more effective in large stack combats but wont be quite as effective at rendering units out of combat for the long term - e.g. disruption impact up, damage down a little compared to stock

[undercovergeek]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Chad asked a good question in another thread I am going to answer it hear to try and keep all the answers in one place.

. . .

Be prepared
Make sure you have naval support
Make sure you have air superiorty

. . .

Thanks for answering Andy.

This may have already been answered, but will naval and air support play a bigger role in amphib operations this time around?

In stock WitP, air support simply meant that they could fly ground attack missions against usually a single unit. Is AE going to take their overwhelming presense further than that? Somehow factor their constant presense (again assuming complete air supperiority) into the land combat routines outside of their actual ground attacks against a single unit?

So in other words, will AE represent the ability of all those Marines to have 200 Helldivers and Avengers from all those carriers on call? That would have a huge impact on combat, especially against an enemy in little/no fortifications.

The same goes for overwhelming naval support. Will their support be limited to bombardment mission, or the game factor into the land combat routines the overwhelming presense of all those big ships with big guns which are on call?

Thanks in advance

Chad

top questions - that would be amazing if its in......

ive always thought that having air superiority was simply that... it didnt really convey any benefits apart from an unmolested amphib landing but once done was quite pointless - move all aircraft to next target - but a genuine air superiority bonus and naval would something worth trying to achieve

[Andy Mac]

No hidden or specific bonus merely the fact that transports are a LOT more vulnerable when unloading than stock and I expect CAS on these small battles to be more significant.
 
 
 
 

[Andy Mac]

Play the game 'in the box' and I think the AI will give a good game at least as good and hopefully better than stock (Joe will shoot me now for saying this) into and beyond 43 but the truth will be in the testing I hope it will give a good game.

Play the game out of the box and as long as my sick and twisted mind has pre empted you - you may get a nasty suprise (if you don't look at the AI file) - I have set up certain traps for folks who try to 'break the AI' paradigm for either side.

If you come up with something I haven't thought of or prepped the AI for then the results will be unpredictable and there is a limit to what I can do in this area....

I honestly believe the AI will give a decent game or I and others would not have been working on it for over a year - but I cannot tell what you lot will come up with that I have't thought of.

Andy

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

p.s. as I appear to be the designated Q&A guy on the AI I will answer any questions I can on that subject in this thread as well but fair warning that is still being worked on.

I will shoot out a quick and simple question regarding the planned state of the AI:

Will it be a viable opponent past the end of 1942?

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The penalties are supply based and also increased disruption/fatigue - basically more supply spoils because not enough space to store it and men get grumpy and cannot remain combat effective because they are all standing on each other !!!

This is interesting Andy. Thanks. What determines supply upper limitations (the level where it begins to spoil)? Is it the facility level (like WitP) or troop levels now?

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Play the game 'in the box' and I think the AI will give a good game at least as good and hopefully better than stock (Joe will shoot me now for saying this) into and beyond 43 but the truth will be in the testing I hope it will give a good game.

Play the game out of the box and as long as my sick and twisted mind has pre empted you - you may get a nasty suprise (if you don't look at the AI file) - I have set up certain traps for folks who try to 'break the AI' paradigm for either side.

If you come up with something I haven't thought of or prepped the AI for then the results will be unpredictable and there is a limit to what I can do in this area....

I honestly believe the AI will give a decent game or I and others would not have been working on it for over a year - but I cannot tell what you lot will come up with that I have't thought of.

Andy

I assume this is the case, but just to be sure . . .

The new AI will have scripted events/reactions to draw from for the duration of the war correct? And there will be multiple reactions it can choose from correct?

And these are limited to 'If allies invade XXX within dates YYY and ZZZ, react with either: move units AAAA to defend BBBB or attack with units CCCC at location DDDD' type scenarios right?

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

This is interesting Andy. Thanks. What determines supply upper limitations (the level where it begins to spoil)? Is it the facility level (like WitP) or troop levels now?

I would be very curious to know this also. Stocking Kwayalein without spoilage with 999,999 tons of supply and 999,999 tons of fuel never felt right.