AE Land and AI Issues [OUTDATED]

[Gunner98]

Ah but a 500Lb near miss on a JSII..... Oh wait.. wrong thread[:)]

[Dili]

The "vulnerability to attack" isnt based on if they are armored or not. That is used to see what effect a weapon has on a given device. Armored units in road columns are just as exposed as any other unit (maybe more so actually in real life but not in the game) would be.

The point i am making, is that AA SP and Tanks have better chances of reaction in Movement mode(thanks for correction) than an AT gun or AA gun that needs to be setup. AA SP specially is made specially to protect forces in movement. I should not have had refered SP guns(artillery) above since they need to have setup communication lines, FO's etc.

[Yamato hugger]

Well let me put your mind at ease then. In WitP, the land combat model had VERY little to do with anything resembling reality. AE isnt a whole lot better. There is a game called "Steel Panthers World at War" you could probably check out if you want to get into individual tank vs AT gun data. This isnt going to be the place for it. Now or in the future.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: spence

In Vanilla a tank was a tank was a tank. IJA tanks with 2 mm of tinfoil armor and a short barrel 37mm gun were the equal of a T-34/85 or JSII. Still so? Not so?

Not so . . . much.

Here's what I *think* happens:

Land combat has a (artillery) bombardment phase, a everyone-fire-at-each-other phase, and an 'assault' phase, if one was ordered.

Tank units won't fire in bombardment. In the 'fire' phase, their strength is based on the penetration value of the main gun (vs other armored targets) or a combined value of the main gun and any machine guns (vs 'soft targets'). Tanks with thicker armor have a better chance of surviving if other tanks/guns shoot at them.

When the dust settles after all that shooting, and the odds are calculated for an assault, *all* surviving AFVs have a base assault value of 1, regardless of their size. In this one respect, a Marmon-Herrington is the equivalent of a Pershing tank.

[Dili]

Does LCU commanders can be taken off from scenario like LCU's ?

[undercovergeek]

in chs i think there are a number of indian brigades at about 1000 pp, john3rd is famous for moving them as garrisons for the south pacific, in vanilla they were anything from 1700 to 2000 pp - is their value set at the lowest in AE so the JFBs can ship em out to more useful hotspots

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Does LCU commanders can be taken off from scenario like LCU's ?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. [&:]

Can you re-phrase it?

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

in chs i think there are a number of indian brigades at about 1000 pp, john3rd is famous for moving them as garrisons for the south pacific, in vanilla they were anything from 1700 to 2000 pp - is their value set at the lowest in AE so the JFBs can ship em out to more useful hotspots

PP is SAIEW, still based on unit size.

The Japanese have five "India National Army" regiments that arrive in mid-43. Their Assault Value is either 72 (x2 regiments) or 48 (x3 regiments) so the PP cost should be fairly small.

I find it ironic to see a combat regiment named "Gandhi" (the 2nd INA Regiment). [8D]

[matt.buttsworth]

Invincible Cities.

Has anything been done to stop a player massing troops in a city with supply or heavy industry and resources and then holding out indefinitely in a totally ahistorical situation?

Matthew Buttsworth

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

Invincible Cities.

Has anything been done to stop a player massing troops in a city with supply or heavy industry and resources and then holding out indefinitely in a totally ahistorical situation?

Matthew Buttsworth

Why would there be? If a player puts everything he has into a single hex and the opposing player isnt smart enough to put enough troops to hold him there and then bomb him until his supplies run out then why should anything be put in to help him?

Heavy industry can be bombed also you know. Bombing ports/airfields will destroy supply. But the biggest thing is its a prison camp. By-pass it and leave it. Thats what I usually do with Manila/Bataan. Makes a nice air training academy.

[Dili]

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Can you re-phrase it?

Sorry for not to be clear. The AE makes possible to for the editor to make a unit/ship retire from a scenario at certain date, return, retire etc. My question is if that is also possible with leaders?

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Can you re-phrase it?

Sorry for not to be clear. The AE makes possible to for the editor to make a unit/ship retire from a scenario at certain date, return, retire etc. My question is if that is also possible with leaders?

No

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

Invincible Cities.

Has anything been done to stop a player massing troops in a city with supply or heavy industry and resources and then holding out indefinitely in a totally ahistorical situation?

Matthew Buttsworth

Why would there be? If a player puts everything he has into a single hex and the opposing player isnt smart enough to put enough troops to hold him there and then bomb him until his supplies run out then why should anything be put in to help him?

Heavy industry can be bombed also you know. Bombing ports/airfields will destroy supply. But the biggest thing is its a prison camp. By-pass it and leave it. Thats what I usually do with Manila/Bataan. Makes a nice air training academy.

It sounds like what YH says is in accord with reality. The only thing ahistorical about the situation suggested is that nobody has done it in real life, so it's not in history. The reason so one has done it in real life is that the steps YH outlined are real options and make doing it stupid.

Consider if Bataan had been supplied and fortified as desired in WWII. It still would have fallen eventually, it was just a matter of time. The same is true if Manila had been the redoubt instead. Leningrad held because they had enough supplies trickling in (in addition to local production) as it could not be completely cut off.

[scout1]

Probably asked and answered .... but

Is ammunition a seaparate item for land combat as opposed to merely supply ? Have seen Manilla hold out for a year isolated which from an ammo standpoint is unlikely ..... but not under the original model .....

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Probably asked and answered .... but

Is ammunition a seaparate item for land combat as opposed to merely supply ? Have seen Manilla hold out for a year isolated which from an ammo standpoint is unlikely ..... but not under the original model .....

No. Too hard to do with the current engine. Believe me, it was discussed.

[HistoryGuy]

I do not know if you have found a great reference on Coast Artillery, but I am convinced that a recently updated "American Seacoast Defenses: A Reference Guide" by Mark A. Berhow would come in handy. It lists the Philippine Department's harbor defenses of Manila and Subic Bay as:

Fort Mills (Batteries) Corregidor Island
Hearn - one 12-inch long range barbette carriage, army gun
Smith - one 12-inch long range barbette carriage, army gun
Way - four 12-inch mortars
Geary - eight 12-inch mortars
Cheney - two 12-inch disappearing carriage guns
Wheeler - two 12-inch disappearing carriage guns
Crockett - two 12-inch disappearing carriage guns
Grubbs - two 10-inch disappearing carriage guns
RJ 43 - one 8-inch barbette carriage gun
Morrison - two 6-inch disappearing carriage guns
Ramsey - three 6-inch disappearing carriage guns
James - four 3-inch pedestal mounted guns
Keyes - two 3-inch pedestal mounted guns
Cushing - two 3-inch pedestal mounted guns
Hanna - two 3-inch pedestal mounted guns
Martin - two mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns
Hamilton (south) - two mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns
Kysor (north) - three mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns
Rock Point - two mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns
Sunset - four mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns
Stockade - two mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns
Monja - two mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns (one emplacement casemated)
Concepcion - three mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns
Levagood - two mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns

Fort Frank (batteries) Carabao Island
Greer - One 14-inch disappearing carriage gun
Crofton - one 14-inch disappearing carriage gun
Koehler - eight 12-inch mortars
Hoyle - two 3-inch pedestal mounted guns (removed before World War II)
Frank - four mobile 155-mm. GPF tractor drawn guns

Fort Drum (batteries) El Fraile Island
Wilson - two 14-inch turret mounted guns
Marshall - two 14-inch turret mounted guns
Roberts - two casemated 6-inch guns
McCrea - two casemated 6-inch guns
New Hoyle - one 3-inch pedestal mounted gun (installed 1941)

Fort Hughes (batteries) Caballo Island
Woodruff - one 14-inch disappearing carriage gun
Gillespie - one 14-inch disappearing carriage gun
Craighill - four 12-inch mortars
Leach - two 6-inch disappearing carriage guns
Fuger - two 3-inch pedestal mounted guns
Williams - two mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns
Hooker - one mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn gun

Fort Wint (batteries) Grande Island, Subic Bay
Warwick - two 10-inch disappearing carriage guns
Woodruff - two 6-inch disappearing carriage guns
Hall - two 6-inch disappearing carriage guns
Flake - four 3-inch pedestal mounted guns
Jewell - four 3-inch pedestal mounted guns

unnamed - four mobile 155-mm GPF tractor drawn guns (Ogonbolo, Bataan)

Looking over the coastal defenses for Pearl Harbor (alone), I could not help but notice they increased significantly between December 1941 and the following year - to include installation of three 14-inch guns salvaged from the USS Arizona at Kahe Point. Mobile batteries/sections of 240-mm howitzers were sited at Laie, Pupukea, and Makua while five batteries/sections of mobile 155-mm tractor drawn guns were sited at Brown's Camp, Barbers Point, Oneula Beach, Makau, and Kahe Point. And the list of other guns/batteries is endless since Hawaii became an armed camp starting in early 1942............

I never noticed the number of guns changing from one year to the next for coastal defenses in the stock WiTP - is this modelled in the new AE or do their strength/numbers remain constant? Given the lack of data (until Berhow published this book) I would assume the latter is true.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy

I do not know if you have found a great reference on Coast Artillery, but I am convinced that a recently updated "American Seacoast Defenses: A Reference Guide" by Mark A. Berhow would come in handy. It lists the Philippine Department's harbor defenses of Manila and Subic Bay as:

...

Oh, my...

Given that a CD gun was worth about four ship guns, and that CD guns weren't prone to sinking, I wouldn't want to take anything sinkable within extreme range of Manila/Subic Bay.

[Don Bowen]

Always glad to see your posts!

There were some additional guns not listed. Many of the forts had 75mm and at least one 155mm mobile batteries/beach defense guns. There were two 75mm and a 155mm at Fort Wint. These guns were the only ones saved when Fort Wint was abandoned. The 155mm became part of the 301st Field Artillery.

[HistoryGuy]

Don,

I think the author stuck purely to coast defense weapons with a prepared firing site. He mentioned that the 155-mm GPFs used "Panama Mounts" which I assumed were concrete firing pads - which the guns you mentioned might not have used. I will post some more information on Hawaii, Alaska and Washington/Oregon areas soonest. Seeing how much stuff was crammed into Honolulu and Pearl Harbor would give pause to the staunchest hearted JAPANESE amphibious planner!

Best regards,

Mark

[byron13]

One has to be careful with adding all the historically present CD guns into the game. I have not seen how the CDs were historically sited, but I'm sure that many were sited to cover different avenues of approach. I would think this would especially be true with Oahu where you could approch the island from any point on the compass. I would think many or most were also sited to cover approaches to Pearl. Thus, most could be employed to repel, say, a bombardment mission, but relatively few could probably be used to repel an invasion of North Shore or along the windward coast. So the Arizona's guns located at Kahe Point wouldn't be able to shoot at anything rolling in on top of the guns located at Pupukea.

My point is that, while it would be fun to have every CD gun or fort present in the game, it would be unrealistic to permit each of these guns to fire in every engagement. The only solution is to total up the CD defenses, figure some kind of average that could shoot during any engagement, and have that average figure represented in the game that can shoot in every engagement. So, like it or not, the only realistic way to handle CDs on islands with a 360 degree front is to have a generic CD unit that does not represent what was actually present but represents what could have engaged the enemy in an average action.

The calculus is a little different when you've got restricted approaches like in Manila Bay or, if anyone wanted to do the research, an island with only one or two feasible invasion sites that the CD guns would be clustered around, or had 360 traverse like some batteries on Corregidor.