Suggestion replaced killed with lost

[bklooste]

A lot of people are complaining on the killed figure for Chinese i think the main reason is it says killed , if they were killed it would be very wrong , most of these would have deserted ( which was a major problem eg the PI divisions) or been captured so replace killed with lost in the combat reports.

[DuckofTindalos]

What "lot of people"?

[morganbj]

Well, him, for example.

[Shark7]

A casualty is a casualty is a casualty.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A casualty is a casualty is a casualty.

Especially if its the Bismark [:-]

Sunk or Scuttled or simply Hiding?[8D]

[wdolson]

Where does it say Killed" now?

Bill

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Where does it say Killed" now?

Bill

nowhere, I guess he means "destroyed"

[bklooste]

Yes destroyed means killed to a lot of people... Whereas a POW or AWOL is neither .

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

A lot of people are complaining on the killed figure for Chinese i think the main reason is it says killed , if they were killed it would be very wrong , most of these would have deserted ( which was a major problem eg the PI divisions) or been captured so replace killed with lost in the combat reports.

Im one of them apparently T, but then i dont excist. I dont think it has any thing to do with killed/wounded/missing/deserted or any thing like that bklooste.
It has to do with results. If u look in the AAR between Flecther and my self. I assume since i never been in the thread that u will see some of the result that i believe ppl find ludacrous.
Really isnt a question of killed/wounded or what ever. Its overall casulties and time the combat takes.
For example. I had 2 jap divisions come beat up several of my from start of game "fresh units" annilate them over 2 hexes of combat. 1st hex forrested area and 2nd was in the "harshest" form of terrain in game, pure Mountain hex. No u cant espcase as the japs move faster than you if the jap player just employs a bit of sense.
So in just over a week 2 jap division manages to annilate(includes all form of casulties) 15000 men in the toughest terrain. In the process taking over several thousans of Sq/miles of terrain of extremly difficult terrain.
Frankly no matter what conditions those chinease troops were in or not as it might be could cause such results consistantly. Nor did they in China historicly. Other threads has amply shown respective casulty rates.

There so many cases of badly equiped, poor moral, u name it, troops defending in mountainous terrain. WWI italians in the alpes, Afghanistan many times over from 1870 onwards. Tibetans vs chinease. Korea. Where very few troops of poor quality are able to hold much larger formation of superior forces in check for extended periodes of time. Not losing many times their number. Or losing as nearly as many men as the attackers have in all in just 1 day of combat in such terrain. And if losing not doing in matter of day(s)
When u consider that the number of disabled squad in just one of those 1 day combat, might take up to a year to recover. It really doesnt matter if they are killed, disabled or what ever.

It creates exactly what the dev team as i understand it was trying to change from WITP.
Deathstar tactics with large number of units in 1 hex running around smacking all in sight. Since the casulties are so low too them and they win the battles no matter what in 1 day of combat they in pratice are more or less unstopble. Unless u use deathstar tactics ur self.
There are in ground combat not introduced any diminishing return, that i can notice. U still get the full effect of 10+ division in mountain hex creating 1 day battles causing tons of casulties in the proces. Sure in reality, u can employ 10 division in a mountain or what ever hex and have them all count for causing casulties.
U still get all 300-400 guns in a hex employed killing 2000-3000 casulties per day. Again doesnt matter if killed or disabled when considering the time it takes to regain active status.

This isnt confined to China. As soon as ppl playing jap and some alrdy have u will start seeing this tactics in other places. I predict that U current wont ever see a guadacanal like type combat lasting months if u have any sense as a jap player. Either u dont land or u land many divisions in one go forcing a retreat result making the opposing troops surrender even if div+ sized unit since u on many islands have no where to retreat. U wont see prolonged combats as all u need is one odd 2+ result to possbily force a retreat. Look at the Aztek AAR for more on that. Amph battlestar tactics in the works.

The casulty rate is just many many times to high since there is no dimishing of returns in land combat. As said "forcing" players in to deathstar tactics where needed.

The end result and it isnt my term, is Blitzkrieg China. Not a single of the AARs where is hasnt happend. Some of the reasons are IMHO very clear.

Terrain doesnt alter casulty rate as i understand if it does far far from significantly enough. From my tests neither in bombing or not significantly so. Using 40 planes can cause 400-800 casulties in a day in mountain or forrest terrain. Maybe the the americans should start employing some Sally's in Afghanistan.[:D]
Odds doesnt afffect casulties. So small forces non diabled can take 2000 sq/miles of mountain in a day if the other side is "disabled"

No diminishing returns enforcing deathstars where all units cause full casulties.
Neither unlike my understanding, does terrain+fort levels seem too matter much. In 1 game of pbem i have Changsta fortfied 6+ , having many more guns than my opponent and still losing more significantly men per bombardment than him.
Quality matters to much in comparison to other factors like terrain and such.

Retreat/surrenders alrdy at odd 2-1. Making combat shortlived affairs instead of prolonged fights of attrition in places like Guadacanal and in the rest of the south pacific. Imphala and so on.

Regaining active from diabled status should be much faster. So u cant use blizt tactics following up on a combat diabling all in first attack killing all teh rest in the next combat.

Possibly removing the move ops mode when moving into/acros a hex side that isnt friendly slowing attacking down.

Atm this is pure lala land IMHO.
Many have shown examples of ground combat with reasonble results, but u dont judge as system/machine or what ever on where it works but where it doesnt work.

Combat in many cases needs to be pronlonged many many times. U dont take 2000 sq/miles of mountain terrain in 1 day, no matter how "beat" up ur opponent are. Periode.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A casualty is a casualty is a casualty.

Especially if its the Bismark [:-]

Sunk or Scuttled or simply Hiding?[8D]

Hey, don't go making fun of my beloved Bismarck! Don't you know her sister Tirpitz sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales?

Cheers [:D]
fbs

[Marty A]

Agree with walloc. infantry is king of battle. with out it nothing else in game need exist. devs should have change ground combat first before any other work on game. if i understand air and naval change but not ground combat. this is silly to me. all work in game to make historical with what in units but no work on how units work in battle. just seems silly to me.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A casualty is a casualty is a casualty.

Especially if its the Bismark [:-]

Sunk or Scuttled or simply Hiding?[8D]

Hey, don't go making fun of my beloved Bismarck! Don't you know her sister Tirpitz sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales?

Cheers [:D]
fbs

So they put wings on Tirpitz and managed to fly it to Malaya undetected? Wow, what a feat of science! [:D]

[Czert3]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: treespider


Especially if its the Bismark [:-]

Sunk or Scuttled or simply Hiding?[8D]

Hey, don't go making fun of my beloved Bismarck! Don't you know her sister Tirpitz sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales?

Cheers [:D]
fbs

So they put wings on Tirpitz and managed to fly it to Malaya undetected? Wow, what a feat of science! [:D]

Yes, didnt known that ? But some troops reportet they sighted BUFF (dont mess with UFO) prior to sinking of Repulse and POW.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

Agree with walloc. infantry is king of battle. with out it nothing else in game need exist. devs should have change ground combat first before any other work on game. if i understand air and naval change but not ground combat. this is silly to me. all work in game to make historical with what in units but no work on how units work in battle. just seems silly to me.

Be careful, quite a lot of work was done on the ground combat system. However, the bottom line that this is primarily an air/sea game and just isn't structured for totally realistic simulation of ground combat. The devs probably agree with you and have done much but there are limits that can be achieved with out a complete re-write. I would be expecting a MUCH superior ground combat model in the upcoming War In Russia.

[SuluSea]

It pains me to say this but this game has issues that need corrected badly, I don't see that happening especially after seeing the first patch restricting the allies more than the out of the box version.

I've given plenty of thank you's to the people that worked on this game but China modelling is absolutely horrible and the allocation of  LBA and carrier capable planes not much better. Yeah I get it ,the OOB was taken from the actual '42 plane allocations or 70% of it . Well if the U.S. is steaming around the Pacific with one carrier operable in the fall of 42 then it doesn't need many replacements. Come on does anyone believe that  Wildcats would just sit on some airfield in Pensacola or Norfolk collecting dust instead of calling a carrier home if a carrier was low on planes sitting in San Diego?

I viewed a map today at what the japanese conquered in china by 1944 and in 30 days my PBEM partner has more territory. I'm not complaining about the tactics used by the players, If I was playing the japanese side I'd do the same thing. Roll up China in short order, all the cities that are worth fighting for of course.  I see that in every AAR as well. I tried all the advice.... forts , terrain ,getting behind rivers, leaders. Hey, 30 days of fort building building buys you two days before they're crushed and routed, not a bad tradeoff for the supply spent building them. A post said split up the small units and operate them behind enemy lines.. LOL good luck getting anywhere once you get at or behind the lines, the Japanese player bombs them every turn training up his bombers on the way, stopping the force from move to slow footed combat movement in the process and if your small force doesn't run out of supplies first they are completely destroyed in short order because they can't move. I call it the way I see it sorry if I hurt feelings but the China modelling in this game doesn't work and is a absolute joke. Like it already isn't bad enough that the Japanese player can strike deeper in the South Pacific in 60 days than they ever achieved in the whole war. Meanwhile the 41st division an historical in the thick of things unit sits in Portland hoping to get into the fight one day after 1300 is paid. [8|]

I'll keep playing this game and see if some patching helps it out, if its the status quo or worse off for the allies like the previous patch -

TOTAL-PT boat castration
I believe Worthless open sea radar but thats yet to be determined
Obscene PPs for the allied player to move a historical fighting unit to where it made its reputation[8|]
If the allied player has 4 carriers in 1942 and has a pitched battle costing him airframes and airmen the modelling is so restricted that two fleet carriers become nothing more than teak decked ferryboats.

This game won't be getting much play in the future.



I play and bought this game because I like to the historical aspect but the more I play it the more AARs I read, the more
I consider this game on par with Risk, Hearts of Iron or Star Wars and not resembling the actual conditions at all.

[erstad]

Meanwhile the 41st division an historical in the thick of things unit sits in Portland hoping to get into the fight one day after 1300 is paid.

41st didn't ship out until March of 1942. You can actually release the 41st in January in AE. So AE allows it in-theater earlier than historical.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: erstad

41st didn't ship out until March of 1942. You can actually release the 41st in January in AE. So AE allows it in-theater earlier than historical.

Oh I can release it in January? You mean if I don't spend 150 PPs to change out Percival or change any other of the crappy leaders that the LCUs/ air units come with out of the box which would help the imperial steam roller on its way. Sounds like great advice . [8|] . Tell me how many units that operated in South Pac or SWPAC in 1942 are restricted to the home islands awaiting a lions share of PPs to move out.

There's good news in this though , if the Japanese ever come to Portland I'm in good shape. [8|]

[loricas]

i think it can be use to balance: it's not possible to have PP allied gain when japan conquer same bases outside SRA? for exemple if japan conquer noumea the allied get PP to free a west cost regiment...

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: erstad

41st didn't ship out until March of 1942. You can actually release the 41st in January in AE. So AE allows it in-theater earlier than historical.

Oh I can release it in January? You mean if I don't spend 150 PPs to change out Percival or change any other of the crappy leaders that the LCUs/ air units come with out of the box which would help the imperial steam roller on its way. Sounds like great advice . [8|] . Tell me how many units that operated in South Pac or SWPAC in 1942 are restricted to the home islands awaiting a lions share of PPs to move out.

There's good news in this though , if the Japanese ever come to Portland I'm in good shape. [8|]

I dont think its fair to ask for historical correctness on one issue (using a Division at a specific date) and complain about another issue (spending the PP to replace leaders, esp Percival).

It's about tradeoffs and you chose the leader route. So please do not complain about other things you cannot do anymore because you spent your PPs.


EDIT: Just checked in my GC game (even pre-patch save files) and found the 41st is under command of Pacific Fleet from the beginning and was initially located at Tacoma. (The latter IIRC)

[bklooste]

Hi Rasmus ,

I believe you are correct in killing 15K in a week in mountain terrain is very difficult ( though it did happen in China between the Communist and Nationalist before the war). However i think its quite possible to kill 2-3000 capture 2000-3000 and have 9-11,000 flee and desert this is exactly what happened in the Philippines (on a smaller scale). There is an argument that the morale of some Chinese units is a bit too low but mass desertion was a massive problem and i think the engine models that nicely (again higher morale lower destroyed)

There so many cases of badly equiped, poor moral, u name it, troops defending in mountainous terrain. WWI italians in the alpes, Afghanistan many times over from 1870 onwards. Tibetans vs chinease. Korea. Where very few troops of poor quality are able to hold much larger formation of superior forces in check for extended periodes of time. Not losing many times their number. Or losing as nearly as many men as the attackers have in all in just 1 day of combat in such terrain. And if losing not doing in matter of day(s)
When u consider that the number of disabled squad in just one of those 1 day combat, might take up to a year to recover. It really doesnt matter if they are killed, disabled or what ever.

I would not describe any of those troops you mention as poor morale (Italian alpine units were also elite) ..they are irregular. As a counter example the long march suffered massive casualties in some battles in very rough terrain or the PI troops at Lamon bay. It does depend somewhat on how rough the terrain is, the game models mountains as *3 i read in an AAR so obviously they are not that tough - no Alps on the map. I agree with you mountains are a bit too easy ( due to the logistical problems of using and supplying heavy weapons which i dont think is modeled ) but that doesn't affect say wooded hills which can be very rough terrain.

Anyway i think the model is quite good and better than a lot of games that model land combat. Maybe a small increase in morale for some Chinese units (+5) , better mountain modeling and change destroyed to lost.

Ben