This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
I tried to find out how many rounds an artillery barrel could fire before it became worn out and needed to be replaced. All I could come up with was info on Allied 90mm AA guns which needed to be replaced after 1,500 to 2,000 rounds. If an artillery piece fires just one round per minute for 24 hours, that's 1,440 rounds right there.
During the 1944-1945 German bombing campaign against the Allies in the Belgian port of Antwerp, 90mm AAA operated 22 hours a day with two hours a day for maintenance. The life expectancy of the gun tube was 1,500 to 2,000 rounds and many batteries wore out three or four sets of tubes over the course of the campaign. After the third wore out, the gun slide had to be replaced as well. Due to shortages of replacements some barrels were retained until they fired as many as 2,500 rounds but this was a dangerous practice. When the tube became that worn, muzzle velocity grew erratic and, in some cases, the lands in the tube began to peel. For much of the four months of December 1944 to March 1945, nearly every 90mm anti-aircraft gun barrel produced was sent to Antwerp, while units in the Pacific and Mediterranean had to wait. In February ammunition ran low despite emergency deliveries by air.
P.S. Just played two more turns with two more Jap Artillery Death Star bombardments at Chengchow. This time casualties were 1,590 and 2,470. That's 8,000 casualties in four days.
I bitterly complained about this right after the game came out. In fact, I was losing 10000 casualties each day!!! The designers said,... working as designed. So, they are aware of it and seem to accept that if the Japanese move the artillery out of Manchuria, so be it. Even three units can wreak havoc over a period of a few weeks so probably the only way to "fix" it is with supply or HR. And I hate HRs. A good game should not require HR.
"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.
In WITP, artillery didn't do enough damage. Playing Japan, I never bombarded Chinese troops, because all you would do is train them, and not inflict any casualties. Artillery was of very limited value.
In AE, the pendulum has swung.
Maybe the problem isn't the EFFECTIVENESS of massed artillery, because 17 units IRL would also be doing a number on the Chinese. Maybe the problem is that Artillery doesn't consume enough SUPPLIES. If an artillery unit consumed 300 supplies per turn of bombardment, that would put a crimp in those Bombardments. You could still do a turn or two for assaults, but a month's worth would be impossible.
ME TOO!
Supply and restriction are the only "quick fix" methods that seem available to repair this mess..., and both are historically accurate! Pray to the "Gods of War" (AE Land Team division).
I tried to find out how many rounds an artillery barrel could fire before it became worn out and needed to be replaced. All I could come up with was info on Allied 90mm AA guns which needed to be replaced after 1,500 to 2,000 rounds. If an artillery piece fires just one round per minute for 24 hours, that's 1,440 rounds right there.
During the 1944-1945 German bombing campaign against the Allies in the Belgian port of Antwerp, 90mm AAA operated 22 hours a day with two hours a day for maintenance. The life expectancy of the gun tube was 1,500 to 2,000 rounds and many batteries wore out three or four sets of tubes over the course of the campaign. After the third wore out, the gun slide had to be replaced as well. Due to shortages of replacements some barrels were retained until they fired as many as 2,500 rounds but this was a dangerous practice. When the tube became that worn, muzzle velocity grew erratic and, in some cases, the lands in the tube began to peel. For much of the four months of December 1944 to March 1945, nearly every 90mm anti-aircraft gun barrel produced was sent to Antwerp, while units in the Pacific and Mediterranean had to wait. In February ammunition ran low despite emergency deliveries by air.
Just like every piece of military hardware, there is the recommended replaced date/usage and has to be replaced. All the recommended usage/replacement goes out the window during a war.
Just like every piece of military hardware, there is the recommended replaced date/usage and has to be replaced. All the recommended usage/replacement goes out the window during a war.
Not in this case..., once the barrel liners are shot it's basically a smooth-bore. Good luck hitting anything with one of those, or even keeping your shell "spin stablized" with no spin!
The issue isn't the effectiveness of the artillery, nor even guns wearing out (which they would) -- rather, it is an issue of doctrine and logistics in general.
The Japanese military historically was not trained for mass fires. Like most countries (other than the U.S. and U.K.), the Japanese did not have the concept of a Fire Direction Center (FDC) that could concentrate the fires of multiple units on a single target. Each unit had a Forward Observer that used a common point of reference to direct fire (i.e., I see the church steeple, you see the church steeple, aim at 320 degrees 3 KM from said point). A single artillery unit normally supported a single ground maneuver unit. This is primarily the method used by the Japanese, Germans, Russians and most other countries during this period. A corallary to this was a planned fire scheme that was based on pre-sited coordinates. The aforementioned doctrine is effective and simple, it doesn't require detailed maps, it doesn't require radio communication (normally used land line) but precludes the effective quick massing of fire. Hence, the effect of multiple regiments of artillery in a Japanese attack would not be equal to the sum of the parts -- each added unit would only add a fraction of its strength to the attack. Perhaps a simple way to model this would be to restrict the number of artillery units to the number of land units, with no more than a regiment of artillery per infantry division in support.
The logistics is a bit more straight forward. Units normally did not stockpile enough ammo for multi-day bombardments. However -- they could and sometimes did. I agree witht he postings that state a heftier supply consumption is in order. It is. I don't have a handy reference to state what a normal Japanese basic load consisted of -- but I would venture to guess it was no more than several dozen rounds per tube. Enough for sustain fire for a few hours at most. More could be brought in, but we are talking a more substantial logistic effort than is portrayed in the game. For a dozen artillery regiments, we are talking a significant tonnage of shells for a multi-day sustained bombardment. The game currently doesn't do a good job of modelling this.
Lastly, one could safely assume within the context of the game -- if mulitple tons of supply were being shipped in to support a bombardment, that some small percentage of that tonnage would be replacement tubes for the guns. Such an item is major end item replacement, and is generally part of the supply chain. So, I don't see a special problem with that issue once the logistics is made more realistic.
Soviet artillery may not have had fire direct center but many more than 1 battery support a unit.
"One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine."*
*
_From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook
Just make sure that if you increase supply requirements for bombardment attacks that this doesn't unintentionally skyrocket the supply costs of deliberate or shock attacks. Other than that a reasonable idea IMHO.
Soviet artillery may not have had fire direct center but many more than 1 battery support a unit.
"One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine."*
*
_From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook
Indeed. However, those massive preplanned barrages were not an FDC directed barrage. Soviet artillery was notoriously unresponsive to unplanned calls for fire.
To be clear, I am not suggesting one battery -- rather one additional artillery regiment per division.
I'm sure the designers of the Edsel, the Yugo, the British Comet, and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge said the same thing.
OTOH, one thing I have still not been happy with in this current iteration of the game is being forced to do something in China. I Hate Playing in China with the abstracted Land Combat rules, but with hexes the size of Palm Beach County, what can you do. Bring Back the TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF IN CHINA button.
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
One thing every one needs to keep in mind here...the Japanese player has taken a sizable chunk of the Independent Artillery units from Manchuria and placed them into one hex to fire on some poorly trained and led Chinese troops...
As Q-ball so eloquently posted...If the Japanese had been able to concentrate their artillery for such an Attack, this outcome probably would have occurred.
So the question is not necessarily how to tone down the attack, but what makes this kind of attack possible?
1st - I would suggest that a fair portion of the "Independent" Heavy Artillery Units in Manchuria be permanently restricted as I highly doubt that the Japanese would be able to completely empty the Kwantung Army of Heavy Artillery.
2nd - The logistics needed for artillery barrages need to be increased...but I would not go hog wild here lest the entire house of cards come tumbling down
3rd - Aside from the logistics necessary to support the barrage, I would posit that this concentration of guns would leave the attacking units extremely vulnerable to air attack...or possible counter bombardments.
2nd - The logistics needed for artillery barrages need to be increased...but I would not go hog wild here lest the entire house of cards come tumbling down
3rd - Aside from the logistics necessary to support the barrage, I would posit that this concentration of guns would leave the attacking units extremely vulnerable to air attack...or possible counter bombardments.
i really like this.
maybe some kind of stacking penalty for arty units similar to atolls for infantry divisions?
higher supply costs and lower combat modifiers in case you overstack? im not sure if this shouldnt apply to land combat
as a whole.
5 Divisions + 4 Brigades + 3 Tank regiments + engineer support + 8 artillery units...hm i can think of only a few initial concentrations
of forces on a 40km³ front that were this high in WWII even in europe. with emphasis on initial.
In game iwo jima maximum fort 6. ally bomb guano of it for 10 weeks and did little. fort level not count for much in game other than retreat. japanese hold month after landing. can do in game?
The best way to currently "fix" this problem entails a house rule (HR) involving adherence to accepted tactical doctrine for the use of artillery and land based tactics in China. I'd consider a HR that requires garrisons to be left in place as described by prior posters in the thread. Artillery should only be utilized in a historical fashion. Conversely the Chinese player should also play in a historical manner. While I heartily agree that if the game slavishly follows history, the final outcome will never be in doubt, we do need to play fair.
Consider the nuances and developments that would occur if You as the Military Commander in Chief had to adhere to a set of operational guidelines dictated by national political agendas. These guidelines would apply to both the Allied and Axis positions. Strategic operations could proceed as designed by the military (player) commander, BUT find themselves subject to historical tactical doctrine.
A bit more difficult, but an interesting scenario would involve a 4 player PBEM where you have theatre commanders - one covering pacific operations and the other china/burma/india. Each would have their own agenda much like in the real world. Remember in a game such as this, the element of rivalry between individuals, armed services, and government officials does not exist. You are in essence a complete dictator with absolute control. Another just imagine scenario - Nimitz and Macarthur's forces under the command of two players in PBEM; can you see the Macarthur player saying to the Nimitz player - sure we'll bypass the Philippines and take Taiwan if the Macarthur player were subject to operational goals or personal desires.
What I'm attempting to illustrate involves the fact that the game engine is not perfect. Exploits of some type will always occur which will likely escalate as each side uses the exploit to the best of their ability. At some point, the game crosses a point where it becomes so historically ludicrous that one no longer plays a wargame, but instead something more akin to a RTS title. Another thread in the forums seeks to model Strategic Operations - I think this would make a great model if perfected, BUT an overall tactical model must also be created that largely mimics the tactics used by both sides during the war.
My personal opinion: when I feel able to "challenge" a PBEM opponent, I would welcome such rules in the game thus avoiding "gaming gimmicks". If i want those, I'll dust off a copy of Starcraft.
I play and post for fun...nothing stated ever carries with it the thought to irritate. If something does...privately PM and I will review.
Why complain about the Japanese only?
Allies can employ the same tactics.
Because its most obvious in the Chinese theatre where Japan can bring 1000´s of guns to bear on inexperienced units
out of supply without air cover.
As far as im concerned the discussion ist not related to anyside but about the overall strengh of artillery, the Japanese
might experience the same problems after ´43 but no PBEM AAR is as far so you still cannot say if the effect is reversed later.
Im following Seydlitz´ AAR very close because the SU front seems to be the most balanced at the start of the war.
I do like damaging artillery and I think in general it is an improvement over arty in WITP, but it does seem a bit high.
I tried to track down some numbers on massed artillery and casualties. In March 1918 the opening bombardment of Operation Michael - which is probably about as close to a 'bombardment action' as real life gets - inflicted 7500 casualties to those on the receiving end, specifically by bombardment alone.
I'm not sure how many guns that was but it was 1.1 million shells worth, so a number I presume to be orders of magnitude above what the Japanese can manage. I think supply needs to figure into these things a lot more than it does.
Maybe there should be a 'massed bombardment' option that dishes out major casualties at a major supply cost, and a normal bombardment that works kinda like ye olde WITP.
I dunno. [;)]
the main problem between artillery in AE and real life is that while the casualties may be correct now, in AE you can do bombardments with all your artillery 365 days a year. Something not possible in real life. I totally agree, it takes quite some time to build up an ammo stock to do a bombardment with hundreds (or thousands) of guns for one or two days. In AE you can bombard and bombard and bombard without ever having to stop, thus creating an artillery death star. No need to do deliberate attacks, just wipe your enemy out with never ending bombardments.
Why complain about the Japanese only?
Allies can employ the same tactics.
Because its most obvious in the Chinese theatre where Japan can bring 1000´s of guns to bear on inexperienced units
out of supply without air cover.
As far as im concerned the discussion ist not related to anyside but about the overall strengh of artillery, the Japanese
might experience the same problems after ´43 but no PBEM AAR is as far so you still cannot say if the effect is reversed later.
Im following Seydlitz´ AAR very close because the SU front seems to be the most balanced at the start of the war.
of course the effect is reversed later. Allied guns have a higher effect and the Allied player can bring in far more artillery everywhere on the map in late 43 onwards than the Japanese have in 42 in China. Something that again works both ways with the Allied having the advantage that they have far more artillery over the course of the war. Exactly the same as the WITP naval bombardments. 90% of the complaints were about IJN bombardments, while Allied bombardments were exactly as "nuclear" with the difference that the Allied don´t have halve a dozen BBs and two dozen cruisers but three dozen BBs and 6 dozen cruisers, making the bombardments a couple of times worse than those of the IJN. This shouldn´t be discussed as a Japanese or Allied fanboy discussion, it should only be discussed as an "artillery problem" (or non-problem).
So...what would a suitable houserule look like? No more than 10 artillery units allowed in a hex?
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the gate:
"To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
So...what would a suitable houserule look like? No more than 10 artillery units allowed in a hex?
guess this would depend on how big the armies are that are fighting each other. If you have two divisions on each side there would be less art units than if you have three dozen divs on each side. IMO it´s quite hard to implement a hr on it.
ME TOO!
